SpaceX Transportation of Stages options

[Aussie_Space_Nut]

My first post 
Way off topic 
Perhaps Spacex may consider moving the rockets around with the Aeroscraft airships. The biggest planned version can lift 500 tons in a cargo bay 455 feet x 74 x 54. http://aeroscraft.com/fleet-copy/4580475518
I wonder if they could fully stack the whole rocket & payload in some sort of transport cradle and then 'fly' the whole thing less fuel to the launch site. Using the airships, and subject of course to the ITAR rules, you could potentially launch anywhere in the world. This would allow you to have one central build facility with no need for the risks associated with road transport. The Aeroscraft would also be a great way to pick up reusable rocket stages that land down range.
Thunderbirds are go!

[woods170]

Interesting first post.

And welcome to the forum! 

[RedLineTrain]

There have been a few threads about SpaceX moving around its larger stages.  The fastest/cheapest method is probably to manufacture barrel sections in its Hawthorne plant and then truck those sections to a final assembly plant somewhere with barge access to the sea.

I don't know that the airship in the link has enough space to land at the Hawthorne Airport, but even if it did, I doubt that SpaceX would build a rocket with a not-yet-built and tested airship on its critical path.

[Lourens]

Interesting idea . I'd seen this before and thought about using it in the way you describe, but that project seems rather dead. Didn't know about Aeroscraft.

They want a lot of money though to actually build these things, they're looking for 3 billion USD! That would make each of these things a lot more expensive than the rocket it's carrying. In fact, for that money you could buy 10 Airbus A380s or 20 Dreamliners! I'm wondering what they're planning to spend all that money on, and I can't see Musk ever spending that much on an airship, considering his low-cost approach to rocketry...

[Nomadd]

 Why would they subject an assembled rocket to all the stresses of shipping? There's no reason to send everything half way around the world for launch. Ariane only goes to Guyana because they don't have a good local launch site. Spacex doesn't have that problem.

[Lee Jay]

Why?  What's wrong with road transport?

[guckyfan]

Why?  What's wrong with road transport?

SpaceX is maxing out the dimensions for road transport with the Falcon diameter. Long distance road transport of anything bigger would be a nightmare.

[docmordrid]

When testifying before the Texas legislature Musk mentioned building a factory near their proposed Brownsville spaceport. Brownsville has excellent canal access to the Gulf, and from there they could economically ship large diameter stages to about any coastal location.

KISS

[Hyperion5]

Interesting idea :-). I'd seen this before and thought about using it in the way you describe, but that project seems rather dead. Didn't know about Aeroscraft.

Cargolifter is dead for a very good reason, namely they didn't actually solve the issue of ballasting.  Whenever their design was to pick up or drop off cargo, it would require external ballast to be added or taken away.  They also had a terrible time with German regulations in building their production hangar.  The regulators, unfamiliar with the needs of zeppelins, decided the entirety of the hangar qualified as an indoor workspace.  This then required the air conditioning of that enormous hangar.  Worse still, the clamshell design the architect used had no structure over the doors, curbing the size of airships they could build.  Airship/zeppelin hangars are supposed to be insulated, lightly heated structures where the roof can support the airship's weight while crews are working on it.  Worldwide Aeros had one of those hangars right up till the a section of roof collapsed and fell upon their prototype, damaging it.  Their tech at least though would solve the ballasting problem by using variable internal ballast (compressing/expanding helium & taking on/expelling air ballast). 

They want a lot of money though to actually build these things, they're looking for 3 billion USD! That would make each of these things a lot more expensive than the rocket it's carrying. In fact, for that money you could buy 10 Airbus A380s or 20 Dreamliners! I'm wondering what they're planning to spend all that money on, and I can't see Musk ever spending that much on an airship, considering his low-cost approach to rocketry...

Lourens, you've got to read the fine print on that.  Worldwide Aeros wanted to build a fleet of airships, so they figured out it would cost them 3 billion USD to build 24 of them.  As far as I can tell, roughly 14 of those would be the larger 226.796 mt-lifter ML868, while 10 would be the much smaller 59.874 mt-lifter ML866.  10 Airbus A380 freighters would lift 1500 mt at most and be far more volume limited than the Aeroscrafts.  The total lifting might of the airships would come in at 3773.884 mt, and it should be added that they could also function as helicopters, unlike the A380. 

You know guys, we do have an Aeroscraft-specific thread over in the Advanced Concepts section: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30764.0

[Lee Jay]

Why?  What's wrong with road transport?

SpaceX is maxing out the dimensions for road transport with the Falcon diameter. Long distance road transport of anything bigger would be a nightmare.

Well, almost.  However, are they planning to make anything bigger?

[guckyfan]

SpaceX is maxing out the dimensions for road transport with the Falcon diameter. Long distance road transport of anything bigger would be a nightmare.

Well, almost.  However, are they planning to make anything bigger?

That's what this discussion started about. A much bigger upper stage for FH. And of course MCT.

[Lourens]

For me, the prime advantage of using an airship would be that you could land a stage downrange, for example on an islet at the very tip of Florida if launching from Texas, without needing any ground facilities other than a concrete pad. You put the stage down, hover your airship over it, and then lower a bridle with some workers attached to fix it to the stage. You then lift the whole stage, rotate it 90 degrees, pull it into the cargo bay, and fly back to Texas. There's safing to be considered, but you can vent any remaining LOX and helium, say 100kg of kerosene is not going to be a problem (the airship will be carrying much more than that for its engines), so there's only the TEA/TEB that is a potential issue I'd think.

By comparison, a barge would have to be able to get close enough to the pad, then have a crane reach over and lift the stage on board. That means that your landing pad needs to be right on the edge of a deep-water port. And of course the airship is faster than a barge.

[aero]

Key West, the island on the very tip of Florida is pretty well fully populated as are the other islands of the Florida Keys. There is probably more likely open space in Florida than in the Keys. Still, a permanent landing platform in the gulf near the Keys might be buildable as there may be a chance to find some shallow water in the area.

The airship that has been discussed (Aeros) has enough lift and volume to carry a crane and related necessary equipment to load the stage aboard. Simply land on the platform, offload the equipment, safe and load the S1, reload the equipment and fly back to which ever launch site you need the stage to be delivered to.

[Arb]

By the time SpaceX are building any larger stages the F9R should be in routine operation. Once folk have got used to those coming in to land then self-ferry should also be acceptable. After all, Boeing and Airbus don't road transport completed 747s or A380s.

They do (of course) acceptance test new aircraft and their engines before first flight so at a guess the suggestion to build a factory near Brownsville was just a negotiating ploy - it will actually be built on the McGregor site: more room, less environmentally sensitive and the pre-first flight testing facilities would be right next door.

YMMV

Be interesting if someone with a better grasp of the numbers would post estimates comparing the empty weight of a 747 or A380 to our best guess at an empty MCT first stage. Also an educated guess at how much fuel would be needed to self ferry an MCT first stage from McGregor to CAFCAS, Vandenberg or Brownsville.

[douglas100]

By the time SpaceX are building any larger stages the F9R should be in routine operation. Once folk have got used to those coming in to land then self-ferry should also be acceptable....

If you're proposing that stages self ferry from Hawthorne to the launch site:

1)  I think this is a total non-starter for reasons of noise and especially safety,
2.) If it were acceptable in the first place to launch from Hawthorne, then you wouldn't need launch sites at the coast so you wouldn't need to self ferry anyway. (This point was made before.)

I think it's pretty unlikely airships will be used. They don't have a track record in transporting large structures. Remember Cargolifter?

I think docmordrid's suggestion makes the most sense.

[docmordrid]

ISTM self-ferry is indeed a non-starter.

It's little different from a launch when it comes to the overflight of inhabited areas vs. safety, so McGregor is probably out. So is self ferry from Hawthorne (imagine trying to clear that with the FAA!!)  Ditto Brownsville to most any destination under discussion other than orbit or RTLS.

Also, each self-ferry is likely one less paying launch you can do with that core due to wear & tear, severely reducing its ROI.

My $0.02

[rockinghorse]

This is interesting idea and could have long term potential in cutting down the cost.

However, does anyone know, how much Falcon 9 would gain payload capability if Falcon 9 is launched from equatorial Andes from 6 km altitude?

I am in general fan of hydrogen filled cargo airshipis, so I would welcome this kind of development. Altough it takes several years before this is possible.

[Jim]

However, does anyone know, how much Falcon 9 would gain payload capability if Falcon 9 is launched from equatorial Andes from 6 km altitude?

The benefit is greatly outweighed by the logistics

[starsilk]

Ditto Brownsville to most any destination under discussion other than orbit or RTLS.

launch forward (out of the gulf past the keys as normal from Brownsville), then boost back to the cape. kind of an extreme 'dogleg', but not really much different from the expected flight profile of the stage - a useful qualification flight...

[Lourens]

Key West, the island on the very tip of Florida is pretty well fully populated as are the other islands of the Florida Keys. There is probably more likely open space in Florida than in the Keys. Still, a permanent landing platform in the gulf near the Keys might be buildable as there may be a chance to find some shallow water in the area.

I was thinking Boca Grande Key, or perhaps Cay Sal or Anguilla Cays, in the Bahamas. Just plunk some concrete on the beach.

For F9, building the stages in Hawthorne or in McGregor is a decision independent of where to launch them from. For anything bigger, the question is how to get the stages from McGregor to Brownsville if they're not road-transportable. There's no usable waterway either, and there's no aeroplane large enough even for F9, let alone anything bigger. I agree that self-ferrying is unlikely to happen due to the safety, noise, cost and wear issues, so that leaves either building them at the launch site, or the airship.