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.

[Dave G]

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.

Gwynne said the MCT core size will be over 7 meters (23 feet).  Even if the core barrels were transported separately, it would probably be too wide for most roads.

My guess is the following:
A) Build everything but the MCT core structures in Hawthorne.
B) Test the individual engines at McGregor
C) Build the cores and assemble the stages in Brownsville
D) Test the assembled stages at the new launch site near Brownsville, at the Cape, or possibly at Stennis

[Arb]

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

Nope, not Hawthorn, McGregor.

...self-ferrying is unlikely to happen due to the safety, noise, cost and wear issues...

Which is why it'd be useful to have guestimates for fuel requirements. Using just one of the engines on a first stage might be enough (as it is for F9R landings, and Grass Hopper) - we're talking about semi-ballistic flights of around 600 miles (McGregor - Brownsville), 1000 miles (McGregor - CCAFS) or 1500 miles (McGregor - Vandenberg). Far fetched as it seems right now, would it really be much different to flying a 747 the same distance?

That new McGregor FH test stand could likely double as the launch pad for ferry flights. The destinations should (by the time we are talking about) already have landing pads.

[smoliarm]

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

Dead idea by a number of reasons:

* Areas with "6 km altitude" in Andes are inaccessible for industrial use.
* In equatorial part of Andes you won't find such plateau  with 3.5 km average.
* To use the advantage of equatorial launch site you have to launch EASTWARD. Andes are on the West coast, therefore your launch track from "Andes-Equator" will pass through Ecuador, Columbia, Venezuela, Brazil, etc.
That's not an option - for a private launch site/company.
* Your idea suggests to move part of Spacex business (which is heavily restricted by ITAR) to... Ecuador ?
Are you serious?

[rpapo]

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

Dead idea by a number of reasons:

* Areas with "6 km altitude" in Andes are inaccessible for industrial use.
* In equatorial part of Andes you won't find such plateau  with 3.5 km average.
* To use the advantage of equatorial launch site you have to launch EASTWARD. Andes are on the West coast, therefore your launch track from "Andes-Equator" will pass through Ecuador, Columbia, Venezuela, Brazil, etc.
That's not an option - for a private launch site/company.
* Your idea suggests to move part of Spacex business (which is heavily restricted by ITAR) to... Ecuador ?
Are you serious?

Having lived in southern Peru, at up to 16,000 feet, I can tell you that human habitation pretty much ends above 5km altitude.  But those areas are all down in the Peruvian-Bolivian altiplano, which is about 15 to 20 degrees south, which reduces some of the benefit that could have been derived from launching at the equator (a la Sea Launch).

Mind you, if it weren't for the objections given above, if you were only considering the advantages of launching from a higher site, the Altiplano wouldn't be a bad place.  It's just that Brazil (at the least) might have some objections.  At least Russia and China launch over their own land.

[douglas100]

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

Nope, not Hawthorn, McGregor.

Still a non starter. Look at the limits placed on Grasshopper's flight envelope.

[rockinghorse]

smoliarm, I did not ask is it practical. I asked how MUCH it will gain payload to launch at 6 km altitude. Air is thinner there so less aerodynamic and gravitational drag. If you cannot answer the question, then be silent.

My guess that payload advantage is about 20 %.

[Jim]

My guess that payload advantage is about 20 %.

Much less, the gravitational advantage is negligible.

[Arb]

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

Nope, not Hawthorn, McGregor.

Still a non starter. Look at the limits placed on Grasshopper's flight envelope.

Hence:

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.

Time will tell.

[Jcc]

My guess that payload advantage is about 20 %.

Much less, the gravitational advantage is negligible.

For geostationary launches, an equatorial launch site is advantageous, hence Sea Launch. ITAR would preclude exporting the vehicles to any of the countries on the equator, hence Sea Launch.

[Jim]

For geostationary launches, an equatorial launch site is advantageous, hence Sea Launch. ITAR would preclude exporting the vehicles to any of the countries on the equator, hence Sea Launch.

The question wasn't about an equatorial launch site, it was about a 6km high launch site.

[rockinghorse]

My guess is that payload advantage is about 20 %.

Perhaps I should break down this into parts because, this seem to be very difficult and mostly unknown subject. It is not often discussed what is the influence of launch altitude for the space launches, because it is just ignored due to logistic difficulties. So little explaining is needed how I end up this figure.

#1 Equatorial launch location is better for GEO launches.
#2 Due to thinner air, first stage acceleration can be faster, because Max Q region has 6 km lower relative altitude.
#3 As there is less air drag, stages can be made fatter. This reduces the manfacturing cost of rocket and makes reusability little bit easier.

I would then assume that if we sum these together we get about 20 % payload advantage compared to Cape or Vandenberg launch sites. The disadvantage is of course logistics, but airship could make it feasible, if we have rapidly reusable rockets that require only refueling on launch site. Of course it does not make politics any more feasible, so we need to just wish for better world.

[R7]

#0 High altitude nozzles

[Comga]

My guess is that payload advantage is about 20 %.

Perhaps I should break down this into parts because, this seem to be very difficult and mostly unknown subject. It is not often discussed what is the influence of launch altitude for the space launches, because it is just ignored due to logistic difficulties. So little explaining is needed how I end up this figure.

#1 Equatorial launch location is better for GEO launches.
#2 Due to thinner air, first stage acceleration can be faster, because Max Q region has 6 km lower relative altitude.
#3 As there is less air drag, stages can be made fatter. This reduces the manfacturing cost of rocket and makes reusability little bit easier.

I would then assume that if we sum these together we get about 20 % payload advantage compared to Cape or Vandenberg launch sites. The disadvantage is of course logistics, but airship could make it feasible, if we have rapidly reusable rockets that require only refueling on launch site. Of course it does not make politics any more feasible, so we need to just wish for better world.

If this wasn't so silly I would point out the real second advantage, but heck, one out of four isn't that bad....
This whole concept is not the SpaceX way.  Haven't you been paying attention?  It is not about eking out performance.

edit: R7 got it, but just posting it shows that he isn't paying attention to the big picture at the moment. Probably just having fun pointing out the obvious.

[Lee Jay]

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.

I don't see any references to those in the OP.

[Aussie_Space_Nut]

Thanks Woods170 for the welcome, Hyperion5 for the Aeroscraft-specific thread link and everyone else on this forum. I had a good read!
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30764.0

Although I did not specifically mention large diameter stages in my 1st post they were on my mind.

I see advantages in having a central build/rebuild facility. When everyone eats at the same canteen you get a natural cross pollination between the designers, manufacturers, assemblers, etc.

I understand that Elon's aspiration is that in time the rockets will operate much like aircraft. That said they will need regular minor maintenance at the launch site along with occasional major maintenance which I suggest be done at the build/rebuild site. So how do you return the stage to the build/rebuild site?

As much as I would love to see self ferrying stages I just cant see it being cost effective to do so not to mention the regulatory hurdles. Also I would imagine that stages will be damaged or otherwise unable to self ferry from time to time.

So how can all the stages, including those too big for road transport, be made & rebuilt at the same facility while maintaining the flexibility of multiple launch sites across the country along with multiple recover sites? There are only 2 cost effective options I think.
1) Have the build/rebuild facility at a sea port and use barges/ships.
2) Have the build/rebuild facility anywhere that is convenient and use airships.

The Aeroscraft airships don't need an airport. You could even reinforce the factory roof, create a large hatch in the roof, land the airship over the open hatch and winch up the rocket. The shed at the launch site could have a similar hatch so as long as the rocket fits within the Aeroscraft airships cargo bay it would never even be out in the weather until launch day.

I understand that we are dealing with an unproven technology in the Aeroscraft airships but if (big if) they can get them going I just see enormous advantages with this approach.

[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.

I don't see any references to those in the OP.

 

I see your point. This is a splinter thread. The suggestion to use an airship was made because of stages too big for road transport and it was OT at that thread.

[Dave G]

So how can all the stages, including those too big for road transport, be made & rebuilt at the same facility while maintaining the flexibility of multiple launch sites across the country along with multiple recover sites? There are only 2 cost effective options I think.
1) Have the build/rebuild facility at a sea port and use barges/ships.
2) Have the build/rebuild facility anywhere that is convenient and use airships.

This has been discussed in detail in other threads, and air transport was always too expensive.

Elon has already mentioned building an assembly plant in Brownsville, Texas. 

Brownsville has:
a) a major seaport with access to the Gulf (see below)
b) an international airport
c) a state university
d) dirt cheap real estate
e) cheap labor for construction, janitors, security guards, etc.

Building large core structures for MCT will require some highly skilled labor, but a relatively small number of these people would suffice.  All of the smaller stuff (engines, avionics, F9/FH cores, etc.) would still be built in Hawthorne California, so the major part of their work force would remain there.

[Blackjax]

So how can all the stages, including those too big for road transport, be made & rebuilt at the same facility while maintaining the flexibility of multiple launch sites across the country along with multiple recover sites? There are only 2 cost effective options I think.
1) Have the build/rebuild facility at a sea port and use barges/ships.
2) Have the build/rebuild facility anywhere that is convenient and use airships.

This has been discussed in detail in other threads, and air transport was always too expensive.

Elon has already mentioned building an assembly plant in Brownsville, Texas. 

Brownsville has:
a) a major seaport with access to the Gulf (see below)
b) an international airport
c) a state university
d) dirt cheap real estate
e) cheap labor for construction, janitors, security guards, etc.

Building large core structures for MCT will require some highly skilled labor, but a relatively small number of these people would suffice.  All of the smaller stuff (engines, avionics, F9/FH cores, etc.) would still be built in Hawthorne California, so the major part of their work force would remain there.

This makes complete sense to me, but I have never seen anything directly from Elon saying that it was what he had in mind.  Do you have a link for that statement?

[guckyfan]

This makes complete sense to me, but I have never seen anything directly from Elon saying that it was what he had in mind.  Do you have a link for that statement?

I don't have the link handy but in a hearing for the Brownsville project he stated that a future big launcher would be built locally to avoid transport problems.

[llanitedave]

There was a whole thread on this.  I lived in Brownsville many years ago, it was a large petrochemical center at the time.  I don't think it's gotten any smaller.  It's at the end of the intercoastal waterway, it hosts ocean-going tankers and freighters, and Boca Chica is actually a little farther south than Cape Canaveral.

Other than available pad acreage, which would limit room for expansion, (and the inevitable flooding due to sea level rise, but they all share that problem) I don't see much downside.

[Dave G]

This makes complete sense to me, but I have never seen anything directly from Elon saying that it was what he had in mind.  Do you have a link for that statement?

It was when he testified before the Texas state legislature.  Look for the video.  Don't have the link handy.

[SpunkyEnigma]

This makes complete sense to me, but I have never seen anything directly from Elon saying that it was what he had in mind.  Do you have a link for that statement?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3_iu75TFgX8#t=50

At the 50s mark the question is asked.

Chris:  Can we fix youtube links to allow #t=50 (time jumps) in the URL?

[CT Space Guy]

What about using the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft? I have not herd anything about the current status of these aircraft. Could SpaceX buy or lease them, and would they be able to do the job?

[Jim]

What about using the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft? I have not herd anything about the current status of these aircraft. Could SpaceX buy or lease them, and would they be able to do the job?

They wouldn't be able to do the job.  And they are not available.  They are spares for SOFIA and one is going on display with an orbiter mockup at JSC.

[cryptoanarchy]

What about using the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft? I have not herd anything about the current status of these aircraft. Could SpaceX buy or lease them, and would they be able to do the job?

They wouldn't be able to do the job.  And they are not available.  They are spares for SOFIA and one is going on display with an orbiter mockup at JSC.

Not directly but a 747 could do the job with similar modifications such as the split tail.  The first stage is longer than the shuttle but much lighter. 

[Jim]

Not directly but a 747 could do the job with similar modifications such as the split tail.  The first stage is longer than the shuttle but much lighter. 

The SCA did not have a split tail.  The original vertical stabilizer was never removed.  Only some non-moving tip fins were added to the horizontal stabilizer.   That is why I said an SCA could not do it.

[Dave G]

Not directly but a 747 could do the job with similar modifications such as the split tail.  The first stage is longer than the shuttle but much lighter.

In the previous video posted by SpunkyEnigma, Elon clearly states that SpaceX intends to build larger stages near their new commercial launch pad.  With this in mind, it seems a bit pointless to speculate about air transporting stages.

[Lars_J]

Any air transport of stages would likely require the development of a large cylindrical cargo container, similar to what the Russians did for one of their bombers in the below image:

[Lar]

Any air transport of stages would likely require the development of a large cylindrical cargo container, similar to what the Russians did for one of their bombers in the below image:

Shuttle was transported without a fully enveloping container, but in early days orbiters had a tailcone fitted to improve aerodynamics.

Not that SpaceX would do this, but would it be possible to fit something on the front of the stage to improve aerodynamics rather than encasing the whole stage? A fitted nosecone like thing presumably would be less weight.

[Robotbeat]

Do you guys remember how obscenely expensive it was to fly Shuttle around on a 747? It's like $2 million back in the day. And actually, the last time they did it, it was more like $18 million. I think it's safe to say it's not an economic option.

[Lar]

Do you guys remember how obscenely expensive it was to fly Shuttle around on a 747? It's like $2 million back in the day. And actually, the last time they did it, it was more like $18 million. I think it's safe to say it's not an economic option.

I do. Just about everything about the Shuttle cost a lot.

Realistically the only post F9 (stages larger than F9 S1) transport option is barge from a factory located on a waterway directly to the launch site.

However it's fun to speculate.

[Jim]

Any air transport of stages would likely require the development of a large cylindrical cargo container, similar to what the Russians did for one of their bombers in the below image:

That wasn't a container, that was the core tank (ET) for Energia.

[Robotbeat]

Or just building it near the launch site. There are wheeled vehicles for transporting basically arbitrarily large things. The issue is that highway transport is ridiculous over any but very short distances. If you're just going a few miles, no biggie. If you're going thousands of miles over land... yeah, that's a problem for anything much bigger than Falcon 9.

[CT Space Guy]

What about using the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft? I have not herd anything about the current status of these aircraft. Could SpaceX buy or lease them, and would they be able to do the job?

I would think if a 747 aircraft was used day to day as a cargo aircraft then used to transport stages as needed it would be much more cost effective.

[Lar]

Or just building it near the launch site. There are wheeled vehicles for transporting basically arbitrarily large things. The issue is that highway transport is ridiculous over any but very short distances. If you're just going a few miles, no biggie. If you're going thousands of miles over land... yeah, that's a problem for anything much bigger than Falcon 9.

If they build the massive stages in Brownsville on the barge channel, and launch from Boca Chica, it's an interesting question which is easier, road all the way (single digit miles if my read of the map is right), or barge most of the way and road the last tiny bit to the actual pad.

All road would still have a few intersections with wires that need lifting and etc, but you avoid a transship (and attendant cranes). Interesting trade study to be sure.

I would think if a 747 aircraft was used day to day as a cargo aircraft then used to transport stages as needed it would be much more cost effective.

A modified 747 is not going to be ideal for regular cargo and now you're putting wear and tear on the airframe. It might save money, it might not. And every takeoff and landing is a chance, however small, for an accident, what if you lose your aircraft in a cargo flight, what then?

[Lars_J]

What about using the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft? I have not herd anything about the current status of these aircraft. Could SpaceX buy or lease them, and would they be able to do the job?

I would think if a 747 aircraft was used day to day as a cargo aircraft then used to transport stages as needed it would be much more cost effective.

One option might be the "747 Dreamlifter", built to transport 787 fuselage sections and wings. I'm not sure if it is long enough for the F9v1.1 first stage. It is also limited by diameter to the 5.9m diameter of the 787 fuselage. But Boeing is using them all for 787 production, so they are not available at the moment.

[Jim]

so they are not available at the moment.

Boeing has stated they no plans to make them available.  They were purpose built and certified for only 787.

[llanitedave]

Barges are cheap, plentiful, and practical.  I don't see why a 747 is necessary.

[Zed_Noir]

Or just building it near the launch site. There are wheeled vehicles for transporting basically arbitrarily large things. The issue is that highway transport is ridiculous over any but very short distances. If you're just going a few miles, no biggie. If you're going thousands of miles over land... yeah, that's a problem for anything much bigger than Falcon 9.

Why highways? You could use multiple railroad tracks in parallel just like the way they handle the siege railroad  artillery in WWII (e.g. 80 cm Schwerer Gustav railroad gun). Come to think of it, doesn't the Proton LV uses a similar set up.

[kirghizstan]

If short transport is required i'll venture a guess spacex will simply pay for any road crossing lines to be bured to eliminate the need for them to be lifted everytime.  might cost more in long run but it is one less complication.

[Robotbeat]

Or just building it near the launch site. There are wheeled vehicles for transporting basically arbitrarily large things. The issue is that highway transport is ridiculous over any but very short distances. If you're just going a few miles, no biggie. If you're going thousands of miles over land... yeah, that's a problem for anything much bigger than Falcon 9.

Why highways? You could use multiple railroad tracks in parallel just like the way they handle the siege railroad  artillery in WWII (e.g. 80 cm Schwerer Gustav railroad gun). Come to think of it, doesn't the Proton LV uses a similar set up.

Rail transport is constrained just like highway transport is.

[Lar]

Or just building it near the launch site. There are wheeled vehicles for transporting basically arbitrarily large things. The issue is that highway transport is ridiculous over any but very short distances. If you're just going a few miles, no biggie. If you're going thousands of miles over land... yeah, that's a problem for anything much bigger than Falcon 9.

Why highways? You could use multiple railroad tracks in parallel just like the way they handle the siege railroad  artillery in WWII (e.g. 80 cm Schwerer Gustav railroad gun). Come to think of it, doesn't the Proton LV uses a similar set up.

Rail transport is constrained just like highway transport is.

I think Zed meant rail from the barge to the launchpad but I could be wrong.

THAT said, rail transport is often actually far MORE constrained. The loading gauge may be large initially but often there are bridges with fixed clearances that are not easy to reroute around. NS, CR and CSX spent many many millions just increasing clearances by 2-3 feet to allow doublestacks to get to certain ports in the east.

SpaceX optimizes for cost. They initially went the cheapest (initial cost) way on a fair few things but over time have redone them to get long term costs down. The suggestion that they might pay to bury wires and generally improve clearances between the Brownsville factory and the Boca Chica pad fits their MO very well, IMHO.

[Zed_Noir]

Or just building it near the launch site. There are wheeled vehicles for transporting basically arbitrarily large things. The issue is that highway transport is ridiculous over any but very short distances. If you're just going a few miles, no biggie. If you're going thousands of miles over land... yeah, that's a problem for anything much bigger than Falcon 9.

Why highways? You could use multiple railroad tracks in parallel just like the way they handle the siege railroad  artillery in WWII (e.g. 80 cm Schwerer Gustav railroad gun). Come to think of it, doesn't the Proton LV uses a similar set up.

Rail transport is constrained just like highway transport is.

I think Zed meant rail from the barge to the launchpad but I could be wrong.

I meant from BFR factory to the pad. Say a couple dozen kilometers at the most operating as a small private railroad.

[Robotbeat]

Yeah, that would work, but it doesn't have the flexibility of wheeled transport. I expect them to go for wheeled transport, not rail, if they have to build the infrastructure themselves.

[Lars_J]

Yeah, that would work, but it doesn't have the flexibility of wheeled transport. I expect them to go for wheeled transport, not rail, if they have to build the infrastructure themselves.

Yep. They didn't bother to lay rail at Vandenberg. They'll use it if is there, but don't expect Elon to get into the railroad business.

[Robotbeat]

Yeah, that would work, but it doesn't have the flexibility of wheeled transport. I expect them to go for wheeled transport, not rail, if they have to build the infrastructure themselves.

Yep. They didn't bother to lay rail at Vandenberg. They'll use it if is there, but don't expect Elon to get into the railroad business.

...unless he grows a mustache. :{)

[Lar]

Yeah, that would work, but it doesn't have the flexibility of wheeled transport. I expect them to go for wheeled transport, not rail, if they have to build the infrastructure themselves.

Yep. They didn't bother to lay rail at Vandenberg. They'll use it if is there, but don't expect Elon to get into the railroad business.

The hyperloop business maybe.

Say, there's an idea, what if we drill large cylindrical underground evacuated tubes from the factory to the pad? Then just send the stages down the tubes using air pressure... That would work wouldn't it???

OK maybe not, I'll just be getting my coat.

[Dave G]

SpaceX optimizes for cost. They initially went the cheapest (initial cost) way on a fair few things but over time have redone them to get long term costs down. The suggestion that they might pay to bury wires and generally improve clearances between the Brownsville factory and the Boca Chica pad fits their MO very well, IMHO.

I was thinking they could build a pier on the beach, and somehow roll the stages off a barge onto the pier.

When the pier isn't being used for this purpose, it could be open to the general public.  There are many public beaches with piers.

[Avron]

SpaceX optimizes for cost. They initially went the cheapest (initial cost) way on a fair few things but over time have redone them to get long term costs down. The suggestion that they might pay to bury wires and generally improve clearances between the Brownsville factory and the Boca Chica pad fits their MO very well, IMHO.

I was thinking they could build a pier on the beach, and somehow roll the stages off a barge onto the pier.

When the pier isn't being used for this purpose, it could be open to the general public.  There are many public beaches with piers.

Spacex optimizes for simplicity, reliability and cost.. thinking from first principles, by now Musk must have drilled that into the designers.. I do not see anything complex other than assemble on site .. however, there is an option since Mr musk want to get into electric aircraft to  fly the stages in. Pressurize stage, add cockpit, wings and tail ..   

[Zed_Noir]

SpaceX optimizes for cost. They initially went the cheapest (initial cost) way on a fair few things but over time have redone them to get long term costs down. The suggestion that they might pay to bury wires and generally improve clearances between the Brownsville factory and the Boca Chica pad fits their MO very well, IMHO.

I was thinking they could build a pier on the beach, and somehow roll the stages off a barge onto the pier.

When the pier isn't being used for this purpose, it could be open to the general public.  There are many public beaches with piers.

Or buy a mobile floating pier. Typically use to move heavy armoured vehicles from landing ship to improvised beachheads. Maybe issue with moving between the pier and the road, can the core transporter traverse that gap.

[mheney]

SpaceX optimizes for cost. They initially went the cheapest (initial cost) way on a fair few things but over time have redone them to get long term costs down. The suggestion that they might pay to bury wires and generally improve clearances between the Brownsville factory and the Boca Chica pad fits their MO very well, IMHO.

I was thinking they could build a pier on the beach, and somehow roll the stages off a barge onto the pier.

When the pier isn't being used for this purpose, it could be open to the general public.  There are many public beaches with piers.

Spacex optimizes for simplicity, reliability and cost.. thinking from first principles, by now Musk must have drilled that into the designers.. I do not see anything complex other than assemble on site .. however, there is an option since Mr musk want to get into electric aircraft to  fly the stages in. Pressurize stage, add cockpit, wings and tail ..   

Nah - just build the equivalent of the hexacopter they're using to film Grasshopper launches.  Take the current truck rig, extend a hex-shaped frame around it, and get several Erickson S-64 AirCranes to lift at each vertex.  Each has a payload capacity of about 10t; the F9 v1.1 first stage is about 19t.   Choose 3, 4, or 6 choppers depending on stage + frame weight, and you've got an insane stage transport system that can go almost anywhere, without worrying about stage diameter considerations. 

(If you leave the engines off and integrate those at the launch site, it gets even easier to transport the stages; then engines are on the order of half the weight on an F9 first stage ....)

[Avron]

Spacex optimizes for simplicity, reliability and cost.. thinking from first principles, by now Musk must have drilled that into the designers.. I do not see anything complex other than assemble on site .. however, there is an option since Mr musk want to get into electric aircraft to  fly the stages in. Pressurize stage, add cockpit, wings and tail ..   

Nah - just build the equivalent of the hexacopter they're using to film Grasshopper launches.  Take the current truck rig, extend a hex-shaped frame around it, and get several Erickson S-64 AirCranes to lift at each vertex.  Each has a payload capacity of about 10t; the F9 v1.1 first stage is about 19t.   Choose 3, 4, or 6 choppers depending on stage + frame weight, and you've got an insane stage transport system that can go almost anywhere, without worrying about stage diameter considerations. 

(If you leave the engines off and integrate those at the launch site, it gets even easier to transport the stages; then engines are on the order of half the weight on an F9 first stage ....)

simple .. except for the gas bill, choppers burn gas like crazy... oh well so much for going green..

[Zed_Noir]

Spacex optimizes for simplicity, reliability and cost.. thinking from first principles, by now Musk must have drilled that into the designers.. I do not see anything complex other than assemble on site .. however, there is an option since Mr musk want to get into electric aircraft to  fly the stages in. Pressurize stage, add cockpit, wings and tail ..   

Nah - just build the equivalent of the hexacopter they're using to film Grasshopper launches.  Take the current truck rig, extend a hex-shaped frame around it, and get several Erickson S-64 AirCranes to lift at each vertex.  Each has a payload capacity of about 10t; the F9 v1.1 first stage is about 19t.   Choose 3, 4, or 6 choppers depending on stage + frame weight, and you've got an insane stage transport system that can go almost anywhere, without worrying about stage diameter considerations. 

(If you leave the engines off and integrate those at the launch site, it gets even easier to transport the stages; then engines are on the order of half the weight on an F9 first stage ....)

simple .. except for the gas bill, choppers burn gas like crazy... oh well so much for going green..

Never mind the gas for the helos. The rotor washes that many helos produces plus difficulties  in maintaining flying formation and individual helo attitude is not that workable.

[mheney]

Rotor wash is obviously a solvable problem, as SpaceX is flying a hexacopter close to a flying rocket vehicle, and at the large end of things, the Russians built this: . 

As for formation flying, you simply rigidly attach the copters to the frame.  Voila!  Problem solved!

[Lars_J]

Rotor wash is obviously a solvable problem, as SpaceX is flying a hexacopter close to a flying rocket vehicle, and at the large end of things, the Russians built this: . 

As for formation flying, you simply rigidly attach the copters to the frame.  Voila!  Problem solved!

In the movies, perhaps. This is not the "Pacific Rim" universe.

[R7]

As for formation flying, you simply rigidly attach the copters to the frame.  Voila!  Problem solved!

In the movies, perhaps. This is not the "Pacific Rim" universe.

Hmmmmmm....

[Lars_J]

R7, I think you missed that the suggestion was about flying many helicopters connected by a frame.

[R7]

No, suggesting stepping backwards to a real world solution that's already done test flights. Helicopter rotor may be a bit too much to take all the way into orbit but for first stage transport and DL of the EDL, who knows?

[Lars_J]

No, suggesting stepping backwards to a real world solution that's already done test flights. Helicopter rotor may be a bit too much to take all the way into orbit but for first stage transport and DL of the EDL, who knows?

Ok, fine, I'll play your game. When have we seen multiple helicopters flown in a formation, lifting a heavy payload while connected by a frame? Please, I'd like to know.

[R7]

When have we seen multiple helicopters flown in a formation, lifting a heavy payload while connected by a frame? Please, I'd like to know.

In the movies I suppose. You suggested "Pacific Rim". Don't remember if the helicopters were connected. Anyways said "stepping backwards to a real world"

[llanitedave]

Still hard to beat a barge.

[Zed_Noir]

No, suggesting stepping backwards to a real world solution that's already done test flights. Helicopter rotor may be a bit too much to take all the way into orbit but for first stage transport and DL of the EDL, who knows?

Ok, fine, I'll play your game. When have we seen multiple helicopters flown in a formation, lifting a heavy payload while connected by a frame? Please, I'd like to know.

The only thing that comes to mind is the Piasecki PA-97 Helistat prototype in 1986. Consists of 4 cut down Sikorsky H34 helo and a Navy  ZPG-2W blimp attached to a frame. Think the Helistat concept was ahead of the flight controls systems available at the time. It did not go well. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piasecki_PA-97

[Lars_J]

No, suggesting stepping backwards to a real world solution that's already done test flights. Helicopter rotor may be a bit too much to take all the way into orbit but for first stage transport and DL of the EDL, who knows?

Ok, fine, I'll play your game. When have we seen multiple helicopters flown in a formation, lifting a heavy payload while connected by a frame? Please, I'd like to know.

The only thing that comes to mind is the Piasecki PA-97 Helistat prototype in 1986. Consists of 4 cut down Sikorsky H34 helo and a Navy  ZPG-2W blimp attached to a frame. Think the Helistat concept was ahead of the flight controls systems available at the time. It did not go well. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piasecki_PA-97

Thanks for the pointer... Yikes, here is the first test flight & crash video:

[Avron]

Still hard to beat a barge.

How about a big barge but sling the barge from a airship with a few electric engines.. no forget the barge.. sling the stage below an airship..  old tech in a new role..   replace ship with stage.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-39uQYtEUH9E/T-tG3u6r5sI/AAAAAAAAAqk/nSxchAWy9dI/s400/Steampunk_Airship_04.jpg

[Joffan]

No, suggesting stepping backwards to a real world solution that's already done test flights. Helicopter rotor may be a bit too much to take all the way into orbit but for first stage transport and DL of the EDL, who knows?

Ok, fine, I'll play your game. When have we seen multiple helicopters flown in a formation, lifting a heavy payload while connected by a frame? Please, I'd like to know.

I wouldn't choose "multiple helicopters" - rather, a big-frame multicopter which uses much simpler rotors than conventional helicopters and differential rotation between them for control. This is a technology which is currently "almost there". The breakthrough might be interesting.

These guys are trying to do it all-electric - they're just at human-weight payload right now so I have no idea how difficult it would be to scale up to tons of carrying capacity, let alone hundreds of tons.


The other fresh information on this approach I just saw today, http://www.suasnews.com/2014/01/26857/advanced-tactics-unveils-the-at-transformer-the-future-of-roadable-vtol-aircraft-and-modular-cargo-systems/ - claims 1600lb payload lift, so not far from the "tons" area.

[Avron]

The other fresh information on this approach I just saw today, http://www.suasnews.com/2014/01/26857/advanced-tactics-unveils-the-at-transformer-the-future-of-roadable-vtol-aircraft-and-modular-cargo-systems/ - claims 1600lb payload lift, so not far from the "tons" area.

eh.. 'Still hard to beat a barge." .. 21ton did the man say..

[Joffan]

The other fresh information on this approach I just saw today, http://www.suasnews.com/2014/01/26857/advanced-tactics-unveils-the-at-transformer-the-future-of-roadable-vtol-aircraft-and-modular-cargo-systems/ - claims 1600lb payload lift, so not far from the "tons" area.

eh.. 'Still hard to beat a barge." .. 21ton did the man say..

No argument from me on that score. Getting water to support against gravity while allowing lateral movement is a good plan wherever it is feasible.

[mheney]

It IS hard to beat a barge - if you don't have any major landmasses in the way.  Just took a look - they shipped an ET to VAFB SLC-6 via the Panama Canal for fit checks (with OV-101 Enterprise) - so east coast / west coast launch site isn't a big issue with any conceivable diameter stage in the forseeable future.  Assuming, of course, that time isn't an issue - one thing that barges aren't is *fast*.

My skycrane hexacopter comment was really just a throw-away response to the suggestion of bolting a cockpit and wings on a stage and flying it - if you  WANT to fly it, there are simpler ways to do it.   I'm surprised the idea got this much traction - although it *is* a fun idea, and you can see how it might work.

My best candidate for a show-stopper is the mass of the frame - you're looking at somethin able to rigidy support a 10,000 pound (or more) rocket stage and keep 6 Skycranes a minimum of 22 meters apart  (rotor diameter is 21.7m ;-) - I can see that being a bit heavy.  Still, you 've got 120,000 pounds of payload capability with 6 birds ...

[Avron]

It IS hard to beat a barge - if you don't have any major landmasses in the way.  Just took a look - they shipped an ET to VAFB SLC-6 via the Panama Canal for fit checks (with OV-101 Enterprise) - so east coast / west coast launch site isn't a big issue with any conceivable diameter stage in the forseeable future.  Assuming, of course, that time isn't an issue - one thing that barges aren't is *fast*.

My skycrane hexacopter comment was really just a throw-away response to the suggestion of bolting a cockpit and wings on a stage and flying it - if you  WANT to fly it, there are simpler ways to do it.   I'm surprised the idea got this much traction - although it *is* a fun idea, and you can see how it might work.

My best candidate for a show-stopper is the mass of the frame - you're looking at somethin able to rigidy support a 10,000 pound (or more) rocket stage and keep 6 Skycranes a minimum of 22 meters apart  (rotor diameter is 21.7m ;-) - I can see that being a bit heavy.  Still, you 've got 120,000 pounds of payload capability with 6 birds ...

I would not be so fast to throw-away the concepts.. just merge it with a heavy lifter.. (airship) Aerostats using the Skycrane as "engine pods", just go green  - use electric

[mheney]

You DID watch the video Lars_J posted above, didn't you??

[Avron]

You DID watch the video Lars_J posted above, didn't you??

Yes,, but that one needs work.. to say the least...

[llanitedave]

It IS hard to beat a barge - if you don't have any major landmasses in the way.  Just took a look - they shipped an ET to VAFB SLC-6 via the Panama Canal for fit checks (with OV-101 Enterprise) - so east coast / west coast launch site isn't a big issue with any conceivable diameter stage in the forseeable future.  Assuming, of course, that time isn't an issue - one thing that barges aren't is *fast*.

My skycrane hexacopter comment was really just a throw-away response to the suggestion of bolting a cockpit and wings on a stage and flying it - if you  WANT to fly it, there are simpler ways to do it.   I'm surprised the idea got this much traction - although it *is* a fun idea, and you can see how it might work.

My best candidate for a show-stopper is the mass of the frame - you're looking at somethin able to rigidy support a 10,000 pound (or more) rocket stage and keep 6 Skycranes a minimum of 22 meters apart  (rotor diameter is 21.7m ;-) - I can see that being a bit heavy.  Still, you 've got 120,000 pounds of payload capability with 6 birds ...

I'm primarily thinking about BFR stages that would hypothetically be built in Brownsville and launched from Boca Chica.  They don't have to go far, and getting a route through the ship  channel to a loading area near the launch site shouldn't be too difficult.  Any other launch site they might travel to is also accessible by barge.   True, they aren't fast, but for a reusable vehicle that gets a bit of stockpiling, time for first delivery really wouldn't be of the essence.  There's just no reason to rush these things.

[guckyfan]

I'm primarily thinking about BFR stages that would hypothetically be built in Brownsville and launched from Boca Chica.  They don't have to go far, and getting a route through the ship  channel to a loading area near the launch site shouldn't be too difficult.  Any other launch site they might travel to is also accessible by barge.   True, they aren't fast, but for a reusable vehicle that gets a bit of stockpiling, time for first delivery really wouldn't be of the essence.  There's just no reason to rush these things.

They can likely do that by road. I don't see any obstacles in the way except maybe powerlines that could be placed underground. However if they want to launch it from Florida too, they have to use barges.