SpaceX Transportation of Stages options

[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.