Author Topic: How SpaceX would have flown the FH from SLC-40 (Read 19429 times)

Jim · « **on:** 09/04/2014 02:18 pm »

Just found this nugget.

mheney · « **Reply #1 on:** 09/04/2014 02:22 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 09/04/2014 02:18 pm

Just found this nugget.

That's wonderful!! Thanks, Jim!

Galactic Penguin SST · « **Reply #2 on:** 09/04/2014 02:26 pm »

Well am I the only one who is more interested in the pre-spaceport history of the Cape than the project plans?

Anyway I was unaware that the planned "SLC-40B" is THAT close to the original launch pad! (something like <200 meters!?)

edkyle99 · « **Reply #3 on:** 09/04/2014 02:43 pm »

Nice find, Jim. To me the most interesting bit is the image of the proposed "Vertical Integration Tower" with built-in "lightning protection" (not depending on the SLC 40 lightning towers) and a big box on top for "spacecraft processing". Note that this tower would not have been integral with the transporter. Perhaps a hint of things to come at LC 39A.

- Ed Kyle

OnWithTheShow · « **Reply #4 on:** 09/04/2014 02:47 pm »

I definitely didnt realize that they had planned a 2nd pad at the site. Is the current plan that government FH and HSF missions will be out of 39a and govt F9 flights at SLC40 with as many commercial launches as possible moved to Brownsville?

DavidH · « **Reply #5 on:** 09/04/2014 03:22 pm »

Wow. Looks to me like the vertical integration tower is on the wide set of rails and could service both F9 and FH in this configuration.

jimvela · « **Reply #6 on:** 09/04/2014 03:37 pm »

Quote from: DavidH on 09/04/2014 03:22 pm

Wow. Looks to me like the vertical integration tower is on the wide set of rails and could service both F9 and FH in this configuration.

Last time I was at that spot we were preparing to launch Kepler and the first pathfinder F9 was sitting out on the fence line...

"That isn't launching anytime soon" was our reaction in seeing that first F9 sitting there. (and we were right)

I told the three folks I was with that I'd send the heavy out the back if it were me; they all declared I was nuts.

I'll be smiling the rest of the day after seeing this.

Thank you, Jim ;-)p

ThereIWas3 · « **Reply #7 on:** 09/04/2014 03:39 pm »

Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 09/04/2014 02:26 pm

Anyway I was unaware that the planned "SLC-40B" is THAT close to the original launch pad! (something like <200 meters!?)

I wonder if the thought was that returning flyback boosters could land on the "A" side, be reprocessed in the hangar, then relaunched from the "B" side, without having to truck the cores back from somewhere else. Only to be taken advantage of if the flyback business works as planned and is approved, but you can't take advantage of that were it to happen unless you built the infrastructure to handle it.

The complicating factor is that a FH launch involves the flyback of two boosters more or less simultaneously, plus maybe the central core.

I too found the historical information most interesting. This historical museums here in NE Florida only start just before the arrival of Ponce de Leon and do not cover much time before that.

Jim · « **Reply #8 on:** 09/04/2014 04:29 pm »

Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 09/04/2014 02:26 pm

Well am I the only one who is more interested in the pre-spaceport history of the Cape than the project plans?

I look for these documents because they mostly cover the early (1950-1970) spaceport history of the Cape. The pre-spaceport history seems to be repeated in each document.

Zython · « **Reply #9 on:** 09/04/2014 05:15 pm »

The conclusion of the report is listed in section 7.2 on page 123 of the document added by the original poster.

That conclusion is:

"The proposed expansion includes the construction of a new integration facility east of the existing launch pad. The proposed facility is located in an area that has been heavily disturbed. Historic research and subsequent field investigation found no cultural remains or features within the proposed construction ares. It is the opinion of the 45 SW CRM that the project may proceed as planned."

edkyle99 · « **Reply #10 on:** 09/04/2014 05:26 pm »

Quote from: DavidH on 09/04/2014 03:22 pm

Wow. Looks to me like the vertical integration tower is on the wide set of rails and could service both F9 and FH in this configuration.

That would have been a good idea, but the plans in the document don't seem to show things lined up to allow tower sharing. It appears that the tower (the "VIT") would not have moved horizontally. They do seem to have been planning to share propellant storage, etc.

I'm not to crazy about placing the Heavy Hanger just downrange from the pad. It will be uprange at LC39A, but, of course, a big nearby explosion would shred it regardless.

BTW, these plans would have placed the launch pad right on the former Mobile Service Tower parking spot. The Titan MST was a big heavy monster, so the fill/subsoil in that area was probably the best place to build such a structure at SLC 40.

- Ed Kyle

wannamoonbase · « **Reply #11 on:** 09/04/2014 05:47 pm »

Jim, thanks for posting. It's fun to read.

BrianNH · « **Reply #12 on:** 09/04/2014 06:28 pm »

Why is the title of this thread "How Spacex WOULD HAVE flown the FH from SLC-40"?

I was under the impression that they were still planning to upgrade SLC-40 to support FH at some point. Have those plans changed now that they have leased pad 39A?

edkyle99 · « **Reply #13 on:** 09/04/2014 09:23 pm »

Quote from: BrianNH on 09/04/2014 06:28 pm

Why is the title of this thread "How Spacex WOULD HAVE flown the FH from SLC-40"?

I was under the impression that they were still planning to upgrade SLC-40 to support FH at some point. Have those plans changed now that they have leased pad 39A?

That is my understanding, that Falcon Heavy will fly from LC 39A while SLC 40 handles Falcon 9, at least for the foreseeable future.

- Ed Kyle

Lars_J · « **Reply #14 on:** 09/04/2014 09:27 pm »

Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/04/2014 09:23 pm

Quote from: BrianNH on 09/04/2014 06:28 pm
Why is the title of this thread "How Spacex WOULD HAVE flown the FH from SLC-40"?

I was under the impression that they were still planning to upgrade SLC-40 to support FH at some point. Have those plans changed now that they have leased pad 39A?
That is my understanding, that Falcon Heavy will fly from LC 39A while SLC 40 handles Falcon 9, at least for the foreseeable future.

- Ed Kyle

Yes, I don't see them doing lots of work for building what would essentially be new pad 40B, when they now have 39A that they can use. Most flights will be F9 - not FH - for the foreseeable future, so there is no need for two FH pads next door to each other.

Zach Swena · « **Reply #15 on:** 09/04/2014 09:34 pm »

It seems logical that the upgrades to SLC-40 would be put on hold in favor of LC39A for now. The restrictions of launching from an air force base has been mentioned many times by clients and some by spacex itself, so KSC should have a slight advantage.

They are retrofitting LC-39A and building a new facility in Brownsville in addition to the work mentioned in other threads at Vandenberg for the landing pad and accommodating the heavy. That should keep their crews busy for a while.

No point in potentially slowing down SLC-40 right now for redundant capacity for the heavy. Once the heavy manifest fills up, they may revisit this project.

Jcc · « **Reply #16 on:** 09/04/2014 10:19 pm »

This gets me thinking about the need for a new BFR launch pad as 39A may not be adequate for it. Could they build it adjacent to 39A, and dig a deeper flame trench, etc., as required for BFR, without disturbing 39A in the process? Sure, if it exploded it would take out both pads, but obviously they would clear out people and payloads from both hangars during a launch.

Jdeshetler · « **Reply #17 on:** 09/05/2014 07:34 am »

Here is my fan concept art for SpaceX's SLC-40 w/ dual pads based on Jim's nugget.

dglow · « **Reply #18 on:** 09/05/2014 08:07 am »

Jim, in the past you've discussed what SpaceX will need for vertical integration at 39A. Do you think it can be part of the FSS or will they need a separate structure, more like the one depicted in this doc?

Jim · « **Reply #19 on:** 09/05/2014 01:53 pm »

Quote from: dglow on 09/05/2014 08:07 am

Jim, in the past you've discussed what SpaceX will need for vertical integration at 39A. Do you think it can be part of the FSS or will they need a separate structure, more like the one depicted in this doc?

I would think it would be like this. I think the FSS would be only for crew access.

GreenShrike · « **Reply #20 on:** 09/06/2014 06:25 pm »

Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/04/2014 05:26 pm

I'm not to crazy about placing the Heavy Hanger just downrange from the pad. It will be uprange at LC39A, but, of course, a big nearby explosion would shred it regardless.

To be fair, there were three other options listed in Appendix A that were ruled out: one to the north east, which from the notes was too close to the LC41 boundary; and two somewhat west of north west, which had issues with wetlands. It seems the only location which passed the initial review was the one almost due east, right on the rocket's flightpath.

MTom · « **Reply #21 on:** 09/06/2014 07:02 pm »

How would this kind of VIT functioning? Should it cover the payload during the integration? Then how will it "disappear" not disturbing the launch?

dglow · « **Reply #22 on:** 09/06/2014 09:18 pm »

Quote from: MTom on 09/06/2014 07:02 pm

How would this kind of VIT functioning? Should it cover the payload during the integration?

Sure. I imagine that's the point.

Quote

Then how will it "disappear" not disturbing the launch?

I don't know, maybe it just rolls back from the pad. Saturn's MSS did.

MTom · « **Reply #23 on:** 09/06/2014 10:07 pm »

Quote from: dglow on 09/06/2014 09:18 pm

Quote
Then how will it "disappear" not disturbing the launch?
I don't know, maybe it just rolls back from the pad. Saturn's MSS did.

But (at least in case of the plans of SLC-40B) it should be moved over the flame duct. I don't see how could this be a mobile tower.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #24 on:** 09/06/2014 10:58 pm »

Quote from: MTom on 09/06/2014 07:02 pm

How would this kind of VIT functioning? Should it cover the payload during the integration? Then how will it "disappear" not disturbing the launch?

It could be fixed and use swing back platforms, like the Long March towers in China. Or, it might fold back, like the original Titan towers.

- Ed Kyle

go4mars · « **Reply #25 on:** 09/12/2014 03:55 am »

That was a fun read!

I enjoyed the history. Interesting about the 1928 hurricane destroying the pier and buildings.

Ronsmytheiii · « **Reply #26 on:** 09/13/2014 01:21 pm »

Zooming in as much as possible, the VIF looks like it might hinge and rotate away from the vehicle like the Strong back, or Soyuz vehicle. It definitely is not on rails, would imagine that the payload would be lifted up to the tower before the LV would roll out of the hangar and rotated vertical.