Author Topic: SpaceX's Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship Discussion Thread 2  (Read 2415243 times)

Offline Nydoc

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 110
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: SpaceX's Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #300 on: 12/30/2014 06:27 PM »
Everyone here seems to share a FASCINATION. Too easy?  ;D

Offline OxCartMark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1075
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 833
  • Likes Given: 893
Re: SpaceX's Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #301 on: 12/30/2014 07:25 PM »
It seems overbuilt for the task of holding up an empty unfuelled stage.
They could probably have done the entire process while keeping the stage suspended from the crane, since a crane is evidently part of the process anyhow.  But placing it on the mount would work better, I think.
For me it makes sense that one of the reasons for building this so heavily (in addition to the carryover design aspect) is that it can be used as a solid refuge against wind.  Say you were coming back to port and there was a wind of ~20 mph or you were trying to beat a predicted wind.  The barge would probably not be a storage spot you’d be comfortable with and hanging from a crane could only be done transiently with people actively managing it.  Having the stage on a flatbed truck (and inside a hanger) would be best but it takes time to get the legs folded (or off as some think) and other preparations made.  But if the mount is stout enough to handle the tension loads that would be applied by this long thin skyscraper then it would be a good place to secure the stage for a matter of days.  So then the question in my mind becomes is the concrete foundation built with the depth, volume, and steel reinforcement required to keep from toppling or breaking apart in a moderate wind scenario??  Until / unless someone can find evidence for the amount of concrete or steel that went into it then the best evidence I see is the volume of the sand pile immediately behind the pad (visible in ship right turn pics) which I assume equates to the volume of concrete and steel that went into it.  Clearly more than would be generated by a 6” thick flat slab.  But enough for a heavily built structural pad in keeping with the steel towers and anticipated loads, I’m not civil engineery enough to say its so but my gut feel is probably yes.

And what better way to say “hey, we’re SpaceX” than to have your been there done that now back rocket flying like a flag at your site for the tourists to see.  It would be a good project for one of the artists / renderers of this forum to plant a soot covered stage on that stand for us.  :)

I’m not happy with the term “ASDS”, nor with the terms barge or platform.  How about “Spacecraft Carrier”?

I wonder if the Conrad / Amelia ship yard made those steel stands and they came on the barge?  Anyone bored enough to look through some of the previous pictures?   Second thought, probably doesn’t matter.

If they are offloading to a port where there is a cruise ship next door then obviously the rocket will have to be free of hazardous materials, right? This means they will have to 'safe' the rocket at sea somewhere.

They will probably allow residual LOX to boil off after landing. The TEA/TEB ignition fluids could be expended by emptying the tanks during ignition of the landing burn. That leaves some residual RP-1 in the fuel tank, which is no more hazardous than all the gasoline in the cars parked in the Carnival lot.
I agree mostly.  There is the issue of a non-DOT (or whatever agency you want to nitpick) approved fuel container and pressurized container but I see it as mostly non-hazardous.  From a safety standpoint I'd be more interested in the tip over impact points which I'd think would need to be on the SpaceX side of the fence, and ability to contain any kerosene spill.  Oh - And there is also the question of FTS explosives.  My recollection from the F9R termination discussion was that its still up in the air whether full orbital F9s have an explosive FTS or not.

And one last thought - I've thought up to this point that SpaceX's (and Tesla's to a lesser extent) methodology was to have installations / employment in multiple states (multiple Senate jurisdictions).  With the placement of concrete and steel we see that this Jacksonville location is more than just a port of the moment, they have some desire to use Jacksonville for some TBD time into the future.  I would have guessed that they would have gone a few more miles up the coast into Georgia (or Charleston, as they planned for retrieval of the kaboomed stages) but not the case.

Mark

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11188
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: SpaceX's Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #302 on: 12/30/2014 08:07 PM »

And one last thought - I've thought up to this point that SpaceX's (and Tesla's to a lesser extent) methodology was to have installations / employment in multiple states (multiple Senate jurisdictions).  With the placement of concrete and steel we see that this Jacksonville location is more than just a port of the moment, they have some desire to use Jacksonville for some TBD time into the future.  I would have guessed that they would have gone a few more miles up the coast into Georgia (or Charleston, as they planned for retrieval of the kaboomed stages) but not the case.


No,  Jacksonville location is  just a port of the moment because CRS flights go north.  Most commercial ones would go due east and south of the Cape.
« Last Edit: 12/30/2014 08:09 PM by Jim »

Offline OxCartMark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1075
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 833
  • Likes Given: 893
Re: SpaceX's Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #303 on: 12/30/2014 08:42 PM »
No,  Jacksonville location is  just a port of the moment because CRS flights go north.  Most commercial ones would go due east and south of the Cape.

Approximately zero ports east of CCAFS.

Not saying it isn't the case that they'll move on, I just think that your argument is full of water.

Mark

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4338
  • Liked: 1570
  • Likes Given: 1313
Re: SpaceX's Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #304 on: 12/30/2014 08:47 PM »
To be honest, I don't see how or why this four part stand could be used.
Remember SpaceX lost the F9R-Dev because the launch mounts did not include hold-down features.  It was stated that if such features had existed, as they do on the launch pad, the TEL, they would have held that rocket and shut down the engines in a launch abort.  If this stand was an exact copy it might not be able to secure the first stage against wind. 
If they do bolt to these it seems to leave them with as many processing steps as they start with.  They still need to get the stage horizontal.

Is the first stage still road transportable with the legs attached and folded?  Does it still conform to the height and width limits for highway travel?  If not, then they might have to remove the legs before trucking the stage back to CCAFS.
And what tells us that this four part stand is made of concrete?  Was that an observation from up close or a conclusion from the color in the images?
 
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4321
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2554
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: SpaceX's Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #305 on: 12/30/2014 09:08 PM »
To be honest, I don't see how or why this four part stand could be used.
Remember SpaceX lost the F9R-Dev because the launch mounts did not include hold-down features.  It was stated that if such features had existed, as they do on the launch pad, the TEL, they would have held that rocket and shut down the engines in a launch abort.  If this stand was an exact copy it might not be able to secure the first stage against wind. 
If they do bolt to these it seems to leave them with as many processing steps as they start with.  They still need to get the stage horizontal.

Is the first stage still road transportable with the legs attached and folded?  Does it still conform to the height and width limits for highway travel?  If not, then they might have to remove the legs before trucking the stage back to CCAFS.
And what tells us that this four part stand is made of concrete?  Was that an observation from up close or a conclusion from the color in the images?
 

When has a rocket fallen off the stands at McGregor due to wind? And they're not planning to launch from here, so if static hold-downs are necessary, they'll use them.

So they crane the stage off the barge and onto the stands to either re-stow or remove the legs, then go horizontal onto the truck. Why is that such a problem?

And who said the stands were made of concrete? The concrete is in the pad the stands are sitting on.
« Last Edit: 12/30/2014 09:10 PM by Kabloona »

Online matthewkantar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 870
  • Liked: 568
  • Likes Given: 675
Re: SpaceX's Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #306 on: 12/30/2014 09:34 PM »
The fact that the stand cannot hold a F-9 while it is firing, does not mean it can't hold it against the wind just fine. Who knows, it might just be the stand from McGregor.

Matthew

Edited misspelling.
« Last Edit: 12/31/2014 02:12 AM by matthewkantar »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11188
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: SpaceX's Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #307 on: 12/30/2014 10:51 PM »

Approximately zero ports east of CCAFS.

Not saying it isn't the case that they'll move on, I just think that your argument is full of water.



Well, you thought wrong and it is your argument that is all wet.  There is a port at CCAFS, which would be more accessible and more practical for those launches vs Jax.
« Last Edit: 12/30/2014 10:53 PM by Jim »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2535
  • Canada
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 593
Re: SpaceX's Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #308 on: 12/30/2014 10:57 PM »
No,  Jacksonville location is  just a port of the moment because CRS flights go north.  Most commercial ones would go due east and south of the Cape.

Approximately zero ports east of CCAFS.

Not saying it isn't the case that they'll move on, I just think that your argument is full of water.

Mark

Try a port at Puerto Rico.  ;)

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2949
  • Liked: 2055
  • Likes Given: 664
Re: SpaceX's Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #309 on: 12/30/2014 11:02 PM »
Perhaps the support ship has been based at Jacksonville this whole time, so this isn't exactly a new development?  How far back in time can we trace the non-barge members of this fleet? After all, the sailors and support crew have to have a home somewhere, it will get old quick flying to Jacksonville and living out of a suitcase for every (landing-capable) launch.

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4321
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2554
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: SpaceX's Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #310 on: 12/30/2014 11:45 PM »
Perhaps the support ship has been based at Jacksonville this whole time, so this isn't exactly a new development?  How far back in time can we trace the non-barge members of this fleet? After all, the sailors and support crew have to have a home somewhere, it will get old quick flying to Jacksonville and living out of a suitcase for every (landing-capable) launch.

GO Quest is apparently owned and operated by Guice Offshore under contract to SpaceX:

http://www.guiceoffshore.com/Vessels.aspx

They have offices listed in MS and LA. But the crew members are probably used to going wherever the job takes them. And they're probably well paid given the nature of this particular operation. And watching a rocket land on a barge is a lot more exciting than ferrying supplies to an oil rig.

Quote
  Guice Offshore LLC (“GO”) is a marine service provider and owner focused on meeting and exceeding the offshore needs of a broad array of clients including oil and gas companies, government agencies, vessel owners and special project clients, in the US Gulf of Mexico and select International markets
We deliver value to our clients by providing honest and dedicated customer service coupled with extensive experience operating high quality fleets that emphasize safety of personnel, assets and the environment
   

Also, specs for the GO Quest:

http://www.guiceoffshore.com/VesselInfo.aspx?name=170%20ft%20DP1%20Supply%20–%20GO%20QUEST
« Last Edit: 12/30/2014 11:55 PM by Kabloona »

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10782
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 7687
  • Likes Given: 5526
Re: SpaceX's Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #311 on: 12/31/2014 03:00 AM »
Maybe SpaceX being right next to the Carnival dock was a deliberate PR move, because if they have a stage mounted there for a few days they will get a horde of tweets from the passengers. And if putting in these mounts is easy enough, and they can get port space for not too much a month, they'll do this at several ports. Back at Canaveral, sure. And maybe PR and who knows where else.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline PhilW

The fact that the stand cannot hold a F-9 while it is firing, does not mean it can't hold it against the wind just fine. Who knows, it might just be the stand from McGregor.

Matthew
Looks to be the same size and construction, including the Blue clamps on the top but minus the McGregor blast shielding on the top and sides facing into the F9/M1D exhaust, which seems right as there will be no launch from the newly installed F9 supports.
« Last Edit: 12/31/2014 03:23 AM by PhilW »

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2322
  • California
  • Liked: 1856
  • Likes Given: 4087
Re: SpaceX's Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #313 on: 12/31/2014 08:18 AM »
The fact that the stand cannot hold a F-9 while it is firing, does not mean it can't hold it against the wind just fine. Who knows, it might just be the stand from McGregor.

Matthew
Looks to be the same size and construction, including the Blue clamps on the top but minus the McGregor blast shielding on the top and sides facing into the F9/M1D exhaust, which seems right as there will be no launch from the newly installed F9 supports.

I'm guessing the fact that the Port mounts don't have those solid grey side panels, like the ones in McGreggor do, is related to the fact that they don't plan to run the engines.  No need for shielding if you're not going to blast the structure with exhaust.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8676
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4859
  • Likes Given: 895
Re: SpaceX's Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #314 on: 12/31/2014 04:58 PM »
Another day, another peeper:

« Last Edit: 12/31/2014 05:10 PM by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Online Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Liked: 953
  • Likes Given: 1184
Re: SpaceX's Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #315 on: 12/31/2014 05:11 PM »
Another day, another peeper:

cropped:

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2006
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 72
Re: SpaceX's Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #316 on: 12/31/2014 05:18 PM »
Another day, another peeper:

cropped:

Great shot,

Those wings don't look like they're going to fold.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8676
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4859
  • Likes Given: 895
Re: SpaceX's Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #317 on: 12/31/2014 05:19 PM »
This is a fun thread...  Almost makes me happy the launch was postponed... 

And I wonder what SpaceX folks are calling the barge.  I don't think it is called "the barge" internally.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 931
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 645
  • Likes Given: 1142
Re: SpaceX's Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #318 on: 12/31/2014 05:59 PM »
This is a fun thread...  Almost makes me happy the launch was postponed... 

And I wonder what SpaceX folks are calling the barge.  I don't think it is called "the barge" internally.

I'm hoping it's "Starbase," myself. Whimsical and functionally correct.
"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

Offline mheney

  • The Next Man on the Moon
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
  • Silver Spring, MD
  • Liked: 378
  • Likes Given: 200
Re: SpaceX's Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #319 on: 12/31/2014 06:38 PM »
I'd call it "Jeff", myself. 

Tags: