Author Topic: Rebuilding SLC-40  (Read 280910 times)

Offline StuffOfInterest

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
  • Just interested in space
  • McLean, Virginia, USA
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #540 on: 10/13/2017 10:08 AM »
Interesting that the TEL would be the long poll in bringing the pad back online.

Long pole - think tent poles.


Ugg, brain and fingers don't always synchronize.

Offline octavo

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 129
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 181
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #541 on: 10/13/2017 02:10 PM »
Crossposting from the CRS-13 mission discussion thread :


November 28th per https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ Sept 30 change.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.1440 says SLC-40 dating back to a change on 9th August but I cannot see source for that. sfn and launchphotography are not yet showing pad.

Is SLC-40 confirmed somewhere?

Yes. According official FCC application issued last week (3th Oct) SpaceX plans launch CRS-13 mission from Complex 40.

Discuss!

Is 40 further than we thought? Is there anything in L2 about this?

Edit: CRS-13 is NET 28 November, so I guess it fits :(
« Last Edit: 10/13/2017 02:12 PM by octavo »


Offline old_sellsword

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #543 on: 10/14/2017 03:16 PM »
cr13 will be  launched from slc40
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80640&RequestTimeout=1000

It’s tentatively scheduled for SLC-40, that doesn’t mean it will stay there. Koreasat and a handful of other missions were just switched from 40 back to 39A, so expect this one to follow suit or slip right.

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6953
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 5627
  • Likes Given: 718
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #544 on: 10/14/2017 03:46 PM »
cr13 will be  launched from slc40
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80640&RequestTimeout=1000

It’s tentatively scheduled for SLC-40, that doesn’t mean it will stay there. Koreasat and a handful of other missions were just switched from 40 back to 39A, so expect this one to follow suit or slip right.

A better question is how close to a launch date can the launch license request (once approved) be amended?  Koreasat moved on the license front well over a month ahead of its intended launch.  Plus, for a NASA CRS mission that's constrained by ISS scheduling and time sensitive payloads, I doubt they'd aim for SLC-40 if they didn't honestly know they had a real good chance of getting the pad ready in time.

Offline octavo

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 129
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 181
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #545 on: 10/15/2017 05:57 AM »
cr13 will be  launched from slc40
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80640&RequestTimeout=1000

It’s tentatively scheduled for SLC-40, that doesn’t mean it will stay there. Koreasat and a handful of other missions were just switched from 40 back to 39A, so expect this one to follow suit or slip right.

A better question is how close to a launch date can the launch license request (once approved) be amended?  Koreasat moved on the license front well over a month ahead of its intended launch.  Plus, for a NASA CRS mission that's constrained by ISS scheduling and time sensitive payloads, I doubt they'd aim for SLC-40 if they didn't honestly know they had a real good chance of getting the pad ready in time.
At the space council with the VPOTUS, didn't one of the agency heads promise they would move quickly to address regulatory issues identified in the SpaceX whitepaper?

Could such changes have already been made at the FAA, such that SpaceX is able to more easily and quickly amend the license?

Online vaporcobra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1153
  • Tacoma, WA
  • Liked: 2097
  • Likes Given: 2413
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #546 on: 10/15/2017 06:43 AM »
cr13 will be  launched from slc40
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80640&RequestTimeout=1000

It’s tentatively scheduled for SLC-40, that doesn’t mean it will stay there. Koreasat and a handful of other missions were just switched from 40 back to 39A, so expect this one to follow suit or slip right.

A better question is how close to a launch date can the launch license request (once approved) be amended?  Koreasat moved on the license front well over a month ahead of its intended launch.  Plus, for a NASA CRS mission that's constrained by ISS scheduling and time sensitive payloads, I doubt they'd aim for SLC-40 if they didn't honestly know they had a real good chance of getting the pad ready in time.

Pretty sure you're correct. If we are to take Shotwell's NSC comments at face value, it takes weeks to replace a launch license, as the FAA does not allow for modifications once they are provided (or it takes far longer than just filing for a new license). So they must be pretty confident in LC-40's progress. Either that or NASA and SpaceX are willing to stomach some slippage into the 6 month license.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2322
  • California
  • Liked: 1856
  • Likes Given: 4087
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #547 on: 10/17/2017 07:18 AM »
cr13 will be  launched from slc40
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=80640&RequestTimeout=1000

It’s tentatively scheduled for SLC-40, that doesn’t mean it will stay there. Koreasat and a handful of other missions were just switched from 40 back to 39A, so expect this one to follow suit or slip right.

A better question is how close to a launch date can the launch license request (once approved) be amended?  Koreasat moved on the license front well over a month ahead of its intended launch.  Plus, for a NASA CRS mission that's constrained by ISS scheduling and time sensitive payloads, I doubt they'd aim for SLC-40 if they didn't honestly know they had a real good chance of getting the pad ready in time.

Pretty sure you're correct. If we are to take Shotwell's NSC comments at face value, it takes weeks to replace a launch license, as the FAA does not allow for modifications once they are provided (or it takes far longer than just filing for a new license). So they must be pretty confident in LC-40's progress. Either that or NASA and SpaceX are willing to stomach some slippage into the 6 month license.
SpaceX currently has 2 FAA launch licenses for CRS missions-- LLS 14-087(Rev 2) and LLS 17-100.  One that covers launches from SLC-40 (the one that was in effect from before AMOS-6 and was never cancelled) and one from LC-39A.  So, there won't be any licensing issues for them on swapping pads for CRS launches.  The FCC is a different agency and is in charge of overseeing the radio emissions during the missions.  From what we can see as outsiders, dealing with the FCC and getting amendments and changes approved to their applications is very easy.  With the FAA it's not.  This isn't too surprising as the FAA is the agency with responsibility for ensuring that commercial launches aren't going to hurt people or damage property.  As opposed to the FCC being concerned that there might be an unacceptable level of radio interference.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline SPITexas

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #548 on: 10/23/2017 03:57 PM »
Is LC-40 still set to be active and launch CRS-13 December 4th?

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • United States
  • Liked: 168
  • Likes Given: 65
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #549 on: 10/23/2017 07:59 PM »
There was a post from one of the guys working on the LC-39 TEL where he mentioned having to haul his machining equipment up the truss while it was strapped to his back to do high-precision machining in situ.

Why would they not lower the TEL to do this?


Online cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 620
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #550 on: 10/23/2017 08:24 PM »
There was a post from one of the guys working on the LC-39 TEL where he mentioned having to haul his machining equipment up the truss while it was strapped to his back to do high-precision machining in situ.

Why would they not lower the TEL to do this?
Changes gravity loading direction?

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4727
  • Liked: 2631
  • Likes Given: 1415
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #551 on: 10/23/2017 08:47 PM »
There was a post from one of the guys working on the LC-39 TEL where he mentioned having to haul his machining equipment up the truss while it was strapped to his back to do high-precision machining in situ.

Why would they not lower the TEL to do this?

Even if they lower it, it's still 3 stories tall.

Online abaddon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1725
  • Liked: 1199
  • Likes Given: 1032
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #552 on: 10/26/2017 09:37 PM »
CRS-13 confirmed as first flight from SLC-40, NET December: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42775.msg1742416#msg1742416.
« Last Edit: 10/26/2017 09:40 PM by abaddon »

Offline Alesandro

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #553 on: 11/05/2017 05:39 PM »
Hello!

As far as I know SpaceX modified the launch pad in 2013 in order to support launches of the Falcon 9 v1.1 launch vehicle. I suppose SpaceX did not design the launch pad itself (or did?). I wonder, what company designed, constructed and built this pad (and I am interested in SLS-4E too) for SpaceX?

Thank you in advance for your answer!


Offline old_sellsword

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #554 on: 11/05/2017 05:51 PM »
Hello!

As far as I know SpaceX modified the launch pad in 2013 in order to support launches of the Falcon 9 v1.1 launch vehicle. I suppose SpaceX did not design the launch pad itself (or did?). I wonder, what company designed, constructed and built this pad (and I am interested in SLS-4E too) for SpaceX?

Thank you in advance for your answer!

“Launch pad” is a very vague term. NASA (and the Air Force?) designed and built all of SLC-40 and SLC-4E in the early 60s. That includes the support buildings, the majority of the plumbing and electrical, the flame trench, etc.

When SpaceX leased those pads they built the new HIFs and TEs, and upgraded whatever needed to be upgraded such as the propellant farms. As far as we know, SpaceX doesn’t contract other companies to design things for them, however they do use general contractors for things like welding and concrete pouring.

Offline Alesandro

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #555 on: 11/05/2017 06:27 PM »
Yes, I meant the period of time when SpaceX leased those pads! Does SpaseX have departmant to design filling, gas, electrical and etc. ground system?! Ok, but SpaceX do not produce valve, cryogenics tanks, pumps, I think!? Maybe you know what companies produced those equipment?
« Last Edit: 11/05/2017 06:46 PM by Alesandro »

Offline jpo234

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1103
  • Liked: 994
  • Likes Given: 155
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #556 on: 11/05/2017 06:48 PM »
The LOX sphere at SLC-40 is from Apollo. SpaceX salvaged it.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2017 06:52 PM by jpo234 »
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2907
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #557 on: 11/05/2017 06:50 PM »
CRS-13 confirmed as first flight from SLC-40, NET December: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42775.msg1742416#msg1742416.
That's incredibly fast work given the earlier photos, since deleted.

Offline old_sellsword

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #558 on: 11/05/2017 06:55 PM »
Does SpaseX have departmant to design filling, gas, electrical and etc. ground system?!

Yes, they do. Browse through these job listings.

Ok, but SpaceX do not produce valve, cryogenics tanks, pumps, I think!? Maybe you know what companies produced those equipment?

SpaceX does actually produce cryogenic valves for Falcon, so it wouldn't surprise me at all to see them making GSE valves either. As jpo234 noted, SpaceX likes to salvage old equipment and refurbish it whenever they can instead of designing and building brand new.

You're right in that they obviously don't make everything themselves and undoubtedly buy a good amount of GSE hardware, but we have no idea what they buy or who they buy it from.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2017 06:56 PM by old_sellsword »

Offline Alesandro

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Rebuilding SLC-40
« Reply #559 on: 11/05/2017 07:16 PM »
Thanks!

I've read an article recently and notice that SpaceX chills the RP-1 from ambient temperature down to approximately -7°C. What method do they employ to chill the RP-1? And I want to clarify did I understand correctly if they have ambient temperature for example +20°C they will chill down the RP-1 till +13°C or they will chill it down to -7°C?
« Last Edit: 11/05/2017 07:28 PM by Alesandro »

Tags: