Falcon Core/Booster Storage

[agusaf]

Does anyone know where SpaceX keeps their cores/boosters in waiting at the Cape?  To maintain a high ops tempo, there should be quantities on hand to roll into the hangers following each launch.  I don't think they would do well with outdoor storage.

[old_sellsword]

Does anyone know where SpaceX keeps their cores/boosters in waiting at the Cape?  To maintain a high ops tempo, there should be quantities on hand to roll into the hangers following each launch.  I don't think they would do well with outdoor storage.

* Pad 39A HIF can hold five

* SLC-40 HIF can hold one

* LZ-1 Hangar can hold two

* Hangar AO can hold two

They have 1026 (JCSAT-16) retired and wrapped up outside Hangar AO, and they left 1035 outside the 39A HIF for a while because it was too crowded during the NROL-76 flow. They're not opposed to leaving cores outside if the weather is nice, and it usually is in Florida.

[macpacheco]

Refurb facility(es) should have quite a bit of booster storage.

Existing facilities can likely store at least one extra layer of boosters suspended higher.

Anything over a launch a week per pad is pure fantasy at this point. Upper stage supply will be a bottleneck much before that. Range scheduling makes this pretty much impossible at this point. Perhaps only Boca Chica can realistically handle that. In order to sustain just a launch every two weeks simultaneously between LC39A/LC40/BC requires over one new upper stage/week. Hawthorne might be able to make enough Merlins, but at this point it can't make enough stage structures. People have questioned if LC40 can even sustain the current LC39A pace !

I predict the trend will be towards multi manifest FH launches, as high as triple manifest, cause it makes better usage of the scarce resources (upper stages and perhaps fairing depending on how soon SpaceX starts routine fairing reuse).

High tempo operations hopefully will be matched with sub 1 week refurb, which requires far less boosters in storage to keep going. The bottleneck becomes how long between a booster is released from refurb until it can be launched, aka, very little boosters would be actually left in storage, but rather just cycling through processing, launch, refurb, repeat, rinse.

[guckyfan]

Dual manifest of GEO sats won't gain that much. Maybe 10 launches less per year. The sat constellation still needs 90 or more launches a year.

The only thing that will help is second stage reuse. They will need it by some time 2019/2020.

[gospacex]

These are excellent problems to have

[gongora]

Existing facilities can likely store at least one extra layer of boosters suspended higher.

Really?  What makes you think this is likely?

People have questioned if LC40 can even sustain the current LC39A pace !

What people?  Are they informed people?  Why wouldn't SLC-40 be able to launch twice a month?

I predict the trend will be towards multi manifest FH launches, as high as triple manifest, cause it makes better usage of the scarce resources (upper stages and perhaps fairing depending on how soon SpaceX starts routine fairing reuse).

Even dual manifest would require a much bigger fairing if one of the satellites is a big commsat.  That doesn't seem to be a priority (although they will need to design a bigger fairing if they want to be chosen as one of the two Air Force providers in the next few years.)

[M.E.T.]

Why not divert stage 1 production facilities into manufacturing upper stages?

If you have 10 Block V's, that's good for 100 launches before moderate refurbishment, and 1000 launches before you need to manufacture any new cores. Heck, 10 block V's might be enough to see them through to the eventual Raptor replacement vehicle for Falcon 9 (mini-ITS or whatever that will eventually be).

So soon they will need minimal first stage manufacturing. Those resources can be diverted to upper stage construction.

[gospacex]

Why not divert stage 1 production facilities into manufacturing upper stages?

I imagine the "facilities" for S1 and S2 production is actually the same thing. Same diameter, same material, similar engine.

[ValmirGP]

Why not divert stage 1 production facilities into manufacturing upper stages?

If you have 10 Block V's, that's good for 100 launches before moderate refurbishment, and 1000 launches before you need to manufacture any new cores. Heck, 10 block V's might be enough to see them through to the eventual Raptor replacement vehicle for Falcon 9 (mini-ITS or whatever that will eventually be).

So soon you will need minimal first stage manufaturing. Those resources can be diverted to upper stage construction.

True, but this is valid only after every (or most) costumer accepts flying on a "flight proven" core.

[M.E.T.]

Why not divert stage 1 production facilities into manufacturing upper stages?

I imagine the "facilities" for S1 and S2 production is actually the same thing. Same diameter, same material, similar engine.

If so, that's even better. Because that would mean that the machine hours that used to go into manufacturing first stages can now simply go into second stage manufaturing.

More problematic would be if you need to build a second, separate stage two production line, because it requires different tooling and machinery than the first stage production line. In that case the additional investment cost to double stage 2 production speed might not be worth it.

[macpacheco]

Why not divert stage 1 production facilities into manufacturing upper stages?

I imagine the "facilities" for S1 and S2 production is actually the same thing. Same diameter, same material, similar engine.

But think about it a little more.
S1 and S2 are about the same size. Their big difference is number of engines and the differences between SL and vac engines.
So best case you can just produce 2x as many upper stages when 100% of launches are reusable !
A little more when you consider FH core manufacturing saves.
So that barely gets you from currently enough stages to do a launch every 2 weeks to just a little bit better than a launch per week across all pads.
The really truly huge deal about upper stage reuse isn't cost, its manufacturing capacity !

Lets say SX can double stage production throughput, that would barely make it to 100 launches/year.

So far, SpaceX true needs of 3 east facing pads is really redundancy. If heaven forbid SpaceX see one of its pads blown up, they still have two (when they RTF). If they have an in flight failure, upon RTF they now can recover the back log with all 3 pads humming, and hopefully upper stage production never stops, creating a nice stockpile to launch.

[Lars-J]

Why not divert stage 1 production facilities into manufacturing upper stages?

I imagine the "facilities" for S1 and S2 production is actually the same thing. Same diameter, same material, similar engine.

But think about it a little more.
S1 and S2 are about the same size. Their big difference is number of engines and the differences between SL and vac engines.

You are mistaken. The stage 2 structure (excluding engine) is only ~1/3rd to 1/4th the size of the stage 1 structure. Same diameter, same tooling and build crews, but the size is very different.

[deruch]

People have questioned if LC40 can even sustain the current LC39A pace !

What people?  Are they informed people?  Why wouldn't SLC-40 be able to launch twice a month?

SLC-40 can clearly launch twice a month.  At least over a burst of missions.  SpaceX has actually achieved this more than once in the past from that pad.  They haven't achieved it as a sustained rate from -40 yet.  But, assuming that they construct the new SLC-40 T/E to use the throwback maneuver they're now using at LC-39A, they should be more capable than they were prior to the AMOS-6 failure.  The main argument for them potentially not being able to sustain the same launch rate from SLC-40 as they can from LC-39A is that they can't parallel process missions there due to the HIF width limitation.  I'm also curious whether the flame trench and sound suppression systems are as robust at -40 as those at -39A (this could require more/closer inspection between missions and/or more frequent repair).  I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them achieve a sustained rate of 1 launch every 3 weeks from SLC-40, and it's certainly possible that they could still make 1lauch/2wks.

[IanThePineapple]

I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX shifted over a mission a month or one every two months from 40 to 39A to help with the flow before BC is finished

[biosehnsucht]

Is there space around the SLC-40 HIF to either widen it or lengthen it, or simply build another HIF in line with it, and run the rails right through to it? Then you could park and do prelim work in the 2nd building for the next flight and then easily move it into the HIF proper...

[spacenut]

Somewhere I read that SpaceX can do 40 cores per year at Hawthorne.  I do not know if 40 cores is both first and second stages.  So, they get 40 used stages, they can then make 40 second stages for these used stages.  Since the second stage is shorter, they may be able to get 80 second stages made per year.  With used first stage cores piling up and in storage, they may be able to do as many as 80 launches per year. 

With the constellation program, they may need another factory unless they can get second stage reuse.

Hopefully they will get 20-25 launches in this year.   

[guckyfan]

Probably first stages will come out of the refurbishment facility mostly ready to fly. Assuming that there will be no more static fire they should be able to have a 1 week launch cadence out of LC-40 without much more upgrades than the new TEL. Not now but some time next year.

[DOCinCT]

I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX shifted over a mission a month or one every two months from 40 to 39A to help with the flow before BC is finished

With just a handful of FH flights on the current manifests, I would expect a fair number of F9/Dragon flights for NASA will use 39A rather than 40.  The crewed flights will definitely launch from 39A.

[Roy_H]

Is there space around the SLC-40 HIF to either widen it or lengthen it, or simply build another HIF in line with it, and run the rails right through to it? Then you could park and do prelim work in the 2nd building for the next flight and then easily move it into the HIF proper...

I think that extending the HIF is a very good idea. No need to extend the tracks, just the overhead crane rails. No additional cranes required either. Cheap and effective.

[Coastal Ron]

Somewhere I read that SpaceX can do 40 cores per year at Hawthorne.

SpaceX has stated in prior years that their factory would be capable of 40 cores per year.  And just last year Shotwell was talking about how they planned to be capable of up to 30 cores per year by the end of 2016.

I do not know if 40 cores is both first and second stages.

For the 40 core number that included a mix of Falcon Heavy and Falcon 9, and I have not heard them define what their production capacity assumes as the max mix.  For instance, do they assume 2nd stage production rates of 40 per year, which would mean no Falcon Heavy?  Or some mix?

Just as a note though, for the times I've done factory scheduling it's rare that we planned for a factory to run at maximum production rate for the full year - but we were not building rockets, so who knows what the assumptions are that SpaceX has made.

Hopefully they will get 20-25 launches in this year.   

They have a pretty good pace now, averaging just a little over every 2 weeks, so 20-25 should be possible. Fingers crossed as always...