SpaceX Falcon Heavy Discussion (Thread 6)

[docmordrid]

With the political realities concerning a certain senator from Alabama controling the budget process, it appears unlikely SpaceX would be awarded any piece of EM-1, IMHO. However, perhaps RS might buy off on one launch for FH and one for D4H, if SLS is promised to remain fully funded.
>

Or, Shelby goes along with the EM-1 plan in trade for assured EUS funding.

Congressional horse-trading 101, and Shelby's an experienced practitioner.

[Celestar]

Would it not be feasible to have Orion launch on top of a FH from SLC39A, and the have an empty DIVH (strechted upper stage?) launch one orbit later from SLC37B, dock with Orion and use the DCSS for TLI?

That way we'd avoid the problem of having to launch two FHs in a very short timeframe.

OTOH, is there a fundamental reason why SLC-40 can't be converted to be FH-capable with reasonable effort?

Celestar

[woods170]

Would it not be feasible to have Orion launch on top of a FH from SLC39A, and the have an empty DIVH (strechted upper stage?) launch one orbit later from SLC37B, dock with Orion and use the DCSS for TLI?

That way we'd avoid the problem of having to launch two FHs in a very short timeframe.

OTOH, is there a fundamental reason why SLC-40 can't be converted to be FH-capable with reasonable effort?

Celestar

Emphasis mine.

Size of the currently present flame trench at SLC-40. To support FH it will have to be widened substantially. Which means major surgery to the in-ground infrastructure of SLC-40. Can be done. But will take that launchpad out of action for at least a year.

[spacebleachers]

It's amazing how many times the FH SLC-40 question has to be answered.

[drnscr]

Ok, just thinking a little outside the box...  39B is a clean pad could it support FH launches with some modification?  Please, I know I’m not the brightest bulb in the box but I do like to see possibilities as just that... possibilities

[spacenut]

Could FH be vertically integrated in the VAB and use the same crawler for 39B?  I know hold down clamps would have to be modified. 

[ugordan]

Could FH be vertically integrated in the VAB and use the same crawler for 39B?  I know hold down clamps would have to be modified. 

And then what?

[Slarty1080]

Could FH be vertically integrated in the VAB and use the same crawler for 39B?  I know hold down clamps would have to be modified. 

And then what?

So what is the reason that such a launch is not possible...?

[ugordan]

Could FH be vertically integrated in the VAB and use the same crawler for 39B?  I know hold down clamps would have to be modified. 

And then what?

So what is the reason that such a launch is not possible...?

From which pad?

[Slarty1080]

With the political realities concerning a certain senator from Alabama controling the budget process, it appears unlikely SpaceX would be awarded any piece of EM-1, IMHO. However, perhaps RS might buy off on one launch for FH and one for D4H, if SLS is promised to remain fully funded.

There are advantages to using both from a logistics and political standpoint. Probably, chief among these is the ability to launch nearly simultaneously from the Florida coast. The ULA rocket can simply carry a 2nd second stage as its payload and the SpaceX craft the Orion and service module. The question about docking seems fairly straightforward from this layman's perspective: why not use the now proven IDA?

As stated upthread, SpaceX appears capable of providing a FH with 15 months notice. It is unclear whether a Delta Heavy can be built within that time frame. ULA may be the long pole for the scenrio to play out, but it still may be the only way to get this done considering politics, engineering and orbital mechanics.

There are serious structural issues with mixing the verticaly integrated Orion with the horizontaly integrated FH.

[Slarty1080]

Could FH be vertically integrated in the VAB and use the same crawler for 39B?  I know hold down clamps would have to be modified. 

And then what?

So what is the reason that such a launch is not possible...?

From which pad?

Any pad(s) within reach

[ugordan]

From which pad?

Any pad(s) within reach

LC-39A - you would have to run the SpaceX HIF into the ground before reaching the flame trench with the MLP.

LC-39B - where is the RP-1 infrastructure, let alone subcooling equipment, relevant data links from the pad to the LCC?

[Slarty1080]

From which pad?

Any pad(s) within reach

LC-39A - you would have to run the SpaceX HIF into the ground before reaching the flame trench with the MLP.

LC-39B - where is the RP-1 infrastructure, let alone subcooling equipment, relevant data links from the pad to the LCC?

So LC-39A no chance
LC-39B possible but would need a lot of infrastructure changes

[chrisking0997]

I know we are getting used to seeing SpaceX just whip up stuff out of thin air, but I think we can agree that theres a pretty huge and costly laundry list of things (and a few show stoppers) that would need to be done before they could put FH on any other pad than 39A.  We might as well be advocating that they build a brand new pad somewhere.  Since this is a one-off mission, they arent going to spend the time and resources to even consider tackling any of that.

Id say the only way we see a dual FH mission is if they push for a massively quick turnaround (like FH2 is ready to go in the barn while FH1 launches).  Think they could pull that off in 12 or 24 hours?

[spacenut]

Ok, it is my understanding that Orion HAS to be vertically integrated.  That is why I mentioned the VAB.  Otherwise, if it can be horizontally integrated could it go on FH with a stretched upper stage for a one launch shot? 

[Slarty1080]

Ok, it is my understanding that Orion HAS to be vertically integrated.  That is why I mentioned the VAB.  Otherwise, if it can be horizontally integrated could it go on FH with a stretched upper stage for a one launch shot?

I think the last few posts have more or less ruled out FH for Orion in the short term as I believe Orion has to be vertically integrated. The only way I could see them doing that would be to erect FH at LC-39A then plop Orion on top by use of a huge crane. I suppose it might work but it doesn't have the appearance of something NASA would approve of to me.

[envy887]

Ok, it is my understanding that Orion HAS to be vertically integrated.  That is why I mentioned the VAB.  Otherwise, if it can be horizontally integrated could it go on FH with a stretched upper stage for a one launch shot?

I think the last few posts have more or less ruled out FH for Orion in the short term as I believe Orion has to be vertically integrated. The only way I could see them doing that would be to erect FH at LC-39A then plop Orion on top by use of a huge crane. I suppose it might work but it doesn't have the appearance of something NASA would approve of to me.

I wouldn't rule that possibility out entirely unless NASA or SpaceX issues a definitive statement on it. According to Eric Berger, SpaceX submitted an unsolicited proposal to NASA to launch Orion on FH.

[lrk]

Id say the only way we see a dual FH mission is if they push for a massively quick turnaround (like FH2 is ready to go in the barn while FH1 launches).  Think they could pull that off in 12 or 24 hours?

Not sure why it would need to be within 12 or 24 hours - Orion can loiter in LEO uncrewed for several weeks. 

[Slarty1080]

Ok, it is my understanding that Orion HAS to be vertically integrated.  That is why I mentioned the VAB.  Otherwise, if it can be horizontally integrated could it go on FH with a stretched upper stage for a one launch shot?

I think the last few posts have more or less ruled out FH for Orion in the short term as I believe Orion has to be vertically integrated. The only way I could see them doing that would be to erect FH at LC-39A then plop Orion on top by use of a huge crane. I suppose it might work but it doesn't have the appearance of something NASA would approve of to me.

I wouldn't rule that possibility out entirely unless NASA or SpaceX issues a definitive statement on it. According to Eric Berger, SpaceX submitted an unsolicited proposal to NASA to launch Orion on FH.

For sure won't rule it out - learnt the hard way on that one, but I doubt it. Are you sure it was Orion that SpaceX offered to launch on FH? Or was it a booster to support Orion, both or unclear?

[Brovane]

Ok, it is my understanding that Orion HAS to be vertically integrated.  That is why I mentioned the VAB.  Otherwise, if it can be horizontally integrated could it go on FH with a stretched upper stage for a one launch shot?

I think the last few posts have more or less ruled out FH for Orion in the short term as I believe Orion has to be vertically integrated. The only way I could see them doing that would be to erect FH at LC-39A then plop Orion on top by use of a huge crane. I suppose it might work but it doesn't have the appearance of something NASA would approve of to me.

Shotwell has already confirmed previously in press conferences that SpaceX has plans to support Vertical Integration of DOD payloads at 39A.