Author Topic: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 3 : Discussion  (Read 1035500 times)

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3553
  • Likes Given: 6007
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 3 : Discussion
« Reply #1820 on: 11/29/2019 06:59 pm »
Hello guys!

I was thinking, a thickened common dome would allow higher pressure differentials in the two tanks. Maybe it is a benefit during pressure tests, or even normal tanking procedures.

About the tapered sheet rolling:
I think it is harder than it seems. On the thinner side the excess material has to "go" somewhere and the result is an axially curved sheet.


Welcome to the mad house forum.
We are on the cusp of revolutionary access to space. One hallmark of a revolution is that there is a disjuncture through which projections do not work. The thread must be picked up anew and the tapestry of history woven with a fresh pattern.

Offline Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1196
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 203
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 3 : Discussion
« Reply #1821 on: 11/29/2019 07:10 pm »
That shipment of plates of stainless steel bocachicagal got photos of this morning are curved in 3D and cut into truncated pie wedges or circles. I wonder if some are for the nose cone, and others bulkheads.

Not sure if all of the pieces are there, but it looks like the piece on top is the circular top to the dome, and the other 3D formed pieces are the sides leading up to the circular top.

And they all look rather substantially thick, which leads me to think that they are beefing up the strength of at least the dome.

There are two different types of plates. The big plates look to be about 4x the thickness of the small ones. Beefing up the domes could be in the plans but they look too thick. Without formal pixel count, and taking the trailer DOT tape as 50mm wide, they look ~12-14mm or thereabouts. The dome didn’t fail, it was the outer wall. Is this thickness called for?

Could they be forms or proof pieces? Or maybe a new take on the thrust structure?

We also had those plates with tabs on the corners. Where do they fit in?

Phil

The domes get pipes welded to them and have to resist forces due to thermal expansion of said pipes. Makes sense to me they would be relatively thick.

Offline Eka

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Land between two rivers.
  • Liked: 441
  • Likes Given: 864
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 3 : Discussion
« Reply #1822 on: 11/29/2019 07:36 pm »
That shipment of plates of stainless steel bocachicagal got photos of this morning are curved in 3D and cut into truncated pie wedges or circles. I wonder if some are for the nose cone, and others bulkheads.

Not sure if all of the pieces are there, but it looks like the piece on top is the circular top to the dome, and the other 3D formed pieces are the sides leading up to the circular top.

And they all look rather substantially thick, which leads me to think that they are beefing up the strength of at least the dome.

There are two different types of plates. The big plates look to be about 4x the thickness of the small ones. Beefing up the domes could be in the plans but they look too thick. Without formal pixel count, and taking the trailer DOT tape as 50mm wide, they look ~12-14mm or thereabouts. The dome didn’t fail, it was the outer wall. Is this thickness called for?

Could they be forms or proof pieces? Or maybe a new take on the thrust structure?

We also had those plates with tabs on the corners. Where do they fit in?

Phil
Think of the force that goes through a thrust structure. I'd guess 12-14 mm is minimal. If we ever see the bracing spacing it gets, we could calculate the thickness. That dome material has to span between bracing ribs, if any, and hold the weight of the propellant in the tank above it. Near the end of boost it will be as high as 3.5 G so 3.5 times the propellant mass plus the pressure the tank is being run at. Maybe 3 bar. It adds up. Edit: I should mention for SS this will include SS's own propellants plus 150t more for orbital refueling another SS.

I have a spare roll of full 2" wide DOT tape here. I marked all my old farm trailers with it.

Hold down straps will be 2", 3", or 4" wide. Not many use 3", but it is available. Chains will be of transport use certified sizes and strengths, but I think it would be hard to figure out which one is in use.
« Last Edit: 11/29/2019 07:38 pm by Eka »
We talk about creating a Star Trek future, but will end up with The Expanse if radical change doesn't happen.

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3553
  • Likes Given: 6007
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 3 : Discussion
« Reply #1823 on: 11/29/2019 07:39 pm »
Coils are limited in length to transport size.  Right now a coil that SpaceX receives is only a few feet longer than the individual rings.  So spiraling will not really solve anything.  Not much scrap so the little there is can be used for fins etc.  So if Starship needs a thicker skin on the bottom for legs, fins, engine mounts, etc, but thinner at top.  A spiral would not solve that problem. 

Right now a coil of stainless steel is about 2m x 30m in length for road transport.  It takes about 28.5m in length to make one ring.  Only about 1.5m is left.  Spiraling would only complicate matters.  Just trim the end off to make each ring and use the scrap for something else.  An easier solution would be to get the factory to trim to the exact length, so perfect coils can be made in the field. 

Way off. You need to figure those coil lengths again.

Huh? 9m x Pi  = ~28.3m, how is that way off?

Nomadd was getting at the length of stock in a coil, not the stock length needed for a ring.

A couple months ago I calculated the length of stock on a coil of some diameter, with a center void of some diameter, in 1mm thickness increments from 1-5mm. I’ll look for the post or rerun the numbers when I get a chance.

IIRC even the 5mm had over 1000m of stock on it. These were theoretical numbers and did not take truck weight limits into account.

Phil
We are on the cusp of revolutionary access to space. One hallmark of a revolution is that there is a disjuncture through which projections do not work. The thread must be picked up anew and the tapestry of history woven with a fresh pattern.

Offline Eka

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • Land between two rivers.
  • Liked: 441
  • Likes Given: 864
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 3 : Discussion
« Reply #1824 on: 11/29/2019 08:05 pm »
Nomadd was getting at the length of stock in a coil, not the stock length needed for a ring.

A couple months ago I calculated the length of stock on a coil of some diameter, with a center void of some diameter, in 1mm thickness increments from 1-5mm. I’ll look for the post or rerun the numbers when I get a chance.

IIRC even the 5mm had over 1000m of stock on it. These were theoretical numbers and did not take truck weight limits into account.

Phil
Notice they only had 2 coils on one truck. They could be pushing as much as 25,000 lbs each, or something much lighter. How were they tied down to the trailer? That can help figure out their maximum weight. With one strap/chain failure per coil, the remaining safe working load limit of the strap/chain capacity must be more than the weight of the coil. Edit: Most truckers use grade 70 transport chain.
« Last Edit: 11/29/2019 08:07 pm by Eka »
We talk about creating a Star Trek future, but will end up with The Expanse if radical change doesn't happen.

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3553
  • Likes Given: 6007
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 3 : Discussion
« Reply #1825 on: 11/29/2019 08:16 pm »
The truck bed is 102” wide and the 4x4 blocking is full width. By eyeball I name up with a coil width of ~84” or 2.134m. Fudging that back to an even 2m feels right to me.

If nobody has a better number I’ll go with that and use it to estimate coil width and core hole diameter from another pic. From the trailer sag it is a heavy load. There are two coils.

I’ll also check on the density of 301 and use that for a sanity check. From this I’ll get stock length. An assumption here is that this is 301 or the new formulation is close in density.

Can somebody give me a good range for reasonable thicknesses?

Phil
We are on the cusp of revolutionary access to space. One hallmark of a revolution is that there is a disjuncture through which projections do not work. The thread must be picked up anew and the tapestry of history woven with a fresh pattern.

Offline fael097

The truck bed is 102” wide and the 4x4 blocking is full width. By eyeball I name up with a coil width of ~84” or 2.134m. Fudging that back to an even 2m feels right to me.

If nobody has a better number I’ll go with that and use it to estimate coil width and core hole diameter from another pic. From the trailer sag it is a heavy load. There are two coils.

I’ll also check on the density of 301 and use that for a sanity check. From this I’ll get stock length. An assumption here is that this is 301 or the new formulation is close in density.

Can somebody give me a good range for reasonable thicknesses?

Phil

not sure if the roll width represents the actual width of the steel sheet, or if it could have some padding, but the mk3 ring in the tent is exactly 70" (177.8cm) tall, same height as mk2 and mk4 rings.

edit: a quick pixel count, assuming the flat bed width you mentioned, gave me a coil width of 180.9cm. as expected, within tolerance

no quick way (for me) to determine steel thickness from these images though
« Last Edit: 11/29/2019 08:36 pm by fael097 »
Rafael Adamy

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3553
  • Likes Given: 6007
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 3 : Discussion
« Reply #1827 on: 11/29/2019 08:36 pm »
looks like the new steel rolls are from the same company that made the previous ones (outokumpu). not so sure about the much anticipated spaceX custom stainless steel alloy, seems to me that they're not changing the material for mk3.
I can imagine Tesla having a foundry / facility to manufacture starship quantities of 30X (nor  250k+ Cybertruck quantities). Therefore I was wondering if Tesla developed the material but outsourced its production...

ISTM that outsourcing is the only real option. The capital investment for the equipment to actually make steel, or alloy presmelted metal in non lab quantities, then make sheet, is crazy high. ROI for the scale of SX and Tesla combined wouldn’t make any sense.

OTOH, the steel mills I’m familiar with are from the 1960’s and we’re old then. I’m sure the equipment has changed but...

Phil
We are on the cusp of revolutionary access to space. One hallmark of a revolution is that there is a disjuncture through which projections do not work. The thread must be picked up anew and the tapestry of history woven with a fresh pattern.

Offline DistantTemple

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2002
  • England
  • Liked: 1701
  • Likes Given: 2840
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 3 : Discussion
« Reply #1828 on: 11/29/2019 08:36 pm »
ball park estimation of length:
pi~=3
mean diameter of a layer = 1m
radial total coil thickness of coils = 0.5m = 500mm
so centre void is 0.5m and outside dia is 1.5m (this is a little big)
for 4mm thickness, 500/4 = 125 coils
for 3mm ...           , 500/3 = 167 coils
mean circumference (pi*D) = 3 * 1m = 3m
125 * 3m = 375 ~ 380m long
167 * 3m = 501 ~500m long
From the sag in the roll its got to be thin, so perhaps as thin as 2mm which gives twice the coils as 4mm does so 2*380m length =~ 760m

I know this is not the standard method using volume of coil converted to volume of sheet... but I bet this is near what you all get!
edit tidy up.
« Last Edit: 11/29/2019 09:06 pm by DistantTemple »
We can always grow new new dendrites. Reach out and make connections and your world will burst with new insights. Then repose in consciousness.

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3553
  • Likes Given: 6007
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 3 : Discussion
« Reply #1829 on: 11/29/2019 08:56 pm »
I find 500'-1000' hard to believe.  I figure 300' tops, but I still believe those rolls are only about 100' long. 

Another problem with spiraling.  If you do have to have a long roll to spiral from top to bottom.  The diameter may be too large to transport.

Another reason for roll limits is road transportation due to weight.  How much does one of those coils weigh?  You also have lifting equipment limits and handling equipment limits. 

I have seen coils of steel like this come off a railroad car.  Then it was stretched out by a machine, then bent around by another to make pipe.  The pipe was cut at 42' lengths.  One coil of steel made about 3 lengths of pipe.  The pipe was only about 1/4" of an inch thick. 

This is why I don't think the rolls are over 100'.  If tightly rolled, maybe 200'. 

I just don't think existing steel roll handling equipment is adequate for spiral welding.  I also don't think Elon is going to go to the expense of making special equipment or building it to handle spiral welding.  He already said he wasn't.  I'm just trying to point out the 100's of reasons why spiraling long wide steel Starships would be cost prohibitive if you are on a tight budget.

A flatbed with a highway tractor w/sleeper berth will haul ~48,000lb or a bit under 21.8 metric tons. There are two coils per load.

I don’t know why the yield on that pipe fab was so low but I’m sure I calculated over 1000m length on some normally sized coil for a 5mm thickness. A quarter inch would be ~6.4mm.

I’ll run the numbers later based on the coils seen today and we can all poke at them. I do make the occasional mistake but disremember when that last happened.  ::)

Just out of curiosity, what was the nominal size on the pipe you’re talking about?

Phil

We are on the cusp of revolutionary access to space. One hallmark of a revolution is that there is a disjuncture through which projections do not work. The thread must be picked up anew and the tapestry of history woven with a fresh pattern.

Offline AC in NC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2484
  • Raleigh NC
  • Liked: 3628
  • Likes Given: 1950
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 3 : Discussion
« Reply #1830 on: 11/29/2019 09:34 pm »
A flatbed with a highway tractor w/sleeper berth will haul ~48,000lb or a bit under 21.8 metric tons. There are two coils per load.

I don’t know why the yield on that pipe fab was so low but I’m sure I calculated over 1000m length on some normally sized coil for a 5mm thickness. A quarter inch would be ~6.4mm.

I’ll run the numbers later based on the coils seen today and we can all poke at them. I do make the occasional mistake but disremember when that last happened.  ::)

Just out of curiosity, what was the nominal size on the pipe you’re talking about?

Phil

L2 Content documents exact specifications of 3 different thickness coils delivered (thickness, width, length, and coil weight) here:  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47107.msg2014991#msg2014991

Nomadd "owns" the content if he were to choose to share.  Otherwise, his numbers are accurate or understated.

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3553
  • Likes Given: 6007
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 3 : Discussion
« Reply #1831 on: 11/29/2019 09:46 pm »
The truck bed is 102” wide and the 4x4 blocking is full width. By eyeball I name up with a coil width of ~84” or 2.134m. Fudging that back to an even 2m feels right to me.

If nobody has a better number I’ll go with that and use it to estimate coil width and core hole diameter from another pic. From the trailer sag it is a heavy load. There are two coils.

I’ll also check on the density of 301 and use that for a sanity check. From this I’ll get stock length. An assumption here is that this is 301 or the new formulation is close in density.

Can somebody give me a good range for reasonable thicknesses?

Phil

not sure if the roll width represents the actual width of the steel sheet, or if it could have some padding, but the mk3 ring in the tent is exactly 70" (177.8cm) tall, same height as mk2 and mk4 rings.

edit: a quick pixel count, assuming the flat bed width you mentioned, gave me a coil width of 180.9cm. as expected, within tolerance

no quick way (for me) to determine steel thickness from these images though

US standard big truck trailer width is 102”. It was 96” back in the last century but this is a 102.

Padding normally shows up where chafing is imminent. If the banding goes through the hole, toroidal style, there will be edge protectors where it turns the corner. Chain tie downs need protection too. But I don’t remember ever seeing any sort of end caps on a coil. Note the edge protection for the strap sling in BCG’s pic.

My 2.1m figure really was just an eyeball rough estimate and being so close to 2m gave me confidence. I think your 70” figure from pixel counting and logic is probably a better fit.

Any chance I could impose for a pixel count and estimate of total coil diameter and hole diameter? Between antique eyes and antique software I’d me much obliged.

Phil

Edit to add: The reflective DOT tape on the trailer is 2”/50mm high. It should be close enough to the same plane as the coil as to not matter. Same for off axis distortion.
« Last Edit: 11/29/2019 09:53 pm by OTV Booster »
We are on the cusp of revolutionary access to space. One hallmark of a revolution is that there is a disjuncture through which projections do not work. The thread must be picked up anew and the tapestry of history woven with a fresh pattern.

Offline livingjw

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2363
  • New World
  • Liked: 5857
  • Likes Given: 2887
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 3 : Discussion
« Reply #1832 on: 11/29/2019 10:58 pm »
The truck bed is 102” wide and the 4x4 blocking is full width. By eyeball I name up with a coil width of ~84” or 2.134m. Fudging that back to an even 2m feels right to me.

If nobody has a better number I’ll go with that and use it to estimate coil width and core hole diameter from another pic. From the trailer sag it is a heavy load. There are two coils.

I’ll also check on the density of 301 and use that for a sanity check. From this I’ll get stock length. An assumption here is that this is 301 or the new formulation is close in density.

Can somebody give me a good range for reasonable thicknesses?

Phil

Nomadd took pictures of steel coils a week or so ago. They were labeled 2mm, 3mm and 4mm. This jives with thicknesses needed to resist hoop tension and head pressures.

Assuming 2 coils per flatbed semi, OD=40in, ID=16in, W=78in, Wt=23325lb
Length at  thickness             length
               2 mm (.079 in)    1113 ft
               3 mm (.118 in)     745 ft
               4 mm (.157 in)     560 ft

https://www.carsley.com/Utilities/Steel-Coil-Calculators

Edit: BTW, we got permission to post these thicknesses on the public side.

John
« Last Edit: 11/29/2019 11:06 pm by livingjw »

Offline Wolfram66

I find 500'-1000' hard to believe.  I figure 300' tops, but I still believe those rolls are only about 100' long. 

Another problem with spiraling.  If you do have to have a long roll to spiral from top to bottom.  The diameter may be too large to transport.

Another reason for roll limits is road transportation due to weight.  How much does one of those coils weigh?  You also have lifting equipment limits and handling equipment limits. 

I have seen coils of steel like this come off a railroad car.  Then it was stretched out by a machine, then bent around by another to make pipe.  The pipe was cut at 42' lengths.  One coil of steel made about 3 lengths of pipe.  The pipe was only about 1/4" of an inch thick. 

This is why I don't think the rolls are over 100'.  If tightly rolled, maybe 200'. 

I just don't think existing steel roll handling equipment is adequate for spiral welding.  I also don't think Elon is going to go to the expense of making special equipment or building it to handle spiral welding.  He already said he wasn't.  I'm just trying to point out the 100's of reasons why spiraling long wide steel Starships would be cost prohibitive if you are on a tight budget.

I have seen coil weight anywhere from 24k to 41k pounds when I worked on OlySteel’s ERP system. The more massive the coil the fewer you can put on one truck. Just from the coil diameter, I’d say they were on the lower end of the scale.. say 24-28 kips

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3553
  • Likes Given: 6007
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 3 : Discussion
« Reply #1834 on: 11/30/2019 02:15 am »
The max width on those coils is 74”. ID is either 20” or 24”, depending on the segments used on the mandrel. I think the thickness they’re using was 4 mm. If the OD is 50” (rough guess from the photo), the coil would weigh roughly 20 tons. Standard, not metric. If all that is correct, the coil would be roughly 1000 ft long.

I can’t see space x investing the money to run this material themselves. That would require $1.5B + investment and a lot of people to run the site

Welcome to the forum.

There were two coils on the truck and a max payload capacity of 48k lb, give or take. The coils look the same so max 24k lb or 12 US style tons each.

Sounds like you have some coil experience.

Phil
We are on the cusp of revolutionary access to space. One hallmark of a revolution is that there is a disjuncture through which projections do not work. The thread must be picked up anew and the tapestry of history woven with a fresh pattern.

Offline Nevyn72

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 818
  • Australia
  • Liked: 1038
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 3 : Discussion
« Reply #1835 on: 11/30/2019 02:17 am »
From the image below courtesy of Bocachicagal.

Does this stamping suggest that the steel on the bulkheads are actually 0.5" thick and a '304L' type of stainless steel?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=48895.0;attach=1596937;image


Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3553
  • Likes Given: 6007
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 3 : Discussion
« Reply #1836 on: 11/30/2019 02:21 am »
The truck bed is 102” wide and the 4x4 blocking is full width. By eyeball I name up with a coil width of ~84” or 2.134m. Fudging that back to an even 2m feels right to me.

If nobody has a better number I’ll go with that and use it to estimate coil width and core hole diameter from another pic. From the trailer sag it is a heavy load. There are two coils.

I’ll also check on the density of 301 and use that for a sanity check. From this I’ll get stock length. An assumption here is that this is 301 or the new formulation is close in density.

Can somebody give me a good range for reasonable thicknesses?

Phil

Nomadd took pictures of steel coils a week or so ago. They were labeled 2mm, 3mm and 4mm. This jives with thicknesses needed to resist hoop tension and head pressures.

Assuming 2 coils per flatbed semi, OD=40in, ID=16in, W=78in, Wt=23325lb
Length at  thickness             length
               2 mm (.079 in)    1113 ft
               3 mm (.118 in)     745 ft
               4 mm (.157 in)     560 ft

https://www.carsley.com/Utilities/Steel-Coil-Calculators

Edit: BTW, we got permission to post these thicknesses on the public side.

John
John, how firm is that OD and ID?
We are on the cusp of revolutionary access to space. One hallmark of a revolution is that there is a disjuncture through which projections do not work. The thread must be picked up anew and the tapestry of history woven with a fresh pattern.

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5105
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3553
  • Likes Given: 6007
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 3 : Discussion
« Reply #1837 on: 11/30/2019 02:33 am »
Thanks, it’s kind of weird that I stumbled across this today. I actually work at the facility and in the department that trims these coils to width. I think we ran some 2 mm thick, but I know the majority has been 4 mm.

I found this because I was googling what the 30x stood for that they plan to use in their cybertruck. I see there has been discussions about that too

Wow. Horses mouth and all that.

Take care. We can speculate all we want from anything publicly available but you are in a position to pass along knowledge that holds some degree of privilege.

Think before you post. It’s not worth your job.

Phil
We are on the cusp of revolutionary access to space. One hallmark of a revolution is that there is a disjuncture through which projections do not work. The thread must be picked up anew and the tapestry of history woven with a fresh pattern.

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 8095
  • Likes Given: 943
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 3 : Discussion
« Reply #1838 on: 11/30/2019 02:30 pm »
The max width on those coils is 74”. ID is either 20” or 24”, depending on the segments used on the mandrel. I think the thickness they’re using was 4 mm. If the OD is 50” (rough guess from the photo), the coil would weigh roughly 20 tons. Standard, not metric. If all that is correct, the coil would be roughly 1000 ft long.

I can’t see space x investing the money to run this material themselves. That would require $1.5B + investment and a lot of people to run the site

For the sake of correct nomenclature, those are coils, not rolls. Rolls are what you use to roll coils and sheets of stainless
It could be instructive to see if the gantry crane loads the coils into the ring forming machine as the crane is only rated to 15 tons.
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 8095
  • Likes Given: 943
Re: SpaceX Starship : Texas Prototype(s) Thread 3 : Discussion
« Reply #1839 on: 11/30/2019 02:58 pm »
A morning delivery. I saw it parked off the road at the big dish area, on LBJ and then it was taken to the assembly area.
And gantry crane #2 has arrived. This could be further proof of my suspicion that the new tent will be a carbon copy of tent 1 as a second ring forming factory.

(or, you know, it could be for something completely different...)

John

Edit: Or I should say gantry crane #2 AND 3, with one being new and the other obviously used.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2019 03:00 pm by Johnnyhinbos »
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0