-
#80 by John Santos on 13 Feb, 2021 22:04
-
IIUC, the new SpaceX extra large fairing is similar in size to the existing Atlas V/Delta IV fairings, so the processing facilities they use should be sufficiently large to process PPE/HALO and the other payloads.
you underestimate the height of select existing facilities.The payload stack wouldn't be assembled in the VIF, that's not what it's for. It will be stacked at one of several payload processing facilities in the area. The SpaceX facility is one of the options. NASA has started using SpaceX payload processing facilities for some missions but not all.
Guessing: This vertical stacking of a larger (I assume) stack, and preparation for encapsulation in the new larger fairing, may require a NEW payload processing facility. Most satellites arrive nearly ready to go and have a much shorter time (one month?) taking up space in SX's PPF.
The PPF is a cleanroom.... with all normal facilities... crane, offices, workshop, computing, ... etc
This new PPF I guess will be needed, will likely be used for the DoD contracts... A separate facility would make it easier to manage security clearance / secrecy etc... and customer tweaking/operations. This new facility should be away from the launch pads so work is not interrupted by launches. The lower cadence of FH, works well with customers likely (as in this case) to book it for longer.
FH has been processed horizontally, move to 39A, static fired, return to the assembly building, had its payload attached, transported back to the pad, erected and launched within the span of a few days. Assuming the existence of a crane and any other required vertical integration equipment, would it take significantly longer to static fire an FH, NOT lower it to horizontal, NOT transport it back to the building, NOT attach a payload, NOT transport it back to the pad, NOT raise it back up, and then to attach a vertically integrated, encapsulated payload (already prepared at one of the payload integration facilities)? It would just take driving it (very carefully) a few miles to the pad, mostly over routes already used for A5/D4, raising it up with the crane and attaching it to the second stage/payload attachment fittings.
I understand NASA may want to run extra post-integration checks and maybe a second (post-static fire) countdown demonstration, especially on the first such flight, but why are people expecting this to take months? Most of the testing should be done in the payload integration facility, not on the pad. The pad checks are just to make sure everything got hooked up correctly and nothing got busted during the drive to the pad or the vertical lift to the top of the rocket. All preparation and fueling, especially hypergolics, is normally done in a hazardous materials processing building, not on the pad.
Is NASA requiring pad mods to handle special materials, like liquid Xenon? If so, that might explain some of the unexpectedly large cost. (This kind of thing would also be a necessary expense for A5, D4H or SLS, too.)
-
#81 by Khadgars on 13 Feb, 2021 22:22
-
I have it from several sources that PPE/HALO indeed requires vertical integration. From the same sources I also heard that only part of the costs for VIF and long fairing were amortized thru NSSL-67. The majority of the rest will be amortized thru the PPE/HALO launch. Particularly VIF and related VI GSE turn out to be expensive due to the DoD/NSS requirements for these structures and systems.
It's awfully convenient how every time a SpaceX contract comes in higher than expected people magic up a reason that it's not SpaceX's fault with literally zero evidence beside vague rumors and supposition.
SpaceX has known for at least two years that DoD was not the only customer requriring vertical payload integration for Falcon Heavy. So, the cost for VIF, long fairing and other VI-related GSE (such as a new payload transporter) is split over DoD and other government launches (such as the PPE/HALO launch for NASA).
Although it was mentioned that PPE-to-HALO integration will take place at the launchbase, it does NOT mean that this happens in the VIF. PPE and HALO are integrated into a single payload in a separate SpaceX facility at CCAFS.
The integrated PPE/HALO stack will then be transported to LC-39A in upright (vertical) position. Next, it is hoisted to the top level of the VIF and will then be integrated on top of Falcon Heavy.
It really is astounding isn't it lol, and I take no issue with the amount charged by SpaceX here. -
#82 by theprotobe on 14 Feb, 2021 07:57
-
On that last paragraph, maybe. However, there already is Psyche, a xenon-propelled mission for launch in 2022. NASA would've already wanted the xenon modifications by Psyche. They're quite similar in propulsion(hall-effect thrusters) so anything they prepare for Psyche's propulsion probably can be used for PPE. Although that could be different with the VIF.
IIUC, the new SpaceX extra large fairing is similar in size to the existing Atlas V/Delta IV fairings, so the processing facilities they use should be sufficiently large to process PPE/HALO and the other payloads.
you underestimate the height of select existing facilities.The payload stack wouldn't be assembled in the VIF, that's not what it's for. It will be stacked at one of several payload processing facilities in the area. The SpaceX facility is one of the options. NASA has started using SpaceX payload processing facilities for some missions but not all.
Guessing: This vertical stacking of a larger (I assume) stack, and preparation for encapsulation in the new larger fairing, may require a NEW payload processing facility. Most satellites arrive nearly ready to go and have a much shorter time (one month?) taking up space in SX's PPF.
The PPF is a cleanroom.... with all normal facilities... crane, offices, workshop, computing, ... etc
This new PPF I guess will be needed, will likely be used for the DoD contracts... A separate facility would make it easier to manage security clearance / secrecy etc... and customer tweaking/operations. This new facility should be away from the launch pads so work is not interrupted by launches. The lower cadence of FH, works well with customers likely (as in this case) to book it for longer.
FH has been processed horizontally, move to 39A, static fired, return to the assembly building, had its payload attached, transported back to the pad, erected and launched within the span of a few days. Assuming the existence of a crane and any other required vertical integration equipment, would it take significantly longer to static fire an FH, NOT lower it to horizontal, NOT transport it back to the building, NOT attach a payload, NOT transport it back to the pad, NOT raise it back up, and then to attach a vertically integrated, encapsulated payload (already prepared at one of the payload integration facilities)? It would just take driving it (very carefully) a few miles to the pad, mostly over routes already used for A5/D4, raising it up with the crane and attaching it to the second stage/payload attachment fittings.
I understand NASA may want to run extra post-integration checks and maybe a second (post-static fire) countdown demonstration, especially on the first such flight, but why are people expecting this to take months? Most of the testing should be done in the payload integration facility, not on the pad. The pad checks are just to make sure everything got hooked up correctly and nothing got busted during the drive to the pad or the vertical lift to the top of the rocket. All preparation and fueling, especially hypergolics, is normally done in a hazardous materials processing building, not on the pad.
Is NASA requiring pad mods to handle special materials, like liquid Xenon? If so, that might explain some of the unexpectedly large cost. (This kind of thing would also be a necessary expense for A5, D4H or SLS, too.) -
#83 by gongora on 14 Feb, 2021 16:16
-
Is NASA requiring pad mods to handle special materials, like liquid Xenon? If so, that might explain some of the unexpectedly large cost. (This kind of thing would also be a necessary expense for A5, D4H or SLS, too.)
On that last paragraph, maybe. However, there already is Psyche, a xenon-propelled mission for launch in 2022. NASA would've already wanted the xenon modifications by Psyche. They're quite similar in propulsion(hall-effect thrusters) so anything they prepare for Psyche's propulsion probably can be used for PPE. Although that could be different with the VIF.
Why would the Xenon be loaded at the pad? -
#84 by John Santos on 14 Feb, 2021 16:41
-
Is NASA requiring pad mods to handle special materials, like liquid Xenon? If so, that might explain some of the unexpectedly large cost. (This kind of thing would also be a necessary expense for A5, D4H or SLS, too.)
On that last paragraph, maybe. However, there already is Psyche, a xenon-propelled mission for launch in 2022. NASA would've already wanted the xenon modifications by Psyche. They're quite similar in propulsion(hall-effect thrusters) so anything they prepare for Psyche's propulsion probably can be used for PPE. Although that could be different with the VIF.
Why would the Xenon be loaded at the pad?
It's cryogenic. Boiling point -108.1C, but the tanks would either have to be pressurized (to raise the boiling point), or actively cooled or have extremely good insulation to prevent boil off. Since the PPE requires long-term storage of Xenon (months or years), I suspect that it doesn't need to be fueled of topped off immediately before launch, but they most likely want to have the tanks as full as possible at launch time. Speaking of which, and Psyche, I believe Dragon XL (cargo to the Gateway) is supposed to include Xenon for refueling the PPE, so that would have the same issues.
If Xenon is pre-loaded, are there any other special on-pad operations that are required only for this mission and not for ordinary payloads? -
#85 by gongora on 14 Feb, 2021 17:27
-
Xenon is typically pre-loaded and stored in pressurized tanks, not cryogenic.
-
#86 by eeergo on 15 Feb, 2021 12:59
-
Shamelessly cross-posting from the Gateway thread:
Next door from my office window, HALO is coming together:
https://twitter.com/Thales_Alenia_S/status/1361306970737803274 -
#87 by jadebenn on 21 Mar, 2021 09:06
-
Indeed. More specifically DoD/NSS, as well as NASA, have specific requirements which don't apply to a stock comsat launch of FH. All the extra things DoD/NSS and NASA require add significant cost for SpaceX and SpaceX will charge the customers (DoD/NSS and NASA) for those costs (plus profit).
Correct. Services cost money. Government missions require more services. Did I say differently?
This is what tees me off:QuoteSpaceX has known for at least two years that DoD was not the only customer requriring vertical payload integration for Falcon Heavy. So, the cost for VIF, long fairing and other VI-related GSE (such as a new payload transporter) is split over DoD and other government launches (such as the PPE/HALO launch for NASA).
This is not the reason the launch contract costs $300M.
I wonder how many vertically-integrated flights it'll take before people stop pinning all SpaceX's cost woes for these government "flagship" missions on the VI tower and long fairing. -
#88 by Jim on 21 Mar, 2021 10:39
-
Is NASA requiring pad mods to handle special materials, like liquid Xenon? If so, that might explain some of the unexpectedly large cost. (This kind of thing would also be a necessary expense for A5, D4H or SLS, too.)
NASA has levied no such requirements on SpaceX.
Also, Xenon is not a liquid nor is it loaded at the pad. -
#89 by Jim on 21 Mar, 2021 10:42
-
I have it from several sources that PPE/HALO indeed requires vertical integration.
Although it was mentioned that PPE-to-HALO integration will take place at the launchbase, it does NOT mean that this happens in the VIF. PPE and HALO are integrated into a single payload in a separate SpaceX facility at CCAFS.
No and no -
#90 by Jim on 21 Mar, 2021 10:44
-
I shudder to think what this would have cost on a Delta IV Heavy. Better part of a billion dollars.
Not even close. That is nonsense -
#91 by Jim on 21 Mar, 2021 10:49
-
What is SSPF used for nowadays ?
The new ISS solar arrays ?
too low and non hazardous -
#92 by CT Space Guy on 25 Mar, 2021 10:32
-
Shamelessly cross-posting from the Gateway thread:
Next door from my office window, HALO is coming together:
https://twitter.com/Thales_Alenia_S/status/1361306970737803274
It was interesting to see that they use an auto body metal file to dress the friction stir welds. Perhaps I could resurrect some skills from a previous life to help them out
Or perhaps that was too long ago?
-
#93 by scr00chy on 26 May, 2021 00:07
-
Sounds like a delay:Quote
Lueders: finalizing a fixed-price contract for the HALO module for Gateway. Would require delivery at the end of 2024 for launch then or early 2025.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1397288574781886474?s=20 -
#94 by StraumliBlight on 09 Jul, 2021 16:31
-
Updated launch date:Quote
NASA is targeting November 2024 to launch the integrated spacecraft on a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket.
-
#95 by sdsds on 29 Jul, 2022 20:08
-
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105212.pdf
Quote from: Page 51As of February 2022, the co-manifested vehicle is above the Falcon
Heavy launch vehicle’s mass limit. If the mass is too high, it could affect
the vehicle’s ability to reach the correct lunar orbit. The project is taking
steps to reduce mass, including evaluating whether it needs to
potentially off-load some components for initial launch.
co-manifested vehicle = PPE + HALO
Is there some way SpaceX can up-rate FH to meet the new mass estimate of PPE + HALO? -
#96 by Steven Pietrobon on 31 Jul, 2022 07:10
-
Is there some way SpaceX can up-rate FH to meet the new mass estimate of PPE + HALO?
Not a trivial change, but they could try changing RP-1 to Syntin, which has a higher density and Isp compared to RP-1. -
#97 by cpushack on 02 Aug, 2022 18:51
-
Is there some way SpaceX can up-rate FH to meet the new mass estimate of PPE + HALO?
Not a trivial change, but they could try changing RP-1 to Syntin, which has a higher density and Isp compared to RP-1.
working link to Syntin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntin -
#98 by wannamoonbase on 02 Aug, 2022 20:37
-
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105212.pdf
Quote from: Page 51As of February 2022, the co-manifested vehicle is above the Falcon
Heavy launch vehicle’s mass limit. If the mass is too high, it could affect
the vehicle’s ability to reach the correct lunar orbit. The project is taking
steps to reduce mass, including evaluating whether it needs to
potentially off-load some components for initial launch.
co-manifested vehicle = PPE + HALO
Is there some way SpaceX can up-rate FH to meet the new mass estimate of PPE + HALO?
Cutting weight in design and off loading mass before launch seems like the easiest path forward. -
#99 by whitelancer64 on 02 Aug, 2022 21:14
-
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105212.pdf
Quote from: Page 51As of February 2022, the co-manifested vehicle is above the Falcon
Heavy launch vehicle’s mass limit. If the mass is too high, it could affect
the vehicle’s ability to reach the correct lunar orbit. The project is taking
steps to reduce mass, including evaluating whether it needs to
potentially off-load some components for initial launch.
co-manifested vehicle = PPE + HALO
Is there some way SpaceX can up-rate FH to meet the new mass estimate of PPE + HALO?
Cutting weight in design and off loading mass before launch seems like the easiest path forward.
The easiest thing to offload will be fuel, so they have a delicate balancing act to do there. Best of luck to them.
