Yeah. The large crawler to hold the two mated vehicles together during rollout the distance to the pad--which has to be a safe distance from the integration cell, particularly if you want to have two vehicles in integration in parallel (that is, be preparing vehicle number 2 while number one is in the final weeks of launch preparation and then launching), then the massive lifting operation to move the stages vertical as a single fixed unit at the pad. Horizontal integration has advantages, but with KSC already built, there's a benefit to using the existing structures and crawlers.
Their lease doesn't actually cover any of the VAB, and the Falcon was already designed for horizontal integration.The vehicles would be mated together out near the pad at the integration facility. For the Falcon Heavy, SpaceX is planning vehicle integration out near pad LC39A and and placement on the strong-back. The strong back then rolls to the pad, up the concrete crawler way and is lifted vertically. The actual integration hangar for SpaceX will not be that far away from the pad. It is just at the foot of the crawler ramp. I can see your point that their is so much infranstructure investment at KSC for vertical integration. I just think it is interesting that despite all that investment SpaceX is still planning to do horizontal integration for Falcon Heavy on LC39A.
Their lease doesn't actually cover any of the VAB, and the Falcon was already designed for horizontal integration.
However, the short roll distance at both LC39A and LC40 comes at a cost--there's only an ability to prepare one LV at a time. In contrast, there was an ability to handle several Saturns at a time for LC39, and similar capacity for Titans in the LC40/41 of the old days. But again, you need a transporter capable of moving the vehicle, and a transition to vertical at the pad. The degree to which the vehicle is designed for operations has more to do with the eventual turnaround time than the specifics of the hangar and the transporter.
One factor that drove the Shuttles overall size was the need to be able to launch DOD and NRO sats. That meant the payload bay had to the sixe it was. IIRC what NASA originally wanted was something more along the lines of a taxi to LEO
They have a second hangar where they can do individual core and second-stage checkout. (I'm not sure where it is at the moment, it used to be Hangar AO but IIRC the v1.1 core is too long for that now) and they were processing CRS-4 all the way through the week and a half of AsiaSat 6 delays as a result of the loss of F9R Dev-1. With two entire integration hangars instead of just near-site checkout, you can get the turnaround time between launches down even more, close to a week or days, and sustain that rate. Being further from the pad also has obvious implications in the worst case, and doesn't change the transport equation much. Traveling an extra half kilometer (the difference between the pad-to-hangar distance at Vandenberg and the equivalent distance at Orbital's Wallops facility, where they have two full integration cells) takes about 15 minutes at the thrilling speed of 2.5 mph. It's simply not a critical factor, and one aspect of SpaceX's operations I wish they'd change.SpaceX demonstrated a 14-day pad turn around on LC40 last between Asia-sat 6 and CRS-4 last year (Well technically a 13-day turn around since the first launch opportunity for CRS-4 was a scrub). With that quick of turn around I don't think the ability to prepare one LV at a time is that big of constraint if you have the right LV.
They have a second hangar where they can do individual core and second-stage checkout. (I'm not sure where it is at the moment, it used to be Hangar AO but IIRC the v1.1 core is too long for that now) and they were processing CRS-4 all the way through the week and a half of AsiaSat 6 delays as a result of the loss of F9R Dev-1. With two entire integration hangars instead of just near-site checkout, you can get the turnaround time between launches down even more, close to a week or days, and sustain that rate. Being further from the pad also has obvious implications in the worst case, and doesn't change the transport equation much. Traveling an extra half kilometer (the difference between the pad-to-hangar distance at Vandenberg and the equivalent distance at Orbital's Wallops facility, where they have two full integration cells) takes about 15 minutes at the thrilling speed of 2.5 mph. It's simply not a critical factor, and one aspect of SpaceX's operations I wish they'd change.
I figure it's some combination of faster to build (SpaceX always seems to be in a hurry building new pads) and permits (a lot of the Cape is protected wetlands these days, making it challenging to build new footings as I understand). But yeah, it's rather scarily close.You make good points. I have always wondered about SpaceX's hangar being so close to the pad. Whenever I watch a launch I look at that hangar in camera view and think, "Damn that hangar is close if things go wrong." Of course it helps when your rocket has full engine out capability to make sure it doesn't come back down on pad.
Nope, they bring the core, second stage, and payload in separately and mate them in the hangar. Preparing the individual parts elsewhere speeds things up a bit, but the final integration requires the facilities of the hangar and transit requires lift onto the T/E for transport to the pad. It's one thing I wonder with for Falcon Heavy--there's going to be a lot longer integration time per launch for that, and having twin hangars would help even more there. I sort of wonder if that's why they put the Vandenberg hangar a bit further back from the pad--to let them run another hangar and access to the pad up next to it.Does that mean they moved the Falcon9v1.1 with Dragon full integrated to the hangar near the pad as one load?
Of the payload, at least. Probably you'll see something like Delta IV--horizontal integration of most of it, then they crank it vertical and lift the payload and fairing on as a single unit, then roll back the tower for launch.If SpaceX is going to get DOD loads they will have to demonstrate vertical integration.
I haven't read the last batch of posts, so forgive me if this was already mentioned.
Assuming a better Shuttle, which would seem to require a set purpose (space station), timetables for operations, being launched atop a rocket with escape methods and procedures, better design and a gradual and evolving design which is tested and improves over time rather than NASA trying to go the most advanced route first:
What effect would this have on the prospect of civilian space travel? The Baby Boomer idea was that civilians traveling into space on some Pan Am rocket plane would be common by the year 2000. That did not come to pass. However, it seems that had the Shuttle program been better at innovating space plane design and all the technologies and procedures involved in common place, cheap and easy(/ier) space travel, that in turn would have gone into the private market and could have pushed the prospect of civilian space flight further along than in actual history.
The advancement of cheap civillian spaceflight depends a lot on the specifics of the Shuttle. If it's just an incrementally better Shuttle, with a mission cost closer to $250m than the $800m of OTL...well, even if you build a passenger module that fills the cargo bay and cram it full of 40 people, that's $5.2 million a ticket. There's maybe enough people to fill that cargo pod once, maybe twice per decade, but not much more. I'm not sure that civilian space travel would be substantially more achievable unless the cost of payload in LEO is closer to $500/kg (putting a ticket in the ~$77-200,000 range depending on the mass of vehicle per passenger), which might be achievable with a fully-reusable system, but requires a major leap in development over the OTL Shuttle--flyback boosters, an integrated fuel tank inside the Orbiter, etc.What effect would this have on the prospect of civilian space travel? The Baby Boomer idea was that civilians traveling into space on some Pan Am rocket plane would be common by the year 2000. That did not come to pass. However, it seems that had the Shuttle program been better at innovating space plane design and all the technologies and procedures involved in common place, cheap and easy(/ier) space travel, that in turn would have gone into the private market and could have pushed the prospect of civilian space flight further along than in actual history.
Alternately, just how bad can the Shuttle be? Could it be anymore craptastic than the OTL?
Alternately, just how bad can the Shuttle be? Could it be anymore craptastic than the OTL?
Oh, you have got to be shitting me. Was that seriously considered? How did anyone think it could be a good idea?