View Single Post
  #7  
Old July 4th 19, 12:57 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Falcon Heavy transporter-erector

In article ,
says...

In article ,
lid says...

That looks like a plain transporter with no erection functionality. Its
transporting just a first stage (with interstage) and is much too short
for a full Falcon 9 with first stage + second stage + payload.


Here's an article with a very nice picture of the transporter erector at
Vandenberg:

https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/10/3...edure-fix-can-
allow-falcon-9-launches-to-resume/

Here is a great picture of the transporter erector at LC-40 at Cape
Canaveral:

https://www.spacex.com/news/2013/02/...uccessful-wet-
dress-rehearsal

And finally, here is an article with a picture of the transporter
erector used at KSC LC-39A.

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-cre...launch-photos/


Ok, here is the best picture of the one at KSC LC-39A. In addition to
the airport tow vehicle, you can see on either side (near the base of
the launch vehicle) that there are two separate sets of train tracks
with some sort of self-powered diesel electric bogies.

https://www.teslarati.com/wp-content...Dragon-Falcon-
9-DM-1-39A-rollout-022819-NASA-Joel-Kowsky-5-c.jpg

So, whoever said "self powered" for the LC-39A transporter erector seems
to be correct based on the detailed photographic evidence. Makes sense,
considering the grade of the ramp up to the actual launch pad.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.