"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Tue, 2 Apr 2019
07:08:32 -0400:

In article ,
says...
It surely could be solved, with enough money. The devil is in the
details though. I've been told Orion and its service module can't be
horizontally integrated. Doubly so for the monster of an escape
tower
(which wouldn't be needed if you launch Orion uncrewed).


I still don't see the problem. You integrate it like every other
payload on Falcon Heavy; vertically on the center core.


No payloads have ever been integrated vertically on Falcon 9 or Falcon
Heavy. All of their launch sites have horizontal integration
facilities. The vehicle with payload attached is then (horizontally)
rolled out to the pad on a transporter-erector. At the pad, the vehicle
is put into the vertical position by the transporter-erector. They
chose to do things this way because it's faster and cheaper.


Ah. It just finally penetrated what you're actually talking about.
Why would Orion have to be done differently?

From what I've read, Orion's European built service module must be
vertical to be fueled and launched. Something about the structure not
being designed to handle the loads when the tanks are fully loaded.
Makes sense when you consider it's derived from their ATV which was
vertically integrated.

Some talk online yesterday of stacking Orion on the pad, but then you
have to fuel the service module at the pad which would necessitate a
clean room at the pad. This is all possible, but kind of a p.i.t.a.
since 39A is scheduled for Falcon Heavy launches for other customers
(commercial and USAF).

Might be better just to take over one of the MLPs, and launch from 39B,
but that would require lots of other changes as well. You could roll
over a fully assembled Falcon Heavy on its TEL then use a crane in the
VAB to stack that on an MLP, then stack Orion on top.

There just aren't many good solutions here. That's what happens when
you design a big, heavy capsule to only launch on Ares I using
international partners who only do vertical integration.

I hate to say it, but this is a case where Bobert may have been on to
something (I'm not going to say "right" since I don't think he was).
But permitting crawler/transporter/MLP access to 39A might have been a
smarter move for SpaceX.
Simply set back their integration building further so it wasn't directly on
the tracks and you could still have left access.

That said, for this edge case, still probably not worth it.


Sure, SpaceX likely could do vertical integration of the payload if
given money to develop the facilities necessary. But I've never heard
anything coming out of SpaceX or even Elon Musk (Tweets) that says
they're going to do this.


And I see no reason why they would have to.

True, since it looks like this option was only studied and isn't really
being taken very seriously by the SLS mafia, IMHO. We'll see what
happens to the SLS schedule from here on out. I doubt they'll
accelerate the schedule like they've talked about, but perhaps they can
stem further slips.

Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/