|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Accident at Cape
On 9/1/2016 11:06 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
does SpaceX have alternate pad they can launch from ? http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/3/127...vandenberg-39a This article covers the readiness and use of alternate launch pads. Implies that pad 39 could be ready in a couple of months. Says what sort of launches can happen from California and why. Strangely, no mention of their Texas site. Naturally, they must first determine the cause of the explosion and formulate a fix before they launch anything. By then, it appears that 39 could be ready. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Accident at Cape
On 9/4/2016 7:57 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
Because all they've done so far at the Boca Chica site in Texas is attempt to prepare the ground. SpaceX has since said that "two years of dirt work" will be needed before construction of the launch facility can commence. Yep, I found this article that says that: http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/pre...8f83ab605.html But I find that confusing because they obviously have enough facility in place to fire that returned booster repeatedly. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Accident at Cape
In message
Vaughn Simon wrote: On 9/4/2016 7:57 PM, Jeff Findley wrote: Because all they've done so far at the Boca Chica site in Texas is attempt to prepare the ground. SpaceX has since said that "two years of dirt work" will be needed before construction of the launch facility can commence. Yep, I found this article that says that: http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/pre...8f83ab605.html But I find that confusing because they obviously have enough facility in place to fire that returned booster repeatedly. Texas is apparently quite a big place. SpaceX have two facilities there and the place where the test firings take place is not the one at Boca Chica. Anthony |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Accident at Cape
On 9/4/2016 10:25 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
When they test fire engines, are they horizontal or vertical ? They fire not just engines, but entire boosters, and it's vertical. Vaughn |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Accident at Cape
In article , says...
On 9/4/2016 7:57 PM, Jeff Findley wrote: Because all they've done so far at the Boca Chica site in Texas is attempt to prepare the ground. SpaceX has since said that "two years of dirt work" will be needed before construction of the launch facility can commence. Yep, I found this article that says that: http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/pre...8f83ab605.html But I find that confusing because they obviously have enough facility in place to fire that returned booster repeatedly. Completely different location. They do engine and stage test firings at their McGregor, Texas facility. That facility has been in place since very early on in SpaceX history. It's also where the Grasshopper flights took place. Because of the issues with the soil, the Boca Chica Texas site is not much more than acquired land at this point. 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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Accident at Cape
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Accident at Cape
In article om,
says... On 2016-09-04 21:22, Vaughn Simon wrote: http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/pre...8f83ab605.html But I find that confusing because they obviously have enough facility in place to fire that returned booster repeatedly. When they test fire engines, are they horizontal or vertical ? Vertical. At McGregor Texas. The yet to be built launch site is in Boca Chica Texas. The two locations are approximately 460 miles apart! The one tidbit I had read is that 39A has already had the vertical erector/railcar tested. So it appears they already have the hangar and the transporter/erector in place. Pad 39A is reportedly a couple months away from being "operational". Anyone know the status of the rotating service structure used by Shuttle? Has it been removed ? work begun ? or still all there ? Not sure. I believe it will be removed. I would think the "visitor's center" will want it as an exhibit. 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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Accident at Cape
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-09-04 09:15, Vaughn Simon wrote: Naturally, they must first determine the cause of the explosion and formulate a fix before they launch anything. By then, it appears that 39 could be ready. SpaceX has generally been quick to determine failure causes. It is in their own self interest to find and fix the cause quickly to resume commercial operations. And if you look at their landing failures, each attempt fixed problems experienced by previous one and improved landing till they got it and I assume with every failure, they learn and improve the software. With the landing failures it was not so critical. They attempted the landing, and if it failed the customer's mission objective was still achieved and they could further tweak the landing system. A failure as occurred last week is different. The customer's payload has been destroyed and they are not happy. They cannot quickly build another (it may even be the end of the entire satellite building industry in Israel), and they and other customers will not be happy to launch with SpaceX until this issue has been throughly investigated and resolved. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Accident at Cape
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Accident at Cape | David Spain | Policy | 22 | September 5th 16 10:24 AM |
Accident at Cape | Dr J R Stockton[_196_] | Policy | 2 | September 4th 16 04:35 AM |
A Day at the Cape | Ed Kyle | Policy | 3 | July 12th 05 03:38 PM |
Fun At The Cape | Andre Lieven | History | 11 | February 11th 04 12:31 AM |