Falcon 9 On Pad

The first flight version of the SpaceX Falcon 9 has been
erected on the launch pad:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon...100221rollout/

Launch is not expected until late March/April/whenever...

--Damon

On 2/21/2010 1:22 PM, Damon Hill wrote:
The first flight version of the SpaceX Falcon 9 has been
erected on the launch pad:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon...100221rollout/

Launch is not expected until late March/April/whenever...

Strangely, SpaceX doesn't yet have this update on their website.

Pat

Damon Hill wrote:
The first flight version of the SpaceX Falcon 9 has been
erected on the launch pad:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon...100221rollout/

Launch is not expected until late March/April/whenever...

How does that compare with other lengths of time sitting on the pad?

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, Hummer H2 with California Save Our Coasts and Oceans plates
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Rick Jones wrote in news:hluglm$5nm$2
@usenet01.boi.hp.com:

Damon Hill wrote:
The first flight version of the SpaceX Falcon 9 has been
erected on the launch pad:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon...100221rollout/

Launch is not expected until late March/April/whenever...

How does that compare with other lengths of time sitting on the pad?

In this case, irrevelvant as this is a first launch and a lot of
work has to be done to finish building and testing pad systems and
the launch vehicle.

Zenit/Sea Launch has demonstrated a setup and launch measured in a
few hours, but that's a mature technology.

--Damon

Damon Hill wrote:
Rick Jones wrote in news:hluglm$5nm$2
@usenet01.boi.hp.com:
Damon Hill wrote:
The first flight version of the SpaceX Falcon 9 has been
erected on the launch pad:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon...100221rollout/

Launch is not expected until late March/April/whenever...

How does that compare with other lengths of time sitting on the
pad?

In this case, irrevelvant as this is a first launch and a lot of
work has to be done to finish building and testing pad systems and
the launch vehicle.

I was thinking more like - "Is it really a good idea to leave it
sitting on the pad that long?" somewhat independent of it being a
first launch or how fast it can be for "production." I guess the
thing can be brought back to the shed fairly quickly, but out in the
open that long in the Florida spring just seems, well, risky.

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of
"when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

"Rick Jones" wrote in message
...
Damon Hill wrote:
The first flight version of the SpaceX Falcon 9 has been
erected on the launch pad:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon...100221rollout/

Launch is not expected until late March/April/whenever...

How does that compare with other lengths of time sitting on the pad?

Have any of the news stories said it will stay at the pad until it launches,
or is SpaceX planning on bringing it back inside the hangar after some tests
at the pad?

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

Rick Jones wrote in news:hluquc$85i$2
@usenet01.boi.hp.com:

Damon Hill wrote:
Rick Jones wrote in news:hluglm$5nm$2
@usenet01.boi.hp.com:
Damon Hill wrote:
The first flight version of the SpaceX Falcon 9 has been
erected on the launch pad:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon...100221rollout/

Launch is not expected until late March/April/whenever...

How does that compare with other lengths of time sitting on the
pad?

In this case, irrevelvant as this is a first launch and a lot of
work has to be done to finish building and testing pad systems and
the launch vehicle.

I was thinking more like - "Is it really a good idea to leave it
sitting on the pad that long?" somewhat independent of it being a
first launch or how fast it can be for "production." I guess the
thing can be brought back to the shed fairly quickly, but out in the
open that long in the Florida spring just seems, well, risky.

SpaceX has demonstrated with the Falcon 1 an ability to put up and
take down the rocket on short notice; I presume Falcon 9 will be on the
pad as long as it's needed there and will be in the hangar for
protection and any additional work.

Some prior rockets have been stuck on a launch pad for more than a
year, usually because of payload issues, but they've always got a
rolling gantry or mobile pad to move them into protection.

--Damon

In sci.space.history message
, Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:31:18, Damon Hill
posted:
Rick Jones wrote in news:hluglm$5nm$2
:

Damon Hill wrote:
The first flight version of the SpaceX Falcon 9 has been
erected on the launch pad:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon...100221rollout/

Launch is not expected until late March/April/whenever...

How does that compare with other lengths of time sitting on the pad?

In this case, irrevelvant as this is a first launch and a lot of
work has to be done to finish building and testing pad systems and
the launch vehicle.

The wording of http://spaceflightnow.com/index.html and
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/001/100220rollout/ rather
suggests that it should be taken off the pad after the static fire test.

Memory says that a comparatively recent Atlas (or similar) spent about
15 continuous months on its pad.

When deployed, the Jupiter MRBM lived on its pad, according to
Wikipedia.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (RFCs 5536/7)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (RFCs 5536/7)

On 2/23/2010 11:55 AM, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
When deployed, the Jupiter MRBM lived on its pad, according to
Wikipedia.

Weird petal-pad:
http://johnfenzel.typepad.com/.share...piter_irbm.jpg
http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/Turkey/ht...ssiles-Pg1.htm
Although the missile was considered "mobile", moving it from place to
place took a lot of effort, and a convoy of vehicles:
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history...iter%20gse.jpg

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
On 2/23/2010 11:55 AM, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
When deployed, the Jupiter MRBM lived on its pad, according to
Wikipedia.

Weird petal-pad:
http://johnfenzel.typepad.com/.share...piter_irbm.jpg

Petals closed:
http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/Turkey/im...-%20medium.JPG

Looks to be an enclosure to protect the base of the missile from the
elements.

http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/Turkey/ht...ssiles-Pg1.htm
Although the missile was considered "mobile", moving it from place to
place took a lot of effort, and a convoy of vehicles:
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history...iter%20gse.jpg

About as mobile as a mobile home without any axles or tires sitting on
blocks in a trailer park. ;-) Most "mobile" homes don't move except for
the initial delivery and the final tow to the bone-yard.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon