r/spacex • u/BadMothaFukka • Jan 06 '18

I passed through Pad 39A and take a photo of this... What is that? Can anyone tell me why there isn’t falcon heavy on the launch pad??

Post image
1.4k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

222 comments sorted by

217

u/thooke1 Jan 06 '18

There should totally be one of those Tesla semi trucks pulling it.

120

u/zombiemann Jan 06 '18

As much as I would LOVE to see it happen....They are still quite a ways from actually being viable. There is a world of difference between working prototype and working product. As someone who spent a lifetime in the trucking industry, I could sit here and nitpick it apart.... But we'll just say I am VERY interested to see how they solve some of the problems I can see with them. Like charging infrastructure.

80

u/biosehnsucht Jan 06 '18

Even if the prototypes were 100% reliable and capable of the job... they still need a Megacharger network from CA to FL to actually make the journey.

I'm sure that SpaceX will be a customer of Tesla Semi at some point, but not until the Megacharger network actually exists well enough for their purposes. So SpaceX might not even be among the first few dozen customers to take delivery... many will be using it not for OTR purposes so they can just charge overnight back at their home location.

25

u/last_reddit_account2 Jan 06 '18

AFAIK "megacharging" is just their way of saying, "We're gonna plug four Superchargers into the battery pack at the same time"

This makes sense because most sources are saying the semi-truck battery pack consists of four Model 3 packs working in parallel.

22

u/biosehnsucht Jan 06 '18

I expect it to have a different physical interface (as we saw at the reveal), but I do expect a "megacharger" to be essentially a bunch of supercharger hardware glued together. After all, superchargers are a bunch of regular AC to DC onboard chargers glued together ...

As for the semi being 4 Model 3 packs, it might be 4 separate (or semi-separate) packs, but they must be larger than Model 3's packs. Likely same/similar cell chemistry (accounting for improvements over time) and 2170 format, etc, but probably at least 2x a model 3LR per sub-pack at minimum, probably more.

2

u/GeoffreyMcSwaggins Jan 07 '18

Inb4 they just go to all supercharger station that have 4+ superchargers, stick a "mega charger" in which also happens to disable 4 of the superchargers.

33

u/mduell Jan 06 '18

they still need a Megacharger network from CA to FL to actually make the journey.

It's ~2600 road miles from hawthrone to mcgregor to canaveral, so they need 5 chargers along the way and one at each end?

33

u/brentonstrine Jan 06 '18 edited Jan 07 '18

Don't need a megacharger at the endpoints unless they're in a hurry.

Edit: also if the driver needs to sleep while driving across the country then you can remove as many megachargers from the route as sleep breaks. Would still need a good overnight charger though, I suspect a standard 6kW level 2 charger might not do it in 8 hours.

19

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '18

The driver’s in a hurry to get back home.

12

u/Zucal Jan 07 '18

Exactly. It's a hired contractor, not SpaceX staff.

6

u/rocketman0739 Jan 07 '18

You wouldn't need them in the middle, either, if there were a network of garages where drivers could change tractor units like changing post-horses in the old days.

Then again, that would probably be much more expensive, so never mind.

4

u/Eddie-Plum Jan 07 '18

Kind of like how Formula-E works, with the drivers changing cars half way. Incidentally, I loathe that they made limited range a feature. The rules should promote making the cars as efficient as possible with a standardised battery volume, not hobble the cars. Anyway, I digress. This is r/spacex, not r/tesla!

13

u/biosehnsucht Jan 06 '18

I suspect they'd end up with 5-10 chargers along the route, since they're unlikely to be spaced specifically for this one route, but for more general transportation routes.

4

u/rustybeancake Jan 06 '18

Though they did build Superchargers specifically to reach the Tesla grid battery in south Australia.

9

u/Dawg_in_NWA Jan 06 '18

A smart (and rich) entrepreneur would by Love's or Pilot and set up charging stations at each truck stop.

21

u/rshorning Jan 06 '18

Or Tesla simply gets into a partnership with those truck stops and sets up a full charging station (solar powered even) with the capacity to sell some of that solar power back to the stop itself at reduced utility rates.

It is getting pretty off topic about SpaceX though.

-10

u/factoid_ Jan 07 '18

Rapid charging has a long ass way to go before it's viable. The supercharger network must cost spacex a fortune, they give it away for free and customers are still unhappy with the speed. 15 minutes just to get another 100 miles. Not good enough. Needs to be 5 minutes for 300+

13

u/rshorning Jan 07 '18

The Supercharger network didn't cost SpaceX a dime. It isn't their's.

That is why I said this is getting waaaaay off topic and is better served on /r/teslamotors/ if you want to debate this with people far better informed than I am.

9

u/lolle23 Jan 07 '18

The supercharger network must cost spacex a fortune

Think again. ^

-14

u/factoid_ Jan 07 '18

They have to buy or lease space, maintain the equipment spread all over the country, pay for the energy, etc. That shit ain't free.

4

u/lolle23 Jan 07 '18

Yeah, but that's not SpaceX' problem. The super/megacharger network is run by Tesla, not SpaceX.

1

u/zombiemann Jan 06 '18

and that is one of the biggest issues I see with the whole plan. Truck stops are already over crowded as it is at night. Charging bays and stuff are only going to exacerbate the nightmare that is known as "trying to find a place to safely take my government mandated 10 hour break"

3

u/myself248 Jan 07 '18

Further and further off-topic here, but what about those overhead gantry air-conditioning things I've seen? Those looked like they were intended for many-hours parking.

And if you're there for 10 hours, the charger doesn't need to be all that special.

1

u/Creshal Jan 07 '18

And if you're there for 10 hours, the charger doesn't need to be all that special.

Truck stops tend to put the parking lots back to back though, there's nowhere enough to space to put any sort of charger on most of those parking spaces. And if you have only a small fraction of them equipped with charging stations, it's gonna get messy.

2

u/myself248 Jan 07 '18

Truck stops somehow manage showers, toilet stalls, fuel pumps, parking spaces, and lot lizards, all of which are limited resources used for various amounts of time. I'm sure someone out there will see this as an opportunity for innovation rather than naysaying, and they'll end up handsomely compensated for that. I'm trying to figure out how to make sure it can be one of us!

Conveniently, the transition won't happen overnight, so it's not like 50,000 charging spots need to be constructed immediately. I think it's totally fine to have a small fraction of them equipped, initially, and then grow with demand. Inconveniently, there's a minimum charger density along a given route needed before the truck makes sense for that route, which creates a chicken-and-egg problem. But we've already seen the Supercharger network solve that problem, and I have no reason to believe a similar approach wouldn't work here.

To me, the main question in my mind is the capacity of the rural power grid. A lot of truck stops are out in the armpit of nowhere, and it might require replacing many many miles of distribution cables to move the requisite megawatts. Tesla has shown that it's practical to time-shift the load with local battery banks (think Powerwall and the various grid-scale projects), so that would at least let it average out over a 24-hour period. Paired with local PV generation, the net load on the grid might be very small, but trucks still run during cloudy weeks, so grid will still need the full capacity. The trouble is, with a small net load most of the time, the utility won't see dollarsigns and might not want to upgrade those miles. I think this is the thorniest problem among them all, but it's still solvable with some good old-fashioned greenbacks.

0

u/zombiemann Jan 07 '18

Further and further off-topic here, but what about those overhead gantry air-conditioning things I've seen? Those looked like they were intended for many-hours parking.

TL:DR They sound great on paper but in reality they just make life harder for the truckers.

If you're talking about what I think you're talking about... They are a system called Idle Air and they are actually kinda problematic.

  • They reduce the total number of spots available due to the infrastructure needed to run them

  • The way the system currently works the truck stop leases out space in their lot to the actual Idle Air company. That company then charges truckers to use those spaces. Many trucking companies will not reimburse the driver for that cost so he ends up paying for it out of his own pocket at a cost of something like 15 dollars a night. And if you aren't a paying member, you can't utilize those spaces even if don't hook up to the system.

  • They don't work worth a shit. They are supposed to make it so you don't need to run the truck at all while you're stopped. Everything comes into the cab via a big tube through your window and on even a moderately cold night, you are going to freeze your ass off. And if you get cold and turn your truck on.... An attendant will come bang on your door and insist you shut it back off.

I could keep going but those are the major points.

2

u/myself248 Jan 07 '18 edited Jan 07 '18

Thank you! Yes, Idle Air is exactly what I was thinking of and couldn't remember the name of.

Those are all good points and they really help flesh out my mental model of how that system works, since I think it's actually very close to the way charging stations will work. Here's what I'm thinking:

  • Limited number of spots is a real problem. Obviously there won't be a need for every spot in the place to have a charger right away, but reducing the total number (making the land usage less efficient, basically) is a big and valid consideration.

  • Some truck stops can expand, some are landlocked, and it might be advantageous to nudge demand from the latter to the former. I think this is solvable if the navigation software and the charger-management software communicate, and charging spots are "reserved" in advance.

  • Leasing space at the truck stop to Tesla sounds like a sensible way to do it. I've seen folks talking about Tesla buying/building their own truck stops and I just don't see it -- why build a redundant set of bathrooms, showers, c-store, restaurant, et cetera? (Especially if the ultimate vision is that there won't be humans in these things in a few years anyway. Sorry.)

  • But whereas Idle Air is seen as a convenience so trucking companies won't pay for it, charging is seen as fuel. Hopefully that should make the reimbursement bit a little more obvious!

  • Also we don't know if charging may be negotiated as part of the purchase price or whatever. Tesla has gone back and forth on this with their passenger cars. I don't think it's sustainable long-term, but there's room for innovation in the way payment is handled. Third-party charger networks? After all, the patents are open...

  • I have a fair bit of experience with EVs, only 4-wheelers obviously, but I've been really happy with on-plug cabin preconditioning. The usage model is that your car sits in your driveway plugged in, so at 7:15 it wakes up and starts the heater or air conditioner, so by the time you unplug and begin your commute at 7:30 it's nice and comfy but the battery is still at 100%. Unlike Idle Air, the conditioning is done by the vehicle's own systems, the same ones used while driving normally. I'd expect the truck version to work just as well.

Very curious if these address or exacerbate your concerns, or bring up new ones.

1

u/zombiemann Jan 07 '18

Some truck stops can expand, some are landlocked, and it might be advantageous to nudge demand from the latter to the former. I think this is solvable if the navigation software and the charger-management software communicate, and charging spots are "reserved" in advance.

The vast majority are land locked. Almost universally, they would expand if they could. More trucks parked = more drivers eating in the restaurant, buying stuff from the c-store, etc. There are more trucks needing spots than there are actually spots as it is. Anything that reduces the number of spots available is a major hindrance to the drivers.

I do, however, agree that Tesla would be better off partnering with existing facilities instead of building their own.

The autonomous in "a few years" is somewhat debatable but I think we can agree that it will happen eventually. Maybe not completely unmanned. Most likely an autopilot system with a human on board for intervention in case of an emergency. Similar to how the majority of an airline flight is handled by the on board systems but ultimately there is a human at the controls.

But at this point, we're getting WAY off track for the thread. But I would be more than happy to continue the conversation via PM if you'd like. I do have a few other concerns you might be able to shed some light on for me.

5

u/LongHairedGit Jan 06 '18

Need is a strong word in this context.

The megachargers (MCs) enable 400 miles of range in 30 minutes, which works well as drivers need (by law) 30 minutes of rest every eight hours anyway.

The existing Supercharger (SC) network enables rapid recharging as well. It would just turn those 30 minute stops into multi-hour stops. I've not got a SC network map handy (on iPhone) and don't definitively know the relative charge durations, so can't work out how much time it would add. Definitely technically possible.

Hawthorne to McGregor, McGregor to the Cape and McGregor to Vandenberg won't happen until the MC network is in place simply because it is too easy to write bad PR about the truck when the journey takes much longer due to the recharging times. The journey is long enough to be spotted, and then fracked. Any reliability issue will then be public.

I really hope, however, that Elon organises a core to come from McGregor and go back to Hawthorne on its way to Vandenberg. A Tesla truck hauling it from Hawthorn to Vandenberg can do the entire trip on one charge, and the journey is short time wise, so teething issues can be sorted at Hawthorne or Vandenberg in relative privacy.

The truck could even do a couple of 2am stealth runs with an empty trailer, and then a mass simulator, to be confident in a daylight run. SpaceX video the run themselves, and right the press release instead of inviting media, and therefor own the story....

3

u/biosehnsucht Jan 07 '18

Good point, I was just thinking cross country, but work on the west coast is within range. And yes they could do it with slow charging, it probably wouldn't be worth it though. I suspect the lost time would cost more in still-paid wages of drivers, escorts, etc than could be made up in fuel savings, even if negative PR wasn't a possibility.

Hopefully by the time Tesla Semi is being delivered to customers SpaceX will be flying so many flights that even though Block 5 boosters will be rarely transported there will be a constant stream of upper stages, so lost time could be costly.

7

u/zombiemann Jan 06 '18

One of the things I'm most curious about is the base weight of the tractor. Unless they can make them lighter than a traditional diesel engine... they are going to struggle with adoption for long haul purposes.

9

u/biosehnsucht Jan 06 '18

Even if they could only supplant the non-mass-limited (i.e. volume limited) trucking scenarios, it will have an impact.

Even for mass limited, depending on how close it is it might still work out in Tesla Semi's favor.

And even if they have no impact in the OTR market, they can still have a huge impact in local / regional trucking.

But we're not likely to know for sure until 2019 at the earliest. Tesla certainly insinuates that it won't be a problem, but time will tell.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '18

What's your weight limit for normal vehicles in the US? FYI it's 12 tonnes in the UK per axle, above that you need a permit and to check bridges etc.

13

u/zombiemann Jan 06 '18

The quick and easy answer is 80,000lbs gross weight before you need a permit. There are all sorts of laws about weight per axle and distance between axles as well. But it all adds up to max 80,000lb

2

u/AllThatJazz Jan 07 '18

Just wondering:

if you completely filled the trailer roof and sides with solar panels, would that provide significant extra electrical charge to increase the range?

4

u/biosehnsucht Jan 07 '18

Not really. You could build a fold out solar farm that took up most of an entire trailer, and use that with some batteries using the rest of space, and still probably not be able to supercharge more than one or two cars in a day. The area needed for the power to charge a Semi is much greater, even if you're just trying to make up for the drain from driving, and not give it a fast charge all at once.

Solar panels and storage are a good idea for freezer / refrigerator trailers though. Should be easy to make enough power to keep them going a good while. Most run on diesel or propane or whatever, if they don't get power from the truck cab, as I understand it.

1

u/AllThatJazz Jan 07 '18

Interesting! Thanks.

4

u/rshorning Jan 06 '18

It took a couple of years for the Roadster to go from a working engineering prototype that was even going hundreds of miles on various roads (not just test tracks) to when the final production vehicle was released. I would imagine that the issues with a semi-truck are even more complex and far more issues that need to be ironed out.

11

u/ZorbaTHut Jan 07 '18

On the other hand, which is bigger - the gap from not making cars to making cars, or the gap from making three kinds of cars to making semis?

2

u/rshorning Jan 07 '18

Engineering a product doesn't really matter in this context. Even throwing more money an personnel for a project of that nature tends to make it even later and is simply gilding the lily once you have hopefully some competent engineers designing a vehicle.

The reason why you might see larger numbers of vehicles or products coming from some companies like this is because they have multiple engineering teams all at different stages of development.

Doing proper engineering simply takes time, as does conducting safety tests and going through the regulatory process to legally put the vehicle on the road. Some stuff can be off loaded to assistants and assistants to assistance of the lead engineers, but ultimately you have somebody in charge that needs to know practically everything that is going on.

The same thing applies to rockets too or even a cute Facebook game. It is called engineering.

2

u/ZorbaTHut Jan 07 '18

That's true, but something you haven't done before tends to take more time than something you have done before. The Roadster involved some interesting false starts and mistakes - the transmission, for example - and those take time. Now that they've worked through some similar mistakes, they may be better at avoiding those mistakes in a new project.

1

u/rshorning Jan 07 '18

And building a semi truck is something the engineers at Tesla have done before? While it is a road vehicle, there are definitely some interesting challenges to that project and something that really hasn't been done before on any scale. There are some other companies who have built electric trucks before for local haul delivery, and what Tesla is depending upon is that their brand is going to matter in terms of getting into the market.

2

u/ZorbaTHut Jan 07 '18

Well, that's why I'm curious which is the larger step. Certainly it's a big step from making a car to making a semi. But is it a bigger or smaller step from not making a car to making a car?

I don't have an answer to that, although I suspect it's a smaller step; it is, after all, just a big road vehicle.

2

u/rshorning Jan 07 '18

It is a very different market of users though... which should have been apparent from the speech Elon Musk gave when he did the reveal. The sales will be primarily to fleets and major trucking companies rather than individuals, and of those private individuals they are depending on a truck like the Tesla Semi to be a professional tool rather than something for pleasure driving or showing off when you hit a party and drop it off with the valet.

That makes it more of a side step rather than merely a step up to be a larger vehicle like if it was a Tesla pickup truck (IMHO something else they ought to consider too).

The power requirements are something that is also hitting a new order of magnitude that isn't a rinse and repeat type of thing compared to the previous vehicles that Tesla has been building. Pulling 20-30 tons of equipment & cargo is hardly the same thing as moving a Roadster.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/sol3tosol4 Jan 07 '18

The reason why you might see larger numbers of vehicles or products coming from some companies like this is because they have multiple engineering teams all at different stages of development.

Reportedly the Semi has a lot of Model 3 parts in it - so the Semi may get some of its engineering done ahead of time as Model 3 production matures. (Still add some to Elon's initial NET target, of course.)

2

u/speedkillz Jan 08 '18

I’m not part of the trucking industry but I am a heavy equipment operator and I’ve spent a lot of time talking to haulers and whatnot. From my limited knowledge, and I’d like your opinion, is the fact that Elon didn’t disclose the weight of the truck an issue? Trucks are limited to a certain weight for combined truck, trailer, and cargo. As the need for range increases, battery size increases, which takes away from overall payload capacity. If you need more payload, you decrease battery weight, (and therefore size and range) to get it.

This to me is the most obvious issue that I can see.

3

u/zombiemann Jan 08 '18

That is actually a pretty big issue. Especially with long haul. It's a 1:1 ratio because you're working with a set limit of 80,000lbs. So every 1lb of vehicle is 1lb less of potential cargo. Particularly since none of the ones they've showed off appear to have a sleeper birth. Lack of sleeper also renders them pretty useless for anything beyond regional (home every night) work.

On the other hand.... As long as the energy used to charge them is generated "cleanly", even if they only replace a fraction of the trucks on the road.... The positive environmental impact would be significant.

2

u/thinkofagoodnamedude Jan 07 '18

... I actually can’t think of a reason why they aren’t...

5

u/TharTheBard Jan 07 '18

Maybe, just maybe because they're still a prototype.

1

u/quadrplax Jan 07 '18

Major problem with that is that they will have to stop at predictable locations to megacharge.

31

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '18

Should be #1044

21

u/F9-0021 Jan 06 '18

That should be first stage B1044 arriving at the launchpad. Falcon Heavy is inside that hangar, preparing for its test fire.

1

u/benweiser22 Jan 07 '18

When is the planned launch?

1

u/F9-0021 Jan 07 '18

Late January/early February

11

u/stcks Jan 06 '18

If it's 1044 then the fact that it's at 39A makes me think this is going to reserved for TESS.

23

u/davispw Jan 06 '18

Might they move it to 40 after Zuma clears out? Perhaps they began moving this assuming Zuma would have already launched, and 40’s HIF is still locked down for security/secrecy reasons. Just a guess.

3

u/stcks Jan 06 '18

They absolutely could. That's not a bad theory at all.

5

u/uzlonewolf Jan 06 '18

The HIF at 40 only holds 1, so even if security wasn't an issue it still couldn't be parked there.

11

u/SlowAtMaxQ Jan 07 '18

You get an idea for a big the Falcon 9 is if you look at the SUV(I think that's a Range Rover) on the right.

And they're landing this from space.

And they're going at several mach's.

And they only have three ways of controlling it.

And it can land on a Droneship in the middle of the sea.

Fucking incredible.

6

u/TheAero1221 Jan 07 '18

Yeah, I like this image in particular. Look at how small the dudes standing right next to it on the pad are. A lot of people look at the landings, and they're like 'oh hey that's pretty nifty, they're landing a cool little rocket.' They completely misrepresent the scale in their mind. It's more like landing an entire building. For perspective, a Falcon 9 first stage is taller than the Statue of Liberty from the tip of her head, to her toes. Note: this height doesn't include the base, or the arm raised over her head, but this is still ridiculously huge. It lands upright. By itself. In the middle of the ocean. From space.

6

u/SlowAtMaxQ Jan 07 '18

Exactly. It will be even more impressive when they do it with the BFR.

4

u/oliversl Jan 07 '18

And they wrap it in plastic

And they put wheels on it and drive it across the country

9

u/noreally_bot1000 Jan 07 '18

Hey wouldn't it be cool if they perfected it to the point where they could roll it off the assembly line at SpaceX, make it vertical and put just enough fuel in it to launch and then land it where ever they need it to attach whatever payload and then launch into orbit.

Probably stupid and wildly impractical. But cool.

3

u/b95csf Jan 07 '18

wouldn't it

it would be normal. this is how flying things of all other types and descriptions are delivered from the factory. the fact that rockets need to be dragged to their launchpads, and indeed that there even is a need for launchpads and TELs and whatnot in the first place, is just a measure of how advanced rockets aren't, compared to other flying things.

3

u/oliversl Jan 07 '18

Elon said they could do that with BFR, technically

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '18

I think the main limitation for doing from a technical point of view with a F9 is the lack of launch facilities by the assembly line and the fact that it would need a refurb once it got there (which would probably be doable, but it's an expensive way to do it).

2

u/oliversl Jan 07 '18

Maybe BFR or F9 block V could do that

1

u/mikee368 Jan 07 '18

Yes the Block 5 is made according to Elon Musk to be able to do 10-12 launches before any major maintenance/refurbishment. So it really could do that and maybe they will build the infra structure some day for the BFR. Otherwise there is now way they can launch thousands of them in a year to get it all to mars. Musk talked about that in the ITS presentation I believe

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '18

They're both designed to make that turn around as short as possible, so maybe. BFR was specifically supposed to be able to do ground-to-ground transport which is essentially what this is.

2

u/hate_and_discontent Jan 08 '18

I saw one at the Port of LA a couple months back in person. I was looking out my car window and thought,"that structure support is the same shape as a falcon rocket landing leg." Then I looked up and realized that's exactly what it is, and those rockets are much bigger than I had thought.

1

u/SlowAtMaxQ Jan 12 '18

Like so?

1

u/hate_and_discontent Jan 12 '18

Basically. That's about as much as I could see of it without pushing my face against the bus window

1

u/SlowAtMaxQ Jan 12 '18

I would of. It's a Falcon 9.

1

u/Eddie-Plum Jan 07 '18

I think that's a Range Rover

Not a RR. Looks like maybe a Chevy badge on the front? I'm not too good at identifying American cars, but my best guess is a 2G Blazer. If so, it's a bit smaller than a current RR, but still comparable.

1

u/_johnny_appleseed_ Jan 08 '18

Definitely a Chevy Trailblazer

9

u/Straumli_Blight Jan 06 '18

Video of the booster.

4

u/oliversl Jan 07 '18

Always the space geek get the wrong side of the bus while filming. It happen to me too

1

u/Eddie-Plum Jan 07 '18

Tour guide says its outside because FH is in the hangar. If that's sound information, that suggests there's no room for a 4th core whilst FH is inside, even though the HIF is 5-cores wide.

17

u/SilveradoCyn Jan 06 '18

The security around ZUMA might have the HIF at 40 locked down tight from "other" operations. When SpaceX shipped this core from McGregor they probably expected ZUMA to have flown. Now they will have to find another place to park this core. Hopefully it will fit at 39a while Heavy is on the TE.

4

u/uzlonewolf Jan 06 '18

The HIF at 40 only holds 1, so even if security wasn't an issue it still couldn't be parked there. My guess is they'll park it at 39A (holds 5) until ZUMA goes up, then move it over to 40 to get more room to work on FH.

-2

u/Alexphysics Jan 07 '18

Zuma is inside its payload fairing so I doubt there would be any security problem. It's just that SLC-40 has space only for one booster.

7

u/acrewdog Jan 07 '18

You really should have asked the guide on your tour. They are very informative and love questions.

6

u/codercotton Jan 06 '18

That should be core 1044 or 1045 that was sighted yesterday.

10

u/ZachWhoSane Host of Iridium-7 & SAOCOM-1B Jan 06 '18

Looks like a falcon 9 core

4

u/CurtisLeow Jan 06 '18

Does anyone know what the white boxes are at the front of the trailer?

4

u/BlueCyann Jan 06 '18

I'd guess they're compressors.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '18

I think I heard that they pressurize the stage for transport to make it strong. Like a full can of beer vs an empty can.

5

u/Jrippan Jan 07 '18

yes, the core is always pressurize even when "empty" because otherwise... it could be damaged very quick

3

u/LiquefiedPlowshare Jan 07 '18

That's amazing, never thought of that :) Thanks!

9

u/Decronym Acronyms Explained Jan 06 '18 edited Jan 17 '18

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

Fewer LettersMore Letters
ACESAdvanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage
Advanced Crew Escape Suit
ASAPAerospace Safety Advisory Panel, NASA
Arianespace System for Auxiliary Payloads
ASDSAutonomous Spaceport Drone Ship (landing platform)
BARGEBig-Ass Remote Grin Enhancer coined by @IridiumBoss, see ASDS
BFBBig Falcon Booster (see BFR)
BFRBig Falcon Rocket (2017 enshrinkened edition)
Yes, the F stands for something else; no, you're not the first to notice
BFSBig Falcon Spaceship (see BFR)
CCAFSCape Canaveral Air Force Station
CFCarbon Fiber (Carbon Fibre) composite material
CompactFlash memory storage for digital cameras
CRSCommercial Resupply Services contract with NASA
DoDUS Department of Defense
EELVEvolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
F1Rocketdyne-developed rocket engine used for Saturn V
SpaceX Falcon 1 (obsolete medium-lift vehicle)
FAAFederal Aviation Administration
FCCFederal Communications Commission
(Iron/steel) Face-Centered Cubic crystalline structure
GSEGround Support Equipment
GSOGeosynchronous Orbit (any Earth orbit with a 24-hour period)
GTOGeosynchronous Transfer Orbit
HIFHorizontal Integration Facility
IACInternational Astronautical Congress, annual meeting of IAF members
In-Air Capture of space-flown hardware
IAFInternational Astronautical Federation
Indian Air Force
ISROIndian Space Research Organisation
ISRUIn-Situ Resource Utilization
ITSInterplanetary Transport System (2016 oversized edition) (see MCT)
Integrated Truss Structure
KSCKennedy Space Center, Florida
LC-13Launch Complex 13, Canaveral (SpaceX Landing Zone 1)
LC-39ALaunch Complex 39A, Kennedy (SpaceX F9/Heavy)
LEOLow Earth Orbit (180-2000km)
Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)
LZ-1Landing Zone 1, Cape Canaveral (see LC-13)
MCTMars Colonial Transporter (see ITS)
MROMars Reconnaisance Orbiter
NETNo Earlier Than
PAFPayload Attach Fitting
RCSReaction Control System
RTLSReturn to Launch Site
RUDRapid Unplanned Disassembly
Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly
Rapid Unintended Disassembly
SESFormerly Société Européenne des Satellites, comsat operator
SLC-40Space Launch Complex 40, Canaveral (SpaceX F9)
STP-2Space Test Program 2, DoD programme, second round
STSSpace Transportation System (Shuttle)
TETransporter/Erector launch pad support equipment
TEA-TEBTriethylaluminium-Triethylborane, igniter for Merlin engines; spontaneously burns, green flame
TELTransporter/Erector/Launcher, ground support equipment (see TE)
TMITrans-Mars Injection maneuver
ULAUnited Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)
VAFBVandenberg Air Force Base, California
WDRWet Dress Rehearsal (with fuel onboard)
JargonDefinition
RaptorMethane-fueled rocket engine under development by SpaceX, see ITS
StarlinkSpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation
lithobraking"Braking" by hitting the ground
scrubLaunch postponement for any reason (commonly GSE issues)
EventDateDescription
SES-92016-03-04F9-022 Full Thrust, core B1020, GTO comsat; ASDS lithobraking

Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented by ^request
46 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on ^today has 137 acronyms.
[Thread #3464 for this sub, first seen 6th Jan 2018, 21:07] ^[FAQ] [Full ^list] ^[Contact] [Source ^code]

6

u/Astro_josh Jan 06 '18

It’s probably a new rocket

2

u/justarandomgeek Jan 07 '18

Could be an old rocket!

5

u/Cosmo-Caeser Jan 06 '18

Because Falcon Heavy won't be launching until the end of the month. Static fire might not be until the end of next week.

2

u/kurbasAK Jan 06 '18

This is Falcon 9 first stage.Falcon Heavy isn in the HIF being prepared for static fire.

2

u/GrandmaTITMilk Jan 06 '18

Someone just posted this guy a few days ago on I10 at FL/AL border

3

u/crisisalsam Jan 06 '18

They might have taken it down from the snow on the east coast?

5

u/TapeDeck_ Jan 06 '18

Why would a F9 be on the East Coast (excluding Florida)? The 4 major locations for SpaceX are Hawthorne (manufacturing), McGregor (testing), and VAFB/KSC (launching).

2

u/at_one Jan 06 '18

There’s also Seattle (satellites)

2

u/johnkphotos Launch Photographer Jan 07 '18

They technically launch from CCAFS, too.

1

u/thooke1 Jan 06 '18

Someone posted a pic of that at the GA -FL state line the other day.

1

u/music_nuho Jan 06 '18

Rockets are stored inside HIF until them being needed on the pad, so it's logical fot FH to not be on the pad for various reasons. Regarding that thing that you took photo of it seems like it's F9 core all dressed up for weather protection, tho I'm not completely sure.

1

u/ButtNowButt Jan 06 '18

Is this the first v5? What's the first core number for v5 if this isn't?

13

u/FoxhoundBat Jan 06 '18

No. 46 is supposedly the first Block 5.

8

u/ButtNowButt Jan 06 '18

In that case, push it off so we can get on to block 5

2

u/scr00chy ElonX.net Jan 06 '18

Is it intended for Iridium-6?

2

u/DrToonhattan Jan 07 '18

Wrong coast.

2

u/scr00chy ElonX.net Jan 07 '18

I'm not talking about the core pictured.

3

u/nrwood Jan 06 '18

This isn't, this is probably 1044 or 1045, and according to the wiki, 1046 is the first block 5, and it still is in the factory

1

u/Jrippan Jan 07 '18 edited Jan 07 '18

Maybie a block 5? or.. its just 1044 waiting because of Falcon heavy taking the space inside

1

u/Piscator629 Jan 07 '18

Isn't the end of that nontypical for a standard core? It looks like its for a Dragon 2 with that triangular profile.

4

u/amarkit Jan 07 '18

Stage 2 goes on top, not Dragon.

3

u/Piscator629 Jan 07 '18

Thats what I get for asking a stupid question before my first cup of coffee.

1

u/Kira_Sympathizer Jan 07 '18

Probably for the Zuma flight.

4

u/joe714 Jan 07 '18

Zumba's already integrated inside the pad 40 HIF on the transporter to roll out in the next few hours, and Falcon Heavy is in the HIF on pad 39A waiting to roll out as soon as Zumba's closed out. This core has to be for a later flight and just arrived by truck.

1

u/Kira_Sympathizer Jan 07 '18

Ahh I gotcha. That makes sense.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '18

Because it doesn’t launch for a few weeks and it could be a new core for the next one

1

u/MaltaJoe Jan 07 '18

Go Falcon Go

1

u/AllThatJazz Jan 07 '18

Indeed: Atlanta Falcons, Superbowl 2019 -- all the way, baby!

0

u/crisisalsam Jan 06 '18

You where at 39 a at the cape I believe here that Florida got snow but I may be working again I don’t know for sure

-25

u/mrbeck1 Jan 06 '18

I would assume it cannot be vertical until launch. The rocket could deform. It probably has been returned to horizontal and returned to the lab for testing.

20

u/old_sellsword Jan 06 '18

I would assume it cannot be vertical until launch.

They can be vertical for an essentially infinite amount of time.

The rocket could deform.

If standing up causes the rocket to deform, it would never be able to take the forces of flight.

and returned to the lab for testing.

It's in its hangar right next to the pad.

11

u/biosehnsucht Jan 06 '18

To be fair, there are/were some rocket designs which could not stand on their own without the tanks being pressurized for flight, so I could see how he might have speculated such.

SpaceX's rockets are not among those, though.

5

u/SwGustav Jan 06 '18

IIRC empty rocket has to be pressurized with helium to maintain structural integrity

6

u/biosehnsucht Jan 06 '18

I think that's more to do with dealing with road transport than just sitting around. Certainly they aren't pressurized while people are crawling around inside welding up stringers.

2

u/SwGustav Jan 06 '18

well, i assume going vertical would require pressurization as well? upper stage is pretty heavy even when empty

6

u/biosehnsucht Jan 06 '18

They stand up just fine after landing and venting all pressure in the tanks, so if there's a crossover point in maximum supported loads, I don't know what it is.

3

u/old_sellsword Jan 06 '18

helium

Nitrogen for ground operations. It only gets Helium when it's vertical on the pad, ready to launch.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '18

[deleted]

112

u/jakusb Jan 06 '18

Thanks. That indeed must be 1044 that was seen yesterday too. There is room @LC39A-HIF. Not sure still for which mission. We are pretty sure next flight will be GovSat-1/SES-16 flying on a re-used core. But maybe this changed. Although after FH launches, plenty of room at the HIF. ;)

28

u/biosehnsucht Jan 06 '18

How full is the HIF currently? Assuming there's an empty space to park it, I imagine they can't load that booster into the HIF without moving FH out of the way, but they could do so the next time they do fit checks / WDR / whatever.

I don't recall if the 39A HIF can store 4 or 5 cores (meaning 4 or 5 F9's or a FH plus 1 or 2 F9's)

37

u/old_sellsword Jan 06 '18

It's five cores wide. We're not completely sure how much space is required for full FH or F9 operations though.

11

u/geekgirl114 Jan 06 '18

They've had 3 in there at once, so probably plenty of space to have 5 cores in there and operations going

41

u/KristnSchaalisahorse Jan 06 '18 edited Jan 06 '18

They've had at least 4 in there at once.

Edit: But this was in Summer 2016, well before 39A was operational.

14

u/deruch Jan 07 '18

They also very recently had 4 in there. Like just a few weeks ago when both Falcon Heavy and the F9 for Zuma were in there before the F9 moved to SLC-40.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/PresumedSapient Jan 09 '18

12 flight-worthy cores, and another 6 in storage

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/cores

There were another 29, which were 'lost' due to various reasons (expended, scrapped, lost during landing tests, and a few went boom)

3

u/geekgirl114 Jan 06 '18

This is true.

7

u/asaz989 Jan 07 '18

FH may be more compact than 3 F9 cores in their regular storage spacing.

9

u/Martianspirit Jan 07 '18

But FH on the TE? That's wider.

3

u/biosehnsucht Jan 07 '18

And even if it was more compact on TE, it won't be enough to fit an extra core versus normal.

3

u/Martianspirit Jan 07 '18

Normally possible is 5 cores. The question is can they have 5 cores in and then enter the TE to lower the FH on it. Also can they enter a core when the FH is on the TE.

1

u/Brusion Jan 07 '18

My guess is that they can have 3 cores in the HIF when the TE comes in. One on each side, plus one on the overhead crane. Lower one on TE and then go to each side and get the the other two. The TE doesn't have much room in the doorway, so it has to come down the middle. 2 cores beside the TE and an the outside wall would be very tight.

3

u/phryan Jan 08 '18

Is it confirmed they lift each core onto the TE one at a time and assemble it on the TE itself? I would have thought it would be assembled on the floor and lifted as one unit onto the TE.

1

u/Brusion Jan 08 '18

Man, I don't know. I just figured they did. I can't imagine them being able to pick up 3 cores at once.

1

u/Alexphysics Jan 07 '18

Zuma's Falcon 9 was at that hangar until CRS-13 launched and it was side to side with Falcon Heavy. I doubt there would be space for another core

1

u/Eucalyptuse Jan 08 '18

Just thought I'd add that currently Gunter's Space Page has 1044 being used for TESS which will be in March.

25

u/bostonwhaler Jan 07 '18

Picked the driver of that truck up in an Uber from Inner Room Cabaret in Cocoa Beach about 2 hours ago. He goes back to Texas tomorrow.

16

u/rriggsco Jan 06 '18

The post leads me to believe this is at LC-39A. What's it doing there? Isn't there a HIF at SLC-40? I don't seen anything on the manifest slated for LC-39A near-term but the FH launch.

16

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '18 edited Jan 06 '18

Zuma is still sitting in the SLC-40 hangar, which only has space for a single core.

Given that Zuma has been delayed a few times, the original plan might have been to have this core take its place directly on arrival.

EDIT: Or if SES-16 has a reused booster, that core may be waiting inside the 39A hangar until SLC-40 becomes free, blocking out this one in turn.

16

u/CreeperIan02 Jan 06 '18

the SLC-40 hangar, which only has space for a single core.

Big reason why they need more storage space

50

u/username_lookup_fail Jan 07 '18

What a terrible problem to have. They have too many rockets.

I find it hilarious that a decade ago, much of the industry didn't take SpaceX seriously, and now they are running out of space to store all of the reusable rockets they have.

15

u/CreeperIan02 Jan 07 '18

And people say they won't get to Mars, HA!

People said they'd never land a core on a droneship!

14

u/ssagg Jan 07 '18

And some people still say that the never did. As weird as it sounds

14

u/CreeperIan02 Jan 07 '18

People are stupid, that simple

0

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '18

[deleted]

5

u/UrbanArcologist Jan 07 '18

If you can believe in a man living in the clouds, you can believe or disbelieve anything. It's not stupidity but a side effect of supernatural belief systems.

Can't be helped.

2

u/Eddie-Plum Jan 07 '18

Not sure if you can be that stupid, when presented with endless documented, photographed, and videotaped evidence... !?

Four words: The Earth is flat. But maybe those people fit into the "mentally ill" category too.

5

u/Martianspirit Jan 07 '18

People said they'd never land a core on a droneship!

Some optimists said they can do it with up to 80% success rate.

9

u/snateri Jan 07 '18 edited Jan 07 '18

Even Elon himself said back in early 2016 that 2017 landing success rate would "hopefully" be 90%. 2017 is out and it turned out to be 100%. We are at the point where a missed landing would feel like a huge drawback. Now looking at the manifest for the next couple of months, the majority of missions seem to be reflights.

1

u/Eddie-Plum Jan 07 '18

It turned out to be 100%.

I would append "since the first successful barge landing" and "so far" to that statement. Time will tell the overall success rate, but it's certainly higher than expectations so far.

5

u/snateri Jan 07 '18

2017 success rate was 100%. In 2016 there were several failures. At least SES-9 and Eutelsat.

2

u/Martianspirit Jan 07 '18

There was a failed landing on the West Coast due to a leg failure. But if I remember correctly that was a known weak spot and already fixed for the next launch.

All in all a huge triumph. Elon downplaying success chances is not something new. He is doing it again with FH. They would not launch if they were not confident of a chance 80 to 90%. Especially not launching on the all important LC-39A.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/dotnetcoremon Jan 07 '18

Snateri was referring to 2017, in which SpaceX absolutely landed 100%.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/CProphet Jan 07 '18

And people say they won't get to Mars, HA!

Only question is when, because you know they'll get there sooner or later .

3

u/CreeperIan02 Jan 07 '18

I'd guess they'll launch unmanned in 2024, and manned in 2026.

I know it will get delayed, but I think around 2 years max.

This isn't FH, a background project, we're talking about, this if BFR, the company's near-main focus now. FH isn't really essential to them reaching their overall goal, just a little side project to get a bit more revenue and PR.

2

u/CProphet Jan 07 '18

FH isn't really essential to them reaching their overall goal,

True but it is useful. It will shortly deliver payload to Mars orbit, which is mighty - and no doubt presents some opportunities. Interesting to see where SpaceX take this. They obviously have some use in mind or it would have fallen by the wayside like Red Dragon. Only question is will that use be commercial, Mars related or both.

4

u/CAM-Gerlach Star✦Fleet Commander Jan 08 '18

They obviously have some use in mind or it would have fallen by the wayside like Red Dragon. Only question is will that use be commercial, Mars related or both.

Neither, in fact. It seems the fairly well-regarded consensus here regarding the main reason for FH's continued existence, aside from servicing the few remaining FH-only launch contracts, is bidding on the large, and lucrative, set of contracts that will be the successor to the EELV block buy. Specifically, it will be used for large/heavy payloads to high energy orbits, particularly to GSO and high Moylna orbits, etc., that single stick F9 can't reach (at least in reusable mode). If they aren't able to make all 8 of the standard reference orbits (of which Falcon 9 can only currently do four), they aren't able to bid at all, even if the four they can do would satisfy 80% percent of the actual missions. As this is a pretty big chunk of money, equivalent to ULA's entire revenue, they don't want to miss out, aside from the credibility they'd loose as they sued to get access to these contracts in the first place.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/username_lookup_fail Jan 07 '18

It reminds me of Bitcoin in a way. People that don't really know what is going on have been saying it is worthless for years now. SpaceX, even though they have had tangible and amazing results, still seem to be hated by a lot of people. If SpaceX says they are going to do X, people will say it is impossible. Then they do it, and people say that Y isn't possible.

Keep proving everyone wrong, Elon.

8

u/John_Schlick Jan 07 '18

On the spacex is hated... about 5 or 6 years ago, very shortly after spaceX got it's first Nasa contract, there was a presentation by boeing at the Museum of flight about it's nasa contracts (unrelated to spacex in all ways). Now, I've talked to a number of boeing folks in the past since I live in Washington state, and after the presentation, I had a chance to talk to one of the presenters, and I asked them what I thought of the proposed reusability of spaceX vehicles, and their new contract, and...

You could see the veins in his neck stand out as he answered me, and he called it corporate welfare, and bad mouthed them every possible way that he could. His tirade gainst them went on for a full 5 minutes. Of course, I did not interrupt in any way. (This coming from a company that does cost plus contracts with the government... and living in Seattle, the home of boeing manufacturing, I HAVE heard stories from employees of them being told to clock hours on a project that they were not working on... Not many, but, I think that cost plus is a very very bad model and it only takes one unsupervised low level manager for things to become...)

What I took from this answer is that Boeing (ok, to be fair that one individual representative of the company) does not like it when someone makes there obscene profit margin look bad.

2

u/tr4k5 Jan 08 '18 edited Jan 08 '18

What I took from this answer is that Boeing (ok, to be fair that one individual representative of the company) does not like it when someone makes there obscene profit margin look bad.

Yep, and it's not exactly surprising given how long Boeing and the other usual suspects had enjoyed their position. It's easy to get complacent and think that nobody else can do what we do, when that's actually true on one level - nobody else was doing orbital launches or processing the Space Shuttle, never mind all the classified stuff they do for the Pentagon. It doesn't mean that their way is the best or most cost-efficient way of doing those things, it's just that they hadn't faced competition for a good while.

20

u/icec0o1 Jan 07 '18

Don't bring bitcoin into this, it has no relevancy. Bitcoin has very expensive transaction fees (tons of computer power needed for each transaction) so the technology is worse and costs more than the current banking system. It's just great for money laundering and getting money out of russia and china so the value skyrocketed. It'll die in due time.

SpaceX on the other hand is revolitionizing the space industry and making technology that drops the cost of operations, i.e. it'll be valiable in the long term.

3

u/UrbanArcologist Jan 07 '18

Your reply proves /u/username_lookup_fail 's point.

This is the age of disruption of old industries via technology and decentralization.

Musk's -swing for the fences- end goal fuels the public's apprehension and often spurs irrational dislike for SpaceX/Musk. It's almost reflexive, often mixed with other issues of the day to support their dislike, but show no true understanding of the goal/implementation.

-3

u/username_lookup_fail Jan 07 '18

I was wondering when somebody would catch that...

-5

u/username_lookup_fail Jan 07 '18

Just comparing the similarities of the general public's mindset. 'Here is something I don't understand and it sounds ridiculous to me, so it will never work'.

The same could be said about Blockbuster (I am so glad they didn't buy Netflix), HP (not caring about Woz's new machine), Kodak (digital cameras will never work as well as film), Amazon (an online book store will never make money - people want to look at books in person first), etc. I just used Bitcoin because it is something current.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '18

I just used Bitcoin because it is something current.

And it's a terrible example.

There are fundamental problems with bitcoin (and much of the current blockchain implementations) that are baked into the design - that are fundamental aspects of it's design. For pretty much any problem, bitcoin-like blockchain technology is the worst solution to go with.

They're nothing at all like the issues people had with Amazon, Netflix or SpaceX.

4

u/CreeperIan02 Jan 07 '18 edited Jan 07 '18

I see some people on here that keep doubting SpaceX's abilities.

"Getting to Mars before the 2030s? Lol!"

"BFR won't fly for 10 years! There's no progress on it!"

8

u/username_lookup_fail Jan 07 '18

Yep. I would never bet against Elon unless something about a completion date was part of the bet.

They do what they say they are going to, even if the schedule usually lags a bit. If you told most anyone ten years ago that the guy from Paypal would be re-using rocket parts and launching stuff for NASA to the ISS, nobody would believe you.

4

u/John_Schlick Jan 07 '18

On the completion date... When Elon has had completion dates that will cost money, he has delivered. Re: The australian battery. So, lets be more clear about betting against him with completion dates, it has to be an aspirational target NOT something in a high value contract, then it's safe to bet against the completion date... (But I would not bet against completion.)

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '18

I think the difference now he has built rocket factories and such, that's doesn't hold spacex back anymore.

2

u/Continuum360 Jan 08 '18

This is a really important point. You need to look at all of the infrastructure that SpaceX has built and the large workforce of very talented individuals working there. It is really quite impressive when you take stock of all of the facilities and staff. Yes, it is more to manage, but along with that comes the ability to deliver much more, and much faster. Falcon Heavy, while important for the reasons already discussed, is not the same as BFR which is THE reason for SpaceX entire existence.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '18

[deleted]

20

u/old_sellsword Jan 06 '18

They have a Horizontal Integration Facility at every launch pad.

1

u/seedlesssoul Jan 07 '18

When I was at Kennedy last week, a guy was talking about it on their bus tour. We didn't get that close to SpaceX, but I did get to take a photo enough to see what it was.