Shipbucket

The Russians chose the wrong way. And once you get up to around two million parts and 1500 tonnes there is only one right way. The crane lift stack method. Might as well design it the right way for all of your launchers over the 500 tonne class.

Space X discovered that Falcon 9 is about the upper limit for the pivot derrick method.

Besides with the rocket assembly building, you can check the vertical stack out mechanically in a dry-launch condition. That turbine failure ( a common fault in the SSME RS-25 often found in the space shuttle and whole engine replaced during the stack process) would have shown up in a vertical stack preflight. It didn't in the horizontal for the Falcon with its Merlins. The turbine slipped through and the Falcon 9 exploded in flight.
A few questions Elon Musk is going to have to ask himself.
a. When the Falcon 9 starts carrying the Dragon, how is he going to access the capsule for crew ingress and egress.
b. What happens if he has to switch out payloads?
c. Bad weather rolls in. And suddenly you can't move the emplaced booster. The garage method allows a drain down of fuel/oxidizer and roll the rocket stack into a weather proof shelter specifically designed for it.
d. Rocket explodes on pad. 100% loss of launch capability. Without an umbilical service/erector and launch pad you might as well declare you are out of the satellite launch business. If you only lose the service tower, you clear away the wreckage, pour more concrete into a new launch pit, and reroute the railroad track, and roll up the spare service tower (You had three and now you have two and the one new one building to replace the one you lost. Takes about three months versus never again.

Besides most of the time the 300 meters roll back will save the tower. It's only when we see the moon rocket class of launchers that the fireball will be large enough to wreck the tower.

For the crewed Falcon 9, LC39A would be used, so that the existing Shuttle access tower could be reused after some modification. Modifications for vertical integration of USAF payloads would also have to be done, which would be a mixed horizontal (for the rocket) and vertical (for the payload) integration scheme, just like Delta IV.

The Delta IV is not pivoted from horizontal to vertical as seen here. Neither would USAF Falcon 9s. Those would have to conform to the existing American facilities.

Actually the lower two stages of the Delta IV are assembled horizontally then the stack is raised vertically and integrated with the payload in the service gantry.
Horizontal Integration Facility:

Delta IV stages being erected on pad:

Try that.

That is the rocket assembly shed/service tower. You can quibble terms all you want, but that is not the Russian method at all. It's a vertical stack procedure once the rocket core and strap-ons is levered into the garage. The garage at completion of the stack rolls back once the stack is complete and ready for flight. You know, payload, second and third stages and so forth?

Yes I know but it does combine the advantages of both pure horizontal and pure vertical processing. That is not their traditional rocket processing method but the Russians have adopted it already with the Soyuz launchpad at Kourou.

Err... what? It won't be USAF Falcon 9s, it'll be SpaceX Falcon 9s carrying a contracted USAF Payload, which will be integrated to the launch vehicle before rollout, just like every other contracted payload SpaceX launches, at either SLC-4 at Vandenberg or SLC-40 at Canaveral.
Where did you get that the Falcon 9 suffered a Turbine Failure? Me thinks you're mixing up the Orbital CRS Orb-3 Engine failure and the SpaceX CRS-7 Helium Bottle Strut Failure.(MOAR STRUTZ!) And the Merlin engines are 'All-American', is one of the selling points SpaceX pushes(looks over at the Atlas 5 & its RD-180 ebil russkie engine). As well, due to ITAR, couldn't be out-sourced.
One does not usual switch out payloads on the fly, if you do that, there's likely something badly wrong with the launch vehicle itself.

As for weather... umm, they have these things called weather radar, which will detect if there's a bad storm coming within the next few days. It's a non-issue after 50 years of space launches. It takes the Falcon 9 IIRC 30-45 minutes to defuel, and an hour to pivot horizontal and roll back into the Integration Facility. Baring freak weather, you'll get plenty of warning time to do this.

Er... not quite sure what to make of D. Failure on launch is rare, and even then, launch pads are insured. Orbital's having issues with the insurance company on that, so pad loss isn't a killer. And SpaceX's building an entirely new launch center in Brownsville, TX, so they're covered for launch pads.


Moving on to the artwork, not fond of the N2-style you've gone for, but to each their own. What I do like is the Vehicle Assembly Building and Mobile Servicing Tower you've drawn. I've been attempting to do similar for my personal stuff, but with my new computer setup, can't really work on things in detail due to screen resolution(TV as monitor).

_________________
95% of my drawings are destined for NS, 4.9% for fun, & .1% serious.
Worklist:
Space Shuttle
Atlas V
Delta II/III
Project Constellation
Soyuz series

1. American launcher carrying an American military payload. It will be treated as a USAF rocket. The launch contracts so specify. Space X is no different from United Launch Alliance.

2. The same place that Space X originally did.

Circulatory pump (Elon Musk said this.) indicated until the balloon theory was tested.

Design may be all American but some of the parts are made by subcontractors in China. Elon Musk said that, too.

Radar doesn't see everything unfortunately, which is why weather balloons are sent up as expendables.

Military payloads are removed and repaired after scrubs, because the satellites have to be defueled and components checked.. We just don't hear about it much.

As for loss of launch facilities, Wallup took a lot of damage. (* Surprised me. I thought the place was ay least Minuteman rated.) after the Antares blew up in mid air. They are still doing some ground repairs this date.

The N-2 (N-13) 'look' is probably the way that LF rockets would have looked in the 1950s, if Germans had not been involved. The one non-German influenced American rocket (Atlas) shares a surprising amount of structural similarity with the Russian R-7. I don't like the fluster cluck motor assembles either, but with the sphere oxidizer and doughnut propellant tanks, the natural conic shape makes sense given the weak engines they had. (Both the Americans and the Russians.) Not until the days of the mighty F-1s are you going to get away from the conic look.

What I am working on now is what would be the result if a space program developed 10,000 kNewton thrust solids for throwing a spaceplane into orbit.

Now then you would have your horizontal launch assembly and liftoff. Have you ever seen When Worlds Collide?

Not seeing where it mentions USAF other than they're assisting in the investigation, wrong link? And in any case, the point was that it would be using the same launch facilities & methods as the other Falcon 9 launches, just with additional security.
Not sure what you're trying to say here, this is all within line of the helium tank rupture AFAIK.
Then SpaceX would be in gross violations of ITAR, and the Govt's strict on ITAR. Doing a bit of research, SpaceX subcontracted the turbine manufacturing of the Merlin to Barber-Nichols, a US based company out of Colorado.
Apologies, I'd forgotten about upper level winds. But still, that's way up, and wouldn't prevent defueling and pivoting to horizontal and roll back into the Integration Facility.
Indeed, not heard of much. I think it's due to it only being demated from the launch vehicle if the turn-around time in measured in days & weeks, not hours. Otherwise, they check out the payload while still mated.
It did take quite a bit of damage, but the really valuable stuff survived. Most of the delays in repairs stem from the insurance issue I mentioned, as well as the Commonwealth of Virginia getting upset over Orbital moving 2-3 payloads from Wallops to Vandenberg atop Atlas Vs. Orbital got quite a bit of assistance from Virginia with the promise of all their payloads into orbit launching from Wallops.

Also, fun fact, during the Gemini-Titan launches, they had to rebuilt the launch tower every time due to heat damage. Would never be accepted today
Not structurally similar, but conceptually. Massive difference there But yes, gotta do what you gotta do when faced with weak engines and overmassed payloads demanding to be shot into orbit.
Dead crew? The shaking would be horrendous...
Uhh... you don't horizontally assemble Solids, too heavy. And one that has 10k kN thrust? Could the mega-block cranes HII uses for Carrier construction even lift that? Segmented sure, but not all-up integrated.

And if you mean the 50s movie, sadly no. Will attempt to correct this.

_________________
95% of my drawings are destined for NS, 4.9% for fun, & .1% serious.
Worklist:
Space Shuttle
Atlas V
Delta II/III
Project Constellation
Soyuz series

Launches handled at military bases are military controlled under military protocol, even if the stiffs are contractors. That is one of the reasons Space-X and ULA want their own spaceports.

The helium tank strut fail was not even suspected until ground tests ruled out a gas pogo (runaway turbine) in the presurization system. I think it's a bad design flaw, (Russian like) but then I'm not Space-X, who seemed to have embraced the N-12 follies with glee.

Barber Nichols would be the ones in violation (and they are.) but specifically, HTBH would Space-X know where its American subcontractors obtained their parts? ULA Atlas launchers in a similar case are using defective original Russian engines when they are supposed to be using American built copies.

Wind shear happens on the ground, as well as heat lightning and a few dozen other electrical phenomena that rockets really hate. Besides even if the radar sees a line of squalls headed your way you still need to shelter that rocket, whether you can roll it into shelter in 2 hours or not. Defuelling may be minutes, but how about spooldown for the other mechanicals involved and the avionics packages? A day at least. Especially with a blown launch window.

Been there and seen that. Most birds (satellites not launchers) are packed with storable VOLATILES that you don't want to let sit on the pad. The stuff is safe in space in vacuum, but oddly enough, Earth's atmosphere is murder on a lot of the systems (RCS for example) in play. Free oxygen is contradicted. A small leak and if the EPA isn't on you, the engineers in charge of the particular package will be.

Wallups was not really rated as a satellite launch support site. What choice did Orbital have? They have manifest schedules they have to keep and Vandenberg is ready to go. Besides if it boloes at Vandy it becomes an air force headache. You still have that flame damage and that launch pit knocked out.

As for Gemini, well they were dumb in those days. A Titan puts out a hot wide flame, because it is a huge war rocket expected to clear its launch site rapidly before the enemy can bomb it. That means the blowtorch was somewhat NASA underestimated. Somebody there apparently goofed when they opted to use it as a manned vehicle from existing Mercury facilities. Additional to that, I don't remember a single launch of a really large rocket where shock and heat damage to the launch pit and service tower was not present for either the Americans or Russians. Somebody is going to be painting grinding and welding on something post launch.

Want to explain what besides the gas pressurization system that keeps early Atlas together (that balloon pressurization system) is different from the R-7? Both use the propellant oxidizer core carrier and drop vernier engines as the chemicals are burned down, putting all of it through the core nozzles. That is too similar to be an accident.

Solids as shakers. Hmmm. Space shuttle? If you solve the harmonic in the burn candles (the Americans did in 1969.) then the solids should work. (as they did and do. The SRBs haven't gone away.).

A solid rocket motor (10,000 kNewton+ class) horizontal no less.

With that out of the way, let's look at the alternative to an N-12 system.



This would not be too different from the pivot lever system the Russians use as most of the rockets do not exceed 250 tonnes mass.

However....



Once you get into the 2000 tonne loads and the desire to throw 737s into orbit using 1950's tech, things get a bit complex and scarey.