Author Topic: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities  (Read 7266 times)

Offline DOCinCT

Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #20 on: 09/11/2017 04:23 PM »
Maybe I missed something but isn't a launch with 9 Merlin engines firing a lot louder than a single Merlin engine during final approach and landing? (Ignoring the issue of the double sonic boom here).

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3857
  • Liked: 1205
  • Likes Given: 1032
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #21 on: 09/11/2017 04:55 PM »
Quote
While SpaceX hopes to rely on it for most West Coast landings, it also proposed to operate a second Pacific Ocean landing barge 31 miles off the Santa Barbara County coastline to recover boosters diverted from the ground by sensitive base operations.


Yeah, kabloona's interpretation matches mine as well.  The original article itself is very ambiguous about what it means by "second barge"; there's no clear statement they mean anything other than "first is Atlantic, second is Pacific".

Perhaps he meant "second, Pacific Ocean, landing barge"
Punctuation is really important.
And we all know the "31 km" stuff is just nonsense.  The ASDS goes where it needs to go.
Now the "diverted from the ground by sensitive base operations" is really interesting.  Where, I wonder, did he get that?

The gist seems to be
Quote
Federal regulators, still poring over the company’s Vandenberg landing-license application, declined to release any time line for the process....

but it doesn't seem possible to
Quote
do some mitigating preparations to protect ocean life from sonic booms
other than to put helmets with ear covers on the seals.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline deruch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1428
  • California
  • Liked: 1099
  • Likes Given: 1482
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #22 on: 09/12/2017 01:00 AM »
Now the "diverted from the ground by sensitive base operations" is really interesting.  Where, I wonder, did he get that?
It's directly from the NOAA Fisheries Environmental Assessment report.
Quote
The contingency action is necessary to provide for an alternative landing location if the Western Range deems that the first stage overflight of south VAFB is unacceptable due to potential impacts to critical assets or weather conditions or mission parameters do not permit for a successful landing attempt.  In this case,  the First Stage would be landed on an autonomous drone ship, no less than 31 mi. (50 km) offshore of VAFB.

The full EA can be found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research/spacex_2016iha_ea.pdf
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4023
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2199
  • Likes Given: 445
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #23 on: 09/12/2017 03:48 AM »

but it doesn't seem possible to
Quote
do some mitigating preparations to protect ocean life from sonic booms
other than to put helmets with ear covers on the seals.

Or give them headphones playing Barry White.

https://mobile.twitter.com/TalulahRiley/status/320421724644573184/photo/1


Tags: