Author Topic: SpaceX, Air Force assess more landing pads, Dragon processing at LZ-1  (Read 14476 times)

Offline Wolfram66

The drone video of the CRS-10 1st stage landing doesn't seem to chow any work being done for the next 2 landing pads.

I noticed that too.

So either they're:
1. starting clearing the padspace after the CRS-10 landing
2. Realizing they'll never launch FH during the nesting period
3. somehow landing the boosters on the center pad together, or,
4. (Extremely unlikely) going expendable on the boosters
5) Lease additional LC pads nearby rather than disturb virgin brush cover

Online MarekCyzio

The drone video of the CRS-10 1st stage landing doesn't seem to chow any work being done for the next 2 landing pads.

I noticed that too.

So either they're:
1. starting clearing the padspace after the CRS-10 landing
2. Realizing they'll never launch FH during the nesting period
3. somehow landing the boosters on the center pad together, or,
4. (Extremely unlikely) going expendable on the boosters
5) Lease additional LC pads nearby rather than disturb virgin brush cover
6) Waiting for all necessary approvals and for Scrub Jay's to finish nesting?

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7397
  • N. California
  • Liked: 3728
  • Likes Given: 787
This is all assuming the Scrub Jays don't suffer schedule delays of course.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Online IanThePineapple

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • NaN
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 48
This is all assuming the Scrub Jays don't suffer schedule delays of course.

Or if they work off Elon time, if so they'll stop nesting near 2030  8)
Proud creator of Ian's Paper Model Rocket Collection:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42383.0

Offline pb2000

  • Member
  • Posts: 56
  • Calgary, AB/Mesquite, NV
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 7
How close are the landing pads actually expected to be? You would think that >500m would be necessary to keep a safe navigation distance and prevent one RUD from taking out the second booster.

Launches attended: Worldview-4 (Atlas V 401), Iridium NEXT Flight 1 (Falcon 9 FT)

Offline dglow

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 713
  • California
  • Liked: 523
  • Likes Given: 1228
How close are the landing pads actually expected to be?

See the images here.

Offline old_sellsword

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 457
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 287
How close are the landing pads actually expected to be? You would think that >500m would be necessary to keep a safe navigation distance and prevent one RUD from taking out the second booster.

I did some rough approximation in Google Earth, the landing pads all appear to be about 1,000 feet from each other. The top yellow line matches to the top measurement box, the bottom yellow line matches the bottom measurement box. The red line is a copy of the top yellow one, rotated and aligned with the center of the south pad. As you can see, the north pad clears that red line by a little, confirming (in the loosest sense of the word) that all the pads are about 1,000 feet away from each other.

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22232
  • Liked: 473
  • Likes Given: 220
Land clearing has begun to the north, per May 16 Planet imagery update:

link

« Last Edit: 05/18/2017 01:56 PM by gongora »

Offline macpacheco

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • Vitoria-ES-Brazil
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 2259
How close are the landing pads actually expected to be? You would think that >500m would be necessary to keep a safe navigation distance and prevent one RUD from taking out the second booster.
The consecutive successes of SpaceX recovering every booster they set out to do since they finally figured it out suggest SpaceX might not even leave enough margin for a RUD destroying other boosters. Recovery isn't a critical mission. They can always build more boosters.

If a booster thinks it has significant damage its better to abort a landing and crash into the ocean or trigger FTS instead of landing and risking damage to ASDS or another booster.

I think their sole concern is the rocket engine blast between boosters don't topple/blow landed/landing stages away in normal conditions.
So far the SpaceX way of navigating boosters for landing has achieved such uncanny precision, that they could end up just taking whatever rocket blast/exaust safe distance, increase that by 50 or 100% and be done with it.
Looking for companies doing great things for much more than money

Online IanThePineapple

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • NaN
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 48
So it seems that pad construction has begun, or ground leveling
« Last Edit: 06/03/2017 10:03 PM by IanThePineapple »
Proud creator of Ian's Paper Model Rocket Collection:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42383.0

Offline speedevil

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Fife
  • Liked: 113
  • Likes Given: 85
I think their sole concern is the rocket engine blast between boosters don't topple/blow landed/landing stages away in normal conditions.
So far the SpaceX way of navigating boosters for landing has achieved such uncanny precision, that they could end up just taking whatever rocket blast/exaust safe distance, increase that by 50 or 100% and be done with it.

Considering the centre of gravity, and the directivity of the exhaust, I wonder if in fact the legs don't risk clashing before there is a concern of knocking over a booster.

Very certainly, it is 'ridiculously close', compared to explosion debris concerns.

Offline deruch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1374
  • California
  • Liked: 1069
  • Likes Given: 1345
How close are the landing pads actually expected to be? You would think that >500m would be necessary to keep a safe navigation distance and prevent one RUD from taking out the second booster.
The consecutive successes of SpaceX recovering every booster they set out to do since they finally figured it out suggest SpaceX might not even leave enough margin for a RUD destroying other boosters. Recovery isn't a critical mission. They can always build more boosters.

If a booster thinks it has significant damage its better to abort a landing and crash into the ocean or trigger FTS instead of landing and risking damage to ASDS or another booster.

I think their sole concern is the rocket engine blast between boosters don't topple/blow landed/landing stages away in normal conditions.
So far the SpaceX way of navigating boosters for landing has achieved such uncanny precision, that they could end up just taking whatever rocket blast/exaust safe distance, increase that by 50 or 100% and be done with it.
So, you're saying that in making plans for additional pads at LZ-1, SpaceX had the option to site them such that 1 crashing FH side core wouldn't take out the other one.  But, instead of doing that, they decided that since that wasn't likely to happen all that often they wouldn't bother? 

Seems like a bad idea not to plan for possible bad outcomes just because they weren't expecting them to happen.  Especially when the costs of planning for them aren't significantly higher than otherwise.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6099
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1503
  • Likes Given: 1243
To keep them farther apart they would have to lease more pads.

Online IanThePineapple

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • NaN
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 48
So it seems that LZ-1 has a new coat of paint.

Also, the northern pad seems to be progressing quite well.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2017 07:23 PM by IanThePineapple »
Proud creator of Ian's Paper Model Rocket Collection:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42383.0

Tags: