Author Topic: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities  (Read 74696 times)

Offline codav

Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #100 on: 11/21/2018 11:45 am »
I mean, we can land the F9 on the White House lawn right now, right?  Does it really matter what's underneath?

No, the SAMs stationed on the roof will definitely cause a RUD ;)

We don't know for sure, but from the webcasts and other sources we know that the landing sites establish comms with the incoming booster and the pads are painted with a radar-reflective coating. The booster would probably be able to actually land, but not with the same accuracy we see on the real landing pads. The comms/telemetry link with the pad might act as some kind of beacon used to correct the course, and the reflective paint helps the onboard radar to more accurately measure ground distance in the last few seconds before landing.

Offline OnWithTheShow

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Philadelphia, PA
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #101 on: 11/21/2018 01:40 pm »
pads are painted with a radar-reflective coating.

Unless the SpaceX logo itself is the radar reflective coating isnt the only pad with this treatment the original at the Cape? The other two seem to only have the logo and not the black circle.

Offline cppetrie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 792
  • Liked: 552
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #102 on: 11/21/2018 01:42 pm »
The new pads were built with greater reflectivity in the pad material itself. That and the white paint could easily be reflective as well.

Offline acsawdey

Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #103 on: 11/26/2018 10:01 pm »
A new filing related to RTLS at VAFB and it's impact on marine mammals:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/11/15/2018-24977/takes-of-marine-mammals-incidental-to-specified-activities-taking-marine-mammals-incidental-to

The proposal is for up to 12 RTLS in the next year (the Incidental Harassment Authorization is good for one year from the date of issue).

Quote
SpaceX proposes regular employment of First Stage recovery by returning the Falcon 9 First Stage to SLC-4 West (SLC-4W) at VAFB for potential reuse, up to twelve times per year. This includes performing boost-back maneuvers (in-air) and landings of the Falcon 9 First Stage on the pad at SLC-4W.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10311
  • US
  • Liked: 14132
  • Likes Given: 6032
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #104 on: 11/26/2018 11:45 pm »
The proposal is for up to 12 RTLS in the next year (the Incidental Harassment Authorization is good for one year from the date of issue).

I really wouldn't read that as intending anywhere near 12 RTLS in the next year.  I think it's more like they generally want to be able to fly up to 12 missions a year from Vandenberg, and they want to be able to RTLS as many as possible, and they want the authorization to apply to what they have planned for a while so it's easy to renew every year.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 49101
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 82992
  • Likes Given: 37286

Offline acsawdey

Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #106 on: 01/28/2019 03:47 pm »
Another "marine mammal" update for VAFB. This one appears to apply to all activities there not just SpaceX. Though there is quite a bit of discussion about F9 because of boost back and landing. One thing that is mentioned is SpaceX is proposing to use 3 engine landings.

Also in here is mention of New Glenn launching from VAFB.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/01/24/2019-00090/taking-and-importing-marine-mammals-taking-marine-mammals-incidental-to-us-air-force-launches-and

Offline StuffOfInterest

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 929
  • Just interested in space
  • McLean, Virginia, USA
  • Liked: 920
  • Likes Given: 231
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #107 on: 03/28/2019 01:37 pm »
I happened to end up on the Wikipedia article for the VAFB landing pad a little while ago.  It jumped out at me that the pad was signed to a five year lease in February, 2015.  Nothing in the article mentions a renewal or extension of that lease.

Considering that the five years will be up in only eleven months, does anyone know for how long the lease was extended or if a new agreement was reached?

Offline WormPicker959

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 221
  • NYC
  • Liked: 295
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #108 on: 03/28/2019 06:16 pm »
I happened to end up on the Wikipedia article for the VAFB landing pad a little while ago.  It jumped out at me that the pad was signed to a five year lease in February, 2015.  Nothing in the article mentions a renewal or extension of that lease.

Considering that the five years will be up in only eleven months, does anyone know for how long the lease was extended or if a new agreement was reached?

I haven't heard about it, but I imagine they'd extend it. The alternative would be to dogleg out of Florida or Boca Chica, which would be less than ideal. I'm not even sure you'd be able to dogleg out of BC, eventually you have to overfly Mexico. Not sure how far downrange overflight becomes OK.

Offline Tomness

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
  • Into the abyss will I run
  • Liked: 293
  • Likes Given: 743
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #109 on: 03/28/2019 06:40 pm »
I happened to end up on the Wikipedia article for the VAFB landing pad a little while ago.  It jumped out at me that the pad was signed to a five year lease in February, 2015.  Nothing in the article mentions a renewal or extension of that lease.

Considering that the five years will be up in only eleven months, does anyone know for how long the lease was extended or if a new agreement was reached?

I haven't heard about it, but I imagine they'd extend it. The alternative would be to dogleg out of Florida or Boca Chica, which would be less than ideal. I'm not even sure you'd be able to dogleg out of BC, eventually you have to overfly Mexico. Not sure how far downrange overflight becomes OK.

VAFB is for polar launches, most of their launches required landing on JRTI. So either they will extend it or use the opportunity to modify their environmental assessment to launch SuperHeavy & Starship.

Offline WormPicker959

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 221
  • NYC
  • Liked: 295
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #110 on: 03/28/2019 07:48 pm »
I happened to end up on the Wikipedia article for the VAFB landing pad a little while ago.  It jumped out at me that the pad was signed to a five year lease in February, 2015.  Nothing in the article mentions a renewal or extension of that lease.

Considering that the five years will be up in only eleven months, does anyone know for how long the lease was extended or if a new agreement was reached?

I haven't heard about it, but I imagine they'd extend it. The alternative would be to dogleg out of Florida or Boca Chica, which would be less than ideal. I'm not even sure you'd be able to dogleg out of BC, eventually you have to overfly Mexico. Not sure how far downrange overflight becomes OK.

VAFB is for polar launches, most of their launches required landing on JRTI. So either they will extend it or use the opportunity to modify their environmental assessment to launch SuperHeavy & Starship.

I'm aware it's for polar launches. Polar launches are possible at BC and FL, but at a cost with a dogleg. (BC is more iffy b/c of the Yucatan peninsula, I'm not sure how that factors into safety/security concerns) The AF just opened up a polar launch corridor from CCAFS last year.

Offline kdhilliard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1086
  • Kirk
  • Tanstaa, FL
  • Liked: 1578
  • Likes Given: 4103
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #111 on: 03/28/2019 11:36 pm »
... The alternative would be to dogleg out of Florida or Boca Chica, which would be less than ideal. ...
No, StuffOfInterest's question was about the SLC-4W lease where the SpaceX LZ-4 landing zone is (which has had only one landing to date), not the SLC-4E lease where the SpaceX launch pad is (with 14 Falcon 9 launches to date), so the primary alternative is landing on JTRI (possible close to shore for those RTLS capable missions).

Offline WormPicker959

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 221
  • NYC
  • Liked: 295
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #112 on: 03/30/2019 02:56 am »
... The alternative would be to dogleg out of Florida or Boca Chica, which would be less than ideal. ...
No, StuffOfInterest's question was about the SLC-4W lease where the SpaceX LZ-4 landing zone is (which has had only one landing to date), not the SLC-4E lease where the SpaceX launch pad is (with 14 Falcon 9 launches to date), so the primary alternative is landing on JTRI (possible close to shore for those RTLS capable missions).

Ah! I Thought he was talking about their entire pad operations at Vandy. My bad. They won't be landing first stages from vandy launches in BC or FL, that's for sure! ;P

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #113 on: 06/02/2019 03:47 pm »
The new pads were built with greater reflectivity in the pad material itself. That and the white paint could easily be reflective as well.
"Reflectivity" in this case is just extra rebar in the concrete AIUI.  So really pretty cheap and maintenance-free, compared to metallic paint.

Tags: LZ4 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0