Author Topic: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities (Read 86104 times)

envy887 · « **Reply #60 on:** 08/17/2018 01:53 pm »

Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/17/2018 01:47 pm

Quote from: envy887 on 08/17/2018 01:15 pm
Are both landing pads at the Cape considered LZ-1, or are they separately LZ-1 and LZ-2?

During FH side core landings SpaceX countdown net referred to them as LZ-1 & LZ-2.

Then the 3rd planned (south) pad at the Cape would be LZ-3, which would make the SLC-4W pad LZ-4 if SpaceX wanted them sequential to avoid confusion.

cscott · « **Reply #61 on:** 08/17/2018 02:38 pm »

Quote from: envy887 on 08/17/2018 01:53 pm

Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/17/2018 01:47 pm
Quote from: envy887 on 08/17/2018 01:15 pm
Are both landing pads at the Cape considered LZ-1, or are they separately LZ-1 and LZ-2?

During FH side core landings SpaceX countdown net referred to them as LZ-1 & LZ-2.

Then the 3rd planned (south) pad at the Cape would be LZ-3, which would make the SLC-4W pad LZ-4 if SpaceX wanted them sequential to avoid confusion.

It's possible LZ-4 has been SpaceX's internal name for a while, since the idea of a Vandenberg LZ is at least as old as the three-landing-site renders at the Cape. So even though (as I understand it) there's no current plan for an LZ-3 at the Cape now, LZ-4 is keeping its original designation.

docmordrid · « **Reply #62 on:** 10/02/2018 11:47 pm »

If, per the below NSF tweet, SLC-4W is now Landing Zone-4, and Landing Zones-1&2 are at KSC, where is Landing Zone-3?

Hmmmm...Texas?

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1047240539257692161?s=19

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1047240539257692161

Alexphysics · « **Reply #63 on:** 10/03/2018 12:22 am »

As far as we are aware, LZ-3 doesn't exist and there's no SpaceX public plan to build a pad named like that. LZ-4 appeared first on FCC applications and permits and it's now on official statements from the 30th Space Wing. My thoughts when I saw it on the FCC permits were that it was named LZ-4 to keep the "4" on the name of the place (remember it was SLC-4W).

gongora · « **Reply #64 on:** 10/03/2018 12:33 am »

Quote from: docmordrid on 10/02/2018 11:47 pm

If, per the below NSF tweet, SLC-4W is now Landing Zone-4, and Landing Zones-1&2 are at KSC, where is Landing Zone-3?

Hmmmm...Texas?

At one time there seemed to be a planned Landing Zone 3 at the Cape, so the number may have been reserved.

Alvian@IDN · « **Reply #65 on:** 10/03/2018 01:29 am »

Quote from: gongora on 10/03/2018 12:33 am

Quote from: docmordrid on 10/02/2018 11:47 pm
If, per the below NSF tweet, SLC-4W is now Landing Zone-4, and Landing Zones-1&2 are at KSC, where is Landing Zone-3?

Hmmmm...Texas?

At one time there seemed to be a planned Landing Zone 3 at the Cape, so the number may have been reserved.

Could be a BFS Landing Zone, so it will be larger than LZ-1, LZ-2, & LZ-4

gongora · « **Reply #66 on:** 10/03/2018 01:47 am »

There were originally plans for three landing pads for FH at the existing landing complex, but they scaled it back to two (there really isn't much of a market for FH with 3-core RTLS now that the performance of F9 has increased.)

Jim · « **Reply #67 on:** 10/03/2018 01:05 pm »

Come on, it's simple. It is LZ-4 because it is part of SLC-4. It isn't LZ-4 because it is the 4th one.

envy887 · « **Reply #68 on:** 10/03/2018 02:23 pm »

Trying to make sense of SpaceX naming conventions?

Why aren't LZ-1 and LZ-2 instead called LZ-13A and LZ-13B, or something like that?

tleski · « **Reply #69 on:** 10/03/2018 02:25 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 10/03/2018 01:05 pm

Come on, it's simple. It is LZ-4 because it is part of SLC-4. It isn't LZ-4 because it is the 4th one.

Are you sure on this since if we followed that convention the LZ-1 should be called LZ-13 because it is located at the site of the former LC-13 complex.
I am also not sure about if LZ-2/3 are designations used by Space X, since there is another LZ-2 planned at KSC
(north of LC39B) according to this post. It would not be unthinkable to refer to two/three different pads in a single landing zone LZ-1.

envy887 · « **Reply #70 on:** 10/03/2018 02:33 pm »

Quote from: tleski on 10/03/2018 02:25 pm

Quote from: Jim on 10/03/2018 01:05 pm
Come on, it's simple. It is LZ-4 because it is part of SLC-4. It isn't LZ-4 because it is the 4th one.
Are you sure on this since if we followed that convention the LZ-1 should be called LZ-13 because it is located at the site of the former LC-13 complex.
I am also not sure about if LZ-2/3 are designations used by Space X, since there is another LZ-2 planned at KSC
(north of LC39B) according to this post. It would not be unthinkable to refer to two/three different pads in a single landing zone LZ-1.

SpaceX called out LZ-1 and LZ-2 over the radio net after the Falcon Heavy booster landings. That's what they call the CCAFS pads.

tleski · « **Reply #71 on:** 10/03/2018 02:57 pm »

Apparently Space X needs to talk to Space Florida about the landing zone naming. Here is a quote from the James Dean's story published in Florida Today on August 5th:

Quote

Space Florida hopes the pads, now referred to as Landing Zone 2, could be available by mid-2020, anticipating more landings by SpaceX and the company’s goal to launch and land missions twice within 24 hours, which might require multiple landing sites.

And the image:

kessdawg · « **Reply #72 on:** 10/03/2018 06:33 pm »

Also: shouldn't it be landing pads 1 and 2 at LZ-1?

Jim · « **Reply #73 on:** 10/03/2018 06:33 pm »

Quote from: tleski on 10/03/2018 02:25 pm

Quote from: Jim on 10/03/2018 01:05 pm
Come on, it's simple. It is LZ-4 because it is part of SLC-4. It isn't LZ-4 because it is the 4th one.
Are you sure on this since if we followed that convention the LZ-1 should be called LZ-13 because it is located at the site of the former LC-13 complex.

No, because naming conventions have never been the same for both coasts.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #74 on:** 10/06/2018 10:28 pm »

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1048700657681592320

Zabinho · « **Reply #75 on:** 10/17/2018 09:36 am »

Hi all,
Does somebody has an idea about that device on LZ-4? We can't see it at KSC...

Zed_Noir · « **Reply #76 on:** 10/17/2018 09:49 am »

Quote from: Zabinho on 10/17/2018 09:36 am

Hi all,
Does somebody has an idea about that device on LZ-4? We can't see it at KSC...

It is a stand for supporting the core after landing.

IIRC, there is one somewhere close to LZ-1 & LZ-2 at CCAFS.

deruch · « **Reply #77 on:** 10/17/2018 11:10 am »

Quote from: Zabinho on 10/17/2018 09:36 am

Hi all,
Does somebody has an idea about that device on LZ-4? We can't see it at KSC...

It is the stand for the booster so they can work on it and/or take the legs off after landing. There is one close to the landing facilities at CCAFS and also one near their ASDS berths in either Port Canaveral or Port of Los Angeles. The one near the east coast landing facilities can be seen in the second picture attached to this post in the Eastern Range landing facilities thread and a more up close view can be had in the below linked video starting at about 6m41s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIzLMjiyBog?t=001

If you want to see a booster actually on one of the stands, just search youtube for any video showing them taking the legs off of a landed one. If you look through the video history of the group who's video is linked above (USLaunchReport) you'll find plenty of them.

Norm38 · « **Reply #78 on:** 11/14/2018 04:57 pm »

I'm having a hard time understanding how SpaceX is being prohibited from doing an RTLS on the upcoming SSO-A flight. Looking at the map, Launch Complexes 4 and 6 are 3.7 miles apart while Landing Zone 4 is 0.3 miles from Complex 4.

The following have to be true
1) If a nearly empty 1st stage crashing at LZ-4 can cause damage at LC-6, it will obliterate LC-4. But SpaceX put it there, and crashing 1st stages didn't destroy drone ships.

2) If a crash at LZ-4 can damage LC-6, then a fully fueled F9 explosion (AMOS-6) will cause orders of magnitude more damage.

3) The 1st Stage flies directly back to the landing site. With LZ-4 and LC-4 being so close, if the returning stage has to overfly LC-6, then so does the fully fueled F9 only seconds after launch where it could drop directly onto LC-6 if any failure occurred.

4) If the launch doesn't have to overfly LC-6, the landing doesn't have to either.

5) If a crash at LZ-4 will cause brush fires that destroy the base, so will a failure at LC-4, or LC-6 for that matter.

Therefore, if SpaceX is allowed to fuel and launch F9 with Delta IV-H at LC-6, they should be allowed to land there. How does this make any sense?

Scylla · « **Reply #79 on:** 11/14/2018 05:09 pm »

Quote from: Norm38 on 11/14/2018 04:57 pm

I'm having a hard time understanding how SpaceX is being prohibited from doing an RTLS on the upcoming SSO-A flight. Looking at the map, Launch Complexes 4 and 6 are 3.7 miles apart while Landing Zone 4 is 0.3 miles from Complex 4.

The following have to be true
1) If a nearly empty 1st stage crashing at LZ-4 can cause damage at LC-6, it will obliterate LC-4. But SpaceX put it there, and crashing 1st stages didn't destroy drone ships.

2) If a crash at LZ-4 can damage LC-6, then a fully fueled F9 explosion (AMOS-6) will cause orders of magnitude more damage.

3) The 1st Stage flies directly back to the landing site. With LZ-4 and LC-4 being so close, if the returning stage has to overfly LC-6, then so does the fully fueled F9 only seconds after launch where it could drop directly onto LC-6 if any failure occurred.

4) If the launch doesn't have to overfly LC-6, the landing doesn't have to either.

5) If a crash at LZ-4 will cause brush fires that destroy the base, so will a failure at LC-4, or LC-6 for that matter.

Therefore, if SpaceX is allowed to fuel and launch F9 with Delta IV-H at LC-6, they should be allowed to land there. How does this make any sense?

I could be wrong, but the reason I have heard most often is Sonic Boom + Seals/Seal Pups = No RTLS.