In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that we have issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to Space Explorations Technology Corporation (SpaceX), to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals incidental to boost-backs and landings of Falcon 9 rockets at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, and at a contingency landing location approximately 30 miles offshore.
Great find... thanks for starting this thread. The federal register thing dates back a bit though, does it not? Or was there a similar notice in the past for something else SpaceX related?
Do other launch providers that just drop their stages into the ocean have to file such things? Seems to me dropping a whole atlas v or delta stage into the ocean would pose more risk to the whales than trying to recover them....In other news, I want a "Save the whales, fly SpaceX" t-shirt .
Quote from: yokem55 on 06/03/2016 06:52 pmDo other launch providers that just drop their stages into the ocean have to file such things? Seems to me dropping a whole atlas v or delta stage into the ocean would pose more risk to the whales than trying to recover them....In other news, I want a "Save the whales, fly SpaceX" t-shirt .It isn't whales, it is pinnipeds.
Even less to worry about, then. Pinnipeds (seals) stick relatively close to shore.
Quote from: Jim on 06/03/2016 08:24 pmQuote from: yokem55 on 06/03/2016 06:52 pmDo other launch providers that just drop their stages into the ocean have to file such things? Seems to me dropping a whole atlas v or delta stage into the ocean would pose more risk to the whales than trying to recover them....In other news, I want a "Save the whales, fly SpaceX" t-shirt .It isn't whales, it is pinnipeds.Even less to worry about, then. Pinnipeds (seals) stick relatively close to shore.
The solution is obvious: require the sea lions to wear hearing protection.
And this time I found the application materials as well:SpaceX Falcon 9 Rocket Recovery in California and the Pacific Ocean (2016)
After reviewing and analyzing available data and information on existing conditions and potentialimpacts, including the 2016 EA, the FAA has determined the issuance of licenses to SpaceX to conductFalcon 9 boost-backs and landings at SLC-4W or on a barge would not significantly affect the quality ofthe human environment within the meaning of NEPA. Therefore, the preparation of an environmentalimpact statement is not required, and the FAA is independently issuing this FONSI. The FAA has madethis determination in accordance with applicable environmental laws and FAA regulations. The 2016 EAis incorporated by reference into this FONSI.
Looks like SpaceX has now got the all-clear to do both ASDS and RTLS from SLC-4W at Vandenberg AFB.
Quote from: acsawdey on 11/10/2016 06:18 pmLooks like SpaceX has now got the all-clear to do both ASDS and RTLS from SLC-4W at Vandenberg AFB. Still need Air Force clearance
SpaceX close to landing rocket boosters next to its Southern California launch siteBy: Sandy Mazza ([email protected])POSTED: Sunday, Sept. 10, 2017 - 3:14 p.m. UPDATED: A DAY AGO
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.
Doesn't give a timeframe for FAA approval but claims most steps in the approval process are completed:QuoteSpaceX close to landing rocket boosters next to its Southern California launch siteBy: Sandy Mazza ([email protected])POSTED: Sunday, Sept. 10, 2017 - 3:14 p.m. UPDATED: A DAY AGOhttp://www.dailybreeze.com/business/20170910/spacex-close-to-landing-rocket-boosters-next-to-its-southern-california-launch-siteAlso talks about something else interesting I've missed:QuoteWhile 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.Some more details in the article (including feedback from NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service).
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".
Federal regulators, still poring over the company’s Vandenberg landing-license application, declined to release any time line for the process....
do some mitigating preparations to protect ocean life from sonic booms
Now the "diverted from the ground by sensitive base operations" is really interesting. Where, I wonder, did he get that?
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.
but it doesn't seem possible toQuote do some mitigating preparations to protect ocean life from sonic boomsother than to put helmets with ear covers on the seals.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/09/2017 03:14 pmNice photo from Shorealone Films flickr shots prior to the Iridium 3 launchLooks like they are prepping to test post landing servicing of S1 at west coast landing facility
Nice photo from Shorealone Films flickr shots prior to the Iridium 3 launch
Quote from: Wolfram66 on 10/09/2017 04:55 pmQuote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 10/09/2017 03:14 pmNice photo from Shorealone Films flickr shots prior to the Iridium 3 launchLooks like they are prepping to test post landing servicing of S1 at west coast landing facilityThat first stage is F9R Dev 2 and it has nothing to do with SLC-4W except that the area it’s sitting on was unused space. It’s been at VAFB for a long time, and outdoors in that exact same location for almost a year now; it got kicked out of the HIF as Iridium-1 approached in late 2016.
At this point, is the hardware F9R Dev2 sits on (the wheel truck or whatever) worth more than F9R Dev2 itself?
no, they are likely wooden cradles like seen on the east coast
Quote from: Jim on 10/10/2017 01:02 pmno, they are likely wooden cradles like seen on the east coastThey're not. If you look closely you can see wheels on the rear section and the front has the older booster cap attached.
They could be out dated and only useful for V1
Definitely looks like VIP guests were given a tour of LZ-2! https://www.instagram.com/p/BaDepS4Fwsy/
The final NOAA judgement on F9 boostback and landing at SLC-4W and on the ASDS and its affects on marine mammals.https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/25/2017-23134/takes-of-marine-mammals-incidental-to-specified-activities-taking-marine-mammals-incidental-to
Dates and DurationThe planned project would occur from December 1, 2017 through November 30, 2018. Up to twelve Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities would occur per year. Precise dates of Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities are not known. Falcon 9 First Stage recovery activities may take place at any time of year and at any time of day. The IHA, if issued, would be valid from December 1, 2017 through November 30, 2018.
MitigationUnless constrained by other factors including human safety or national security concerns, launches would be scheduled to avoid boost-backs and landings during the harbor seal pupping season of March through June, when practicable.
FWIW the document indicates no significant harrassment of marine mammals from ASDS landings. So even if landings are limited during harbor pup season, it would only be RTLS that would be affected. The core wouldn't be expended.
Quote from: cscott on 10/26/2017 03:56 pmFWIW the document indicates no significant harrassment of marine mammals from ASDS landings. So even if landings are limited during harbor pup season, it would only be RTLS that would be affected. The core wouldn't be expended.Yeah, the harassment occurs mainly to animals that are on the beach and scared into the water by the sonic booms and landing burn noise.
During our remote camera setup next to the Iridium launch pad two weeks ago, we noticed a team down the slope, setting up 6 microphones stands. Not sure if this is part of ongoing sound data collection for RSTL...
VAFB have just posted findings of no significant impact for SpaceX landing boosters at VAFB (attached). The FONSI assessment is dated April 2016, with a supplemental Iridium update dated September 2016.
RTLS AT VANDENBERG!!!!!WOOHOO!1202-EX-ST-2018 https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=85873&RequestTimeout=1000
SpaceX may finally land one of its rockets on the California coast later this yearFinally: a land landing at VandenbergBy Loren Grush@lorengrush Jul 6, 2018, 11:42am EDTAfter mastering its rocket landings on the Florida coast, SpaceX wants to try the same trick in California. The company recently filed an application with the Federal Communications Commission to land one of its Falcon 9 rockets on ground at Vandenberg Air Force Base in southern California, following a launch from the facility there. If that happens, it’ll be the first time that SpaceX has done a land landing on the West Coast.
Hiya. Sorry for the level 10 newb question, but is the new VAFB landing zone visible from a publicly accessible location (on the off-chance there's no fog?) Any permits or permissions needed or does one just show up? Thanks!
SpaceX has an FCC experimental permit that gets renewed annually for launch vehicle RF checkouts. They added the new landing zone to the permit this time:0 Vandenberg AFB California North 34 38 0 West 120 36 57 LZ-4 SANTA BARBARA I don't know if "LZ-4" is official or if someone needed to get their paperwork done and made it up on the fly.
Are both landing pads at the Cape considered LZ-1, or are they separately LZ-1 and LZ-2?
Quote from: envy887 on 08/17/2018 01:15 pmAre 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.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/17/2018 01:47 pmQuote from: envy887 on 08/17/2018 01:15 pmAre 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.
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?
Quote from: docmordrid on 10/02/2018 11:47 pmIf, 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.
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.
Quote from: Jim on 10/03/2018 01:05 pmCome 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.
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.
Quote from: Jim on 10/03/2018 01:05 pmCome 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.
Hi all,Does somebody has an idea about that device on LZ-4? We can't see it at KSC...
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 true1) 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?
Quote from: Norm38 on 11/14/2018 04:57 pmI'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 true1) 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?The primary issue is probably the very expensive payload at SLC-6. If there was an equivalent payload being mated to a F9 insice the LC-4 hangar, they would not allow a landing just outside.As far as the difference during launch vs landing, they perceive that a launch as more active control and can be terminated more effectively... versus a landing stage that can malfunction fall dead "anywhere". Is it a valid concern? Maybe, maybe not. But it will take many landings for them to feel more confident about it.
During launch, the IIP lingers a lot longer, the vehicle is 100x as dangerous, and an abort buys you relatively little.
During return, the IIP is on the landing site or beyond, the vehicle is empty, and not only is an abort really effective, but by default the vehicle can be made to overshoot or otherwise miss by a large margin.
Quote from: meekGee on 11/14/2018 10:34 pmDuring launch, the IIP lingers a lot longer, the vehicle is 100x as dangerous, and an abort buys you relatively little.No. During the launch the IIP moves quickly across LC-6. Not so during boost-back, as the IIP is fairly wide and lingers after the boost-back burn is complete. (see below for more detail)Quote from: meekGee on 11/14/2018 10:34 pmDuring return, the IIP is on the landing site or beyond, the vehicle is empty, and not only is an abort really effective, but by default the vehicle can be made to overshoot or otherwise miss by a large margin.No. At least for CCAFS, the boost-back burn puts the IIP short of the landing site (ocean), and the grid fins steer it past the landing site, and the final landing burn targets the landing spot. This was pretty conclusively shown during the FH booster landing discussions on this forum. So the IIP keeps moving back and forth.And your "can be made to" phrase assumes a vehicle that you do not lose control of.
Quote from: Lars-J on 11/14/2018 11:47 pmQuote from: meekGee on 11/14/2018 10:34 pmDuring launch, the IIP lingers a lot longer, the vehicle is 100x as dangerous, and an abort buys you relatively little.No. During the launch the IIP moves quickly across LC-6. Not so during boost-back, as the IIP is fairly wide and lingers after the boost-back burn is complete. (see below for more detail)Quote from: meekGee on 11/14/2018 10:34 pmDuring return, the IIP is on the landing site or beyond, the vehicle is empty, and not only is an abort really effective, but by default the vehicle can be made to overshoot or otherwise miss by a large margin.No. At least for CCAFS, the boost-back burn puts the IIP short of the landing site (ocean), and the grid fins steer it past the landing site, and the final landing burn targets the landing spot. This was pretty conclusively shown during the FH booster landing discussions on this forum. So the IIP keeps moving back and forth.And your "can be made to" phrase assumes a vehicle that you do not lose control of.Remember the Antares failure? If you count seconds, not to mention risk-seconds, not to mention risk-damage-seconds - launch is worse.
Quote from: meekGee on 11/14/2018 11:54 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 11/14/2018 11:47 pmQuote from: meekGee on 11/14/2018 10:34 pmDuring launch, the IIP lingers a lot longer, the vehicle is 100x as dangerous, and an abort buys you relatively little.No. During the launch the IIP moves quickly across LC-6. Not so during boost-back, as the IIP is fairly wide and lingers after the boost-back burn is complete. (see below for more detail)Quote from: meekGee on 11/14/2018 10:34 pmDuring return, the IIP is on the landing site or beyond, the vehicle is empty, and not only is an abort really effective, but by default the vehicle can be made to overshoot or otherwise miss by a large margin.No. At least for CCAFS, the boost-back burn puts the IIP short of the landing site (ocean), and the grid fins steer it past the landing site, and the final landing burn targets the landing spot. This was pretty conclusively shown during the FH booster landing discussions on this forum. So the IIP keeps moving back and forth.And your "can be made to" phrase assumes a vehicle that you do not lose control of.Remember the Antares failure? If you count seconds, not to mention risk-seconds, not to mention risk-damage-seconds - launch is worse.For the launch pad where the rocket is launched, yes. But not for LC-6 from an LC-4 launch. Once the IIP reaches LC-6 it passes quickly.
I'd feel much safer at LC-6 during the return leg, where there's a passive divert safeguard, plus am effective FTS option. Neither of these is effectively available during launch, the fuel load is much higher, and so is the risk of failure (higher energies, higher stresses).
Quote from: meekGee on 11/15/2018 12:58 amI'd feel much safer at LC-6 during the return leg, where there's a passive divert safeguard, plus am effective FTS option. Neither of these is effectively available during launch, the fuel load is much higher, and so is the risk of failure (higher energies, higher stresses).What? Are you not familiar with all the trouble SpaceX (and all other launch provider) go through to create a fool proof FTS system for the launch??
Quote from: Lars-J on 11/15/2018 01:14 amQuote from: meekGee on 11/15/2018 12:58 amI'd feel much safer at LC-6 during the return leg, where there's a passive divert safeguard, plus am effective FTS option. Neither of these is effectively available during launch, the fuel load is much higher, and so is the risk of failure (higher energies, higher stresses).What? Are you not familiar with all the trouble SpaceX (and all other launch provider) go through to create a fool proof FTS system for the launch??I have never heard of a fool proof FTS system... Not even close.
Failure near launch will always result in a fiery shit storm on the ground below, the FTS can only try to diminish it.
Quote from: meekGee on 11/15/2018 01:24 amQuote from: Lars-J on 11/15/2018 01:14 amQuote from: meekGee on 11/15/2018 12:58 amI'd feel much safer at LC-6 during the return leg, where there's a passive divert safeguard, plus am effective FTS option. Neither of these is effectively available during launch, the fuel load is much higher, and so is the risk of failure (higher energies, higher stresses).What? Are you not familiar with all the trouble SpaceX (and all other launch provider) go through to create a fool proof FTS system for the launch??I have never heard of a fool proof FTS system... Not even close. How many FTS systems (for US launch providers) have accidentally been triggered? How many FTS systems have failed to work when they needed to? I can't think of any... But feel free to correct me. That's pretty impressive statistics for a set of bombs strapped to rockets controlled by radio signals.Quote from: meekGee on 11/15/2018 01:24 amFailure near launch will always result in a fiery shit storm on the ground below, the FTS can only try to diminish it.Obviously. But the discussion is about dangers for LC-6, not the launch pad itself. That's how this discussion got started. For LC-6, launch has a high damage potential for a short time (as the IIP passes over/near), for landing it is lower damage potential for an extended time (all the way from end of boost-back to landing). Danger that they do not have sufficient experience with to quantify accurately. As confidence in SpaceX's booster landings grow they will worry less and less.
So in practically every aspect, being on LC-6 during the return leg is safer, by a lot, then during the outbound leg.
Quote from: meekGee on 11/15/2018 01:47 amSo in practically every aspect, being on LC-6 during the return leg is safer, by a lot, then during the outbound leg.Sez you. I have $xxxxM mission on the pad and you want to add $xxxM risk to my mission that will benefit you $xxM and that will cost you $xM for risk avoidance and benefit me how? You want to go for it, fine, but be prepared to pay the insurance premiums (likely unavailable at any price); if you can't get any takers, then go fish, which is likely what they did.Occam's razor: They did the math and crunched the financials and no one is willing to take that bet. So they went with the $xM risk avoidance option (droneship landing).
Even if you want to argue that the added risk is minuscule, no matter how small the added amount of risk, when you divide by the 0 benefits*, you get infinity.
If you had to be at the LC-6 for one leg OR the other, from a safety perspective, which would you choose.
Not to start a whole side argument, but does the computer really care what coordinates are selected for the landing site, whether land or sea? Isn't landing experience cumulative and not site specific?
I mean, we can land the F9 on the White House lawn right now, right? Does it really matter what's underneath?
pads are painted with a radar-reflective coating.
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.
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 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?
Quote from: StuffOfInterest on 03/28/2019 01:37 pmI 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.
Quote from: WormPicker959 on 03/28/2019 06:16 pmQuote from: StuffOfInterest on 03/28/2019 01:37 pmI 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.
... The alternative would be to dogleg out of Florida or Boca Chica, which would be less than ideal. ...
Quote from: WormPicker959 on 03/28/2019 06:16 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).
The new pads were built with greater reflectivity in the pad material itself. That and the white paint could easily be reflective as well.