Author Topic: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities  (Read 73611 times)

Offline acsawdey

SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« on: 06/03/2016 05:26 pm »
I found some interesting stuff pertaining to SpaceX's plans for landing first stages at VAFB, so others suggested I should start a separate thread for this.

The application (second link below) has some details about boostback and landing including 3-D trajectory back to the landing pad or the ASDS offshore, noise impact from sonic boom and rocket engines, what debris was recovered from the failed landings, and probably other things I didn't recognize as significant.

Quote
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.

Federal Register: Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Boost-Backs and Landings of Rockets at Vandenberg Air Force Base

And this time I found the application materials as well:

SpaceX Falcon 9 Rocket Recovery in California and the Pacific Ocean (2016)

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #1 on: 06/03/2016 06:03 pm »
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?
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline yokem55

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Oregon (Ore-uh-gun dammit)
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #2 on: 06/03/2016 06:52 pm »
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 .
« Last Edit: 06/03/2016 06:53 pm by yokem55 »

Offline acsawdey

Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #3 on: 06/03/2016 07:25 pm »
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?

I believe I had noticed and posted the preliminary government response earlier, which was also in the federal register. This is the final ruling, and this time there was enough information to find SpaceX's application that was submitted which is where the interesting stuff is.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #4 on: 06/03/2016 08:24 pm »
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 .

It isn't whales, it is pinnipeds.

Offline rpapo

Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #5 on: 06/03/2016 08:32 pm »
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 .

It isn't whales, it is pinnipeds.
Even less to worry about, then.  Pinnipeds (seals) stick relatively close to shore.
Following the space program since before Apollo 8.

Offline acsawdey

Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #6 on: 06/03/2016 08:38 pm »
Even less to worry about, then.  Pinnipeds (seals) stick relatively close to shore.

One of the inputs to the calculation is the average number of pinnipeds per square kilometer of open ocean for a whole bunch of species likely to be found in the area of the ASDS. As you say, not very many.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #7 on: 06/03/2016 10:35 pm »
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 .

It isn't whales, it is pinnipeds.
Even less to worry about, then.  Pinnipeds (seals) stick relatively close to shore.

it isn't a threat from debris, it is the sonic booms that make them rush to the water trampling the pups.

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #8 on: 06/03/2016 11:04 pm »
The solution is obvious:  require the sea lions to wear hearing protection.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline hamerad

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • South Australia
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #9 on: 06/04/2016 01:01 am »
The solution is obvious:  require the sea lions to wear hearing protection.

That just reminded me of this tweet.
https://mobile.twitter.com/talulahriley/status/320421724644573184

And the followup

https://mobile.twitter.com/talulahriley/status/320422298618302464

Sorry if offtopic

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #10 on: 06/04/2016 01:21 am »
The solution is obvious:  require the sea lions to wear hearing protection.
Better solution is to play music gradually louder prior to the launch so as not to startle the sea lions. My suggestion is Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries. :) Yes, from loudhailers mounted in helos like in  the Apocalypse Now movie.

Quite sure the sea lions will get use to the noise. After all the Rocket Cows of McGreger take the SpaceX engine tests as non-events.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2016 01:31 am by Zed_Noir »

Offline chalz

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 201
  • Austrangia
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 1668
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #11 on: 06/04/2016 01:23 am »
This post first mentioned the EIS for the Vandenberg pad. Some discussion and seal jokes followed.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36513.msg1511192#msg1511192

Offline WizZifnab

  • Member
  • Posts: 33
  • Kentucky
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #12 on: 06/04/2016 04:56 am »
And this time I found the application materials as well:

SpaceX Falcon 9 Rocket Recovery in California and the Pacific Ocean (2016)

Typo on the effective date?  I assume thats meant to be a full year 6/30/2016-6/29/2017.

Offline acsawdey

Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #13 on: 11/10/2016 06:18 pm »
Looks like SpaceX has now got the all-clear to do both ASDS and RTLS from SLC-4W at Vandenberg AFB. Or, at least they've cleared the environmental hurdles and can now ask FAA for licenses to do so.

Quote
After reviewing and analyzing available data and information on existing conditions and potential
impacts, including the 2016 EA, the FAA has determined the issuance of licenses to SpaceX to conduct
Falcon 9 boost-backs and landings at SLC-4W or on a barge would not significantly affect the quality of
the human environment within the meaning of NEPA. Therefore, the preparation of an environmental
impact statement is not required, and the FAA is independently issuing this FONSI. The FAA has made
this determination in accordance with applicable environmental laws and FAA regulations. The 2016 EA
is incorporated by reference into this FONSI.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/ea_fonsi_f9_boostback_vafb.pdf

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #14 on: 11/10/2016 06:40 pm »
Looks 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

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #15 on: 01/04/2017 09:33 am »
Looks 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

Anybody know the hang-up in getting USAF approval?
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48146
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81623
  • Likes Given: 36932
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #16 on: 09/11/2017 06:30 am »
Doesn't give a timeframe for FAA approval but claims most steps in the approval process are completed:

Quote
SpaceX close to landing rocket boosters next to its Southern California launch site

By: Sandy Mazza ([email protected])

POSTED: Sunday, Sept. 10, 2017 - 3:14 p.m.
UPDATED: A DAY AGO

http://www.dailybreeze.com/business/20170910/spacex-close-to-landing-rocket-boosters-next-to-its-southern-california-launch-site

Also talks about something else interesting I've missed:

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.

Some more details in the article (including feedback from NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service).

Offline Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Liked: 546
  • Likes Given: 2012
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #17 on: 09/11/2017 11:24 am »
Doesn't give a timeframe for FAA approval but claims most steps in the approval process are completed:

Quote
SpaceX close to landing rocket boosters next to its Southern California launch site

By: Sandy Mazza ([email protected])

POSTED: Sunday, Sept. 10, 2017 - 3:14 p.m.
UPDATED: A DAY AGO

http://www.dailybreeze.com/business/20170910/spacex-close-to-landing-rocket-boosters-next-to-its-southern-california-launch-site

Also talks about something else interesting I've missed:

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.

Some more details in the article (including feedback from NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service).

Why would they need a second barge? Flight rate on west coast isnt high enough to need 2nd ASDS there.

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #18 on: 09/11/2017 12:38 pm »
They don't need two Pacific barges.

Maybe the SpaceX documentation for VAFB referred to JRtI as their "second Pacific barge" (OCISLY at the Cape being their first Atlantic barge) and the reporter got confused and thought they meant two barges in the Pacific, rather than a second SpaceX barge, which is based the Pacific.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2017 12:54 pm by Kabloona »

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #19 on: 09/11/2017 03:01 pm »
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".

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: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
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

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
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: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
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


Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48146
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81623
  • Likes Given: 36932
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #24 on: 10/09/2017 03:14 pm »
Nice photo from Shorealone Films flickr shots prior to the Iridium 3 launch

Offline old_sellsword

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 470
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #25 on: 10/09/2017 05:15 pm »
Nice photo from Shorealone Films flickr shots prior to the Iridium 3 launch

Looks like they are prepping to test post landing servicing of S1 at west coast landing facility

That 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.

Offline Wolfram66

Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #26 on: 10/09/2017 05:27 pm »
Nice photo from Shorealone Films flickr shots prior to the Iridium 3 launch

Looks like they are prepping to test post landing servicing of S1 at west coast landing facility

That 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.

Revised:Looks like they are prepping to test post landing servicing of S1 at west coast landing facility

Offline biosehnsucht

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 319
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #27 on: 10/10/2017 02:30 am »
At this point, is the hardware F9R Dev2 sits on (the wheel truck or whatever) worth more than F9R Dev2 itself?

Offline SweetWater

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Wisconsin, USA
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #28 on: 10/10/2017 03:15 am »
At this point, is the hardware F9R Dev2 sits on (the wheel truck or whatever) worth more than F9R Dev2 itself?

It is hard to know exactly where the F9R Dev2 vehicle fits in the development of Falcon 9, especially given the different block versions, etc. However, we know that SpaceX will be using previously flown Falcon 9 1st stages as the boosters for (at least) the first Falcon Heavy.

This is total speculation on my part. However, they have known for some time that they will never be using the F9R Dev2 vehicle for its intended purpose. It seems to me that if this vehicle could have been modified into a usable booster - block 3, 4, FH booster, etc. - they would have done so.

Offline vanoord

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #29 on: 10/10/2017 09:35 am »
Slightly OT, but F9R Dev 2 is a Falcon 9 v1.1 - probably built in late 2013 and something like the 7th 'Octaweb' Falcon off the production line (but it's a bit unclear).

IIRC the pads / TELs were modified for v1.2 Falcons (B1019 upwards), so it can't easily be launched.

If they do need a core stage for testing the in-flight abort of Dragon 2, then there are plenty of recovered cores lying around they could use - with a lot less hassle than re-working this one.

Presumably at some point it'll be scrapped, but whether doing so is worth the hassle is perhaps debatable.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #30 on: 10/10/2017 01:02 pm »
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

Online stcks

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 312
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #31 on: 10/10/2017 01:32 pm »
no, they are likely wooden cradles like seen on the east coast

They're not. If you look closely you can see wheels on the rear section and the front has the older booster cap attached.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #32 on: 10/10/2017 03:37 pm »
no, they are likely wooden cradles like seen on the east coast

They'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

Offline vanoord

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
  • Liked: 450
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #33 on: 10/10/2017 05:51 pm »
They could be out dated and only useful for V1

Might be crossed wires, but F9R Dev 2 is a v1.1 core, so very close to current version spec..

Any cradle may not, of course, be compatible on a technical / services level (which may be your point?).

Or, it's a v1.0 spec cradle which isn't used because it's not compatible with v1.2 or v1.3 (Block 4), so it's not an issue parking a v1.1 core on it.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2017 05:53 pm by vanoord »

Offline vaporcobra

Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #34 on: 10/10/2017 07:39 pm »
Definitely looks like VIP guests were given a tour of LZ-2! https://www.instagram.com/p/BaDepS4Fwsy/

Offline Tomness

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 660
  • Into the abyss will I run
  • Liked: 289
  • Likes Given: 737
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #35 on: 10/10/2017 08:01 pm »
Definitely looks like VIP guests were given a tour of LZ-2! https://www.instagram.com/p/BaDepS4Fwsy/

So Chris G, and other VIP NSFer that got this nugget, can you comment yet? :D

Offline acsawdey

Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #36 on: 10/25/2017 06:49 pm »
The NOAA notice of the public comment period 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

[edit: deruch pointed out it's not final]
« Last Edit: 10/26/2017 04:18 pm by acsawdey »

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #37 on: 10/26/2017 02:44 pm »
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

Technically, that's not the final judgement.  That's the notice to publicize the public comment period on the proposed grant, which ends on November 24th.  After which point, they will issue their final grant.  By the way, this is just for the next year after which they'll have to renew.

Quote
Dates and Duration

The 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.

Quote
Mitigation

Unless 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.

The full SpaceX application documentation should be (but isn't as of the time of writing this comment) available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm
« Last Edit: 10/26/2017 03:02 pm by deruch »
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #38 on: 10/26/2017 03:56 pm »
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.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #39 on: 10/26/2017 04:35 pm »
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.

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.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline StuffOfInterest

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 927
  • Just interested in space
  • McLean, Virginia, USA
  • Liked: 920
  • Likes Given: 231
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #40 on: 10/27/2017 06:27 pm »
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.

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.

I thought the harassment was mainly in the form of capturing seals, strapping them to boards, putting headphones on them, and playing boom sounds to see how they react.
« Last Edit: 10/27/2017 06:29 pm by StuffOfInterest »

Offline Jdeshetler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 817
  • Silicon Valley, CA
  • Liked: 3673
  • Likes Given: 3551
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #41 on: 10/28/2017 05:42 am »
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...

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11169
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 8785
  • Likes Given: 7815
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #42 on: 10/28/2017 05:53 am »
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...

maybe similar to this project a few years back:  http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/vafb_report.pdf
Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #43 on: 10/28/2017 07:07 am »
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...

Part of the harassment grant is that SpaceX is required to undertake certain monitoring actions during launch campaigns (this  is in addition to mitigation various efforts).  The grant lays out all the stuff they have to do.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48146
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81623
  • Likes Given: 36932
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #44 on: 12/21/2017 11:23 am »
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.

I tried searching the forum to see if they've been posted before, but didn't find them. Apologies if these are here and I missed them!

Edit to clarify: the Iridium supplemental EA appears to relate to the area where boosters on Iridium missions would land on ASDS, if a land landing were not possible.
« Last Edit: 12/21/2017 11:39 am by FutureSpaceTourist »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48146
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81623
  • Likes Given: 36932
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #45 on: 12/22/2017 06:36 am »
Nice photo from Shorealone Films flickr shots prior to the Iridium 3 launch

And here’s their shot prior to the Iridium 4 launch, no real change.

Offline hootowls

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #46 on: 01/03/2018 08:22 pm »
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.

Good catch on the posting!  The public comment period on the final draft SEA/FONSI closes out on 21 Jan 2018.

Offline pospa

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 213
  • Pardubice, CZ
  • Liked: 291
  • Likes Given: 800
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #47 on: 05/28/2018 12:07 pm »
Dear NSF photoreporters, do you have any publicly available hi-res pictures of SLC-4W langing pad from the latest lauch of F9 / Iridium-6 & Grace-FO that you could share with us and document the current status in May 2018?
« Last Edit: 05/28/2018 12:23 pm by pospa »

Offline ChrisC

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2216
  • Liked: 1561
  • Likes Given: 1749
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #48 on: 05/28/2018 04:23 pm »
Look in the public thread for that mission, and if you don't find what you want, subscribe to L2 because I know we have some excellent high res shots somewhere here.
« Last Edit: 05/28/2018 04:24 pm by ChrisC »
PSA #1: EST does NOT mean "Eastern Time".  Use "Eastern" or "ET" instead, all year round, and avoid this common error.  Google "EST vs EDT".
PSA #2: It's and its: know the difference and quietly impress grammar pedants.  Google "angry flower its" .  *** See profile for two more NSF forum tips. ***

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48146
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81623
  • Likes Given: 36932
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #49 on: 07/06/2018 03:47 pm »
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

Here's an article picking up on that FCC application:

Quote
SpaceX may finally land one of its rockets on the California coast later this year
Finally: a land landing at Vandenberg
By Loren Grush@lorengrush Jul 6, 2018, 11:42am EDT

After 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.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/6/17540058/spacex-falcon-9-rocket-ground-landing-vandenberg-air-force-base-california

Online Chris Bergin

Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Fly_or_Boom

Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #51 on: 07/07/2018 03:45 am »
Dear VAFB launch photographers, it will be really cool to have a shot of Falcon 9 pre-launch superimposed in front of a shot of the landed 1st stage.

Offline kenlaws

Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #52 on: 07/09/2018 07:41 pm »
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!

Offline ChrisC

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2216
  • Liked: 1561
  • Likes Given: 1749
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #53 on: 07/09/2018 08:39 pm »
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!

You can get a LOT of the basic viewing information from the Vandenberg viewing thread, which is a sticky thread at the top of the SpaceX missions group here.
« Last Edit: 07/09/2018 08:40 pm by ChrisC »
PSA #1: EST does NOT mean "Eastern Time".  Use "Eastern" or "ET" instead, all year round, and avoid this common error.  Google "EST vs EDT".
PSA #2: It's and its: know the difference and quietly impress grammar pedants.  Google "angry flower its" .  *** See profile for two more NSF forum tips. ***

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #54 on: 07/10/2018 02:47 am »
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!

No. You'll be able to see it coming down, but it will dip below the hills before it lands.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #55 on: 07/11/2018 03:45 pm »
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!

It's basically coming down right next to the launch pad, so public views of the landing will be pretty much exactly the same as those of the upward portion of flight (i.e. obscured for the actual touchdown as the rocket isn't actually viewable on the pad but only after gaining a little altitude).  There may be better viewing locations available for those with access to the military base but that is restricted to those with passes/permissions and not open to the public.  As others have commented, check out the VAFB Launch Viewing thread stickied at the top of the SpaceX Missions section for more concrete viewing guidance.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2018 03:46 pm by deruch »
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #56 on: 08/17/2018 12:58 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: 08/17/2018 01:00 pm by gongora »

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #57 on: 08/17/2018 01:15 pm »
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?

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48146
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81623
  • Likes Given: 36932
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #58 on: 08/17/2018 01:47 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.

Online ajmarco

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 63
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #59 on: 08/17/2018 01:48 pm »
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.

Could it be since SLC-4W became the landing zone it was easier to just call it LZ-4?

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #60 on: 08/17/2018 01:53 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.

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #61 on: 08/17/2018 02:38 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.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« 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
« Last Edit: 10/03/2018 12:35 am by gongora »
DM

Offline Alexphysics

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1605
  • Spain
  • Liked: 5917
  • Likes Given: 945
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« 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).

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #64 on: 10/03/2018 12:33 am »
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.
« Last Edit: 10/03/2018 12:38 am by gongora »

Offline Alvian@IDN

Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #65 on: 10/03/2018 01:29 am »
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
My parents was just being born when the Apollo program is over. Why we are still stuck in this stagnation, let's go forward again

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« 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.)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« 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.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« 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?
« Last Edit: 10/03/2018 02:25 pm by envy887 »

Online tleski

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 477
  • Washington, DC
  • Liked: 367
  • Likes Given: 758
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #69 on: 10/03/2018 02:25 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.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #70 on: 10/03/2018 02:33 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.

Online tleski

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 477
  • Washington, DC
  • Liked: 367
  • Likes Given: 758
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« 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:
« Last Edit: 10/03/2018 02:59 pm by tleski »

Offline kessdawg

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 174
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 1554
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #72 on: 10/03/2018 06:33 pm »
Also: shouldn't it be landing pads 1 and 2 at LZ-1?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #73 on: 10/03/2018 06:33 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.

Online Chris Bergin

Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Zabinho

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • France
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« 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...

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #76 on: 10/17/2018 09:49 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.

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #77 on: 10/17/2018 11:10 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.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1696
  • Liked: 1272
  • Likes Given: 2317
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« 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?
« Last Edit: 11/14/2018 05:00 pm by Norm38 »

Offline Scylla

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
  • Clinton NC, USA
  • Liked: 1130
  • Likes Given: 150
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #79 on: 11/14/2018 05:09 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.
I reject your reality and substitute my own--Doctor Who

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #80 on: 11/14/2018 05:14 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?

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.

Online eriblo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1367
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1670
  • Likes Given: 270
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #81 on: 11/14/2018 09:32 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?

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.
As Lars says, the problem is not a crash at LZ-4 (which would be much less dangerous than a F9 launch failure) but the unknown risk of a crash at LC-6. This could conceivably happen if something were to go wrong right at the end of the boost back burn or if the grid fins failed on the way down. You could be comfortable standing right next to a shooter at the range but if you are 5 m beside the 500 m target you might ask them not to take the shot - even if they haven't missed by that much in the last 30-40 shots ;)

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #82 on: 11/14/2018 10:34 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'll rephrase if ok..

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.

I don't think it's a rational decision.  I think it's an "any risk" plus "we own the range" kind of a decision.

Not worth the consternation though.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #83 on: 11/14/2018 11:47 pm »
During 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)

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.
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.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #84 on: 11/14/2018 11:54 pm »
During 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)

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.
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.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #85 on: 11/15/2018 12:49 am »
During 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)

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.
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.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #86 on: 11/15/2018 12:58 am »
During 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)

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.
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.

During 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)

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.
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.

It's the IIP plus the uncertainty added on by some off nominal thrusting.

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).


-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #87 on: 11/15/2018 01:14 am »
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).

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??

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #88 on: 11/15/2018 01:24 am »
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).

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.

Maybe you mean a fool proof LAS?  That at least is a worthy goal, even if not achieved 100%

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #89 on: 11/15/2018 01:37 am »
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).

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.

Failure 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.
« Last Edit: 11/15/2018 01:38 am by Lars-J »

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #90 on: 11/15/2018 01:39 am »
The added risk from a SpaceX launch's overflight, while critical assets are on the pad at the south base, is an accepted "cost of doing business" so long as those risks are considered "reasonable".  Added risk from RTLS isn't an accepted cost because, unlike those from launching, which are in furtherance of "the mission", it provides no necessary benefits (i.e. it isn't required to achieve mission success).  And, further, what benefits it does provide can almost entirely be captured by the contingency action of landing on the ASDS and thereby avoid incurring added risks to the assets in question.  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.  This is the same as in medicine.  For a treatment that provides 0 benefit, ANY risk whatsoever is unwarranted.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #91 on: 11/15/2018 01:42 am »
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?

The risks are cumulative. Just because a launch presents more risk does not mean the additional risk incurred my the landing is acceptable. The landing could push the whole mission over some fixed risk limit, or it could fail to meet other risk analysis criteria such as ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable), since there is a practicable way to avoid the landing.

In other words, there is no other way for SpaceX to launch this mission. But they have a perfectly easy way to land (on JRTI) that presents no risk at all to the every expensive bird across the base. So the risk/benefit is very different for the launch compared to the landing.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #92 on: 11/15/2018 01:47 am »
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).

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.

Failure 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.
It makes little difference if it works or not when the rocket is 10 seconds above the pad and still moving slowly...  Either way something nearby the pad will get showered with hundreds of tons of LOX and fuel.  Depending on the breaks, there might also be a mid-air explosion.

I said the FTS is not effective, not that it doesn't work.

OTOH on the return leg, even on top of the safety afforded by the divert strategy, if the FTS is triggered, the stage won't make it to shore.

So in practically every aspect, being on LC-6 during the return leg is safer, by a lot, then during the outbound leg.





-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #93 on: 11/15/2018 02:33 am »
So 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).
« Last Edit: 11/15/2018 02:35 am by joek »

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #94 on: 11/15/2018 04:16 am »
So 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).
There was never a claim that the risk on the return leg is mathematically zero.

Occam's razor:  They get to dictate the terms, and  it was a no-brainer for them. Nobody crunched anything, it's simply not their dollars.  Luckily, a barge trip is not that expensive, so really it's academic.

Now back to the more interesting discussion...  If you had to be at the LC-6 for one leg OR the other, from a safety perspective, which would you choose.

-----
ABCD: Always Be Counting Down

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline LouScheffer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3381
  • Liked: 6109
  • Likes Given: 836
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #95 on: 11/15/2018 06:38 am »
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. 
Everyone here keeps arguing the benefit of a land landing to the Air Force is zero, but it's not.  There is a definite benefit to making things easier for your suppliers.  It builds good will, and makes it more likely you can get something you want next time.

These human interactions will not show up on a formal risk analysis, but can be extremely important.  As a potential example, remember when ULA launched a satellite into a not-quite-correct orbit?  The air force could have said, "The rocket launched us into the wrong orbit, but fortunately our reserves were enough to cover."  And they could have pointed out that their maneuvering and/or lifetime will be reduced, and sought compensation for that (as is common in comsats that get inserted into wrong but useable orbits.)  But instead they classified it as a mission success.  This was super helpful to their supplier, ULA, and I'd certainly imagine it gets brought up whenever the Air Force asks ULA for a favor.
« Last Edit: 11/15/2018 06:39 am by LouScheffer »

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #96 on: 11/15/2018 06:44 am »
If you had to be at the LC-6 for one leg OR the other, from a safety perspective, which would you choose.

Definitely inbound.  Vehicle has already demonstrated significant run-time with good avionics control as well as, theoretically, correct guidance/positioning (else FTS activation).  Vehicle can use both propulsive and aerodynamic authority.  Likely more time allowed for FTS activation in the event of detected anomaly.  A near-by crash presents a shrapnel risk in either scenario, but inbound reduces the likelihood of being caught in a massive fire.  Payload has already departed with the upper stage, so less risk of toxic propellants/fumes exposure.  etc.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5273
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #97 on: 11/15/2018 03:14 pm »
There's an easy out here with the drone ship capability, but I wonder if the same decision would be made if a company was launching a rocket that could RTLS and had no drone ship.  I suspect they'd allow the RTLS as the additional risk should be small (not zero).  The alternative in that case (assuming said company wasn't willing to just splash the rocket) would be to re-arrange the launch schedule i.e. delay the RTLS flight until the other rocket had launched.

Since SpaceX has the drone ship fleet, moving the landing to the drone ship and eliminating the small additional risk is a reasonable choice, so not surprising.  Let's also not forget this site has seen a grand total of one RTLS so far, so this isn't quite as ho-hum as RTLS at the Cape which has doubled that on a single mission.

Offline Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1696
  • Liked: 1272
  • Likes Given: 2317
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #98 on: 11/15/2018 03:58 pm »
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?

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5273
Re: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities
« Reply #99 on: 11/15/2018 04:04 pm »
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?
The computer may not care, but the biological units under the computer do.  Landing sites are unique with their own regulations and complications depending on trajectories and overflight.

I mean, we can land the F9 on the White House lawn right now, right?  Does it really matter what's underneath?

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.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
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.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48146
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81623
  • Likes Given: 36932

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: 927
  • 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: 660
  • Into the abyss will I run
  • Liked: 289
  • Likes Given: 737
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: 1082
  • Kirk
  • Tanstaa, FL
  • Liked: 1572
  • Likes Given: 4080
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
1