SpaceX F9 : RCM (RADARSAT) : Vandenberg : June 12, 2019 - DISCUSSION

[mme]

Well, just got this disappointing news from the 30th Space Wing Public Affairs Office (via Brian Webb, dated to 6/6):

"The roadblock normally established at 13th Street on Ocean Avenue will be relocated to Floradale Avenue and Ocean Avenue. A secondary roadblock will also be established at Floradale Avenue and Central Avenue. Additional temporary traffic control measures may be implemented on local roadways to safely expedite expected traffic."

That pushes the roadblock an additional 2-3 miles east of the previous (SAOCOM 1A in October 2018) roadblock at Ocean and Union Sugar Ave.  This has gotten ridiculous.

The distance from the SLC-4 launch site to the South Gate (the aforementioned Ocean and 13th) is 3.8 miles, normally I have been able to observe F9 launches from there.  Even during the SAOCOM 1A launch+landing I was 4.5 miles away at Ocean Ave and Union Sugar Ave (4.7 miles to the landing pad).  If they are really pushing everything back to Ocean and Floradale, that makes it 6.7 miles (7.0 miles to landing pad).

This reeks of bureaucratic ignorance and disinterest.  In KSC, the press site is 3.0 miles from F9/FHeavy launches.  I'm not sure how close people can get to the landing zones, but the landings are probably safer than launches (if they fail they end up in the drink, as we have seen).

Oh, and for reference, if you are going to see an Atlas V launch at the South Gate, you are only 2.5 miles from the pad.

Bummer.  I have been thinking about driving up from OC to see a Vandy launch but was waiting for RTLS for some sonic boom love.  Under the above scenario, where you do think the "best" viewing location left would be?

I'm thinking of trying Providence Landing Park. It won't be as sonically awesome given the distance, but you can almost see the pad from there.

699 Mercury Ave, Lompoc, CA 93436

[hootowls]

A local article about the launch provides some ideas about viewing locations.

https://www.noozhawk.com/article/spacex_rocket_launch_anding_at_vandenberg_air_force_base_20190608

While access to Vandenberg is restricted, the public can view the launch from the Hawk’s Nest on Azalea Lane off of Highway 1, a mile south of Vandenberg’s main gate.

The viewing site will open at 6 a.m. and close after the conclusion of the landing of the first stage.

Other locations around the Lompoc Valley also offer views of the launch and landing site, which is visible when looking south of Ocean Avenue (Highway 246).

Popular viewing sites include along Ocean and Central avenues west of Lompoc, the peak of Harris Grade Road, and near the intersection of Moonglow and Stardust roads in Vandenberg Village.

However, law enforcement officers will establish a wider roadblock for this launch, which is expected to draw large crowds to the area.

A roadblock normally established at 13th Street on Ocean Avenue instead will be relocated to the east, at the intersection of Ocean and Floradale avenues.

A secondary roadblock will also be established at Floradale and Central avenues.

Drivers may see additional temporary traffic control measures implemented on local roadways to safely expedite expected traffic.

[punder]

Sure looks like someting is on top of the interstage.

Maybe that's the dispenser.

[gongora]

Sure looks like someting is on top of the interstage.

Maybe that's the dispenser.

No, the dispenser is part of the payload.  It was the second stage.

[DaveJes1979]

A local article about the launch provides some ideas about viewing locations.

https://www.noozhawk.com/article/spacex_rocket_launch_anding_at_vandenberg_air_force_base_20190608

Sorry, there just aren't good viewing locations open to the public (i.e. off-base) for launches from South Base pads.  Ocean Avenue is the closest you can get.  If I recall, the Hawk's Nest is over ten miles away!

Recall that the sound diminishes with the square of distance.  Viewing F9 at 7 miles or more away is nowhere near as dramatic as being 4 miles out.

Personally, I'm not going to drive 3 hours to see that.  I'll wait until they roll back this stupid policy, whenever they realize that a landing booster stage is not any real threat to the public.

[hootowls]

Personally, I'm not going to drive 3 hours to see that.  I'll wait until they roll back this stupid policy, whenever they realize that a landing booster stage is not any real threat to the public.

It's the reentering booster that presents the threat to the nearby public; the booster has to make it to a much lower altitude on its way to landing before that risk diminishes.  And some public are allowed, i.e., residents and workers, of which there are not large numbers.

[Norm38]

I wasn't paying attention, this is the first RTLS landing at Vandy isn't it?
From this Twitter image, the landing pad is real close to the launch pad.  That's a true spaceport right there.

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1138111227257872385

[vanoord]

I wasn't paying attention, this is the first RTLS landing at Vandy isn't it?

SAOCOM 1A on 7th October last year landed at LZ4 (Vandenberg)

[DaveJes1979]

It's the reentering booster that presents the threat to the nearby public; the booster has to make it to a much lower altitude on its way to landing before that risk diminishes.  And some public are allowed, i.e., residents and workers, of which there are not large numbers.

Without seeing the 3-sigma chart to confirm this, I would say that is hard to believe.  During reentry it is still well out into the Pacific to the south.  Maybe a minor risk to the oil rigs.  As an engineer, I have a pretty good spidey-sense of when decisions are being made by ninny bureaucrats rather than on the basis of engineering data.

[wannamoonbase]

It's the reentering booster that presents the threat to the nearby public; the booster has to make it to a much lower altitude on its way to landing before that risk diminishes.  And some public are allowed, i.e., residents and workers, of which there are not large numbers.

Without seeing the 3-sigma chart to confirm this, I would say that is hard to believe.  During reentry it is still well out into the Pacific to the south.  Maybe a minor risk to the oil rigs.  As an engineer, I have a pretty good spidey-sense of when decisions are being made by ninny bureaucrats rather than on the basis of engineering data.

Also, the east coast failed landing attempt demonstrated that they have the booster stay out over the ocean until they get closer and know everything is working.

[whitelancer64]

Perhaps the other part of the equation is noise - I was on Ocean Ave for Saocom 1A, the sonic booms were quite  loud. Pushing the roadblocks further away may be required by an analysis of the acceptable decibel levels, rather than because of risk to the public of an exploding booster.

[hootowls]

It's the reentering booster that presents the threat to the nearby public; the booster has to make it to a much lower altitude on its way to landing before that risk diminishes.  And some public are allowed, i.e., residents and workers, of which there are not large numbers.

Without seeing the 3-sigma chart to confirm this, I would say that is hard to believe.  During reentry it is still well out into the Pacific to the south.  Maybe a minor risk to the oil rigs.  As an engineer, I have a pretty good spidey-sense of when decisions are being made by ninny bureaucrats rather than on the basis of engineering data.

Reentry at Vandenberg is over land.  Local oil platforms are affected.  14 CFR 417 has requirements that can only be met with a risk-based approach to public safety for such missions.  The updated CFR is in its NPRM period - the new Part 450 has some interesting tidbits that will come into play if they survive as written.

[DaveJes1979]

Hoot, I do appreciate your partial explanation here, with some details on the CFR.  But this only deepens the mystery by saying it reenters over land.  Either 1.  this mission's trajectory is non-standard and certainly non-intuitive to me or 2.  "over land" refers to the southern area of the South Base and Jalama Beach area.

I believe this is the draft of Part 450 (starts on p. 477):  https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/SLR2_NPRM.pdf

[hootowls]

Hoot, I do appreciate your partial explanation here, with some details on the CFR.  But this only deepens the mystery by saying it reenters over land.  Either 1.  this mission's trajectory is non-standard and certainly non-intuitive to me or 2.  "over land" refers to the southern area of the South Base and Jalama Beach area.

It's the second mission of its type and, same as the first, the boostback and reentry occur over land.  Any description of it being over the water is only true of a different profile at another range.    The other thing to keep in mind is the altitude involved; if you were a passenger on stage 1, you'd receive astronaut wings from any country in the world that has such an award.  This is about failure at high altitudes not about landing area goofs.   

[Flying Beaver]

I wasn't paying attention, this is the first RTLS landing at Vandy isn't it?

SAOCOM 1A on 7th October last year landed at LZ4 (Vandenberg)

Though it will be the first daytime landing.

[ZachS09]

I wasn't paying attention, this is the first RTLS landing at Vandy isn't it?

SAOCOM 1A on 7th October last year landed at LZ4 (Vandenberg)

Though it will be the first daytime landing.

At Vandenberg. There have been multiple daytime landings at Cape Canaveral.

[Comga]

Hoot, I do appreciate your partial explanation here, with some details on the CFR.  But this only deepens the mystery by saying it reenters over land.  Either 1.  this mission's trajectory is non-standard and certainly non-intuitive to me or 2.  "over land" refers to the southern area of the South Base and Jalama Beach area.

It's the second mission of its type and, same as the first, the boostback and reentry occur over land.  Any description of it being over the water is only true of a different profile at another range.    The other thing to keep in mind is the altitude involved; if you were a passenger on stage 1, you'd receive astronaut wings from any country in the world that has such an award.  This is about failure at high altitudes not about landing area goofs.   

You must be using different definitions that many of us are visualizing, because the boostback burn, the first relight of the first stage that cancels its downrange velocity and lofts it back towards the launch pad, occurs well out to sea, not "over land".
We have seen that the reentry burn also occurs well out to sea.
We have evidence and tracking that shows the landing burn starts out to sea.  That's why the failed CRS landing came to rest off the coast.  It did not "fly" it's IIP, the instantaneous impact point, across the beach and onto the landing pad. 

[Draggendrop]

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1138588935087460353

[WheelsStop]

... Pushing the roadblocks further away may be required by an analysis of the acceptable decibel levels, rather than because of risk to the public of an exploding booster.

I suspect the explanation is much more mundane - the authorities probably want to avoid having the entire section of Ocean between 13th and Floradale becoming a parking lot given the level of interest in this launch.  Key sentence from the noozhawk article above: "Drivers may see additional temporary traffic control measures implemented on local roadways to safely expedite expected traffic."

[ZachS09]

FEATURE ARTICLE: SpaceX Falcon 9 set to loft three Canadian radar satellites -

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/06/spacex-falcon-9-set-to-loft-three-canadian-radar-satellites/

- By William Graham

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1138633811649056773

Small error to note: B1051 landed on OCISLY. Therefore, this booster is NOT the first to fly return-to-launch-site missions on both the East and West Coasts. However, if it weren't for the grid fin failure, B1050 would have had the honor.