Author Topic: SpaceX Eastern Range Landing Facilities  (Read 217017 times)

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6175
  • Liked: 3966
  • Likes Given: 5459
Re: SpaceX Eastern Range Landing Facilities
« Reply #160 on: 03/25/2015 10:42 PM »
As launch facilities... If they remain launch facilities, the names stay same.  If they are used for landing, calling them launch facilities -- because generations have -- makes zero sense.

Since this has never happened before, we'll see whose 'logic' will prevail.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10885
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: SpaceX Eastern Range Landing Facilities
« Reply #161 on: 03/25/2015 10:54 PM »
As launch facilities...

Where did I say about "launch" facilities?  Anyways, some haven't launched anything for 50 years and have been used for other tasks and the names haven't changed.

Offline bubbagret

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: SpaceX Eastern Range Landing Facilities
« Reply #162 on: 03/26/2015 01:30 AM »
The facilities at the Cape have existed over multiple generations.

Global sea level rise may eventually change this.

Not may, will. ...and the Sun will expand and vaporize the Earth too, how you going to launch your rockets then?  :o

Maybe SpaceX, and just maybe some other companies, will have thought of a place for a new facility or two in the coming century(s). I am pretty sure that barring a tsunami, the cape will remain as dry land until then.

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2142
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1317
  • Likes Given: 1548
Re: SpaceX Eastern Range Landing Facilities
« Reply #163 on: 03/26/2015 02:55 AM »
There will still be Puerto Rico and Hawaii.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Online Galactic Penguin SST

Re: SpaceX Eastern Range Landing Facilities
« Reply #164 on: 03/26/2015 03:20 AM »
OK, I don't think we should go on talking about coastal flooding until it really occurs.  ;) Or arguing what should be the name of the new facility (I think since there will be departures and arrivals at the Cape in the future, it should be "CCAFS Gate 13" ;)).

Thanks!  :)
Chinese spaceflight is a cosmic riddle wrapped in a galactic mystery inside an orbital enigma... - (not) Winston Churchill

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2142
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1317
  • Likes Given: 1548
Re: SpaceX Eastern Range Landing Facilities
« Reply #165 on: 03/26/2015 12:10 PM »
OK, I don't think we should go on talking about coastal flooding until it really occurs.  ;) Or arguing what should be the name of the new facility (I think since there will be departures and arrivals at the Cape in the future, it should be "CCAFS Gate 13" ;) ).

Thanks!  :)


There will have to be a yellow line for loading and unloading only.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline ggr

  • Member
  • Posts: 18
  • USA
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Eastern Range Landing Facilities
« Reply #166 on: 03/27/2015 12:47 AM »
OK, I don't think we should go on talking about coastal flooding until it really occurs.  ;) Or arguing what should be the name of the new facility (I think since there will be departures and arrivals at the Cape in the future, it should be "CCAFS Gate 13" ;) ).

Thanks!  :)


There will have to be a yellow line for loading and unloading only.

No, that's the white zone!
Contents of posting not to be used outside this forum without attribution and permission.

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Viewed launches since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1962
  • Likes Given: 1318
Re: SpaceX Eastern Range Landing Facilities
« Reply #167 on: 03/27/2015 01:57 AM »
OK, I don't think we should go on talking about coastal flooding until it really occurs.  ;) Or arguing what should be the name of the new facility (I think since there will be departures and arrivals at the Cape in the future, it should be "CCAFS Gate 13" ;) ).

Thanks!  :)


There will have to be a yellow line for loading and unloading only.



No, that's the white zone!

Yellow  is for Commercial Unload and Loading
White is for passenger Unload and Loading.

source: http://ladot.lacity.org/WhatWeDo/Parking/CanIParkThere/ColoredCurbZones/index.htm
« Last Edit: 03/27/2015 01:57 AM by catdlr »
Tony De La Rosa

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8242
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4465
  • Likes Given: 870
Re: SpaceX Eastern Range Landing Facilities
« Reply #168 on: 03/27/2015 02:29 AM »
OK, I don't think we should go on talking about coastal flooding until it really occurs.  ;) Or arguing what should be the name of the new facility (I think since there will be departures and arrivals at the Cape in the future, it should be "CCAFS Gate 13" ;) ).

Thanks!  :)


There will have to be a yellow line for loading and unloading only.



No, that's the white zone!

Yellow  is for Commercial Unload and Loading
White is for passenger Unload and Loading.

source: http://ladot.lacity.org/WhatWeDo/Parking/CanIParkThere/ColoredCurbZones/index.htm

Edit/Lar: AHEM, This is not the yellow zone. This is not the white zone. It is also NOT the party thread zone. Offending vehicles will be ticketed AND towed. And DON'T call me Shirley.


No, this is the source:

« Last Edit: 03/31/2015 10:52 PM by Lar »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32234
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10885
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: SpaceX Eastern Range Landing Facilities
« Reply #169 on: 03/30/2015 01:02 PM »
http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/565808/45th-space-wing-spacex-sign-first-ever-landing-pad-agreement-at-cape-canaveral.aspx

"creation of the first-ever "Landing Pad" at Launch Complex 13"

No name change for the site, the landing pad is at the launch complex
« Last Edit: 03/30/2015 01:08 PM by Jim »

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2216
  • California
  • Liked: 1721
  • Likes Given: 3540
Re: SpaceX Eastern Range Landing Facilities
« Reply #170 on: 03/30/2015 11:16 PM »
http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/565808/45th-space-wing-spacex-sign-first-ever-landing-pad-agreement-at-cape-canaveral.aspx

"creation of the first-ever "Landing Pad" at Launch Complex 13"

No name change for the site, the landing pad is at the launch complex

Yeah, LC-13 started off with a "Launch Pad" being built.  When referring to it together with the additional supporting structures and infrastructure it becomes a "Launch Complex".  Now they're creating the first ever "Landing Pad" and when referring to it together with the additional structures and infrastructure also under development it will be a "Landing Complex". 

Really this whole discussion has been pretty trivial from the beginning.  If SpaceX calls it Landing Complex-1 then there will be instances and people who call it that.  If the AF continues to call it Launch Complex-13 then there will be instances and people who call it that.  As the AF actually owns the location and SpaceX are just leasing it, I would think the AF gets to set the "official" name (see a similarly trivial discussion on whether SpaceX has the right to rename the Marmac 300 as the Just Read the Instructions in the ASDS thread).  But the popular/common reference name could change in short order.  Really, I wish SpaceX had just kept the "-13" designator.  LC-13 would work both ways then and it wouldn't make any difference. 

While we're having this somewhat silly discussion though, I want to ask: Is SpaceX's numbering accurate?  They leased SLC-4W before they leased LC-13, didn't they?  Based on Helodriver's pictures, the landing pad at VAFB looks like it will be done first.  There's a very good chance it will get used as a landing pad for a returning booster before any pad at CCAFS.  On what basis is SpaceX determining that the CCAFS pad is #1?
« Last Edit: 03/30/2015 11:52 PM by deruch »
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1240
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 1515
  • Likes Given: 4097
Re: SpaceX Eastern Range Landing Facilities
« Reply #171 on: 03/31/2015 12:02 AM »
...

While we're having this silly discussion though, I want to ask: Is SpaceX's numbering accurate?  They leased SLC-4W before they leased LC-13 didn't they?  Based on Helodriver's pictures, the landing pad at VAFB looks like it will be done first.  There's a very good chance it will get used as a landing pad for a returning booster before any pad at CCAFS.  On what basis is SpaceX determining that the CCAFS pad is #1?

LC-A at Point Arguello, I mean PALC-2-3, I mean SLC-4W will be known as Landing Complex 1.1.  But only at SpaceX because it's too confusing when things are renamed. (Sorry, I couldn't didn't want to resist.)  Anyway, the numbering is a way to identify the landing pad(s)[1]. I don't think it's a commitment to the order they come online.  I look forward to multiple page arguments about how Landing Complex 1 clearly slipped it's schedule since the first landing happened at Landing Complex 1.1. ;)
--
[1] I think there is a high probability that the "Landing Complex 1" is just SpaceX boosting (in a good way) and that we are completely over thinking this.
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8242
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4465
  • Likes Given: 870
Re: SpaceX Eastern Range Landing Facilities
« Reply #172 on: 03/31/2015 03:09 AM »
...

While we're having this silly discussion though, I want to ask: Is SpaceX's numbering accurate?  They leased SLC-4W before they leased LC-13 didn't they?  Based on Helodriver's pictures, the landing pad at VAFB looks like it will be done first.  There's a very good chance it will get used as a landing pad for a returning booster before any pad at CCAFS.  On what basis is SpaceX determining that the CCAFS pad is #1?

LC-A at Point Arguello, I mean PALC-2-3, I mean SLC-4W will be known as Landing Complex 1.1.  But only at SpaceX because it's too confusing when things are renamed. (Sorry, I couldn't didn't want to resist.)  Anyway, the numbering is a way to identify the landing pad(s)[1]. I don't think it's a commitment to the order they come online.  I look forward to multiple page arguments about how Landing Complex 1 clearly slipped it's schedule since the first landing happened at Landing Complex 1.1. ;)
--
[1] I think there is a high probability that the "Landing Complex 1" is just SpaceX boosting (in a good way) and that we are completely over thinking this.

Things are heresy and remain so until one day they become gospel.    What else is new.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Arb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 317
  • London
  • Liked: 186
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: SpaceX Eastern Range Landing Facilities
« Reply #173 on: 04/01/2015 10:52 PM »
More to the point, has work started and can any of the "locals" get us photos...

Offline MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 643
  • Likes Given: 1123
Re: SpaceX Eastern Range Landing Facilities
« Reply #174 on: 04/06/2015 01:33 PM »
I'm looking forward to the facility coming up to speed myself.

The challenge in proving the reliability and safety of the landings is beginning to worry me, however.

We have (at time of this post) CRS-6 in the wings for April 13. While it may fly from LC-41, we may find ourselves with similar problems as with CRS-5: Fighting the weather around the ASDS at the landing site.

I'm hoping that fortune holds up for them, but weather at the landing site is monitored but isn't a Go-NoGo matter that determines the launch, if I remember correctly.

What I'm getting at here is that, once the landing site is ready and authorized for use, the weather that helps launch the vehicle will match that for landing the booster.

Anyone in the meteorological field have any long-range data forecasts for the typical ASDS landing area? If 3 out of 4 landing attempts are scrubbed due to weather, it may take a long time before RTLS approval criteria is met.

Of course, the landing site isn't close to ready yet, so there is some time despite the fickle weather we've seen to date.
"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4290
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2510
  • Likes Given: 522
Re: SpaceX Eastern Range Landing Facilities
« Reply #175 on: 05/13/2015 03:14 AM »
Does anyone know the status of LC-13 construction and how soon it might be available for a landing? Gwynne Shotwell said recently that she hoped the next landing attempt (presumably CRS-7) would be on land, which suggests she thinks LC-13 will be ready by then.

Offline rpapo

  • Cybernetic Mole
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Michigan, USA
  • Liked: 584
  • Likes Given: 458
Re: SpaceX Eastern Range Landing Facilities
« Reply #176 on: 05/13/2015 01:21 PM »
Does anyone know the status of LC-13 construction and how soon it might be available for a landing? Gwynne Shotwell said recently that she hoped the next landing attempt (presumably CRS-7) would be on land, which suggests she thinks LC-13 will be ready by then.
See L2.
An Apollo fanboy . . . fifty years ago.

Offline Confusador

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 200
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 185
Re: SpaceX Eastern Range Landing Facilities
« Reply #177 on: 05/13/2015 09:05 PM »
Does anyone know the status of LC-13 construction and how soon it might be available for a landing? Gwynne Shotwell said recently that she hoped the next landing attempt (presumably CRS-7) would be on land, which suggests she thinks LC-13 will be ready by then.
See L2.

Doesn't answer the question, which is really whether there is any public information (obviously someone knows, but have they said?).  As far as I know, there's been nothing since Shotwell's comments at Satellite.

Offline OxCartMark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1071
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: SpaceX Eastern Range Landing Facilities
« Reply #178 on: 07/23/2015 05:59 PM »
So it looks like the heated "landing" / "launching" discussion used up all the air in the room a few months back and caused people to run off.  Well, after the intervening months of lying fallow the air in this thread is now replenished, i've sniffed it and its ready to get back on topic.

So, how's progress going at LC-13?

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1353
  • United States
  • Liked: 1507
  • Likes Given: 2159
Re: SpaceX Eastern Range Landing Facilities
« Reply #179 on: 07/23/2015 07:14 PM »
So it looks like the heated "landing" / "launching" discussion used up all the air in the room a few months back and caused people to run off.  Well, after the intervening months of lying fallow the air in this thread is now replenished, i've sniffed it and its ready to get back on topic.

So, how's progress going at LC-13?

Well, the issue of environmental permits paperwork appears to have resolved itself. Sort of.

The FAA quietly put up a document from 2013 on its website that wasn't there when I looked in late-May. [see first attached document]. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/launch/
(BTW, the Vandenburg landing pad FONSI is here too).

In short, the FAA issued a FONSI instead of requiring a final EIS (EA).

The FONSI states: "After reviewing and analyzing available data and information on existing conditions and potential impacts, including the SEA and the 2007 EA, the FAA has determined that issuance of launch and reentry licenses to conduct launches of the Falcon 9 vl.l with commercial payloads, including the Dragon Capsule, at CCAFS within the scope of the SEA would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of NEPA. Therefore, the preparation of an EIS is not required, and the FAA is issuing this FONSI/ROD. The FAA made this determination in accordance with all applicable environmental laws and FAA regulations. The SEA is incorporated by reference into this FONSI/ROD."

This is the first this has been reported to my knowledge even though the document was signed 10/23/2013.

The "SEA" they are referring to is a supplemental document related to the original EA developed for pad 40 in 2007.  The FONSI refers to that supplemental and not the EA that was developed in 2014 that we're all familiar with

And here's the second weird part.  The FAA FONSI was signed a whole year before the draft EA that was prepared in 2014 for SpaceX and Patrick AFB! [See second attached document], and the draft EA doesn't appear to have anything to do with the actual FAA permitting process which references the earlier SEA. (confused yet?)

No wonder the FAA didn't post the FONSI document to their website!  I will reiterate that this document was not on the FAA website in late May when I last looked and wrote about permitting: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36100.msg1379020#msg1379020

I'm going to speculate that SpaceX and the Air Force agreed to do an EA because Florida DEP required one even though the FAA did not require one as evidenced by the FONSI. 

The state DEP in October 2014 stated: "Based on the information contained in the Draft Final EA and comments received from the Florida Department of State-SHPO, the state has determined that, at this stage, the proposed federal action is consistent with the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP). The state's continued concurrence will be based on the activity's compliance with FCMP authorities, including federal and state monitoring of the activity to ensure its continued conformance, and the adequate resolution of any issues identified during subsequent regulatory reviews. The state's final concurrence of the project's consistency with the FCMP will be determined during the environmental permitting process, in accordance with Section 373.428, Florida Statutes. "

I'm also going to throw down a gauntlet and state that because the Oct. 2014 DRAFT EA is not considered in either of the two FAA FONSIs, SpaceX doesn't have to worry too much about its recommendation that they only land one core at a time during a Falcon Heavy launch and return operation at either Vandenburg or Canaveral as the FAA isn't considering that document.  I think they'll land two or three cores without any further environmental permitting- which is contrary to previous discussions we've had on this thread.

BUT- and this is a big but- the FONSI doesn't mention Falcon Heavy operations.  ONLY Falcon 9 v1.1 operations.  I'll let that overlooked detail hang there for a sec.

At any rate, read the document and discuss.
« Last Edit: 07/23/2015 08:03 PM by sghill »
Bring the thunder Elon!

Tags: