Author Topic: SpaceX VAFB landing facilities  (Read 14223 times)

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: 3937
  • Liked: 1249
  • Likes Given: 1057
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 companyís 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?

Online deruch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1591
  • California
  • Liked: 1200
  • Likes Given: 1722
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: 4027
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 2206
  • Likes Given: 446
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


Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4495
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 3046
  • Likes Given: 1016
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: 599
  • Liked: 491
  • Likes Given: 438
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 itís sitting on was unused space. Itís 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 itís sitting on was unused space. Itís 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: 188
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 61
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

  • Member
  • Posts: 47
  • Wisconsin, USA
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 9
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.

Online vanoord

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
  • Liked: 287
  • Likes Given: 38
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: 31362
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9637
  • Likes Given: 299
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

Offline stcks

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 164
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 192
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: 31362
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9637
  • Likes Given: 299
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

Online vanoord

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 481
  • Liked: 287
  • Likes Given: 38
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/
spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace

Offline Tomness

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 139
  • Into the abyss will I run
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 154
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

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 301
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 175
  • Likes Given: 307
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 »

Online deruch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1591
  • California
  • Liked: 1200
  • Likes Given: 1722
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

Online cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2545
  • Liked: 1752
  • Likes Given: 656
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.

Online deruch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1591
  • California
  • Liked: 1200
  • Likes Given: 1722
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

Tags: