SpaceX Signs Lease Agreement With Air Force For Landing Pad 53
PaisteUser writes Space News reports that SpaceX has signed a historic agreement to allow construction of a landing pad for Falcon 9 booster stages. From the article: "The U.S. Air Force announced Feb. 10 that SpaceX has signed a five-year lease for Cape Canaveral's Launch Complex 13, which was used to launch Atlas rockets and missiles between 1956 and 1978. In its new role, it will serve as a landing pad for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy booster cores launched from Florida, the Air Force said. Financial terms of the lease were not disclosed." Patrick Air Force Base also provides the documentation used for the environmental impact study which details out how the landing pad will be constructed.
Re:SpaceX stories (Score:5, Insightful)
Or they are producing news worthy material at a pace much quicker than most other companies...
Seriously, why would SpaceX give a shit about promotion on Slashdot? It's not like any of us schmucks will buy a rocket.
Re:SpaceX stories (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, why would SpaceX give a shit about promotion on Slashdot?
Don't worry - the AC is just upset that Musk and Co. are building the future whist he merely spends his life complaining about things in front of his terminal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, why would SpaceX give a shit about promotion on Slashdot?
Don't worry - the AC is just upset that Musk and Co. are building the future whist he merely spends his life complaining about things in front of his terminal.
Seriously. SpaceX is cool for what they have already accomplished reducing launch costs significantly. If they can reduce costs even further it will enable far greater space exploration and much more sustainable utilization of space. If SpaceX can actually land some of these rocket stages so they can reuse the rockets eventually and make good on reducing costs even further, then that is a giant leap forward on par with all the great milestones. People are excited about SpaceX and the new space race for
Re:SpaceX stories (Score:4, Funny)
It's not like any of us schmucks will buy a rocket.
I won PowerBall last night, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just remember what happened to Hugo Drax.
FTFY. He was pushed out an airlock.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind, the rocket has a self-destruct feature. Going up or coming back down, one can destroy it if it threatens populated areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Landing near populated areas? (Score:5, Informative)
Did you miss the part where it's already a launch complex? I.e. an isolated place designed for big-ass rockets packed to the gills with fuel to take off from? A landing accident would be much less of an issue than an accident during launch, and they've already demonstrated their ability to get the rocket to the bulls-eye once, despite severe mechanical problems. The fact that it crashed instead of landing is irrelevant to the safety of the distant population. Presumably by the time they've mastered actually landing at sea they will have a long run of "managed to hit the landing pad" under their belt.
Besides, it's not like they're planning to land them there today, and they're going to need lead time to actually design and build a suitable landing pad, etc. so that it's ready by the time the rockets are. It's not like you can just have FedEx deliver a landing pad overnight.
yes, that was a "Far Out Space Nuts" reference (Score:2)
Re: yes, that was a "Far Out Space Nuts" reference (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Surely a rocket trying to come in for a soft landing and going splat! boom! can't be worse than blowing up on the pad during lunch. [space.com]
Definitely correct. That ruins everyone's dinner plans.
Giant Robotic Arm (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Tons of huge rockets are already being launched from KSC (with plans to launch far louder ones in the future), and have been for half a century. Landing rockets is unlikely to produce much more noise than that already does...
Intriguing, but landing at launch site? (Score:3)
Looking forward to more details....
Re: (Score:1)
Wow. I am glad you brought this up. I'm going to call SpaceX and tell them to cancel the contract. Those fools! Why didn't they think of that?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Intriguing, but landing at launch site? (Score:5, Interesting)
There are two scenarios in question. The first is where there is sufficient fuel to return. In such a case, it simply returns straight to the (new) pad. The second scenario, where there's insufficient fuel, still involves a barge. Once on the barge, the rocket isn't overhauled, just simply inspected, partially refueled and then relaunched back to the main pad where it can undergo proper maintenance and prep for its next flight.
The goal is to eventually land upper stages as well. They are intended to complete an Earth orbit before reentering and landing at the launch site.
One step at a time...
Re: (Score:2)
The question of whether there "clearly is not" depends entirely on the capability of the rocket versus its payload and target orbit, and thus how much propellant remains relative to what kind of trajectory it's on. This is a case where the rocket equation actually helps you - free of its upper stage and the majority of its fuel, delta-V changes are far less expensive.
Re:Intriguing, but landing at launch site? (Score:5, Informative)
To put it another way... the first stage has a dry mass of 18 tonnes but carries 385 tonnes of fuel, a 95 tonne second stage, and payload up to 13 tonnes. Hence for a given amount of propellant, the return leg of the journey right before flame out gets up to 27.4 times more delta-V. It makes it very easy to reverse your momentum. And of course, you don't need to reverse all your delta-V - for example, that spent achieving altitude or lost to air resistance. In fact, that spent achieving altitude actually helps you get back.
Re: (Score:2)
If I remember correctly, they turned around the booster during the previous barge landing attempt and did a partial boostback burn, just not the full burn to take it back to Florida. So they're already most of the way there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
fly all the way back to the launch site (would seem to be alot of fuel) -
That was my original impression, that you have to continuously burning to actively control the fall. But I recently saw a number that Apollo style capsul's terminal velocity is something around 300 miles/h and they spend several minutes free falling after fireball decelleration. Note "free falling" in this context is different from physical definition of free falling and describe the falling at constant speed of terminal velocity. 300 miles/h is half as fast as horizontal speed of airliners, and compar
Intriguing, but landing at launch site? (Score:1)
I think SpaceX has already stated their intent to launch from a more westerly launchpad, IE their Texas site, Spaceport America, something like that and then land at Cape Canaveral. Then after a quick check and splash of fuel they wanted to fly the booster back to the launch point. The First part is pretty much a certainty, I'm not so sure that the second part is quite as viable. I'd think it would be more practical to put them on a barge and ship them back, but only time will tell.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently the stage separation at an altitude of 50 miles, is only 16 miles from the launch point. From the environmental assessment:
"Currently, the Falcon 9 first stage drops by parachute approximately 500 nautical miles downrange into the Atlantic Ocean, east of and well beyond the east coast of Florida, and is recovered by a salvage ship . It is anticipated that the stage would return to the landing pad within approximately 10 minutes after lift-off. Preliminary trajectory analysis indicates that a po
Re: (Score:1)
I actually bothered to read the linked lease. The stage seperates only 16 miles from launch site. Allowed to continue its path it will fall 500 miles away into the ocean. Basic rocket equasion will tell you that it only takes a small percentage of your fuel for a seperated stage boosting no payload to reverse its course and return 16 miles back (earths rotation may help this some as well)".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure they have done all the sums, but I'm wondering, since it has not been explained exactly.. 16 miles isn't very far, but what is the horizontal velocity at that point? Because they do have to stop that, then reverse it, which surely means that this point is not going to be the furthest away.. and considering that if allowed to continue its path, it would splash down 500 miles away, I'm guessing the velocity is ... considerable.
One of the flight controller's on the CRS-5 mission calls out 1.8 km/s shortly before MECO (main engine cut off). So it's traveling over 4,000 mph. Different missions have different trajectory and velocity requirements. On the DSCOVR mission, 2350 m/s was announced shortly before MECO which is over 5,200 mph.
I scanned the article but didn't see the 16 mile number, where is that coming from?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Very intriguing article, but it makes one wonder about the landing pad being at the launch site - normally the main booster is a good ways away from the main launch site and moving rapidly away (that's why the floating landing pad was 500 miles downrange from the launch site)...this would appear that SpaceX would carry enough fuel to turn the booster back around (from mach whatever) and fly all the way back to the launch site (would seem to be alot of fuel) - I would have expected landing on a floating landing pad or construct such a landing area on an island(s) that isn't too far from the parabolic fall area of the booster (i.e. where the floating pad would be). Looking forward to more details....
I can't give you hard numbers off of the top of my head but there are a lot of variables. Different missions require different trajectories and payloads vary in mass significantly. The DSCOVR mission was actually a light payload, but it was a "deep space" mission requiring a very high velocity which is why the landing point was so far out to sea. So to quote Elon Musk, the first stage was "hauling a**." But there are a lot of missions where the stage is lofted more vertically or is traveling much slower
Got to be easier to land on stationary target (Score:2)
than a floating platform in the sea. While the latest launch is successful, they have to scrap the landing attempt due to choppy sea. NASA is paying for the launch, and not for the booster recovery. So if it's feasible to launch but not recover, they launch, because that's what the customer paid for. Recovery is currently just doing data gathering on the customer's dime.
Re: (Score:2)
"choppy sea" is a bit of an understatement. Waves were in excess of 10 meters.
Lots more details (Score:2)