SpaceX Signs Lease Agreement With Air Force For Landing Pad

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.

Comments

Re:SpaceX stories

[Scottingham]

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

[ckatko]

People are interested in a successful privatized space company? NO. NEVER. MUST BE SHILLING.

Re:SpaceX stories

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Landing near populated areas?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems a bit premature. OK, really premature.

I think they should continue do the landings offshore until it's at least as reliable as landing an airplane (which is possible but seems unrealistic at this point). Seems like a really bad idea to have what is essentially a bomb balancing on a pinhead trying to land anywhere near population.

Re:Landing near populated areas?

[jfdavis668]

Less dangerous than LAUNCHING near populated areas.

Re:Landing near populated areas?

[Immerman]

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.

Re: Landing near populated areas?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Florida. It'd be a net gain either way. On the one hand, space launch, on the other, fewer Floridians.

On the gripping hand, it'd probably be cheaper to cut the state off from the rest of the country.

Re:Landing near populated areas?

[ClickOnThis]

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:Landing near populated areas?

[tsotha]

Yeah, but coming down is inherently safer. The difference in the amount of damage it can do with and without fuel is quite large.

Re:SpaceX stories

[Anonymous Coward]

Branson? What thunder? Ha ha, that's a good one. While you're at it, could you tell him it would be nice to see him send up an actual paying customer someday?

Giant Robotic Arm

[cat_jesus]

They should build a giant robotic arm that can grab these rockets when they're landing. That would bring the cool factor to 11.

The EIS summary is full of shit

[Anonymous Coward]

130 dB will result in a "startle" effect to endangered birds? It won't affect other species? Really? I'm pretty sure that it'll deafen all sorts of wildlife in the area. I'm for this, but let's not bullshit our way through the EIS.

Re:The EIS summary is full of shit

[Guspaz]

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...

Re:The EIS summary is full of shit

[Anonymous Coward]

At what frequency? Most of the sound from rocket launches is at very low frequencies that would have trouble deafening something with a small skull. The dB calculations are being done with weighted frequencies, but the weights are based on human hearing.

Intriguing, but landing at launch site?

[sasparillascott]

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....

Re:Intriguing, but landing at launch site?

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Intriguing, but landing at launch site?

[heezer7]

Launching from TX in the future...

Re:Intriguing, but landing at launch site?

[Rei]

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:Intriguing, but landing at launch site?

[Anonymous Coward]

For a F9 launch, there clearly is not. For an F9 Heavy with an undersized payload, perhaps. There is a whole hell of a difference between the booster following a powered ballistic trajectory and landing on a platform compared with 3 boosters doing a hypersonic pitch over and flying back up range.

Re:Intriguing, but landing at launch site?

[Hiroto. S]

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 comparing to 120 miles/h of skydiving of human body (I'm a skydiver), it is not very fast. So after the supersonic reentry, I assume first stage is already on the trajectory to free fall toward the landing pad only controlled by the fins without any fuel burn. I'm curious what is the terminal velocity of the falcon 9 first stage is, but with empty large volume with little fuel left, and engine cones facing down, I imagine it is not that fast. This phase of landing is abbreviated in their fancy CG, so I too also got impression that they burn fuel from pretty high up, but we also saw one chase plane video of first stage coming down through the clouds without burning any fuel and seems to be in stable free falling.

Re:Intriguing, but landing at launch site?

[Rei]

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?

[Rei]

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:Intriguing, but landing at launch site?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget that once separated, it doesn't need to push as much mass meaning less fuel usage, also alot of fuel has also burned out also reducing weight and fuel usage. The amount of fuel used is definitely much less for the return flight though it will drop the load what the rocket can carry for giant benefits of saving cost. This will be a none issue once the falcon 9 heavy rocket is fully developed and deployed though it also means returning 3 tanks back instead of 1.

Re:Intriguing, but landing at launch site?

[frank249]

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 point directly beneath the vehicle at stage separation falls approximately 16 nautical miles from the launch site."

Re:Intriguing, but landing at launch site?

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Intriguing, but landing at launch site?

[Plunky]

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.

Re:Intriguing, but landing at launch site?

[bledri]

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 when it separates. For those trajectories, there is about a 30% "payload hit", that is to say that for any payload massing 70% of the F9's maximum capability, they can include enough fuel to RTLS. If I recall correctly, landing on the barge incurs about a 15% payload hit on those more typical trajectories.

So for SpaceX, it comes down to economics. They have a barge on the east coast and are building one on the west coast for missions that don't have the margins to RTLS. But it saves them money to RTLS because then they don't have to pay crew for support ships and everything else involved in operating the landing platform. And landing on land (once approved), will always be less risk since the weather will be the same as the launch weather and there won't be 30 ft waves bouncing the landing pad around. So if conditions are good to launch, they will also be good to land.

As far as using an island or building a stationary platform goes, that isn't ideal for several reasons. A lack of available islands being one, but also it's location would always be a comprise because of all the varying trajectories. By using a barge (aka Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship), you can place it anywhere in the ocean for all the exceptions to RTLS, rather than only catch a subset.

Re:Intriguing, but landing at launch site?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its certainly considerable but at that point in the flight most of the velocity is up and they are beginning their sideways velocity (I believe its 50 miles up and 16 miles sideways), gravity will correct for its upward accent speed. Think of it like a ball you are throwing way up and sideways, a little after it leaves your hand it starts to correct its sideways velocity and tries to return to your hand.

Re:Intriguing, but landing at launch site?

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if its doing a less than optimal gravity turn in order to perform this "magic".

Re:Intriguing, but landing at launch site?

[bledri]

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:Intriguing, but landing at launch site?

[0123456]

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:Intriguing, but landing at launch site?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the second link, the environmental impact study (its a bit more than just a EIS)

page 16
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 that, during a launch, is
stationed in a Range Safety-designated safe zone near the anticipated area of splash-down. Recovery operations
are described in the 2007 EA (USAF 2007). 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 point directly beneath the
vehicle at stage separation falls approximately 16 nautical miles from the launch site.

Re:Intriguing, but landing at launch site?

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously because I moderated.

Currently, the Falcon 9 first stage drops by parachute approximately 500 nautical miles downrange into the Atlantic Ocean...

No it doesn't. The first stage descends with two or three different rocket burns, the final one leading it to a vertical landing, like this. If they don't descend propulsively, it just drops into the ocean, like almost all first stages before it.

Re:Intriguing, but landing at launch site?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, it was a copy paste from their environmental report. Are you arguing with their own report?

Re:Intriguing, but landing at launch site?

[ajnafern]

The report is wrong, no Falcon 9 has ever had a parachute.

Re:SpaceX stories

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is a haven for Space Nutters to repeat sci-fi tropes at each other.

Re:SpaceX stories

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I'll call the whambullance for that AC

But yes, almost everything new happening in space industry is related to Spacex. They already have no competition, but are pushing the gap between them and nearest competitors ever further.

Must did the impossible. Not only in the electric car field, but in rocketry. He's making them accessible. Something that would not have happened otherwise for at least a generation.

Intriguing, but landing at launch site?

[Anonymous Coward]

Launch for Arizona, Texas or New Mexico and then Florida is the perfect landing spot, right?

Re:SpaceX stories

[Anonymous Coward]

All the Space X stories here - it's like being on a Twitter feed.

I guess there are some of Musk's promotion team on Slashdot's staff here.

I'll send an email to Richard Branson and let him know that someone is taking his thunder.

What isn't to love about a billionaire funding space development in the private sector, its like Batman with rockets.

Re:SpaceX stories

[bigpat]

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 all the right reasons.

Re:SpaceX stories

[Anonymous Coward]

Just remember what happened with Hugo Drax.

Recovery seems to be a non issue at this point

[Anonymous Coward]

If their landing accuracy is even half of what they were able to achieve on their barge attempt (and the 10M accuracy water landing they claimed for the most recent flight) its virtually assured that regular recovery of the booster stages can be achieved with a moderate sized land based pad. Your average parking lot would be more than adequate.

yes, that was a "Far Out Space Nuts" reference

[Thud457]

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.

Re: yes, that was a "Far Out Space Nuts" reference

[WindBourne]

Actually, the launch has everything, including full fuel. Landing the first stage with next to nothing in it will be much smaller.

Re:yes, that was a "Far Out Space Nuts" reference

[the_other_chewey]

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.

Definitely correct. That ruins everyone's dinner plans.

Intriguing, but landing at launch site?

[Anonymous Coward]

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:SpaceX stories

[Dragonslicer]

It's not like any of us schmucks will buy a rocket.

I won PowerBall last night, you insensitive clod!

Got to be easier to land on stationary target

[BigFire]

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:Got to be easier to land on stationary target

[Drathos]

"choppy sea" is a bit of an understatement. Waves were in excess of 10 meters.

Lots more details

[Hiroto. S]

Lots more details describe in this article: DSCOVR Mission Updates. One interesting information is that landing burn in only 28 seconds. That's all it takes to slow down from the terminal velocity down to 0 while performing the final guiding maneuver to the bulls eye.

Re:SpaceX stories

[ClickOnThis]

Just remember what happened to Hugo Drax.

FTFY. He was pushed out an airlock.