Slashdot Mirror


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.

14 of 53 comments (clear)

  1. Re:SpaceX stories by Scottingham · · 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.

  2. Re:SpaceX stories by ckatko · · Score: 2

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

  3. Re:SpaceX stories by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  4. Re:Landing near populated areas? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

    Less dangerous than LAUNCHING near populated areas.

  5. Intriguing, but landing at launch site? by sasparillascott · · 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....

    1. Re:Intriguing, but landing at launch site? by Rei · · Score: 4, 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...

      --
      "That girl is a witch!" "Yeah, but she's our witch. So cut her the hell down!"
    2. Re:Intriguing, but landing at launch site? by Hiroto.+S · · 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 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.

    3. Re:Intriguing, but landing at launch site? by Rei · · 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.

      --
      "That girl is a witch!" "Yeah, but she's our witch. So cut her the hell down!"
  6. Re:Landing near populated areas? by Immerman · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  7. Re:The EIS summary is full of shit by Guspaz · · Score: 2

    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...

  8. Re:SpaceX stories by bigpat · · Score: 2, 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 all the right reasons.

  9. Re:SpaceX stories by Dragonslicer · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    I won PowerBall last night, you insensitive clod!

  10. Re: yes, that was a "Far Out Space Nuts" reference by WindBourne · · Score: 2

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

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  11. Lots more details by Hiroto.+S · · Score: 2

    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.