SpaceX Falcon 9 historic landing thread (1st landing attempt & most recent missions)

madcow rocketry
Onebadhawk
rocket sok
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
cvanc said:
Are they really building five landing pads at LC39? If so... can you say 'Falcon Ultra Heavy'?
Click to expand...

No. LC 39 is for launching Falcon Heavy, and perhaps a bigger rocket later.

The landing site is LC-13 down at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, an old Atlas site. SpaceX's plan is for five "pads" there, but.....

Can you say Primary landing pad, and 4 contingency pads to divert to in case there is too much landing error to safely make the primary?

I'll post a bit more later on that later.

- George Gassaway
 
Last edited:
Next flight listed as Feb 9th (though one site says Feb 8th, as a No Earlier Than listing)

Here are a couple of images from SpaceX's plans for LC-13 as a Landing Site. The other 4 pads are "contingency" landing pads in case the rocket is a bit off course, so it would be safer to retarget to those instead of trying a "Do or DIE" drastic landing maneuver at the primary site like the last landing attempt did.

It is not for landing multiple boosters. SpaceX will need other landing sites for other boosters. For now one site seems good enough, till they prove it out. For Falcon Heavy they may have to sacrifice one side booster until they have another landing facility (assuming the ASDS barge is used for the center core to land on much farther out at sea).

Y4Zl1Aa.jpg


guFD4di.jpg


Story about it, at this link:

https://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/0...backs-spacex-landing-facility-cape-canaveral/

Some snippets from the SpaceX document:

"The landing facility would be used to recover first stages of both the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles. Only one of the three first-stage cores for the Falcon Heavy would land at LC-13.

“This document assumes that only one of the two boosters (or one center core) would return to LC-13,” ……
“A multiple booster landing scenario would require additional infrastructure and study not included as part of this Proposed Action.”

And from the story linked to above:

"Under the plan, SpaceX would construct a square concrete landing pad measuring approximately 200 by 200 feet. The company also would construct four additional, 150-foot diameter concrete contingency pads to accommodate last-minute navigation and landing diversions.
The report noted that returning Falcon 9 first stages, which would land about 10 minutes after launch, would contain less than one percent of the fuel they had at liftoff. If flight termination was necessary, it would occur over the open ocean. The guidance, navigation, and control system of the Falcon 9 is triplicated, making it one-fault tolerant.
After landing and ending shutdown, a recovery crew would safe the vehicle. The crew would drain up to 150 gallons of excess RP-1 fuel, purge the LOX oxidizer system, vent any remaining pressurizing gases, and render the flight termination system inert."

A person (Jdeshetler) on NSF modified a Google Earth image to reflect what the SpaceX document describes. He also wrote a synopsis to go with it.

- George Gassaway

Major modifications:
- New 200 foot by 200 foot square concrete landing pad
- surrounded by an approximately 750 foot diameter compressed soil and gravel, flat pervious surface.
- four additional, 150 foot diameter concrete “contingency” pads*
- access roads between pads is to be made with compact gravels/riverbed rocks.
- at the location of the former blockhouse, a steel and concrete “stand” would be built to secure the Falcon stage during post-landing operations.
- clearing existing vegetation from the land between the LC-13 operations area to
the ditch to the east, and then up to the beach area but not dunes itself.

The X logo on the major pad is the same size as the barge's for scale.

J6KUmjI.jpg
 
georgegassaway said:
Major modifications:
- New 200 foot by 200 foot square concrete landing pad
- surrounded by an approximately 750 foot diameter compressed soil and gravel, flat pervious surface.
- four additional, 150 foot diameter concrete “contingency” pads*
- access roads between pads is to be made with compact gravels/riverbed rocks.
- at the location of the former blockhouse, a steel and concrete “stand” would be built to secure the Falcon stage during post-landing operations.
- clearing existing vegetation from the land between the LC-13 operations area to
the ditch to the east, and then up to the beach area but not dunes itself.

The X logo on the major pad is the same size as the barge's for scale.

J6KUmjI.jpg
Click to expand...

Maybe its late and my eyes are playing tricks on me but those structures to the left look like they are hanging upside down.
 
Falcon X Heavy - latest animation which also shows the landing site:

[video=youtube;4Ca6x4QbpoM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ca6x4QbpoM[/video]
 
georgegassaway said:
It is not for landing multiple boosters. SpaceX will need other landing sites for other boosters. For now one site seems good enough, till they prove it out. For Falcon Heavy they may have to sacrifice one side booster until they have another landing facility (assuming the ASDS barge is used for the center core to land on much farther out at sea).
Click to expand...

Except that isn't what SpaceX showed in their video animation. And so the speculation was whether SpaceX had plans beyond what they had already proposed to NASA that they were "hinting" at in the video.

Of course it could just be just for show, and we get that, but it does whet the appetite a bit and make you wonder what sorts of things they talk about behind closed doors for the long term.
 
mpitfield said:
Maybe its late and my eyes are playing tricks on me but those structures to the left look like they are hanging upside down.
Click to expand...

The perspective is definitely screwed up. I looks like the original photo was taken from a different angle, say slightly from the north. And the the photo was "tilted" for a perspective from the south. The buildings should obscure some of their own shadow, but they don't.
 
Wow, that video was just released yesterday.

The official legal documents filed by SpaceX to get permission to convert LC-13 claims those are "Contingency" pads and no more than one booster will come back to land at that site per launch.

At best, that video shows what SpaceX would like to do some day. At worst… it's not a legal document, it's a Public Relations video which may have "simplified" things by showing all three cores landing at the same landing site.

What, would SpaceX ever LIE? No "close but no cigar" barge landing video due to fog and darkness, when they had LIVE video of the crash, huh?

BTW - SpaceX is having a second ASDS landing barge built. Based on the West Coast, for launches from Vandenberg

- George Gassaway
 
Last edited:
I'm sure SpaceX will only do what they get permission to do, and the video was a PR video with a slightly simplified illustration of the recovery process. It may make sense to have multiple alternative pads in the beginning. Maybe if they can prove a high degree of reliability and accuracy at landing on the primary pad every time, the secondary pads could be used in the future for landing additional boosters from a single launch. I wouldn't read too much into the discrepancy between the video and the legal docs.
 
ThirstyBarbarian said:
I'm sure SpaceX will only do what they get permission to do, and the video was a PR video with a slightly simplified illustration of the recovery process. It may make sense to have multiple alternative pads in the beginning. Maybe if they can prove a high degree of reliability and accuracy at landing on the primary pad every time, the secondary pads could be used in the future for landing additional boosters from a single launch. I wouldn't read too much into the discrepancy between the video and the legal docs.
Click to expand...

Not reading too much into it. Just daydream fodder.
 
Peartree said:
Not reading too much into it. Just daydream fodder.
Click to expand...

I'm definitely with you on that. I think it would be great if they could do it exactly as shown with both the boosters and the central core flying back and landing on their own pads.

And with 5 pads, why not two more boosters? With cross feeding, you could start with all of them burning, 2 drop off when empty, leaving the other two and center full, then the other two drop off when empty, leaving the center core full. That's a high degree of staging.

Heck, as long as it's daydreaming, let's have two more landing pads and a total of 6 boosters and a central core!!! Now we're going places!
 
ThirstyBarbarian said:
I'm definitely with you on that. I think it would be great if they could do it exactly as shown with both the boosters and the central core flying back and landing on their own pads.

And with 5 pads, why not two more boosters? With cross feeding, you could start with all of them burning, 2 drop off when empty, leaving the other two and center full, then the other two drop off when empty, leaving the center core full. That's a high degree of staging.
Click to expand...
Some have speculated that possibly that SpaceX filing for permission to modify and use LC-13 is a "bait and switch". That ultimately they do intend to land multiple stages back at that one site. And that could even include a theoretical Falcon REALLY Heavy with 4 side boosters. But later on they might push for changes to get permission to do what they said at the outset they were not going to do.

ThirstyBarbarian said:
Heck, as long as it's daydreaming, let's have two more landing pads and a total of 6 boosters and a central core!!! Now we're going places!
Click to expand...

Like "asparagus staging", as used so much in Kerbal Space Program.

https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tutorial:Asparagus_Staging

180px-Asparagus-staging.svg.png
214px-Kerbal_x_launchpad.png


Like the above stock rocket, Kerbal-X, which has one pair of side boosters feeding fuel to the whole rocket, then when that fuel is gone those two drop, and the next two feed their fuel to the whole rocket, and so on.

Below, my first big mega-rocket in KSP. The first stage used 6 side boosters (3 pairs) for the first stage, and the other stages also were "asparagus" staged..

- George Gassaway

lLTSs.gif
 
Last edited:
georgegassaway said:
Some have noted that possibly the SpaceX filing for permission to modify and use LC-13 is a "bait and switch", that ultimately they do intend to land multiple stages back at that one site, and that could even include a Falcon REALLY Heavy with 4 side boosters. But for now they claim that is not their intent. But later on they might push for changes to get permission to do what they said at the outset they were not going to do.
Click to expand...

Even if that was what they were doing, that is not really a "Bait and Switch." Bait and switch is when you try offer to sell someone something for a good deal, and then you actually sell them something else of lesser quality. You bait them with a good deal and then switch them to a bad deal. In this case, SpaceX needs permission for everything they do at the facility, so there can be no switching to something that is not approved. I don't see anything wrong with them asking for permission to try something limited in scope, such as landing a single rocket stage, and then, if that is successful, asking for permission to expand to landing more stages. The government can always say no if they don't like the idea.
 
Semantics.

If they do intend to land multiple stages at LC 13, they should simply say that is their eventual goal, but will start out with landing only one and see how it goes.

But that is not what they say in their application filing. They say one booster per flight, for the main pad, and the contingency pads are in case of navigation errors for that one booster to have other landing options.

For sure they will need permission no matter what. But the original permission to do it at all is based on what they have filed and I presume "sworn to be true" (signatures) without hiding additional known plans that otherwise should be included.

If I were the CCAFS officer in charge of the process, i'd ask SpaceX to publicly explain the discrepancies between the legally filed paperwork (since the filing is a public document, and it uses public/CCAFS land) and this video before the process of considering approval of any RTLS landings continues any further.

- George Gasaway
 
Last edited:
Boostback to the launch site is cool and all, but it will really cut into payload, ESPECIALLY for the core stage which will be a lot higher, a LOT further downrange, and going a WHOLE LOT faster than the side boosters.

I could see PERHAPS the two side boosters doing a full boostback maneuver and landing back near the launch site, but the core-- IMHO the best way of doing that is putting the barge downrange in the middle of the ocean and having it land there, and transporting it back to land. That's the most fuel-efficient way and has the lowest impact on payload capability.

For maximum payload efficiency, you'd really want to land all three as close to their "unrecovered impact points" as possible... IOW, use as little propellant as possible to slow the boosters and maneuver them down onto the barges.

Later! OL JR :)
 
georgegassaway said:
Semantics.

If they do intend to land multiple stages at LC 13, they should say that is their eventual goal, but will start out with landing only one and see how it goes.

But that is not what they say in their application filing. They say one booster per flight, for the main pad, and the contingency pads are in case of navigation errors for that one booster to have other landing options.

- George Gasaway
Click to expand...

I don't read it that way. According to the document you provided, they say that recovering more that one booster would require additional infrastructure and additional study. I don't see anything wrong with asking for permission for the one thing they want to do as soon as possible (land one booster), without first doing all the study and analysis that would be required to do the other thing they may or may not want to do eventually (multiple boosters). They don't say they never want to land multiple boosters, just that it is not in the scope of the current proposal. I seriously doubt it's a trick of some kind.
 
Winston said:
Falcon X Heavy - latest animation which also shows the landing site:

[video=youtube;4Ca6x4QbpoM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ca6x4QbpoM[/video]
Click to expand...

I still say Elon buys an Island somewhere then he can do what he wants from his underground lair. SpaceX is so different that NASA I just get a kick out of the flair, love the music they put to that video.
 
mpitfield said:
I still say Elon buys an Island somewhere then he can do what he wants from his underground lair. SpaceX is so different that NASA I just get a kick out of the flair, love the music they put to that video.
Click to expand...

I think he should build a huge floating island in international waters and declare a sovereign state. Then he can have an active independent national space program not subject to the whims and politics of any other nation, with daily flights to orbit, to the moon, and beyond. And once the Mars Colonial Transporter is complete, all citizens of the floating island nation can relocate en masse to Mars.
 
ThirstyBarbarian said:
I think he should build a huge floating island in international waters and declare a sovereign state. Then he can have an active independent national space program not subject to the whims and politics of any other nation, with daily flights to orbit, to the moon, and beyond. And once the Mars Colonial Transporter is complete, all citizens of the floating island nation can relocate en masse to Mars.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but then he might change his name to Blowfeld and scare the pee out of everyone...
 

Similar threads

K
My Level 2 Attempt - a Diurnal Flight of "Nocturnal Missions"
Replies
5
Views
612
kjhambrick
K
alexzogh
Huntsville Saturn 1b was scrapped
Replies
7
Views
582
CalebJ
CalebJ
INFX_TryHard
Astrorizzicist - My attempt at a mostly 3D printed L2 capable rocket
Replies
29
Views
2K
thzero
T
Switch
SpaceX Falcon Heavy Build 3.0 (1:90 Scale, BT-60 tubes)
Replies
6
Views
2K
Switch
Switch
Switch
SpaceX Falcon Heavy Build 4.0 (1:65 Scale, BT-70 tubes) - a work in progress...
2 3
Replies
79
Views
9K
Switch
Switch

Latest posts

Back
Top