Draft Environmental Report Backs SpaceX Landing Facility at Cape Canaveral
Proposed SpaceX landing facility (Credit: Gator Engineering & Aquifer Restoration, Inc.)
By Douglas Messier
Managing Editor
A draft environmental assessment supports a plan to land SpaceX Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy first stages at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), subject to efforts to mitigate adverse impacts on wildlife.
The proposed location is Launch Complex 13 (LC-13), which was used to launch Atlas rockets from 1958 to 1978. The U.S. Air Force has since demolished the blockhouse, mobile launch tower and associated infrastructure.
The report found there would be little impact on the public because LC-13 is located far from populated areas. The site is close to SpaceX’s launch pads and vehicle processing facility, but it is a significant distance from most operations at CCAFS.
LC-13 was previously used as a launch complex, meaning the new facility would be compatible with the original land use, the assessment stated. Previous construction has already disturbed much of the land at the site, limiting the environmental impacts on the environment and nearby wildlife.
Construction of the landing facility would involve clearing approximately 48.3 acres of vegetation. The report found the clearing would adversely impact the Florida scrub-jay, southeastern beach mouse and eastern indigo snake.
The Air Force has recommended restoring approximately 100 acres of habitat elsewhere on the station over a five-year period to accommodate the species. The assessment also recommended a number of other mitigation measures, including limiting construction activities during the scrub-jay’s nesting season.
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 steel and concrete ‘stand’ would be built to secure the Falcon stage during post-landing operations,” according to the report. “The stand would consist of four individual pedestal structures which would be transported to site and bolted to a concrete base. Each of the four pedestals, would weigh approximately 15,000 lbs, and would be 107 inches tall and 96.25 inches wide.
“A mobile crane would lift the stage from the landing pad, and transport and place it on the stand. Activities such as allowing the landing legs to be removed or folded back to the stage (flight position) prior to placing the stage in a horizontal position would occur there,” the report stated.
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,” the assessment stated. “A multiple booster landing scenario would require additional infrastructure and study not included as part of this Proposed Action.”
SpaceX would plan to land no more than 12 first stages per year under an initial five-year real property license with the U.S. Air Force, the assessment states. Some of the landings could occur at night.
The report says that no acceptable alternative landing sites were found at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center. A number of launch complexes at CCAFS, but they were rejected.
“The USAF would have to end operations or have them curtailed,” the report stated. “Based on current USAF operational needs, and the potential for significant additional demolition and re-construction at some facilities, therefore these locations were not considered reasonable alternatives.
“In addition, new locations on previously undisturbed land at CCAFS were considered but dismissed from detailed analysis in this EA because locating landing operations on previously undisturbed land would result in greater and unacceptable environmental impact to various resources, including wetlands, biological, and archaeological resources and were therefore determined to be unreasonable alternatives,” the report added.
The issuing of the environmental assessment is the first step in the process. After a period of public review, the Air Force will determine whether the landing facility would pose significant impacts on the human environment. If it does not, the Air Force would issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) and begin negotiations on a real property license with SpaceX.
The FAA will rely on the environmental assessment in deciding whether to issue its own FONSI. The agency also must grant a launch license to SpaceX that covers landings at LC-13.
24 responses to “Draft Environmental Report Backs SpaceX Landing Facility at Cape Canaveral”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
So SpaceX is just going to be force to throw away really expansive hardware and not do something about it?
Don’t the folks in Florida know about the little SpaceX construction project in South Texas?
If the barge landing works, they might just build another one and have one FH core land on land and two on barges. I’ve long believed that the best way to recover the center core of a FH is on a barge downrange, if possible. It would be traveling much faster and higher than a F9 at staging, so it may not be feasible to recover it. It always seemed to me too big a challenge to bring it back to the launch site.
Thinking mostly of the strapped-on booster cores. For most satcom flights to GTO the center core should be able to make it back to CCAFS.
Figure SpaceX will prefer core recovery on land. Since barge recovery costs additional time and money plus the increase risk of a landing mishap.
I’m sure SpaceX would prefer landing all of the cores on land as opposed to barges. If they’re only allowed to land one core at a time at LC-13 (as the article implies), then they either have the choice of throwing away two cores or landing them elsewhere. Perhaps the long-term plan is for the outer cores to be throw-aways, perhaps previously flown ones with little residual value. With propellant crossfeed, those outer cores will be much lower and slower than a F9 core at staging while the center core will be much higher and faster. Those two outer cores would be much easier to return to launch site than the center one. Assuming the center core can be recovered at all, it seems more reasonable to land it on a downrange barge.
For other than government payloads, I’m pretty sure most of the F9 and FH flights to GTO will be from Texas.
I think the long-term plan (i.e. within 10 years) is to retire the Falcon architecture, so the three-core heavy is only an interim solution. From Musk’s various comments of late, there is the impression that Falcon is being treated very much as learning platform.
It’s hard to say. The Falcon series fits a major market niche. MCT would likely be too large for most needed space launches. Could they apply the methane engines they’re developing to a rocket of similar capacity to the Falcon? I think that’s quite likely and would simplify their manufacturing and launch processing.
I am seriously beginning to wonder if the BFR might not be the only system they use to get to LEO. Then use some other method (tugs) to get to other orbits.
The long-term view stated by Elon is to have hundreds or thousands of launches per year. The only plausible payloads for such a scenario is people plus goods and services. Getting to LEO is by far the most expensive part of any journey and he has already spoken of fuelling MCT (actually he said “the Mars colonial fleet”) on orbit.
A very large surface to LEO launch system would be by the far the most cost efficient way to orbit and more straight forward for recovery of the second stage, since return from higher will not have to be accommodated.
From a capital and engineering standpoint it would certainly make sense to use the same system for both the Mars project and the LEO/cis-lunar end. Launching Earth orbiting satellites will never be a large scale project – humans becoming a space faring species will be. I simply wonder if Elon is planning for sooner than we had expected.
He most definitely is.
Just out of curiosity, when did you expect that to happen?
Musk as mentioned about hundreds-thousands of launches per year in 20 years. Whether or not it comes to pass quite so soon may be questionable. The point is that if that is his expectation, presumably he expects SpaceX to be capable of implementing systems to allow it to happen. So, perhaps BFR will be both a super heavy reusable launch architecture to service not only MCT, but also all other LEO activity. It’s not as hairbrained a scheme as it sounds on first hearing. If eveyone’s dreams of space stations, Moon bases, Mars colonies and beyond are ever going to happen, we must move past the idea of launchers taking payloads from surface to specific orbits. It’s the container ship model, but in this case the container ship goes from surface to LEO.
Fully agree with your thoughts. Oh and btw it is good to see there are at least some people who grasp the difference between MCT and “BFR”! 😉
There is a nasty tendency lately to use the word “of” to inflate and sensationalize values. The terms “Tens of” or “Thousands of” is now heard on almost any newscast and certainly is not an allowed use in the official style guide news casters and writers are supposed to be governed by. No one ever thinks to check the implications of these number claims. When Elon or anyone says 100s of Launches a year, I have to ask – Really? SpaceX has yet to even reach one a month like ULA basically does. All the launches of significance in the world are somewhere between 100-200 per year. 200 launches a year would be around one every 1.75 days. I just don’t see that possible even with multiple launch sites. Even with an exotic lift technology such as a space elevator the time to lift and capacity is limited. High launch rate is not an answer ultimately. Anything used in space will eventually have to be produced and assembled in space. Launches should be reserved for the essential items such as human cargo or very specialized payloads not yet produced in situ. I very much believe SpaceX is the answer to many of these problems, but practicality is the limiting factor. People really need to think about the wild claims being made by everyone.
I’d wager very much more is being treated as a learning platform by Musk, than only Falcon.
This was an environmental assessment of SpaceX’s proposal for LC-13. So it’s based on what SpaceX has told them they will do at that landing site.
The report says that all the first stage cores of a Falcon Heavy will have landing legs. Thus, it seems likely that the other two cores would be recovered at other landing sites.
I believe so. A lot of the analysis would be the same because the activity would be similar and the distance from populated areas would be the same. But, they would have to look at how much land was cleared, impact on wildlife, etc.
Anything in it about a floating platform near shore? Preferably with extending legs to anchor it, keeping it completely stationary when the core is coming.
That would be a semi-submersible. Either that or old oil platform.
Or they just plan to upgrade them to SOP landing points, once the accuracy and reliability of the system is sufficient. The stages will come in over the main pad and divert to the smaller ones. x4 capacity over the initial, which accmodates a full FH RTLS + margin. 😉
The contingency pads suggest to me the requirement to land multiple cores from each FH mission. even if the two outside cores fly back to site and the main core goes to the barge, two physical pads are needed at site. Two cores cannot land simultaneously on one pad. Therefore, the need for the outlying auxiliary pads
Musk said recently, that they will judge the main core to be non-retrievable. As he said, it is possible, but would require loads of engineering/money, therefore not worth it.
BTW, that is why MCT will not be 3 core based.
He actually said almost the opposite of that, saying how the center core would be recovered for different launches, and certainly didn’t give that as the reason for the BFR using a single large core. He just said a single large stage made more sense.
only for one stage (per flight) or only for stage one (cores)?
Just an aside:
Musk has said that the main core on FH is unretrievable. Basically, moving too fast. As such, they will only get 2 cores from FH.
He didn’t say anything like that. This is what he actually said:
“Yes, the Falcon Heavy center core is seriously hauling a** at stage separation. We can bring it back to the launch site, but the boost back penalty is significant. If we also have to the plane change for geo missions from Cape inclination (28.5 deg) to equatorial, then a downrange platform landing is needed.”
They can do another assessment later, with more data available