18

According to this image (taken from this answer)

LC-39A layout for Super Heavy

The landing zone is situated right next to the Starship pad.
In contrast, the Falcon 9 landing pads are much much further at 28°29′09″N 80°32′40″W on launch complex 13 (pad 39A is at 28°36′30.2″N 80°36′15.6″W)

Why will the Superheavy (and Starship?) land so close to the launch pad?

Speedphoenix
  • 5,324
  • 4
  • 25
  • 55

2 Answers2

23

While this seems lightly ill conceived, it actually makes sense. Super Heavy is going to be very large, as these things go.

70m tall, 9m wide, and while not very dense, still quite heavy.

Not very easy to move around. The plan is to land close by to make moving it back to the launch pad easier.

Original plan was notionally to land back on the launch pad. That is implying a level of accuracy in landing that is really quite astounding. (Consider that while SpaceX has landed 55 stages either on a fairly small barge or a small landing pad, the variation in position is still on the order of 10 feet (3 meters) or more away from the center of the X. Hitting a landing pad exactly without breaking anything seems like maybe that was a reach too far).

They have a serious goal of reflying the first stage on a daily or greater frequency. The farther away it lands, the longer it takes to get ready to fly again. Thus the original plan. If you land back on the pad, much quicker to gas and go for next launch. (Personally I always thought that was overly optimistic, but one can dream!)

Speedphoenix
  • 5,324
  • 4
  • 25
  • 55
geoffc
  • 79,523
  • 12
  • 227
  • 419
  • 3
    The risk for damages to a stage landed on a barge seems a little higher. High waves, salt water, unloading from the barge, these risks do not exist when landing close to the launch pad on the ground. – Uwe Jun 08 '20 at 20:16
  • 2
    @uwe True. Every location has its own set of issues. You weigh them and select based on your needs. – geoffc Jun 08 '20 at 20:18
  • So they plan to reuse without refurbishment right away? – Speedphoenix Jun 08 '20 at 20:45
  • 1
    @Speedphoenix it's certainly an aspiration. – Steve Linton Jun 08 '20 at 20:52
  • @SteveLinton doing that on first try seems like a stretch to me. But then that landing zone might be jut for when they reach that point, and they might use the falcon landing zones until then... – Speedphoenix Jun 08 '20 at 20:53
  • 3
    Whatever landing zone they use is going to need some serious and special purpose equipment. An empty superheavy as currently planned is due to be 9m wide, 70m high and mass 230 tons (compare 3.6m, 42m and just over 20 tons for a Falcon 9). So it'll pretty much need to be bespoke. Given that they may as well build it where they want it. – Steve Linton Jun 08 '20 at 20:58
  • Is the landing pad actually different from the launch pad now? – ikrase Jun 09 '20 at 08:51
  • 4
    as of February the plan was to have wheels attached to the landing legs so that SS and SH could be towed around without additional equipment. If the wheels are integral to the legs or would be de/attached by ground crew wasn't stated; on one hand they'd be a significant amount of additional drymass if permanently attached. On the other installing and removing them after each flight would make a several hour turn around more difficult. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2020/02/spacex-starship-will-have-wheels-and-get-towed-to-launch-pad.html – Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight Jun 09 '20 at 10:51
  • @ikrase Yes. There are landing zones, near to but separate from their respective launch pads, in Florida and California - but most Falcon 9 launches currently land on their droneships. – Steve Melnikoff Jun 09 '20 at 15:19
  • @SteveMelnikoff Of 53 landings, 19 were RTLS, rest were ASDS drones. So is that most? But interesting numbers nonetheless. – geoffc Jun 09 '20 at 15:27
  • 1
    @geoffc I wrote the comment before checking the actual numbers, so "most" is probably not the most accurate term, but you get the idea. :-) – Steve Melnikoff Jun 09 '20 at 15:28
  • @SteveMelnikoff Someone is wrong on the Internet, I am not sure I can accept "but you get the idea". It is wrong and I must correct it! :) Anyway, no problem. Most probably is still correct. – geoffc Jun 09 '20 at 16:18
  • 1
    @Uwe I'm picturing a rocket hovering over the landing pad, waiting for an earthquake to subside before landing. With space vehicles getting cheaper, more accurate, and more maneuverable, surely that will happen someday! – jpaugh Jun 09 '20 at 18:22
1

The reason why the landing pad is so close to the launchpad is for SpaceX to be able to launch rockets as frequently as possible. In the announcement of Starship and Superheavy, we see that SpaceX is planning to launch a rocket more than once in a day as they are planning to create an Interplanetary transport system. For this purpose, the landing pad has to be close so the booster can be transported to the launchpad as fast as possible (It is not that easy to do that).

AtlantX
  • 162
  • 6