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.