Anyone know how SpaceX plans to soft land the falcon heavy boosters?

[sojourner]

I don't see why the customer will ask for a specific launch profile. They want an attitude and orbital plane but hardly care how they get where.

Your second sentence answers the first sentence.

There seems to be some confusion about what burns the first stage will make after separation.

1. re-entry burn.

2. boost back.

3. landing burn.

So Far SpaceX has tested #1 and #3 but not attempted #2 on any flight.

Edited August 14, 2014 by sojourner

[Borklund]

Because they need permission from the Air Force to attempt #2, which they don't have (yet).

[sojourner]

Because they need permission from the Air Force to attempt #2, which they don't have (yet).

Incorrect. They can boost back whenever they choose to try. What they need approval for is attempting to bring the stage in over land.

[StrandedonEarth]

SpaceX is planning a launch facility in Texas. Would they be able to launch from Texas and land in Florida?

[sojourner]

SpaceX is planning a launch facility in Texas. Would they be able to launch from Texas and land in Florida?

No. It's too far.

[Armchair Rocket Scientist]

No. It's too far.

Or, in the case of the center core of a Falcon Heavy, too close.

[Borklund]

There are already plans and talks for landing sites at existing launch complexes. Brownsville isn't even built yet but it would probably necessitate boostback or a landing platform out at sea.

[Moar Boosters]

The two potential flight profiles are illustrated quite clearly in this study. One has a steeper launch angle for a return to landing site, and the other shows a flatter trajectory which would require them to develop the floating landing platform for downrange recovery.

http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/SpaceWorks%20VTVL%20Study%20-%20Release.pdf

[R0cketC0der]

The two potential flight profiles are illustrated quite clearly in this study. One has a steeper launch angle for a return to landing site, and the other shows a flatter trajectory which would require them to develop the floating landing platform for downrange recovery.

http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/SpaceWorks%20VTVL%20Study%20-%20Release.pdf

Where does that mention a steeper trajectory? For me it looks like the only difference is the time at which the first stage gets decoupled.

[sojourner]

The two potential flight profiles are illustrated quite clearly in this study. One has a steeper launch angle for a return to landing site, and the other shows a flatter trajectory which would require them to develop the floating landing platform for downrange recovery.

http://www.sei.aero/eng/papers/uploads/archive/SpaceWorks%20VTVL%20Study%20-%20Release.pdf

SpaceX has no interest in developing floating landing platforms for normal operations. It adds too much cost to the process. Don't confuse this with SpaceX throwing a barge out there for landing tests on the next few flights.

[Aethon]

Found this chase plane view of the recent water landing. Pretty crappy camera work but better than a jab in the eye with a sharp stick.

http://www.space.com/26846-spacex-first-stage-reentry-captured-by-chase-plane-video.html