Timeline for SpaceX first stage landing: Why not use an elevated net above the landing platform to catch the rocket?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jun 1, 2022 at 20:19 | history | suggested | No Nonsense | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Spell check, formatting, improve style remove unnecessary punctuation noise.
|
| Jun 1, 2022 at 15:44 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 1, 2022 at 20:19 | |||||
| Aug 3, 2021 at 17:42 | comment | added | jkavalik | I will probably have to revisit this and my answer :) twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1422603106035118085 | |
| Mar 10, 2021 at 8:49 | answer | added | Slarty | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 9, 2018 at 18:03 | comment | added | Mazura | If you're going 0m/s when you hit the net, why not just be going 0m/s when you touch down? And if you're going above 0m/s, what sort of handwavium is your net made out of|? @KeithThompson - You mean to tell me there was an answer here that said, "Money." ? I would've UV that. | |
| Aug 15, 2016 at 17:26 | comment | added | Keith Thompson | Speculation: In the event of a failed booster landing, the cost of repairing or replacing the net and support structure would probably exceed the repair costs for the current landing platforms. I posted an answer to this effect, but I haven't been able to find any numbers to back it up, so I'm deleting the answer and posting this comment instead. | |
| Mar 6, 2016 at 0:20 | history | edited | Gaddy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 646 characters in body
|
| Mar 6, 2016 at 0:15 | history | edited | Gaddy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 646 characters in body
|
| Mar 6, 2016 at 0:09 | history | edited | Gaddy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 646 characters in body
|
| Mar 6, 2016 at 0:03 | history | edited | Gaddy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 646 characters in body
|
| Mar 5, 2016 at 21:30 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSpaceExp/status/706230322652946435 | ||
| Mar 5, 2016 at 13:20 | answer | added | paul23 | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 5, 2016 at 12:23 | answer | added | Hobbes | timeline score: 22 | |
| Mar 5, 2016 at 10:09 | comment | added | Gaddy | Not that much similar ; the issues of this cone solution do not apply here (landing on a non-flat surface, damage on the rocket side, etc.) | |
| Mar 5, 2016 at 10:03 | comment | added | Hobbes | This is very similar to this question: space.stackexchange.com/questions/7866/… | |
| Mar 5, 2016 at 7:59 | comment | added | Gaddy | That's true. But I might still be best to save as much cost as possible for "common" earth rockets. | |
| Mar 5, 2016 at 7:56 | history | edited | Gaddy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 123 characters in body
|
| Mar 5, 2016 at 7:32 | comment | added | LocalFluff | I think they are aiming at developing systems which can land on unprepared terrain, even on the Moon and Mars. Even if it isn't useful for landing F9 1st stage, I think they use it as a test vehicle. | |
| Mar 5, 2016 at 6:47 | history | edited | Gaddy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 356 characters in body
|
| Mar 5, 2016 at 6:36 | comment | added | Gaddy | The "hole" in the middle of the net could be quite large (as large as the grid fins could be long), and I had the impression that all the past attempts were already really precise for this point. And on the other side, a lot of fuel would be saved by removing the legs weight and the perfectly steady landing at almost 0 speed. (but of course i did not calculation and I wouldn't be able to ^^) | |
| Mar 5, 2016 at 6:25 | comment | added | uhoh | Dry weight: ~25 Tons, each 1% remaining fuel is another 4 Tons which is not a show stopper by itself, but making the rocket pass almost completely through a small hole may a bigger burden on navigation - it's certainly a smaller aperture in phase space than landing (which i this case has 10 instead of the usual six dimensions since tilting is important. But it's worth considering further! A potential advantage is that your net could conceivably absorb some variable amount of down-velocity - it doesn't have to reach zero at zero. | |
| Mar 5, 2016 at 6:22 | answer | added | jkavalik | timeline score: 17 | |
| Mar 5, 2016 at 5:30 | review | First posts | |||
| Mar 5, 2016 at 5:35 | |||||
| Mar 5, 2016 at 5:27 | history | asked | Gaddy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |