Timeline for More efficient SpaceX landings?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mar 10, 2017 at 4:10 | vote | accept | Jake Blocker | ||
Mar 9, 2017 at 17:22 | review | Suggested edits | |||
Mar 9, 2017 at 19:34 | |||||
Mar 8, 2017 at 23:25 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSpaceExp/status/839618038693576704 | ||
Mar 8, 2017 at 18:28 | history | edited | geoffc |
edited tags
|
|
Mar 8, 2017 at 18:28 | answer | added | geoffc | timeline score: 28 | |
Mar 8, 2017 at 18:01 | comment | added | jkavalik | Echostar 23 will be the heaviest payload to date (well, the most demanding as CRS payloads are heavier, but they do not need as much energy because of their much lower orbit). They are sure they will not be able to bring it down safely even without a boostback burn and using 3-engine landing burn. It might have been on the line with fast propelant load but after Amos-6 mishap they changed to slower load which results in less dense fuel and LOX loads and erases some of the margins, pushing this launch over the recoverability limit. | |
Mar 8, 2017 at 17:42 | comment | added | ChrisR | In addition, they probably need to make sure that no other boat is in the vicinity of the landing rocket, and that is much more difficult to plan in international waters (would it even be legal?). Do note that I suspect the barge is currently in US national waters, but I may be wrong. | |
Mar 8, 2017 at 17:41 | answer | added | OrangePeel52 | timeline score: 24 | |
Mar 8, 2017 at 17:25 | comment | added | Tristan | They could, but what would be the benefit? There are costs and risk to deploying and retrieving the ASDS. How much does that buy you over an expendable launch? | |
Mar 8, 2017 at 17:22 | comment | added | Schlusstein | They certainly could, but it has been judged to be more cost-effective to land at the launch site. | |
Mar 8, 2017 at 16:25 | history | asked | Jake Blocker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |