Timeline for Why did SpaceX attempt to land the booster on a barge instead of somewhere on land?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 22, 2019 at 10:43 | comment | added | BlueCoder | @LocalFluff even if you build the 30% bigger (or more) rocket, you still have the tradeoff between using all its +30% mass to go back or again land on a barge and deliver more mass in orbit than the smaller rocket. | |
| Dec 19, 2017 at 13:35 | history | edited | PearsonArtPhoto♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 79 characters in body
|
| Jun 18, 2016 at 3:15 | comment | added | HopDavid | @DaanWilmer Thanks! Very interesting. Can you point to where you got this info from? If I can include this info with cites, it'd much improve my answer. Or if you gave this info along with cites in an answer form, I would upvote it. | |
| Jun 17, 2016 at 9:13 | comment | added | Daan Wilmer | As far as I know, they have three options: RTLS (easiest but most costly), landing on a barge with boost-back burn (harder than RTLS but allows for more payload / higher orbit), and landing on a barge without boost-back burn (hardest, but allows for even heavier payload or higher orbit). At the time of writing, they achieved 1 succesful RTLS, 1 succesful landing on sea with boost-back burn, 2 succesful landings on sea without boost-back burn, and since then one more almost succesful landing on sea without boost-back burn. | |
| Jan 19, 2016 at 13:20 | comment | added | jkavalik | @LocalFluff I meant something different - because of the rocket equation for making the effective payload 30% bigger you end up with a much bigger rocket than only 30% (unless I understand it wrong, which is sure possible) - thats why Falcon Heavy is being developed. | |
| Jan 19, 2016 at 10:15 | comment | added | LocalFluff | @jkavalik Falcon 9 takes a fifth or a tenth of the mass to orbit of what the Saturn V did. If Saturn V was reusable it would be very cheap to use it to launch cubesats to LEO. Mass of launcher is not a good proxy for launch costs. Not anymore. The paradigm is shifting. | |
| Jan 19, 2016 at 9:43 | comment | added | jkavalik | @LocalFluff thats not a linear effect, for adding 30% more propelant you need to add another X% more propelant to push it.. And more to push that.. | |
| Jan 19, 2016 at 8:20 | comment | added | LocalFluff | So what, a 30% mass hit? Then simply build a 30% larger rocket. Since it is reusable it doesn't matter how heavy it is. Fuel costs are negligible. See ocean shipping. There are many ships around which are older than most of us reading this. And the ocean is a tough environment. | |
| Jan 26, 2015 at 15:00 | history | edited | HopDavid | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 24 characters in body
|
| Jan 25, 2015 at 18:22 | comment | added | Hobbes | The CRS-5 launch of January 2015 was a test. That may account for the unusual trajectory with partial boostback, giving them the opportunity to test the boostback principle without bringing the stage close to the Cape. The additional 15% payload hit for boostback makes it likely that downrange landings will be used occasionally in the future. | |
| Jan 25, 2015 at 17:26 | history | edited | HopDavid | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 940 characters in body
|
| Jan 13, 2015 at 0:45 | history | edited | HopDavid | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 284 characters in body
|
| Jan 12, 2015 at 20:24 | comment | added | Hobbes | Interesting, but how accurate is it? Could be just an artist's guess... | |
| Jan 12, 2015 at 19:35 | history | answered | HopDavid | CC BY-SA 3.0 |