How about an oil rig like structure at sea?
SpaceX Plans to Land Next Falcon 9 on Solid Ground
11–20 of 140 posts
Re: SpaceX Plans to Land Next Falcon 9 on Solid Ground
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they've ruled out the barge landing at this point. Seems like even with the stabilization, there is still too much movement. I dont see any reason they couldn't bring it back over water onto a landing pad. It should be really easy to keep the landing pad clear.
It is my understanding that the eventual goal has always been to land where they takeoff/launch from.
I never read anything that pointed towards that objective. Note that the first stage gets a lot of horizontal velocity, so bringing it back to the launch pad is expensive (fuel-wise). It is better to just cancel out the horizontal vector, follow a parabolic trajectory and land east of the launch pad.
Re: SpaceX Plans to Land Next Falcon 9 on Solid Ground
#13Does this mean they'll be launching from another facility? Right now, the trajectory goes over to the sea, and bringing the first stage back to dry land is expensive. They'd have to launch far away from the east coast.
Re: SpaceX Plans to Land Next Falcon 9 on Solid Ground
#14I just love the term "flight termination system". It sounds so much better than "self destruction system" :)
Re: SpaceX Plans to Land Next Falcon 9 on Solid Ground
#15How about an oil rig like structure at sea?
Those are expensive structures. Also there probably aren't spares lying around that can be tasked and moved into the range.
Re: SpaceX Plans to Land Next Falcon 9 on Solid Ground
#16Does this mean they'll be launching from another facility? Right now, the trajectory goes over to the sea, and bringing the first stage back to dry land is expensive. They'd have to launch far away from the east coast.
Yes, this launch will take place from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California (according to http://spacexstats.com/upcoming.php)
Re: SpaceX Plans to Land Next Falcon 9 on Solid Ground
#17Does this mean they'll be launching from another facility? Right now, the trajectory goes over to the sea, and bringing the first stage back to dry land is expensive. They'd have to launch far away from the east coast.
Two factors:
1. Yes, they will eventually be launching elsewhere. SpaceX is currently building its own launch facility in Brownsville, TX, which would indeed permit landing at the cape.
2. Elon Musk seems to think that despite the expense, they can fly the rocket back to the launch pad for lighter payloads.
Re: SpaceX Plans to Land Next Falcon 9 on Solid Ground
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is my understanding that the eventual goal has always been to land where they takeoff/launch from.
I never read anything that pointed towards that objective. Note that the first stage gets a lot of horizontal velocity, so bringing it back to the launch pad is expensive (fuel-wise). It is better to just cancel out the horizontal vector, follow a parabolic trajectory and land east of the launch pad.
This is what lead me to believe that:
http://spacenews.com/spacex-leases-cape-canaveral-launch-pad...
Re: SpaceX Plans to Land Next Falcon 9 on Solid Ground
#19Does this mean they'll be launching from another facility? Right now, the trajectory goes over to the sea, and bringing the first stage back to dry land is expensive. They'd have to launch far away from the east coast.
There's a Falcon 9 launch from Vandenberg scheduled for July 22. VAFB is a large coastal installation with lots of room for a return to land.
schedule: http://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
read near the end of this story for a statement that booster return to land is planned for the July 22 launch:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/spaceport-america-spa...
Re: SpaceX Plans to Land Next Falcon 9 on Solid Ground
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is my understanding that the eventual goal has always been to land where they takeoff/launch from.
I never read anything that pointed towards that objective. Note that the first stage gets a lot of horizontal velocity, so bringing it back to the launch pad is expensive (fuel-wise). It is better to just cancel out the horizontal vector, follow a parabolic trajectory and land east of the launch pad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ca6x4QbpoM
http://www.space.com/13140-spacex-private-reusable-rocket-el...
"After separating in orbit, the two stages of the rocket would come back to Earth and land at the launch pad."
They've always intended both the boosters and the second stage to return to the launch site.