Quote from: wannamoonbase on 08/26/2017 03:00 pmQuote from: LouScheffer on 08/26/2017 01:50 pmIf they can routinely get 0.7 meters, or even close, it's plenty good enough for landing two boosters on one ship. That would result in a big boost in FH payload, at the cost of two ships in one ocean (one to catch the outside boosters, and one further downrange to catch the central core).Might want to build the second ship to be larger.What would happen to boosters that close together? If one was landed briefly before the other. What would the affects of the second landing (engine exhaust) be on the first?A back of the envelope calculation indicates no problem with the second booster blowing over the first. So it should work if the accuracy is enough.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 08/26/2017 01:50 pmIf they can routinely get 0.7 meters, or even close, it's plenty good enough for landing two boosters on one ship. That would result in a big boost in FH payload, at the cost of two ships in one ocean (one to catch the outside boosters, and one further downrange to catch the central core).Might want to build the second ship to be larger.What would happen to boosters that close together? If one was landed briefly before the other. What would the affects of the second landing (engine exhaust) be on the first?
If they can routinely get 0.7 meters, or even close, it's plenty good enough for landing two boosters on one ship. That would result in a big boost in FH payload, at the cost of two ships in one ocean (one to catch the outside boosters, and one further downrange to catch the central core).
Side boosters cut off low and slow, so RTLS is not so expensive.
Quote from: LouScheffer on 08/26/2017 03:59 pmQuote from: wannamoonbase on 08/26/2017 03:00 pmQuote from: LouScheffer on 08/26/2017 01:50 pmIf they can routinely get 0.7 meters, or even close, it's plenty good enough for landing two boosters on one ship. That would result in a big boost in FH payload, at the cost of two ships in one ocean (one to catch the outside boosters, and one further downrange to catch the central core).Might want to build the second ship to be larger.What would happen to boosters that close together? If one was landed briefly before the other. What would the affects of the second landing (engine exhaust) be on the first?A back of the envelope calculation indicates no problem with the second booster blowing over the first. So it should work if the accuracy is enough.That would be cool, but I don't think I'll work. The issue is not one booster toppling the other, but just the backwash ruining the landing accuracy.
Quote from: meekGee on 08/26/2017 04:43 pmQuote from: LouScheffer on 08/26/2017 03:59 pmQuote from: wannamoonbase on 08/26/2017 03:00 pmQuote from: LouScheffer on 08/26/2017 01:50 pmIf they can routinely get 0.7 meters, or even close, it's plenty good enough for landing two boosters on one ship. That would result in a big boost in FH payload, at the cost of two ships in one ocean (one to catch the outside boosters, and one further downrange to catch the central core).Might want to build the second ship to be larger.What would happen to boosters that close together? If one was landed briefly before the other. What would the affects of the second landing (engine exhaust) be on the first?A back of the envelope calculation indicates no problem with the second booster blowing over the first. So it should work if the accuracy is enough.That would be cool, but I don't think I'll work. The issue is not one booster toppling the other, but just the backwash ruining the landing accuracy.Should not affect landing accuracy of the second booster much. The force on the first landed booster is only about 500 kg-force. The back-reaction on the second landing booster will be much less (something on the order of 10 kg-f, assuming the first booster scatters the wind uniformly.) Anyway, very much less than the forces available from thrust vectoring, so the closed-loop landing guidance will mostly null out even this small effect.
That said, if they come in 10 seconds apart, then there's no issue and only the blow-over consideration remains.I therefore withdraw that part of the argument....Still the payback IMO is low, and still I think it'd be the absolute coolest thing to watch
The wind out at sea is fairly steady (most of the time). It think some of what we see is the drift that happens right at the end of flight, when the engine starts shutting down. You can often see a little drift, almost like a skid. Take a look at where the rocket is when it's 15 feet up and we may get a better idea of what will happen when the vanes enter the guides on the pad. Pure speculation, etc.
Putting together SpaceX rocket landing blooper reel. We messed up a lot before it finally worked, but there's some epic explosion footage …
There's an unreleased one from a successful landing. Apparently danced on one leg before landing it. Hope that's included. #EpicLanding.
Quote DEIMOS IMAGING @deimosimaging 6m6 minutes agoReplying to @SpaceX#DEIMOS2 caught Cape Canaveral's Landing Zone1 at around 15:58 UTC, September 7, less than 2hours after #Falcon9's first stage landed there!https://twitter.com/deimosimaging/status/907255552153194496
DEIMOS IMAGING @deimosimaging 6m6 minutes agoReplying to @SpaceX#DEIMOS2 caught Cape Canaveral's Landing Zone1 at around 15:58 UTC, September 7, less than 2hours after #Falcon9's first stage landed there!
In order for the capture box of 2m on a 9m diameter vehicle the +- rotation angle error must be less than <12.7 degrees.Are the legs orientation to the marks less than that?