A droneship for SuperHeavy?

[LouScheffer]

Similar to Falcon 9, SpaceX could likely double the performance of StarShip with a downrange landing of SuperHeavy.  This is unlikely for a number of reasons, but I was wondering if it is technically possible.  It looks to be comparatively straightforward, though very expensive.

An empty SuperHeavy is neither big nor heavy by the standard of large sea-going cranes.  The Sleipnir can lift 4000 ton at a radius of 82 meters, and has a maximum lift of 135 meters.  A 200 ton empty SuperHeavy would be child's play for this crane. Station-keeping is spec'ed at keeping within a 30cm box.  I believe this is well within the adjustment range of the chopsticks.

A similar ship with a catch tower and an armored deck should do the trick.  It might keep one of the two cranes for handling the landed SuperHeavy.  Of course this ship cost $1.5 billion.  It would be cheaper without one of the cranes, but hard to make autonomous, as the crew numbers up to 400.  But it seems like it could be done.

[steveleach]

You can find some discussion about this, including a reference to Sleipnir, here:-

Starlink would love bigger, so that takes care of the market.  Infrastructure costs for offshore are of course eye-watering, especially if you want to reduce marine operations.  Costs probably greater and perhaps much greater than Hebron GBS's ~$15 billion.  It would depend on choices made.

Hebron GBS is a gravity based platform engineered to withstand iceberg collisions. Which puts it in a rather different, and way costlier, league than most offshore rigs. For comparison, SSCV Sleipnir, the world's largest crane vessel cost $ 1.5 billion. That is an order of magnitude lower than Hebron GBS. And for those in the back that think a semi-submersible cannot be stable enough for this particular job: yes, they can be engineered that way. Even with a 100+ m tall launch/catch tower on top of them.

[Oersted]

The only correct solution is to have a ring of launch sites around the planet and have the SuperHeavy travel from one to the next, circumnavigating the Globe as it goes from launch to launch.

[meekGee]

The only correct solution is to have a ring of launch sites around the planet and have the SuperHeavy travel from one to the next, circumnavigating the Globe as it goes from launch to launch.

About 100 of them, yes?  Each being a single point of failure, due to technical or political reasons?

Even just a simple one-day downtime, and the entire ring is fucked.

And you need 100 boosters to get the launch pads fully utilized...

And you need a second system to move the payloads (and propellant!) to the pads...  Wouldn't it be simpler if we could bring the rockets to the payloads?

Ok you probably weren't even serious, but just for the record...

[Oersted]

I agree with you meekGee, it was just a thought experiment. Obviously not practicable. In that respect, comparable to the original idea by the first poster.

[meekGee]

I agree with you meekGee, it was just a thought experiment. Obviously not practicable. In that respect, comparable to the original idea by the first poster.

TBF it's a very appetizing idea at first glance, which is why it comes up so often.

Honestly if it didn't occur to you and you didn't start down that road, there's something wrong with you, in NSF standards