Unless cores are being refurbished in a matter of days (we'll see whether that happens) and there is a very high launch cadence (which is currently restricted by pad turnaround) and there is an insufficient number of cores in existence (which seems unlikely, even if do keep dropping them into the sea) - then there's no real benefit in cutting a day or so off turnaround times.
Why does Blue Origin want to do Booster landings on a moving ship rather than a barge with thrusters to keep it a GPS position?
Suggest it is to allow recovery irrespective of sea state, so that even in poor conditions the valuable, always meant to be recovered, overbuilt to allow very large number of uses booster - will be recovered. Not the same as Falcon's "opportunistic' approach to recovery, with expendibility if things don't work out, which has happened.
Also for faster return of the booster, which always lands downrange and never RTLS, and which always lands far downrange.
It would take a towed barge well over a week to return.
I don't doubt that that was also a consideration, but for the same reason I've just expected NG to only launch when recovery has good chances to succeed. i.e. BO's Launch Commit Criteria will very explicitly include hard limits for landing area conditions.
With the possible exception of a rare mission with a hard launch window (like some planetary launches, etc).
If they're lucky, SpaceX will move toward including something along these lines so that the market has already had a chance to get used to the idea some by the time that NG starts launching. Let SpaceX get all the flak and then come online and just say, "Well that's how everyone does reusable launches." Gradatim, For The Win.
For SpaceX, it might be a progressive evolution. Start with a sliding price scale where if you got a low price (only offered for missions where recovery is possible), then that has baked into it that SpaceX can delay in order to optimize for landing conditions but gives the customer an option to launch anyways for an added "non-standard service price " of $X.
Keep in mind, you could likely field quite a number of barges for the cost of a ship. And just leave them there, serviced by fast ship(s), as an after the fact means to handle the recovered booster fleet.
Quote from: envy887 on 03/13/2018 06:06 pmIt would take a towed barge well over a week to return.Note also that a fast return ship also would work for SX too in the same sense.
All I'll say is that SpaceX already know how hard it is to land on a (almost) stationary platform.. and landing on a moving one ups the difficulty to a whole other level never before seen by mankind.
I think you're getting carried away. The precise landing time and location is known, and programming the ship's autopilot to intersect at both is a solved problem.
Quote from: CameronD on 03/14/2018 03:26 amAll I'll say is that SpaceX already know how hard it is to land on a (almost) stationary platform.. and landing on a moving one ups the difficulty to a whole other level never before seen by mankind.I think you're getting carried away. The precise landing time and location is known, and programming the ship's autopilot to intersect at both is a solved problem.
The ASDS has no control authority in the vertical direction, only X & Y translation. The deck will be pitching as a function of wave period vs. hull dimensions.
A ship with stabilizer fins has the vertical control authority to null out this pitching.
A well-designed autopilot will be able to contend with instantaneous changes in current and wind, especially if controllable pitch propellers are used for propulsion.
This leaves the rate of travel itself, which is well within the capability of a gimballed rocket engine to match at touchdown. The landing platform is more stable overall, at the cost of being installed on a larger and more expensive hull.