Quote from: Kabloona on 05/06/2016 01:56 pmQuote from: MarekCyzio on 05/06/2016 01:52 pmSo when should we expect ASDS in the port? Monday? Tuesday?It took them almost exactly 4 days transit to reach the LZ. So 4 days minimum, ie Tuesday morning at earliest. But possibly later, since last time they took the return trip much slower than the outbound trip.They're a good bit farther out in the Atlantic this time correct?
Quote from: MarekCyzio on 05/06/2016 01:52 pmSo when should we expect ASDS in the port? Monday? Tuesday?It took them almost exactly 4 days transit to reach the LZ. So 4 days minimum, ie Tuesday morning at earliest. But possibly later, since last time they took the return trip much slower than the outbound trip.
So when should we expect ASDS in the port? Monday? Tuesday?
Quote from: Jim on 05/06/2016 10:58 amQuote from: CraigLieb on 05/06/2016 08:32 amI think the time may be coming that this whole section of the forum needs to be renamed to remove 'reusable' from the title because "of course rockets are reusable" ! It's the throw away stages which are rapidly becoming the quaint buggy-whip type story. It will soon be considered an unusual waste. No, the title can only be changed to recoverable at this time. Quite right. There are a few people who seem to be treating three very different landings as if the whole thing is a done deal. It still remains to be seen if these rockets can be reliably reused at a cost that is commercially beneficial. There are still a large number of unknowns to be overcome.
Quote from: CraigLieb on 05/06/2016 08:32 amI think the time may be coming that this whole section of the forum needs to be renamed to remove 'reusable' from the title because "of course rockets are reusable" ! It's the throw away stages which are rapidly becoming the quaint buggy-whip type story. It will soon be considered an unusual waste. No, the title can only be changed to recoverable at this time.
I think the time may be coming that this whole section of the forum needs to be renamed to remove 'reusable' from the title because "of course rockets are reusable" ! It's the throw away stages which are rapidly becoming the quaint buggy-whip type story. It will soon be considered an unusual waste.
I assume a FH recovery entirely at sea would require at least two ASDSs since the optimal LZ for the center stage is likely in a different location than for the outer stages. More realistically, a FH mission that involved a barge landing would have the two outer stages returning to LZ-1 and only the center stage landing on OCISLY.
Quite right. There are a few people who seem to be treating three very different landings as if the whole thing is a done deal. It still remains to be seen if these rockets can be reliably reused at a cost that is commercially beneficial. There are still a large number of unknowns to be overcome.
Quote from: Jim on 05/06/2016 10:58 amQuote from: CraigLieb on 05/06/2016 08:32 amI think the time may be coming that this whole section of the forum needs to be renamed to remove 'reusable' from the title because "of course rockets are reusable" ! It's the throw away stages which are rapidly becoming the quaint buggy-whip type story. It will soon be considered an unusual waste. No, the title can only be changed to recoverable at this time. You are absolutely correct that re-use has not yet been demonstrated. But if I had to bet, I'd guess at least an 80% chance it will be demonstrated soon. In fact I will bet:I'm willing to offer 5:1 odds of the launch of a re-used core by SpaceX within a year. In other words, for a $10 bet, if SpaceX re-launches a core on or before 6 May 2017, you pay me $10. If no such launch occurs, I'll pay you $50.Betting on the economic re-use, not just re-use of a core, would be better yet. It seems impossible to settle, though, since there is no current agreement on current costs, or whether SpaceX is making a profit on their current launches. So we need to stick to something that can be unambiguously observed.Any takers?
The statistical sample size is too limited still to determine needed ASDS deck size... 2 standing and 1 fell over does not a trend line make... In my line of work (low volume product testing) the minimum sample size to find standard deviation is considered 10 units for initial work and 30 units to set limits... Just saying... My opinion... so far the deck size meets requirements... Need 27 more landings to determine if boat is truly too big...
Same distance as for SES-9, but farther out than the "last time" they returned with an intact stage on board, ie CRS-8, when they dilly-dallied on returning to port.Marine forecast is good through middle of next week, so they should be able to get home without weather delays this time.
Are you comparing with CRS-8 or SES-9? SES-9 and JCSAT-14 were both quite a bit further out, IIRC. On the other hand, the seas were much choppier for CRS-8 so they might make better time...
Elsbeth III ETA according to Vesselfinder is May 8th at 06:25
Quote from: abaddon on 05/06/2016 01:58 pmAre you comparing with CRS-8 or SES-9? SES-9 and JCSAT-14 were both quite a bit further out, IIRC. On the other hand, the seas were much choppier for CRS-8 so they might make better time...Now Vesselfinder is forecasting an early Sunday return, so EIII must be towing faster than usual:QuoteElsbeth III ETA according to Vesselfinder is May 8th at 06:25(Cross posted from Datuser14)But that would be a sub-48-hour inbound trip (after subtracting time for vehicle post-landing safing ops) vs a 96-hour outbound trip, so more than double speed inbound...is that even possible?So I remain skeptical about Sunday arrival.