It would be a completely different process. And NO, the dirt and ice is not static, even if it would appear that way.
Quote from: QuantumG on 07/22/2014 10:03 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 07/22/2014 10:01 pmIncidentally, here is the Blue Origin patent with the sea going platform:http://www.google.com/patents/US8678321Granted March 25, 2014!That's news.This is such a silly patent (and I'm surprised someone hadn't patented it already years ago; maybe someone has and it's just lost in the archives). Is Blue Origin going to enforce it? Or is it just one of those safe patents to keep someone else from stopping you...Regardless since SpaceX is in the R&D phase any efforts landing on a floating platform will be exempt.
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/22/2014 10:01 pmIncidentally, here is the Blue Origin patent with the sea going platform:http://www.google.com/patents/US8678321Granted March 25, 2014!That's news.
Incidentally, here is the Blue Origin patent with the sea going platform:http://www.google.com/patents/US8678321
The patent will likely be invalidated by prior art. See for example The Rocket Company, page 52 (AIAA, published 2005). I also proposed both launch and landing from a floating platform in 1998, and while I didn't specify using a rocket, that is "obvious to one skilled in the art."Thus I believe SpaceX could certainly attempt a platform recovery on a upcoming flight.
I wonder why while this one has ice, previous one didn't?
Quote from: Mader Levap on 07/23/2014 09:51 pmI wonder why while this one has ice, previous one didn't? trajectory mostly, this stage had a much steeper trajectory then CRS-3 hence the Ice
So, no external video? <Groan>. What about the video from the NASA plane which filmed the hypersonic “re-entry”?
Chill down.
Anyway, FWIW, I don't think they'll put it up (if they have it in the first place). As far as SpaceX is concerned, the splashdown concluded their mission. So there's nothing beyond that which they'd need to include in the summary.
Conceivably the ship could be prepositioned down range so you could land the stage on it.
Quote from: HMXHMX on 07/23/2014 09:18 pmThe patent will likely be invalidated by prior art. See for example The Rocket Company, page 52 (AIAA, published 2005). I also proposed both launch and landing from a floating platform in 1998, and while I didn't specify using a rocket, that is "obvious to one skilled in the art."Thus I believe SpaceX could certainly attempt a platform recovery on a upcoming flight.I found the Amazon link for The Rocket Company, and was able to reach page 52.QuoteConceivably the ship could be prepositioned down range so you could land the stage on it.
Quote from: mvpel on 07/24/2014 03:14 amQuote from: HMXHMX on 07/23/2014 09:18 pmThe patent will likely be invalidated by prior art. See for example The Rocket Company, page 52 (AIAA, published 2005). I also proposed both launch and landing from a floating platform in 1998, and while I didn't specify using a rocket, that is "obvious to one skilled in the art."Thus I believe SpaceX could certainly attempt a platform recovery on a upcoming flight.I found the Amazon link for The Rocket Company, and was able to reach page 52.QuoteConceivably the ship could be prepositioned down range so you could land the stage on it.I'm really disappointed to see HMXHMX propagating the myth that patents cover ideas and the mere prior mention of the broad concept, or even a similar concept, can somehow invalidate a patent. By this logic 8,690,104 is invalid because Stardust is prior art. Just leave the lawyerin' to the lawyers, eh? or Bezos and Musk can work out a deal over golf and canapes.