One advantage of the plan is that the thrust of the booster even in landing mode is going to be substantial, and a flame trench with water deluge is going to be much more robust than a concrete apron.Compared to F9, the booster will have a far wider range of thrust:weight options available, conceivably allowing it to hover or, depending on propellant, even have a wave-off and second attempt (perhaps a wave off and crash land on the beach is the best that actually realistic?)
Can some clever geometry on the mount somehow cleverly channel the thrust of the booster to somehow force the booster to properly align itself onto the mount? Like some kind of Coanda effect?Otherwise one bad misalignment could ruin your whole day.
Given that the fully-loaded and fully-fueled ITS only has a SL TWR of around 1.007 (given that the RVacs can't be used safely at SL), I'd anticipate the addition of a compact secondary LES inside the interstage. In an AMOS-6 style RUD, the LES would push the ITS clear of the fireball to give the SL raptors enough time to spin up, but on nominal launches, the LES would remain with the booster and return for reuse. That way you aren't lifting the LES all the way to orbit for no reason each time.If that was the case, then it's conceivable that the LES could be configured to pull the booster free of the pad in a Very Bad Day situation. Moreso if it was a hypergolic LES rather than a SF one.
Not that this has anything do with mount landings - but is it a given that there's no LES for Mars-side launches then?
Quote from: sanman on 10/02/2016 11:41 pmNot that this has anything do with mount landings - but is it a given that there's no LES for Mars-side launches then?Right. Elon said something to the effect that "if something goes wrong on the Mars launch you're screwed anyway."
Quote from: sevenperforce on 10/02/2016 07:23 pmGiven that the fully-loaded and fully-fueled ITS only has a SL TWR of around 1.007 (given that the RVacs can't be used safely at SL), I'd anticipate the addition of a compact secondary LES inside the interstage. In an AMOS-6 style RUD, the LES would push the ITS clear of the fireball to give the SL raptors enough time to spin up, but on nominal launches, the LES would remain with the booster and return for reuse. That way you aren't lifting the LES all the way to orbit for no reason each time.If that was the case, then it's conceivable that the LES could be configured to pull the booster free of the pad in a Very Bad Day situation. Moreso if it was a hypergolic LES rather than a SF one.Not that this has anything do with mount landings - but is it a given that there's no LES for Mars-side launches then?
Quote from: sanman on 10/02/2016 11:41 pmQuote from: sevenperforce on 10/02/2016 07:23 pmGiven that the fully-loaded and fully-fueled ITS only has a SL TWR of around 1.007 (given that the RVacs can't be used safely at SL), I'd anticipate the addition of a compact secondary LES inside the interstage. In an AMOS-6 style RUD, the LES would push the ITS clear of the fireball to give the SL raptors enough time to spin up, but on nominal launches, the LES would remain with the booster and return for reuse. That way you aren't lifting the LES all the way to orbit for no reason each time.If that was the case, then it's conceivable that the LES could be configured to pull the booster free of the pad in a Very Bad Day situation. Moreso if it was a hypergolic LES rather than a SF one.Not that this has anything do with mount landings - but is it a given that there's no LES for Mars-side launches then?Where would you abort to?
Quote from: rakaydos on 10/03/2016 12:53 amQuote from: sanman on 10/02/2016 11:41 pmQuote from: sevenperforce on 10/02/2016 07:23 pmGiven that the fully-loaded and fully-fueled ITS only has a SL TWR of around 1.007 (given that the RVacs can't be used safely at SL), I'd anticipate the addition of a compact secondary LES inside the interstage. In an AMOS-6 style RUD, the LES would push the ITS clear of the fireball to give the SL raptors enough time to spin up, but on nominal launches, the LES would remain with the booster and return for reuse. That way you aren't lifting the LES all the way to orbit for no reason each time.If that was the case, then it's conceivable that the LES could be configured to pull the booster free of the pad in a Very Bad Day situation. Moreso if it was a hypergolic LES rather than a SF one.Not that this has anything do with mount landings - but is it a given that there's no LES for Mars-side launches then?Where would you abort to?Surface or orbit. In either case, you'll have a budding which could send a rescue mission to you.Remember, this isn't Apollo. There would be hundreds or thousands of people on Mars.
Imagine a sort of dance, where the returning first stage is the elephant and the launch platform is a mouse. The elephant does what it can do, but the launch platform can scurry around, fast and agile and smart. The first stage has a job to do, which is to get within a low value of feet from the platform. It is limited by inertia, by wind, by sloshing fluids and by power and weight constraints. The platform is solidly attached to a planet, with as many Kw of energy as required. The answer, then, is to create a platform which can move, quickly and responsively and which will find itself in exactly the right place and at the right time to welcome the booster. The intelligence and manoeverability becomes distributed between both players, with as much of the heavy lifting as possible being left on the ground.There are already examples of smart platforms: 3D printers. BAE Systems looked at a smart ship-borne Harrier recovery system some time ago (see also 1930s USAF airship parasite fighters and the 1950s Goblin parasitic escort jet fighter).
Quote from: Bob Shaw on 09/30/2016 11:09 pmImagine a sort of dance, where the returning first stage is the elephant and the launch platform is a mouse. The elephant does what it can do, but the launch platform can scurry around, fast and agile and smart. The first stage has a job to do, which is to get within a low value of feet from the platform. It is limited by inertia, by wind, by sloshing fluids and by power and weight constraints. The platform is solidly attached to a planet, with as many Kw of energy as required. The answer, then, is to create a platform which can move, quickly and responsively and which will find itself in exactly the right place and at the right time to welcome the booster. The intelligence and manoeverability becomes distributed between both players, with as much of the heavy lifting as possible being left on the ground.There are already examples of smart platforms: 3D printers. BAE Systems looked at a smart ship-borne Harrier recovery system some time ago (see also 1930s USAF airship parasite fighters and the 1950s Goblin parasitic escort jet fighter).I like this. Could be done with a barge floating on a shallow pool with a few high-powered winches arrayed around it to rapidly position it. Or perhaps a really big air-bearing supported cradle positioned by winches.How about shooting high pressure jets of water up into the unused-at-landing outer ring of engine nozzles? very fast to steer the water nozzles, 'soft', and makes use of existing thrust structure to take peak landing deceleration loads.
Clearly this is the most insane part of the plan. I mean, what's wrong with a reinforced landing pad, a large flatbed and a very big crane?Clearly Musk has heard about risk reduction, and strongly disapproves ...