We need to put some ships (ADSD, oil tanker, container ship) around this thing to get a sense of scale.
Also, no flame trench?
BTW, this finally fulfills Elon's twitter musing about just land the first stage on the barge, fill it up and fly it back. He really doesn't want to give up that idea
It seems to be at least 300m x 100m with on board Liquid Methane and LOX tanks. Otherwise the system looks exactly the same as the pad 39a Version. The launch and landing mount for the Booster presumably is over a flame duct that channels it out the side. There would be quite a bit of space available below deck. Power for thrusters and general ops could come from turbines using the same Methane as the rocket.It really fits “Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship”. This is a general purpose Spaceport that can be built in a shipyard and moved where needed around the world.It seems like 39a will be the first BFR pad but this ASDS might be the second. It might be intended for a location like Boca Chica but this approach allows a lot more flexibility.
Quote from: Ludus on 09/30/2017 09:46 pmIt seems to be at least 300m x 100m with on board Liquid Methane and LOX tanks. Otherwise the system looks exactly the same as the pad 39a Version. The launch and landing mount for the Booster presumably is over a flame duct that channels it out the side. There would be quite a bit of space available below deck. Power for thrusters and general ops could come from turbines using the same Methane as the rocket.It really fits “Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship”. This is a general purpose Spaceport that can be built in a shipyard and moved where needed around the world.It seems like 39a will be the first BFR pad but this ASDS might be the second. It might be intended for a location like Boca Chica but this approach allows a lot more flexibility.It's most certainly trapped in whichever ocean it launches in if it's intended to be an actual vessel and not a fixed platform. Not necessarily a problem, but it definitely is a step beyond the current ASDS
There's a landing pad for the BFS, but the BFR likely still intended to land on the launch mounts.This may not be a mega-ASDS, it might be a fixed installation (or fixed in X-Y, able to be moved in Z to account for weather). Consider all those big spherical tanks probably can only store enough for one or two flights, and they need to bring more prop somehow. Likely underwater pipe, as there doesn't seem to be any large prop facility in sight (though in theory you could do some kind of massive floating solar + energy storage + CO2 capture + water -> Sabatier > CH4 + LOx, it would take up more real estate than the "ASDS"). Perhaps floated to destination then anchored, or built on site, who knows.
It's most certainly trapped in whichever ocean it launches in if it's intended to be an actual vessel and not a fixed platform. Not necessarily a problem, but it definitely is a step beyond the current ASDS
An honest question. If they're thinking about a BFR ASDS - why bother with land pads at all?Build the rockets at a ship yard, so they go directly from factory to ASDS, and that's the end of that.No road transport of any kind ever. ASDS can hang out just a couple of mile off shore, come in to load large cargo, go back out.People and Fuel go out to the ASDS so it stays off shore.No weather issues either, since the ASDSs are mobile.
Hmmm.. I just had a whole bunch of ideas of creating an area of calm water where the docking part is.. then I realised, we must do this all the time. Eg nice quiet bays. Has anyone ever done this for floating platforms before?
If the ASDS is truly mobile, it can get away from bad weather spots.You still need to get to it, but 100 miles in each direction is not a big deal.
Quote from: meekGee on 10/02/2017 02:46 amIf the ASDS is truly mobile, it can get away from bad weather spots.You still need to get to it, but 100 miles in each direction is not a big deal.Unfortunately, 100 miles @ 5kts = 20 hours actually IS a big deal.. especially since that means your mobile platform is down for most of a day, meaning one day loss of customers - and that's assuming you have 100 miles of water you can move it and still get out of the weather system. The video included cities like Hong Kong and Singapore where moving 100 miles in any direction would put you out of reach of your customers (travelling via high-speed ferry for 3-4 hours over a rough sea to get to a 30-minute flight to the other side of the world might make waiting in an airport lounge seem kinda comfortable: puke on the way to the flight, whilst boarding the flight, during the flight and after the flight.. yay! what fun!).
If they're thinking about a BFR ASDS - why bother with land pads at all?
Quote from: meekGee on 10/02/2017 12:02 amIf they're thinking about a BFR ASDS - why bother with land pads at all?....I wonder if they've actually begun to look into building such a thing. A prototype based on a retrofitted LNG barge could be used to land in the Gulf of Mexico from Boca Chica, refuel and fly back. This would be useful for early grasshopper-like testing if you want to test high horizontal velocity and reentry but can't turn around or get into orbit.
QuoteA prototype based on a retrofitted LNG barge could be used to land in the Gulf of Mexico from Boca Chica, refuel and fly back.It might be easier to convert a medium size VLCC into a BFR ASDS. Will still retain self-propel capability.
A prototype based on a retrofitted LNG barge could be used to land in the Gulf of Mexico from Boca Chica, refuel and fly back.
Although it was shown in the context of the point to point express idea, it seems at least as important as a general purpose Spaceport. Cargo launched to space might be put in a container in a facility on land, brought out by ship and the container loaded into the BFS cargo with the hammerhead crane.That would apply to hyper express shipping, satellite dispensers, cargo to/from space stations or the Moon.
I'd do what Dubai did with the Palm Islands. They are entirely man made, the first jutting out 3.5M in to the Gulf. It has a monorail from one end to the other. Wouldn't be too much of a stretch to make a 10mile causeway out to an artificial island - less work that these UAE islands.
Quote from: meekGee on 02/05/2017 06:33 pmSince this is a la-la thread, why not...Going with that theme.. IMHO, you'd be better off building an artificial island out there - or a cluster of really large oil platforms connected together, complete with lading pad(s), flyback facilities, helipads and as much crew accommodation as you need to run the entire show.And by putting it out international waters, you could make it duty-fee and start your own country.
Since this is a la-la thread, why not...
Well... to repeat what was posted right here some months ago: Quote from: CameronD on 02/05/2017 09:42 pmQuote from: meekGee on 02/05/2017 06:33 pmSince this is a la-la thread, why not...Going with that theme.. IMHO, you'd be better off building an artificial island out there - or a cluster of really large oil platforms connected together, complete with lading pad(s), flyback facilities, helipads and as much crew accommodation as you need to run the entire show.And by putting it out international waters, you could make it duty-fee and start your own country.(The pic is from the movie "Waterworld" in case anyone was wondering)
Btw, the la-la comment was from a thread about a hovercraft ASDS for F9, and I meant "la-la" as in "a fun hypothetical discussion not related to any actual plans"..Just for context...
The Mobile Offshore Base (MOB) is a large, self-propelled, floating, pre-positioned ocean structure formed of three to five modules and reaching up to 1,500 meters in length. It must accommodate the landing and take-off of C-17 conventional aircraft, host 3000 troops, carry 10 million gallons of fuel and provide 3 million square feet of internal configurable storage. The alignment of the modules is maintained through the use of slew-able thrusters and/or connectors.
http://dynamic-positioning.com/proceedings/dp2003/design_berkeley.pdfQuoteThe Mobile Offshore Base (MOB) is a large, self-propelled, floating, pre-positioned ocean structure formed of three to five modules and reaching up to 1,500 meters in length. It must accommodate the landing and take-off of C-17 conventional aircraft, host 3000 troops, carry 10 million gallons of fuel and provide 3 million square feet of internal configurable storage. The alignment of the modules is maintained through the use of slew-able thrusters and/or connectors. Plenty of room for passengers, methane, LOX, and commuter aircrafts to carry the passengers. A C-17 is as big as an A350 or 787. add some shopping malls, hotels, and other goodies.
Quote from: KelvinZero on 10/02/2017 01:30 amHmmm.. I just had a whole bunch of ideas of creating an area of calm water where the docking part is.. then I realised, we must do this all the time. Eg nice quiet bays. Has anyone ever done this for floating platforms before?Cruise ships use stabilizing systems designed to minimize seasickness of passengers. Also, the deeper the below-surface draft of a ship, the more stable it can be, as I understand things. Still, none of these ships have passengers sitting within the nose of a 350 foot tall rocket atop them! - Ed Kyle
Cruise ships use stabilizing systems designed to minimize seasickness of passengers. Also, the deeper the below-surface draft of a ship, the more stable it can be, as I understand things. Still, none of these ships have passengers sitting within the nose of a 350 foot tall rocket atop them!
...* doesn't the BFS suffer the same problem that the Space Shuttle suffered, which was that you are essentially launching a mini space station into orbit on every launch? Why not separate people and cargo?I know, I know, Elon's idea is that the people are the cargo, but that's barely true for commercial aviation today, in a context where ships carry everything heavy. In a context where his ride is the only ride, I have to believe there will be a huge amount more cargo than people.
Quote from: IainMcClatchie on 10/01/2017 04:01 am...* doesn't the BFS suffer the same problem that the Space Shuttle suffered, which was that you are essentially launching a mini space station into orbit on every launch? Why not separate people and cargo?I know, I know, Elon's idea is that the people are the cargo, but that's barely true for commercial aviation today, in a context where ships carry everything heavy. In a context where his ride is the only ride, I have to believe there will be a huge amount more cargo than people.Why not do both? Modern container ships have comfortable accommodations for up to 12 passengers, there are also conventional cargo freighters that have passenger accommodations. If the spaceship was taking cargo or crew to the ISS (or equivalent), lot's of room for space tourists, who get to see the ISS before heading out on their orbital excursion (or cis-lunar excursion).
Or, water depth permitting, use one or several adjacent jack-up rigs. Their legs would sit on the sea floor providing a very solid, yet still mobile if needed, platform.
if you suspend a large mass on 3 long cables 100's of meters below a floating mass it acts as a 100's m long rigid keel preventing almost all pitching and rocking. The keel cables can be wound in for ease of transport.
The current design can barely maintain it's position in rough seas. It can't get out of the way of an incoming rocket without at least a few minutes of warning, and that's assuming they can remotely retarget the ASDS (no reason they couldn't if they wanted to, just might not be a current feature).
You guys might be forgetting that, whilst it indeed needs to be a stable platform for landing, this ASDS must also be able to move quickly in an emergency - out of the way of an incoming rock(et).The current design achieves this in spades; the above suggestions possibly not so much..
We've known about the requirement to splash a stage by moving out of the way ever since the first landing attempt - so it's not only a current feature, it's a primary one - and we've all seen what can happen after a bad (non-emergency) landing.
Quote from: CameronD on 11/02/2017 09:49 pmWe've known about the requirement to splash a stage by moving out of the way ever since the first landing attempt - so it's not only a current feature, it's a primary one - and we've all seen what can happen after a bad (non-emergency) landing.The IIP is off the Landing Target until they are committed to the attempt. The booster decides to try to hit the ASDS if things look good. The ASDS doesn't decide to try to dodge the booster if things look bad.
Quote from: AC in NC on 11/03/2017 03:18 amQuote from: CameronD on 11/02/2017 09:49 pmWe've known about the requirement to splash a stage by moving out of the way ever since the first landing attempt - so it's not only a current feature, it's a primary one - and we've all seen what can happen after a bad (non-emergency) landing.The IIP is off the Landing Target until they are committed to the attempt. The booster decides to try to hit the ASDS if things look good. The ASDS doesn't decide to try to dodge the booster if things look bad.Are you implying by that that they start off with the ASDS off-target and move it in if all is good?? Better go read https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39766.0 and especially http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36326.0 again..
Quote from: biosehnsucht on 11/02/2017 09:35 pmThe current design can barely maintain it's position in rough seas. It can't get out of the way of an incoming rocket without at least a few minutes of warning, and that's assuming they can remotely retarget the ASDS (no reason they couldn't if they wanted to, just might not be a current feature).We've known about the requirement to splash a stage by moving out of the way ever since the first landing attempt - so it's not only a current feature, it's a primary one - and we've all seen what can happen after a bad (non-emergency) landing.Truth is (a) they may have less than a few minutes warning and (b) they certainly can re-target the ASDS from the support ship - that's how they set the position now, once the tow is released.
Quote from: CameronD on 11/03/2017 05:00 amQuote from: AC in NC on 11/03/2017 03:18 amQuote from: CameronD on 11/02/2017 09:49 pmWe've known about the requirement to splash a stage by moving out of the way ever since the first landing attempt - so it's not only a current feature, it's a primary one - and we've all seen what can happen after a bad (non-emergency) landing.The IIP is off the Landing Target until they are committed to the attempt. The booster decides to try to hit the ASDS if things look good. The ASDS doesn't decide to try to dodge the booster if things look bad.Are you implying by that that they start off with the ASDS off-target and move it in if all is good?? Better go read https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39766.0 and especially http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36326.0 again..No, the barge doesn't move at all. The booster changes its landing target to the preset asds coords once it is happy that a safe landing can be attempted.
Quote from: AC in NC on 11/03/2017 03:18 amThe booster decides to try to hit the ASDS if things look good.Are you implying by that that they start off with the ASDS off-target and move it in if all is good?? Better go read ... [snip] ... again...
The booster decides to try to hit the ASDS if things look good.
Quote from: octavo on 11/03/2017 05:25 amQuote from: CameronD on 11/03/2017 05:00 amQuote from: AC in NC on 11/03/2017 03:18 amQuote from: CameronD on 11/02/2017 09:49 pmWe've known about the requirement to splash a stage by moving out of the way ever since the first landing attempt - so it's not only a current feature, it's a primary one - and we've all seen what can happen after a bad (non-emergency) landing.The IIP is off the Landing Target until they are committed to the attempt. The booster decides to try to hit the ASDS if things look good. The ASDS doesn't decide to try to dodge the booster if things look bad.Are you implying by that that they start off with the ASDS off-target and move it in if all is good?? Better go read https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39766.0 and especially http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36326.0 again..No, the barge doesn't move at all. The booster changes its landing target to the preset asds coords once it is happy that a safe landing can be attempted.Right... This is determined when the landing burn starts. If the landing engine(s) starts, it will aim for the landing point. Otherwise the consensus is that it will continue in its trajectory and crash near it. The landing burn starts pretty high so it is able to do that.
Except this didn't work with SES-9. My bet is that the 3-engine burn attempt didn't allow for enough time to retarget after knowing they had 3 good engines, so it was a committed attempt from the get go. When the engine(s?) failed the impact point was already on the ASDS and so poor OCISLY got Falcon-Punched at high speed.
Quote from: Lars-J on 11/03/2017 08:51 pmQuote from: octavo on 11/03/2017 05:25 amQuote from: CameronD on 11/03/2017 05:00 amQuote from: AC in NC on 11/03/2017 03:18 amQuote from: CameronD on 11/02/2017 09:49 pmWe've known about the requirement to splash a stage by moving out of the way ever since the first landing attempt - so it's not only a current feature, it's a primary one - and we've all seen what can happen after a bad (non-emergency) landing.The IIP is off the Landing Target until they are committed to the attempt. The booster decides to try to hit the ASDS if things look good. The ASDS doesn't decide to try to dodge the booster if things look bad.Are you implying by that that they start off with the ASDS off-target and move it in if all is good?? Better go read https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39766.0 and especially http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36326.0 again..No, the barge doesn't move at all. The booster changes its landing target to the preset asds coords once it is happy that a safe landing can be attempted.Right... This is determined when the landing burn starts. If the landing engine(s) starts, it will aim for the landing point. Otherwise the consensus is that it will continue in its trajectory and crash near it. The landing burn starts pretty high so it is able to do that.Except this didn't work with SES-9. My bet is that the 3-engine burn attempt didn't allow for enough time to retarget after knowing they had 3 good engines, so it was a committed attempt from the get go. When the engine(s?) failed the impact point was already on the ASDS and so poor OCISLY got Falcon-Punched at high speed.
Quote from: Lars-J on 11/03/2017 08:51 pmRight... This is determined when the landing burn starts. If the landing engine(s) starts, it will aim for the landing point. Otherwise the consensus is that it will continue in its trajectory and crash near it. The landing burn starts pretty high so it is able to do that.Except this didn't work with SES-9. My bet is that the 3-engine burn attempt didn't allow for enough time to retarget after knowing they had 3 good engines, so it was a committed attempt from the get go. When the engine(s?) failed the impact point was already on the ASDS and so poor OCISLY got Falcon-Punched at high speed.
Right... This is determined when the landing burn starts. If the landing engine(s) starts, it will aim for the landing point. Otherwise the consensus is that it will continue in its trajectory and crash near it. The landing burn starts pretty high so it is able to do that.
I see this event as SpaceX willing to risk damage to the ASDS to prove they can hit the target even under extreme conditions. Which would help getting approval for land landing.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 12/23/2017 03:46 amOr SpaceX can build a fleet of BFR sized ASDS floating platforms after where ever they chose as the first BFR pad. I think a floating platform to launch and land BFR/BFS is highly unlikely. Way more issues here. For a rocket that big, a floating platform would probably need to be huge, which would be really expensive.Fixed launch pads several miles offshore seem much more likely. These would have legs that physically connect with the ocean floor, with cables and pipelines connecting back to land. This arrangement is very typical in the oil and gas industry, so it would probably be relatively economical.Quote from: Zed_Noir on 12/23/2017 03:46 amEspecially if they start the P2P (point to point) service with the BFR.For this, Elon's presentation showed a small launch platform several miles offshore. This implies a fixed launch platform that's physically connected to the ocean floor. A floating platform for a BFR size rocket would probably need to be an order of magnitude larger.
Or SpaceX can build a fleet of BFR sized ASDS floating platforms after where ever they chose as the first BFR pad.
Especially if they start the P2P (point to point) service with the BFR.
If you look closely, we see an elongated rectangular platform, which could be interpreted as a sea-going barge, ie. longer than it is wide. It clearly is sitting on legs resting on the sea bottom, but that could easily make it a jack-up vessel, as I suggested above (and I think others have before). ]
QuoteIf you look closely, we see an elongated rectangular platform, which could be interpreted as a sea-going barge, ie. longer than it is wide. It clearly is sitting on legs resting on the sea bottom, but that could easily make it a jack-up vessel, as I suggested above (and I think others have before). ]I wasn’t sure what you were seeing, but when I looked at the posted picture I get it. It’s a pretty poor frame grab. What looks like legs are actually reflections in the water. The platform is at the sea surface like a barge with no legs showing.
One thing that bothers me about launching from off shore is the impact on marine life in the area of the launch pad. All of that thrust blasting directly into shallow water is going to cook anything close by. Not good if they start finding dolphins and endangered sea turtles washing up on the beach cooked......
One thing that bothers me about launching from off shore is the impact on marine life in the area of the launch pad. All of that thrust blasting directly into shallow water is going to cook anything close by.
Quote from: Steve D on 01/03/2018 03:53 pmOne thing that bothers me about launching from off shore is the impact on marine life in the area of the launch pad. All of that thrust blasting directly into shallow water is going to cook anything close by. This is one thing you can pretty much ignore as a concern.The rocket 'only' burns ten or twenty tons of methane while clearing the tower, this is enough to only heat to boiling 1000 tons of water.Or 10m*10m*10m - around the same scale as the launchpad. It will heat a 100m*100m*10m patch on average by 1C. (this assumes that all heat is efficiently transferred to water, which it will not be, and that this is the case for the first several seconds, and no water boils)Close enough to the rocket to be thermally damaging will be extremely sonically damaging.
Quote from: speedevil on 01/03/2018 05:23 pmQuote from: Steve D on 01/03/2018 03:53 pmOne thing that bothers me about launching from off shore is the impact on marine life in the area of the launch pad. All of that thrust blasting directly into shallow water is going to cook anything close by. This is one thing you can pretty much ignore as a concern.The rocket 'only' burns ten or twenty tons of methane while clearing the tower, this is enough to only heat to boiling 1000 tons of water.Or 10m*10m*10m - around the same scale as the launchpad. It will heat a 100m*100m*10m patch on average by 1C. (this assumes that all heat is efficiently transferred to water, which it will not be, and that this is the case for the first several seconds, and no water boils)Close enough to the rocket to be thermally damaging will be extremely sonically damaging.This. It'll be the noise killing wildlife, not the heat.
Quote from: Steve D on 01/03/2018 03:53 pmOne thing that bothers me about launching from off shore is the impact on marine life in the area of the launch pad. All of that thrust blasting directly into shallow water is going to cook anything close by. Not good if they start finding dolphins and endangered sea turtles washing up on the beach cooked......Er what? They won't be directing the exhaust straight in to the water, surely?I'm not a fan of the offshore pad, at least initially anyway. Its expensive just putting in a 5 mile causeway and launch pad....
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 01/03/2018 05:53 pmQuote from: speedevil on 01/03/2018 05:23 pmQuote from: Steve D on 01/03/2018 03:53 pmOne thing that bothers me about launching from off shore is the impact on marine life in the area of the launch pad. All of that thrust blasting directly into shallow water is going to cook anything close by. This is one thing you can pretty much ignore as a concern.The rocket 'only' burns ten or twenty tons of methane while clearing the tower, this is enough to only heat to boiling 1000 tons of water.Or 10m*10m*10m - around the same scale as the launchpad. It will heat a 100m*100m*10m patch on average by 1C. (this assumes that all heat is efficiently transferred to water, which it will not be, and that this is the case for the first several seconds, and no water boils)Close enough to the rocket to be thermally damaging will be extremely sonically damaging.This. It'll be the noise killing wildlife, not the heat.Well, dead is dead. I wonder if they plan on installing blast deflectors to divert the flame off to the side instead of straight down. It may help to minimize the affect of all of the noise and heat. But if endangered sea turtles which do nest in the area get killed you can be sure that the environmentalists will shut them down. Sea life is attracted to structures such as this. I have been diving on quite a few oil rigs off the Texas coast and they all have large amounts of fish and corals growing on them.
Quote from: JamesH65 on 01/03/2018 05:13 pmQuote from: Steve D on 01/03/2018 03:53 pmOne thing that bothers me about launching from off shore is the impact on marine life in the area of the launch pad. All of that thrust blasting directly into shallow water is going to cook anything close by. Not good if they start finding dolphins and endangered sea turtles washing up on the beach cooked......Er what? They won't be directing the exhaust straight in to the water, surely?I'm not a fan of the offshore pad, at least initially anyway. Its expensive just putting in a 5 mile causeway and launch pad....I haven’t seen any mention or reason for a causeway. What’s shown is like an ASDS but larger and set up for BFR launches as well as landings. That would be MUCH cheaper and more scalable than any land based launchpad where most of limitations, cost and time would be about local impact. Seaplatforms could be built in shipyards and towed into place.
how do you get the BFS to the pad? I'd expect its going to need to come back to dry land for all the initial flights.
How do you get the fuel to the pad?
Quote from: Steve D on 01/03/2018 03:53 pmOne thing that bothers me about launching from off shore is the impact on marine life in the area of the launch pad. All of that thrust blasting directly into shallow water is going to cook anything close by. Not good if they start finding dolphins and endangered sea turtles washing up on the beach cooked......Er what? They won't be directing the exhaust straight in to the water, surely?
What’s shown is like an ASDS but larger and set up for BFR launches as well as landings.
If that barge/platform/whatever is 900' long by 300' wide at the waterline (just an example, eyeballed from the screen-grab), it would take an increase of over 17 million pounds to sink it one foot deeper in the water.
I'm not arguing one way or another, as I personally don't think SpaceX plans to seriously look at this for some years.
Quote from: darkenfast on 01/14/2018 03:35 amI'm not arguing one way or another, as I personally don't think SpaceX plans to seriously look at this for some years.You're guess is as good as mine, but I'm leaning toward sooner. BFR is a huge rocket, so there may be issues launching it from land.
IMHO, they'd be better advised to takeover a small island.. they've done that before!
However difficult launching this thing from land may be, there will be more issues launching it from water...
unlike on land where you can retreat into a nice cozy hangar, there is no place to hide if the mother-of-all-storms happens by.
Quote from: CameronD on 01/14/2018 11:04 pmunlike on land where you can retreat into a nice cozy hangar, there is no place to hide if the mother-of-all-storms happens by. I see it just the opposite. When a hurricane storm surge hits, I'd guess a land-based launch pad near the shore would sustain more damage than a fixed launch site 5-10 miles offshore.Also, for a fixed launch site 5-10 miles offshore, what prevents them from bringing the rocket back to the hangar? There's always advance warning for severe weather.
So let's just say that, assuming a 'fixed launch site' in shallow water of the style shown in the presentation actually remains floating..
I'm talking about the surge. When a storm surge comes inland, it picks up cars and other large objects and slams them into buildings and other fixed structures.
Quote from: CameronD on 01/15/2018 02:33 amSo let's just say that, assuming a 'fixed launch site' in shallow water of the style shown in the presentation actually remains floating..remains floating ? I'm not talking about a floating launch site. As I said before, I believe the launch site Elon presented at IAC 2017 is more like a man-made island than a barge, with a rigid structure connecting it to the ocean floor.I'm also not talking about a direct hit from a hurricane, which would likely damage any launch site.I'm talking about the surge. When a storm surge comes inland, it picks up cars and other large objects and slams them into buildings and other fixed structures.