I wonder if some of those higher-inclination orbits might save fuel by boosting back to some sea island in Georgia rather than all the way back to the Cape...
Those are clear answers. I kind of knew about the Delta-V aspect of it all, that on case of the stage being far out at sea they'd need it anyway, but the landing area margins were new to me. Thanks for explaining.
I do believe that barge landings will end up being the norm for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy central core recovery.
Quote from: nadreck on 01/10/2015 04:31 pmI do believe that barge landings will end up being the norm for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy central core recovery. F9 has enough performance for the missions it is meant for. The numbers on the website already factor in first stage reusability. I think barge landings will only be used for heavy GTO missions and the FH central core. Landing on a barge is higher risk and makes reusability slower/more expensive.
Out of curiosity; Why don't SpaceX and NASA try and land the Falcon 9 first stage on land instead of on a barge? There must be enough unused space on land at the cape where even a mishap, like toppling over leading to an explosion at landing will be 'acceptable', without destroying equipment.
Out of curiosity; Why don't SpaceX and NASA try and land the Falcon 9 first stage on land instead of on a barge? There must be enough unused space on land at the cape where even a mishap, like toppling over leading to an explosion at landing will be 'acceptable', without destroying equipment. In that case, trying to land the rocket on a barge bobbing at sea would not have been necessary. And it would have been better controllable, observable and manageable. What is the advantage of not doing this? Even the Antares explosion last year didn't cause that much damage to the pad that it wasn't repairable. So, without even a launch pad in the neighbourhood, what damage would a toppling F9 do on a more distant part of the Cape's premises?
I suspect that the boostback for next flight will cover more of the ground back to launch site. Two or three demonstrated pinpoint (barge sized accuracy) returns will do it for FAA, I think, so increasing the boostback and seeing no loss of accuracy is last unproven parameter (other than sticking the landing which should not matter to FAA).
Quote from: AncientU on 01/14/2015 05:29 pmI suspect that the boostback for next flight will cover more of the ground back to launch site. Two or three demonstrated pinpoint (barge sized accuracy) returns will do it for FAA, I think, so increasing the boostback and seeing no loss of accuracy is last unproven parameter (other than sticking the landing which should not matter to FAA).Permits show that the barge will be FURTHER from shore than on CRS-5. . . 600km+
Quote from: Dudely on 01/14/2015 05:56 pmQuote from: AncientU on 01/14/2015 05:29 pmI suspect that the boostback for next flight will cover more of the ground back to launch site. Two or three demonstrated pinpoint (barge sized accuracy) returns will do it for FAA, I think, so increasing the boostback and seeing no loss of accuracy is last unproven parameter (other than sticking the landing which should not matter to FAA).Permits show that the barge will be FURTHER from shore than on CRS-5. . . 600km+Yes, but will it be further downrange than CRS-5?
Yes, significantly further downrange. Thanks to Darga's excellent map (click on the map menu to enable CRS-5 waypoint display), we can find the following distances for the barge:CRS-5: 353 km downrangeDSCOVER: 646 km downrangehttp://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30543.msg1316189#msg1316189