Author Topic: SpaceX floating launch pad for F9/FH -- SPECULATION  (Read 128527 times)

Offline CameronD

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2374
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 868
  • Likes Given: 548
Re: SpaceX "floating launch pad" for F9/FH -- SPECULATION
« Reply #20 on: 07/23/2014 04:20 am »
I immediately think of how the swells can raise and lift you 12' every few seconds. Having done ocean swims where I've had to grab dangling ladders I know timing is crucial. The idea of the first stage coming down perfectly on an object that is never stationary seems impossible. I'd like to believe Musk but I'm thinking maybe this was not thought out on his part.

Agree totally. ..although after re-reading the statement, I'm not seeing anywhere that it says a "floating launch pad" is part of their plans.  The statement merely says they "are highly confident of being able to" - land on a floating launch pad if they wanted to.
 
« Last Edit: 07/23/2014 04:46 am by CameronD »
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline sdub

  • Member
  • Posts: 63
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: SpaceX "floating launch pad" for F9/FH -- SPECULATION
« Reply #21 on: 07/23/2014 04:42 am »
Quote
....but how on Earth would that be cheaper than just getting the landing platform back to home port? Yes I know about Grasshopper and F9R-Dev, but I think they requires some processing before flying (don't think of DC-X type turn-around times).

It's not cheaper, but it's more performance.  When you look at the drop off in performance from the soft landing at sea versus the boost back to land, it might make sense.  I would guess it might still be cheaper to land on a floating pad, refuel, and do a suborbital back to land than it would be to discard the first stage when the payload demands the performance.

Offline GalacticIntruder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 512
  • Pet Peeve:I hate the word Downcomer. Ban it.
  • Huntsville, AL
  • Liked: 247
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: SpaceX "floating launch pad" for F9/FH -- SPECULATION
« Reply #22 on: 07/23/2014 05:09 am »
A thought: Maybe it does make sense for the FH center Core to 'land' on an ocean barge. It makes no sense for the FH Boosters or the F9.
« Last Edit: 07/23/2014 05:38 am by GalacticIntruder »
"And now the Sun will fade, All we are is all we made." Breaking Benjamin

Offline GusTurbo

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • Illinois, USA
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: SpaceX "floating launch pad" for F9/FH -- SPECULATION
« Reply #23 on: 07/23/2014 05:16 am »
A suborbital hop back to land from a platform out at sea probably isn't a very good idea. First, you would need fuel storage at the platform, and some way to refuel the first stage. The platform would have to be maintained and stocked with fuel, which would create costs. The act of flying it back to land also introduces inherent risks, no matter how routine launches may seem. Sure, it's elegant, but it's hard to see how "hopping" a rocket could be worth the added cost and risk.

Offline GregA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
  • Liked: 269
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: SpaceX "floating launch pad" for F9/FH -- SPECULATION
« Reply #24 on: 07/23/2014 06:21 am »
This would seem to provide more payload options if they no longer have to boost back to land.  They should be able to squeeze a little extra delta v if they don't have to boost back.

What about multiple floating launch pads at different points downrange?  They could put two fairly close to land for the outer F9H cores.  Then another pad would be further downrange for the center core running in a crossfeed scenario.  Then the center core could take a suborbital hop either to the midrange launch pads, or directly to land itself depending on the math....

This would remove the requirement to have a barge to transport the rocket.  However, it does require shipping fuel over seas out to the launch pad.

It's possible that the method of reusability will allow for several pricing models to emerge. They might try for RTLS for every Falcon 9R, then with bigger loads switch heavy with 3 cores RTLS, followed by a bigger load FH with 2 cores RTLS and the middle landed downrange. BFR as loads increase.

I wouldn't expect them to try for 3 separate barge landings on FH (but who really knows!).

We may be simply seeing a temporary landing requirement for their testing... the risk of an explosion is less obstructing. Once landing on land is permitted, if they were planning down range landings frequently, wouldn't they launch from Texas etc and land on land further east? Or would that only work if they were going to refuel and boost back? (otherwise literally shipping it back on the ocean is easier than a truck isn't it?)

On another note...not exactly how you'd set something up, but the FLIP boat here shows how stable a floating platform can be...

Offline dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4433
Re: SpaceX "floating launch pad" for F9/FH -- SPECULATION
« Reply #25 on: 07/23/2014 06:32 am »
A suborbital hop back to land from a platform out at sea probably isn't a very good idea. First, you would need fuel storage at the platform, and some way to refuel the first stage. The platform would have to be maintained and stocked with fuel, which would create costs. The act of flying it back to land also introduces inherent risks, no matter how routine launches may seem. Sure, it's elegant, but it's hard to see how "hopping" a rocket could be worth the added cost and risk.

If you aren't storing fuel for a return hop, you're storing a crane or strongback for taking the booster horizontal for the trip home. Is the entire platform heading back, or a separate ship? Either way, that vehicle needs fuel. Is the platform staffed? Those people need fuel, which means sandwiches, which means refrigeration, which means a generator, which means fuel...

Push in one direction and tradeoffs ooze out the other side. :P

Offline Joel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Wisconsin
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: SpaceX "floating launch pad" for F9/FH -- SPECULATION
« Reply #26 on: 07/23/2014 07:06 am »
Note: The "launch" could be just a small hop over to a ship, after ballasting to get t/w approximately 1. Eliminates huge crane. Also no cranes on Mars.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: SpaceX "floating launch pad" for F9/FH -- SPECULATION
« Reply #27 on: 07/23/2014 07:21 am »
A thought: Maybe it does make sense for the FH center Core to 'land' on an ocean barge. It makes no sense for the FH Boosters or the F9.

I fully agree. Except assuming they have that platform but not yet permission to land back in Florida or Vandenberg. They then may use it for proof of concept.

The more I look at the wording they are deliberately unclear on where they will land those stages. They like to fly back if they get permission in time but may land on a platform if not.

Offline Tonioroffo

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 131
  • Belgium
  • Liked: 83
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: SpaceX "floating launch pad" for F9/FH -- SPECULATION
« Reply #28 on: 07/23/2014 08:52 am »
The dreamer in me wants to see a pykrete (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pykrete) platform.  :)

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: SpaceX "floating launch pad" for F9/FH -- SPECULATION
« Reply #29 on: 07/23/2014 09:50 am »
Blue Origin has actually been granted patents for landing on a sea platform and using aero surfaces as mentioned in the Blue Origin thread.

http://www.google.com/patents/US8678321

Will this have any impact on SpaceX plans?

Offline rklaehn

  • interplanetary telemetry plumber
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1259
  • germany
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: SpaceX "floating launch pad" for F9/FH -- SPECULATION
« Reply #30 on: 07/23/2014 09:55 am »
One issue I see with the "floating launch pad" is the talk of landing a ~200ft high stage on it. 

You'd certainly need not only something the shape of a heli-pad but something around 100 times bigger - and then hope for calm seas on landing-day, since attempting a landing on a platform anything other than dead-level would result in yet another body-slam if it wasn't strapped down awfully fast..

Maybe the Falcon can dynamically stabilize, Segway style.  ;D

Why not put permanent magnets in the footpads so it sticks to the landing platform?  8)

Offline Dudely

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 312
  • Canada
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: SpaceX "floating launch pad" for F9/FH -- SPECULATION
« Reply #31 on: 07/23/2014 11:54 am »
Nothing about increasing their infrastructure costs by involving new launch pads (in the middle of the OCEAN no less) makes sense. That's not what t5hey are about. They will spend the absolute bare minimum to recover the boosters at sea a couple times until someone lets them land on terra firma.

Concrete is cheap.

Offline rpapo

Don't know if this little problem has been considered, but think about this: You could have real problems trying to relaunch a returned F9 or FH center core (not so much the side cores of a FH) because of one little problem: the exposed interstage on the top.  Any significant (more than a few miles) hop of the launcher will result in the core going supersonic.  You would need to install some sort of nose-cone to avoid problems with this.
Following the space program since before Apollo 8.

Offline Mongo62

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Liked: 834
  • Likes Given: 156
Re: SpaceX "floating launch pad" for F9/FH -- SPECULATION
« Reply #33 on: 07/23/2014 01:15 pm »
post deleted -- wrong thread.
« Last Edit: 07/23/2014 01:26 pm by Mongo62 »

Online JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: SpaceX "floating launch pad" for F9/FH -- SPECULATION
« Reply #34 on: 07/23/2014 02:37 pm »
One issue I see with the "floating launch pad" is the talk of landing a ~200ft high stage on it. 

You'd certainly need not only something the shape of a heli-pad but something around 100 times bigger - and then hope for calm seas on landing-day, since attempting a landing on a platform anything other than dead-level would result in yet another body-slam if it wasn't strapped down awfully fast..

Maybe the Falcon can dynamically stabilize, Segway style.  ;D

Why not put permanent magnets in the footpads so it sticks to the landing platform?  8)

Great.. So they can REALLY "stick" the landing, right?
My God!  It's full of universes!

Online JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: SpaceX "floating launch pad" for F9/FH -- SPECULATION
« Reply #35 on: 07/23/2014 02:42 pm »
In releasing the rentry burn and ocean "landing" video of the ORBCOMM Mission 1 booster controlled descent test today, SpaceX said:  "At this point, we are highly confident of being able to land successfully on a floating launch pad or back at the launch site and refly the rocket with no required refurbishment." (emphasis added)

I believe this is the first public statement SpaceX has made about a floating launch pad.

So, is that correct (first public mention)?  And if so, what do the members of this forum think this pad will consist of?

I'll start off with saying that, unlike the Sea Launch Odyssey, this floating platform would appear to be explicitly for both VTVL landing of the returning booster stages, as well as for "no refurbishment" relaunches of the same vehicle. 

One implication of  that is that it need not, necessarily, be a floating platform that is generally intended for longer-term (days/weeks) transport of the returned booster back to terra firma.  SpaceX could plan to launch in acceptable weather at both the land launch site and at the remote floating platform, and intend a refueling operation to either stack a second stage with payload and relaunch, or do a light refuel for a VTVL trip back to land.  In other words, it may not be merely a platform that would be intended to lower the landed rocket, hangar it, and transport it back to land.

What other implications do you see?


Mods:  I've started this in the SpaceX reusable area, because of the explicit statement of reflying "with no required refurbishment".  If you think this belongs elsewhere, feel free to move it.


Edit:  added scare quotes per QuantumG:  landing ===> ocean "landing"

You know, I've been wondering who refinanced Sealaunch after they nearly went Bankrupt.  Actually wouldn't be a bad idea at all, as this would give SpaceX the ability to maximize their launch capibility by being able to launch from ANYWHERE in the Sea. Equatorial or ploar orbits would be no problem as you move the launch pad where you need it.  (And if salt water corrosion is no longer an issue like it was for the Falcon 1, this would be a REALLY good combo fro testing future rocket designs as well.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline VulcanCafe

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SpaceX "floating launch pad" for F9/FH -- SPECULATION
« Reply #36 on: 07/23/2014 03:05 pm »
Important detail to keep in mind here, they feel they have demonstrated pinpoint accuracy. (Barge-scale accuracy?) I'm trying to understand the benefit of landing on a barge vs any other location. ISTM Prevention of RUD on isolated land isn't much different than on top of a barge.

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: SpaceX "floating launch pad" for F9/FH -- SPECULATION
« Reply #37 on: 07/23/2014 03:08 pm »
If you aren't storing fuel for a return hop, you're storing a crane or strongback for taking the booster horizontal for the trip home. Is the entire platform heading back, or a separate ship? Either way, that vehicle needs fuel. Is the platform staffed? Those people need fuel, which means sandwiches, which means refrigeration, which means a generator, which means fuel...

Barge + tow ship.  Keep the platform dumb and simple.  Tow boats with cranes, people, galleys, propulsion, etc already exist.

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: SpaceX "floating launch pad" for F9/FH -- SPECULATION
« Reply #38 on: 07/23/2014 03:14 pm »
Important detail to keep in mind here, they feel they have demonstrated pinpoint accuracy. (Barge-scale accuracy?) I'm trying to understand the benefit of landing on a barge vs any other location. ISTM Prevention of RUD on isolated land isn't much different than on top of a barge.

It probably is a question of what they will be permitted to do as a next step. We know Elon doesn't like ocean landings and "armadas." But if CCAFS is not ready to allow landing attempts on terra firma, they might allow a barge landing close to shore as a "proof of concept" demo as a condition for allowing future terra firma landings.
« Last Edit: 07/23/2014 03:16 pm by Kabloona »

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Re: SpaceX "floating launch pad" for F9/FH -- SPECULATION
« Reply #39 on: 07/23/2014 03:17 pm »
Blue Origin has actually been granted patents for landing on a sea platform and using aero surfaces as mentioned in the Blue Origin thread.
Just because a patent has been granted does not mean that it would hold, if challenged in court and I seriously doubt that it would. There is too much prior art that was in the public domain at the time.

Regarding landing on a barge, I don't really see why that is necessary. If they need to proof pin point accuracy, telemetry is enough. If they don't need to proof that, then they might just as well land on land.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0