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.
....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).
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: CameronD on 07/23/2014 03:49 amOne 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.
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..
Quote from: QuantumG on 07/23/2014 03:53 amQuote from: CameronD on 07/23/2014 03:49 amOne 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. Why not put permanent magnets in the footpads so it sticks to the landing platform?
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"
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...
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.
Blue Origin has actually been granted patents for landing on a sea platform and using aero surfaces as mentioned in the Blue Origin thread.