Author Topic: Falcon 9 from the SeaLaunch platform? (Read 5860 times)

LouScheffer · « **on:** 02/21/2014 02:47 pm »

If SeaLaunch goes broke, should SpaceX buy the platform? It has obvious drawbacks, but a couple of advantages.

*With the extra performance from the Earth's rotation, and the lack of inclination change, a Falcon 9 could put even the biggest comsats into a very useful orbit.

*You can put the platform the right distance from the coast, so you can land land the first stage without boostback on the coast of Ecuador. Then you stop and pick it up on the way back to port.

*No range conflicts.

Technically it should be fairly straightforward since the platform is already set up to launch RP-1/LXO rockets.

Kaputnik · « **Reply #1 on:** 02/21/2014 03:24 pm »

Previously discussed:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30385.msg1014181#msg1014181

I still like to think there is some merit in it.

Danderman · « **Reply #2 on:** 02/21/2014 03:40 pm »

Perhaps SpaceX could figure out how to launch two vehicles on one mission, so the platform and command ship would be more cost effective.

douglas100 · « **Reply #3 on:** 02/21/2014 04:01 pm »

Cost is the obvious drawback. And they've got enough on their plate without into large scale maritime operations. They can lift the largest comsats with FH.

Prober · « **Reply #4 on:** 02/21/2014 04:29 pm »

Quote from: Kaputnik on 02/21/2014 03:24 pm

Previously discussed:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30385.msg1014181#msg1014181

I still like to think there is some merit in it.

Wouldn't the new F9 be too tall; like the stick on a floating platform

DJPledger · « **Reply #5 on:** 02/21/2014 04:41 pm »

F9 will never launch from SeaLaunch platform as SpaceX have heavily invested in their launch infrastructure and they intend for F9 1st stage to RTLS.

Lars_J · « **Reply #6 on:** 02/21/2014 04:59 pm »

The performance boost from an equatorial launch is not worth the infrastructure hassle and cost. That's all that matters.

llanitedave · « **Reply #7 on:** 02/21/2014 05:46 pm »

Quote from: Lars_J on 02/21/2014 04:59 pm

The performance boost from an equatorial launch is not worth the infrastructure hassle and cost. That's all that matters.

Agreed. If the FH is as economical as they hope, it will do all they need without resorting to offshore platforms.

Avron · « **Reply #8 on:** 02/21/2014 11:16 pm »

Quote from: llanitedave on 02/21/2014 05:46 pm

Quote from: Lars_J on 02/21/2014 04:59 pm
The performance boost from an equatorial launch is not worth the infrastructure hassle and cost. That's all that matters.

Agreed. If the FH is as economical as they hope, it will do all they need without resorting to offshore platforms.

logistics is a nightmare or they spacex would find an island for launch, they did once before re: F1

NotOnImpact · « **Reply #9 on:** 02/22/2014 03:23 am »

Quote from: LouScheffer on 02/21/2014 02:47 pm

*You can put the platform the right distance from the coast, so you can land land the first stage without boostback on the coast of Ecuador. Then you stop and pick it up on the way back to port.

Apparently you have never tried to get something out of Ecuador.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #10 on:** 02/22/2014 03:59 am »

This idea would be even less likely if the report that the Russian government is thinking about taking over Sea Launch and moving it to a Russian port is true.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/financial-report/39579russian-government-mulls-takeover-of-sea-launch

Sea Launch is already 95% owned by Russia's RSC Energia.

- Ed Kyle

LouScheffer · « **Reply #11 on:** 02/22/2014 11:54 am »

Quote from: NotOnImpact on 02/22/2014 03:23 am

Quote from: LouScheffer on 02/21/2014 02:47 pm
*You can put the platform the right distance from the coast, so you can land land the first stage without boostback on the coast of Ecuador. Then you stop and pick it up on the way back to port.

Apparently you have never tried to get something out of Ecuador.

Not true; we have an exchange student from Ecuador in our house at this very moment. However, even that took some considerable paperwork.

More seriously, are you saying the Ecuador government is hard to deal with on an import/export/license/permit basis?

Prober · « **Reply #12 on:** 02/22/2014 04:47 pm »

Quote from: edkyle99 on 02/22/2014 03:59 am

This idea would be even less likely if the report that the Russian government is thinking about taking over Sea Launch and moving it to a Russian port is true.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/financial-report/39579russian-government-mulls-takeover-of-sea-launch

Sea Launch is already 95% owned by Russia's RSC Energia.

- Ed Kyle

Any info on the lawsuit of Boeing vs SeaLaunch?

edkyle99 · « **Reply #13 on:** 02/23/2014 04:26 am »

Quote from: Prober on 02/22/2014 04:47 pm

Quote from: edkyle99 on 02/22/2014 03:59 am
This idea would be even less likely if the report that the Russian government is thinking about taking over Sea Launch and moving it to a Russian port is true.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/financial-report/39579russian-government-mulls-takeover-of-sea-launch

Sea Launch is already 95% owned by Russia's RSC Energia.

- Ed Kyle

Any info on the lawsuit of Boeing vs SeaLaunch?

Here's an August 2013 update, describing how Yuzhnoye's motion to dismiss was denied.
http://cdn.lettersblogatory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/gov.uscourts.cacd_.553545.122.0.pdf

The lawsuit claims that Yuzhnoye and Energia owe Boeing almost $450 million.

The Sea Launch partners will likely need to settle this if they want the venture to continue. Notice that no Boeing satellites are currently on the company's manifest. Boeing Satellite Systems (originally Hughes satellite) was the primary reason that Sea Launch was created and based in Long Beach. For the upcoming mission, Eutelsat 3B was flown in from France. The next Sea Launch satellite, not slated to fly until 2016, will be built in Russia.

- Ed Kyle