4 ms·
This is so exciting. Not quite a moon landing, but still feels like watching a significant moment in history. Does anyone know what specifically changed to al
by tempestn 11y ago
This is so exciting. Not quite a moon landing, but still feels like watching a significant moment in history.
Does anyone know what specifically changed to allow a landing attempt on land as opposed to barge? Was it just that they gained enough confidence with the barges that they would at least be able to hit the target (and not crash into a building or something), or was some regulatory clearance received or something? Or something about this launch (ie lighter payload?) made a return to land feasible?
- bkanber 11y agoYou guessed right with the lighter payload. They could afford the fuel to burn all the way back rather than landing downrange on the barge.
- ohitsdom 11y agoThe FAA did have to approve this. I'm assuming approval was much smoother since they demonstrated on the two barge attempts that they could successfully steer the rocket to a precise landing.
- gozur88 11y agoIt was three things. They had to get multiple government agencies to approve the landing pad and plan. They had to have a relatively light payload. And they had to "deep freeze" the fuel to squeeze in enough for a return. I suspect even as this becomes routine most landings will still be on the barge. Every ounce of fuel you use to reverse your direction is an ounce you could have put toward a larger payload.
- baq 11y agoOTOH sometimes the payload just isn't that big.
- ceejayoz 11y ago> Does anyone know what specifically changed to allow a landing attempt on land as opposed to barge? I believe the main concern was not putting what amounts to an ICBM into Disneyworld. Hitting the barge (even though they hit a little hard each time) proved they could hit within a few feet of where they planned reliably.