3 ms·

I would not say it exploded on landing, it landed just fine. When you break apart a device full of things that like to go boom and provide a spark your bound to

I would not say it exploded on landing, it landed just fine. When you break apart a device full of things that like to go boom and provide a spark your bound to have an explosion. Got to love the audacity of landing on a barge in the ocean instead of land. So why is he doing this? Is it possible he wants to be as neutral going forward? Will he start building rockets on a seaborne platform as well? Go full Bond super-villain on us. Seriously though, why not buy an island.

nickik 11y ago
Going back to where you came from cost far more fuel. Every kilogram of fuel you save is extra profit. Also some places you are not allowed to land with a rocket.
- adwn 11y ago
  No, the cost of the fuel is almost entirely irrelevant; the entire fuel for the rocket launch is less than 1% of the total cost. The motivation behind saving fuel by landing on a barge is that the fuel thus saved can be transformed into additional speed of the upper stage, enabling a larger payload.
  - nickik 11y ago
    Literally what I said 'Every kilogram of fuel you save is extra profit.'. They make profit by sending payload into space.
    - adwn 11y ago
      > "Every kilogram of fuel you save is extra profit." No, it's not: Additional performance (i.e., payload capacity) does not get them more money from a customer if that customer's payload doesn't require more performance. If you want to be pedantic you might argue that more performance allows for more customers, but then not "every kilogram" is extra profit, because the spectrum is not continuous.
- Piskvorrr 11y ago
  "Every kilogram of fuel you save is extra profit" - which is sort of correct, in a roundabout way, via the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation : more fuel -> more weight -> need for even more fuel -> even more weight, which is the actual limiting factor in getting to LEO. So, a better way to put it would be "every excess gram severely decreases your range. Oh, and everything counts, fuel included."
gnoway 11y ago
Someone asked him this on his twitter feed. In short, they can't do high velocity missions and land on land, because they won't have enough fuel left over to slow down. Maybe if they had landing pads on land all around the world in the right latitudes they could land on land more often. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/688842435955261440 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/688842435955261440 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/688844190826942465 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/688844190826942465
- exDM69 11y ago
  Their upcoming Texas launch site [0] should be in a suitable position for a landing at Cape Canaveral for higher velocity launches to orbit. The first stage landing location must be relatively close to the launch site because the velocity of the first stage at burnout is mostly vertical. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_private_launch_site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_private_launch_site
justingood 11y ago
As Musk mentioned [1], landing on the barge is a necessity, due to the speed required to get into higher orbits. It's impossible to return the first stage to land. [1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/688842435955261440 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/688842435955261440
jvzr 11y ago
"High velocity" missions, as he call them, require far more thrust and, if landing back on land, would require even more fuel. I read somewhere too that this time they used an older rocket. The land landing from last month was with a newer, less powerful rocket (but I imagine more efficient, hence the newer x less powerfull paradox).

nickik 11y ago

Going back to where you came from cost far more fuel. Every kilogram of fuel you save is extra profit. Also some places you are not allowed to land with a rocket.

adwn 11y ago
No, the cost of the fuel is almost entirely irrelevant; the entire fuel for the rocket launch is less than 1% of the total cost. The motivation behind saving fuel by landing on a barge is that the fuel thus saved can be transformed into additional speed of the upper stage, enabling a larger payload.
- nickik 11y ago
  Literally what I said 'Every kilogram of fuel you save is extra profit.'. They make profit by sending payload into space.
  - adwn 11y ago
    > "Every kilogram of fuel you save is extra profit." No, it's not: Additional performance (i.e., payload capacity) does not get them more money from a customer if that customer's payload doesn't require more performance. If you want to be pedantic you might argue that more performance allows for more customers, but then not "every kilogram" is extra profit, because the spectrum is not continuous.
Piskvorrr 11y ago
"Every kilogram of fuel you save is extra profit" - which is sort of correct, in a roundabout way, via the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation : more fuel -> more weight -> need for even more fuel -> even more weight, which is the actual limiting factor in getting to LEO. So, a better way to put it would be "every excess gram severely decreases your range. Oh, and everything counts, fuel included."

gnoway 11y ago

Someone asked him this on his twitter feed. In short, they can't do high velocity missions and land on land, because they won't have enough fuel left over to slow down. Maybe if they had landing pads on land all around the world in the right latitudes they could land on land more often. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/688842435955261440 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/688842435955261440 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/688844190826942465 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/688844190826942465

exDM69 11y ago
Their upcoming Texas launch site [0] should be in a suitable position for a landing at Cape Canaveral for higher velocity launches to orbit. The first stage landing location must be relatively close to the launch site because the velocity of the first stage at burnout is mostly vertical. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_private_launch_site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_private_launch_site

justingood 11y ago

As Musk mentioned [1], landing on the barge is a necessity, due to the speed required to get into higher orbits. It's impossible to return the first stage to land. [1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/688842435955261440 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/688842435955261440

jvzr 11y ago

"High velocity" missions, as he call them, require far more thrust and, if landing back on land, would require even more fuel. I read somewhere too that this time they used an older rocket. The land landing from last month was with a newer, less powerful rocket (but I imagine more efficient, hence the newer x less powerfull paradox).