7 ms·

The big difference between landing at sea and on land seems to be the PR value. Otherwise a target is a target, taking any differences in weather into considera

by gist 11y ago

The big difference between landing at sea and on land seems to be the PR value. Otherwise a target is a target, taking any differences in weather into consideration. In fact it seems that landing at sea is actually less pressure since you don't have the same safety concerns and crash pictures (which are bad for publicity) the rocket simply disappears.

iandanforth 11y ago
This is incorrect, it's about fuel. By the time the rocket has completed first stage separation it's traveled a long way "horizontally" and is no longer near the launch site. They are trying to create a landing spot as close to the rocket as possible so it can't make it back. The only orbits that can reasonable get all the way back to land are fairly low and from specific launch sites.
aerovistae 11y ago
Completely incorrect. The question to ask is, why are they bothering to land at sea? And, if you had done any cursory research instead of just announcing that SpaceX is making a PR grab because it sounded good to you, you would have read in the abundantly available explanations that this launch was to geostationary transfer orbit, rather than low earth orbit. GEO is a lot, lot higher than LEO, which means the rocket has to be going a LOT faster to get there. This uses up a lot of fuel, leaving them very little to slow down from an even higher speed than the normal mission. Decelerating from a much higher speed takes MORE fuel than decelerating from a low speed, and they have less fuel available because so much got used up in getting to that speed. So it's not plausible to get all the way back to the launch site. Instead they position a droneship way downrange so the rocket doesn't have to go as far back to land. But it's still going EXTREMELY fast, and managing to slow down all the way and land is an incredible accomplishment.
- gist 11y ago
  > So it's not plausible to get all the way back to the launch site. I never said return to the launch site. I said return to land. > if you had done any cursory research instead of just announcing that Unnecessary to speak that way in order to make your point unless you are trying to specifically make someone feel bad for voicing their thoughts.
  - aerovistae 11y ago
    I'm not trying to make you feel bad, I'm trying to point out that you deliberately chose pejorative phrasing without having done any research. I'm trying to point out that it's not constructive to talk about someone else's work like that without at least learning what they're even doing or why they're doing it.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Could you name a suitable piece of land? There are not very many downrange from KSC. If you propose using a different launch site, note that launching over the ocean is a necessary safety precaution, unless you can find a large amount of very uninhabited land.

by gist 11y ago

iandanforth 11y ago

This is incorrect, it's about fuel. By the time the rocket has completed first stage separation it's traveled a long way "horizontally" and is no longer near the launch site. They are trying to create a landing spot as close to the rocket as possible so it can't make it back. The only orbits that can reasonable get all the way back to land are fairly low and from specific launch sites.

aerovistae 11y ago

Completely incorrect. The question to ask is, why are they bothering to land at sea? And, if you had done any cursory research instead of just announcing that SpaceX is making a PR grab because it sounded good to you, you would have read in the abundantly available explanations that this launch was to geostationary transfer orbit, rather than low earth orbit. GEO is a lot, lot higher than LEO, which means the rocket has to be going a LOT faster to get there. This uses up a lot of fuel, leaving them very little to slow down from an even higher speed than the normal mission. Decelerating from a much higher speed takes MORE fuel than decelerating from a low speed, and they have less fuel available because so much got used up in getting to that speed. So it's not plausible to get all the way back to the launch site. Instead they position a droneship way downrange so the rocket doesn't have to go as far back to land. But it's still going EXTREMELY fast, and managing to slow down all the way and land is an incredible accomplishment.

gist 11y ago
> So it's not plausible to get all the way back to the launch site. I never said return to the launch site. I said return to land. > if you had done any cursory research instead of just announcing that Unnecessary to speak that way in order to make your point unless you are trying to specifically make someone feel bad for voicing their thoughts.
- aerovistae 11y ago
  I'm not trying to make you feel bad, I'm trying to point out that you deliberately chose pejorative phrasing without having done any research. I'm trying to point out that it's not constructive to talk about someone else's work like that without at least learning what they're even doing or why they're doing it.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Could you name a suitable piece of land? There are not very many downrange from KSC. If you propose using a different launch site, note that launching over the ocean is a necessary safety precaution, unless you can find a large amount of very uninhabited land.