3 ms·

That'd require a rather huge balloon. Rockets are quite heavy. Pegasus XL has a mass of over 18 Mg, for payload mass of just over 400 kg. Not sure how this rel

by ygra 10y ago

That'd require a rather huge balloon. Rockets are quite heavy. Pegasus XL has a mass of over 18 Mg, for payload mass of just over 400 kg. Not sure how this relates to SpaceX' drone ship landings. Falcon 9 couldn't launch from the air, as cryogenic fuels mean you have to launch rather soon after fueling. Furthermore fuel is cheap (compared to the rocket), and their mode of operation seems to work rather well (despite CRS-7 and Amos-6) with normal launch and propulsive landing. SpaceX also has made it clear that a lot of the things they're doing, trying, and learning are designed to work in other places as well. While you can land with parachutes on Earth, you can't do so on Mars. Same holds for balloons. They just won't do it.

astrodust 10y ago
The thing about balloons is they're relatively cheap, and the stuff you put in them isn't expensive either. If you want to flirt with danger, hydrogen filled is one way to do it. The drone part is mostly to do with automation, as a terrestrial platform allows a lot of hands-on work to prep the rocket for launch. A high-altitude platform would have to be automated. Plus the way rocket physics work is the less fuel you need to punch through the atmosphere at speed, the less fuel you need overall, which reduces the weight of the rocket exponentially, as the fuel itself requires more fuel to get lifted. Anything they can do to get to a higher altitude without paying a heavy price is worth considering. Turning a theory into a viable launch strategy is not easy, I understand, but they've shown a remarkable ability to innovate.
- nickik 10y ago
  There is a reason basically nobody ever uses a balloon, it just does not make sense. It does get you far to little for not enough. You don't save that much energy and you have way harder time starting. You can't do deep cryo fuels and you can't do static fires in lunch conditions.

by ygra 10y ago

astrodust 10y ago

The thing about balloons is they're relatively cheap, and the stuff you put in them isn't expensive either. If you want to flirt with danger, hydrogen filled is one way to do it. The drone part is mostly to do with automation, as a terrestrial platform allows a lot of hands-on work to prep the rocket for launch. A high-altitude platform would have to be automated. Plus the way rocket physics work is the less fuel you need to punch through the atmosphere at speed, the less fuel you need overall, which reduces the weight of the rocket exponentially, as the fuel itself requires more fuel to get lifted. Anything they can do to get to a higher altitude without paying a heavy price is worth considering. Turning a theory into a viable launch strategy is not easy, I understand, but they've shown a remarkable ability to innovate.

nickik 10y ago
There is a reason basically nobody ever uses a balloon, it just does not make sense. It does get you far to little for not enough. You don't save that much energy and you have way harder time starting. You can't do deep cryo fuels and you can't do static fires in lunch conditions.