4 ms·
I can speculate ... I think the primary reason would be that landing legs are heavy, and it wastes performance to carry them. If your landing mechanism is mos
by __d 2y ago
I can speculate ...
I think the primary reason would be that landing legs are heavy, and it wastes performance to carry them. If your landing mechanism is mostly on the ground, you get that performance back.
Secondary reasons might include that it's simpler to get the booster right back to the pad. Once things have settled into an operational cadence, it's likely feasible to lower and lock the booster onto the stool, stack a ship on top, refuel, and relaunch -- no more messing around with barges, transport, weather issues, etc.
- MPSimmons 2y agoTo my knowledge, you're right, but in reverse order. I believe the driving force is time, rather than mass overhead, but certainly both play a large part.
- btilly 2y agoYour primary reason matches what SpaceX themselves have said. You either need to be strong enough to handle the shock of inpact, or need to spread the impact over time. Building either into the rocket adds a lot of mass. Landing on a device that spreads out the shock moves that weight to the static landing platform.
- XorNot 2y agoIt's worth noting that at least 1 Falcon 9 core probably got trashed not from the landing, but from rough seas - so cutting out the ground logistics chain adds resiliency.
- Gare 2y agoFalcon 9 can land on land just fine (and it was done multiple times on less demanding missions). Landing on barge gives it extra performance.