Re: SpaceX Booster Recovery Saga
Now, how do you know that they are profitable? Privately held company - closed books.
7 posts • joined 25 Nov 2013
Cray74 and others: You guys don't get it. The "Range" people will not approve a trajectory that launches over land or returns over land (with fuel on board). That represents an unacceptable hazard to the public. You can't blow something up, directed or by accident, and have debris coming down with an uncertain destination. There is no practical way to do this.
That is not going to happen (land return) until and unless they show consistent success bringing it in at sea. The government isn't going to allow an unproven landing of a fueled rocket on land without that success record. By the way, that last attempt wouldn't have been successful on land, either.
This booster recovery process that SpaceX is attempting is not close to being successful. And remember, in order for SpaceX to be profitable, they need to do it consistently. A far more practical way to reduce launch costs is being developed by ULA. Since 65% of the cost of a booster is its engines, they are looking to recover the booster engine module via parachute and helicopter capture.
Because there is an exact spot in that orbit that you want to be so that the satellite can service that part of the earth below it. To reach that exact spot in the orbit, there is an optimum launch time that will use the least fuel (propellant). There is some wiggle room in that optimum time where the coast times and the burn times can be adjusted to reach the target spot, but the further that you get from the optimum time, the more propellant that it takes to get there. Of course every rocket has a limit on the amount of propellant that it can carry. That determines the size of the launch window.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019