David Spain wrote:
On 10/8/2013 11:02 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
I found all the info on reusability of the first stage(s) interesting.
For example:

[Question on performance hit for attempting landing the first stage]
We effectively lose, in terms of performance... It really depends on
what we want to do with the stage if we were to do an ocean landing
or a return to launch site landing. If we do an ocean landing, the
performance hit is actually quite small at maybe in the order of
15%. If we do a return to launch site landing, it's probably double
that, it's more like a 30% hit (i.e., 30% of payload lost).


On this point I'm wondering how much of that 30% figure is due to the
trajectory the first stage would have to fly for a RTLS landing. Would
that figure be better if there was a "dry-land" or "sea-barge" option

I was assuming "ocean landing" was really "sea-barge" - does one
really want to be soaking a booster one expects to re-use in salt
water? Of course, I suspect that means *three* sea-barges for an F9H,
probably each some reasonable distance apart because you don't want a
fubar with one arriving booster taking-out the other two.

rick jones

further down the flight path? One that would allow the booster to follow
the more traditional "ballistic" trajectory? And if so, how much (as a
percentage of payload lost) would that regain? Of course at the cost of
having to transport the first stage back to the launch site. But it
might be a trade-off worth having...

Dave



--
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...