In article ,
says...

David Spain wrote:
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.

I'd say you don't want to submerge expensive aerospace grade hardware in
salt water. For most common aerospace materials, this would not be a
good thing.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer