On 4/17/2018 3:19 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
https://www.space.com/40313-spacex-r...y-balloon.html

I find this interesting for a couple of reasons.

The approach is interesting and I wonder who much it'll impact the final
payload numbers.

But more so, it seems like both a somewhat low-risk, but also low-reward
approach.


I remember years back when Musk first propose recovering Falcon 9 stages
that the topic of a ballute came up on the a-rocket mailing list,
ostensibly as a way to recover the 2nd stage short of propulsive landing.

It's low-risk since if it doesn't work, they're already beating folks on
launch costs, so if this fails, they're not out anything. Their business
model doesn't depend on ths.

On the other hand, recovering a single Merlin won't save them that much
money. And if BFR is so close flying, what's the point?


Yes I agree. I suspect they are using it mainly for learning curve
rather than practical economics, with BFR looming.

I mean I think it's pretty cool, but ultimately, I wonder who much it'll
be worth the trouble. (assuming they do catch the thing somewhere in the
Pacific, they still have to then get it back to the US mainland.)

Though, it suddenly dawns on me, heck, save the engine, forget the tanks
and you can fly the engine home in a air-freighter and still save the
most costly item.


I suspect this is (primarily) research on ballutes for use on other
future projects. You are getting high altitude from orbit returns for
free. Why not take advantage?

Jeff Findley writes:
Build a little, test a little, fly a little. That's how they're gaining
their experience in reuse

That how they've gained lots of kinds of experience...

Dave