- Apr 17, 2002
- 12,365
- 475
- 126
Reaction at ULA headquarters:
they probably just OK'd a huge funding boost to their vulcan development program and wrote a fat check to jeff bezos
Reaction at ULA headquarters:
NASA currently has two rovers on Mars, a probe orbiting Saturn, another probe on it's way Jupiter, and a NASA probe flew by Pluto last year. NASA is the only space agency in the world to send any probes to the outer planets.
+1
Like many people have said in other threads, NASA is focused more on deep space.
Boost to orbit is becoming a private venture.
Cool. What keeps it from falling over once it lands? Even in calm seas, the barge is rocking.
Cool. What keeps it from falling over once it lands? Even in calm seas, the barge is rocking.
Maybe a silly question, but is it because of the amount of fuel left and the trajectory into space that the rocket was landed in open sea ?
Was the nearest point on land to populated to allow the rocket to touch down on land, meaning safety reasons ?
It's a mix of different factors, it has to do with the orbit and payload of the rocket, as well as where they are launching from.
They also need major government approval for land based landings. So a sea based landing is much easier to coordinate.
This way they can launch the rocket and have it follow it's natural parabolic trajectory and have the drone ship waiting in the area it's expected to come down near, then you use a bit of fuel to slow down and land safely on the barge.
The other alternative is instead of allowing it to follow it's natural parabolic course, you allow a larger margin of fuel and do some extra burns to bring the rocket back to land. This however takes fuel away from the main mission and you either suffer a reduced payload, or a different orbit, and depending on mission requirements, this isn't always possible or feasible, and since the majority of the planet is covered in water, it just makes sense to be able to land on water if possible hence the drone ship.
Perhaps they should invest into a bigger ship ?
Maybe a silly question, but is it because of the amount of fuel left and the trajectory into space that the rocket was landed in open sea ?
Was the nearest point on land to populated to allow the rocket to touch down on land, meaning safety reasons ?
I see. I kind of have a doom scenario in my head where they have a heavy storm coming up on sea. Of course, there are weather predictions to base the schedule on, but there also schedules to be met with respect to the trajectory and refueling of the ISS. And of course, the wind can change on sea just like that within an hour. I imagine that with heavy weather, getting that first stage back to touch down on the drone ship may not be easy. Perhaps they should invest into a bigger ship ?