Thought: while not applicable to their initial purchases, @elonmusk may eventually end up with sea launch platforms that have no "platform" at all - just a tower.
Consider the new "rocket catching" approach. It's intriguing; it lets you cut a lot of mass off the rocket while...
Consider the new "rocket catching" approach. It's intriguing; it lets you cut a lot of mass off the rocket while...
letting you use as massive of a shock absorption system as you can dream up. Furthermore, a landed rocket cannot fall over. So long as it can navigate into roughly the right place, it's a good landing.
Now let's consider sea launch with a platform.
(1) Arm catches SH ...
Now let's consider sea launch with a platform.
(1) Arm catches SH ...
(2) Arm rotates, sets it down
(3) Some sort of strongback attaches to it to keep it stable and reconnect GSE.
(4) Arm catches Starship
(5) Arm aligns Starship with SH for remating. SH isn't attached to the tower, so this may take adjustment.
(6) Something connects GSE to Starship
(3) Some sort of strongback attaches to it to keep it stable and reconnect GSE.
(4) Arm catches Starship
(5) Arm aligns Starship with SH for remating. SH isn't attached to the tower, so this may take adjustment.
(6) Something connects GSE to Starship
(7) Passenger bridge connects Starship to tower.
The weight of the loaded, ready-to-launch Starship is borne on the pad. This pad is cantilevered out across pillar supports. It will need an elevated or open mount, potentially with flame trenches. If something goes wrong, ...
The weight of the loaded, ready-to-launch Starship is borne on the pad. This pad is cantilevered out across pillar supports. It will need an elevated or open mount, potentially with flame trenches. If something goes wrong, ...
... the rocket falls on your platform.
Now consider the scenario where the tower has two catch arms, the lower of which is fixed & can bear the weight of a fully loaded launch stack. Now you just have a single floating spar - such as with a floating wind turbine.
Now consider the scenario where the tower has two catch arms, the lower of which is fixed & can bear the weight of a fully loaded launch stack. Now you just have a single floating spar - such as with a floating wind turbine.
The weight is still borne by a cantilever, but now it's transferred to your single spar. The launch scenario now becomes:
(1) Lower arm catches SH. Does not need to set it down. Does not need to mate a strongback. GSE is right where you need it and automatically connects.
(1) Lower arm catches SH. Does not need to set it down. Does not need to mate a strongback. GSE is right where you need it and automatically connects.
(2) Upper arm (other side) catches Starship. Likewise ready to connect GSE and act as a passenger bridge.
(3) Upper arm rotates to align Starship with SH for mating. Both attached to the tower, so easy to align.
(4) For relaunch, the entire space below SH is your flame trench.
(3) Upper arm rotates to align Starship with SH for mating. Both attached to the tower, so easy to align.
(4) For relaunch, the entire space below SH is your flame trench.
In the event of an incident, the craft falls into water. GSE remains internal to the spar, protected well below the waterline. The only potential protrusions apart from the arms relate to passenger/cargo arrival and maintenance.
In short, this seems to be the logical...
In short, this seems to be the logical...
... end to the evolution of Starship's launch and landing system: a gleaming two-armed tower looming above the waves. Who needs flat launch surfaces? That's so 20th century. :)
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
