[Gaffer]

It’s a neat job of balancing sophisticated attitude controls and sensors with what looks to be a huge fuel supply (just for this demonstration, I’d imagine) under likely ideal conditions (no wind).

This is a far cry from boosting something to a position to launch into orbit. Also, as you correct ask, how does it do on water, where most first-stages seem to land. How well can it perform in jet stream winds - all that?

Not saying this can’t be done, even though it’s a little 1950s Sci Fi-ish in terms of landings. But it does remind me of the very first promises made by Shuttle proponents for cost efficacy, turn around times, and numbers of flights/year that could be attained. It NEVER even came close to meeting even a SMIDGEON (haha) of the promises.

[JRandomFreeper]

The ocean 'landing' was just a test. Hover over a spot on the ocean (if possible) and then shut down like there was a concrete pad under it. Testing purposes only, to validate the concept, hardware and software.

What has been missing from the testing so far is the unpowered ballistic phase, and I would like to see how they did on that.

That they say they were successful gives me hope, since they can't BS the way a government agency can. They actually have stockholders to answer to.

/johnny

[JRandomFreeper]

This is a far cry from boosting something to a position to launch into orbit.

Oh, and the 'landing' test used the first stage booster that actually put the Falcon 9 spacecraft into orbit and mating with the ISS.

The testing on the first stage was essentially free, since they already met their milestone by getting the supplies to the ISS.

/johnny

[TexasGator]

You should have read the article.

[mad_as_he$$]

I clearly remember the shuttle selling points:

1. Sweep it out.
2. Stand it up.
3. Hook it up to new boosters.
4. Clean the ashtrays.
6. Load new payload.
7. Launch.

Time to go, three days. LOL it took a full day to drive back out to the launch pad.