Launch News SpaceX Falcon 9 launch with Jason-3, January 17, 2016

[Sky Captain]

Horizontal landing would require much stronger and heavier structure. Wings also would add significant weight. It would need some jet engines to return back to launch site (more complexity and more weight) Reusable Falcon9 has only minimal modifications compared to expandable version. I bet engineers at SpaceX have done design studies on various recovery modes and arrived to a solution that weight of extra fuel, landing legs, grid fins and other recovery hardware competes well with wings, jet engines, additional mechanical complexity and lot of structural reinforcements horizontal landing would require. And if maximum performance is needed then it is easy to just not fit recovery hardware and launch as expandable.

 

[Col_Klonk]

This thing glides back to 'base'.. no fuel, no extra engines. Not much more complexity to what currently is in use. Structural strength wouldn't be much different.

It is possible that the total weight of this idea would equal the current system plus it's return fuel weight. If it is more then the wings could be used for extra lift during launch.. thus compensating for the weight gain...

It's just an idea which seems more feasible than trying to land vertically or on a barge. The complexity of a vertical landing is probably a lot more than horizontal, which has a proven history.

 

[Lmoy]

It is possible that the total weight of this idea would equal the current system plus it's return fuel weight. If it is more then the wings could be used for extra lift during launch.. thus compensating for the weight gain...

I don't think the ascent profile would benefit much if at all from wings. Besides that, the vehicle still needs landing gear, which is going to be just as heavy or heavier than the current landing struts, and then the question becomes whether the glideback airframe is heavier than the fuel required to turn around and land. Given the vehicle only requires a tiny amount of fuel compared to what it originally hauls up, I'm inclined to believe the fuel is lighter, though I don't know the exact numbers.

And of course you can't do a runway landing on the ocean. Depending on the launch you may end up needing a lot of crossrange to get to a landing strip, and more crossrange requires a bigger airframe better suited to gliding, right? And then that would be even heavier.

 

[Andy44]

This thing glides back to 'base'.. no fuel, no extra engines. Not much more complexity to what currently is in use. Structural strength wouldn't be much different.

It is possible that the total weight of this idea would equal the current system plus it's return fuel weight. If it is more then the wings could be used for extra lift during launch.. thus compensating for the weight gain...

It's just an idea which seems more feasible than trying to land vertically or on a barge. The complexity of a vertical landing is probably a lot more than horizontal, which has a proven history.

Okay, so where is your design analysis to back all this up? Like I said before, SpaceX engineers have done the math. Have you?

 

[Col_Klonk]

SpaceX engineers have done the math. Have you?

It's just an idea ..

You tell me... I could do.. to prove or disprove.. but have other priorities.. at a later stage maybe - just speculating at the moment.

Wrt ocean landings... well, one doesn't launch from where an ocean landing happens...

 

[Urwumpe]

but have other priorities

If you are not thinking it is worth your time, why should we think it is worth our time?

 

[Col_Klonk]

That's your point of view.. I never said that
I'd certainly go into the details.. but it would take a while... as I said .. later!
Got real life priorities.. that interfere big time with my playtime, dam annoying to say the least :lol: