I always recall the nickname "missile with a man in it"

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/pict...963312&thumb=1 (Screenshot from Strike Fighters combat flight sim, click to enlarge)

The Japan Air Self-Defense Force called it Eiko ("Glory"). The Pakistani AF name was Badmash ("Hooligan"). Italian pilots called it the nickname Spillone ("Hatpin"), along with Bara volante ("Flying coffin"). In the Canadian Forces, the aircraft were sometimes referred to, in jest, as the Lawn Dart, the Aluminium Death Tube, and the Flying Phallus.

I remember watching a interview with Kelly Johnson quite some time ago, late 70's perhaps, and he was asked about the widow maker reputation of the F-104. You could tell he was a bit miffed and he said a big part of the reason for it was the fact that this interceptor was pressed into roles it wasn't designed for. I found this site that lists all F-104 crashes but won't have time for awhile to look through it for awhile. Could be some truth to what he says but there's no denying it had design issues.
https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid...-104%20crashes

Anyhow back on topic...

While landing the first stage is a huge technical achievement, there are some massive problems. Namely the extra mass required to do this feat.

In rocketry the fuel requirements for increased payload is exponential, because the more you gotta carry up the more fuel you need to cover the extra weight and you then need fuel to cover the mass of the extra fuel needed to carry the weight (and fuel to carry that fuel, etc).

So to land a rocket like that you need to carry extra fuel to slow the rocket down and land it, and carry more extra fuel to cover the weight of the extra fuel to land it. plus you also need more fuel for the parts that allow the rocket to land without damaging the engine and so on.

So it all gets to be a massive problem very quickly, particularly once you try to scale up the rocket and its payload capacity. So while this may be more economical for smaller rockets, that economy gets lost very quickly once you start scaling up.

Space-X has managed to finally land the first stage back on a drone barge at sea in the Atlantic.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CfjGUQZUIAAgNJY.jpg:large

And since they successfully landed on land first shot, then went back to failing to land on barges until now there must be a compelling reason they kept at the more difficult landings. Nobody's talked about why they needed that capability either.

To get back to land, they need to stop and turn around. Having the barge means they don't have to go back so far, so they can use more fuel for lifting the payload. It might also give them a better choice in launch locations, since they're not bringing the booster back to land, they don't have to worry about hitting anything else on the way down.

Better fuel consumption rates, if you launch at a ballistic arc from any US East coast launchpad then your arc will take you back down into the Atlantic.
Better fuel consumption rates mean cheaper launch costs, and more options as to what altitude your first stage will boost up to.

I can't imagine sea conditions in mid-Atlantic being smooth enough to land a booster, and then bringing that barge all the way back through seas smooth enough to keep the missile from tipping over. If they were landing on an aircraft carrier, sure. That barge? It's a tough sell.

Where was the barge this time? From the video it looks like it was offshore, not in a protected inland waterway.

Considering this is only a technique to recover the first stage booster of the rocket, nobody will probably ever ride one.

Of course rocket VTOL has been done before, even manned, but this system isn't designed to be manned, unless you get some stow away clinging to a fin.

From what I've been reading, the added mass to have this system work is "minimal". Minimal as in the cost of the extra mass is far less than the cost of a new first stage system. Also the extra fuel mass was already within the specs of the booster to start with, they just fire off the second stage a little sooner.

The first stage booster is coming down in the Atlantic regardless of how. They just found a way to safely recover the first stage, without exposing it to salt water, to greatly reduce re-usability costs.

Also, I think the platforms can be used as launch facilities as well as recovery locations, so in theory the rocket can launch from sea, perhaps in the Pacific, and land at Vandenburg.

Rockets in West Texas
 

Man, that's pretty good tech, they can land the booster and make it look easy.
https://www.blueorigin.com/gallery

This is Jeff Bezos' baby. :up:

Not even in the same class as SpaceX but still cool.

No doubt. Space X is planning mission 1 to Mars in 2 years.