Really? what algorithms did we develop for landing on either a platform or land that deals with say 100 MPH winds, and dealing with 1G? And if developed in the 50's, then why did the lunar landings not use them? Likewise, why bother with having these competition here on earth for landing? Seems to me that the simple physics equations for dealing with gravity, are well known, but controlling a lander while dealing with wind, rain, storms, etc is quite a different thing. And yes, landing on the moon is VERY easy. BUT, landing on mars, earth, venus, or any planet or moon will be difficult due to side issues, and dealing with it.

Actually, the landing on land, I believe is NOT meant to be permanent. It is basically testing, just as 'landing' on the ocean is. The fact is, that stopping their forward momentum is expensive, fuel-wise.

CSA will do what they have done in all other industries: subsidize and dump their launch on foreign markets.

There are plenty of old oil platforms the to east of Florida as well.

Plenty of old stationary oil rigs are out there. Simply buy one out there. If none are in the area, then put one up.

Hmmm. Just re-read the MCT stuff. Yeah, I have to wonder where that will happen at, esp. since they are planning on multiple engines.

I am fully aware of where they are sending back the first stage for testing.
BUT, I suspect that it makes economic sense, to instead, land them on an oil rig and then barge them back, Since stopping their forward momentum will take a lot of fuel.

Referring to Tesla, not SpaceX.

And just like the German head of Airbus had it wrong about SpaceX, MB now has Tesla wrong.

cooler? Perhaps. Cheaper and more profitable? Not likely if they are getting only say 10 re-uses.

considering that fuel is less than 1/4 of a million $, if they can land the first stage, either on land or an old oil rig, AND can get 10 launches from it, they will save 1/3 of their costs. And that is just for the first stage.

Knowing SpaceX, they will cut their price by at least 1/6, so that they pick up just about everything flying, and make increased profits to put into more R&D.

Exactly right.

Hopefully, later on, they will put it on an oil rig, rather than taking it all the way back to land. That will allow a lot more payload.

Anybody that thinks that they will land this on a barge is kidding themselves. SpaceX has never said that, or hinted at that.

I seriously doubt that spaceX has ANY intention of landing on barges. They move too much. Instead, an old oil rig would make far more sense.

Not any time soon. There is no doubt that multiple russian ships including subs, and I will bet Chinese sub has been there as well, have been offshore of florida looking for parts, esp. electronics. The algorithms are what will be of use to them.

The issue is NOT whether they they recovered the stage, but whether it landed at slow controlled speeds. Apparently, SpaceX feels that it did 'land' on the water. As such, one or 2 more times with this, and they will be able to put it on land.

Personally, I think that bringing it all the way back to the cape is a mistake. Instead, they should use one of the old oil rigs that are out there. Clean it up, land it on the rig, and then offload with a crane to a barge and take it back for launc.