Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Air Force Wants Reusable Fly-Back Rockets

Posted by timothy on from the we-can't-always-get-what-we-want dept.

FleaPlus writes "The Air Force is initiating a pathfinder program to develop a first-stage rocket booster capable of gliding back to a runway so it can be easily reused. Lockheed Martin has already launched a secretive prototype, and a Cal Poly team has a prototype based on Buzz Aldrin's Starcraft/StarBooster design (video). The Air Force estimates such a booster could cut launch costs by 50% over the current Atlas 5 and Delta 4 rockets, and could also offer a rapid surge/replacement capability if combined with reusable spacecraft like the recently launched X-37B. Initial test flights are planned for 2013."

3 of 94 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Sensible by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Informative

    The shuttle was originally designed to be a full piggyback system. They just wouldn't fund it.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  2. This idea has been around for a long time by grahamwest · · Score: 4, Informative

    Boeing did a study of making a winged Saturn V first stage back in 1962.

    http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/winturnv.htm

    The payload penalty might be problematic. Also, you can't really cluster more than 2 flyback stages due to the size of the wings. If you could use a parafoil and land with skids, that might solve that problem and to be fair western rockets don't really use clustering (Delta IV Heavy being a notable exception).

    --
    Graham
  3. Re:Simple by PeterBrett · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sort of like Formula One motors. No one reuses them. Why not? No one cares. You build them. You use them, they wear out after 20 hours, and you build another one. Simpler, cheaper, better.

    SpaceX regularly test-fire their engines with full mission-duration burns, then use the same engines on their launchers. Their engines are designed for re-use, to the extent of avoiding ablative coatings and materials wherever possible. They've even been careful to design for immersion in salt water so that in theory they can recover first stages, give them a quick going over, and whack them back on the launch pad.

    As someone who works in the space industry, I think that saying, "You shouldn't reuse rockets," is a rather blinkered and negative attitude. With that sort of stance, how could we ever improve the state of the art?

    --
    Pirate Party UK