Slashdot Mirror
NASA, France Skeptical of SpaceX Reusable Rocket Project
MarkWhittington writes: "The drive by SpaceX to make the first stage of its Falcon 9 launch vehicle reusable has attracted the attention of both the media and the commercial space world. It recently tested a first stage which 'soft landed' successfully in the Atlantic Ocean. However both NASA and the French space agency CNES have cast doubt that this kind of reusability could ever be made practical, according to a Monday story in Aviation Week. SpaceX is basing its plan on the idea that its Merlin 1D engines could be reused 40 times. However, citing their own experience in trying to reuse engines, both NASA and the CNES have suggested that the technical challenges and the economics work against SpaceX being able to reuse all or part of their rockets. NASA found that it was not worth trying to reuse the space shuttle main engines after every flight without extensive refurbishment. The CNES studied reusing its Ariane 5 solid rocket boosters liquid fueled and reusable but soon scrapped the idea."
...we can't do it, you clearly can't either.
Sorry but big government's approach to things isn't what I usually measure up against. They spent how much on the space shuttle and so it would be reusable and instead after every flight the basically take it apart and rebuild every major and most minor subsystems?
Let someone else give it a go before you just say it's impossible
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
NASA, France Skeptical of SpaceX Reusable Rocket Project
Yes, that's a lovely headline. But the original headline ("NASA, CNES Warn SpaceX of Challenges in Flying Reusable Falcon 9 Rocket") tells the same story with 42% less bullshit.
NASA found that it was not worth trying to reuse the space shuttle main engines after every flight without extensive refurbishment.
Really? So because the space shuttle couldn't do it, nobody could do it, perhaps by learning lessons from the shuttle program? If this is an example of the kind of thinking in the article, it's a fat waste of time. If it isn't an example, why mention it at all?
I went ahead and skimmed the article, and indeed, the sole counterexample to the potential of reuse continues to be the space shuttle. The article is crap. Flush.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Commercial approach need to have a solution ready, or one quickly ready enough. That's the difference. When ESA/NASA says they tried and found it unpractical cost wise and security wise, after trying and wasting money at it, you better pay attention. Because those are the branch of government which have the MOST engineer after civil engineering, and are the least "big government".
Does anyone remember the history of the space station?
NASA spent billions (with a B) of dollars, and for a decade we had not one bolt flying in orbit. I used to call the project the Origami space station, made out of paper. It wasn't until the Russians went ahead and launched the first module that NASA got around to giving up on Powerpoint and Viewgraphs and meetings, and actually -did- something.
I just love it when people proudly proclaim that something isn't possible.
History shows that such pronouncements have a very poor track record.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
Why not let SpaceX try and find out for themselves. They know their engines and have tested them for reuse long before they started building Grasshopper and the test protocols for Falcon 9.
The Merlins are designed to stop and start, and have done it successfully on the launch pad with the launch aborts experienced during their test flights. And SpaceX probably has a set that they've run on a static test pad for a full flight profile, then dusted them off, checked the bearings and seals and ran them again. And again. And again.
The SSMEs are excessively complex systems that have a much greater thrust than the Merlins. They need a full strip and rebuild because of their complexity.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
No doubt that SpaceX has put a whole lot of effort into making this work, but it amazes me that people who are otherwise knowledgeable about this kind of stuff can't stand looking at actual results rather than assuming this is just random musings. One of the ways SpaceX knows how many potential launches they can get out of their engines is because they have put some of these Merlin-1 engines on their test stand in Texas and have fired them for full mission duration burns 40-50 times. SpaceX definitely doesn't make up these numbers out of their hind end but rather from experience and actually using this equipment.
Again reality sort of bites these guys hard because SpaceX has been able to bring the 1st stage down to a soft landing. With the most recent launch, SpaceX was denied the opportunity to do more because both the FAA and the USAF folks at Cape Canaveral didn't really want that return stage going anywhere near the launch pad until SpaceX has proven they have control of the vehicle. Regardless, SpaceX has done the really hard part of actually getting the spacecraft to return in a recoverable condition.... something these "experts" in this article are denying is even possible in a theoretical sense.
The 2nd stage recovery is going to be a whole lot harder, and it is something that even SpaceX themselves have said may not be successful. Still, I wouldn't categorically write off SpaceX either and it is just stupid to dismiss something like this as impossible without even making an attempt to see if it could be done.
The Challenger exploded because the spacecraft was flying outside of its design parameters. The engineers themselves asked for, I dare say even begged NASA to not fly that day, but NASA was under a huge amount of political pressure to get the vehicle into orbit or risk an embarrassing trip to congressional meetings to explain why this supposedly reusable spacecraft (meaning the Space Shuttle) wasn't really reusable and couldn't fly in conditions that were not a problem with the Saturn V.
No doubt that the Space Shuttle was an incredibly complicated machine that could break with a series of bad events, but there is far more to the destruction of the Challenger (or the loss of the Columbia a few years later) than simply hand waving and saying "it is so complicated that it was simply going to have problems."
Besides, the Space Shuttle is a really horrible demonstration vehicle for reusable spacecraft. So many design compromises were done with that spacecraft it is a wonder it flew at all in the first place. It certainly was never going to live up to the hype that surrounded the spacecraft in the late 1970's and early 1980's.
In the case of NASA, people were on-board for every shuttle launch, and each launch cost billions. The satellite payload could cost over $400 million each. If a $15,000 dollar component has a 1 in 10,000 chance of scuttling a launch, it was easy to justify fixing it. The space shuttle had many subsystems, and each and every subsystem was built from from many small individual components. Thus, NASA rebuilt, checked or replaced everything on the entire shuttle on every launch.
I don't think SpaceX is going after the same market. For human rated launches, ISS resupply missions, or expensive satellites, they can sell brand new rockets. For inexpensive payloads, it could pay to roll the dice. SpaceX rockets are designed to be much less expensive than the competitions.
Reusing rockets would require proof of perfection each time
That depends on the payload. For manned flight, the standard is 99.9999%, or "six nines". For a satellite launch, three or four nines is good enough. For a water/food resupply mission, two nines are acceptable. The space shuttle had less than that with two failures in 135 flights, or 98.5%.
Their basic argument seems to be they couldn't (or wouldn't) do it so it can't be done. The answer is probably very simple, sacrifice a little performance to make a more robust engine. Which judging from SpaceX's specs is exactly what they have done. Harden the components you can, any components that have to be worn put in a place where they can be easily replaced. Fuel is comparatively cheap, to fill the entire space shuttle external tank with LH2 (a comparatively expensive fuel) was only about $200,000, spacecraft by comparison costs tens to hundreds of millions. If you can make even part of it reusable increasing fuel requirements even significantly you'll make out like a bandit.
Even in science, if you believe you can't do a hard thing, you won't try and tear down others who do.
If SpaceX wants to develop a reusable rocket that's their business. If they expect NASA or other countries to pay for it they will have to play by another set of rules.
Here, mod this one overrated, too. I'll post some more if you like, to use up the modpoints that you clearly are not qualified to spend.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I agree for the most part but there area few issues in your statements from my understanding. Amortized over the entire program including R&D I think the shuttle program cost about $1.1 Billion per launch. Some analysis suggests though that even with the extensive refurb the shuttle itself only cost about $200-$400 Million per launch (still far more than originally projected, but not too bad). The issue was with everything that was tacked on to a program that was seen as "too big to fail". Maintenance of an extensive launch complex & nationwide network of "associated" facilities, a myriad of research programs across the nation, maintaining an army of technicians, etc. Treated like a transportation system it could have been successful with some reasonable modifications, however it was throughout its lifetime treated as a research platform & point of national pride. Two things which cost far more than their counterparts in the commercial world.
That the first jet engines were unreliable, and required extensive maintenance after each test. Progress happens. With effort.
Between NASA/CNES being correct and Elon Musk being correct, I'll side with Elon. He's already created the first practical electric car which besides having 200+ mile range is freaking awesome and sporty. Behemoth GM failed to do the same over the course of decades. So proving NASA/CNES wrong, the smart money is on Elon.
First off they are (at least for the time being) only trying to recover the first stage, it doesn't go anywhere near space and serves only to get the actual spacecraft (second or third stage) above the atmosphere and a little of the required delta-v. And even assuming that the conditions of actual launch are far more hard on the engines than test stand launches if the original poster is correct and these engines have been tested 40-50 times you can probably expect at least 20 reuses out of them which would still be a massive improvement over current flight systems.
Isn't it funny how NASA -- the agency that for *decades* screamed that the shuttle's reusability was the *key* to why America should depend upon it for our *primary* launch platform -- is now willing to admit the whole "reusable" thing was crap and everybody *knew* it was crap. We'd have done far better to keep using things like Saturn V's.
Now I sincerely *hope* SpaceX has somehow learned from NASA's failure and perhaps *can* make the economics of a reusable engine work. One thing at least: if SpaceX *can't* make it work, you can be sure it can't just make up the difference with taxpayer money and call it a success. As a private enterprise, it can't.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Well it is an economic problem. SpaceX has cheaper launches so it does have some headroom to increase prices to cover the increased costs of refurbishment. What we should be looking at is SpaceX's goal for the first stage. They don't want to water land but instead land land near the launch site. The shuttle landed a thousand miles or more from where it launched and it required a specially modified 747 to carry it back to Florida. That's a huge cost and may have made the extra costs of refurbishing engines not worth it. If SpaceX can get the first stage to return to Florida then the transportation costs are going to be minimal. Bring out a crane and load it on a flatbed. On top of that a water landing means you don't have to worry about any degradation from sea water not withstanding the logistics of getting a ship out to the landing area in order to bring the stage back in.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
The French excuse is even worse: "we tried converting Ariane 5 solid-fuel rockets to liquid-fuel, and it didn't work, therefore reusable rockets are impossible"
That's like saying: "my horse can't pull my RV (mobile home), therefore RVs are impossible"
The cost of the certification and test paperwork alone drives the cost so high that the reuse of the mere metal in the engine is a small part of the cost.
NASA centers (e.g. JSC) have a congressionally mandated workforce, so there's not much incentive to "do more with fewer people", so there tends to be an ever increasing set of documentation requirements in the face of fewer actual missions/flights. Each time something bad happens, the usual answer is "we need better (or failing that, more) documentation" to prevent corner case Z from occurring (since we already have paper work to document that processes to prevent corner cases A, B, C, D, E, etc). Then you need paperwork to make sure that all the paperwork is in order, and then you need some reviews to make sure the paperwork documenting the other paperwork is correct, confirming the results of the original reviews of the original paperwork.
This is also coming from the same "old national space" that relied on checking the paperwork to make sure the mounting bolts for NOAA N-prime were installed before tipping the fixture. oops..
While landing a booster and reusing it sounds good at first glance, there are many problems.
Biggest problem is that you have to carry extra fuel, a LOT of extra fuel. If the first stage accelerates to X speed, using L amount of fuel, it's going to take roughly another L amount to land it. Minus a bit as you don't have to land the initial amount, plus some as yo have gravity to fight all the way down. The extra fuel subtracts directly from the payload weight.
The valves and pumps and turbines have to be designed for multiple use. That usually means derating them by a considerable factor. They also have to be made of slightly different materials to tolerate the multiple temperature changes.
You're going to have customer and insurance company resistance at paying the same launch price on old equipment.
The SSME has been described as the highest performing, most sophisticated rocket engine ever built. And was incredibly expensive to rebuild, basically requiring replacing almost all the parts after each use. However, as more than one NASA engineer will admit, you probably don't want the highly tuned Formula 1 racing engine in the car you drive to the supermarket. You'd probably be better off with the 90% solution, rather than the 105% solution.
I know this will not be well recieved - but I do not understand the enthusiasm, or what is remarkable about SpaceX - the government never has built rockets, it always subcontracts them out to (usually to Boeing or Lockeed) maybe integration is done by the government but usually that is subcontracted out too - so the "innovation" in SpaceX is basically just a change in the way goverment contracts are run, removing the rider that lets the contractor get paid more if the budget goes over (note SpaceX recieved 250M+ in "seed money" from the gov't - sounds alot like the old way of doing things to me) - I guess this is what the we call innovation these days - as for the critique by NASA and the ESA, it is more credible that both agencies say it could be an issue, they both have experts and have tried re-use before - so SpaceX should listen to what they have to say - but listening to experts is out of fashon these days too - anyway call me us when someone develops a new type of rocket motor or spacecraft system concept, not a new way to write government contracts, or just the government having another contractor to shop with.
Then there is the interesting question of why having a career as an astronaut should be safer than having a career as a deep-sea fisherman, or a lumberjack.
If I have the numbers correct - from http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshnoti... - fishery workers have around 100 deaths per 100000 per year - or 1 death per 1000 years worked.
If an astronaut flys once a year, then the rocket only needs to get to 99.9% safety - not 99.9999.
Six nines would make it considerably safer than a career in a library. (0.3 deaths per 100K)
It all depends on the application. So re-using the rocket on earth is not cost effective, because it's cheaper to just use a new one. Ok, I can go along with that. But what about the moon? Mars? Where are you going to get a new rocket on mars? Being able to land and return to orbit from mars would be pretty handy.
Space Shuttle Challenger exploded because of one tiny flaw in an otherwise perfect system.
I'd argue that point.
space travel, the internet, horseless buggies, etc....all unthinkable before they were thunk
These NASA guys talk like this is brain surgery or something.
You'd figure a guy with a name like Elon Musk would build a drone to simply grab the spent first stage out of the air and gently fly them back to the factory for evaluation & refurbishment.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
> Space X doesn't have to build their components in 40 different states and in order to please 40 congressmen and get the funding etc.
Are you sure about that? It's still congress that decides NASA's budget. I'm sure congress knows where SpaceX's factories are. So long as NASA is SpaceXs biggest customer what makes you think they are immune to politics? The same things that prevent the Government (one of the biggest customers of Oracle and Microsoft) from arm-bending said companies into setting up shops in Watchamacalahootie, North Montanabraska. Space X is just a COTS provider, not a custom development as-per-contract-won contractor like Lockheed Martin or Raytheon. Different rules apply.
I doubt SpaceX would thrive if NASA was defunded.
It would simply move shop somewhere. There are plenty of civilian/multinational space agencies with the capability of launching rockets (and with respective markets) : European Space Agency, Agência Espacial Brasileira, UK Space Agency, Canadian Space Agency, German Aerospace Center, Indian Space Research Organization, Israeli Space Agency, Italian Space Agency, Korea Aerospace Research Institute, Argentina's space program, Indonesia's space program, etc, etc, etc.
Though none of these agencies compare in term of mu$cle to NASA, they are not chump money either. And the list above doesn't mention the Russian and Chinese space programs as it only list space programs of nations with which we do not have potential conflicts.
We need to disabuse ourselves from the notion that the US is the only shop in town. It is the largest, but it is neither the only one, nor does it eclipse all others combine.
That is a cold-war notion that the sooner we get rid of it out of mental systems, the better. You do not need the biggest market, you simply need a viable one from where to, no pun intended, launch yourself. More than two decades of globalization and continuous technical improvement in other markets should have given us the clue already.
The thing is there is a huge difference in what "reuseable" means for the Space Shuttle and for the Falcon.
The Space Shuttle was firing the engines for 540-761 seconds, taking the engines to orbit , staying in order for days or weeks, bringing the engines back through reentry, then refurbishing them. That is a pretty tall order.
SpaceX is only trying to recover the first stage. It only burns for 180 seconds. Reaching a maximum height of around 90-100km (about the same as SpaceShipOne). Since it never reaches orbital velocity it doesn't experiance anything like the reentry forces the Space Shuttle does. It then does a powered landing on a launch pad. Still a tall order, but much less than what the Space Shuttle was trying to do.
Additionally the Falcon 9 has already demonstrated that it can complete is primary mission with one engine failure. And the resuable engines will not be used on man rated systems, so the reliability standards are not as high as for the SSME. We won't know how extensive the refurbisment costs are, but the Merlin engines are smaller and simpler than the SSME. Its possible that some of the 9 engines may have to be discarded, but even if only 5-6 are in good enough shape to be resued in non-man-rated launches; that is a pretty significant cost savings.
Wait, these are the folks who thought commercial space flight was infeasible.
I'd wager that 50 years ago this was true. But we have made immense leaps in materials manufacturing. I wouldn't be surprised if we could develop nanite structured spray coatings that we could just re-spray on with each use. There are more ideas out there than NASA has considered.
Like using an off-the shelf tape measure as an extending satellite antenna.
The space shuttle Challenger exploded, because of politics, budgeting, and cutting corners.
The most important payload on US human flight missions is the US flag patch on the shoulder of the astronaut's uniform.
Nor are librarians held up as single combat galactic warriors with the "right stuff". The PR impact of some fisherman dying is substantially less than that of some astronaut.
And to be more utilitarian, astronauts cost more to train than fishing or logging workers or librarians, and if the boat, logging truck, or library fails, it costs a lot less to replace than a big $100M rocket that fails.
*sigh* This myth again. Folks, this claim is a complete and utter fabrication. (And if you read TFA, it's not actually attributed to NASA.) By the mid-90's, while NASA was still removing the engines after each flight, this was solely for inspection - they no longer disassembled or refurbished them between every flight. By the late 90's/early 00's, they'd stopped routinely removing them after every flight, instead inspecting them with fiber optics and only removing them after every three-to-five flights or if inspection showed them to require removal. As is the case with so much science and technology journalism, the author is... not entirely aware of the facts or in possession of a clue. (Sadly, 90%+ of the Slashdot readers replying to this doesn't know these facts, and will attack the article anyhow because it disagrees with their biases.)
That being said, I tend to agree somewhat with NASA on this one. SpaceX has reduced launch costs mostly by applying known engineering and production techniques that had not previously been applied to launch vehicles. (And with the limited number of launches to date, it's far too early to be reasonably analyze if they've truly been successful.) But when you're talking about flying an engine 40+ times... there aren't really any such previously known but unused techniques. They're headed off into largely unexplored regions of engineering and technology.
Slashdot really needs to stop taking Musk's pronouncements as gospel at face value and look at the engineering and the facts.
What makes you think that some predecessor to NASA didn't already have that figured out. They did. NASA has used it too, just like everyone else. Piano wire as deployable antennas too. In non-spaceflight applications prior to WW2. NASA has used the same principle in making automatically extending solar panels and reflectarray antennas. This is something that mechanical engineers who do "deployable systems" know all about: there are a dozens, if not hundreds, of kinds of springs, and tape measures are but one.
What's novel about ham radio satellites is that they didn't bother to take the paint off the tape measure.
So.. the single existing example of this being successfully implemented on a large scale and the lessons they learned from it are somehow worthless?
The shuttle was not the only attempt at reusable rocket stages, it is simply the only one that was implemented with even a little success on a production scale. Other attempts went much worse or were impractical to the point they were abandoned even harder.
I thought the idea was that SpaceX would initially use the rockets with NASA, and then for commercial satellite launches re-use them. Once a few satellites have gone up on re-used launchers then more customers would be happy going up on a multi-use launcher rather than on the initial use.
While it is getting less attention, there is another element involved that your point touches on. Reusable rockets that return to the pad rather then fall over the ocean have been tried, the pattern NASA followed for the shuttle did not come out of thin air. Granted congressional corruption played a role, but the task of getting something to return like that is tricky and has its own problems. In the past it was either risky (one advantage of dropping things in the ocean, there are no houses there) or expensive (rockets are something like 98% fuel, any additional equipment reduces the payload and any fuel required for guidance becomes dead weight) and, well, 'risky' again (the stresses on rocket components are pretty significant, which means failures are going to be common, so quite a few returns are going to be hard landings).
Most of the time the shuttle landed right back at Cape Canaveral, not at the backup landing runway at Edwards. A rough count puts it at about 52 landings at Edwards, 80 times at Canaveral and once at White Sands (I know I'm miscounting somewhere but should be close).
NASA, France Skeptical of SpaceX Reusable Rocket Project
Yes, that's a lovely headline. But the original headline ("NASA, CNES Warn SpaceX of Challenges in Flying Reusable Falcon 9 Rocket") tells the same story with 42% less bullshit.
NASA found that it was not worth trying to reuse the space shuttle main engines after every flight without extensive refurbishment.
Really? So because the space shuttle couldn't do it, nobody could do it, perhaps by learning lessons from the shuttle program? If this is an example of the kind of thinking in the article, it's a fat waste of time. If it isn't an example, why mention it at all?
I went ahead and skimmed the article, and indeed, the sole counterexample to the potential of reuse continues to be the space shuttle. The article is crap. Flush.
Ugh, why can't people comprehend mildly complex topics? You contradict yourself in your post so much that it hurts.
NASA "warns", does not mean NASA "says it is impossible".
NASA "warns" implies it IS possible but there are other challenges to overcome.
Basic comprehension people.
did you forget to take your meds?
Nasa and France are just angry that SpaceX sued to to compete with ULA ( United Launch Alliance) for Contracts, this is all political to squeeze SpaceX out when they try to be certified as a launch provider for government.
The Space Shuttle Challenger exploded because of one tiny flaw in an otherwise perfect system.
Challenger exploded because it was an overly complicated system flying outside its designed parameters. Columbia burned up because it was an overly complicated system that was damaged in a fashion that NASA wasn't prepared to address.
Reusing rockets would require proof of perfection each time, taking the whole thing apart each time and spending so much time rechecking it
That depends entirely on the design. We do not require checking everything on aircraft (even high performance ones) between flights whereas when we first built them we did. It's entirely reasonable that we will eventually advance the state of the art in rocket design to the point where only select parts of the rocket require inspection on every flight. Just because we haven't done it yet doesn't mean it cannot be done.
Wouldn't it be better to mine everything we need from unmanned space?
Probably but we are a LONG way away from being able to do that. You have to crawl before you can walk. I'm not sure you have a full appr
Couldn't we cart back piles of resources to stations along the way for processing?
Perhaps or perhaps not. The technical and economic feasibility has yet to be determined. Replicating our terrestrial supply chain in space is just about the most complicated and difficult and (probably) expensive endeavor I can conceive of without invoking technology that is pure science fiction.
The difference is that fishermen and lumberjacks are actually useful.
Astronauts are largely symbolic.
I can't go a day without eating while sitting on a wooden chair. I can go years without hearing about some moronic stunt in low Earth orbit performed by a highly trained monkey.
If an astronaut flys once a year, then the rocket only needs to get to 99.9% safety - not 99.9999.
Astronauts should be flying once a week, not once a year.
Let's not get hasty here. Who is claiming that NASA learned any lessons from the Shuttle? Any such knowledge will safely get flushed down the drains of time.
This story is a traditional media style that people knowledgeable of rocketry history will recognize. Someone tries something adventurous or daring, and a bored and lazy reporter gets a NASA suit who knows little to nothing about the project to say it's impossible.
When Musk makes up his mind to accomplish something, he finds a way. He has an unbroken track record of successes, even in fields he's not particularly passionate about. Reducing launch costs so we can become a spacefaring species is what he's particularly passionate about.
The Merlin engine was designed from the ground up for sea recovery and reuse.
As long as government doesn't get in his way, he is going to be amazing implementer of continuous innovation.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Nasa and contractors desperately need the SLS to be their next generation launch platform. Making sure access to orbit is horrifyingly expensive when you have to throw away the entire rocket is in their best interest for gaining the most tax dollars for the contractors.
There is a reason people call it the Senate Launch System, it is all about directing money to as many congressional districts as possible. Put the kind of money they are sinking into this thing into SpaceX and Orbital's hands and who knows where we could be in a decade. I don't think there are even plans for SLS to put a person in orbit by then.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
The Challenger exploded because there was political pressure to include a rocket type on it whos failure mode is a explosion, to appease some senator and the solid rocket missile industry in his district..
Actually, it's even worse than that. Even if they weren't arguing from bias - the "facts" they bring to the table in support of their biased arguments are actually urban legends and sheer nonsense that have achieved the status of "fact" mostly because they've been repeated again and again for years. Even here on Slashdot (which prides itself on it's knowledge level) most posters are... not actually as knowledgeable as they think they are.
It's not for everybody and few rocket engines are mass produced. The engines used in missile systems come close but they're typically built on diverse supplier contracts. The STS program allowed NASA to study the long term effects of re-use on components and vehicles. This lead to evolutionary changes for example to the main engine and the ablative nozzle coatings that were used on the RSRMs for example. Space-X will encounter similar problems along the way and like all complex engineering projects there will be situations that require some ad-hoc solutions but in the long run taking space launch systems away from governments is a good thing because while governments can wield large amounts of resources to a problem, they're overly top-heavy and bureaucratic in terms of the organizations put into place to accomplish a solution to the problem. Add to that the oversight (where your tax dollars go) and all the paperwork and you'll see that probably for every engineer/machinist/scientist on a project you'll have two or three times that in paper pushers where the government is concerned. That's where private companies like Space-X can make a difference, in actually delivering something at a cost much lower than any wholly controlled government enterprise.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Reusing airplanes would require proof of perfection each time, taking the whole thing apart each time and spending so much time rechecking it. The wear and tear on the system from takeoff and landing is to high in most cases, where you'll see stress cracks places you might not expect. For every one stress crack you can see how many are forming that you can't see?
Fixed that for you.
All of these problems exist elsewhere, and we've been able to obtain incredible reliability despite them. The problem of engineering rocket reusability is one of taking something we know how to do into a somewhat more demanding environment. There is nothing to suggest that the materials challenges there are unsurmountable. There are no fundamental new developments needed to do this.
Think of it this way - every flight of an expendable rocket is the first test flight. Airliners are flown hundreds of times before a paying passenger ever gets on board. I think there's substantial promise that reusable rocketry can be far safer than the expendable variety.
Funny you should say that - the original enquiry into Challenger started out by saying (paraphrased) "it's so complicated that it's simply going to have problems and we might never find out why it blew up"
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Firstly, the United States really has 2 space programs. The military launches very expensive military satellites, so it wants very reliable, and expensive rockets. That job is performed by EELV (atlas v, delta iv) rockets. The eelv rockets are very reliable, and expensive. The Atlas v has over 40 successful launches. The delta iv has over 25 consecutive successful launches. That's good enough to launch astronauts. NASA's rockets are the shuttle and the SLS, so nasa has no rockets flying right now. Aside from astronauts, nasa's has some cheaper payloads (ISS supply shuttles), it could use a cheaper, more explosion prone rocket. spacex is such a company.
Now, much like Dell, SpaceX used to focus its innovation on low cost manufacturing, and supply chain, and spacex rockets can be less than reliable. the popular media does not see that, so SpaceX is also getting lots of hype.
I don't think SpaceX is going after the same market. For human rated launches, ISS resupply missions, or expensive satellites, they can sell brand new rockets. For inexpensive payloads, it could pay to roll the dice. SpaceX rockets are designed to be much less expensive than the competitions.
No one has yet mentioned the *perfect* usage for less-then-perfect, reusable rocket. NASA wants to be able to put an orbiting refueling depot allowing deep space missions. These reusable rockets sound *perfect* use case for these missions. You re-use the rockets until they blow up lifting otherwise cheap-as-oil fuel into orbit.
If there is one major step in technology to *own space* it is this reusable rocket business, provided it does reduce the costs by as much as SpaceX says it will.
$1m/tonne (or $1000/kg) fuel into orbit would be huge. Things like Mars colony would become possible.
I know this will not be well recieved - but I do not understand the enthusiasm, or what is remarkable about SpaceX - the government never has built rockets
Several things are interesting about SpaceX.
First is that rockets are cool and SpaceX builds them.
Second is that SpaceX is doing things at a much lower cost than historical NASA contracts. NASA does not tend to contract with price as the primary objective. In fact SpaceX appears to be undercutting prices for commercial comsat launches which have nothing to do with NASA or the US government at all aside from permits. Lower costs means improved access to space which means more exploration and more useful technology both in space and in spinoff products.
Third is that SpaceX privately funded the development of their key technology. It's first launch vehicle (Falcon 1) and three rocket engines were developed without any government money. NASA has funded development of the Falcon 9 but that is really largely a modification of the technology SpaceX already had developed. This is NOT trivial. Contractors historically have built the rocket for NASA but NASA actually owned it. This may not sound like much on the surface but the implications are huge because it means that NASA no longer has to be in the space freight business. The government has successfully gotten the technology going and now is transferring important pieces of it to the private sector. SpaceX is unlikely to be the last company to get into the space cargo business but they've proved it is now possible.
I guess this is what the we call innovation these days
Technology that reduces costs and improves access to space definitely qualifies as innovation. Don't underestimate the importance of cost reduction. The computer you are reading this on is only possible because of innovations that led to reduced costs. That requires new technology, new operations and new designs. The purpose of NASA is not to drive down costs. NASA is fundamentally a research organization which we have been using as a sort of transport company. Thanks to the efforts of SpaceX and others the transport company part of their mission appears to be ending and NASA can and should concentrate on boundary pushing research activities.
Skeptical about climate change: good
Skeptical about SpaceX: bad.
Got it, thanks!
Sure, except for that whole "there's no fucking destination for millions of passengers every year", airliners and rockets are exactly the same!
Oh wait, we're boycotting them.
You could always use the secret shuttles we never told you civilians about, but then we'd have to admit they exist.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
one tiny flaw in an otherwise perfect system.
Perfect? Shuttles? [laughs] Oh my god, you're adorable. The shuttles were a hideously compromised design from day one.
The wear and tear on the system from entry and reentry is to high in most cases, where you'll see stress cracks places you might not expect. For every one stress crack you can see how many are forming that you can't see?
Neither Challenger nor Columbia failed because of cumulative fatigue. Challenger's O-Ring was a new part, replaced every time they recycled the SRB casings. Likewise, Columbia's ET and foam were brand new for each launch, and the RCC leading edge on the orbiter would have been holed even if it was brand new.
However, to your point, SpaceX has no intention of flying the same set of engines for 25 years. They will determine the MTBF (say 25-30 launches) and will retire each batch of engines when they reach the point of diminished returns. Same with the tankage, thrust frame, legs, etc. Engines will be tested between launches, as they are already tested three times before launches. The first stage accounts for 70% of the Falcon 9's costs. But testing costs 10% and fuel just 1%. A single reuse will cut a third off their launch costs, two will cut half.
And if reuse somehow ends up costing more than building new... guess what? They won't reuse. They already have the cheapest launcher on the market, they are well on their way to having their own private HLV that'll be every cheaper. With the shuttle, reuse/refurbishment was a requirement. For SpaceX, reuse is gravy.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
I still dont understand why you need a powered descent to recover the rocket. I've seen their recent launch and landing test, it's really cool, but wouldn't you need all the fuel and landing engines to do it, and don't those weigh a lot? Isn't one of the biggest costs for rockets weight? and would it offset that cost?
Also, wouldn't a parachute work just as well and cost and weigh a ton less? Maybe modern it up with steerability or rocket assist. Shuttle booster rockets used parachutes and were reused, imho, that just seems to a well tested and simple approach.
Can someone explain to me why a spacecraft must enter the atmosphere at blinding speeds. Why cant they just slowly enter the atmosphere? drastically reducing the mega heat a fast entry makes saving equipment and more importantly life? Whats the bug hurry? ya off topic but who better to ask then space geeks?
Jack of all trades,master of none
Grasshopper (SpaceX's initial reusable test platform) has lifted off and then recovered itself with powered soft landings multiple times. Now, it's only a single engine (basically Falcon 1 instead of Falcon 9), it launches without any upper stages (it's just the first stage all by itself, basically), and it's never reached the usual altitude of stage separation. It was a test platform, arguably not even a real prototype. On the other hand, it did successfully lift off, divert, hover, return to its pad, and make a powered soft touchdown (with impressive accuracy).
The saltwater issue is a complete red herring; SpaceX is planning to recover the rocket stages on land. Not a lot of point in having landing legs otherwise, anyhow, aside from them acting as stabilizing fins. The reason that first flight splashed down in the drink is they wanted to test the "can we kill velocity before landing" part somewhere that wouldn't make a huge mess if it failed; they certainly weren't planning to re-use that particular booster (at least, not without extensive refurb). G-shock on landing is completely avoided by using a powered landing that cuts velocity to near-zero before the legs even touch (plus having the legs absorb the shock; they're not hard to replace if needed).
I think SpaceX has an excellent chance of making this work.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
I heartily agree on this.
And, indeed, would sign up tomorrow to do so at substantially worse odds than fishermen.
will also never be practical because the filament always burns up. Edison will never make it work.
If they have to increase costs to cover refurbishment and reuse, then the solution is to simply not do it. The only reason to have reusable spacecraft is because it is cheaper.
The Space Shuttle more often than not landed right back at the Cape, just a few miles from where it launched.
No one ever intended for the Falcon first stage to land at sea. These are test flights. They are testing the ability of the craft and autopilot system to slow to a stop, and then slowly descend to the ground. Being test flights, they are uncertain of the results, and if they fuck up, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to crash in the ocean than crash anywhere near your launch pad. Flying east from the Cape, there is no option but to perform a direct abort and fly back where you came from. Flying south out of Vandenberg, they may find it better to set up a landing site a few hundred miles down the coast, and ship it back to the launch site on a barge.
Go outside
Idiots.
Heck,
SpaceX is a private company. They can do what they please as long as their owner/investors are happy.
NASA/ESA are just saying from their experience... and then as a future customer. SpaceX either needs to prove it or provide details, aka IP to their customers to explain why their solution will work.
Otherwise, this is just NASA/ESA playing CYA since their respective gov'ts see SpaceX as the only commercial player in town (aka a monopoly) and don;t want any blame for potential failures.
It didn't help that NASA violated its own rules by flying that morning with the Challenger. It is even funnier that NASA's own crewed spaceflight guidelines prohibited NASA from using the Space Shuttle even when it was flying.
Guess who issued "waivers" for both of these issues? It wasn't engineers who understood the situation.
If SpaceX gets the per flight price (not even cost) down to $7 million as they've been suggesting at several recent industry conferences, this weekly flight potential for astronauts may in fact become reality.
I did link a specific cause summary in my downmodded comment. My point wasn't that the machine was too complicated... it was that the use of a vehicle to enter and exit the atmosphere as a process was wrong. Of all the flame comments that followed my comment, it bothers me that supposed scientific minds here are missing what I was saying entirely.
I'm talking about potentially technology that builds ships in space, raises and lowers materials safely through the atmosphere. Space flight isn't anywhere near as dangerous and stressful to a vessel as passing the atmospheric threshold is. There is no need to have all these space vessels entering and exiting our atmosphere. Operate completely in space. Become sustainable in space.
That's got to be the goal. That's the only way we'll live past the limited resources ahead on this rock.
Because vehicles that are not stressed so much can be used indefinitely and repaired in space. There are no longer missions... there is the overall mission.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
This is what's odd about these statements, No-one has tried to reuse a rocket stack before. All the quoted experience is paper studies (ignore the shuttle - that's a completely different beast), with very little actual engineering to back it up. And those paper studies are influenced by experience in - non-reusable rocket design. So no REAL re-usability work has been done by these people, simply because they haven't needed to look in to it in great detail. They have always had budgets that assumed total stage loss each time, so why do any complicated investigation.
I'm not saying SpaceX will manage it (although I hope they do), but they have access to all the literature, and have spent a long time thinking about it, AND spent a lot of money on it, so I certainly won't be betting against them.
Called apk names in post parent to the link here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... So being a crybaby now that can dish it out but can't take it on your part? "Oh, pity me" b.s. you little fucking scumbag weasel? You (posting as ac now K.S. Kyosuke, like that fools anybody) started it.
can you put wings on it and turn it into a drone and fly it home?
Seriously, German, Japanese, and American car makers have spent a load of time knocking Tesla screaming that they have ZERO chance. In fact, they said that nobody would want a tesla, that it would be an under-performer. Now, Telsa is THE hottest car company going. Ppl are begging for their cars all over the world. And it is forcing other car makers to develop electric cars, even though only Nissan wanted to do that.
Then with spaceX, everybody at ESA, RKA, CSA, etc, along with L-Mart and Boeing said that Falcon 1 would NEVER make it off the ground. Then they said that F9 would never succeed. Then it was that Dragon would never succeed. Yet, SpaceX is THE FASTEST GROWING SPACE GROUP GOING. In fact, they are now launching at about 1 launch / month, and moving to 2 launches/month. That will make them account for about 1/4 to 1/3 of all launches in the world.
NOW, first off, I seriously doubt that anybody with credibility at NASA has said that SpaceX will not succeed at this. BUT, I have no doubt that again, ESA, RKA, CSA, etc, along with L-Mart and Boeing are all thinking(hoping?) that SpaceX can NOT re-use their engines. Yet, one thing about Musk is that he does not work on fantasy. He bases everything on science and engineering. I have absolutely NO DOUBT that SpaceX has ran their engines more than the amount of time required for 40 launches AND LANDINGS. And yes, they then did the inspection. Point is, that they know what is capable.
So, let them all scream that SpaceX can not do it, BUT, note that they will have to deal with a company that will charge about 1/3 of what they do, which will make it very hard for them to compete. And since SpaceX will have this done within 12 months, SpaceX will no doubt have a full decade of most of America's, along with nearly all commercial launches, and almost certainly lunar launches, for the world. The only ones that will not be launched is when other nations ignore treaties and order their companies and gov. to use their own launch system.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
NASA "warns", does not mean NASA "says it is impossible".
Perhaps you should open up your dictionary, and flip to "Skeptical". If you're skeptical of a design, you don't think it will work. HTH.
NASA "warns" implies it IS possible but there are other challenges to overcome.
Yes, that's what I said. You don't get to repeat back what I said and then tell me I said something else.
Basic comprehension people.
You're one of them, eh? Why not join the advanced comprehension people? Assuming you're out of elementary school.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
SSMEs were badly built and badly implemented, using 1960s construction techniquies.
The policy was to only test the completed article, which resulted in a number of them exploding on the test stand due to wedling cracks letting LH2/LOX get places it shouldn't have been.
Ironically, NASA had to trawl retirement homes across the USA to find metallurgists who knew how to fabricate seamless tubing - a once common art which had been lost after WW2. At one point they resorted to hacking the gun barrels off mothballed battleships to get the needed parts.
Who cares what France's space agency thinks? Enough said.
Also, can some one explain to me why we can't send a man into low earth orbit with high altitude hot air balloons that lift a craft & a smaller booster rocket into space?
The Excelsior 3 Craft lifted an astronaut over 70 miles into the atmosphere without booster rockets! But he wasnt trying to reach orbit. he was just doing a high altitude jump.
If he had been equipt with boosters & a small craft, he might have been able to do it! Seems logical to me!