Slashdot Mirror
Elon Musk Talks "X-Wing" Fins For Reusable Rockets, Seafaring Spaceport Drones
An anonymous reader writes Elon Musk sent a number of tweets recently in which he detailed a program to test the function of "X-Wing" style grid fins that could help spacecraft navigate upon re-entry. The tweets describing how it would work, also include an autonomous seafaring platform, which can hold its position within three meters even in a heavy storm, that would act as a landing pad. From the article: "The SpaceX reusable rocket program has been progressing with varying results, including an explosion over Texas back in August. While the incident didn't result in any injury or even 'near injuries,' Musk conceded in a tweet that this was evidence that '[r]ockets are tricky.' An earlier test flight from this summer involving an ocean splashdown was considered more successful, proving that the Space X Falcon 9 booster could re-enter earth's atmosphere, restart its engines, deploy its landing legs and make a touch down at 'near zero velocity.'"
I've seen these already in use on bombs and other ordnance from several factions.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Elon Musk isn't just daydreaming, those are product announcements. It would have taken NASA 15 years and billions in contracts to create a reusable booster, it would have crashed more often than Musk's prototype and ended up costing more on a per-launch basis than one-shot boosters. NASA is why we can't make big steps into space.
The proof of that statement will be when Musk comes sailing in with a reclaimed booster in tow.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I thought the ultimate goal was to have the 1st and 2nd stages return to launchpad on their own. That would've been cool, but I guess they decided it was too hard.
An autonomous barge and precision landing would still be a lot cheaper than deploying a dozen US Navy ships and thousands of sailors looking for a capsule.
Grid fins are stowed on ascent and then deploy on reentry for "x-wing" style control.
X-Wings fly like planes in an atmosphere (come to think of it, they fly like planes in space too). They don't drop vertically and use the wings to steer. So, what's this got to do with X-Wings?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Space X has invented the V2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
Fanbois cream their jeans.
Geez.
Can some aerospace engineer enlighten me about the advantage of these tennis-racket shaped x-wings over some standard steerable fins which you see e.g. on a guided missile? I could imagine that the grid-shaped 'louvers' could be seen as many small fins in parallel, but intuitively I would think that one big fin would have more effect. Is it something related to hyper-sonic aerodynamics? Or is it mechanically stronger?
karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
There is a great interview with Elon Musk on youtube here. He is remarkably transparent about his reasoning. One key to his success is that he works very hard to understand motive and purpose when making decisions.
Musk makes that point that it costs about as much to fuel a rocket as it does to fuel a 747. Space launches are mostly so expensive because the vehicle is sacrificed with each launch, not because of the energy requirements for a space launch. The other big component of the expense is that rocket manufacturers charge a lot. According to Musk the value of the raw materials from which they are formed is reasonably inexpensive. Those were two hugely important realizations because they meant that space launches were not inherently expensive and therefore there is enormous potential for reducing launch costs.
By being Space X instead of Boeing the cost of launch is reduced to about 25% of conventional launches because Space X can assemble a rocket from raw materials for that much less. A re-usable vehicle, Musk predicts, would reduce launch costs by an order of magnitude.
So those are the motives and reasoning underlying the X-wing grid fins and re-entry discussed in the Slashdot summary.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
NASA is why we can't make big steps into space.
NASA still makes great strides in space, it's just not in the "logistics" business anymore. Their focus is on gathering the most data from the most places, not just about how to build rockets. And for that goal, their transportation needs are pretty generic. Whoever can deliver the most cargo on orbit, on time, at the lowest price will get the job.
What sets Elon apart is his unilateral will to act, combined with the resources to take action at a grand scale. Call it the Tony Stark Effect... SpaceX is the only entity currently operating such large-scale space launch activities with such a small, agile, and vertically integrated organization. He's humiliating all competition because he's not even playing the same game. They're all about how to shave off a few percent cost to gain a bit of advantage over that competitor... SpaceX is like, "Fuck that, we're going to Mars, bitches!"
And methodically, like clockwork, once or twice every year or two, they roll out another key innovation that takes their "grand project" a step closer to fruition. And once they do, you can be sure that NASA will be first in line to send astronauts to make use of that service.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Sell your Boeing stock.
All hail Elon Musk, he's like the Bennet Haselton of the real world!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I should mod you down, but I have to speak up.
First off, Musk had this in mind back in 2002 when he started this. IOW, he has 12 years into it.
Secondly, Musk HAS SPENT BILLIONS on this. Some of his money. Some of others. Some of NASA. Some of future contracts. All in all, he has spent billions to get to this point.
Third, NASA builds prototypes, but all of the rest is done by private companies, otherwise known as PRIVATE SPACE.
Chad, what I find interesting is that ALL OF NEW PRIVATE SPACE will tell you that they NEED NASA. Why? Because NASA knows this stuff inside and out. Heck, Elon did F1 on his own all the way through to his first launch. Remember how that turned out? SPECTACULAR.
After that, he swallowed his pride and worked closely with NASA and their QA. And while F1 underwent a re-design, what really changed was that SpaceX learned how to do decent QA. They put into place repeatable processes.
So, while you can continue to knock SpaceX, bear in mind that Musk, top ppl from SpaceX, Bigelow, top ppl from BA, Bezos, top ppl from BO, Ozmen, top ppl of SNC, will all tell you that they cound heavily on NASA. And they will tell you that they count on NASA for experience and help far more, than on their money.
It is long past time to put aside your politics and focus on facts.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
They do in fact design and build rockets. Far more than you are obviously aware of. Just like few ppl realize that the west has 3 space stations in orbit.
However, all of the rockets that NASA builds are prototypes and are not designed for production. Basically, it is trying to move art into science and then into engineering.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Mostly a great post, but to be fair, Elon did NOT have the resources. He invested only about a 100 million into this. Basically, he started this with less money than Boeing, L-Mart and ULA spend on lobbying each year.
So no, it was not having massive resources. It was just smart investments and not thinking about this like an MBA.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The real reason that the Tesla X is behind in development is the logical cross product from SpaceX of turning those falcon doors into real wings:
The Tesla flying electric car... Woot!
Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.
The current CEO is one of the GE-Welch clones. Just like Chrysler, Home Depot, GE, and IBM were destroyed by Welch other clones (Nardelli, Palmisano, Immelt ) , McNerney is following the same path and destroying Boeing.
Not only has McNerney parted out the 787, but he has sold off major divisions that allowed Boeing to have solid inexpensive equipment.
They outsourced their admin to Russia, which is about to backfire on them.
And a number of parts that were made in America to keep the costs of military equipment cheap, is now being sent to China, Europe, and Japan.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yeah, an ICBM, the R7, from the 60 probably did costs 1 million.
OTOH, the Soyuz (technically, a member of the R7 family, but with little in common), does NOT costs 1 million. The NK-33, alone, costs about $1.5 million, with Soyuz knowing that it costs 20 million for the core. The launch is around 50 million.
You are obviously a cowardly lying troll.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Your point is well made, but I think it's a case of semantics. Elon had "enough" resources to get the job done, with help from others. If he hadn't put $100M of his own money into SpaceX nobody else would have put in $100K, let alone the millions more it took to get where they are today. The fact that even Elon occasionally needs help from others doesn't strike me as a particularly important criticism.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Disney Corporation announces a lawsuit with SpaceX over the use of the word "x-wing" in a recent tweet describing his new rocket spacefins.
Q: "Why did they use segmented SRBs?"
A: Because Morton-Thiokol is in Utah, without a sea-port, and the pieces had to fit on trains or trucks.
Q: So why didn't they go with a company that did have ocean access, like Aerojet in Sacramento? A: James Feltcher was from Utah.
I'm sure that Musk is aware of it, but there is a DP (Dynamic Positioning) spacecraft launch system which has been operating with reasonable success (~90%) for 15 years now. The DP systems (which are pretty routine in deep-water oil exploration equipment these days - anchors don't work well below about a half-kilometre of water depth) were bolted onto the burned out husk of the Ocean Odyssey drilling rig (after the body of the radio operator, Tim Williams, had been removed, of course) during the conversion, and the drilling mast replaced with support structures for the rocket launch. During launch, the crew watch the fireworks from a location over the horizon from the launch platform, which has self-evident safety benefits.
Or, to put it another way, Musk's landing platform is something that he can phone a Korean shipyard and get a delivery date for ... in about 2-3 years time, I'd guess. There would be some novel features in handling the landed spacecraft, but the basic equipment is an established technology.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"