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.
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.
When people talk about the "privatization of space" I generally laugh. Spacecraft where always made by private industry, and always operated by the government, so far nothing has changed.
Why else did the space shuttler look like an airplane? Thats not a practicle design for space. Its because it was made by boeing.
Its just that SpaceX is not a defense contractor.
NASA doesn't build rockets. They write contracts for companies to build rockets. The reason SpaceX is building rockets today is thanks to previous developments due to NASA contracts and current NASA procurement.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
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
the orbiter was designed to not only take thing into space but to return them. With the thought being instead of wasting money by letting it burn up in atmosphere by brining it back down for repair/ upgrades.
I have said many times before the last shuttle mission to the hubble shouldn't have been maintenance but to box it back up and bring it home. The Orbiter is the only space craft designed to due something like that.
Instead we waste billions on letting valuable tech burn back up and clutter up the orbits with garbage.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
What's the fascination?
Getting away from the perpetual nay-sayers?
Instead we waste billions on letting valuable tech burn back up and clutter up the orbits with garbage.
It's only valuable if you can reuse it. Hubble would probably have cost less if you just mass-produced them and launched another one every few years, rather than trying to repair the existing one; it only made sense if NASA could actually reach its original, highly optimistic, launch cost forecasts.
It is not NASA's fault. It is congress going after pork. The scientists at NASA are pretty damn good and generally know what they want. Often it is a choice between something misguided like SLS or nothing at all. It is not as if NASA scientists or administrators would have picked SLS the way it is. They were pretty much told, if you don't build it using these suppliers we are not going to fund you.
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.
Actually, that was the case of Hubble. NASA paid for the first one, and the second generation of it went to NRO.
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.
Of course the USAF then backed out on their commitment, and went with non-reusable launchers. From their point of view this had two very desirable characteristics: first, it kept the flow of funding/pork to the big existing aerospace companies (Boeing, Lockheed) and it also allowed Air Force personal to retire and go directly to work for those same companies. Between the self-serving political pork based decisions in Congress, and the self-serving revolving door in the military-industrial complex, the Space Shuttle didn't have a chance.
This left NASA with an intrinsically flawed design. With a reduced fleet size there were no economies of scale, and the platform never evolved. That's why it was never cost effective and took so long to refurbish between flights. Also, the screwed up design was the direct cause of both shuttle disasters. The SRBs and big wings with an external tank were the features that caused the accidents.
If NASA had not been forced to accommodate the Air Force requirements on a budget that was too small, they would have come up with a safe and cost-effective solution. They know how to do it right when there is not too much external interference. Almost every time there is a big screw up at NASA it's because decisions are imposed on them by politics.
Why is Snark Required?
No. Its not NASA, its Boeing, Lockheed Martin, et al.
When people talk about the "privatization of space" I generally laugh. Spacecraft where always made by private industry, and always operated by the government, so far nothing has changed.
Why else did the space shuttler look like an airplane? Thats not a practicle design for space. Its because it was made by boeing.
Its just that SpaceX is not a defense contractor.
No, the big difference is how the contracts are written, how the winners are selected, and how much design influence NASA and Congress exert (yes Congress).
Historically, NASA was heavily involved in the design and many decisions were forced on them by Congress to direct the money to specific congressional districts (remember those segmented solid boosters on the Shuttle? You can thank Congress for them. And they are going to use them again on the next generation SLS which is not a commercial contract.) Historically, once NASA/Congress have doled out the contracts, the work was performed on a cost plus basis. The contractors had very little financial risk, and NASA/Congress had a lot of control over the process.
The way a commercial contract works is that the companies bidding on the contracts are given requirements and they have much more freedom in how they meet those requirements. They respond with a proposal as to how they intend to provide a solution and a fixed cost. SpaceX builds almost everything in house, Orbital Sciences outsources almost everything in their rocket. Both choose exactly how they wanted to meet the requirements and NASA/Congress had no control over them which allowed them to take very different approaches.
Ideally, more than one company wins a commercial contract (SpaceX and Orbital for cargo, SpaceX and Boeing for crew). This provides redundancy in case there is a failure, unlike when the shuttle failed and our entire manned space program was grounded for years. Twice. It also allows for more competition to put some downward pressure on prices and allows for new entrants for future contracts.
Now system is perfect, but the commercial cargo/crew program is absolutely better than how we used to handle "routine" space requirements.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
The USAF wanted to launch heavier satellites to higher orbits than the Shuttle could do. After the Challenger disaster and the cancellation of the Shuttle-Centaur the USAF and NRO had no other choice but to use the Titan rocket, which was really expensive, to launch these payloads. Things like reconnaissance satellites and things like that.
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.
The point about private spaceflight isn't who is building the spacecraft but rather who is footing the bills and owns the equipment afterward.
And no, spacecraft are not always operated by the government. In the past, it was companies like Boeing and Grumman who would build the vehicles, but it would be NASA employees who would fly them, fuel them, and take care of everything else once it left the factory. That started to change a little bit in the 1980's when the Reagan administration started to encourage more private contractors to run things at KSC and do other activities formerly done by NASA employees, and that trend has continued to even more depth.
One particular flight that had almost no government money involved, certainly no money from the U.S. government other than paying for the USAF personnel running the weather radars and opening clearance at the spaceport trying to keep others from getting hurt, was the launch last September by SpaceX to launch the AsiaSat satellite. That is commercial spaceflight, something you have apparently never heard of?
Commercial industry is doing stuff in space, and it is a multi-billion dollar per year industry. In fact, the launch part of the business is just a small fraction of that industry too. It is also a rapidly expanding market as well.
The way this argument goes is that the shuttle would've been able to take lighter payloads to a higher orbit, but the USAF design contraints screwed that up. So we got a shuttle-to-LEO when all the action (the satellites it was supposed to service) were up in GEO.
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"
you do realize even with both accidents the orbiter had a lower death rate compared to soyuz right?
That is the number of people killed compared to launched. of course the difference is a fraction of a percent.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.