Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX To Try a First Stage Recovery Again On April 13
schwit1 writes: In its next launch on Monday, SpaceX will once again try to safely land its first stage on an ocean barge, allowing the reuse of that stage in later flights. "Following first stage separation, thrusters flip the rocket so the engines are pointing in the direction of travel. First, there’s a boostback burn to refine the rocket’s trajectory, causing the rocket to fly through its own exhaust (the space shuttle's risky Return-to-Launch-Site abort scenario relied on a similar maneuver). While the vehicle is still traveling faster than the speed of sound, four grid fins deploy, steering the rocket as it plummets toward the ocean. An entry burn slows the rocket further, and landing legs unfold. A final engine burn settles the Falcon onto [the barge]." Monday afternoon is certainly going to be an exciting day for space cadets. First, at 4 pm (Eastern) the head of ULA will reveal the design of the company's new rocket. Then, at 4:33 pm (Eastern), SpaceX will launch Dragon to ISS while attempting to return the first stage safely.
What, the Ulster Liberation Army is doing rockets now? ;-)
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
That's so cool!
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
"America’s #1 space launch provider, United Launch Alliance (ULA), is asking America to help name its next rocket, calling on citizens to play a role in the future of space launch by voting for the name of the new rocket that will be responsible for the majority of the nation’s future space launches.
For the next two weeks, the public can vote for its favorite rocket name – Eagle, Freedom or GalaxyOne – "
Pander much? I am curious to see what it has and if it's in the same decade of development as the Falcon series. My bet is on soviet rehash.
If ULA has the slightest bit of sense they will announce on Monday that they are pursuing re-usability. But the last I heard was that they would pursue cheaper disposable elements.
If SpaceX actually lands on the barge and flies the first stage to orbit again it's a really big deal, because it radically changes the economics of getting to space. No matter what the payload is for this demonstration. I don't know if they would get that far with this first stage, but no doubt with a later one.
Bruce Perens.
Succeed or fail, each of these attempts promises to produce some pretty spectacular video... the last rocket/barge incursion produced an explosion that even Michael Bay can't top.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
Don't worry, I'm sure... steps... have been taken to ensure that the attempt is a spectacular failure. You don't gamble on having your PR overshadowed by some young upstart - not with government contracts on the line. /sarcasm (I hope...)
Hmm, though now I am curious about the timing - if SpaceX decided to do the launch that day after ULA already made their pre-announcement it could well be a transparent attempt to overshadow the competition - SpaceX has much to gain by attempting such a PR maneuver, and essentially nothing to lose.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
In order for our proposed name to stick, we need to pick one that is both obviously insulting when viewed by those who agree with us and also seemingly-acceptable and even positive-sounding when viewed by those who love ULA.
My proposals are:
* Gold Standard
* Spruce
* Exorbital (Exorbitant + Orbital)
You all have got to be able to do better than that. Come on, float your own names...
--Jaborandy
Instead of trying to use Apollo-era designs, how about using something that is designed specifically to fly itself down? The Shuttle and DreamChaser addressed this problem quite well. Piloting a can doesn't work too well when you're going downwards.
When sanity prevails and Shuttle-like designs come back, perhaps space travel will improve. Until then, it's 1960's rehashes all around.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Large-budget interests within aerospace don't have to worry about corner-cutting in ways that SpaceX might.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
SpaceX might as well call themselves "Apollo" given that they've gone back that far.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The Shuttle and DreamChaser addressed this problem quite well.
Did you forget the solid rocket boosters and the huge fuel tank on the Shuttle that does not fly itself down? The SRB casing and engines were reused but only after extensive and expensive rebuilds. The Dreamchaser gets launched on top of a huge rocket. A better comparison would be between the Shuttle, Dreamchaser and Dragon module. All 3 still use much bigger rockets to get to orbit.
Why pilot a landing vehicle when you can splash down? We already have reusable capsules, that part of the cost equation is fine. It's the rockets that we need to figure out ways to land and which cost so much, not the orbiting crew capsules.
This space intentionally left blank
Why fly like an airplane when your mission is only to get to the ground in a soft landing? It makes the spacecraft more complicated. And it's no bargain if you have an airplane-like craft with no go-around capability like the Space Shuttle.
No building have room for elevators if they needed runways.
Bruce Perens.
It's kind of far, I know, but it would still be cool to see.
Why bother getting lift when you're going down anyway, and time/heat is a major issue? They have grid fins for attitude control, which, BTW, are a proven technology that they didn't invent themselves.
They look to be doing it the most efficient way possible. They've probably decided it's cheaper to burn a tiny bit of fuel than to have to fully refurb a bunch of expensive tiles and shit.
Why splash down when you've got the tech to land? Especially when, if you want to get off of this rock, there is no other place to splash down in.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Instead of trying to use Apollo-era designs, how about using something that is designed specifically to fly itself down? The Shuttle and DreamChaser addressed this problem quite well. Piloting a can doesn't work too well when you're going downwards.
When sanity prevails and Shuttle-like designs come back, perhaps space travel will improve. Until then, it's 1960's rehashes all around.
No production first stage has every landed propulsively, so they are not going backward to something that was done before. The Shuttle was more "refurbished" then reused. The main fuel tank was discarded. The booster cases were fished out of the water (how modern) and basically rebuilt. The main engines were removed after each flight and rebuilt. The tiles painstakingly inspected and repaired. It was a technological marvel but a financial disaster. The Dream Chaser is just the payload, not launch system. They planned to launch on an expendable rocket. So your examples are all non-sequitors, not "how to do it right."
"Flying back" is not really an option for a first stage booster. You'd need to add wings (more weight and drag, or complex mechanisms) and you'd need to add some sort of heat shield (more weight.) Propulsive landing requires more fuel (weight). The reentry burn itself acts as the primary thermal protection system (counterintuitive, but true.) It's a very elegant solution for recovering the entire first stage for reuse. And it's ridiculous that no major aerospace company was willing to pursue it. (There was the DC-X experimental rocket, but that was a government funded experiment which McDonnell Douglas dropped as soon as the "cost plus" gravy train left the station.)
Now if you love wings, then the right way to do that is probably something like Skylon, but it's a long way from flying and SpaceX is already forcing launch prices lower.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
I wish Slashdot had an edit capability. It could keep back links to older versions for context to responses. But I just reread this and it's too cranky. Sure, I should have fixed that before I hit submit, but this being human thing seems to be an error prone endeavor.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
I am admittedly a fan of SpaceX. But ULA does employ smart people too and I'm really curious what they will propose. While I hope SpaceX is successful and I think they will eventually work through any issues, it's good to have people exploring different approaches and possibilities. I'm assuming it will be a less expensive (than Atlas V), methane powered (via Blue Origin engines), expendable rocket leveraging modern production techniques. But the question is "how low can they go" price wise.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
Your approach did NOT work for us. That is why we lost 2 shuttles and it was so expensive.
I will say that SNC's DC makes good sense for transporting humans to/from earth's surface (lower Gs), but for cargo? Nope.
However, the real drawback is that not only must you take up extra weight for wings, landing gears, etc., but these will not work on the moon or mars and Musk wants this to work on all of these locations. And in the end, as musk is showing, these can land just fine on Earth. In addition, it can do it cheaply.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
actually, skylon is too late to the party. The reason is that the FASTEST that it will be available would be another 10 years, or 2025. By then, MCT will be flying regularly.
OTOH, Dream Chaser, combined with a reusable lift vehicle, does make sense for simple human transport.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
ULA has multiple projects going on. That includes they are working on developing re-use, which includes landing the first stage.
Bruno's ideal goal is to not change things, but he is keeping options open on the future. Interestingly, he is working hard to CLOSE the use of delta since Atlas makes more profits for them. Of course, he is fighting for the 1B/year subsidy as well. Hopefully, that is stopped, and ULA is forced to simply go with delta until their new launch system is developed. That will encourage Bruno to go with re-usable, and not EELVs.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Because side-stacking has been proven to be an inherently dangerous technology?
Because the shuttle launch-refurb-refurb-refurb-refurb-refurb-refurb-launch cycle has been proven to be extremely costly?
Because the cross-range capability that wings add has zero utility and even the AF which forced it's adoption on the shuttle doesn't want it anymore, other than for two x vehicles that they have launched a grand total of twice?
Because the shuttle was only 1970's tech and only somewhat viable at great effort & cost?
Because, contrary to your misguided opinion, no-one in the last century had the guidance and computer capability necessary to make landing a first stage reliably possible?
Because the rational among us are glad to see the end of that white elephant?
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
I would assume landing on land would be easier considering your platform does not move even if there is bad weather...
I don't think splashing down a first stage is a good idea. The impact on the water is going to be quite rough for a thin empty tube. And if you have the tech to splash down softly, you might as well land on land/barge and not deal with the salt water getting everywhere. Things are different for a capsule, which is much smaller and sturdier.
Instead of trying to use Apollo-era designs, how about using something that is designed specifically to fly itself down?
Because Apollo-era designs are best approach for the current flight rate of the Falcon 9. And while SpaceX eventually expects the flight rate to get up to the point where reusable vehicles work, they can and did do so by upgrading a current, working vehicle rather than designing a new. more complex one from scratch.
They are required to get the landing at sea done first, prior to being allowed to land back at kennedy.
Most likely, NASA will require at least several sea landings.
In addition, the FH will likely land at sea with most of their center core. That one will be pretty far out there.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.