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.
"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.
I know you are joking, but for those who didn't already know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
The United Launch Alliance is an unholy union of Lockheed Martin Space Systems and Boeing Defense, Space & Security.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
"The United Launch Alliance is an unholy union"
Unholy union. Is that like a seamless joint?
Jokes aside, it was probably good that they got a crash landing on the barge that early, because it illustrated how badly some people were exaggerating the dangers involved. The rocket was almost completely empty of fuel, and while it made a big fireball and smeared the rocket itself across the deck of the barge, it caused very little damage. The detractors of bringing the first stage back to land would have you think it'd be more like the last Antares launch: https://lh6.googleusercontent....
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.
The only way for ULA to drop their prices is to move away from EELVs to reusable. The good news is that Bruno is pushing EELVs but leaving backdoors for otherwise. ULA is quietly working on developing the same tech as SpaceX.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.