On 06/09/2015 10:23 PM, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news

Alain Fournier wrote:

On 6/7/15 4:13 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:


I'm sorry I don't have an English site for this but Airbus is
planing on
a space launcher with reusable engines. After separating from the
second
stage, the first stage would jettison its tanks and fly back the
engine
module.

http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article...spacex.N333885


I prefer the SpaceX approach. But I still think this is cool.


And as I said, I think that the SpaceX approach of returning the whole
first stage is superior. So I think they will have an inferior vehicle
ten years after SpaceX. Nonetheless I still think it is cool that they
are doing this.


Both approaches seem to have their advantages. The SpaceX approach
probably requires less refurbishment and reintegration, since you get
the whole stage back as a piece, but it also eats up a lot more of the
vehicle's total performance in order to do it.


Yeah. The good part here I think is that we're going to get more than
one group trying more than one idea.

Most will probably not pan out, but the more methods we try, the more
likely we are to find one or more that work. Or work for specific
circumstances.

And it won't necessarily be one approach which wins. I can easily
imagine something of the kind vertical landing à la SpaceX and dumping
the tanks à la Airbus wins. Or vice versa. The more things are tried the
more knowledge we get, at the worst on what doesn't work, hopefully on
what does.


Alain Fournier