Elon Musk: SpaceX Testing New Reusable Rockets

"In terms of new innovations, Musk said
SpaceX is testing of new rockets that
would be reusable. That would provide a
massive hundred-fold decrease in the
cost of space flight. Fuel and oxygen is
only 0.3% of the cost of a rocket. With
reusable rockets, space travel could be
easier to attain for more people, he said'."

See:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomioger...rtner=yahootix

On Mar 9, 8:46*pm, wrote:
"In terms of new innovations, Musk said
SpaceX is testing of new rockets that
would be reusable. That would provide a
massive hundred-fold decrease in the
cost of space flight. Fuel and oxygen is
only 0.3% of the cost of a rocket. With
reusable rockets, space travel could be
easier to attain for more people, he said'."

See:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomioger...musk-spacex-te...

The most likely outcome other launch providers will watch this
carefully and adopt its methods or cease to exist......

On Mar 9, 8:46*pm, wrote:
"In terms of new innovations, Musk said
SpaceX is testing of new rockets that
would be reusable. That would provide a
massive hundred-fold decrease in the
cost of space flight. Fuel and oxygen is
only 0.3% of the cost of a rocket. With
reusable rockets, space travel could be
easier to attain for more people, he said'."

See:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomioger...musk-spacex-te...

Video of latest test is he

Grasshopper | Johnny Cash Hover Slam.
http://www.spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=0

Anyone know if they've used the same engine on all these tests to
test engine reusability?

Bob Clark

Cross-posts elided.

On 3/11/2013 1:00 PM, Robert Clark wrote:

Video of latest test is he

Grasshopper | Johnny Cash Hover Slam.
http://www.spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=0

Anyone know if they've used the same engine on all these tests to
test engine reusability?

Bob Clark


Love the dude in black along for the ride. Didn't even muss up his hat.
Does he get a reduced sentence for "community service" such as this? Ha....

Dave "I Walk the Line" Spain

On 3/11/2013 1:15 PM, David Spain wrote:
Cross-posts elided.

On 3/11/2013 1:00 PM, Robert Clark wrote:

Video of latest test is he

Grasshopper | Johnny Cash Hover Slam.
http://www.spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=0

Anyone know if they've used the same engine on all these tests to
test engine reusability?

Bob Clark


Love the dude in black along for the ride.


Yeah, yeah, I figure it's a mannequin too... *sheesh*...

Dave

Cross-posts elided...

On 3/11/2013 1:00 PM, Robert Clark wrote:

Anyone know if they've used the same engine on all these tests to
test engine reusability?

Bob Clark


Well, fwiw the speculation he

http://www.newspacewatch.com/article...html#cmtx_more

is that this is the fifth and last (Grasshopper) flight of the Merlin-1C
and the next will be with the Merlin-1D (presumably).

Also the speculation is that this revamped 1st stage is essentially the
same element that will be used on the F9H.

Dave

On 3/11/2013 1:35 PM, David Spain wrote:
Cross-posts elided...

On 3/11/2013 1:00 PM, Robert Clark wrote:

Anyone know if they've used the same engine on all these tests to
test engine reusability?

Bob Clark


Well, fwiw the speculation he

http://www.newspacewatch.com/article...html#cmtx_more


is that this is the fifth and last (Grasshopper) flight of the Merlin-1C
and the next will be with the Merlin-1D (presumably).

Also the speculation is that this revamped 1st stage is essentially the
same element that will be used on the F9H.

Dave


And of course a conflicting statement from SpaceX he


http://www.newspacewatch.com/article...t-at-sxsw.html

I would however, think it would be safe to presume that at least one or
two of the Grasshopper tests were on the previous Merlin-1C, since IIRC
the 1D was first test fired last summer...

Dave

Dave

I'm still fascinated by the recovery plan here.

Essentially the lowest-cost option would be RTLS
(return-to-launch-site). But it would seem that to minimize guidance
headaches this would necessitate a nearly vertical trajectory for the
1st stage. This also would reduce the performance of the 1st stage to a
significant degree and the slack would have to be picked up by an upper
stage.

A slightly higher cost better performance option would be what I'd term
RTRS (return to recovery site) which would allow a more parabolic
trajectory to improve 1st stage performance at the trade-off that
recovery is performed at a remote site and increases costs slightly to
transport the recovered booster back to launch site.

I'm also still wondering if SpaceX thinks that recovery can be done on
rocket power alone without use of an expandable fairing that could help
provide conical aerodynamic stability for at least part of the return
journey.

Dave

David Spain wrote:
Also the speculation is that this revamped 1st stage is essentially
the same element that will be used on the F9H.

The two strap-on boosters, or the whole "first stage" smash? I'm
guessing the two strap-ons, based on the previous stuff saying how
their tanks will feed their engines and the core's which I take to
suggest they will be done rather lower and slower than the core.

rick jones
--
Wisdom Teeth are impacted, people are affected by the effects of events.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

In article , nospam@
127.0.0.1 says...

I'm still fascinated by the recovery plan here.

Essentially the lowest-cost option would be RTLS
(return-to-launch-site). But it would seem that to minimize guidance
headaches this would necessitate a nearly vertical trajectory for the
1st stage. This also would reduce the performance of the 1st stage to a
significant degree and the slack would have to be picked up by an upper
stage.

True, but the uprated Merlin, and tank stretches, coming with the next
version of Falcon 9 should give some margin, when compared to the
previous version. Furthermore, a Falcon Heavy with the two strap-ons
returning to launch site still saves two stages with 10 engines on them
per flight. That's nothing to sneeze at.

A slightly higher cost better performance option would be what I'd term
RTRS (return to recovery site) which would allow a more parabolic
trajectory to improve 1st stage performance at the trade-off that
recovery is performed at a remote site and increases costs slightly to
transport the recovered booster back to launch site.

Only if a recovery site is in the right location, which there wouldn't
be any for eastward flights out of Florida. Not sure about Vandenberg
launches.

I'm also still wondering if SpaceX thinks that recovery can be done on
rocket power alone without use of an expandable fairing that could help
provide conical aerodynamic stability for at least part of the return
journey.

Not sure about the need for a fairing. I didn't major in aerodynamics,
even though my degree is aerospace (majored in structures and dynamics
and control).

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer