Elon Musk: SpaceX Testing New Reusable Rockets

SpaceX’s Autonomous ‘Grasshopper’ Rocket Makes Milestone Flight:

"SpaceX has reached the point of mission multitasking
with a milestone flight for its autonomous Grasshopper
rocket.

Even as its Dragon spacecraft orbits Earth attached to
the International Space Station following a suspenseful
post-launch fix of its thrusters, its Grasshopper rocket
has flown 263 feet. Yes, 263 feet. That’s the highest
launch yet for the autonomous vertical-takeoff and -
landing rocket. The rocket launched, hovered over
Texas approximately 34 seconds and returned to the
pad with its most accurate landing to date, according
to the company. The rocket flies with a closed-loop
guidance system that manages to keep the rocket
dancing on the proverbial head of a pin in a
remarkable feat of, well, rocket science."

See:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/03...launch-hovers/


===========================

Bill shoots for SpaceX commercial spaceport in Texas:

"A Texas lawmaker has filed legislation to lure the
world's first commercial orbital launch site to
Brownsville.

State Rep. Rene Oliveira filed House Bill 2623 to
give certain counties and the General Land Office
the authority to temporarily close a beach or a
beach access point, enabling the launching of
rockets from a proposed spaceport for the next
generation of rockets built by entrepreneur and
visionary Elon Musk’s company SpaceX."

See:

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/bl...ommercial.html

On 3/11/2013 3:48 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
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


Well for cost reduction purposes I would presume that all components of
the F9H 1st stage are essentially the same, even if the only recoverable
part are the strap-ons. The words presume and speculate are predominant
here...

Your question is a good one, however the point I was making is that the
Grasshopper and presumably future F9's will use this newer component.

In order to allow the F9H's strap-ons to be recoverable however, they
won't be able to completely drain empty to the 'core'...

Dave

On 3/11/2013 4:21 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
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).


I raised this question some time ago on the A-Rocket list. Apparently
there have been design proposals that do exactly this. I would think it
would give the returning stage better stability on the way down (by
giving that lawn dart essentially a feathered tail) so that you wouldn't
have to resort to more complex active control. But it would seem that
SpaceX doesn't think this to be a significant enough problem that they
can't overcome with active control.

Personally, I would feel more comfortable if I could read about how
their control system deals with wind shear, high cross-winds and
atmospheric turbulence.

The downside of private (aka NewSpace) ventures is that this kind of
information can be (and probably should be) considered proprietary
trade-secrets.

The challenge for agencies like the FAA and NASA is to provide the
standards and tests that the NewSpace ventures will be required to meet
and to openly publish the results of such tests.

Here is a rare example of the industry actually getting ahead of the
regulators for a change...

Dave

David Spain wrote:
Well for cost reduction purposes I would presume that all components
of the F9H 1st stage are essentially the same, even if the only
recoverable part are the strap-ons. The words presume and speculate
are predominant here...

Well, until they roll one out onto the pad presumption and speculation
is just about all we have. So no L, M, R, just M, M, M as it were,
with gazinta and gazoutta cross-feeds being symmetric, and the outer
"M" cores having an inter-stage structure and some sort of nosecone?

Your question is a good one, however the point I was making is that the
Grasshopper and presumably future F9's will use this newer component.

In order to allow the F9H's strap-ons to be recoverable however, they
won't be able to completely drain empty to the 'core'...

Good point.

rick jones
--
"You can't do a damn thing in this house without having to do three
other things first!" - my father (It seems universally applicable
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...

Personally, I would feel more comfortable if I could read about how
their control system deals with wind shear, high cross-winds and
atmospheric turbulence.

The downside of private (aka NewSpace) ventures is that this kind of
information can be (and probably should be) considered proprietary
trade-secrets.

The challenge for agencies like the FAA and NASA is to provide the
standards and tests that the NewSpace ventures will be required to meet
and to openly publish the results of such tests.

Except in the areas of launch vehicles, even they have to be tight
lipped due to ITAR regulations.

Here is a rare example of the industry actually getting ahead of the
regulators for a change...

I'd say Boeing got ahead of the regulators with the 787. That thing is
so complex, how could a handful of regulators ever understand the thing?
If the regulators knew everything, the 787 wouldn't be grounded due to
battery problems, as the regulators would never have approved the design
in the first place.

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

David Spain writes:

I raised this question some time ago on the A-Rocket list. Apparently
there have been design proposals that do exactly this. I would think it
would give the returning stage better stability on the way down (by
giving that lawn dart essentially a feathered tail) so that you wouldn't
have to resort to more complex active control. But it would seem that
SpaceX doesn't think this to be a significant enough problem that they
can't overcome with active control.

This thing would definitely look much, much better with a decent set of
fins!

Here is a rare example of the industry actually getting ahead of the
regulators for a change...

The thing is that SpaceX really wants to get some things done while the
contractors of NASA (and others) just want to keep the money coming in.

But I'm still concerned about the payload left with all the mass added
to the first stage for propellant and landing gear and whatnot. I think
the boosters of the Falcon Heavy are the most likely candidates for
getting this treatment. Would help a lot here anyway. If you can get the
boosters back and reuse them this would make the Falcon Heavy really
cheap for what it does.



Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery