A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

SpaceX reusable booster experiments



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 8th 14, 03:19 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default SpaceX reusable booster experiments


I was wondering, SpaceX is flying NASA cargo to the ISS on their Falcon 9,
but are at the same time experimenting with reusable booster stages. Since
these experiments add risk to the flight, how does NASA feel about all this?
Are they okay with the fact that SpaceX is essentially using modified, experimental
versions of their rocket to loft ISS cargo?

  #4  
Old May 8th 14, 08:28 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default SpaceX reusable booster experiments

reusability will bring lower costs, that will benefit everyone including nasa
  #5  
Old May 8th 14, 09:23 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 411
Default SpaceX reusable booster experiments

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:
In article .at,
says...
I was wondering, SpaceX is flying NASA cargo to the ISS on their
Falcon 9, but are at the same time experimenting with reusable
booster stages. Since these experiments add risk to the flight,
how does NASA feel about all this?


The reusability test happened after stage separation. So, how does this
adds risk to the flight?


Premature landing leg deployment prior to stage separation?


That's the only thing I can think of. As long as everything related to
leg deployment is designed to be "fail safe" (e.g. a failure does *not*
deploy the legs), then it's all good.

Regardless, since the flight went the way it did, presumably that is
an existence proof of NASA at least being OK/willing to put-up with
it.


I'm sure NASA reviewed that aspect of the hardware/software and was
convinced that early leg deployment wouldn't happen. As you say, the
flight has flown, so they must have been o.k. with it.

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
  #6  
Old May 9th 14, 04:26 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default SpaceX reusable booster experiments

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

I'm sure NASA reviewed that aspect of the hardware/software and was
convinced that early leg deployment wouldn't happen. As you say, the
flight has flown, so they must have been o.k. with it.

Jeff


You know, this got me looking at their launch history and it dawned on me,
they're doing decent turnaround.

April 18th launch - CCLC40
May 10 (planned) Launch - CCLC40
June Launch (planned) - CCLC40
July Launch (planned) - CCLC40
August 8 (planned) - CCLC40

That's pretty much 5 launches in 5 months (planned, subject of course to
change).

They're definitely making this an operational system.

(I consider the ability to stack and launch in such a short period of time a
good sign.)

  #7  
Old May 9th 14, 12:27 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 411
Default SpaceX reusable booster experiments

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

I'm sure NASA reviewed that aspect of the hardware/software and was
convinced that early leg deployment wouldn't happen. As you say, the
flight has flown, so they must have been o.k. with it.

Jeff


You know, this got me looking at their launch history and it dawned on me,
they're doing decent turnaround.

April 18th launch - CCLC40
May 10 (planned) Launch - CCLC40
June Launch (planned) - CCLC40
July Launch (planned) - CCLC40
August 8 (planned) - CCLC40

That's pretty much 5 launches in 5 months (planned, subject of course to
change).

They're definitely making this an operational system.

(I consider the ability to stack and launch in such a short period of time a
good sign.)


Yes, they are, and it's a good sign if they can actually keep up that
pace. But this industry being what it is, delays seem to be inevitable.

It's also important to note that not all delays are even caused by
SpaceX. They've seen at least one significant delay due to range
issues. Minor delays due to range issues is very common at Cape
Canaveral since the USAF is in charge of range safety and they don't
seem to have much capability to support multiple launches in short time
periods very well anymore.

The above is one reason why SpaceX has been actively pursuing a launch
site in Texas. At least in Texas they'd be the only ones using that
launch range, so the sorts of launch range conflicts described above
wouldn't necessarily exist.

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
  #8  
Old May 9th 14, 05:42 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rick Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 685
Default SpaceX reusable booster experiments

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:
You know, this got me looking at their launch history and it dawned
on me, they're doing decent turnaround.


April 18th launch - CCLC40
May 10 (planned) Launch - CCLC40
June Launch (planned) - CCLC40
July Launch (planned) - CCLC40
August 8 (planned) - CCLC40


That's pretty much 5 launches in 5 months (planned, subject of course to
change).


They're definitely making this an operational system.


(I consider the ability to stack and launch in such a short period
of time a good sign.)


Is it all serial, or is there a degree of pipelining meaning they
aren't "really" turning-around in just one month? Certainly they are
turning the pad itself around in a month but I'm wondering about the
rest of it.

rick jones
--
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
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...
  #9  
Old May 9th 14, 06:20 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default SpaceX reusable booster experiments

"Rick Jones" wrote in message ...

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:
You know, this got me looking at their launch history and it dawned
on me, they're doing decent turnaround.


April 18th launch - CCLC40
May 10 (planned) Launch - CCLC40
June Launch (planned) - CCLC40
July Launch (planned) - CCLC40
August 8 (planned) - CCLC40


That's pretty much 5 launches in 5 months (planned, subject of course to
change).


They're definitely making this an operational system.


(I consider the ability to stack and launch in such a short period
of time a good sign.)


Is it all serial, or is there a degree of pipelining meaning they
aren't "really" turning-around in just one month? Certainly they are
turning the pad itself around in a month but I'm wondering about the
rest of it.

rick jones


Not sure what you mean. To clarify my point, I did mean the pad.

This means their stacking operation (I believe they only have the one
facility there to stack) is pretty efficient in my mind.

They're at a rate where they can build more than 1 per month.

They're definitely gearing up to be with the big-boys.







 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
US Air Force cancels Reusable Booster System [email protected] Policy 3 October 20th 12 04:37 PM
U.S.A.F Plans Reusable Booster Demonstrators [email protected] Policy 3 April 15th 10 12:27 AM
AFRL Seeks Reusable Booster X-Plane Ideas [email protected] Policy 10 May 28th 09 06:46 PM
Reusable winged booster X-plane Pat Flannery History 0 April 4th 09 07:13 PM
Air Force quick turnaround, reusable booster. Tom Kent Policy 10 May 7th 05 05:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.