|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Elon Musk's SpaceX to build 'Grasshopper' hover-rocket
A couple of suggestions for the reusable version of the Falcon 9.
First, model it on the DC-X. In the SpaceX video of the proposed reusable launcher the first and second stages have the same straight sides of the expendable versions. But having sloping sides helps to protect the sides of the vehicle during reentry as well as increasing aerodynamic stability during reentry. Note that as long as the cross-section remains circular for a conical shaped stage you should still get the high tankage ratio that obtains for cylindrical tanks: Space Access Update #91 2/7/00. The Last Five Years: NASA Gets Handed The Ball, And Drops It. "...part of L-M X-33's weight growth was the "multi- lobed" propellant tanks growing considerably heavier than promised. Neither Rockwell nor McDonnell-Douglas bid these; both used proven circular-section tanks. X-33's graphite-epoxy "multi-lobed" liquid hydrogen tanks have ended up over twice as heavy relative to the weight of propellant carried as the Shuttle's 70's vintage aluminum circular-section tanks - yet an X-33 tank still split open in test last fall. Going over to aluminum will make the problem worse; X- 33's aluminum multi-lobed liquid oxygen tank is nearly four times as heavy relative to the weight of propellant carried as Shuttle's aluminum circular-section equivalent." http://www.space-access.org/updates/sau91.html The McDonnell-Douglas version mentioned there was the scaled up DC-X. There are a couple of ways this DC-X styled Falcon 9 could be implemented. As this is to be a multi-stage launcher, you could have each stage have the same sloping sides as the DC-C. Then each stage would have the shape of a truncated cone, a frustum, and when stacked one on top another the vehicle would have the shape of a single cone. However, I prefer another method. It is known that you can increase your payload using parallel staging with cross-feed fueling. Indeed SpaceX intends to increase the payload of its Falcon Heavy launcher using this method. Then another method for this reusable Falcon 9 would have each stage in the shape of a full cone, but the second stage instead of being placed on top of the first stage would be placed along side of it in parallel fashion. In addition to increasing the payload this would have an another key advantage. The high mass ratio of the Falcon 9 first stage, above 20 to 1, means that if it had high efficiency engines such as the NK-33 or RD-180 instead of the rather low efficiency Merlin 1C it would have SSTO capability. However, because of the high investment of SpaceX in the Merlin engines they no doubt are committed to its use. But a key fact is that IF you have altitude compensation then even a low efficiency, i.e., low chamber pressure, engine can achieve high vacuum Isp while still providing good performance at sea level. Methods of altitude compensation such as the aerospike have been studied since the 60's. Then SpaceX could provide their DC-X styled Falcon 9 stages with altitude compensation to give their stages SSTO capability while still using the Merlin engines. Then these SSTO stages could serve as low cost launchers for smaller payloads, including being used for private, manned orbital vehicles. The second model for the reusable Falcon 9 stages would be on the ESA's proposed Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle (IXV): Article: Europe Aims to Launch Robotic Mini-Shuttle By 2020. Rob Coppinger, SPACE.com ContributorDate: 13 June 2011 Time: 02:58 PM ET http://www.space.com/11948-robot-spa...hing-2020.html This does not use the powered landing of the DC-X but rather uses a glided landing via its lifting body shape. SpaceX does not like the use of wings for landing because of the extra weight. But this design would not have wings. It would have larger thermal protection weight because the horizontal underside would have to be covered, whereas in the DC-X mode only the base has to be covered. However, it would make up for this in not requiring fuel for the powered landing. In this case because the stages would have to maintain the aerodynamic shape, they could not be stacked as for serial staging. Parallel staging would have to be used. Once again this means the separate stages could be used as SSTO's. Bob Clark |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Elon Musk's SpaceX to build 'Grasshopper' hover-rocket
On Oct 2, 7:17*pm, Robert Clark wrote:
*A couple of suggestions for the reusable version of the Falcon 9. ... The second model for the reusable Falcon 9 stages would be on the ESA's proposed Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle (IXV): Article: Europe Aims to Launch Robotic Mini-Shuttle By 2020. Rob Coppinger, SPACE.com ContributorDate: 13 June 2011 Time: 02:58 PM EThttp://www.space.com/11948-robot-spa...hing-2020.html That Space.com link should be: Europe Aims to Launch Robotic Mini-Shuttle By 2020. http://www.space.com/11948-robot-spa...hing-2020.html Bob Clark |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Elon Musk's SpaceX to build 'Grasshopper' hover-rocket
On Oct 2, 7:17*pm, Robert Clark wrote:
*A couple of suggestions for the reusable version of the Falcon 9. First, model it on the DC-X. In the SpaceX video of the proposed reusable launcher the first and second stages have the same straight sides of the expendable versions. But having sloping sides helps to protect the sides of the vehicle during reentry as well as increasing aerodynamic stability during reentry. Note that as long as the cross-section remains circular for a conical shaped stage you should still get the high tankage ratio that obtains for cylindrical tanks: Space Access Update #91 2/7/00. The Last Five Years: NASA Gets Handed The Ball, And Drops It. "...part of L-M X-33's weight growth was the "multi- lobed" propellant tanks growing considerably heavier than promised. Neither Rockwell nor McDonnell-Douglas bid these; both used proven circular-section tanks. X-33's graphite-epoxy "multi-lobed" liquid hydrogen tanks have ended up over twice as heavy relative to the weight of propellant carried as the Shuttle's 70's vintage aluminum circular-section tanks - yet an X-33 tank still split open in test last fall. Going over to aluminum will make the problem worse; X- 33's aluminum multi-lobed liquid oxygen tank is nearly four times as heavy relative to the weight of propellant carried as Shuttle's aluminum circular-section equivalent."http://www.space-access.org/updates/sau91.html The McDonnell-Douglas version mentioned there was the scaled up DC-X. There are a couple of ways this DC-X styled Falcon 9 could be implemented. As this is to be a multi-stage launcher, you could have each stage have the same sloping sides as the DC-C. Then each stage would have the shape of a truncated cone, a frustum, and when stacked one on top another the vehicle would have the shape of a single cone. However, I prefer another method. It is known that you can increase your payload using parallel staging with cross-feed fueling. Indeed SpaceX intends to increase the payload of its Falcon Heavy launcher using this method. Then another method for this reusable Falcon 9 would have each stage in the shape of a full cone, but the second stage instead of being placed on top of the first stage would be placed along side of it in parallel fashion. In addition to increasing the payload this would have an another key advantage. The high mass ratio of the Falcon 9 first stage, above 20 to 1, means that if it had high efficiency engines such as the NK-33 or RD-180 instead of the rather low efficiency Merlin 1C it would have SSTO capability. However, because of the high investment of SpaceX in the Merlin engines they no doubt are committed to its use. But a key fact is that IF you have altitude compensation then even a low efficiency, i.e., low chamber pressure, engine can achieve high vacuum Isp while still providing good performance at sea level. Methods of altitude compensation such as the aerospike have been studied since the 60's. Then SpaceX could provide their DC-X styled Falcon 9 stages with altitude compensation to give their stages SSTO capability while still using the Merlin engines. Then these SSTO stages could serve as low cost launchers for smaller payloads, including being used for private, manned orbital vehicles. The second model for the reusable Falcon 9 stages would be on the ESA's proposed Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle (IXV): Article: Europe Aims to Launch Robotic Mini-Shuttle By 2020. Rob Coppinger, SPACE.com ContributorDate: 13 June 2011 Time: 02:58 PM EThttp://www.space.com/11948-robot-spa...hing-2020.html This does not use the powered landing of the DC-X but rather uses a glided landing via its lifting body shape. SpaceX does not like the use of wings for landing because of the extra weight. But this design would not have wings. It would have larger thermal protection weight because the horizontal underside would have to be covered, whereas in the DC-X mode only the base has to be covered. However, it would make up for this in not requiring fuel for the powered landing. In this case because the stages would have to maintain the aerodynamic shape, they could not be stacked as for serial staging. Parallel staging would have to be used. Once again this means the separate stages could be used as SSTO's. Other possible methods to make the Falcon 9 reusable might be to use the "parashield" idea of the Dr. David Akin or the inflatable heat shield NASA is investigating. These might make the reusable Falcon 9 easier and quicker to implement since the usual cylindrical shaped stages could be used: Phoenix: A Low-Cost Commercial Approach to the Crew Exploration Vehicle. http://www.nianet.org/rascal/forum20..._umd_paper.pdf "Figure 5.9-1: Phoenix ParaShield in stowed and deployed configurations." http://oi51.tinypic.com/14e9vd4.jpg Another advantage of the parashield is that it can also serve as a parachute once the vehicle has passed through reentry. And for NASA's inflatable heat shield: NASA Launches New Technology: An Inflatable Heat Shield. UPDATE: 08.17.09 http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronauti...ures/irve.html See the video on this page describing the inflatable heat shield. Bob Clark |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Elon Musk's SpaceX to build 'Grasshopper' hover-rocket
I pictured it landing horizontally, not vertically. They'll have to be
very careful with centre of gravity. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Elon Musk's SpaceX to build 'Grasshopper' hover-rocket
On Oct 2, 7:17*pm, Robert Clark wrote:
*A couple of suggestions for the reusable version of the Falcon 9. First, model it on the DC-X. In the SpaceX video of the proposed reusable launcher the first and second stages have the same straight sides of the expendable versions. But having sloping sides helps to protect the sides of the vehicle during reentry as well as increasing aerodynamic stability during reentry. Note that as long as the cross-section remains circular for a conical shaped stage you should still get the high tankage ratio that obtains for cylindrical tanks: ... The second model for the reusable Falcon 9 stages would be on the ESA's proposed Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle (IXV): Article: Europe Aims to Launch Robotic Mini-Shuttle By 2020. Rob Coppinger, SPACE.com ContributorDate: 13 June 2011 Time: 02:58 PM EThttp://www.space.com/11948-robot-spa...hing-2020.html This does not use the powered landing of the DC-X but rather uses a glided landing via its lifting body shape. SpaceX does not like the use of wings for landing because of the extra weight. But this design would not have wings. It would have larger thermal protection weight because the horizontal underside would have to be covered, whereas in the DC-X mode only the base has to be covered. However, it would make up for this in not requiring fuel for the powered landing. In this case because the stages would have to maintain the aerodynamic shape, they could not be stacked as for serial staging. Parallel staging would have to be used. Once again this means the separate stages could be used as SSTO's. Another possible lifting-body shape for reusable Falcon 9 stages might be of the Japanese HYFLEX hypersonic test vehicle: Hypersonic Flight Experiment "HYFLEX". http://www.jaxa.jp/projects/rockets/hyflex/index_e.html HYFLEX. http://www.rocket.jaxa.jp/fstrc/0c02.html This was successfully tested all the way back in 1996 at a Mach 15 reentry speed. It's roughly cylindrical shape would mean you would lose a relatively small degree on the mass efficiency of cylindrically shaped tanks. However, rather than redesigning the tanks you might want to just use a composite aeroshell on the usual Falcon 9 stages. A conical aeroshell for example was used on the DC-X. This would make the reusable Falcon 9 more quickly and easily to be implemented. The mass of the aeroshell though would contribute to the mass lost from payload. As with the above cases, if used with altitude compensating nozzles on the Merlins or with existing high efficiency engines with just their standard nozzles, these HYFLEX-shaped stages could also be SSTO's. Bob Clark |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Elon Musk's SpaceX to build 'Grasshopper' hover-rocket | [email protected] | Policy | 57 | November 19th 11 11:47 AM |
Let's Build Rocket Ships! | Pat Flannery | History | 0 | June 21st 11 08:47 PM |
SpaceX: It IS Rocket Science. | Michael Gallagher | Policy | 2 | September 26th 08 01:20 AM |
Elon Musk's Killer App for Space | Space Cadet | Policy | 4 | August 16th 06 03:45 AM |
SpaceX rocket fails | nightbat | Misc | 2 | March 30th 06 12:53 AM |