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

Congrats to SpaceX on another successful launch and landing!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 6th 16, 01:53 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Congrats to SpaceX on another successful launch and landing!

Congrats to SpaceX on another successful launch and first stage landing!

This barge landing is notable because since this was a GTO mission, very
little fuel reserves were available for the first stage landing.
Because of this, the stage landing using three of the first stage
engines. This is notable because only one engine at minimum thrust
provides for a thrust to weight ratio greater than one. So clearly,
three engines means a thrust to weight ratio greater than three, or
greater than 3 Gs of acceleration.

This is done to minimize gravity losses and fuel needed. And it was
successful! Video replays show how fast the stage came into frame and
landed. It was quite impressive.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #2  
Old May 6th 16, 07:33 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rick Jones[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default Congrats to SpaceX on another successful launch and landing!

Jeff Findley wrote:
Congrats to SpaceX on another successful launch and first stage
landing!


Indeed.

So, now they have three, used first stage boosters, at least two of
which are looking for customers yes?

I can see the commercials now. A large flat area surrounded by
strings of multi-colored, plastic triangle streamers and a big flag
waving in the wind, rows of boosters in view and Elon Musk in a cowboy
hat and get-up:

Come on down to Elon's Used Rocket Emporium! We've got to clear our
used launcher lot and are practially giving them away! Take a look at
this fine launcher. Elon kicks the landing leg This little baby
pulled only 3Gs on Sundays and can be your launcher for only $40
million! Elon's Used Rocket Emporium, where the only musk you'll
smell is the sweet smell of a great deal on a used launcher!

rick jones
--
It is not a question of half full or empty - the glass has a leak.
The real question is "Can it be patched?"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...
  #3  
Old May 7th 16, 01:30 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Rick Jones[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default Congrats to SpaceX on another successful launch and landing!

Jeff Findley wrote:
Congrats to SpaceX on another successful launch and first stage landing!


Is the continuing flame long after landing expected? I was watching
the technical webcast on youtube and the continuing burning well after
landing was something of a surprise. The seemingly ineffective water
cannon was interesting as well.

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; HPE might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH...
  #4  
Old May 7th 16, 02:56 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Congrats to SpaceX on another successful launch and landing!

In 1952 vonBraun proposed his Ferry Rocket, with three reusable stages.

http://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/u...ThirdStage.jpg

Here's SpaceX upper stage recovery

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-c...012/01/Z54.jpg

In 1933 Sanger proposed his Silverbird Rocket, that used lift to skip off the upper atmosphere to reach any point on Earth.

http://www.luft46.com/misc/sang3.jpg

Its how a second stage might return to the launch center.

The first stage, is capable of flying back without circling the Earth, with some reduction in performance.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CW3fDQpUQAAC33M.png

Of course downrange recovery allows larger payloads,

http://i.stack.imgur.com/nrPia.jpg

For larger payloads, the first stage and second stages are recovered downrange on floating platforms underneath the launch trajectory, and then towed back, or later still, refuelled downrange and 'bounced' back to the launch center.

The third stage, lands after completing its mission.

With a LOX/LNG rocket that consists of three common core boosters and an upper stage, that has a 1,750,000 kg take off weight,

Take Off Weight: 1,750,000 kg

Common Core Booster (x3)
Propellant: 441,028.2 kg
Inert: 20,287.3 kg (including landing propellant)

Upper Stage Booster
Propellant: 298,726.0 kg
Inert: 14,304.0 kg (including landing propellant)

Payload: 52,923.3 kg.


The ideal delta vee of the first two boosters is 2.384 km/sec. The ideal delta vee of the central booster is 5.126 km/sec. The upper stage booster attains orbit and flies back to a landing at the launch center after releasing its payload.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWFFiubtC3c


Now, propellant fraction to attain a 2.384 km/sec delta vee with a 3.4 km/sec exhaust speed is 0.50403 and the inert fraction is 0.49597 so the take off weight is 40,904.5 kg and the propellant is 20,617.2 kg for each of the first two common core boosters that mass 20,287.3 kg.

The propellant fraction to attain 5.126 km/sec delta vee with a 3.4 km/sec exhaust speed is 0.77855 and the inert fraction is 0.22145 which implies a take off weight of the central common core booster of 91,612.4 kg with 71,325.1 kg of propellant and 20287.3 kg inert weight.

Its easier to have a fuel ship haul propellant to the downrange landing platform than it is to have a tug haul the landing platform back to the launch center.

The three common core boosters require a total of 1,323,084.7 kg of propellant. To recover the two outboard boosters downrange after first stage separation 41,234.4 kg of propellant is used. The third stage uses 298,726.1 kg. The central common core booster uses 71,325.1 kg of propellant to return it to the launch center a few minutes after landing far downrange. A total of 1,621,810.7 kg is used on the upside, and 1,734,370.2 kg overall, and at $0.16 per kg (the cost of LOX and LNG) propellant costs are $277,499.23

$5,243.41 per metric ton!

Now, the booster costs $91,000,000 - and if reused 328 times, the capital costs equal the propellant costs, not counting inflation or interest. If reused 3,280 times - the CAPEX is less than the propellant cost.

The entire system is returned to the launch center and relaunched, in less than 8 hours. So, a single ship can be used 3x per day, and would have a 1,100 day service life, before majour rehaul.

Now, if SpaceX puts a power beaming satellite in Geosynchronous orbit, it can beam power to the launch center, and electrolyse sea water. It takes the hydrogen and combines it with CO2 in the atmosphere, to produce methane, and takes the oxygen and uses that for LOX.

With 2.8 kg of LOX for every 1.0 kg of LNG that means we need to create 456,413.2 kg of LNG and 1,277,957.0 kg of LOX.

4 H2O + energy --- 4 H2 + O2 electrolysis
CO2 + 4 H2 --- CH4 + 2 H2O methane

456,413.2 kg of LNG requires the production of 228,206.6 kg of H2 and 1,227,957.0 kg of LOX. This requires reducing 2,054,859.4 litres of water to hydrogen and 1,825,652.8 kg of oxygen by the application of 8,988,804 kWh of energy every 8 hours. Which is 1.1 GW of continuous power.

Now to compete with LOX and LNG at $0.16 per kg, this power from space must be avaialable at $0.03 per kWh. Which produces the propellants needed for $269,665 - per launch (and return).

A power satellite at GEO, that masses 53 tons at LEO, and produces 22 MW per ton in specific power, translates to 1.2 GW! At $1,209 per kg construction cost for the power satellite, its cost is $64 million. This is approximately $0.053 per peak watt. With zero fuel cost and a 20 year life span, with a 'green bond' discount rate of 4.5% that's $832,507 per year. 1.2 million kW sold at $0.03 per kWh earns $315.5 million per year, and has a NPV of $4.1 billion the day it switches on!

SpaceX could sign a long term contract with Solar City to provide sun-fuel to SpaceX from GEO, at $0.03 per kWh and any Tesla would buy any surplus not used by SpaceX beamed to Tesla super charging stations at $0.03 per kWh as well. A deposit, along with contracts from these two companies, are then used to arrange financing to allow Solar City to hire SpaceX to build the power satellite, launch and operate it. Solar City would develop ground stations that receive the energy, and convert it to chemical fuels. Solar City would partner with Tesla to produce Powerwall energy storage units, with Solar City receivers, to sell energy to consumers, and Tesla customers, at $0.03 per kWh. At these prices a fill up would cost $2.70 -of course at the supercharging centers, power is free.

A Tesla motorcar is charged up every 120 hours with 90 kWh of energy. That's 750 Watts for each car on the road. A 1.2 million KW station supports 1..6 million Tesla Motorcars.

A home unit consumes 1.5 kW on average, so each 800,000 homes are supported per station.

A "Tesla family" with two Tesla's and a Powerwall, consume 3.0 kW and pay $65 per month each of these satellites support 400,000 of these families.

At $4.1 billion value for each satellite that's switched on, Tesla is well ahead with each launch! He has more than enough money to develop Mars.

With a 1220.3 meter diameter concentrator covering 1.17 sq km of area, each satellite generates 1.2 GW of continous power at GEO. A production plant that puts up three per day for each launcher that is operating from SpaceX, has the ability to put up more than 1.2 TW of generating capacity and create more than $4.1 trillion per year!

Four reusable launch vehicles launching a rocket once every two hours, and putting up 12 power satellites per day, put up 4.8 TW per year and in five years, transforms the energy picture of Earth!

Tesla can beam power to wherever its needed. Can produce LNG at $0.16 per kg whenever that's needed, from CO2. With MEMS based chemical processing plastics and other fuels can be produced on demand wherever needed, from atmospheric oxygen. All these capabilities, earning a profit, but setting the stage for widespread use of the core technologies on Mars!






  #5  
Old May 7th 16, 11:19 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Anthony Frost
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 253
Default Congrats to SpaceX on another successful launch and landing!

In message
Rick Jones wrote:

Jeff Findley wrote:
Congrats to SpaceX on another successful launch and first stage landing!


Is the continuing flame long after landing expected? I was watching
the technical webcast on youtube and the continuing burning well after
landing was something of a surprise. The seemingly ineffective water
cannon was interesting as well.


Apparently yes. There's a fair bit of kerosene still in the plumbing
after the shut-off valves that trickles out and burns away. The water
cannon is more to sluice any that hasn't burned off the deck rather than
direct firefighting.

I suspect the flames were more visible with it being dark this time.

Anthony

 




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
Successful SpaceX launch Jeff Findley[_6_] Policy 58 May 20th 16 12:24 AM
SpaceX launch and landing attempt scheduled for Sunday Jeff Findley[_6_] Policy 21 December 28th 15 04:24 AM
Congrats to SpaceX for successful launch yesterday. Jeff Findley[_4_] Policy 5 January 10th 14 07:51 PM
Congrats to Orbital for what looks to be a clean launch! Snidely Space Station 1 October 23rd 13 06:29 AM
SpaceX Launches 2nd Successful Falcon 1 Mark R. Whittington Policy 0 July 14th 09 04:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:17 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.