|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Application of trans-stage for a recoverable rocket?
This newsgroup has been moribund to say the least.
So thought I'd prime the pump a bit. SpaceX's approach to the recoverable rocket problem is an interesting one, I'm curious to know what work has been done in this area by others. Specifically, I'm curious to know if any work was ever done in the area of providing a trans-stage, or coupler stage to provide a recovery option. In this scenario, a smaller trans-stage is attached to the top of the first stage with tank-age and engine(s) sufficient to safely bring down the empty first stage booster. The second stage is attached atop the trans-stage and separates normally as expected during ascent. The rocket configuration of the trans-stage would be set up with the engine nozzles configured to fire down and to the sides of the trans-stage. To reduce drag the nozzles would be encased in fairings that protrude smoothly from the side of the stage. The trans-stage does not separate from the first stage. There are a couple of advantages to this approach: 1) The entire propellant load of the first stages could be used for ascent. 2) Simplification of the recovery effort of a multi-booster configuration such as the Falcon-9 Heavy. Instead of having to manage the recovery of three separate boosters, you only need deploy landing legs on the three and have a single point-of-control for the active recovery. This assumes that the trans-stage can provide enough thrust to recover three empty boosters. There has been some discussion in other web forums about the long term practicality of a reusable F9H vs a reusable BFR I suppose something akin to the Falcon XX. Having a trans-stage provide the recovery thrust would alleviate some of the complexity pointed out in #2 above. Among the disadvantages would be the added weight and fuel of the trans-stage, which would reduce the over-all performance and it would not likely yield an advantage over a fly-back single booster rocket like the F9. Unless perhaps the propellant/engine combination were different i.e. more efficient/lighter than what is used in the first stage booster itself. Aerodynamic stability would be another issue, since at least right at staging the weight distribution might make the first-stage "top heavy". Would rocket power alone be enough to compensate for this? It would be really fascinating to know if SpaceX considered this as an option and if so what reasons convinced them this was not a way to go. Dave |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA's New Upper Stage Rocket Engine Ready For Testing (J-2X) | Rick Jones | Policy | 10 | June 17th 11 06:43 PM |
Altitude record for a single stage rocket | [email protected] | History | 23 | June 5th 08 04:54 AM |
Shuttle C with recoverable engines? | [email protected] | Space Shuttle | 11 | December 31st 07 01:05 AM |
BOINC typo "Desktop Grid" -- 'Application' -- 'Search 1.01' should read 'Search 1.1' in line with the application version number... | Max Power | SETI | 0 | January 14th 06 02:31 AM |
More details on the Indian recoverable satellite plan | Jim Oberg | Policy | 12 | August 28th 05 04:48 PM |