|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Falcon 9 Block 5 update
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Falcon 9 Block 5 update
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Falcon 9 Block 5 update
Jeff Findley wrote on Fri, 14 Sep 2018
06:20:38 -0400: In article , says... Yep. And so far ULA has only paid lip service to reuse (their so called "smart reuse" is dumb since it only recovers the engines of the first stage. By the time this is perfected, SpaceX might very well be flying BFR/BFS which will be fully reusable. ULA is copying the Russians. The Boeing capsule 'crashes' like the Russian capsules and Vulcan engine recovery is just what the Russians do. Please elaborate on "Vulcan engine recovery is just what the Russians do". I am unaware of the Russians snagging engines mid-air with a large helicopter, which is what ULA plans to do. Mind you, if anyone could do this, it would be the Russians. Some of their helicopters are the biggest in the world. Russia actually drops them in a swamp to get a nice 'soft' impact. But they're just recovering the engines. -- "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Falcon 9 Block 5 update
JF Mezei wrote on Fri, 14 Sep 2018
13:51:58 -0400: On 2018-09-14 06:17, Jeff Findley wrote: Right, and Vulcan will still have a first stage separation event, so they're adding significant complexity to the vehicle to only get the engines back. Why not add a similar, proven, amount of complexity to get the entire stage back in one piece? Aren't they expecting to catch thsi by helicopter ? This saves on the cost of software, sensors of making the stage land itself (as well as landing gear). But it requires putting a helicopter in the path of the falling engine, which is a great way to knock down a helicopter and requires a sufficiently precise reentry to be near the helicopter. The only bit of IP ULA might not have to do a VTVL is the software. And the money to lose a number of stage 1s during initial development/testing (as happened with SpaceX). As opposed to how many engines and helicopters they'll lose? On the other hand, what are the rates of succesful recovery of engines that fall down from the sky? Zero. Particularly with helicopters. One plus sign: this scheme results in steady production of stages, whether they succeed in recovering engines or not. Only the production of engines is uncertain since they don't know how many they will recover. Small consolation prize I know, but was trying hard to find some positive. The engines are a huge part of the cost of the total stage. -- "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sun Block | G=EMC^2TreBert | Misc | 0 | September 30th 15 11:22 PM |
Expedition 26 / SpaceX Falcon 9 - COTS 1 Update | John[_30_] | Space Shuttle | 0 | December 9th 10 07:08 PM |
Dragon/Falcon 9 Update | [email protected] | Policy | 16 | October 7th 09 04:42 PM |
SpaceX "Monster" Update (mostly Falcon 9) | Damon Hill[_4_] | Policy | 1 | August 20th 07 06:08 PM |