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

Awesome video of the new Falcon reusable rocket launching and landing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 20th 14, 04:34 AM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 687
Default Awesome video of the new Falcon reusable rocket launching and landing

"Behold the first test of the Falcon 9 Reusable rocket, launching and then
smoothly landing in another location--an entire rocket going up and landing back
on Earth ready to be refilled and launched again. Unlike the Grasshopper, this
thing is huge!"

See:

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/awesome-vi...284/+jesusdiaz
  #2  
Old April 20th 14, 03:16 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Awesome video of the new Falcon reusable rocket launching and landing

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 8:34:35 PM UTC-7, wrote:
"Behold the first test of the Falcon 9 Reusable rocket, launching and then

smoothly landing in another location--an entire rocket going up and landing back

on Earth ready to be refilled and launched again. Unlike the Grasshopper, this
thing is huge!"


See:

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/awesome-vi...284/+jesusdiaz


That's a terrific demonstration, as proof of accomplishing what other space agencies (including our NASA) still can not do.

A truly reusable fly-by-rocket is a serious game changer.

Wondering how much extra fuel was consumed.


  #3  
Old April 21st 14, 01:41 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 267
Default Awesome video of the new Falcon reusable rocket launching and landing

In article ,
Brad Guth wrote:

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 8:34:35 PM UTC-7, wrote:
"Behold the first test of the Falcon 9 Reusable rocket, launching and then

smoothly landing in another location--an entire rocket going up and landing
back

on Earth ready to be refilled and launched again. Unlike the Grasshopper,
this
thing is huge!"


See:

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/awesome-vi...able-rocket-la
unchi-1564763284/+jesusdiaz


That's a terrific demonstration, as proof of accomplishing what other space
agencies (including our NASA) still can not do.

A truly reusable fly-by-rocket is a serious game changer.

Wondering how much extra fuel was consumed.


Propellant usage would also be my top question -- followed by heat
damage to the base of the rocket.

1. If you use such a large mass fraction of propellant backing down to
landing, it loses all utility as a launch vehicle. It is nice to see
that Space-X can maintain enough control to back down to a powered
landing, but the utility question remains.

2. If the base gets so much heat and flame damage that it warps the
structure, the vehicle is only semi-reusable.
  #4  
Old April 21st 14, 11:13 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 411
Default Awesome video of the new Falcon reusable rocket launching and landing

In article ,
says...

That's a terrific demonstration, as proof of accomplishing what
other space agencies (including our NASA) still can not do.


Because they're constrained by politics. When Congress mandated SLS,
following the failure of Ares I and Ares V (due to Griffin's hubris) to
produce anything useful, NASA's hands were tied.

A truly reusable fly-by-rocket is a serious game changer.


Absolutely, but the reason this has not been done to date isn't due to
any fundamental breakthrough in the technology, so saying government
space agencies "can no do" this not completely true.

Wondering how much extra fuel was consumed.


Details like this will likely be kept confidential, since SpaceX is a
private company. Furthermore, reusability comes *after* stage
separation, so customers, like NASA, won't be privy to all the details
about how SpaceX is making this work. Unlike NASA (should be), SpaceX
isn't in the business of helping other companies reduce their launch
costs.

I'll be digging through on-line news reports today to find into about
the attempt to "land" the first stage of the Falcon used to launch
Dragon to ISS last week.

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
  #5  
Old April 21st 14, 11:22 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 411
Default Awesome video of the new Falcon reusable rocket launching and landing

In article orfairbairn-963DEE.20412520042014@70-3-168-
216.pools.spcsdns.net, says...

Propellant usage would also be my top question -- followed by heat
damage to the base of the rocket.

1. If you use such a large mass fraction of propellant backing down to
landing, it loses all utility as a launch vehicle. It is nice to see
that Space-X can maintain enough control to back down to a powered
landing, but the utility question remains.


I'm going to be digging for info about the attempted water "landing" of
the first stage of the Falcon used to launch Dragon last week. This is
how SpaceX will demonstrate that there is enough residual fuel in Falcon
to safely land following a successful launch.

Also, first stage fuel reserves in Falcon does "double duty". Firstly,
it's there to enable a successful mission in the event of an engine
failure on the first stage. Shutting down an engine and continuing the
flight requires more fuel than a nominal ascent on all engines. Success
of the mission *is* the primary concern. If, and only if, those fuel
reserves are not used, they are re-purposed to use to land the first
stage back at the launch site. This is a secondary concern.

Reusing the first stage is desired, not required. Understanding
requirements versus "desirements" is one of the keys to successful
engineering and to successful project leadership. SpaceX will not
knowingly jeopardize the primary mission in an attempt to successfully
reuse a Falcon stage.

2. If the base gets so much heat and flame damage that it warps the
structure, the vehicle is only semi-reusable.


True, but insulation is a known technology. All successful reentry
vehicles utilize this technology in a far harsher environment than a bit
of engine backwash during a vertical landing. Furthermore, Grasshopper
and Grasshopper 2 have proven that this isn't an issue.

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 April 21st 14, 01:22 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 411
Default Awesome video of the new Falcon reusable rocket launching and landing

In article ,
says...
I'm going to be digging for info about the attempted water "landing" of
the first stage of the Falcon used to launch Dragon last week. This is
how SpaceX will demonstrate that there is enough residual fuel in Falcon
to safely land following a successful launch.


Both NASA and the Russians were watching this launch. From
www.newspacejournal.com:

When the launch does take place?be it today, tomorrow, or
next week?it will be closely watched, and not just by
spectators at Cape Canaveral and the usual radars and other
tracking assets used for any launch. That?s because of
SpaceX?s efforts to attempt to recover the vehicle?s first
stage, testing maneuvers to slow down and ?land? the stage,
albeit over the open ocean and not on land.

?When they do those braking maneuvers to come back and land
on the surface of the ocean, those braking maneuvers will be
supersonic thruster firings, which will be very similar to
what we?ll have to do for braking for a large mass going
into Mars,? said Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA associate
administrator for human exploration and operations, in a
presentation to a committee of the NASA Advisory Council on
Monday, before that afternoon?s SpaceX launch attempt was
scrubbed.

He said NASA?s Langley Research Center would be flying three
aircraft to observe those maneuvers, collecting data to
incorporate into their Mars technology developments. ?So
we?re actually getting data tonight to help us inform and
get us ready for the entry, descent, and landing challenge
of going to Mars,? he said. It wasn?t clear if the aircraft
would also be on station for the launch today, given the
weather conditions.

While NASA watches from the air, the Russians may be
watching from the sea. The Russian vessel Nikolay Chiker has
been lurking in the waters off the coast from Cape Canaveral,
the blog The Aviationist reported Thursday, appearing in
March for earlier launch attempts and returning in time for
the latest attempts. Some speculate the ship is there to
monitor the Falcon 9 launch and stage recovery attempt,
although it could be coincidental with other efforts, such
as monitoring naval bases.

Also, Elon tweeted the following on Apr 18:

"Data upload from tracking plane shows landing in Atlantic
was good! Several boats enroute through heavy seas."

"Data upload from tracking plane shows landing in Atlantic
was good! Several boats enroute through heavy seas."

No word yet on whether or not the stage was found by the boats or if the
boats would drag the stage back for inspection.

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
  #7  
Old April 21st 14, 09:08 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Awesome video of the new Falcon reusable rocket launching and landing

On Sunday, April 20, 2014 5:41:25 PM UTC-7, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,

Brad Guth wrote:



On Saturday, April 19, 2014 8:34:35 PM UTC-7, wrote:


"Behold the first test of the Falcon 9 Reusable rocket, launching and then




smoothly landing in another location--an entire rocket going up and landing


back




on Earth ready to be refilled and launched again. Unlike the Grasshopper,


this


thing is huge!"






See:




http://sploid.gizmodo.com/awesome-vi...able-rocket-la


unchi-1564763284/+jesusdiaz




That's a terrific demonstration, as proof of accomplishing what other space


agencies (including our NASA) still can not do.




A truly reusable fly-by-rocket is a serious game changer.




Wondering how much extra fuel was consumed.




Propellant usage would also be my top question -- followed by heat
damage to the base of the rocket.


1. If you use such a large mass fraction of propellant backing down to
landing, it loses all utility as a launch vehicle. It is nice to see
that Space-X can maintain enough control to back down to a powered
landing, but the utility question remains.


2. If the base gets so much heat and flame damage that it warps the
structure, the vehicle is only semi-reusable.


Perhaps a brief refueling in LEO before attempting its fly-by-rocket landing. Of course we'd have to place a sufficient spare amount of HTP plus a little something else of a hydrocarbon on orbit first.
  #8  
Old April 22nd 14, 12:43 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default Awesome video of the new Falcon reusable rocket launching and landing

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
...

On Sunday, April 20, 2014 5:41:25 PM UTC-7, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,

Brad Guth wrote:



On Saturday, April 19, 2014 8:34:35 PM UTC-7,
wrote:


"Behold the first test of the Falcon 9 Reusable rocket, launching and
then




smoothly landing in another location--an entire rocket going up and
landing


back




on Earth ready to be refilled and launched again. Unlike the
Grasshopper,


this


thing is huge!"






See:




http://sploid.gizmodo.com/awesome-vi...able-rocket-la


unchi-1564763284/+jesusdiaz




That's a terrific demonstration, as proof of accomplishing what other
space


agencies (including our NASA) still can not do.




A truly reusable fly-by-rocket is a serious game changer.




Wondering how much extra fuel was consumed.




Propellant usage would also be my top question -- followed by heat
damage to the base of the rocket.


1. If you use such a large mass fraction of propellant backing down to
landing, it loses all utility as a launch vehicle. It is nice to see
that Space-X can maintain enough control to back down to a powered
landing, but the utility question remains.


2. If the base gets so much heat and flame damage that it warps the
structure, the vehicle is only semi-reusable.


Perhaps a brief refueling in LEO before attempting its fly-by-rocket
landing. Of course we'd have to place a sufficient spare amount of HTP
plus a little something else of a hydrocarbon on orbit first.


You just made the problem much harder.

The fuel you need to get the 1st stage into orbit is what you would use for
landing.

And if you get it into orbit, it has a LOT more energy you have to lose
before landing.




--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

  #9  
Old April 22nd 14, 12:39 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 411
Default Awesome video of the new Falcon reusable rocket launching and landing

In article ,
says...
Perhaps a brief refueling in LEO before attempting its fly-by-rocket
landing. Of course we'd have to place a sufficient spare amount of HTP
plus a little something else of a hydrocarbon on orbit first.


You just made the problem much harder.

The fuel you need to get the 1st stage into orbit is what you would use for
landing.

And if you get it into orbit, it has a LOT more energy you have to lose
before landing.


Agreed. We are talking about recovering the first stage of Falcon 9,
which separates from the second stage at a relatively low velocity when
compared to orbital velocity. The fuel needed to fly that first stage
back to the launch site is far less than what would be needed compared
to the fuel needed to put it into orbit.

Some people are making this whole thing out to be harder than it really
is. Losing a satellite, or putting it into the wrong orbit, because one
out of nine engines fails is absolutely unacceptable. To mitigate this,
Falcon 9's first stage *already* needs to carry extra fuel in order to
handle engine out scenarios. Because of this, if no engines fail, there
will already be extra fuel in the tanks. This extra fuel is then re-
purposed to provide much of the delta-V necessary to fly the stage back
to the launch site. So, there is far less "wasted fuel" used to recover
the first stage than the "performance uber alles" crowd would have you
believe.

The downside is that if you lose an engine on ascent, there simply won't
be enough fuel to fly back to the launch site, so you'll likely lose the
first stage. SpaceX would then have to "eat" the cost of that stage, so
pricing launches will have to take into account the occasional loss of a
first stage. But, do note that even in this case, the payload makes it
into its proper orbit, so this is not a "launch" failure, it's a
"recovery" failure. In this business, NO ONE CARES about "recovery"
failures, since the competition doesn't even *try* to do this! So there
is very little downside in *trying* to recover the first stage. With
the exception of the shuttle SRB's, it's actually quite shocking to me
that no one before SpaceX has ever made a serious attempt to do this.

To sum up, the primary goal is always to get the payload into the proper
orbit. Price your launches such that recovering the used first stage is
gravy, and every recovered stage is extra profit which can be used to
fund the eventual reuse of the upper stage. This approach to
reusability is actually quite elegant.

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
  #10  
Old April 22nd 14, 02:52 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Vaughn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default Awesome video of the new Falcon reusable rocket launching andlanding

On 4/22/2014 7:39 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
Some people are making this whole thing out to be harder than it really
is. Losing a satellite, or putting it into the wrong orbit, because one
out of nine engines fails is absolutely unacceptable. To mitigate this,
Falcon 9's first stage*already* needs to carry extra fuel in order to
handle engine out scenarios.



OK I'm reaching a bit here but just for the sake of discussion...

I realize that you can't anticipate every possible failure, but one risk
that I see with the Space-X many-engine format is the possibility of a
major engine failure taking out adjacent engines.

Could there be a possibility of shuttle-style scenarios to return the
rocket, payload and all, following (say) the loss of two or three
engines rendering orbit impossible?

Control under asymmetric thrust conditions might be one obvious
deal-killer, plus the CG of the entire package would be totally
different. The shroud could be sacrificed before landing to reduce
weight. Second stage fuel dumping would also be theoretically possible,
at the price of increased complexity.


 




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
SpaceX video showing Falcon 9 stages and Dragon performing avertical landing David Spain Policy 14 October 15th 11 09:51 PM
SpaceX video showing Falcon 9 stages and Dragon performing avertical landing Space Cadet[_1_] Policy 7 October 6th 11 09:00 PM
Large rocket engines cannot be reusable Andrew Nowicki Technology 10 December 2nd 05 08:05 AM
SpaceX Announces the Falcon 9 Fully Reusable Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle [email protected] News 0 September 12th 05 05:21 PM
Launching a small model rocket Niko Holm Space Shuttle 10 January 9th 04 12:48 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:44 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.