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

SpaceX video showing Falcon 9 stages and Dragon performing avertical landing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 8th 11, 11:40 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default SpaceX video showing Falcon 9 stages and Dragon performing avertical landing

Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

I suspect it'll be harder to do than suggested and take a few tries, but
hey, it's his money.


I agree if he want to waste his money no skin off my nose. But Jeff and Greg I
frankly I don't understand why shoot for full re-usability when 90% of the
cost recovery is probably in just getting the Merlins back.

Why not just drop them back using a ballute that can float them on the sea
surface for water recovery and harden them against salt water?

Dave
  #2  
Old October 9th 11, 06:42 AM posted to sci.space.policy
ed kyle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 276
Default SpaceX video showing Falcon 9 stages and Dragon performing avertical landing

On Oct 8, 5:40*pm, David Spain wrote:
Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
I suspect it'll be harder to do than suggested and take a few tries, but
hey, it's his money.


I agree if he want to waste his money no skin off my nose. But Jeff and Greg I
frankly I don't understand why shoot for full re-usability when 90% of the
cost recovery is probably in just getting the Merlins back.

Why not just drop them back using a ballute that can float them on the sea
surface for water recovery and harden them against salt water?

Dave


One possibility is that SpaceX is fishing for U.S. Air Force R&D
money. USAF has been playing with the idea of fly back boosters for
whatever comes after EELV. SpaceX probably wants to play that game.

- Ed Kyle
  #3  
Old October 10th 11, 04:18 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default SpaceX video showing Falcon 9 stages and Dragon performing a vertical landing

In article , nospam@
127.0.0.1 says...

Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

I suspect it'll be harder to do than suggested and take a few tries, but
hey, it's his money.


I agree if he want to waste his money no skin off my nose. But Jeff and Greg I
frankly I don't understand why shoot for full re-usability when 90% of the
cost recovery is probably in just getting the Merlins back.


Because recovering them intact attached to the first stage would allow
them to "gas and go", which is always going to be cheaper than re-
integrating the engines on essentially a new launch vehicle.

That and making the engines separate from the rest of the stage means
mucking with the design of the plumbing, electronics, and etc. of the
first stage. This could hurt reliability due to the introduction of
complexity directly into systems required for launch. Adding landing
gear and extra fuel doesn't (or at least shouldn't) do this.

Why not just drop them back using a ballute that can float them on the sea
surface for water recovery and harden them against salt water?


How to you "harden" them against salt water? Typical aerospace metallic
alloys don't take well to being dunked in salt water.


Also note that one of the biggest advantages of reusing an entire stage
is that it helps with reliability. You can test fly a reusable stage
without risking an actual payload. But, every flight of an expendable
vehicle is the first flight for that copy of the hardware, so any
problem which crops up with the hardware could lead to a launch failure
and loss of payload.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker
  #5  
Old October 10th 11, 07:19 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default SpaceX video showing Falcon 9 stages and Dragon performing avertical landing

Jeff Findley wrote:
Because recovering them intact attached to the first stage would allow
them to "gas and go", which is always going to be cheaper than re-
integrating the engines on essentially a new launch vehicle.


....[snip covered territory]...

Also note that one of the biggest advantages of reusing an entire stage
is that it helps with reliability. You can test fly a reusable stage
without risking an actual payload. But, every flight of an expendable
vehicle is the first flight for that copy of the hardware, so any
problem which crops up with the hardware could lead to a launch failure
and loss of payload.


A "gas and go" option would be ideal, however as addressed in the
"Grasshopper" thread it would seem we are talking about a nearly vertical
trajectory for the 1st stage. Then what? Coming down on chutes until nearly on
the ground and then restart a few of the Merlins for the final 1000 ft or so?

Coming down solely on engine power seems like a lot of wasted fuel to be
taking along on the 'up' leg.

I'd be particularly interested in whatever the cross-range capability of this
is. I mean what about winds aloft on the descent? The aerodynamics seem mind
boggling to me.

You mention the complications of changing the 1st stage to handle ejecting the
engines from the tankage and I agree with that, but this plan sounds just as
complex if not more so to me.

Almost to the point of my saying ... pie -- sky....

Dave

  #6  
Old October 10th 11, 10:22 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default SpaceX video showing Falcon 9 stages and Dragon performing a vertical landing

In article , nospam@
127.0.0.1 says...

Jeff Findley wrote:
Because recovering them intact attached to the first stage would allow
them to "gas and go", which is always going to be cheaper than re-
integrating the engines on essentially a new launch vehicle.


...[snip covered territory]...

Also note that one of the biggest advantages of reusing an entire stage
is that it helps with reliability. You can test fly a reusable stage
without risking an actual payload. But, every flight of an expendable
vehicle is the first flight for that copy of the hardware, so any
problem which crops up with the hardware could lead to a launch failure
and loss of payload.


A "gas and go" option would be ideal, however as addressed in the
"Grasshopper" thread it would seem we are talking about a nearly vertical
trajectory for the 1st stage. Then what? Coming down on chutes until nearly on
the ground and then restart a few of the Merlins for the final 1000 ft or so?


I would think it would coast downward (near terminal velocity for the
relatively "fluffy" stage) and relight the center engine fairly late in
the descent to save on fuel.

Coming down solely on engine power seems like a lot of wasted fuel to be
taking along on the 'up' leg.


After killing the horizontal velocity and being put on a trajectory back
to the launch site, I'd think that either the engine will be deeply
throttled down during the rest of the descent (or perhaps completely
off) until needed for final deceleration and landing. Fairly low
terminal velocity is an advantage of landing on a planet with a fairly
dense atmosphere.

I'd be particularly interested in whatever the cross-range capability of this
is. I mean what about winds aloft on the descent? The aerodynamics seem mind
boggling to me.


With the big heavy engines in the base, I'd think a long stage like this
would naturally come down engines (and landing gear) towards the ground.
It's essentially a really big lawn dart! :-)

As for landing, with a big enough engine, you can do pretty much
anything you want. ;-)

You mention the complications of changing the 1st stage to handle ejecting the
engines from the tankage and I agree with that, but this plan sounds just as
complex if not more so to me.

Almost to the point of my saying ... pie -- sky....


Which is why you start with Grasshopper. You fly a bit, tweak things a
bit, and fly some more. What impresses me most about SpaceX is their
willingness to actually build, test, and fly hardware on a regular
basis. There are some things you just can't learn in simulations.

When was the last time you saw one of the big government contractors
build and fly something as big as one of their first stages just to test
a few things?

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker
  #7  
Old October 10th 11, 10:23 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rick Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 685
Default SpaceX video showing Falcon 9 stages and Dragon performing a vertical landing

Jeff Findley wrote:
When was the last time you saw one of the big government contractors
build and fly something as big as one of their first stages just to test
a few things?


Ares 1X?-)

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why". I think more often in terms of
"when", sometimes "where"; always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
  #9  
Old October 12th 11, 04:43 AM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default SpaceX video showing Falcon 9 stages and Dragon performing avertical landing

Jeff Findley wrote:
I would think it would coast downward (near terminal velocity for the
relatively "fluffy" stage) and relight the center engine fairly late in
the descent to save on fuel.

OK on that. But I'm thinking ullage issues, esp. with the RP1, since we're
pulling very low G on descent. How is the RP1 pressurized? With nitrogen?

With the big heavy engines in the base, I'd think a long stage like this
would naturally come down engines (and landing gear) towards the ground.
It's essentially a really big lawn dart! :-)


My sister caught one of those in her heel once and I think the Consumer
Protection Agency finally banned them. Probably should keep that
analogy off-line... ;-)

As for landing, with a big enough engine, you can do pretty much
anything you want. ;-)


:-D

Which is why you start with Grasshopper. You fly a bit, tweak things a
bit, and fly some more. What impresses me most about SpaceX is their
willingness to actually build, test, and fly hardware on a regular
basis. There are some things you just can't learn in simulations.


OK sure, I grant you that. Kudos to SpaceX. But where the heck are they
going to test this? Surely not at Patrick. WSMR?

BTW, you sure as hell want to be confident that this works *before* sending it
aloft from your launch facility. That is, presuming you want to *keep* your
launch facility... Try swapping the red labeled Estes engine with the green
labeled one on your two-stage model rocket if you want to simulate the
effect... ;-)

When was the last time you saw one of the big government contractors
build and fly something as big as one of their first stages just to test
a few things?


Not since the days of cost plus (plus plus plus plus....) ;-)

Jeff


Dave
  #10  
Old October 12th 11, 01:31 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,388
Default SpaceX video showing Falcon 9 stages and Dragon performing a vertical landing

In article , nospam@
127.0.0.1 says...

Jeff Findley wrote:
I would think it would coast downward (near terminal velocity for the
relatively "fluffy" stage) and relight the center engine fairly late in
the descent to save on fuel.

OK on that. But I'm thinking ullage issues, esp. with the RP1, since we're
pulling very low G on descent. How is the RP1 pressurized? With nitrogen?


Low G is all you need to keep the LOX and kerosene settled in the tanks.
Besides, before the final landing burn, it's going to be falling at
terminal velocity (or close to it), so it will be under 1G at that point
in the flight.

With the big heavy engines in the base, I'd think a long stage like this
would naturally come down engines (and landing gear) towards the ground.
It's essentially a really big lawn dart! :-)


My sister caught one of those in her heel once and I think the Consumer
Protection Agency finally banned them. Probably should keep that
analogy off-line... ;-)

As for landing, with a big enough engine, you can do pretty much
anything you want. ;-)


:-D

Which is why you start with Grasshopper. You fly a bit, tweak things a
bit, and fly some more. What impresses me most about SpaceX is their
willingness to actually build, test, and fly hardware on a regular
basis. There are some things you just can't learn in simulations.


OK sure, I grant you that. Kudos to SpaceX. But where the heck are they
going to test this? Surely not at Patrick. WSMR?

BTW, you sure as hell want to be confident that this works *before* sending it
aloft from your launch facility. That is, presuming you want to *keep* your
launch facility... Try swapping the red labeled Estes engine with the green
labeled one on your two-stage model rocket if you want to simulate the
effect... ;-)


Lots of the start-ups have been flying smallish, reusable, liquid fueled
VTVL vehicles off of nothing more than a concrete pad, so there
shouldn't be much in the way of "launch facility" which would be in
danger. Grasshopper is just scaled up a bit from what we're used to
seeing. ;-)

Besides, accidents should be expected and should be planned for. The
biggest failure of DC-XA wasn't the fact that it toppled over and burned
upon landing. The biggest failure was that there wasn't a second copy
of the hardware available to continue to fly after the first (and only)
copy of the hardware was destroyed.

Considering Grasshopper looks like it's based on a Falcon 9 first stage,
if they "crash and burn", they can always build another copy of the
hardware since Falcon 9 is in production.

When was the last time you saw one of the big government contractors
build and fly something as big as one of their first stages just to test
a few things?


Not since the days of cost plus (plus plus plus plus....) ;-)


There was a lot of progress made in a short amount of time during the
50's and 60's. But that was Cold War era funding and we simply can't
afford that anymore.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker
 




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 Space Cadet[_1_] Policy 7 October 6th 11 09:00 PM
Dragon landing on Mars video Pat Flannery Policy 36 May 2nd 11 07:05 PM
Dragon landing on Mars video Robert Clark Astronomy Misc 17 May 2nd 11 02:41 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:42 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.