User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 3:56:17 PM EDT
http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1917:spacex-to-develop-fully-reusable-rocket-make-humanity-a-multi-planet-species&catid=83:news&Itemid=76 But the first step is lowering the cost of launch, and that means reusable rockets, he said. In a toe-tapping animation posted on the SpaceX website (click on the illustration), both stages of the two-stage rocket return to Earth and make a soft landing after completing their tasks of delivering the Dragon capsule to orbit. Dragon is shown docking with the International Space Station (ISS), then undocks and returns to Earth also making a soft landing (similar to how Russia's Soyuz spacecraft lands).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 3:57:52 PM EDT
[#1]
Tag for home!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:00:10 PM EDT
[#2]
Bravo Zulu. Elon Musk has them in brass.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:00:33 PM EDT
[#3]
Where will it make a soft landing? Fresh water lake? Open field?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:00:53 PM EDT
[#4]
"SpaceX will develop" They got nothing yet, I'll wait to get excited when it is operational. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:01:41 PM EDT
[#5]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:03:02 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
"SpaceX will develop" They got nothing yet, I'll wait to get excited when it is operational. So far they have and are delivering everything they have promised. How many private companies have orbited and recovered a capsule with 95% of the development needed to carry humans. Hell, how many countries have done what he has? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:03:35 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Where will it make a soft landing? Fresh water lake? Open field? Watch the effing video. They will land at the launch site. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:03:41 PM EDT
[#8]
Too bad the ISS is coming down soon. Correct me if I am wrong.
Glas to see they are developing this kind of stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:03:44 PM EDT
[#9]
I don't see how they can carry enough extra fuel for those kind of burns after getting the payload in orbit... Plus, there's not a lot of margin of error if one of the thrusters fucks up. It'll be cool if they can pull it off, but I'm not convinced they can do it...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:04:13 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
"SpaceX will develop" They got nothing yet, I'll wait to get excited when it is operational. After watching the concept video, I have to admit I have my doubts. Looks cool, but... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:04:56 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Too bad the ISS is coming down soon. Correct me if I am wrong. You are wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:05:52 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
I don't see how they can carry enough extra fuel for those kind of burns after getting the payload in orbit... Plus, there's not a lot of margin of error if one of the thrusters fucks up. It'll be cool if they can pull it off, but I'm not convinced they can do it... Again, their track record says Musk delivers if a bit late but he eventually delivers what he promises. I guarentee you he would NOT be releasing that video if he was not confident he could pull it off. You need to remember that while SpaceX is a young company, they have hired some of the best veteran aerospace talent in the biz. The extra fuel comes from some recent big performance improvements in their main engine design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:09:09 PM EDT
[#13]
Well, there you go, easy peasy.
The ISS will need more than teacup sized payloads for continued flight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:10:41 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Well, there you go, easy peasy. The ISS will need more than teacup sized payloads for continued flight. If you have full reusability, you can afford to launch a hell of a lot of teacups. Dragon is still able to carry more than the Russian Progress and it , unlike progress, can be reused. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:16:14 PM EDT
[#15]
I'm no aeronautical engineer, but I'd think a parachute is alot cheaper, lighter and reliable on the way down than carrying enough fuel to slow down for a gentle landing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:22:42 PM EDT
[#16]
A parachute does not a helicopter make nor will it fly a 1st stage back to the launch site.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:23:41 PM EDT
[#17]
I like the concept but that 1st stage is going to be damn unwieldy during it's powered descent. It will need several maneuvering thrusters to keep it stabilized for a vertical landing. A more reasonable solution would be a parachute pack and ocean recovery. Less weight than extra thrusters, landing gear and the extra fuel needed to ensure a soft landing. Same with the 2nd stage and the capsule.
To carry the extra fuel for these powered descents they'll need larger rockets. Larger rockets need more fuel...it's a vicious circle. Parachutes would be a much more cost/weight efficient means to return the stages safely to Earth and they can do a water landing utilizing NASA's existing booster recovery ships. I'll give 'em credit for thinking outside the box though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:24:41 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, there you go, easy peasy. The ISS will need more than teacup sized payloads for continued flight. If you have full reusability, you can afford to launch a hell of a lot of teacups. Dragon is still able to carry more than the Russian Progress and it , unlike progress, can be reused. They'd better be cheap vehicles that require very little refurbishment from flight to flight. Three sets of landing gear means less payload and more gas. Extra gas to return to a vertical landing means waaaay less payload; the energy to return equals the energy to launch, more or less. Less, given the fuel expended to launch, but still very large. Dragon is another pipe dream so far, a paper rocket. Electrons these days, I suppose. But the artwork is pretty. Here's a link to SpaceX's web site so everyone can read about their vehicles for themselves. Be sure to crunch the useful load of each vehicle. http://www.spacex.com/index.php Falcon 1 User's Guide You'll find payload weights on page 15. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:25:54 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Bravo Zulu. Elon Musk has them in brass. Your guy Musk gives money to the DNC like it's going out of style Democrats turn around and gut NASA and you're cheering him? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:25:54 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
I like the concept but that 1st stage is going to be damn unwieldy during it's powered descent. It will need several maneuvering thrusters to keep it stabilized for a vertical landing. A more reasonable solution would be a parachute pack and ocean recovery. Less weight than extra thrusters, landing gear and the extra fuel needed to ensure a soft landing. Same with the 2nd stage and the capsule. To carry the extra fuel for these powered descents they'll need larger rockets. Larger rockets need more fuel...it's a vicious circle. Parachutes would be a much more cost/weight efficient means to return the stages safely to Earth and they can do a water landing utilizing NASA's existing booster recovery ships. I'll give 'em credit for thinking outside the box though. You don't think they have ran the numbers? They know this. Also understand, it takes a LOT less fuel to fly back an nearly-empty stage than to get it up there loaded with a rocket on top of it in the first place. A small fraction in fact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:26:03 PM EDT
[#21]
If it is completely reusable how come the solar module did not come down with it? It was there one minute and then gone.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:26:49 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
If it is completely reusable how come the solar module did not come down with it? It was there one minute and then gone. Thats part of the payload, not part of the launcher. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:27:38 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Bravo Zulu. Elon Musk has them in brass. Your guy Musk gives money to the DNC like it's going out of style Democrats turn around and gut NASA and you're cheering him? Musk gives money to both parties. He also puts his own where his mouth is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:31:29 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: I don't see how they can carry enough extra fuel for those kind of burns after getting the payload in orbit... Plus, there's not a lot of margin of error if one of the thrusters fucks up. It'll be cool if they can pull it off, but I'm not convinced they can do it... I just posted this exact same thing on the tubes video. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:32:06 PM EDT
[#25]
Extra gas to return to a vertical landing means waaaay less payload; the energy to return equals the energy to launch, more or less.
Dragon is another pipe dream so far, a paper rocket. Electrons these days, I suppose. But the artwork is pretty. 1) Dragon has flown, orbited twice and been recovered. We need many more pipe dreams like it. Pipe dream my ass! 2) Red part: You are ignoring one big thing. 90% of a rocket stage is the fuel it uses. When you return a stage, you are NOT returning the overwhelming bulk of its mass which was burnt and expended prior to staging. I get this but apparently this simple truth escapes our resident Aerospace Engineer like the fact that Dragon has actually flown and been recovered from orbit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:32:28 PM EDT
[#26]
This makes me want to play moonlander
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:32:31 PM EDT
[#27]
Just let the f'n thing burn up. How is it cheaper to use dented, dirty, fallen back to Earth rockets? The 1st stage is nothing but a fuel tank and some sheet metal left over from a Jamaican hut roof or two. If you want to save the engines, assuming they aren't toast, then jettison them off and catch the engines. Allthough solid rockets are nothing more than empty tubes when they're done.
Landing used up rockets over land sounds stupid as well. Will be funny when one F16's into the center of a malls food court somewhere. NASA allready tried reusable. It wasn't cheaper. Build me one of those Ares V rockets. I'll buy those for a dollar. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:33:28 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't see how they can carry enough extra fuel for those kind of burns after getting the payload in orbit... Plus, there's not a lot of margin of error if one of the thrusters fucks up. It'll be cool if they can pull it off, but I'm not convinced they can do it... I just posted this exact same thing on the tubes video. I am sure all of Elon's engineers, the ones who have actually put stuff in orbit, have failed to consider these so-obvious points 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:34:47 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Where will it make a soft landing? Fresh water lake? Open field? Exactly. Multi-planet?!? Go ahead and pick one. Let me know how it goes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:35:36 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Just let the f'n thing burn up. How is it cheaper to use dented, dirty, fallen back to Earth rockets? The 1st stage is nothing but a fuel tank and some sheet metal left over from a Jamaican hut roof or two. If you want to save the engines, assuming they aren't toast, then jettison them off and catch the engines. Allthough solid rockets are nothing more than empty tubes when they're done. Landing used up rockets over land sounds stupid as well. Will be funny when one F16's into the center of a malls food court somewhere. NASA allready tried reusable. It wasn't cheaper. I bet starting a transcontinental passenger service ran by the government using Wright Flyers would not be cheaper either. The problem wasn't reusability, it was the shuttle was insufficiently opeartionally robust to achieve it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:35:56 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where will it make a soft landing? Fresh water lake? Open field? Exactly. Multi-planet?!? Go ahead and pick one. Let me know how it goes. Tarmac. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:42:26 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Extra gas to return to a vertical landing means waaaay less payload; the energy to return equals the energy to launch, more or less.
Dragon is another pipe dream so far, a paper rocket. Electrons these days, I suppose. But the artwork is pretty. 1) Dragon has flown, orbited twice and been recovered. We need many more pipe dreams like it. 2) Red part: You are ignoring one big thing. 90% of a rocket stage is the fuel it uses. When you return a stage, you are NOT returning the overwhelming bulk of its mass which was burnt and expended prior to staging. I get this but apparently this simple truth escapes our resident Aerospace Engineer. I fixed it after I thought about the problem a second. Why do you think the fuel fraction to launch is 90% of the takeoff weight? You'll have to show a link describing a launch of the Dragon vehicle. I can't find one, but I see they have a schedule that required a launch in 2010 followed by two launches this year. You've taken on the job of defending the program, so let's see some information about hardware in flight. I have to confess that I mis-read the descriptions of each project. I thought the Dragon was a full up launch vehicle from stem to stern but I was reading the page for the Falcon Heavy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:45:21 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Bravo Zulu. Elon Musk has them in brass. Your guy Musk gives money to the DNC like it's going out of style Democrats turn around and gut NASA and you're cheering him? Musk gives money to both parties. He also puts his own where his mouth is. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/white-house-denies-cozzying-special-interests-reality-begs-differ_574700.html $31K to have chow with zero? Yeah, he's on the up & up
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 4:52:36 PM EDT
[#34]
You'll have to show a link describing a launch of the Dragon vehicle. I can't find one, but I see they have a schedule that required a launch in 2010 followed by two launches this year. You've taken on the job of defending the program, so let's see some information about hardware in flight.
http://www.space.com/10442-mission-update-splashdown-spacex-dragon-splashes-pacific-ocean.html http://www.universetoday.com/81559/the-future-is-now-spacex-100-successful/ http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/12/spacex-dragon-flight-earns-praise-opens-orbital-doors/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 5:37:20 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Quoted: "SpaceX will develop" They got nothing yet, I'll wait to get excited when it is operational. So far they have and are delivering everything they have promised. How many private companies have orbited and recovered a capsule with 95% of the development needed to carry humans. Hell, how many countries have done what he has? I share your enthusiasm for the company and what they have accomplished, but I'm also highly sceptical of what they've shown here. Does it not make better sense to at least use a parachute to retard the decent of each stage and use the rocket motors only for final deceleration, as the Russians do? What kind of weight penalty is there for carrying so much fuel for landing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 9:42:48 AM EDT
[#36]
How much does this lower costs????? Really the only question that needs to be asked.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 9:52:49 AM EDT
[#37]
Reminds me of the Galaxian Game.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 10:01:53 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
I'm no aeronautical engineer, but I'd think a parachute is alot cheaper, lighter and reliable on the way down than carrying enough fuel to slow down for a gentle landing. This |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 10:07:33 AM EDT
[#39]
They'd better be cheap vehicles that require very little refurbishment from flight to flight. Three sets of landing gear means less payload and more gas.
Extra gas to return to a vertical landing means waaaay less payload; the energy to return equals the energy to launch, more or less. Less, given the fuel expended to launch, but still very large. Dragon is another pipe dream so far, a paper rocket. Electrons these days, I suppose. But the artwork is pretty. Your a little behind the times, Dragon has already been tested and the entire testing to ISS phase has been pushed up 6 months. Nasa and Space x are so confident in the design it will make its first trip to ISS in late November, combining a supply trip and test procedure. Those landing feet look heavy to me, what are they using titanium? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 10:09:14 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: I'm no aeronautical engineer, but I'd think a parachute is alot cheaper, lighter and reliable on the way down than carrying enough fuel to slow down for a gentle landing. It seems to me a controlled area descent by traditional reentry then slowing by parachute, and then using just enough retro to enable a soft landing would incorporate both aspects in a more reliable and cheaper package. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 10:14:12 AM EDT
[#41]
That video is full of
.They cannot get a rocket up then have enough fuel to do a controlled vertical landing. The capsule landing was laughable. Fuel is not magical... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 10:15:10 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
I don't see how they can carry enough extra fuel for those kind of burns after getting the payload in orbit... Plus, there's not a lot of margin of error if one of the thrusters fucks up. It'll be cool if they can pull it off, but I'm not convinced they can do it... This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 10:20:39 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
"SpaceX will develop" They got nothing yet, I'll wait to get excited when it is operational. So far they have and are delivering everything they have promised. How many private companies have orbited and recovered a capsule with 95% of the development needed to carry humans. Hell, how many countries have done what he has? Rockwell, Boeing, Lockheed, United Space Alliance. NASA doesn't build or launch. After working almost 10 years on the Space Shuttle for a private company, launch and landing support for most of the flights during that time I only met a couple NASA technicians and they were at Marshal Space flight center. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 10:35:22 AM EDT
[#44]
Rockwell, Boeing, Lockheed, United Space Alliance. NASA doesn't build or launch. After working almost 10 years on the Space Shuttle for a private company, launch and landing support for most of the flights during that time I only met a couple NASA technicians and they were at Marshal Space flight center.
Last I read Govt/Nasa approved the new rocket design. Are you going to be working on it? It looks like a beast. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 10:41:36 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't see how they can carry enough extra fuel for those kind of burns after getting the payload in orbit... Plus, there's not a lot of margin of error if one of the thrusters fucks up. It'll be cool if they can pull it off, but I'm not convinced they can do it... Again, their track record says Musk delivers if a bit late but he eventually delivers what he promises. I guarentee you he would NOT be releasing that video if he was not confident he could pull it off. You need to remember that while SpaceX is a young company, they have hired some of the best veteran aerospace talent in the biz. The extra fuel comes from some recent big performance improvements in their main engine design.  I don't think so. I am not saying they have no talent, but I am curious of how you know they are the best veterans of this biz.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 10:44:39 AM EDT
[#46]
The premise of SpaceX to secure govt funding for projects was reuseable rocket boosters.
So far, all of their reusable rocket boosters are laying under several hundred feet of seawater in the Atlantic Ocean somewhere. SpaceX is another Solyndra. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 10:45:33 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Just let the f'n thing burn up. How is it cheaper to use dented, dirty, fallen back to Earth rockets? The 1st stage is nothing but a fuel tank and some sheet metal left over from a Jamaican hut roof or two. If you want to save the engines, assuming they aren't toast, then jettison them off and catch the engines. Allthough solid rockets are nothing more than empty tubes when they're done. Landing used up rockets over land sounds stupid as well. Will be funny when one F16's into the center of a malls food court somewhere. NASA allready tried reusable. It wasn't cheaper. Build me one of those Ares V rockets. I'll buy those for a dollar. http://i584.photobucket.com/albums/ss290/zerodefect2533/ZZZMaximum_payload.png We'd be better off building upgraded Saturn Vs. I'm with you on everything else though. It IS cheaper to just build new rockets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 10:52:57 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Rockwell, Boeing, Lockheed, United Space Alliance. NASA doesn't build or launch. After working almost 10 years on the Space Shuttle for a private company, launch and landing support for most of the flights during that time I only met a couple NASA technicians and they were at Marshal Space flight center.
Last I read Govt/Nasa approved the new rocket design. Are you going to be working on it? It looks like a beast. nope, I have gone back to the airplanes, I can't take the political uncertainty that comes with the programs. I spent too much time listening to how the next program this and next program that, seen all of these demo computer generated videos of how it will be for it to be cancelled or nothing comes of it. I spent about 6 months with the ARES 1X flight test vehicle and thought something would come from it, after launch we all went back to work in our old work areas and that was it, no more Constellation. Yes it does look like an impressive vehicle, I hope something does happen soon but I aint holding my breath. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 11:25:20 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Just let the f'n thing burn up. How is it cheaper to use dented, dirty, fallen back to Earth rockets? The 1st stage is nothing but a fuel tank and some sheet metal left over from a Jamaican hut roof or two. If you want to save the engines, assuming they aren't toast, then jettison them off and catch the engines. Allthough solid rockets are nothing more than empty tubes when they're done. Landing used up rockets over land sounds stupid as well. Will be funny when one F16's into the center of a malls food court somewhere. NASA allready tried reusable. It wasn't cheaper. Build me one of those Ares V rockets. I'll buy those for a dollar. http://i584.photobucket.com/albums/ss290/zerodefect2533/ZZZMaximum_payload.png Excellent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/30/2011 2:51:29 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
How much does this lower costs????? Really the only question that needs to be asked. They claim ultimatly a hundred-fold reduction in costs. Essentially, the costs to inspect, re-stack, refuel it and re-launch it. Fuel costs are trivial for a rocket compared to the throw-away hardware costs, a tiny fraction of the actual total cost. If engineers could reuse a rocket, that would bring the capital cost of a launch way down and "allow for about a 100 fold reduction in launch costs," he said.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
