Posted on 12/31/2015 11:48:46 PM PST by BenLurkin
Space X's Elon Musk predicts that the reusable rocket will reduce the cost of accessing space by at least hundredfold. SpaceX and Blue Origin, both have succeeded in landing rocket back on earth, but in different zones.
On December 21, SpaceX has returned its 15-storey booster rocket upright and in intact form to a landing pad at a Cape Canaveral. It was big feat and one of the factors was a $60 million worth machinery was recovered.
Blue Origin, a privately owned company created by Jeff Bezos, has launched and landed its own booster rocket for a suborbital flight. Indeed, both the events are considered to have marked the start of a new era in spaceflight.
Now, Musk thinks that cost reduction is one of the advantages of the reusable rockets. But as per expects, there are a number of factors dependent on it including whether the wear and tear and stresses of the launch requires the renovation that may prove costly. But then also, it is being said that reusability will bring a massive transformation in the economics of spaceflight.
Reusability factor has also given birth to increased competition, privatization and multiplicity of independent actors and visionary entrepreneurs. But one thing has to be kept in mind that the industry can never be completely free from the control of the government. One of its examples is landing of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket on a Cape Canaveral pad formerly used to launch Air Force Atlas rockets.
One of the other greater benefits of it would be restoring America as a spacefaring nation. With time, privatization is increasing and its decisions are no longer being dictated by the government. Space has now entered into the era of Tesla, Edison and the Wright brothers.
(Excerpt) Read more at wtexas.com ...
Was this translated from Chinese or Brit English? Or bad journalism. Multiple grammatical errors.
Texan.
Having read about the Space X booster landing, I remain skeptical of the cost benefit, especially since for this particular mode of recovery, a substantial sacrifice in payload weight must be made. They said they launched 11 satellites, but they never said what the payload weight to orbit was, in the articles I read.
It would seem to me that the STS method of parachute recovery would remain the best bet, but of course just locating and recovering the booster at sea remains an expensive propostion. But what does that tell you? It tells me that all imagined benefits are marginal, and it would be wiser to reduce the per unit cost of the booster, and turn them out like hot cakes.
I didn’t read the whole thing because it was too painful to try to get through.
From what I have previously read about Space X, they intend to have every stage including the payload capsule return back to a landing area under it's own power. Every component will be recovered for reuse, except for fuel. They are intending to build ever larger delivery vehicles that can send 100 persons at one time, and return it to a landing area, similar to that of a commercial aircraft. Can you imagine the cost of an airplane ticket cross-country if the airplane was only used once? It's all about getting the cost way down.
But at what cost? It's a paradox, a conundrum.
No, it's a dilemma.
You can design the vehicle so that most or every stage is capable of being recovered and (after extensive refurbishment) re-used, but that has two costs: a) such a vehicle wouldn't be able to carry as much payload; b) refurbishment is expensive.
The alternative (which was the paradigm up to the Space Shuttle) is to re-use nothing, thus maximizing the amount of payload you can orbit per unit of fuel.
I'm betting that the answer is to be found in a variant of "a)": Constructing hybrid vehicles with a first stage consisting of a piloted horizontally-launched aircraft (eventually hypersonic) which can lob a more rocket-like second stage into orbit before returning to land on an airstrip.
This is the strategy currently being pursued by Orbital ATK.
Regards,
Can't see it! Apollo was the ultimate, not to be equalled in this epoch. I would say that I hope I'm wrong, but I can't even get that far.
"It has a stark beauty all its own." Let us be content with that.
They have increased the size of the booster to compensate. They have to pay extra for extra fuel for their larger booster, but paying an extra two hundred thousand in fuel in order to recover a 50 million dollar first stage is worth it.
It would seem to me that the STS method of parachute recovery would remain the best bet,
Spacex aready tried parachute recovery and finally rejected it. Ocean recovery was used by the space shuttle program and refurbishing the solid rocket boosters corroded by salt water cost as much as making new ones.
Equipment designed in the early 1960’s, mostly using a sliderule and a drafting table, is “the ultimate”?
Can't see it! Apollo was the ultimate, not to be equalled in this epoch. I would say that I hope I'm wrong, but I can't even get that far.
As I said, this is the strategy currently being pursued by Orbital ATK. To be honest, I don't know whether Orbital ATK is actually turning a profit on it (though the company has other activities and is, as a whole, profitable), but it is a more-economical means of lobbing satellites into orbit than using Saturn rockets.
Regards,
Onboard cam of the reentry burn, and landing (a little iced up on the lens)
http://www.space.com/26609-spacex-falcon-9-1st-stage-landing-captured-by-on-board-cam-video.html
SpaceX says Falcon 9 rocket is undamaged after historic landing
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/220276-spacex-says-falcon-9-rocket-is-undamaged-after-historic-landing
What’s Ahead for Recovered SpaceX Falcon 9 Booster?
http://www.universetoday.com/126486/whats-ahead-for-recovered-spacex-falcon-9/
Thanks for the update. Great news!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.