Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SpaceX says 'reusable rocket' could help colonize Mars
breitbart ^ | Sep 29 03:13 PM US/Eastern

Posted on 09/29/2011 2:08:01 PM PDT by BenLurkin

The US company SpaceX is working on the first-ever reusable rocket to launch to space and back, with the goal of one day helping humans colonize Mars, founder Elon Musk said Thursday.

The vehicle would be a reusable version of the Falcon 9 rocket which SpaceX used to propel its Dragon space capsule to low Earth-orbit on a test mission last year. Its first cargo trip to the International Space Station is set for January.

Currently, a Falcon rocket costs between 50-60 million dollars to build and launch, with fuel and oxygen costs making up just 200,000 dollars. Then, it is lost forever as it burns up on re-entry into Earth's atmosphere.

The rocket would take off as normal, then separate into its upper and lower stages. The column-like lower portion would make its way back to Earth and hover back down to land upright, in the same position from which it took off.

No wings are needed to steer it back to launch pad, he said.

In the near term, the technology could be used to launch satellites and take cargo and crew to the ISS, which is presently serviced only by Russia since the US space shuttle fleet retired in July.

The effort to build a reusable rocket "is a parallel effort... it is not impacting our sending of cargo to the space station," Musk said.

In fact, it would be just about ready to go except for the fact that SpaceX and NASA agree it needs to have some sort of way for its occupants to eject in case something goes wrong.

So a project to build escape thrusters into the sidewalls of the spacecraft is expected to take two to three years, Musk said. After that, the Reusable Falcon 9 rocket may be ready.....

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Astronomy; Science; Travel
KEYWORDS: mars; spacex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last
To: hopespringseternal

I don’t know. This thing is going to separate at altitude tens of miles away from the pad and it’s going to slow down, halt it’s forward trajectory, fly back and then do a soft touchdown? That’s going to take more than a few seconds of fuel.


21 posted on 10/01/2011 3:47:06 PM PDT by hattend (If I wanted you dead, you'd be dead. - Cameron Connor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

bflr


22 posted on 10/01/2011 3:47:35 PM PDT by Captain Beyond (The Hammer of the gods! (Just a cool line from a Led Zep song))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; All

LOL.. He maybe a nut, but he is smart..


23 posted on 10/01/2011 4:10:33 PM PDT by KevinDavis (What has Ron Paul done in Congress??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: hattend

It doesn’t have to “fly” all the way back — it can simply fall most of the way. It only needs enough fuel to slow it from terminal velocity to landing speed. Keep in mind that the shuttle only needed 8 minutes (480 seconds) to go from zero to 18,000 mph. When landing it will essentially be a giant, (nearly) empty fuel tank.


24 posted on 10/01/2011 6:18:14 PM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal

When a rocket launches it doesn’t go straight up, it begins a trajectory downrange almost as soon as it clears the tower. When this lower section gets jettisoned to return it will be miles out over the ocean heading away from the pad.

It’ll have to turn around, fly (fall) back to the coast and then do a controlled landing.

Good Luck but seems a waste of payload.


25 posted on 10/01/2011 6:32:04 PM PDT by hattend (If I wanted you dead, you'd be dead. - Cameron Connor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: hattend
You launch expendables out over the ocean because its a good place for them to fall. Reusables would probably be launched over land. Then you truck them back up range.

Wings wouldn't let you glide back either, not after you got very far down range. And you would use just as much fuel carrying them up.

26 posted on 10/01/2011 7:02:51 PM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal

Guess we will agree to disagree.


27 posted on 10/01/2011 7:46:29 PM PDT by hattend (If I wanted you dead, you'd be dead. - Cameron Connor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
Forgot to add this:

The column-like lower portion would make its way back to Earth and hover back down to land upright, in the same position from which it took off.

No truck mentioned

28 posted on 10/01/2011 7:48:01 PM PDT by hattend (If I wanted you dead, you'd be dead. - Cameron Connor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: hattend

position or location?


29 posted on 10/02/2011 5:25:10 PM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal

You got me...

What does the video show? It’s too big to watch in my primitive location.


30 posted on 10/02/2011 5:29:48 PM PDT by hattend (If I wanted you dead, you'd be dead. - Cameron Connor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson