Posted on 10/02/2011 8:06:59 AM PDT by Dagnabitt
Can’t say much for the music.
Where is all the fuel to come from?
Guess they’re just going to use more fuel / less payload. Musk claims this works on paper.
Will be interesting to see how it goes with the Grasshopper test vehicle.
Nice concept - but really can we colonize the moon or something like that rather than build tubes that circle the earth.
I least there may be a payout with minerals etc.
Nice concept - but really can we colonize the moon or something like that rather than build tubes that circle the earth.
I least there may be a payout with minerals etc.
a good parafoil is substantially lighter than a bunch of fuel and far less dangerous.
I saw the video too, Musk said the first stage doesn’t need wings to make a controlled re-entry. All the older designs envisioned a winged flyback booster with a crew. But it just doesn’t seem realistic. The first stage booster would have to be so much heavier. And how much heat would it have to take on re-entry? And the fuel necessary to make a controlled return vis a vis the amount necessary to launch the payload?
Musk says it works on paper but I help but think I’m looking at the Sanger antipodal bomber.
Here’s another SpaceX video along the same lines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p6EruPdoXY
I read the other report about it, still laughing about the coming down and landing up right. LOL. Love thinking in the bucket.
How did Apollo land on the moon?
Interesting point...
It's a classic problem in system dynamics text books. Including mine which I bought around 1970. :) Doesn't really matter if the thing is going up, or going down. More precision required at landing of course but not in the tilt component. Hardly beyond the state of the art.
As for the fuel, the thing will be a lot lighter coming back, and it only needs to put out as much thrust as it's weight, which is constantly decreasing as it descends. Still whatever fuel it takes has to be lifted with everything else. It's conceivable that might be lighter on average than a winged flyback booster, fuel and all.
When they pull if off let me know.
They already have, at least the low level part. Lots of times, including the lunar lander trainer.. which did have some "issues".
Like a JDAM does it...
I see all that obsession with a vertical landing, from various companies (Space X, Blue Origin, and Armadillo). Is that the holy grail? Just seems so much easier to stuff the damn things with parachutes, and then retrieve the things from the ocean. Refuel/reuse. I admit I have not looked into the whole flight envelopes proposed, so maybe I am just not seeing things correctly...
I’m not sure why the parachutes and ocean landings are not desirable. I suppose having a rocket engine full of seawater isn’t the best thing. Also parachutes and their deployment systems have weight. And I guess there may be more transportation costs too with recovering stuff from the sea and bringing it back to the launch area.
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.