SpaceX SpaceX: First stage landed Satellites in orbit

[mheslep]

Based on the experience of space shuttles, recovering the first stage doesn't mean the cost of the first stage is gone...

Not gone, but in the same cost model as commercial aircraft as opposed to one and done.

 

[HyperTechno]

A really great and successful attempt. This will benefit the future space explorations. Less space pollution and less wastage of materials and money!

 

[LURCH]

It's my understanding that the real savings here is not the reuse of the stage (by witch I mean that the stage was going going to be reused in any case). The big cost reduction is the fact that they don't have to go out to sea in a ship to retrieve it.

Don't know how much that cost, but I know it isn't cheap.

 

[mfb]

A really great and successful attempt. This will benefit the future space explorations. Less space pollution and less wastage of materials and money!

More junk in space, at least in the short run. First stages don't stay in space with any current rocket, so returning them does not help in that point. Cheaper launches mean more launches means more stuff in space.

It's my understanding that the real savings here is not the reuse of the stage (by witch I mean that the stage was going going to be reused in any case). The big cost reduction is the fact that they don't have to go out to sea in a ship to retrieve it.

No, the cost reduction is the actual re-use of the first stage (which is not demonstrated yet, but I hope we'll see it in the near future). Collecting waste (if done at all) would be cheap.

 

[LURCH]

Yes, I understand that reusable rockets are a big cost-savings, but this is far from being the first reusable rocket. Reusable rockets have been around a long time. What makes this rocket different is that it doesn't have to be fished out of the ocean. I'm just wondering if the cost of extra fuel to make the first stage come back and land is really going to end up being a significant savings, bearing in mind that the stage would be reusable whether it lands near the launch pad or in the ocean. And wether that savings will be immediate, or will it come in the form of bigger up-front costs that will be regained over time?

 

[mfb]

What makes this rocket different is that it doesn't have to be fished out of the ocean.

The Shuttle boosters needed months of "repair" - a bit cheaper than starting from scratch, but far away from what SpaceX wants to do: launch, land, and be ready launch again possibly within hours (currently weeks would be sufficient, fuller launch schedules can change that).

The size of the rocket is fixed for Falcon 9. If the payload mass allows it, they will continue to land on land, it has a higher success rate and saves some trouble with the drone ship. If the payload is too heavy, the drone ship is an option.

 

[HyperTechno]

launch, land, and be ready launch again possibly within hours (currently weeks would be sufficient, fuller launch schedules can change that).

Why don't they attempt some big Space shuttles that are capable of taking most of the things like supplies, satellites to space. NASA retired the space shuttles and I've heard that they did that because of the Colombia disaster... . But anyway, I think attempting a new shuttle project will help to lower the addition of Space Junk and also will save the cost...
Because although the rocket boosters come back, still some items are left in the space in the modern Rockets.
Whatever the problems with the former shuttles, I think the modern technology can come over them to make much safer and effective Space Shuttles.

 

[mfb]

The space shuttle was designed to lower costs, but various technical and management issues made it much more expensive than planned. The Columbia disaster contributed to the retirement, but it was never a cheap system.
The Falcon Heavy will have about twice the payload mass of the Space Shuttles.

Because although the rocket boosters come back, still some items are left in the space in the modern Rockets.

That is not different for SpaceX. Cheaper access to space can make special debris collection satellites more interesting.

 

[cjl]

Why don't they attempt some big Space shuttles that are capable of taking most of the things like supplies, satellites to space. NASA retired the space shuttles and I've heard that they did that because of the Colombia disaster... . But anyway, I think attempting a new shuttle project will help to lower the addition of Space Junk and also will save the cost...
Because although the rocket boosters come back, still some items are left in the space in the modern Rockets.
Whatever the problems with the former shuttles, I think the modern technology can come over them to make much safer and effective Space Shuttles.

Because wings are large, heavy objects that have to be strengthened, heat-shielded, and carried along for the entire flight, even though they are only useful during the last 5 minutes. A shuttle looks really nice on the back of a napkin, but in practice, at least with current achievable payload mass fractions, you end up wasting a huge amount of fuel and effort carrying around something that's much heavier than needed.

 

[mheslep]

wings are large, heavy objects that have to be strengthened, heat-shielded, and carried along for the entire flight, even though they are only useful during the last 5 minutes.

True of the Shuttle wings but perhaps it need not be so. Some cruise missiles deploy wings in flight and most (all?) carrier air craft have fold-able wings. Stowed wings need not be heat shielded nor withstand high mach numbers nor drag the vehicle air frame on ascent, so weight comes down.

http://enu.kz/repository/2009/AIAA-2009-1291.pdf

While the Falcon Heavy and other vehicles will no doubt replace the shuttle's lift capacity, nothing yet comes close to the Shuttle's capacity for returning heavy payload to the surface: seven astronauts and all of their life support which can be reused, plus a few satellites in the trunk.

 

[mfb]

The unmanned Dragon can return 3 tons of payload, the planned Dragon 2 will have a similar capacity and can carry up to 7 astronauts up and down (not sure if they are included in the payload mass). Most things don't need to get back to Earth in a controlled way, mainly humans and a few experiment samples, and the Dragon is supposed to be re-usable as well.

Stowed wings need not be heat shielded nor withstand high mach numbers nor drag the vehicle air frame on ascent, so weight comes down.

An additional stowing system adds mass - you still need the wings with their structural integrity to survive re-entry, but now they also have to be retractable for the launch.

 

[mheslep]

...

An additional stowing system adds mass - you still need the wings with their structural integrity to survive re-entry, but now they also have to be retractable for the launch.

I'm thinking wings deploy at 20 to 30 thousand feet on descent. Before that a shuttle shape with no wings does rentry, with wings stowed in an area not exposed to hot gasses, like the top of the shuttle.

 

[mheslep]

The unmanned Dragon can return 3 tons of payload, the planned Dragon 2 will have a similar capacity and can carry up to 7 astronauts up and down (not sure if they are included in the payload mass). Most things don't need to get back to Earth in a controlled way, mainly humans and a few experiment samples, and the Dragon is supposed to be re-usable as well.
.

Shuttle payload return was 14 tons per wiki.

 

[HyperTechno]

nothing yet comes close to the Shuttle's capacity for returning heavy payload to the surface

Yep I agree with you. that was the greatest advantage of shuttles that you can not only send but also return payloads... and the dragon can't handle such an amount of load...
Space shuttles were problematic and were more expensive than traditional Rockets but yet advantageous in some ways...
What I think is it's better to develop a less expensive and effective shuttle project with the modern technology and I guess that's something the modern technology can do...
as with all the shuttle missions the profs and cons of shuttles are well known and what is needed is to come over the cons and develop the profs and I know it's not easy as saying but will worth giving it a try...

 

[HyperTechno]

Just an idea... What about making a shuttle(like thing) without wings and using parachutes in stages to slow it down...(in a way that it stays horizontally in landing)
Landing...mmmmmm... to ocean?. { a safe landing like the returning module of Rockets}

To make it lite

 

[mfb]

Just an idea... What about making a shuttle(like thing) without wings and using parachutes in stages to slow it down...(in a way that it stays horizontally in landing)
Landing...mmmmmm... to ocean?. { a safe landing like the returning module of Rockets}

To make it lite

That's the Dragon capsule approach. But with the additional feature of landing on land.

Shuttle payload return was 14 tons per wiki.

And what was used? Also per Wiki:

The orbiter also recovered satellites and other payloads (e.g., from the ISS) from orbit and returned them to Earth, though its use in this capacity was rare.

 

[cjl]

While the Falcon Heavy and other vehicles will no doubt replace the shuttle's lift capacity, nothing yet comes close to the Shuttle's capacity for returning heavy payload to the surface: seven astronauts and all of their life support which can be reused, plus a few satellites in the trunk.

True, but I don't really consider payload return capability to be terribly important. Look at how often we actually brought something back compared to how often the shuttle was flown - it simply was never a capability that proved particularly useful.

 

[Monsterboy]

True, but I don't really consider payload return capability to be terribly important. Look at how often we actually brought something back compared to how often the shuttle was flown - it simply was never a capability that proved particularly useful.

It will turn out to be useful for long duration manned spaceflights right ? considering that one the main long term goals of SpaceX is to take people to Mars and back.

 

[mfb]

Why? You have to take the crew back - the Dragon V2 can do that. You probably want to return some samples with a manned mission to mars, but a few tons of payload should be more than sufficient for that. Getting the stuff from Mars surface to Earth orbit is the limiting factor, not getting it down to the surface.

 

[HyperTechno]

That's the Dragon capsule approach. But with the additional feature of landing on land.

Well I know that Dragon Capsule has the ability to land on land...
But is it big enough , to do everything the old shuttle could do?

 

[mfb]

It cannot do some thing the old shuttle could (getting heavy/large things back to Earth), but those things are not needed anyway.

 

[mrspeedybob]

I haven't seen any discussion about an obvious application of this technology for a Mars mission. That being, some sort of large rocket will be needed, on Mars, to get our people off of Mars and on their way home. The ability to land a large rocket in a condition which is almost immediately re-usable seems like a prerequisite accomplishment for the Mars mission.
How much of the technology developed to land the first stage of the Falcon form sub-orbital altitude and velocity on Earth, will be applicable to landing a complete, and fully fueled, and ready to use rocket on Mars from Martian orbit?

 

[cjl]

It will turn out to be useful for long duration manned spaceflights right ? considering that one the main long term goals of SpaceX is to take people to Mars and back.

In what way would that be needed for long duration spaceflight? I don't really see why you would need to bring back anything more than just the people and maybe a few samples or something, and a capsule works fine for that.

 

[mheslep]

And what was used? Also per Wiki:

True, but I don't really consider payload return capability to be terribly important. Look at how often we actually brought something back compared to how often the shuttle was flown - it simply was never a capability that proved particularly useful.

Agreed. I think though that to a degree the ISS made that possible, reduced the need for a large return vehicle, as a long term in orbit staging and storage point with full habitation capability. If in the future the ISS was abandoned, then the Shuttle's heavy return and in orbit dwell time might prove tricky to break up into multiple packages and multiple Dragon launches.

 

[cjl]

Agreed. I think though that to a degree the ISS made that possible, reduced the need for a large return vehicle, as a long term in orbit staging and storage point with full habitation capability. If in the future the ISS was abandoned, then the Shuttle's heavy return and in orbit dwell time might prove tricky to break up into multiple packages and multiple Dragon launches.

I'm still not seeing what you're trying to say here - what, specifically, would need to be brought back down?

 

[enorbet]

Re: Travel to Mars - A great deal to do with the viability of a return capsule has to do with velocity affecting the duration of the return trip. While it is possible that 2 months might vaguely be doable with the right people, 6 months is very likely to be intolerable. It was only 7 months ago that SpaceX was certified for Category 2 launches by NASA and while the new agreement with USAF(preview here http://www.spacex.com/news/2015/01/23/united-states-and-spacex-agree-settlement ) shows excellent progress, it may be a year or more before SpaceX has scaled up for increased size and function as well as the track record to be certified for Category 3. I'm willing to bet that SpaceX in general and even Elon Musk personally are keeping an eye on developments in many areas such as VASIMR to improve transit time and alter requirements to a more comfortable standing.

This is an important step and while huge in it's accomplishment in and of itself it is just one of many small steps that must be taken in order to make deep space travel both reasonably safe and relatively inexpensive. Patience, Padawan :)

 

[mheslep]

I'm still not seeing what you're trying to say here - what, specifically, would need to be brought back down?

The ISS and Shuttle provide a lot of habitation capability, for long to very long term. Capsules not so much. So, for example, in a future with not ISS, no Shuttle, what to do with a crew in a capsule that's disabled for some reason and can't re-enter. Or, how does one accomplish a two week service mission on some orbital instrument like Kepler, requiring multiple EVAs in large maneuver packs and requiring some kind of capture (as with the Shuttle arm)?

 

[mheslep]

...keeping an eye on developments in many areas such as VASIMR

A manned Mars mission is probably doable with proven, current technology. On the other hand, VASIMR is nowhere close to feasible yet, so it means decades more waiting. Also, going to Mars on the slow road keeps open the possibility of an un-powered return loop in the case something goes wrong outbound. Going to Mars fast in the case of a loss of thrust power near Mars guarantees a tour of beyond Mars.

 

[HyperTechno]

It cannot do some thing the old shuttle could (getting heavy/large things back to Earth), but those things are not needed anyway.

hmmm. They'll build a better 1 when they need!

 

[HyperTechno]

I haven't seen any discussion about an obvious application of this technology for a Mars mission. That being, some sort of large rocket will be needed, on Mars, to get our people off of Mars and on their way home. The ability to land a large rocket in a condition which is almost immediately re-usable seems like a prerequisite accomplishment for the Mars mission.
How much of the technology developed to land the first stage of the Falcon form sub-orbital altitude and velocity on Earth, will be applicable to landing a complete, and fully fueled, and ready to use rocket on Mars from Martian orbit?

Well I have the same question. Can Some 1 answer this please?