Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Technology

SpaceX To Try a First Stage Recovery Again On April 13 78

Posted by Soulskill from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed dept.
schwit1 writes: In its next launch on Monday, SpaceX will once again try to safely land its first stage on an ocean barge, allowing the reuse of that stage in later flights. "Following first stage separation, thrusters flip the rocket so the engines are pointing in the direction of travel. First, there’s a boostback burn to refine the rocket’s trajectory, causing the rocket to fly through its own exhaust (the space shuttle's risky Return-to-Launch-Site abort scenario relied on a similar maneuver). While the vehicle is still traveling faster than the speed of sound, four grid fins deploy, steering the rocket as it plummets toward the ocean. An entry burn slows the rocket further, and landing legs unfold. A final engine burn settles the Falcon onto [the barge]." Monday afternoon is certainly going to be an exciting day for space cadets. First, at 4 pm (Eastern) the head of ULA will reveal the design of the company's new rocket. Then, at 4:33 pm (Eastern), SpaceX will launch Dragon to ISS while attempting to return the first stage safely.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SpaceX To Try a First Stage Recovery Again On April 13 More

SpaceX To Try a First Stage Recovery Again On April 13

Comments Filter:

  • First, at 4 pm (Eastern) the head of ULA will reveal the design of the company's new rocket

    What, the Ulster Liberation Army [wikia.com] is doing rockets now? ;-)

  • That's so cool!

  • ULA sux (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Scottingham ( 2036128 ) on Friday April 10, 2015 @02:15PM (#49448809)

    "America’s #1 space launch provider, United Launch Alliance (ULA), is asking America to help name its next rocket, calling on citizens to play a role in the future of space launch by voting for the name of the new rocket that will be responsible for the majority of the nation’s future space launches.

    For the next two weeks, the public can vote for its favorite rocket name – Eagle, Freedom or GalaxyOne – "

    Pander much? I am curious to see what it has and if it's in the same decade of development as the Falcon series. My bet is on soviet rehash.

    • Re:ULA sux (Score:4, Funny)

      by garyisabusyguy ( 732330 ) on Friday April 10, 2015 @02:21PM (#49448855)

      GalaxyOne seems a bit presumptuous and I am pretty sure that Eagle was landed on the Moon... Freedom???

      Maybe we can do a write-in, I vote for MickeyCyclops, no particular reason, just think that it has a nice ring to it

    • Can we name it something nasty to align with the way ULA tries to turn space launches into a monopoly and shut out competitors that are tiny in comparison?

      • In order for our proposed name to stick, we need to pick one that is both obviously insulting when viewed by those who agree with us and also seemingly-acceptable and even positive-sounding when viewed by those who love ULA.

        My proposals are:
        * Gold Standard
        * Spruce
        * Exorbital (Exorbitant + Orbital)

        You all have got to be able to do better than that. Come on, float your own names...

        --Jaborandy

        • ULA. We seamlessly blend the consistency of Russian engine manufacturing with the speed of American engineering and the cost effectiveness of a government contractor. What could possibly go wrong?

      • SpaceX might as well call themselves "Apollo" given that they've gone back that far.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Yes, I'm responding to a troll.
          That comparison is unfair, and is clearly just based on external appearances. SpaceX's Falcon 9 has better payload mass percentage, failure survivability, telemetry, reusability, engine throttle/direction controls, and of course cost per flight, than Apollo. The fact that Falcon 9 is a big tower with multiple liquid-fueled engines just means Apollo engineers weren't idiots and the overall design is still viable. The Falcon Heavy, which offers a closer comparison to th

        • I am guessing that you are calling Dragon Apollo, and not comparing F9/FH to Saturn.
          So, when did Apollo Capsule ever land on land without parachutes?
          When did Apollo Capsule every land on the moon or mars?
          Dragon V2 will be doing all 3 within another 7 years.
    • Battlestar

    • ...calling on citizens to play a role in the future of space launch by voting for the name of the new rocket that will be responsible for the majority of the nation’s future space launches.

      Not just pandering, but rather arrogantly optimistic, aren't they. Considering their competition is 1/10th the price and will shortly have identical certifications to bid on government contracts...

      And considering the Senate Launch System, we should just rewrite it for them: "...the new rocket that will be responsible for not a single one of the nation's future space launches."

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This is most likely the collaboration with Blue Origin using the BE-4 methane engine. If they can pull it off, it would actually be a significant step forward in rocket engine tech, although I'm skeptical that they'll be ready to go by 2019. Nominally, they've made some hand-wavy statements about making the booster reusable, but they have a lot of ground to cover to catch up with SpaceX.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BE-4

      The wikipedia article mentions that they're working on a traditional, no-ground-broken A

  • Really Big Deal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Friday April 10, 2015 @02:26PM (#49448909) Homepage Journal

    If ULA has the slightest bit of sense they will announce on Monday that they are pursuing re-usability. But the last I heard was that they would pursue cheaper disposable elements.

    If SpaceX actually lands on the barge and flies the first stage to orbit again it's a really big deal, because it radically changes the economics of getting to space. No matter what the payload is for this demonstration. I don't know if they would get that far with this first stage, but no doubt with a later one.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by idji ( 984038 )
      I don't believe this one will fly again. If they land successfully, I am sure they would dismantle it to pieces to discover any fatigue points. NASA probably wouldn't let them fly it again without proving it's integrity.

      • Re:Really Big Deal (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10, 2015 @03:03PM (#49449189)

        They have stated that it will go to the factory for non-destructive inspection and then to Spaceport America for further test flights (without payloads, only sub-orbital).

        They are already negotiating a sale of first flight of re-used booster, but that is still some way off (and I guess they won't close that deal until they, well, actually recover a stage or two first)

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Actually, more recent and more detailed information is that the first recovered first stage will be sent to Spaceport America for further test flights. (Basically, see how much you can re-fly it before it becomes... more exciting.) The second recovered first stage will be used for qualification testing (likely including destructive testing).

          So, that leaves us with the third and on available at a nice first-mover discount.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DanDD ( 1857066 )

        NASA doesn't control what SpaceX flies, unless NASA owns the cargo. SpaceX can re-fly whatever they want, as long as their customer (assuming there is one) is willing to accept the risk.

        It would be very amusing if the recovered first stage were brought back to Texas and used to chase around and herd cattle.

        With that said, I don't think SpaceX is here to amuse anyone. The graft and collusion between ULA and the USAF might have irritated SpaceX into being slightly more productively aggressive.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Not quite, the FAA [ecfr.gov] might have a few concerns...

    • If SpaceX actually lands on the barge and flies the first stage to orbit again it's a really big deal, because it radically changes the economics of getting to space.

      *Sigh* I really shouldn't have to explain this again, but you're counting the chickens before the eggs have hatched.

      Much depends on how much it costs to refurbish the vehicle and how many additional flights it makes. These are both huge, huge known unknowns - and there's the non trivial possibility of significant unknown unknowns eme

      • Well, there are a lot of unknowns at this point, but I've heard Musk has claimed that the first stage is responsible for 3/4 of the cost of the launch. Let's then make a probably gross overestimate (after it becomes the norm at least) and assume that it costs half as much to refit as it would to build a new first stage. In that relatively ugly case, subsequent launches will cost 75%*50% (refit first stage) + 25%(2nd stage) = 62.5% as much as the first. Even if they only get a single re-use that reduces t

        • Well, there are a lot of unknowns at this point, but I've heard Musk has claimed that the first stage is responsible for 3/4 of the cost of the launch.

          [Much piffle and handwaving deleted]

          Thank you Captain Obvious.

          Now, try actually adressing what I posted rather than simply serving up the kool-aide.

          Granted the limited reuse of the Shuttle launch system was almost as expensive as building a fresh one

          Not in your wildest dreams. A Shuttle launch cost (out of pocket) between 100 and 250

          • Re:Really Big Deal (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Friday April 10, 2015 @06:18PM (#49450387) Homepage Journal

            Please come down from whatever overheated state you're running. He did address what you wrote.

            Yes, there can be unknowns. Fixing that sort of stuff is how we got from the Wright Flier to the 747.

            What I don't think is likely is that the first stage will come down and they will find out sorry, there's space-rot we didn't know about before and reusability just isn't a possibility. Especially after lots of experience with the Space Shuttle.

          • You're going to have to do better than that to bait me into a non-discussion. And I did not address the cost of the Shuttle itself, I would consider that to be primarily payload/orbital vehicle, which is not relevant to comparisons with the Falcon. I addressed the Shuttle launch system, the resusable portions which was basically a bit of rocket attached to the shuttle itself, and some of the fuel tanks.

          • Actually, it costs 125 million JUST FOR EACH SRB.
            The last just launch costs of the shuttle was over .5B, which did not include the checks and re-work that was needed after each flight (which was NOT minor), nor the fixed costs. With fixed costs, along with the prep works, each shuttle was over 1.5B.
      • Derek, it is NOT unknown as to what it will cost them to refurbish. As it is, SpaceX has been re-flying first stage for a long time already. It is called the grasshopper. The reason why it took so long between flights is that they were looking at various parts, disassembling, etc.

        Note that when Musk talked about landing with parachutes he had not tested anything. With this, he has tested ALL OF IT, except for the fact that he has not gone to 60 miles on each of the grasshoppers. With SpacePort America, he

    • If SpaceX actually lands on the barge and flies the first stage to orbit again it's a really big deal, because it radically changes the economics of getting to space.

      Only if it can be done reliably and economically with meaningful payloads --- and that has yet to be proven.

    • More than that, imagine if they successfully land the second stage on Monday. That will completely overshadow any news announcement from the United Leftovers Alliance, especially if their rocket is technologically inferior. They will be a laughing stock and it will be glorious.

      • Don't worry, I'm sure... steps... have been taken to ensure that the attempt is a spectacular failure. You don't gamble on having your PR overshadowed by some young upstart - not with government contracts on the line. /sarcasm (I hope...)

        Hmm, though now I am curious about the timing - if SpaceX decided to do the launch that day after ULA already made their pre-announcement it could well be a transparent attempt to overshadow the competition - SpaceX has much to gain by attempting such a PR maneuver, and es

      • If they do that, they've been holding back more work than I think they can. Only the first stage can be landed at present. The second stage would need a heat shield to come back.

        • In fact, Musk has said numerous times that it is not worth going after the second stage, at least at this time.
          He is focused on F9R/Grasshopper, FH, Dragon V2, MCT, along with the new satellite system.

          I have to wonder what would happen if a launch fails at this moment. I suspect that with so many pokers in the fire, he would have a difficult time recovering.
          OTOH, if SpaceX can get up to 12 launches this year, and get FH, along with F9R successful, I suspect that it is all blue sky from here on in.

          N

          • A Falcon 9 launch will fail. This is a given in rocket science. Remember the history of Falcon 1. They have planned to survive such a situation.

            • F1 ALMOST killed SpaceX. Musk has talked about how SpaceX and Tesla almost died in the same timeframes.

              And as I said, what will happen IFF he has a failure AT THIS MOMENT? Look, in a year's time, if he has a major failure, I think that SpaceX will be OK. However, at this moment, if one of the F9's blow, then I think that it could set back their work quite a bit.

              I will say that with their design, I do not think that they will lose an F9. They have it loaded with sensors and we have already seen that los

              • I think it would actually have gone much harder for SpaceX if a F9 had exploded before Antares. Orbital is not going anywhere and will get another chance to send their payload to the Space Station. The investors in SpaceX aren't going to be flighty, and neither Air Force nor NASA are going to close the game because of an explosion, given their history.

                ULA doesn't have much chance to use an explosion to their benefit without dredging up the status of their Russian engines, the multiple Delta explosions and t

    • ULA has multiple projects going on. That includes they are working on developing re-use, which includes landing the first stage.
      Bruno's ideal goal is to not change things, but he is keeping options open on the future. Interestingly, he is working hard to CLOSE the use of delta since Atlas makes more profits for them. Of course, he is fighting for the 1B/year subsidy as well. Hopefully, that is stopped, and ULA is forced to simply go with delta until their new launch system is developed. That will encourage

  • Succeed or fail, each of these attempts promises to produce some pretty spectacular video... the last rocket/barge incursion produced an explosion that even Michael Bay can't top.

    • Jokes aside, it was probably good that they got a crash landing on the barge that early, because it illustrated how badly some people were exaggerating the dangers involved. The rocket was almost completely empty of fuel, and while it made a big fireball and smeared the rocket itself across the deck of the barge, it caused very little damage. The detractors of bringing the first stage back to land would have you think it'd be more like the last Antares launch: https://lh6.googleusercontent.... [googleusercontent.com]

  • Instead of trying to use Apollo-era designs, how about using something that is designed specifically to fly itself down? The Shuttle and DreamChaser addressed this problem quite well. Piloting a can doesn't work too well when you're going downwards.

    When sanity prevails and Shuttle-like designs come back, perhaps space travel will improve. Until then, it's 1960's rehashes all around.

    • The Shuttle and DreamChaser addressed this problem quite well.

      Did you forget the solid rocket boosters and the huge fuel tank on the Shuttle that does not fly itself down? The SRB casing and engines were reused but only after extensive and expensive rebuilds. The Dreamchaser gets launched on top of a huge rocket [sncspace.com]. A better comparison would be between the Shuttle, Dreamchaser and Dragon module. All 3 still use much bigger rockets to get to orbit.

    • Why pilot a landing vehicle when you can splash down? We already have reusable capsules, that part of the cost equation is fine. It's the rockets that we need to figure out ways to land and which cost so much, not the orbiting crew capsules.

      • Why splash down when you've got the tech to land? Especially when, if you want to get off of this rock, there is no other place to splash down in.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by itzly ( 3699663 )

        I don't think splashing down a first stage is a good idea. The impact on the water is going to be quite rough for a thin empty tube. And if you have the tech to splash down softly, you might as well land on land/barge and not deal with the salt water getting everywhere. Things are different for a capsule, which is much smaller and sturdier.

    • Why fly like an airplane when your mission is only to get to the ground in a soft landing? It makes the spacecraft more complicated. And it's no bargain if you have an airplane-like craft with no go-around capability like the Space Shuttle.

      No building have room for elevators if they needed runways.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by bledri ( 1283728 )

      Instead of trying to use Apollo-era designs, how about using something that is designed specifically to fly itself down? The Shuttle and DreamChaser addressed this problem quite well. Piloting a can doesn't work too well when you're going downwards.

      When sanity prevails and Shuttle-like designs come back, perhaps space travel will improve. Until then, it's 1960's rehashes all around.

      No production first stage has every landed propulsively, so they are not going backward to something that was done before. The Shuttle was more "refurbished" then reused. The main fuel tank was discarded. The booster cases were fished out of the water (how modern) and basically rebuilt. The main engines were removed after each flight and rebuilt. The tiles painstakingly inspected and repaired. It was a technological marvel but a financial disaster. The Dream Chaser is just the payload, not launch syst

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bledri ( 1283728 )
        I wish Slashdot had an edit capability. It could keep back links to older versions for context to responses. But I just reread this and it's too cranky. Sure, I should have fixed that before I hit submit, but this being human thing seems to be an error prone endeavor.
      • actually, skylon is too late to the party. The reason is that the FASTEST that it will be available would be another 10 years, or 2025. By then, MCT will be flying regularly.
        OTOH, Dream Chaser, combined with a reusable lift vehicle, does make sense for simple human transport.
    • Your approach did NOT work for us. That is why we lost 2 shuttles and it was so expensive.
      I will say that SNC's DC makes good sense for transporting humans to/from earth's surface (lower Gs), but for cargo? Nope.
      However, the real drawback is that not only must you take up extra weight for wings, landing gears, etc., but these will not work on the moon or mars and Musk wants this to work on all of these locations. And in the end, as musk is showing, these can land just fine on Earth. In addition, it can d

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by phayes ( 202222 )

      Because side-stacking has been proven to be an inherently dangerous technology?
      Because the shuttle launch-refurb-refurb-refurb-refurb-refurb-refurb-launch cycle has been proven to be extremely costly?
      Because the cross-range capability that wings add has zero utility and even the AF which forced it's adoption on the shuttle doesn't want it anymore, other than for two x vehicles that they have launched a grand total of twice?
      Because the shuttle was only 1970's tech and only somewhat viable at great effort

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by khallow ( 566160 )

      Instead of trying to use Apollo-era designs, how about using something that is designed specifically to fly itself down?

      Because Apollo-era designs are best approach for the current flight rate of the Falcon 9. And while SpaceX eventually expects the flight rate to get up to the point where reusable vehicles work, they can and did do so by upgrading a current, working vehicle rather than designing a new. more complex one from scratch.

  • It's kind of far, I know, but it would still be cool to see.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by 0123456 ( 636235 )

      Maybe.

      I watched a Delta launch from a bar in Orlando once, but that had SRBs. In day launches, the shuttle would disappear pretty quickly after SRB separation--at night you could often see it until it was pretty close to the horizon--but I'm not sure how much smoke, if any, the Falcon engines may produce to give you a trail to follow.

  • I am admittedly a fan of SpaceX. But ULA does employ smart people too and I'm really curious what they will propose. While I hope SpaceX is successful and I think they will eventually work through any issues, it's good to have people exploring different approaches and possibilities. I'm assuming it will be a less expensive (than Atlas V), methane powered (via Blue Origin engines), expendable rocket leveraging modern production techniques. But the question is "how low can they go" price wise.
    • The only way for ULA to drop their prices is to move away from EELVs to reusable. The good news is that Bruno is pushing EELVs but leaving backdoors for otherwise. ULA is quietly working on developing the same tech as SpaceX.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close