Maiden SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket reusability test on Friday

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

9 years 11 months

Posts: 57

The SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket's fifth cargo resupply mission to ISS, which was rescheduled to Friday following a glitch in the second stage thrust vector control actuator on Tuesday, will represent the first in a series of similar tests that will ultimately deliver a fully reusable Falcon 9 rocket, thereby reducing launch costs.
http://www.aviationanalysis.net/2015/01/maiden-falcon9-reusability-test-friday.html

Original post

Member for

10 years 3 months

Posts: 102

This belongs to modern military aviation because?

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

This belongs to modern military aviation because?

Because the military does stuff in space?

The United Launch Alliance is caught in a “Beltway knife fight” with SpaceX for some of the most lucrative contracts at the Pentagon.

The alliance, which is made up of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, now has sole dominion over contracts with the Defense Department to launch military and spy satellites into space, as they are the only companies certified to provide the services.

But that could soon change.

SpaceX, a relatively new aerospace company founded by billionaire Elon Musk, argues that Boeing and Lockheed have engineered the system in their favor, and is demanding certification.

The financial stakes couldn’t be higher, as one of the projects contracted out to the Alliance — the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), used to send government satellites to the stars — is reportedly the fourth most expensive project at the Pentagon, with a price tag of around $70 billion through 2030.

The competition between the rival companies is becoming one of the biggest lobbying battles in all of Washington.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/209537-rivals-in-knife-fight-for-pentagon-cash

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

By that criteria all space news belongs in this subforum.

Nope

Member for

18 years 4 months

Posts: 639

Only question now is who is crazy enough to pay to launch their hundred million dollar satellite on slightly used motors....

I'm not sure there will be many takers given solid % of failures with brand new engines.

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

Only question now is who is crazy enough to pay to launch their hundred million dollar satellite on slightly used motors....

I'm not sure there will be many takers given solid % of failures with brand new engines.

There is no reason a rocket motor couldn't be engineered to be reusable... bringing them back has always been the hard part.

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

The landing is at 9:50.

Member for

14 years 8 months

Posts: 555

Success!

These guys just changed the world...

That's a bit strong! This isn't the first rocket stage to return for a soft landing, though it is the first from an actual orbital insertion.

Bear in mind that recovery won't be possible on every launch, only those on which the payload weight and orbital parameters are low enough to allow around 40 tonnes of fuel to be reserved. For missions where that is the case then the launch will indeed be cheaper. Otherwise, not really.

Member for

18 years 2 months

Posts: 2,814

Only question now is who is crazy enough to pay to launch their hundred million dollar satellite on slightly used motors....

I'm not sure there will be many takers given solid % of failures with brand new engines.

Th liquid-fuel rocket motors on the space shuttle has never had any major failures, almost a 100% success rate (better than Soyuz even). Those motors were certainly re-usable, and were reused.

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 4,619

How does this change the world? I think the video is bizarre.

By any given metric, this is a development which is interesting but not unique or even exciting unless you are paid by the company to make a lot of noise for a webcast that promotes the companies achievement.

Am I the only one who thinks putting stuff into orbit a bit cheaper is only interesting for the shareholders of the many and varied companies who are doing it?

Member for

11 years 1 month

Posts: 313

Bear in mind that recovery won't be possible on every launch, only those on which the payload weight and orbital parameters are low enough to allow around 40 tonnes of fuel to be reserved. For missions where that is the case then the launch will indeed be cheaper. Otherwise, not really.

Actually, if the heavier launches are done on first stages that have already been used once, a major cost has been reduced immediately as much of the stage has already been manufactured and paid for.

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

How does this change the world? I think the video is bizarre.

By any given metric, this is a development which is interesting but not unique or even exciting unless you are paid by the company to make a lot of noise for a webcast that promotes the companies achievement.

Am I the only one who thinks putting stuff into orbit a bit cheaper is only interesting for the shareholders of the many and varied companies who are doing it?

Yes, you aren't getting it. This will fundamentally change the cost equation for space. This isn't just about saving tens of millions of dollars per launch. Launch costs cascade through every part of a space program.

Cost per pound is very high, so exotic materials and weight saving measures are used. (making satellites far more expensive) Repair is impossible and replacement is expensive so redundancy, reliability, and longevity are huge concerns... which again drives up costs. If SpaceX can turn satellite launches, even just LEO launches, into routine deliveries, it will result in a proliferation of small cheap satellites of all types. Continuous coverage of the entire earth with internet/cell phone coverage, imaging/weather/scientific payloads... and for the purposes of this forum... weapons, military communications/datalinks, potentially even space based radar coverage.

Member for

14 years 2 months

Posts: 4,619

Hmm perhaps I am getting it.

Its something that should have been done a long time ago, and as such I am unimpressed. I have been reading about this sort of thing for the past 20 years and I think the main thing that has got up my nose is the 3 illiterate young types who are chatting away for the web audience to understand what is going on, and the ridiculous crowd in the background.

Its just me, its very nice and I hope more countries (as well as the USA) get in on the act.

Member for

12 years 7 months

Posts: 4,731

Yes, you aren't getting it. This will fundamentally change the cost equation for space. This isn't just about saving tens of millions of dollars per launch. Launch costs cascade through every part of a space program.

Cost per pound is very high, so exotic materials and weight saving measures are used. (making satellites far more expensive) Repair is impossible and replacement is expensive so redundancy, reliability, and longevity are huge concerns... which again drives up costs. If SpaceX can turn satellite launches, even just LEO launches, into routine deliveries, it will result in a proliferation of small cheap satellites of all types. Continuous coverage of the entire earth with internet/cell phone coverage, imaging/weather/scientific payloads... and for the purposes of this forum... weapons, military communications/datalinks, potentially even space based radar coverage.


you really think this is cheaper unless made in china.

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,905

The most direct military application that I can see in the re-usable primary stage demonstrated by Blue Origin and now SpaceX is ICBM dispersion.

Imagine a world under nuclear threat, on the verge of inter-state war. On enemy notice, US's ICBM's are launched en-masse in a suborbital trajectory and land back in a remote unpredictable regions of CONUS or somewhere in Pacific islands. That will be a major boost for a last second dramatic increase of the dissuasion effect. Now a nuclear adversary (China/Korea?) will have the US ICBMs positioned right under their armpits, dispersed, hiding most of them to enemy detection. The first strike threat would see its effect denied (given Elint and cyber spying conjugated with time of flight).

Now with the long legged family of launcher, the US have a threshold of capacities to put that vision in effect (the Atlas etc... are the most mastered technology ideally suited for such an adaptation). No need for example to manufacture short range ballistic missiles and bear the brunt of political rebuttal to counter Russia moving forward with its plan to position SRBM in Eu.

It will be in fact an application of the bomber strategy, a component of the triad, to ICBM. But will be the USAF willing to comply with such a move?

Please read the above only as a case study. Not a suggestion for any political furious debate. Just switch the words US with China or whatever if you feel more comfortable reading so.

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 6,983

not a chance, all nations will get nervous enuff to launch their counter the moment the screen is lit up,
more than anything cheaper lift will affect non-military users, such as science and commercial applications

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,905

not a chance, all nations will get nervous enuff to launch their counter the moment the screen is lit up,
more than anything cheaper lift will affect non-military users, such as science and commercial applications

Suborbital means that you have no reach*. hence it won't be a sign for a cold minded pear that this constitute a pre-emptive strike. You can also reposition them by batches, the increasing number constituting a formidable political sign.

On an average the maximum altitude (apogee) varied by orbital track that an ICBM reaches is approximately 750 miles. (source Quora.com via Google

Member for

11 years 7 months

Posts: 3,156

The most direct military application that I can see in the re-usable primary stage demonstrated by Blue Origin and now SpaceX is ICBM dispersion.

Imagine a world under nuclear threat, on the verge of inter-state war. On enemy notice, US's ICBM's are launched en-masse in a suborbital trajectory and land back in a remote unpredictable regions of CONUS or somewhere in Pacific islands. That will be a major boost for a last second dramatic increase of the dissuasion effect. Now a nuclear adversary (China/Korea?) will have the US ICBMs positioned right under their armpits, dispersed, hiding most of them to enemy detection. The first strike threat would see its effect denied (given Elint and cyber spying conjugated with time of flight).

Now with the long legged family of launcher, the US have a threshold of capacities to put that vision in effect (the Atlas etc... are the most mastered technology ideally suited for such an adaptation). No need for example to manufacture short range ballistic missiles and bear the brunt of political rebuttal to counter Russia moving forward with its plan to position SRBM in Eu.

It will be in fact an application of the bomber strategy, a component of the triad, to ICBM. But will be the USAF willing to comply with such a move?

Please read the above only as a case study. Not a suggestion for any political furious debate. Just switch the words US with China or whatever if you feel more comfortable reading so.

This would be much much more easily accomplished through the use of missiles on planes, trucks, trains, submarines, and ships.

Also, the technology used by SpaceX is not suitable for a ballistic missile. For one thing it is hugely large, complex, and expensive relative to a traditional ICBM, but secondly it is a liquid fueled rocket reliant on super-cooled liquid oxygen. It is completely unsuitable for sitting in readiness for decades on end.

Member for

11 years 1 month

Posts: 253

One You need cheap large scale access to near earth orbit.

Two you build spaceships/station in low earth orbit.

Three you establish moon based fuel, water, oxygen manufacturing that removes need for half of what you're launching from earth because it is much cheaper to supply low earth orbit from the moon then from earth. Then you expand into moon based aluminum production and processing into needed structures.

Four you begin to close the loop on needed supplies from earth making space based assets as self sufficient as possible and only launching a very limited amount of needed items from earth.

Five you start moving away from earth on very large stations/ships.

To start this process you need to be able to launch twenty to fifty times the tonnage the we are currently launching from earth.

Space X reusebility answers both questions of more launches and lower cost per launch at the same time.