home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   sci.space.policy      Discussions about space policy      106,651 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 105,566 of 106,651   
   Alain Fournier to All   
   Re: Reusable rockets   
   28 Sep 21 19:40:14   
   
   From: alain245@videotron.ca   
      
   On Sep/27/2021 at 13:30, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote :   
   > "Snidely"  wrote in message news:mn.d8417e59a35d0161.127094@snitoo...   
   >>   
   >> Alain Fournier presented the following explanation :   
   >>> It has been a few years now since SpaceX has started reusing the   
   >>> first stages of their Falcon 9 rockets. I would have expected that by   
   >>> this time everyone would have recognised that this is the way to go.   
   >>> I know that Blue Origin is also going for reusable. But I haven't   
   >>> heard much about the others developing reusability. Maybe it's only   
   >>> because I missed some announcements. So have any of you heard about   
   >>> United Launch Alliance, Arianespace, the Russians, the Chinese or   
   >>> others developing reusable rockets or at least first stages?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> ULA has mentioned parachuting Vulcan engines home.   
   >   
   > Last I saw, they appear to have given up on that.   
   > That said, it always struck me as they learned the wrong lesson from   
   > SpaceX.   
   > Yes, the engines are the most expensive part of the 1st stage and tanks   
   > are cheap, but snagging them in mid-air, landing, and reattaching them   
   > to new tanks is a HUGE operational complexity and cost.   
      
   I disagree. If you want to do that, you should design the system from   
   the start to do that easily. You have to build a system where you bring   
   back the engine pod, put it on the launch pad and drop a new tank on   
   top. All the connections should be done automatically. The snagging in   
   mid-air should also be at least semi-automatic. Yes, that makes the   
   engine pod heavier and more complex. Having a rocket that can land à la   
   SpaceX also makes the rocket heavier and more complex, but it is worth it.   
      
   Personally, I think landing the whole rocket is the best way to go. But   
   if you make a *big* investment in the engineering of a reusable engine   
   pod, you could have a rocket with low operation costs. It isn't easy to   
   do, but what SpaceX did isn't easy to do either.   
      
      
   Alain Fournier   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca