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