SpaceX applying for permit to test Falcon-9 vertical takeoff-landing.
spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=38546
spaceref.comPosted Sep 25, 2011, 9:33 PM UTC
23340
spaceref.com[deleted]
9
It's not a Falcon 9, it's a Falcon 9 first stage fuel tank with landing legs and a single Merlin engine.
8
Still, this is a step towards easier recovery and reuse of the first-stage rocket, leading to lower-cost, more frequent launches.
5
Costs which are already considerably lower with the Falcon 9 family than they are anywhere else.
...Now we just have to hope that they don't blow one up in the near future, which is a definite possibility. Doesn't matter how good you are, sometimes shit blows up, and an inopportunely-timed failure could spell the end of SpaceX.
8
Failure of an experimental RLV? I'd think their Falcon line of launch vehicles is a bit more important than this.
4
That's what I was talking about. The experimental stuff is always interesting, but it won't matter if SpaceX isn't around to put the good ideas into use.
3
an inopportunely-timed failure could spell the end of SpaceX
Rubbish. Sheer unsupported conjecture. SpaceX and Elon Musk have always said that they could withstand several failures, and indeed they did just that with Falcon 1.
I assume your prognostication is based on the shutdown of NASA's STS after the Challenger and Columbia disasters. Falcon 9 and SpaceX are a completely different animal and I honestly have no other ideas why you think this is the case.
3
You're right, it's conjecture, but it's not based on NASA's history, nor is it my own. It seems that everyone on the internet "knows a guy," so take it as you will, makes no difference to me.
The basic rationale for my statement is timing. Falcon 1's purpose was lifting satellites, while Falcon 9's main purpose (at least from a long-run perspective) is to basically be the shuttle-plus. Falcon 1 failed early in its life, and got progressively better. Falcon 9, however, has had several successful launches, and is meant for a different purpose. Ferrying supplies, and eventually astronauts, to the ISS is a huge money-making opportunity to SpaceX, and it's one that they're counting on. Failure at this point of the development, when they're preparing to be the first private entity to dock a craft with the ISS, puts continued NASA contracts in doubt. With so much invested in the Falcon 9 family, and with the tendency of the government and media to overreact to any fault, whether real or perceived, I'm just saying that a failure now would be much more significant than at any previous juncture.
Clearly, their cost structure is such that neither NASA, DoD, the ESA, nor the Russians can compete, so you're right, it's just an educated guess. Trust me, I want SpaceX to succeed, I just don't think that it's a sure thing.
1
The last thing we need is for the Falcon 9 to suffer the same fate as the Taurus.
Or the Falcon 1.
2
Timing is everything. They've got a lot more invested in the Falcon 9, and contractual relationships mean that a failure now would be a much bigger blow. From people "in-the-know," a failure now could easily be the end of SpaceX. Then again, we won't know until it happens.
1
F1 got dropped because the F9 is a much more promising money maker.
1
[deleted]
1
How do they plan on recovering from a KSC launch? They would have to scrub all of the velocity and head back to Florida to prevent an ocean landing.
2
My guess is they would either just do an ocean landing, or primarily launch the Falcon 9 from an alternate launch site when using this recovery mechanism.
3
I do know that they're currently building a launch facility at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. That's supposed to be for Iridium communications satellites in polar orbit though.
2
Assuming that they plan to still use KSC for launches, they could just tow a converted barge out into the Atlantic and land on it. The grasshopper should have the precision to do so, and there's no need for a very advanced platform, all they need is to get the 1st stage on it and be capable of transporting it back to land.
2
It's a 100 foot high VTOL RLV!
AWESOME.
1
Incidentally - isn't it interesting how a VTOL RLV is something like a space elevator but without the string?
/random thought
-3
It's nothing like a space elevator without the string. That would be like saying a Port-a-potty is like a regular elevator without the string. The string is an essential part of what makes it an elevator.
9
So I'll make a more elaborate case:
The function of a space elevator is to move a container from the surface to orbit and back to the surface intact.
The function of a VTOL RLV is to move a container from the surface to orbit and back to the surface intact.
The major difference is in the means of propulsion - the rockets vs "the string."
I'm not trying to diminish the space elevator concept, just celebrate that we're moving closer to what it represents: the ideal of cheap frequent access to space.
-1
Man, isn't a long-haul semi-truck something like a C-130 cargo plane? The function of both is to move cargo across long distances!
11
In that case, the space shuttle is just like a space elevator.
But it isn't.
6
Like radio is like a cat without the cat.
2
I'm really looking forward to watching those clips. Hopefully they are able to quickly get this working reliably.
1
My Kerbals rocket can beat it.
1
Holy shit I live near there!
Never would of guessed that anything cool would happen in McGregor.
1
The title would be correct with a minor change.
If these tests are a success, then the plan would be to add attitude thrusters to the Falcon 9 first stage, and to fire one engine briefly at about 105,000 feet. This would be to slow the craft to subsonic speeds before it hits a dense enough part of the atmosphere, to cause the booster to break up.
At this point it is likely a parachute would be deployed, to keep the booster slowed to subsonic speeds. Within a few thousand feet of the ground, one engine would turned on again, to slow the booster enough to make a soft landing. The plan would be substantially the same for the Falcon Heavy, since the 2 side boosters stop firing, and are ejected, before the center booster runs out of fuel.
Why do they need 9 engines going up, but only 1 engine coming down? Because 97% of the weight of the booster is fuel. When the booster is almost empty, one engine, which is 11% of the thrust of the stage, is plenty of power to make a soft landing.
My sources for the above are Elon Musk's words, in press conferences and various writings.
I came up with a similar proposal last month.. I sent it directly to SpaceX via email, I wonder if they thought anything of it?
Edit: I just noticed you commented on that submission.