DSCOVR Launch

Void · 2015-02-14 13:05:52

That was polite

void wrote:

I was really pleased when Tom pointed out that the Falcon Heavy would use 3 ea. Falcon 9's. That is not what I expected at all. It means the heavy lift is likely not all that far off, if they manage to land a Falcon 9 some time.
I suspect that a triple core heavy will have its own set of problems with useability from the fact that it will look like a wing once it starts a return path and that is due to the larger width shape of being 3 barrels wide. That said now on reentry each unit will seperate from the other now needing seperate glide paths and landing platforms to allow for recoverability.

I guess I will leave it to SpaceX to figure out how they are going to land two at a time and then shortly after the third one. However with the advances in artificial intelligence, I have to suppose that these things will be rather smart, above what we have experienced so far.

I will respond to your other post soon, after I check so facts, so as to reduce the possibility of wasting your time.

Void · 2015-02-14 13:15:44

Alright, I guess I should have said it a bit different.

VOID wrote:

So what if;
-Send a person transporter to Mars, composed of;
-Lander without;
-Parachute.
-Heat Shield.
-Canted Engines
Anything entering Mars upper atmosphere and headed towards a landing will need a heat shield of some sort and that is why Mars uses PICA rather than the heavy metal shield of orion. That said that a material must be found that can widthstand the heat of entry but be as light as possible and still get the job done is a must.
Parachutes can only be removed if you used a powered descent which can include canted engines if used for more than final 100 meter or feet of descent to touch down and a lifting body of some sorts both have there own respective penalties to make a successful landing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_reu … nt_program

the first-stage separation would occur at a velocity of approximately 2.0 km/s (6,500 km/h; 4,100 mph; Mach 6) rather than the 3.4 km/s (11,000 km/h; 7,000 mph; Mach 10) for an expendable Falcon 9, to provide the residual fuel necessary for the deceleration and turnaround maneuver and the controlled descent and landing

Granted, this is only a small percentage of the speed change needed to be captured to the surface of Mars, from the energy of orbit necessary to get to the vicinity of Mars.

It is a heat shield of sorts, the rocket plume. It is cooler than the plasma generated by re-entry. But I was thinking brut force to get rid of the other energy prior to this phase of entry. I know that involves a lot of fuel, and so a lot of cost.

However, if SpaceX can launch for $1000.00/pound, and the tanks for storing the methane are lighter, a bigger fuel budget is possible, than for using the SLS.

As for reentering with a booster below, this might be similar to having a sky crane, but in this case it is to help deliver the lander to the atmospheric conditions it could survive in without parachutes (Which are out anyway I am supposing), and without a heat shield. Keeping the lander light enough so that it could hop about like an aircraft later, and also to help it be able to get to orbit when that was desired.

You did force me to rethink the situation however. I did suggest external tanks for the brute force maneuver, getting rid of the bulk of differential speed. I suggested that the tank(s) could be discarded after empty.

I would like to play with another idea. Perhaps if the tank(s) were a surround of the stack of the booster and lander, when filled they would be a radiation shield. After emptied, perhaps they could serve as a heat shield, increasing the footprint size of the entry vehicle.

This would require that the tank walls be able to serve this triple purpose. Container for radiation shield, holder of brute force fuel, heat shield.

I recall that one method to cool a heat shield is to push a rocket engine plume in front of it. I don't know how much such engines would be able to take as far as having hot plasma pushing against them. Should they fail, that would be a disaster for sure I presume.

So anyway, I am presuming that;
-The tank(s) are a surround of the cylindrical stack of the booster and lander.
-The tank(s) will be emptied, by burning the fuel in them in a brute force slow down effort, to reduce the entry speed to what could be handled.
-As a precaution, prior to entering the atmosphere, it might be wise to vent the tanks to vacuum to hope to remove as much residual fuel as possible.
-The assembly would hit the atmosphere, and a rocket plume would or would not be used to cool the heat shield, and help in slowing down and navigation.
-A dangerous action after that would be to dispense with the tank(s) while at still rather high speed in the atmosphere, and then further slow down riding on the booster rocket plume.
-Then release the lander, and get the booster out of the way, to either crash, or push itself to orbit.

I know I am under qualified on this but I am interested in hearing your arguments in response.

Maybe I am out of line as far as the canted engines? Perhaps they are best for a hopping aircraft/rocket on Mars?

As an amendment to the above. You mentioned lifting air body. I suppose the assembly with the external tanks might have a shape like a lifting air body, but I am sure the external tank/(Radiation shield-Fuel Tank-Heat Shield) would be dispensed with soon after re-entry, so I don't know what benefits could be derived by having it have those qualities. But since I am not actually spending anyone's money, or hurting anything except your minds, I have included it.

Last edited by Void (2015-02-14 13:47:56)

Void · 2015-02-14 17:54:09

It did not occur to me before, but boosters landed in Florida, could be given a once over, partially refueled, and instructed to hop back to Texas. No canal needed.

SpaceNut · 2015-02-15 14:03:44

The cost of reuse is not really a 100% as for the case of a single launch its really cost is just that; since no parts are from recycling but on the next launch the costs are only true if you know how many times you can reuse it before its junk. That could be 1 time or many but in either case there is also the incurred inspection and repair costs to add back in as well as the transportation costs in order to figure out the payload costs on a specific flight out of what numbered location in the reuseability count one might be at.

Void · 2015-02-15 16:19:39

They will have to profile their system, to find out what the actual expectations can be.

Yes they will have to inspect, and sometimes replace parts.

It is not a totally free booster to reuse.

I would think that they might phase them. Use the newest best ones to launch more critical loads, and if there is such, use the old ones to launch less critical loads. Less critical loads might be fuel and Oxygen to low Earth orbit. Storage of such to a purpose not yet defined, but perhaps to come.

And then I have been thinking about it because of your response, what about the Moon? As these things become less qualified for flight, perhaps use a falcon heavy without a payload, the middle booster being the marginal one. The notion being that that one could be outfitted with a different set of landing legs, which would only be folded up once. Send it to the Moon, where it's use would no longer involve passing through the atmosphere up and down, and also where it's engines could be operated at a lower thrust level to compensate for their marginal trust levels.

So I presume the would be lifting loads like LOX manufactured on the Moons surface. The tanks perhaps could be wheeled over and attached to the landing legs, to make the assembly less tipsy?

Similarly of course perhaps metals could be lifted, perhaps materials suitable for a 3D printing process?

I think there would be less options for repairs, perhaps if one was no longer suitable for that purpose, it would just go to junk on the Moon, or if it could it might lift itself to a "L" location to serve a purpose. Maybe even still as a booster that does not land. But that would only apply if it could still do valuable work. It seems less likely that that 3rd option would be workable.

So SpaceX might just have the Moon in it's pocket as well, if they prove their system.

I don't think they will wait for the Moon LOX to go to Mars however, but eventually it might be a part of a larger transport effort.

I am trying to use your acronyms. Perhaps that will please the hosts.

SpaceNut · 2015-02-15 21:58:48

This is to answer the flight path question....

falcon-spacex-platform-landing-test-150105a-02.jpg?1420495831

Inside SpaceX's Epic Fly-back Reusable Rocket Landing

GW Johnson · 2015-02-16 08:56:29

I think I read somewhere that the barge was 370 miles downrange for the first attempt.

GW

SpaceNut · 2015-02-16 11:48:40

VOID wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_reu … nt_program
the first-stage separation would occur at a velocity of approximately 2.0 km/s (6,500 km/h; 4,100 mph; Mach 6) rather than the 3.4 km/s (11,000 km/h; 7,000 mph; Mach 10) for an expendable Falcon 9, to provide the residual fuel necessary for the deceleration and turnaround maneuver and the controlled descent and landing

SpaceNut wrote:

The reuse of recovered first stages from high point of return for the triple barrel has net be tried yet only the low one has as there is a 40% fuel penalty to land it back on any surface to allow for less work to need to be done to it.

RGClark · 2015-03-01 00:59:28

GW Johnson wrote:

I think I read somewhere that the barge was 370 miles downrange for the first attempt.
GW

We're you able to hear the latest full scale test of the F9 first stage:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/02/ … ad-launch/

Bob Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2015-03-04 05:51:27)

GW Johnson · 2015-03-01 10:46:48

Hi Bob:

I hear (and sometimes see, if there's a low cloud layer) Spacex tests every day. Their facility is 6 miles from my front porch. Spacex is very close-mouthed about details released to the public, but I suspect they are using the new down-in-a-hole giant thrust stand now.

The bright fire at night from the older tower stand I no longer see very often. This bigger stand is where they will test Falcon-Heavy, if they haven't started already. The new stand is configured so that -Heavy tests won't be any louder than -9 tests were up on that tower stand.

GW

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2015-02-14 13:05:52

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#27 2015-02-14 13:15:44

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#28 2015-02-14 17:54:09

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#29 2015-02-15 14:03:44

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#30 2015-02-15 16:19:39

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#31 2015-02-15 21:58:48

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#32 2015-02-16 08:56:29

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#33 2015-02-16 11:48:40

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#34 2015-03-01 00:59:28

Re: DSCOVR Launch

#35 2015-03-01 10:46:48

Re: DSCOVR Launch

Board footer