banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 19:49 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 460 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 31  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Bravo SpaceX
PostPosted: 01 May 2017, 08:38 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/19/10
Posts: 350
Post Likes: +156
Location: NY
Aircraft: C310R
NROL-76 Launch Webcast
Start at 6:30
[youtube]https://youtu.be/EzQpkQ1etdA[/youtube]


Top

 Post subject: Re: Bravo SpaceX
PostPosted: 01 May 2017, 08:58 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/29/08
Posts: 26431
Post Likes: +13064
Location: Walterboro, SC. KRBW
Aircraft: PC12NG
+1

And there are still those people who think airplanes "will never be able to fly without a pilot". Ha!!!


Top

 Post subject: Re: Bravo SpaceX
PostPosted: 01 May 2017, 09:14 
Online


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 05/06/14
Posts: 6540
Post Likes: +7392
Company: The French Tradition
Location: KCRQ - Carlsbad - KTOA
Aircraft: 89 A36 TN, 78 Tiger
impressive. landed dead center.
amazing what genius kids can do when they get together

_________________
Bonanza 89 A36 Turbo Norm
Grumman Tiger 78


Top

 Post subject: Re: Bravo SpaceX
PostPosted: 01 May 2017, 11:23 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/30/11
Posts: 3933
Post Likes: +2423
Location: Greenwood, MO
"Be back in ten minutes."

"Where you going?"

"Space, my boy. I'm going to space."

:bow:

Seriously, nine minutes to space and back. Sometimes it takes me that long to find my keys.


Last edited on 01 May 2017, 11:36, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Bravo SpaceX
PostPosted: 01 May 2017, 11:25 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/13/14
Posts: 8308
Post Likes: +6508
Location: Central Texas (KTPL)
Aircraft: PA-46-310P
Simply amazing. I'm astounded at this.

I realize the goal of landing this is to re-use it. But how much burn and usage damage must be repaired to ready it for another launch? Any idea what the landed section would cost if destroyed?


Top

 Post subject: Re: Bravo SpaceX
PostPosted: 01 May 2017, 13:28 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/22/12
Posts: 2428
Post Likes: +957
Aircraft: G36 turbo normalized
Yes, it is astounding. In addition, there are a lot of very smart engineers working on driverless vehicles. I was driving on the 405 freeway yesterday and noticed how inefficient humans are when driving. Someone will see a brakelight hundreds of yards up and start braking, that starts a chain reaction and soon the freeway is backed up. Computers wouldn't do that. As for the cost savings to SpaceX to reuse the 1st stage is certainly in the tens of millions.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Bravo SpaceX
PostPosted: 01 May 2017, 13:41 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 07/19/10
Posts: 2721
Post Likes: +1156
Company: Keller Williams Realty
Location: Madison, WI (91C)
Aircraft: 1967 Bonanza V35
Username Protected wrote:
Simply amazing. I'm astounded at this.

I realize the goal of landing this is to re-use it. But how much burn and usage damage must be repaired to ready it for another launch? Any idea what the landed section would cost if destroyed?


Since they say cost of relaunch is 50% and you need to refuel I'd say the stage 1 hardware costs about 75% of launch cost, 25% for fuel, some TLC and some profit on relaunch and you are right at 50%.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Bravo SpaceX
PostPosted: 01 May 2017, 17:11 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/06/12
Posts: 2290
Post Likes: +2114
Company: FlightRepublic
Location: Bee Cave, TX
Aircraft: DA40, C182
I think what Space-X is doing is really impressive, but there's something I don't understand about their design approach.

It seems to me that the hardest part of this process is the actual placement of the rocket back on the pad on the landing legs (the flare, so to speak).

But since I imagine that the rocket then has to be taken down and trucked back to a building to be refurbished before it can be reused, why not simply deploy parachutes after re-entry and slowdown over the landing area? I realize it would be a less-glitzy, 'low-tech' solution, but I would think it would also be lighter, simpler, and cheaper.

My question is, is it not possible to get rid of enough energy after the re-entry burn, to make a parachute landing slow enough and damage free? Or are they doing this for style-points (and because this is how rockets landed in late nineteenth century adventure stories)?

_________________
Antoni Deighton
contactlink.to/antoni.deighton


Top

 Post subject: Re: Bravo SpaceX
PostPosted: 01 May 2017, 17:25 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/17/08
Posts: 6052
Post Likes: +12351
Location: KMCW
Aircraft: B55 PII,F-1,L-2,OTW,
I would think a parachute landing would be much more difficult to control....

I will promise, if a parachute was cheaper and more effective, that's the route they would take....

_________________
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
MCW
Be Nice, Kind, I don't care, be something, just don't be a jerk ;-)


Top

 Post subject: Re: Bravo SpaceX
PostPosted: 01 May 2017, 17:34 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 10/03/13
Posts: 554
Post Likes: +158
Location: KGJT
Aircraft: Kitfox
View everything the Space-X does through this lens:

Elon Musk wants to go to Mars- Land upright in his rocket just like Buck Rogers then perhaps return to Earth if he finds Mars boring. His rocket must be very good at landing since he probably doesn't want to die before he can play with Mars rocks. His company is going to need lots of practice to get this right.

Now all the design tradeoffs that might favor other approaches to launching satellites make sense.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Bravo SpaceX
PostPosted: 01 May 2017, 17:47 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/16/11
Posts: 733
Post Likes: +389
Location: Carlsbad, CA - KCRQ
Aircraft: 1967 Bonanza V35
Username Protected wrote:
I would think a parachute landing would be much more difficult to control....

I will promise, if a parachute was cheaper and more effective, that's the route they would take....


Even if they could make the landing slow enough, the control issues would still be there... Most of their launches do not allow for land landings, so they need to land the booster on the floating platform. If they splash down under the parachute instead, it's gone...


Top

 Post subject: Re: Bravo SpaceX
PostPosted: 01 May 2017, 17:48 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/16/11
Posts: 1943
Post Likes: +1258
Company: Underground Airways
Location: CYKF Kitchener, Ontario
Aircraft: Mooney M20K 231+
My guess is that parachutes are open to wind and chute variables where the reentry rocket need to be discriminate and controllable. Mitigate risk.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Bravo SpaceX
PostPosted: 01 May 2017, 17:56 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 06/06/12
Posts: 2290
Post Likes: +2114
Company: FlightRepublic
Location: Bee Cave, TX
Aircraft: DA40, C182
Username Protected wrote:
My guess is that parachutes are open to wind and chute variables where the reentry rocket need to be discriminate and controllable. Mitigate risk.


Okay, but ...

I've seen skydivers using controllable parachutes make spot landings before. Surely if we can build computers to land a rocket upright on a launch pad, we could make a computer capable of flying a parachute? Add a few thrusters to stabilize the rocket and I would have thought the control issue is done.

BWTHDIK

_________________
Antoni Deighton
contactlink.to/antoni.deighton


Top

 Post subject: Re: Bravo SpaceX
PostPosted: 01 May 2017, 18:29 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 07/11/11
Posts: 1672
Post Likes: +465
Location: Redwood City, CA (KPAO)
Aircraft: 1967 Bonanza V35
Amazing :rock:


Top

 Post subject: Re: Bravo SpaceX
PostPosted: 01 May 2017, 18:39 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/25/11
Posts: 104
Post Likes: +25
Username Protected wrote:
I think what Space-X is doing is really impressive, but there's something I don't understand about their design approach.

It seems to me that the hardest part of this process is the actual placement of the rocket back on the pad on the landing legs (the flare, so to speak).

But since I imagine that the rocket then has to be taken down and trucked back to a building to be refurbished before it can be reused, why not simply deploy parachutes after re-entry and slowdown over the landing area? I realize it would be a less-glitzy, 'low-tech' solution, but I would think it would also be lighter, simpler, and cheaper.

My question is, is it not possible to get rid of enough energy after the re-entry burn, to make a parachute landing slow enough and damage free? Or are they doing this for style-points (and because this is how rockets landed in late nineteenth century adventure stories)?



The stated goal of SpaceX is manned Mars missions. They cannot rely upon a chute in the thin Martian atmosphere for anything heavy enough for a manned mission. So I think they are doing this so that they will have years of rocket power on landings under their belt when the time comes. I'm not saying a Mars mission is a go for next week or anything close to it. I'm basing my reply on what they have said many times publicly.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 460 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 31  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.CiESVer2.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.concorde.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.