Quote from: meekGee on 12/23/2014 05:40 pmThe Baikal - rotating wing, jet engine, landing gear - Complex Contraption, Batman! its not far off from Shuttles liquid flyback booster ideas.if anyone can make this work it is the Russians.
The Baikal - rotating wing, jet engine, landing gear - Complex Contraption, Batman!
Quote from: savuporo on 12/23/2014 09:56 pmQuote from: meekGee on 12/23/2014 05:40 pmThe Baikal - rotating wing, jet engine, landing gear - Complex Contraption, Batman! its not far off from Shuttles liquid flyback booster ideas.if anyone can make this work it is the Russians.100% agreed. They know their airframes, jet engines, etc. And nobody else will try something like this... Except maybe some Americanskis....But it's too convoluted to be economical, and the new reality imposed by SpaceX is that you have to come up with alternative systems that not only work, but actually make financial sense. (The same rule that applies to SpaceX)Taking a look at an F9R vs. the winged contraption, I don't see how it's even close.
I think the more interesting question is if SpaceX will lay down any footsteps.And by laying down footsteps, I mean lowering launch costs substantially because they are able to refly boosters without a reduction in reliability.I don't expect that to happen for quite a while, if ever.
Quote from: meekGee on 12/23/2014 11:52 pmQuote from: savuporo on 12/23/2014 09:56 pmQuote from: meekGee on 12/23/2014 05:40 pmThe Baikal - rotating wing, jet engine, landing gear - Complex Contraption, Batman! its not far off from Shuttles liquid flyback booster ideas.if anyone can make this work it is the Russians.100% agreed. They know their airframes, jet engines, etc. And nobody else will try something like this... Except maybe some Americanskis....But it's too convoluted to be economical, and the new reality imposed by SpaceX is that you have to come up with alternative systems that not only work, but actually make financial sense. (The same rule that applies to SpaceX)Taking a look at an F9R vs. the winged contraption, I don't see how it's even close.I would not quite write it off as "not economical" without knowing the best possible turnaround times etc, and just because it has jet engine + landing gear. Many other flying contraptions get around just fine with these. The first order variables for driving the costs have still very little to do with the configuration of the rocket. Both Plesetsk cosmodrome and Angara are built for highly automated worfklow. And then you have to factor in personnel cost deltas etc. Also don't forget that it is Russians that have ever actually achieved any statistically meaningful launch rates with orbital launch vehicles, in late 70ies / early 80ies. They know a thing or two about fast turnaround, including from inhospitable places like Plesetsk.But this thread was supposed to be about "who will be the next to try to recover boosters" not about who will conquer the commercial launch market ( nobody will, as a large part of payloads do not follow simple $/lb pricing at all )
Quote from: meekGee on 12/23/2014 05:40 pmThe Baikal - rotating wing, jet engine, landing gear - Complex Contraption, Batman! its not far off from Shuttles liquid flyback booster ideas.if anyone can make this work it is the Russians.between parachutes, vtvl and winged ideas, wings are definitely the hardest route. which is why only organizations with a lot of resources will ever try them with orbital launchers.good perspective here : http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=11739
forgot Lockheed http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2011/december/1205ssc-Reusable-Booster.html
But that's the easy part. So this thread almost needs a follow-up question - who is likely to spend real $$$ on actually doing it?
We've already had a thread called "who will compete with SpaceX", but I thought it would be fun to ask a more focused question: which will be the next entity to start flying reusable boosters?
Nonsensical question. It assumes that F9R is successful as a reusable vehicle. Why would anybody be next if the first isn't successful?
A lot of space angencies and corporations can powerpoint reusable boosters. Russia has. China has. India has. But that's the easy part. So this thread almost needs a follow-up question - who is likely to spend real $$$ on actually doing it?
Boeing and Lockheed likely won't allow them to do it. They would rather they do the work themselves.
LM a major contractor for ULA ……...
I'm sure that's true if NASA funds the whole thing. But what if they had to do this on their own dime? Would they let ULA die and start a new LV development program themselves, rather than trying to work through ULA or even simply letting ULA die and not getting back into the launch services business at all?
Quote from: mmeijeri on 12/24/2014 01:02 pmI'm sure that's true if NASA funds the whole thing. But what if they had to do this on their own dime? Would they let ULA die and start a new LV development program themselves, rather than trying to work through ULA or even simply letting ULA die and not getting back into the launch services business at all?Still true no matter what. If they are going to use their own dime, LM and Boeing are going to spend it themselves vs giving it to ULA.
What if the market isn't elastic and SpaceX have invested their treasure in building a reusable rocket for no good reason? Assuming it works, and that's the only way we'd find out that the market isn't elastic, they'll have a vehicle that vastly lowers the price of launch and only a dozen or two launches per year to fly. Wouldn't that be worse for their competitors?
If launch prices drop dramatically, and the market does not expand, then SpaceX will barely survive, and other players will die off. ...
Quote from: meekGee on 12/25/2014 03:40 am If launch prices drop dramatically, and the market does not expand, then SpaceX will barely survive, and other players will die off. ...There are other reasons to try to recover booster rockets than this launch price idea.- Chinese, and presumably Russians would like to stop dropping rocket stages on villages. Bad for PR- Recovering a booster allows more accurate assessment of design margins, and hence potential boost in total performance through further optimizations. Performance matters for other reasons than price- Assessment allows potential reliability improvements. Reliability matters - especially for things like once in a decade JWST scale projects. ~10 billion payload with a good 1% chance of blowing up is insane.Would be nice to keep the thread away from the hypothetical economics rathole as there are other threads, and actually focus on the topic - who would try.
What if the market isn't elastic and SpaceX have invested their treasure in building a reusable rocket for no good reason?
Assuming it works, and that's the only way we'd find out that the market isn't elastic, they'll have a vehicle that vastly lowers the price of launch and only a dozen or two launches per year to fly. Wouldn't that be worse for their competitors?