Quote from: manoweb on 04/08/2016 11:15 pmToday at the press debriefing Mr. E. Musk mentioned they are pursuing fairing reuse, because it costs several million dollars.Wouldn't that be first official mention of fairing reuse?
Today at the press debriefing Mr. E. Musk mentioned they are pursuing fairing reuse, because it costs several million dollars.
Quote from: Mader Levap on 04/08/2016 11:17 pmQuote from: manoweb on 04/08/2016 11:15 pmToday at the press debriefing Mr. E. Musk mentioned they are pursuing fairing reuse, because it costs several million dollars.Wouldn't that be first official mention of fairing reuse?Fairing reuse has been mentioned in response to people posting images of fairing fragments washing up elsewhere.My questions is, have we officially heard anything about thrusters on the fairing? I know people 'saw something' in the SES-9 launch videos, but has SpaceX ever confirmed what we were seeing?
And how to keep them connected? Well, I see on the video were they test separation mechanism that both parts are connected, so it seems possible. And in old days there were those rockets controlled by cables, so there are things which can survive and do the job.
Quote from: Radical_Ignorant on 04/09/2016 10:54 amAnd how to keep them connected? Well, I see on the video were they test separation mechanism that both parts are connected, so it seems possible. And in old days there were those rockets controlled by cables, so there are things which can survive and do the job.not true on either point. The cables would put loads on the fairings and there is no way to bring them together in a controlled matter without them slamming together.Which rockets were controlled by cables?
Quote from: Jim on 04/09/2016 01:49 pmQuote from: Radical_Ignorant on 04/09/2016 10:54 amAnd how to keep them connected? Well, I see on the video were they test separation mechanism that both parts are connected, so it seems possible. And in old days there were those rockets controlled by cables, so there are things which can survive and do the job.not true on either point. The cables would put loads on the fairings and there is no way to bring them together in a controlled matter without them slamming together.Which rockets were controlled by cables?Of course that they would put loads, and so? This load would be symetric, fairings would be tiny bit heavier.No way to bring them together? You mean that it's impossible to control force required to pull the cable? Or you say that using force in only one way it's not possible to gently stop momentum? Like for example on rocket falling from the sky? Or you claim that TOWs (thanks tyrred - I was lazy) weren't working because there is no cable which could easily withstand rocket exhaust? It's always super easy to claim "no it's impossible". But that's rarely true. That would be too hard, or that would not be cost effective, or that could be dangerous/not reliable because of... that I could believe.
Thinking to something like this, very light.For first part, reentry, managing the shock
Quote from: cambrianera on 04/05/2016 07:49 pmThinking to something like this, very light.For first part, reentry, managing the shockhttp://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37727.msg1511754#msg1511754I'd like it even more if it worked in a passive mode, vs. needing active control. Something like this seems simple if it can keep the orientation stable. So assuming this method keeps it stable and gets it into a landing zone, would you still need a parachute for soft landing?
Some "fairing blimp" calculations: feel free to skip.Coming over from the airship thread, and reading upthread about the potential for having some kind of bladder on the inside of the fairing, I just wanted to do a back of the envelope on the possibility of converting each fairing half into a lighter-than-air craft before it reaches the ground. Could inform potential Venus airship mission too.Snip...Not really sure of the weight/size requirements of the helium gas canister you'd need, but it seems to me this could be within the realms of workability, if you can have some kind of drogue chute that would keep the fairing somewhat oriented to protect the bladder material on the way down.
If I understand this wandering thread, what is desired is a jettisonable multipart fairing that largely works as the current one has done, but retains the integrity/registration/tensile qualities/compression/other of the fairing so that after its located/recovered, it can be economically remanufactured/reprocessed and qualified for reuse without refabrication?
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/09/2016 06:44 pmIf I understand this wandering thread, what is desired is a jettisonable multipart fairing that largely works as the current one has done, but retains the integrity/registration/tensile qualities/compression/other of the fairing so that after its located/recovered, it can be economically remanufactured/reprocessed and qualified for reuse without refabrication?Is symmetrical separation a must have ? Or can upper stage RCS deal with asymmetries ?
EDIT: also, what are the reasonable time limits for separation event ? A few seconds ? or tens of seconds ?
Symmetrical stress/loading is a must due to dynamic loads on launch. This dictates design and leads to fewer surprises in separation. Fabrication/test/qualification of symmetric parts simplifies proving such a design.Titan had a triple gore design. There have been some unusual shrouds on certain payload in the past.If you have any asymmetry/complexity, you risk recontact with the stage/payload. The more components/differences, the greater the risk.That said, yes, such a design could possibly be made to work. The hard part would be proving that it always would work.When you jettision, aeroloads are at a minimum by definition. The lower you jettison, the more mass you don't carry. Too low and the delicate payload is at risk.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/09/2016 07:13 pmSymmetrical stress/loading is a must due to dynamic loads on launch. This dictates design and leads to fewer surprises in separation. Fabrication/test/qualification of symmetric parts simplifies proving such a design.Titan had a triple gore design. There have been some unusual shrouds on certain payload in the past.If you have any asymmetry/complexity, you risk recontact with the stage/payload. The more components/differences, the greater the risk.That said, yes, such a design could possibly be made to work. The hard part would be proving that it always would work.When you jettision, aeroloads are at a minimum by definition. The lower you jettison, the more mass you don't carry. Too low and the delicate payload is at risk.Well, any gadget you add beyond current system is always an added risk anyway. Question is, is the risk manageable and worth it.
For example, the two current fairing halves could be joined by servoed hinges on one side that fully opens one side before separation push, and then push it to one side. But thats a huuge asymmetry, not sure if this is remotely feasible.The point would be to close clamshell again after separation to have the same aerodynamic shape reenter that went up.
And then do trailing ballute, streamer or parachute or whatnot to survive the splash