Author Topic: Flyback Falcon 9  (Read 23767 times)

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8615
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2666
  • Likes Given: 6833
Flyback Falcon 9
« on: 12/07/2011 04:37 PM »
I’ve been just musing the reusable Flacon 9 and the Grasshopper concept which is a tough nut to crack. So I thought of a reusable Falcon 9 as a “flyback”.
*First stage flies back to launch site.
*Second stage flies once around and returns to launch site.
I modded drawing from here:


http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6612522.html
« Last Edit: 12/07/2011 06:49 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline beb

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Flyback Falcon 9
« Reply #1 on: 12/07/2011 04:44 PM »
I dig the fins, they're so 50s looking.

Also from the video Musk showed when talking about this, there are no wings. The legs fold against the body during launch, extend for landing and that's it. Vertical landing, not horizontal.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8615
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2666
  • Likes Given: 6833
Re: Flyback Falcon 9
« Reply #2 on: 12/07/2011 05:00 PM »
I dig the fins, they're so 50s looking.

Also from the video Musk showed when talking about this, there are no wings. The legs fold against the body during launch, extend for landing and that's it. Vertical landing, not horizontal.
The 50's was kool :D The second stage would end up lookin a bit like the Kliper...
http://www.buran.fr/kliper-clipper-shuttle/Photos/050-MAKS%202005-MAKS%202005-kliper002.jpg
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Flyback Falcon 9
« Reply #3 on: 12/07/2011 05:08 PM »
I think you would find the aerodynamics to be royally screwed for the first stage return....and that's probably the least of your problems. 
« Last Edit: 12/07/2011 05:08 PM by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8615
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2666
  • Likes Given: 6833
Re: Flyback Falcon 9
« Reply #4 on: 12/07/2011 05:25 PM »
I think you would find the aerodynamics to be royally screwed for the first stage return....and that's probably the least of your problems. 
Haha, totally agree OV, just a quick Gedankenexperiment over lunchtime. Perhaps apply the Rutan solution and add some pop out canards… lol

Robert
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4446
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 803
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Flyback Falcon 9
« Reply #5 on: 12/07/2011 06:50 PM »
I think you would find the aerodynamics to be royally screwed for the first stage return....and that's probably the least of your problems. 
Haha, totally agree OV, just a quick Gedankenexperiment over lunchtime. Perhaps apply the Rutan solution and add some pop out canards… lol

Robert
You'd have to have the canards so a thought would be a "top" mounted pivot wing?

Other than that it would basically be duplicating the LM Fly-Back I suppose. (Nice touch though using the basic drawing of the StarBooster as a base ;) )

I noted from the video that they are looking at complete propulsive boost-back as opposed to the LM verision where they combine boost back with aerodynamic flyback. An interesting idea I saw once in a patent was having the booster reenter, perform an aerodynamic turn and THEN booster up and out again and reentering and landing at the launch site.

I like the overall idea but how much structural modification would be required for attaching the wings and things I wonder?

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8615
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2666
  • Likes Given: 6833
Re: Flyback Falcon 9
« Reply #6 on: 12/07/2011 07:00 PM »
I think you would find the aerodynamics to be royally screwed for the first stage return....and that's probably the least of your problems. 
Haha, totally agree OV, just a quick Gedankenexperiment over lunchtime. Perhaps apply the Rutan solution and add some pop out canards… lol

Robert
You'd have to have the canards so a thought would be a "top" mounted pivot wing?

Other than that it would basically be duplicating the LM Fly-Back I suppose. (Nice touch though using the basic drawing of the StarBooster as a base ;) )

I noted from the video that they are looking at complete propulsive boost-back as opposed to the LM verision where they combine boost back with aerodynamic flyback. An interesting idea I saw once in a patent was having the booster reenter, perform an aerodynamic turn and THEN booster up and out again and reentering and landing at the launch site.

I like the overall idea but how much structural modification would be required for attaching the wings and things I wonder?

Randy
Hey Randy,
Sure why not, NASA tested the “oblique wing” a few years back. Maybe someone from SpaceX is on here…  Elon is always open to new ideas…  lol

Robert  :)

(P.S. or this twin oblique wing booster concept)
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shub1989.htm
« Last Edit: 12/07/2011 07:38 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline quanthasaquality

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Flyback Falcon 9
« Reply #7 on: 12/07/2011 10:02 PM »
The SR-71's skin temperature exceeded 200 Celsius, and that was traveling at only mach 3. Aluminum melts at over 600 Celsius. The shuttle orbiter is covered with heat resistant tiles that are extensively checked for a reason.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8615
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2666
  • Likes Given: 6833
Re: Flyback Falcon 9
« Reply #8 on: 12/08/2011 01:33 AM »
The SR-71's skin temperature exceeded 200 Celsius, and that was traveling at only mach 3. Aluminum melts at over 600 Celsius. The shuttle orbiter is covered with heat resistant tiles that are extensively checked for a reason.
Ok, so whats your point..? ;D
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8615
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2666
  • Likes Given: 6833
Re: Flyback Falcon 9
« Reply #9 on: 12/08/2011 10:07 PM »
Some more ideas to think about based on a DLR concept here:

http://www.dlr.de/irs/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-7629/12934_read-32489/
« Last Edit: 12/08/2011 10:09 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Nascent Ascent

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Flyback Falcon 9
« Reply #10 on: 12/08/2011 10:22 PM »
I think you would find the aerodynamics to be royally screwed for the first stage return....and that's probably the least of your problems. 
Haha, totally agree OV, just a quick Gedankenexperiment over lunchtime. Perhaps apply the Rutan solution and add some pop out canards… lol

Robert
You'd have to have the canards so a thought would be a "top" mounted pivot wing?

Other than that it would basically be duplicating the LM Fly-Back I suppose. (Nice touch though using the basic drawing of the StarBooster as a base ;) )

I noted from the video that they are looking at complete propulsive boost-back as opposed to the LM verision where they combine boost back with aerodynamic flyback. An interesting idea I saw once in a patent was having the booster reenter, perform an aerodynamic turn and THEN booster up and out again and reentering and landing at the launch site.

I like the overall idea but how much structural modification would be required for attaching the wings and things I wonder?

Randy
Hey Randy,
Sure why not, NASA tested the “oblique wing” a few years back. Maybe someone from SpaceX is on here…  Elon is always open to new ideas…  lol

Robert  :)

(P.S. or this twin oblique wing booster concept)
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shub1989.htm


This was tried in the early 1960's if I remember correctly.   ;D

-NA
“Why should we send people into space when we have kids in the U.S. that can’t read”. - Barack Obama

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28128
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7926
  • Likes Given: 5280
Re: Flyback Falcon 9
« Reply #11 on: 12/08/2011 10:26 PM »
Answer this question: How much experience does SpaceX have with airplane design?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8615
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2666
  • Likes Given: 6833
Re: Flyback Falcon 9
« Reply #12 on: 12/08/2011 10:46 PM »
Answer this question: How much experience does SpaceX have with airplane design?
A lot of hungry bright guys out there looking for work right now ;)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8615
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2666
  • Likes Given: 6833
Re: Flyback Falcon 9
« Reply #13 on: 12/08/2011 10:53 PM »
I think you would find the aerodynamics to be royally screwed for the first stage return....and that's probably the least of your problems. 
Haha, totally agree OV, just a quick Gedankenexperiment over lunchtime. Perhaps apply the Rutan solution and add some pop out canards… lol

Robert
You'd have to have the canards so a thought would be a "top" mounted pivot wing?

Other than that it would basically be duplicating the LM Fly-Back I suppose. (Nice touch though using the basic drawing of the StarBooster as a base ;) )

I noted from the video that they are looking at complete propulsive boost-back as opposed to the LM verision where they combine boost back with aerodynamic flyback. An interesting idea I saw once in a patent was having the booster reenter, perform an aerodynamic turn and THEN booster up and out again and reentering and landing at the launch site.

I like the overall idea but how much structural modification would be required for attaching the wings and things I wonder?

Randy
Hey Randy,
Sure why not, NASA tested the “oblique wing” a few years back. Maybe someone from SpaceX is on here…  Elon is always open to new ideas…  lol

Robert  :)

(P.S. or this twin oblique wing booster concept)
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shub1989.htm


This was tried in the early 1960's if I remember correctly.   ;D

-NA
I gotta go and look for my old toybox ;D

(This one had some wind tunnel time though...)
« Last Edit: 12/08/2011 11:21 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8615
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2666
  • Likes Given: 6833
Re: Flyback Falcon 9
« Reply #14 on: 12/09/2011 08:31 PM »
Here is a link from a similar discussion a while back... ;)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24883.0
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8615
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2666
  • Likes Given: 6833
Re: Flyback Falcon 9
« Reply #15 on: 12/09/2011 08:55 PM »
I am thinking about marrying Buzz Aldrin’s StarBooster with a slide in Falcon 9. An all composite airframe would make sense for a low production run. We have to get Buzz Aldrin, Burt Rutan and Elon Musk talking to each other. ;D

http://www.boomslanger.com/images/starhawk1.pdf
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28128
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7926
  • Likes Given: 5280
Re: Flyback Falcon 9
« Reply #16 on: 12/09/2011 09:19 PM »
I doubt SpaceX would go in this direction unless Grasshopper fails utterly. Luckily, we should know relatively soon (i.e. within a year) if Grasshopper works at all (though they'll likely do many, many tests before being done with Grasshopper). Of course, a working Grasshopper concept is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a working Falcon 9 reusable (VTVL) first stage.
« Last Edit: 12/09/2011 09:20 PM by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3920
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 327
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: Flyback Falcon 9
« Reply #17 on: 12/09/2011 09:43 PM »
Sigh...


Well I know Elon and others at spacex have mentioned the fly back fully resuable stages as part of their future concepts, somehow, I can't help but think that in the end they are going to find that its too expensive to do this as opposed to conventional return and conventional non reusable second stages.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8615
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2666
  • Likes Given: 6833
Re: Flyback Falcon 9
« Reply #18 on: 12/09/2011 10:01 PM »
Thanks for the thoughts guys. We all know that Elon’s plan is based on reusability to make the cost numbers work. Even if Grasshopper does not go to plan, I think a least some ideas or technology for a future lander can come of it as an R &D project. It all depends how much time and money he is willing and able to spend on it. I think this might be a good plan B for them to consider…  All suggestions are welcome :)

Robert
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8615
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2666
  • Likes Given: 6833
Re: Flyback Falcon 9
« Reply #19 on: 12/11/2011 12:33 AM »
So here is a recent concept based on known flown aero space vehicles, just never combined together.  Why reinvent anything? ;)

*Orbiter wing plan form and stabilizer for first stage (slide in first stage)

*X-37 wing and stabilizers for upper stage (slide in upper stage)

*PicaX for TPS

let the hate begin ;D
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Tags: