Author Topic: Reusability as abort functionality  (Read 17767 times)

Offline garidan

  • Member
  • Posts: 99
  • Italy
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Reusability as abort functionality
« Reply #40 on: 11/09/2013 09:18 PM »
What about a water recovery, after stage separation?
There might be value in recovering a stage for fault diagnosis and partial reuse.
It would be nice, if the failure is such to let it possible, switch off the engines less 2-3 and control the whole rocket to go upward to slow down horizontal velocity end then "land" tail first in the ocean, breaking velocity through its 2-3 engines.
Perhaps (?!) the payload could survive and be recovered, and it's the most valuable piece of the rocket...

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32443
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11188
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: Reusability as abort functionality
« Reply #41 on: 11/09/2013 09:27 PM »

Perhaps (?!) the payload could survive and be recovered, and it's the most valuable piece of the rocket...

Fairings aren't watertight and it would be uncontrolled and hazardous

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4925
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 153
Re: Reusability as abort functionality
« Reply #42 on: 11/09/2013 09:49 PM »
Reading back on this thread, the use of "reusability as  abort functionality", I guess can best be described as "hazardous".

Even if the payload made it back in one piece, I would doubt that approaching said aborted vehicle could be done is a safe way. 

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28559
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8495
  • Likes Given: 5539
Re: Reusability as abort functionality
« Reply #43 on: 11/10/2013 01:56 AM »
...reusability as an abort functionality pretty requires redundant recovery mechanisms. And probably some way to dump the propellant.

...which is to say it's likely not worth it.
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

Online mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2045
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA -- previously in Ann Arbor, MI
  • Liked: 676
  • Likes Given: 254
Re: Reusability as abort functionality
« Reply #44 on: 11/10/2013 04:07 AM »
It's interesting how arguments continue even when its been accepted that the thing being argued about is impossible.
Internal combustion engine in space. It's just a Bad Idea.TM - Robotbeat

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2153
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 1567
Re: Reusability as abort functionality
« Reply #45 on: 11/10/2013 04:29 PM »
Not all failures are graceful.

Nice!
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28559
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8495
  • Likes Given: 5539
Re: Reusability as abort functionality
« Reply #46 on: 11/11/2013 02:07 AM »
It's interesting how arguments continue even when its been accepted that the thing being argued about is impossible.
...impossible isn't accurate. Someday, reusable launch vehicles /will/ have intact abort capability.
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

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8683
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4868
  • Likes Given: 895
Re: Reusability as abort functionality
« Reply #47 on: 11/11/2013 02:20 AM »
It's interesting how arguments continue even when its been accepted that the thing being argued about is impossible.
...impossible isn't accurate. Someday, reusable launch vehicles /will/ have intact abort capability.

I'll very certain that they won't.
Payloads - maybe.  Maybe some.
Vehicles? I can't see how or why.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 665
  • Likes Given: 195
Reusability as abort functionality
« Reply #48 on: 11/11/2013 03:54 AM »
It's interesting how arguments continue even when its been accepted that the thing being argued about is impossible.
...impossible isn't accurate. Someday, reusable launch vehicles /will/ have intact abort capability.

I'll very certain that they won't.
Payloads - maybe.  Maybe some.
Vehicles? I can't see how or why.

Sigh... People in this thread keep talking across each other with different assumptions (F9R vs future RLV).

And MeekGee, you really cant imagine a future SSTO RLV with intact abort? (That's pretty much what it would take) It seems pretty narrow minded to exclude such a possibility.
« Last Edit: 11/11/2013 04:10 AM by Lars_J »

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8683
  • N. California
  • Liked: 4868
  • Likes Given: 895
Re: Reusability as abort functionality
« Reply #49 on: 11/11/2013 04:30 AM »
It's interesting how arguments continue even when its been accepted that the thing being argued about is impossible.
...impossible isn't accurate. Someday, reusable launch vehicles /will/ have intact abort capability.

I'll very certain that they won't.
Payloads - maybe.  Maybe some.
Vehicles? I can't see how or why.

Sigh... People in this thread keep talking across each other with different assumptions (F9R vs future RLV).

And MeekGee, you really cant imagine a future SSTO RLV with intact abort? (That's pretty much what it would take) It seems pretty narrow minded to exclude such a possibility.


No, sorry...   

I'm not excluding it because "it's so different from how it's done today".

I'm excluding it because I can't think of any vehicle configuration that is able with any reasonable likelihood to perform an intact abort when it is in a sick state.

The only example of something that can do an intact abort is an airplane, or a train - and that's because a) you have a captive audience inside, and b) the structure/fuel/payload ratios are sane.   And even in jetliners, turning around right after takeoff is already dicey.

Once the payload is distinct from the payload, the motivation for intact abort drop to almost zero.

Meanwhile, the rocket equation hints strongly that the price of intact abort is very high, if not infinite.

So no, can't see it, sorry....  :(

I can see at some point a standardized payload pod, that has self-abort capabilities just like a capsule does.  It is optional, it obviously costs a LOT of mass, but maybe.  That's about it.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Online mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2045
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA -- previously in Ann Arbor, MI
  • Liked: 676
  • Likes Given: 254
Re: Reusability as abort functionality
« Reply #50 on: 11/12/2013 08:43 AM »
It's interesting how arguments continue even when its been accepted that the thing being argued about is impossible.
...impossible isn't accurate. Someday, reusable launch vehicles /will/ have intact abort capability.

Which means this should be in Advanced Concepts, not SpaceX General.
« Last Edit: 11/12/2013 08:44 AM by mlindner »
Internal combustion engine in space. It's just a Bad Idea.TM - Robotbeat

Tags: