Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX Plans to Land Next Falcon 9 on Solid Ground

defensenews.com

111–120 of 140 posts

Re: SpaceX Plans to Land Next Falcon 9 on Solid Ground

#111
post #8

I think now that they have proven they can 'hit the hole', almost spot on, they'll be able to get approval to go for a try on cleared land space. It sounds like to me, landing on land would be ideal; less expensive and less risk with stabilization and rough waters.

Landing is an awful lot harder than taking off, it seems to me; a single engine rocket with stabilizing jets is a bit like trying to land a pogo stick - possible, but inherently problematic. I know this must seem stupidly obvious, but I wonder if a better design for a reusable launch vehicle isn't 4 engines connected by a frame with the payload in the center, basically a chair.

Yeah, it sounds horribly unwieldy with a bunch of structural challenges, but the thing is it's self-stable in a way that a vertical column can never be. A few years ago the wisdom was that small (remote control) helicopters could only be flown stably with a coaxial main rotor. Quadcopters would work in theory, but everyone figured 4 motors on an frame was going to be even more complex to mange and that the stresses on the frame would likely weaken it too much, the power-to-weight ratios wouldn't work out and so on and so on. Now everyone is using quadcopter configurations because they are much easier to control and not actually that difficult to build.

My naive opinion is that output has never quite been consistent enough from rocket to rocket to make the idea of bolting multiple rockets together seem worthwhile unless they were all part of a single fuselage; one of the four would always be putting out too much or too little power and the whole contraption would fly off course in short order. but since the SpaceX rockets depend on liquid rather than solid propellant, and very precise pumping is not that big of an engineering challenge these days, it seems like it should be worth experimenting with on a small scale.

Re: SpaceX Plans to Land Next Falcon 9 on Solid Ground

#112
post #8

I think now that they have proven they can 'hit the hole', almost spot on, they'll be able to get approval to go for a try on cleared land space. It sounds like to me, landing on land would be ideal; less expensive and less risk with stabilization and rough waters.

Landing is an awful lot harder than taking off, it seems to me; a single engine rocket with stabilizing jets is a bit like trying to land a pogo stick - possible, but inherently problematic. I know this must seem stupidly obvious, but I wonder if a better design for a reusable launch vehicle isn't 4 engines connected by a frame with the payload in the center, basically a chair. Yeah, it sounds horribly unwieldy with…

quadcopters I am not an aerodynamics person, but as far as i understand the 4-8 rotor configuration works because of how light the involved tech is/has become. In terms of payload, quads flat out suck. Yes, they are getting better, but currently they cannot haul. I realize we are talking about explosive thrust versus turbine generated thrust, but that alone makes me think this configuration [4 rocket chair] is unfeasible. Just my .02$.

Re: SpaceX Plans to Land Next Falcon 9 on Solid Ground

#113
Someone may have asked this already, but why not use some kind of system similar to "mobile" oil rigs? The kind that float into place, partially submerge, then tether to the sea floor? Seems like the best of both worlds to me...

[edit]...It could also serve as the launching platform. In this way the launch/recovery pad could be floated to the rocket, boarded and built, moved into position near the equator, then launch and recover.

Re: SpaceX Plans to Land Next Falcon 9 on Solid Ground

#114
post #8

I think now that they have proven they can 'hit the hole', almost spot on, they'll be able to get approval to go for a try on cleared land space. It sounds like to me, landing on land would be ideal; less expensive and less risk with stabilization and rough waters.

Landing is an awful lot harder than taking off, it seems to me; a single engine rocket with stabilizing jets is a bit like trying to land a pogo stick - possible, but inherently problematic. I know this must seem stupidly obvious, but I wonder if a better design for a reusable launch vehicle isn't 4 engines connected by a frame with the payload in the center, basically a chair. Yeah, it sounds horribly unwieldy with…

AIUI rockets are tall and thin to reduce the aerodynamic stress on them while they're accelerating. It's not about being worried about them flying apart per se. The Falcon already has 9 engines at the bottom, but they're clustered closely together to fit under a narrow fuselage.

Re: SpaceX Plans to Land Next Falcon 9 on Solid Ground

#115
post #8

I think now that they have proven they can 'hit the hole', almost spot on, they'll be able to get approval to go for a try on cleared land space. It sounds like to me, landing on land would be ideal; less expensive and less risk with stabilization and rough waters.

Landing is an awful lot harder than taking off, it seems to me; a single engine rocket with stabilizing jets is a bit like trying to land a pogo stick - possible, but inherently problematic. I know this must seem stupidly obvious, but I wonder if a better design for a reusable launch vehicle isn't 4 engines connected by a frame with the payload in the center, basically a chair. Yeah, it sounds horribly unwieldy with…

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX Plans to Land Next Falcon 9 on Solid Ground

#116
post #8

I think now that they have proven they can 'hit the hole', almost spot on, they'll be able to get approval to go for a try on cleared land space. It sounds like to me, landing on land would be ideal; less expensive and less risk with stabilization and rough waters.

Landing is an awful lot harder than taking off, it seems to me; a single engine rocket with stabilizing jets is a bit like trying to land a pogo stick - possible, but inherently problematic. I know this must seem stupidly obvious, but I wonder if a better design for a reusable launch vehicle isn't 4 engines connected by a frame with the payload in the center, basically a chair. Yeah, it sounds horribly unwieldy with…

The SuperDraco offers deep throttling down to 20% so it's feasible with SpaceX's current technology (though I'm not quite so sure about throttling the Dracos currently on the F9), though I'm not sure about payload sizes.

Re: SpaceX Plans to Land Next Falcon 9 on Solid Ground

#117
post #8

I think now that they have proven they can 'hit the hole', almost spot on, they'll be able to get approval to go for a try on cleared land space. It sounds like to me, landing on land would be ideal; less expensive and less risk with stabilization and rough waters.

Landing is an awful lot harder than taking off, it seems to me; a single engine rocket with stabilizing jets is a bit like trying to land a pogo stick - possible, but inherently problematic. I know this must seem stupidly obvious, but I wonder if a better design for a reusable launch vehicle isn't 4 engines connected by a frame with the payload in the center, basically a chair. Yeah, it sounds horribly unwieldy with…

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX Plans to Land Next Falcon 9 on Solid Ground

#118
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They need to be able to stabilize the rocket's landing in all sorts of conditions if they want to have any hope of landing it on another planet. Well, not really. Dragons (and Red Dragons, for interplanetary travel) are way, way less sensitive to the whims of weather. The issue with the first stage is that you have a very large, very fragile, very bottom-heavy tin can that you're trying to balance on a moving platf…

On top of that, they are trying to do it with the main engines, combined with the light weight of the almost empty stage..the power can only be reduced so much. They can't hover and stabilize. They literally have to have a landing burn that makes the velocity at height 0... = 0. Which is incredibly hard enough on stable ground, even more on water. Maybe they'll figure out how to cut off engines as the stage slows dow…

> Which is incredibly hard enough on stable ground, even more on water.

I dunno, my Kerbal Space Program experience is that water at least doesn't have mountains to crash into.

Re: SpaceX Plans to Land Next Falcon 9 on Solid Ground

#119

Someone may have asked this already, but why not use some kind of system similar to "mobile" oil rigs? The kind that float into place, partially submerge, then tether to the sea floor? Seems like the best of both worlds to me... [edit]...It could also serve as the launching platform. In this way the launch/recovery pad could be floated to the rocket, boarded and built, moved into position near the equator, then launc…

That's what Sea Launch used[1].

Note that the drone ship doubles up as a recovery vehicle to ferry back the stage to land. Also a sea launch platform will be a permanent structure while the drone ship's purpose is to be a test platform for landing on land.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch

Re: SpaceX Plans to Land Next Falcon 9 on Solid Ground

#120
post #8

I think now that they have proven they can 'hit the hole', almost spot on, they'll be able to get approval to go for a try on cleared land space. It sounds like to me, landing on land would be ideal; less expensive and less risk with stabilization and rough waters.

They need to be able to stabilize the rocket's landing in all sorts of conditions if they want to have any hope of landing it on another planet. It's not like interplanetary launches will be able to schedule launches to choose optimal weather conditions for the landing. Maybe, if they're lucky, they'll be able to orbit briefly to avoid bad weather at the landing site, but moderate winds and wind gusts are going to be…

Uh, we've already had a few near landings in non-ideal Earth weather. Mars barely has weather. It has wind, sure, but the air on Mars is about 150 times less dense. I.e., it won't be blowing over any rockets. So basically, landing anywhere on Mars is easy compared to Earth if they just find a flat spot.
Post reply on HN