Wouldn't this make recovery easy
- Thread starter dward
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
TheSamurai
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 1,083
- Reaction score
- 1
Love it and love what Elon Musk is doing with Space X!
grouch
Well-Known Member
That's so crazy.
First time I saw this video, my initial reaction was, "oh cr@p!" Having seen similar film of early space program launches that started out the same, but ended up in a ball of flames, I expected the worst. Once I realized what I was seeing, I was spellbound, playing it over and over again. The series of progressively more complex Grasshopper test flights is amazing and fun to watch. This is like being a kid again in the days of the Apollo program...
Plus 1...big fan of Elon Musk, I have been following SpaceX and believe they have a very bright future.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2013
- Messages
- 22,537
- Reaction score
- 14,955
I don't know... I kinda like the idea of returning on a parachute or in a glider... Sure if the system you uses goes fubar (as does any/all redundant systems), you're probably dead, but at least you won't be in a pool of fuel if you do make it.
As for a model rocket... Part of the fun is figuring out how to get it out of the trees anyway.
As for a model rocket... Part of the fun is figuring out how to get it out of the trees anyway.
Last edited:
Winston
Lorenzo von Matterhorn
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 9,560
- Reaction score
- 1,749
Combine one of these:
https://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking...Paraglider_Parafoil_2_15m_USA_warehouse_.html
with servo controlled steering and a flight controller using GPS.
https://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking...Paraglider_Parafoil_2_15m_USA_warehouse_.html
with servo controlled steering and a flight controller using GPS.
Winston
Lorenzo von Matterhorn
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 9,560
- Reaction score
- 1,749
SpaceX wear:
https://www.thespacestore.com/spacex.html
Also, they offer there the kit for this rocket (a bit pricey):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbnuKZQpQOo
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 5,946
- Reaction score
- 590
I played around with some ideas for trying to make our "Akavish" rocket land on its feet. The Akavish is sort of like the classic "Sputnik" design but with eight "legs." I've only had one flight, out of dozens. where one of our Akavishes landed on its feet and stayed upright. And that was one of the little Akavish rockets.
I discussed it for a while with some engineers at work who know more about the subject than I do. We considered using small compressed-gas jets or electric motors with propellers on the legs to control the attitude. Off-the-shelf electronics, like the ones for Quadcopters, could probably be used to control the jets or motors. The rocket would land upright and the parachute would be released just as the rocket touched down so it wouldn't pull the rocket over.
But ... we realized that the hardest part was dealing with wind. On a calm day, the system might work. But, on a windy day, the small jets or propellers might keep the rocket vertical, but they wouldn't be able to stop the rocket's motion relative to the ground. Doing that would require something providing more thrust. And, the control system would have to be able to detect the rocket's motion relative to the ground with enough accuracy to slow it down enough to land upright without falling over.
-- Roger
I discussed it for a while with some engineers at work who know more about the subject than I do. We considered using small compressed-gas jets or electric motors with propellers on the legs to control the attitude. Off-the-shelf electronics, like the ones for Quadcopters, could probably be used to control the jets or motors. The rocket would land upright and the parachute would be released just as the rocket touched down so it wouldn't pull the rocket over.
But ... we realized that the hardest part was dealing with wind. On a calm day, the system might work. But, on a windy day, the small jets or propellers might keep the rocket vertical, but they wouldn't be able to stop the rocket's motion relative to the ground. Doing that would require something providing more thrust. And, the control system would have to be able to detect the rocket's motion relative to the ground with enough accuracy to slow it down enough to land upright without falling over.
-- Roger
rbelknap
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,834
- Reaction score
- 227
That was pretty cool, too. I like the extendable struts, but that landing looked a little squirrely. (Thought it was going to topple for a second.)
grouch
Well-Known Member
Arn't most rockets VTOL? :wink:
Nice! I am old enough to remember that game too. Just put some steep sided mountains in the picture and you've got it.
Winston
Lorenzo von Matterhorn
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 9,560
- Reaction score
- 1,749
Ha!
No, not quite. They are VTO, but not L.
rbelknap
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,834
- Reaction score
- 227
One of my (and my kids') favorite local museums has the game set up as part of one of their exhibits. They've also got another version of the concept with an "inside the LM" view and more realistic graphics. I still crash them every single time I play. I'm just too impatient I guess.
Winston
Lorenzo von Matterhorn
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 9,560
- Reaction score
- 1,749
More on that possible method:
Autonomous Parafoil Return Vehicle
https://mbed.org/users/lhiggs/notebook/autonomous-parafoil-return-vehicle/
Winston
Lorenzo von Matterhorn
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 9,560
- Reaction score
- 1,749
Parts of them often land after reentry, just not in a non-destructive controlled fashion and usually arranged to be over large bodies of water.
Which brings a question to mind. Even though the odds are extremely slim, has anyone at sea ever reported witnessing the splashdown of a rocket stage of a type not intended to be recovered or large components from it?
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2013
- Messages
- 22,537
- Reaction score
- 14,955
Why worry about splashdowns... In Russia, they just crash into the land...
I recently watched "Space Tourists" on the Documentary Channel (which has now become PIVOT) about an Iranian born woman who is now an engineer here in the US. The film also follows some of the damage inflicted on the Asian countryside of Russia from falling boosters (some have nearly hit houses).
There's a section where some guys are watching from some trucks for the boosters to fall so they can scrap them.
Who knows, you may already be in possession of Russian space junk right now (if your aluminum foil comes from China).
Last edited:
grouch
Well-Known Member
I have yet to have one come in horizontally. They all seem to come in vertically more or less.
luke strawwalker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 9,147
- Reaction score
- 40
Tank from a Gemini Titan II was recovered largely intact...
Heard of parts raining down on a ship from a Saturn V launch... maybe Apollo 11... can't remember... just bits of metal though clanging on the deck...
Shuttle SRB's of course...
Later! OL JR
I don't think this method will ever work reliably. It's just too unstable. Remember the Delta Clipper? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzXcTFfV3Ls If the vehicle was much larger in diameter and much shorter, it might work, as far as landings go, but I doubt such a vehicle could ever achieve the speed necessary to reach orbit.
luke strawwalker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 9,147
- Reaction score
- 40
Delta Clipper landed fine... it tipped over because one of it's four extendable landing feet failed to deploy. Thus it tipped over and exploded. NASA had inherited Delta Clipper from development programs related to Reagan's Star Wars missile defense program, which was looking at ways to cut launch costs for the huge numbers of missile detection and killer satellites that they were going to have to launch to implement the system... and NASA had already chosen their own "in-house" pet project from Marshall Space Flight Center to focus their development time/money/effort on, the X-33/Venturestar. Basically Delta Clipper was an unwanted diversion, suffering from "not invented here" syndrome famous at NASA, despite the fact it had a MUCH better chance of actually working than X-33 did... so NASA didn't shed any tears when they "lost" Delta Clipper... in fact they were happy enough to see it gone.
If you're talking about an SSTO based on this sort of thing, you're right. It's well proven and established fact that SSTO's by their very nature aren't capable of delivering a substantial cargo to orbit for a given gross liftoff weight (the payload/GLOW ratio) using conventional aerospace vehicle materials and conventional chemical propulsion. SSTO does exist; heck even the Titan II first stage was capable of SSTO with a meager payload of only a few dozen pounds or so, but such small payloads make it impractical. X-33 was probably the closest we've come, and it had HUGE problems and was impractical, and at any rate it was just a demonstrator anyway, not the full scale vehicle.
Thing is, this SpaceX "grasshopper" demonstrator is just a testbed vehicle to prove the concept. This isn't an SSTO project. The idea is to figure out the control and landing issues and develop the hardware and software necessary to make it work, and then integrate that into the existing Falcon 9 first stage... equip it with landing legs and the software and stuff to make it work, and create a flyback and self-landing reusable first stage for the Falcon 9... instead of parachuting into the sea or other such recovery methods which are problematical for practical reuse without extensive disassembly/refurbishment due to salt water contamination, impact damage, etc., have the spent stage maneuver into a "tossback" position after first stage separation, fire the central Merlin engine of the 9 engine cluster at its base, to put it on a ballistic trajectory to the landing site, and then fire the central Merlin again to decelerate and hover itself back down toward the pad, deploy landing legs from the sides, and land upright at the recovery site... Since the stage never takes a salt-water bath or impacts the ocean under parachutes, but "soft lands" upright (in the direction the stage is designed to take maximum loads from anyway), damage should be minimal and thus it should be pretty straightforward and easy to refurbish the first stage for reuse...
That's the idea anyway-- not make an single stage to orbit... simply make a reusable booster stage... even if you expend the second stage, that should cut costs considerably, because every Falcon 9 lifts off with 10 Merlin engines and two sets of tankage... 9 Merlins and the tankage of the first stage, and 1 Merlin and tank set on the second stage... and of course the first stage is, by necessity, much bigger... and recovering that is much easier since it's flying so much lower and slower than the second stage when its job is done...
Later! OL JR
Winston
Lorenzo von Matterhorn
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 9,560
- Reaction score
- 1,749
Darn. I'd love to see that, but it looks like Comcast doesn't carry that channel.
It looks like Space-X is making progress on this concept. They are talking about making a soft landing in the Indian Ocean for the Falcon-9 on a commercial flight. I believe that their test flights in Texas have been made with a special vehicle that has only one, but pivoting engine. A real flight will be heavier with 9 engines. There are some natural benefits. Even though the Falcan-9 1st stage is long, after most of the propellants have been burned the center of gravity will have shifted aft making the rocket naturally stable for vertical landing. Also, since the 1st stage is long and relatively empty after staging, it would be advantageous to let the booster come down lengthwise, so that air drag will bleed off velocity. This orientation during re-entry may induce structural problems, but it decreases speed for free. As the booster gets closer to the earth's surface the engines can be used for the soft landing. Space-X has a long way to go, but there is potential here. To do this test would be very instructive. Such a test would be far better than Kistler Aerospace's accomplishments. Kistler Aerospace had a similar plan, except they spent millions of dollars (perhaps one or two hundred million dollars) and never cut metal.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2013
- Messages
- 22,537
- Reaction score
- 14,955
The Documentary Channel is no more... Now it has been replaced with PIVOT, which isn't a documentary like channel at all.
I'd try Netflix or Hulu
Last edited:
