6 ms·
I was wondering if they've considered just leaving the first stage in orbit and then refueling it later for recovery. It might be worth it to refuel after super
by deegles 9y ago
I was wondering if they've considered just leaving the first stage in orbit and then refueling it later for recovery. It might be worth it to refuel after super heavy loads on the Falcon Heavy.
- sitharus 9y agoThe first stage never makes it to orbit, it's on a ballistic trajectory in to the Atlantic Ocean. Landing from a short hop is a much easier operation than from orbit. So far SpaceX have abandoned second stage recovery as too hard.
- DiThi 9y agoSecond stage recovery of F9 is not out of the table completely yet. It seems more likely now that there will be attempts in the future.
- bisby 9y agohttps://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/847882289581359104 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/847882289581359104 as of 1.5 months ago. > Considering trying to bring upper stage back on Falcon Heavy demo flight for full reusability. Odds of success low, but maybe worth a shot. So they've definitely not abandoned it, and in fact, are actively considering at least as a small possibility again.
- sitharus 9y agoI was referring to the standard falcon 9, but you're quite right. It'll be impressive if SpaceX manage second stage recovery.
- aninhumer 9y agoIs there any information about how second stage recovery would work? A powered landing on a single vacuum engine from orbital velocity seems implausible...
- zardo 9y agoOther than "bring it back like dragon", nothing official. The addition of heatshield and some alternate landing device seems very likely.
- dfox 9y agoThe first stage does not have enough delta-V to reach stable orbit which is the sole reason for existence of second stage. Building something that can reach orbit with only one stage is in fact the holy grail of cheap space flight, it is my understanding that such thing is physically impossible when you carry entire used reaction mass from the surface of earth.
- skykooler 9y agoAccording to Elon Musk [1], the first stage could technically fly all the way to orbit (if it weren't lifting the rest of the rocket); it just wouldn't be able to carry a useful payload. [1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/669132749500887040 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/669132749500887040
- stcredzero 9y agoSo throw some advanced carbon fiber construction at it and launch it from a mass driver. Then you'd have an SSTO with a small usable payload!
- sitharus 9y agoSomething that can withstand the acceleration of a mass driver and the accompanying atmospheric heating while still being light enough to achieve orbit would be quite the feat.
- brianwawok 9y agoWould hybrid help? Say mass driver to 1000 m/s before the rocket booster starts?
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y agoYou made it sound easy. The tallest building is about 830m high. A rocket would have to undergo some fierce acceleration to gain any useful speed over that distance. Something like pushing a bullet through water. The stresses on such a structure, and the launch vehicle, would probably give them a limited life span. I suspect economics plays a big role here. I suspect it is cheaper to launch multistage rockets than to build a mass driver long / tall enough to be useful.
- feelix 9y agoIt's not like a car that just needs more gas to keep going. It takes a lot of refurbishment to make it so it fly again after it's taken off into space.
- avmich 9y agoThey work on making those refurbishments done within 24 hour time period.
- devrandomguy 9y agoIf we're going to do creative difficult things with orbital first stages, then I would like to see them used as space stations. 3.7m OD should be nice and roomy on the inside. Perhaps, a bunch of them could be linked together into a ring? There were ideas like this for the Shuttle's big orange tank, back in the day.