6 ms·
This is super interesting - is there any information if they're doing this for other Falcon 9s? Or are all of the new 9s built like this now? Was this a conting
by ValG 9y ago
This is super interesting - is there any information if they're doing this for other Falcon 9s? Or are all of the new 9s built like this now? Was this a contingency plan if the heavy wasn't launched on time or a scramble to get it done?
- sitharus 9y agoAll new falcon 9s are like this, it's the 'full thrust' variant. It's also how they have the fuel to land.
- simonh 9y agoThen again there is Block 5, the 'final' version including the new retractable landing legs, new engine enclosure heat shield and further performance improvements. Those were supposed to be in production by now, but we'll see. They're an important next milestone because that will be the version that gets man-rated and will thus have to be a 'frozen' config.
- ChuckMcM 9y agoThis is the one I'm really interested in seeing. In theory it is the culmination of all the things they will have learned from landing boosters back. Given the thermal damage to the guide fins on SES-10 (another one that wasn't 'supposed' to be recoverable) I expect there will also be an upgrade there some how. I found it interesting that the latest piece on New Glenn showed the booster landing with winged guide fins. I'm not sure that will work given NASA research into hyper-sonic flight with airfoil wings. If they can pull it off that will be a good data point as well. At lunch the other day we got into a discussion as to whether a 'landable' booster could also continue on to orbit. Specifically if, after the second stage had separated and headed on, the first stage could re-light and put itself into its own orbit. I couldn't find anywhere that suggested what the mass of the booster was at separation. Would be a fun kerbal program.
- neolefty 9y agoThey've made some amazing progress! However, a landable booster can't put itself into orbit -- its engine cutoff is always well under 3000 m/s (today's was about 9800 kph according to the YouTube broadcast, or about 2700 m/s, and that was with no fuel margin left for landing), but about 7800 m/s is required for orbit.
- ChuckMcM 9y agoElon's tweet today (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/669132749500887040 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/669132749500887040) was that a booster with no payload could put itself into orbit. And that certainly supports your statement. It clearly would not be possible to launch a second stage and have the booster stage make it all the way into orbit. But it isn't as far out of whack as it might be.
- wolf550e 9y agoTsiolkovsky is very clear about the propellant mass fraction needed for single stage to orbit, and it is unachievable with current materials, i.e. you can't build a useful SSTO using Al-Li tanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-stage-to-orbit#Design_challenges_inherent_in_SSTO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-stage-to-orbit#Design_c...
- marvin 9y agoSSTO with a significant payload then, presumably.
- xorxornop 9y agoYup. Even carbon composites don't really work out (minimal payload) until the rocket is very large (see: ITS)
- Symmetry 9y agoThe first stage has a fuel mass fraction of 95.5%. Propellant densification and high thrust to weight ratio engines buy you lot. That should be enough to make orbit.