SoylentNews

Why are Reusable Rockets so Hard to Make?

posted by janrinok on Sunday January 11 2015, @08:18PM   
from the what-goes-up... dept.

AnonTechie writes:

SpaceX is attempting a huge feat in spacecraft engineering. It is seeking to land the first stage of its Falcon 9-R rocket on a floating platform at sea. Normally this would end up at the bottom of the ocean. If successful, SpaceX will shake the rocket launch market, by shaving millions of dollars off launch costs.

Today’s rockets are one shot wonders. They burn up fuel in a few minutes and splash down into terrestrial oceans, having put their payload on the right trajectory. This is wasteful and that is why scientists have dreamed of building reusable launch vehicles.

The holy grail of rocket launchers is a concept referred to as the single stage to orbit (SSTO) vehicle. The idea is to use a reusable launch vehicle (RLV) which has the capability to deliver a payload to orbit, re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere and land, where it can then be refuelled. The process can then be repeated with a short turnaround.

https://theconversation.com/explainer-why-reusable-rockets-are-so-hard-to-make-36036

• Re:analogy Re:analogy (Score: 4, Informative) by TheRaven on Sunday January 11 2015, @09:45PM

  by TheRaven (270) on Sunday January 11 2015, @09:45PM (#133807) Journal

  There's also the cost of refurbishing. Rockets start by being subject to immense temperature and pressure (and, ideally, acceleration). Then they're subject to very low air pressure, if not vacuum, and a lot of solar radiation. This combination is a recipe for metal fatigue. If you were to take a normal disposable rocket and, after it's used, teleport it to the ground (no dropping back to Earth and hitting the ground), then it still likely wouldn't be reusable - a lot of the materials would be degraded to the point that they wouldn't be able to survive another shot. You're left either replacing a lot of shielding (in which case, is the cost actually lower), or trying to create materials that don't have these problems (in which case, how many of the disposable ones could you build for the price of one reusable one?).

  --
  sudo mod me up

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+2
  Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=2
  Extra 'Informative' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		4

• Re:analogy Re:analogy (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday January 11 2015, @09:54PM

  by frojack (1554) on Sunday January 11 2015, @09:54PM (#133809) Journal

  Pretty sure both I and VLM addressed refurb costs.

  Pretty sure that rocket reputability [nasa.gov] has already been proven. Without teleporters.

  --
  No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.

  Parent

  • Re:analogy (Score: 2) by frojack on Monday January 12 2015, @05:04AM

    by frojack (1554) on Monday January 12 2015, @05:04AM (#133895) Journal

    sigh... Rocket Reuse-ability

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.

    Parent

• Re:analogy Re:analogy (Score: 2) by Adamsjas on Sunday January 11 2015, @10:52PM

  by Adamsjas (4507) on Sunday January 11 2015, @10:52PM (#133821)

  Ok, I assume you were kidding about the teleporting part.
  But If I can play along, why would we teleport rockets down but not up? Of if we had teleporters why would we even have rockets?

  Parent

  • Re:analogy (Score: 2) by deimtee on Monday January 12 2015, @10:33AM

    by deimtee (3272) on Monday January 12 2015, @10:33AM (#133944) Journal

    I think he was making the point that most rockets wouldn't be re-usable after a single launch, even without the stress of dropping back to earth. He doesn't actually have a teleporter

    --
    No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10⁻²⁵ Mercury Sulphide comes close.

    Parent