USAF Still Can't Make Reusable Booster System Case
Reusable Booster System Business Case Incomplete; Underlying Technologies Show Significant Potential, NRC
“Due to uncertainties in the business case and yet-to-be mitigated technology risks associated with the Reusable Booster System (RBS) concept, it is currently premature for Air Force Space Command to invest substantially in developing RBS, says a new report from the National Research Council. However, the report strongly endorses the continued research and advanced technology development needed for future launch systems and concludes that reusability remains an option in the future.”
Never mind guys. See what Musk comes up with.
You left out the part about commercial launch providers working on solutions outside of the AF sugar babies.
Correct – why not let companies spend their wad on developing same/better out of the necessity of remaining competitive with each other?
After all, America has invested heavily in each of these firms, so indirectly invests in “reusability” and thus indirectly participates/benefits.
Too bad.Left is a graphic of what it looks like.Russia has come up with a neat one to be flown in 2020.Maybe a pivoting wing.Jet engines in the front to cruise on back.I hope they can do it.They have big versions.40,000lbs. up.
Russia’s space industry isn’t what it used to be. Maybe they can build it, maybe not. I wouldn’t hold my breath, though.
There are components to this – research in technologies (IR&D dollars) that improve the likelihood of reusable boosters, reusable booster system prototypes, and reusable booster systems that can be made operational.
With the Shuttle RLV, the attempt was to “jump the shark” and do all these things at once, and drive all launches through one system to force the business case to flip through sheer momentum and force of will.
Faget’s Shuttle concept involved a controversial “high alpha” maneuver , which was critical to the overall economics – SpaceShip One did a variation on this with its “feathering” concept. Interestingly, the electronics and the GNC software of the time could do this, just the chicken shit USAF, who were dubious of “fly by wire” for too long a time nixed it and the related IR&D/prototype dollars to prove the concept because they didn’t have to.
One approach to reusability involves a high alpha pitch-up and flip-over maneuver, that is a more extreme case of the Faget one (because its under power). The advantage of this is you don’t have to do hypersonic / supersonic retropropulsion with plume impingement / ignition issues. The danger is causing a spin/tumble due to flow separation.
Having an “X vehicle” proof of this flight regime allows for an understanding of this area, and is a critical step in a variety of reusability schemes, some of which have better eventual business cases.
So the problem in doing this, is a complex political/business/technology issue, with national security overtones. It turns out that warheads have the same flight regime. And that some parts of “arsenal space” have this as a protected speciality area – lots of “cost plus” dollars, no surprise.
But then what allowed MSL/Curiosity to have extremely accurate guidance was a terminal guidance propulsion system using an closed loop with feedback guidance from the same area, to achieve reproducable targetting whereby a sampling rover might be able to drive to a MSR return launcher placed by another mission.
In other words, there’s been a “backup” in not doing the groundwork IR&D in this area. The irony is that because its being put on the competitive landscape, the solutions that companies find might way outstrip military devised ones. They are on the edge of not funding because its uncompetitive for a business case, yet may be compelled to fund because they have to be involved in this development because of the strategic/other ramifications.
So the stupidity of being “too cheap”, “too corrupt”, “too parochial”, … bites.
It’s my understanding that the DOD program has two major advantages over Shuttle; 1) thorough testing at the prototype level prior to finalizing any design and 2) beginning with full reusability of the booster stage, minimizing entry thermal loads.
I just responded to Pauls idea about using a recoverable Falcon 1 to save a low satellite in the SpaceX CRS-1 Dragon Launched and in Orbit
thread. All the more reason to “let companies spend their wad on developing same/better out of the necessity of remaining competitive with each other?” noofcsq
Only they would dare be that creative to save a buck. 🙂
Could Spacex using a F1 grass hopper recovery booster program help get them to R F 9 cheaper faster and end with both R F 9 and R F 1????
“Could Spacex using a F1 grass hopper recovery booster program help get
them to R F 9 cheaper faster and end with both R F 9 and R F 1????”
Falcon 1 doesn’t work very well as a grasshopper. The beauty of using the first stage of Falcon 9 is that you can turn back on just one of the nine engines, which gives much less thrust for the landing than during takeoff, which is what you need because on landing the stage is much, much lighter than on takeoff. The newest version of the Merlin engine can throttle down somewhat, but nowhere near enough to have the low levels of thrust you’d need to land the Falcon 1 first stage.
As usual, I believe SpaceX made the right choice.
Yup.
Falcon 1e is dead indefinitely. Because the battle for LV’s is elsewhere.
If you want to reuse stages of any sort, its those you fly most frequently. If you’re going to test your ability to reuse stages, what makes most sense is to model the work along the lines of what you are going to be making reusable. That way, when it works, translating it into action has the fewest surprises. Even the nature of engine controllers is very touchy for “sizing”. Rocket science isn’t science/art for no reason – surprising details matter.
Think of the management of the mass/momentum of a 100 ft long stage – negotiating a vertical landing – lots of issues. Translation between ballistic to horizontal back to vertical flight – very touchy. Just look at the fun Blue Horizon has had – they lost the vehicle under test.
So what would you do with Falcon -1(e…f…g)? Clearly none of this – its more unstable and less representative. Its best as what it was designed for – a low cost expendable in a very specific category. The problem is that this category is unstable due to global launch pricing – e.g. Russian / Chinese / other … and it won’t stabilize until the medium launch category finally shakes out.
Then all the SS-18 and LM-3 options will suddenly have a price collapse, they’ll become infrequently flown due to unprofitability, then the category will collapse further and rebound. That’s when a Falcon 1 might become economic and usable. But would their be enough “headroom” between it and a reusable Falcon 9? We’ll have to wait and see …
[Missed this]
For the record, my suggestion was putting a modified Falcon 1 up-range by one orbit (about 15° west) of the F9 launch site. If there is a problem with satellite deployment, as happened with ORBCOMM, you launch the F1. The upper-stage of the F1 would have extra fuel and some kind of grabber (MDA-style arm, or an Altius stick-boom), and presumably thrusters for the fine work. The F1-upper grabs the misplaced satellite and shunts it into the correct orbit.
If the cost of the rescue is, say, $20m, and the cost of standing down an unused rescue launch is $2m; and if you need the rescue once every 10 flights, the cost is (9 x $2m + $20m) / 10 = call it $4m per flight. If the existence of the rescue option can lower the cost of launch insurance by $4m, you’re golden.
This assumes an expendable F1. And assumes that the F1 isn’t dead, which it is. ‘Twas just a thought experiment.
—
“The beauty of using the first stage of Falcon 9 is that you can turn back on just one of the nine engines, which gives much less thrust for the landing than during takeoff,”
F1’s first stage, nearly dry, is so light (less than a ton and a half) that it could land on a single draco, so presumably SpaceX could come up with something clever.
This reminds me a bit of Zheng He’s voyages in the 15th Century: China was on the brink the discovering and developing the New World, but decided it just wasn’t worth the bother and gave up.
I don’t think they decided it wasn’t worht it, I think they were worried about the new merchant class that was rising in wealth and power on the back of sea-trade with nations “discovered” by Zheng He (greater India, west Africa, etc). It upset the established order.
And that doesn’t remind me of anything.
Uh-oh…Keith let a headlined story from The Onion sneak onto his serious web site…
Huh?
The idea of closing a “business case” in a speculative R&D program seems misconstrued. Moreover, I am not clear on the impact of this NRC report. Will DOD actually cancel the RBS program? I hope they do not; I saw a presentation on it and it seems to be well thought out, with the exception that apparently they neglected the VTOVL concept Musk is looking at and included some HTOHL ideas that look rather implausible. But the basic point is very solid; cost must be very substantially reduced, and only reusability makes this possible.
I would like to see NASA more involved in reusable launch, i.e. by providing some funding for the SpaceX RBS proposals, but strangely DOD seems more concerned about cost than NASA. SLS/Orion is a case in point; there seems no conceivable way to pay for it, yet that raises no concerns.
… Moreover, I am not clear on the impact of this NRC report. Will DOD actually cancel the RBS program? …
More complicated than that.
I’d characterize it as downgrading RBS from a “Shuttle-like”, “do or die” “arsenal system” megaproject to attempt to replace an expensive booster system (for the Shuttle this was Saturn V, for RBS its EELV due to cost growth post Shuttle cause no RS-25 refurb contracts to offset to PWR) with a so-called reusable and thus less expensive booster system.
So … no, you can’t see RBS as a replacement for EELV cost increases. RBS has to be efforts to develop the base for future systems, which means lots of smaller scale work to lay the groundwork – which means its harder to finance, smaller “arsenal space” projects, and in this competitive environment, they all must work ontime, on budget … because they’ll be no funding for losers at reusability – this is the worst for existing “arsenal space” because they don’t get the usual “thank you for playing” payoff when they screw up.
It also puts pressure in all govt launch to get costs down while retaining reliability. So called “mission assurance” dollars erode … while tolerance of anomalies of any sort – this means you too SpaceX – diminishes. Likely also means weird instabilities in pricing/lifetime for launchers.
On the one hand, you want to “slim down” the field of MLV … but can you really still yet pick the winners? Without an theory of a operational RBS, do you hold on to Delta IV longer/shorter, when the operating theory before was you lose Delta to gain RBS?
It also places pressure on SLS, because if you actually get serious about a cargo only non HSF HLV – possibly because you fly crew on EELV, then to bring in schedule/budget you go with KeroLOX (not solid) boosters with a RS-68 engined core (once again), and the issue is all about lofting mass out of TLI or high C3.
Note that SLS is about to announce a major schedule slip (1+ years which really means 4 years …). Consider the timing …
Good point on shared costs. Consider the cost of maintaining the entire chain of segmented-SRB supply and servicing facilities for just one SLS launch every 1-2 years.
I agree. Since when does USAF need a business case? Do the research.