It has been a few years now since SpaceX has started reusing the first
stages of their Falcon 9 rockets. I would have expected that by this
time everyone would have recognised that this is the way to go. I know
that Blue Origin is also going for reusable. But I haven't heard much
about the others developing reusability. Maybe it's only because I
missed some announcements. So have any of you heard about United Launch
Alliance, Arianespace, the Russians, the Chinese or others developing
reusable rockets or at least first stages?

Alain Fournier

On 2021-09-25 09:32, Alain Fournier wrote:

> So have any of you heard about United Launch
> Alliance, Arianespace, the Russians, the Chinese or others developing
> reusable rockets or at least first stages?

Launching from Baikonour to either ISS or equatorial orbit, where would
stage 1 land? hint: not in Russia. And if landihg on land, you expect a
precise target and what happens when you miss the target?

They could launch from Russia and gain flexibility in where it lands,
but how much performance would they lose launching from more northern
latitude and would that reduce the buysiness case for re-usability?
(considering Russia doesn't pay Los Angeles salaries to its employees
who build the rockets as does SpaceX)

On Sep/25/2021 at 15:36, JF Mezei wrote :
> On 2021-09-25 09:32, Alain Fournier wrote:
>
>> So have any of you heard about United Launch
>> Alliance, Arianespace, the Russians, the Chinese or others developing
>> reusable rockets or at least first stages?
>
>
> Launching from Baikonour to either ISS or equatorial orbit, where would
> stage 1 land? hint: not in Russia. And if landihg on land, you expect a
> precise target and what happens when you miss the target?
>
> They could launch from Russia and gain flexibility in where it lands,
> but how much performance would they lose launching from more northern
> latitude and would that reduce the buysiness case for re-usability?
> (considering Russia doesn't pay Los Angeles salaries to its employees
> who build the rockets as does SpaceX)

SpaceX frequently lands their Falcon 9 boosters at launch site. The
Russians could do the same. If you have a flight path where it is
acceptable to fly a rocket, knowing that the rocket could explode, it is
probably acceptable to land in a controlled fashion on that path.

Alain Fournier

Alain Fournier presented the following explanation :
> It has been a few years now since SpaceX has started reusing the first stages
> of their Falcon 9 rockets. I would have expected that by this time everyone
> would have recognised that this is the way to go. I know that Blue Origin is
> also going for reusable. But I haven't heard much about the others developing
> reusability. Maybe it's only because I missed some announcements. So have any
> of you heard about United Launch Alliance, Arianespace, the Russians, the
> Chinese or others developing reusable rockets or at least first stages?
>

ULA has mentioned parachuting Vulcan engines home.

The Chinese have emitted drawings that look like Starship, but I
haven't followed that enough to know if they are planning to land them.

The Russians probably have reusable sketches.

I the small sat world, Electron has been practicing chuting home but
the helicopters aren't trying to catch it yet.

/dps

--
Trust, but verify.

"Snidely" wrote in message news:mn.d8417e59a35d0161.127094@snitoo...
>
>Alain Fournier presented the following explanation :
>> It has been a few years now since SpaceX has started reusing the first
>> stages of their Falcon 9 rockets. I would have expected that by this time
>> everyone would have recognised that this is the way to go. I know that
>> Blue Origin is also going for reusable. But I haven't heard much about
>> the others developing reusability. Maybe it's only because I missed some
>> announcements. So have any of you heard about United Launch Alliance,
>> Arianespace, the Russians, the Chinese or others developing reusable
>> rockets or at least first stages?
>>
>
>ULA has mentioned parachuting Vulcan engines home.

Last I saw, they appear to have given up on that.
That said, it always struck me as they learned the wrong lesson from SpaceX.
Yes, the engines are the most expensive part of the 1st stage and tanks are
cheap, but snagging them in mid-air, landing, and reattaching them to new
tanks is a HUGE operational complexity and cost.

So yeah, other than Bezos talking big, but not really doing much, I haven't
seen much else in the large rockets space (Though you do note Electron which
is trying).
>
>The Chinese have emitted drawings that look like Starship, but I haven't
>followed that enough to know if they are planning to land them.
>
>The Russians probably have reusable sketches.
>
>I the small sat world, Electron has been practicing chuting home but the
>helicopters aren't trying to catch it yet.
>
>/dps
>
>

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Response-Lessons-Learned-Field/dp/1484221834/

On Sep/27/2021 at 13:30, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote :
> "Snidely"  wrote in message news:mn.d8417e59a35d0161.127094@snitoo...
>>
>> Alain Fournier presented the following explanation :
>>> It has been a few years now since SpaceX has started reusing the
>>> first stages of their Falcon 9 rockets. I would have expected that by
>>> this time everyone would have recognised that this is the way to go.
>>> I know that Blue Origin is also going for reusable. But I haven't
>>> heard much about the others developing reusability. Maybe it's only
>>> because I missed some announcements. So have any of you heard about
>>> United Launch Alliance, Arianespace, the Russians, the Chinese or
>>> others developing reusable rockets or at least first stages?
>>>
>>
>> ULA has mentioned parachuting Vulcan engines home.
>
> Last I saw, they appear to have given up on that.
> That said, it always struck me as they learned the wrong lesson from
> SpaceX.
> Yes, the engines are the most expensive part of the 1st stage and tanks
> are cheap, but snagging them in mid-air, landing, and reattaching them
> to new tanks is a HUGE operational complexity and cost.

I disagree. If you want to do that, you should design the system from
the start to do that easily. You have to build a system where you bring
back the engine pod, put it on the launch pad and drop a new tank on
top. All the connections should be done automatically. The snagging in
mid-air should also be at least semi-automatic. Yes, that makes the
engine pod heavier and more complex. Having a rocket that can land à la
SpaceX also makes the rocket heavier and more complex, but it is worth it.

Personally, I think landing the whole rocket is the best way to go. But
if you make a *big* investment in the engineering of a reusable engine
pod, you could have a rocket with low operation costs. It isn't easy to
do, but what SpaceX did isn't easy to do either.

Alain Fournier

On 2021-09-27 13:30, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

> Yes, the engines are the most expensive part of the 1st stage and tanks are
> cheap, but snagging them in mid-air, landing, and reattaching them to new
> tanks is a HUGE operational complexity and cost.

The ability for engines to be let go in flight would presume
quick-disconnect plumbing so engines can cleaninly separate from stage
and then fall back with parachute etc.

Once equipped with quick disconnect, once would assume that attaching a
new first stage/tanks on top of engines would be easy.

If you have a bunhc of engines falling from the sky, doubtful they could
be caught by as many helicopters as there are engines, unless the
separation is staged in such a way that each drops a safe distance fro
the other. It might make more sense to drop the cluster as one "pod"
that can be caught.

"JF Mezei" wrote in message news:a785J.31037$oY4.5834@fx20.iad...
>
>On 2021-09-27 13:30, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
>
>> Yes, the engines are the most expensive part of the 1st stage and tanks
>> are
>> cheap, but snagging them in mid-air, landing, and reattaching them to new
>> tanks is a HUGE operational complexity and cost.
>
>
>The ability for engines to be let go in flight would presume
>quick-disconnect plumbing so engines can cleaninly separate from stage
>and then fall back with parachute etc.
>
>Once equipped with quick disconnect, once would assume that attaching a
>new first stage/tanks on top of engines would be easy.
>
>
>If you have a bunhc of engines falling from the sky, doubtful they could
>be caught by as many helicopters as there are engines, unless the
>separation is staged in such a way that each drops a safe distance fro
>the other. It might make more sense to drop the cluster as one "pod"
>that can be caught.

Yes, they'd be catching a single pod.

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Response-Lessons-Learned-Field/dp/1484221834/