, second stage (center) and crew capsule.)
These three stills from a SpaceX video depict the three components of a planned fully reusable rocket launching system, including a first stage (left), second stage (center) and crew capsule.
Image: SpaceX
The private spaceflight firm SpaceX will try to build the world's first completely reusable rocket and spaceship, a space travel method that could open the gates of Mars for humanity, the company's milionaire CEO Elon Musk announced Thursday (Sept. 29).
A fully reusable rocket would dramatically decrease the cost of lofting cargo and humans to space, making the exploration and colonization of other worlds such as Mars more feasible, Musk said in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
Musk did not guarantee success, acknowledging the daunting task his SpaceX team has taken on. SpaceX released a video animation of its proposed reusable rocket and space capsule system to illustrate how it would work. [Video and photos of SpaceX's reusable rocket plan]
"We will see if this works," Musk said. "And if it does work, it'll be pretty huge."
The hunt for an economic and reusable method for space travel has been a goal of many companies and government agencies from the Space Age's inception.
The only reusable manned spaceships built to date have been NASA's winged space shuttles, which were retired this year. The shuttles used reusable orbiters and solid rocket boosters for 30 years, but the system was not completely reusable.
Each of NASA's 135 shuttle missions also used a disposable 15-story external fuel tank. The tank was jettisoned once a shuttle reached orbit and ultimately burned up during re-entry.
Going to Mars?
Musk has said repeatedly over the years that he founded SpaceX in 2002 with the primary goal of helping humanity establish a lasting presence beyond Earth. Such expansion is necessary to ensure our species' survival, according to Musk, since a catastrophic asteroid strike or other calamity could one day wipe out life on our home planet.
Mars is a prime candidate for human settlement, and Musk has said he hopes SpaceX can send astronauts to the Red Planet within 10 or 20 years.
Colonizing Mars — or any other world — would require ferrying thousands of people and millions of tons of cargo through space. That's just not feasible with today's launch costs, Musk has said.
But a fully reusable rocket could change the equation dramatically. Musk illustrated the point by citing SpaceX's Falcon 9, which costs between $50 million to $60 million per launch in its current configuration.
"But the cost of the fuel and oxygen and so forth is only about $200,000," Musk said."So obviously, if we can reuse the rocket, say, a thousand times, then that would make the capital cost of the rocket for launch only about $50,000." [Vote Now! Best Spaceships of All Time]
How it would work
In its video new animation, SpaceX officials detail how their new launch vehicle, which is based on the Falcon 9 rocket, would work.
After separating in orbit, the two stages of the rocket would come back to Earth and land at the launch pad. The stages would not glide back using wings like the space shuttle; rather, they'd descend vertically, eventually settling down on four legs.
They could then be refueled, reintegrated and relaunched.
In the video, the Falcon 9 launches SpaceX's Dragon capsule to the International Space Station. NASA has contracted the company to make cargo flights to the orbiting lab.
Falcon 9 lofted Dragon to Earth orbit for the first time last December, and SpaceX plans to launch a demonstration mission docking Dragon to the station in January 2012. If all goes well with that one, Dragon's next flight would be an operational cargo mission, SpaceX officials have said.
See what we're tweeting about
6 Comments
Add CommentNasa gave up on the design . It might work if they find an alternative to retro rockets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to this proposal all three sections will have to carry a significant amount of extra fuel to power the landing rockets, which in earth's gravity will have to be pretty powerful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is a lot of fuel to liftoff with on top of the fuel to achieve lift off ....
Whthin the article it states that "Mars is a prime candidate for human settlement." That may be true. But saving money on the initial launch vehicle is meaningless. If we're ever going to get to Mars we first need a much faster propulsion technology - something that would take weeks (or a few months) rather that at least a year. We have to protect the astronauts from the long exposure to deep space radiation. Once on Mars, this is still an issue. How can humans expect to colonize even this close rocky planet if we don't take this into account? Plus the extremely low atmospheric pressure, the periodic global dust storms, the wide swings in temperature, and the apparent lack of any usable water pose additional concerns. Humans will just not accept living in "bubbles" on different worlds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems like a good time to dust off our copies of Arthur C. Clark's "The Sands of Mars."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdd some arms and it kinda looks like that Android phone icon. Does it do call-forwarding?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this.
There isn't as much fuel needed as your suggesting. It is much harder to go up then to come down. Elon said their data said the first stage kind of belly flopped on the atmosphere and broke apart. So they need to fire the retros to slow it down enough to ease it into the atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen it can free fall until it reaches terminal velocity where the air resistance matches the pull of gravity. When I went sky diving it was about 120 mph. I imagine it falling something like an arrow. With the heavy rocket engines at the bottom and the empty fuel tanks at the top it should not want to roll end over end. Then only as it approaches the ground the retros rockets need to fire again to take it from terminal velocity to landing speed. Also the difference between take off weight and landing weight should be dramatic. At take off your not just lifting the rocket but all the unspent fuel.
On the Apollo, there was no air on the moon to help slow down the decent of the LM. So the rocket engine had to fire all the way down to the lunar surface to keep the LM from continuing to accelerate the whole way down.