Now, when the company SpaceX was able to Board the rocket, after sent her into space, the idea of reusable rockets do not sound like such a fantastic idea, what may have seemed before. But really space launches will then become more affordable?
The company SpaceX promote the idea of mnogorazovogo missiles as an economic lifeline for the private space industry. At the moment after the missile hit be the “best” case, space junk or burn up in the atmosphere, so companies have to spend many millions of dollars to manufacture new rockets for each launch. According to Elon musk, CEO of SpaceX, the cost of production of the Falcon 9 rocket is $ 60 million, $ 200,000 worth of its fuel. The possibility of reuse of spent rockets would have contributed to a significant decrease in the cost of space launches, because theoretically for reuse will only need re-dressing.
Actually it is not so. First company SpaceX need to make sure that its spent rockets will really be able to fly. During the launch of the Falcon 9, like any other missiles, are exposed to extreme temperatures, high pressure and vibration caused by the launch, and atmospheric wind. All this, of course, adversely affects the condition of the missiles and certainly leads to the necessity in carrying out both repairs and updates before re-running. Repair of rocket engines is not cheap. The repair takes time, and if this time it will take a lot, then SpaceX will not be able to frequent starts.
The cost of repair was one of the main reasons why we closed the program of flights of space Shuttle — another perspective at the time the option mnogorazovogo use of spacecraft. This cost was extremely high. It should be noted that the Shuttle was launched using a launch vehicle (essentially a giant fuel tank) with two jet engines on firm fuel. After the withdrawal of the space Shuttle to orbit the planet and perform a space mission, he, as the plane landed back on the ground.
Initially, the design of the Shuttle has been designed with cost savings in space missions, and everything in it, except for the external booster, could be used again.
“Unfortunately, for the space Shuttle program, this approach did not work,” said Wayne Hale, a former employee of the space Shuttle program and the NASA Advisory Council’s space Agency.
“It was a very complex spacecraft, requiring a huge investment for the re-runs”.
After a few runs required mandatory replacement of all engines of the Shuttle. In addition, each time we had to spend countless inspections and minor repairs between missions. In addition, his rocket boosters solid fuel demanded timely updates, and external fuel tanks had to be changed with new ones. All this has led not to reduction, and to increase launches of space shuttles. Each flight cost in this case from 450 million to 1.5 billion dollars.
Booster Falcon 9 on the complexity isn’t even close to space Shuttle, so it is logical to assume that the various maintenance costs it will require too much less. However, the rocket is experiencing the same overload, which had a Shuttle. According to Steve Polusa, former administrator of the launch of space Shuttle missions at NASA, the first stage of the Falcon 9 main rocket the height of a 14-storey building — can experience temperatures from -157 ° to 538 degree Celsius during its re-entry into the atmosphere.
“Most likely, SpaceX uses metals and composite materials that can withstand such temperature overload and not receive any damage”.
In addition, the Falcon 9 has to face pressure forces gases in the atmosphere. The first step reaches the speed of about 5.5-7.5 max. When driving through high-altitude wind can talk to her like a piece of paper that definitely causes damage.
“It can be hundreds of pounds of atmospheric pressure which is constantly impact the booster,” says Paulus.
And yet, in the construction of reusable rockets at SpaceX definitely has some experience. Its Grasshopper test rocket, which allowed us to test the landing system of the Falcon 9 were used in total during eight starts. However, it is worth considering that Grasshopper rose to a height of 750 meters and certainly does not fall back to earth from orbit. In other words, it is not even close felt the same overloads that have endured this rocket Falcon 9.
The entire cost of mnogorazovogo will ultimately depend on the design of the rocket. If Falcon 9 doesn’t really get damage during launch and landing, the repair and the time required for its implementation, would not be large. Last year, SpaceX said that she is confident that they can put their missiles and re-run “without repair”. Now the engineers need to find out whether the present design of the rocket allows you to make such statements. And if this is confirmed, then the use of reusable rockets really makes sense.
That’s why at the moment, SpaceX is studying the first stage of the Falcon 9, carried out a soft landing on Monday. Engineers want to figure out how serious the damage. Musk has already stated that specifically this step will not be used for re-runs (he wants to keep it as a Museum exhibit), but it can give a clear idea of what level the repair would take (and need) to spend between runs.
Polus agree with one thing: that the repair cost will be much lower than the cost of production of new missiles. He suggests that most repair work will be associated with her engines and carrying out inspections, which will determine the compliance of flares with the standards required to conduct a space launch. The cost of all this, in his opinion, would be about half a million dollars, which certainly looks more attractive than the necessary 60 million for the construction of a new missile.