Recoverability of Falcons 5 & 9

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Proponent@gmx.net - 09 Sep 2005 10:56 GMT

According to SpaceX's press release of 8 September (website:
spacex.com), both stages of its forthcoming Falcon 5 and and Falcon 9
launch vehicles will be re-usable. The first stage, like that of the
Falcon 1, is to parachute to the ocean. How are the second stages to
be recovered? Retro burn followed by nose-first re-entry and descent
under parachute to the sea? How practical is this?

Secondary question: the version of the Falcon 9 with a 5.2-m fairing
is priced at $35 million, while the 3.6-m version is priced at only $27
million, a difference of $8 million. Why is the price difference so
large? Even if the price of the fairing scales as the square of its
size, surely the larger fairing along cannot account for all of the
price difference.

Finally, what is the difference between the Falcon 9-S5 and the Falcon
9-S9 that allows the latter to loft 50% more to LEO than the former?
The diagram on the SpaceX site makes the two vehicles appear.

Reply to this Message

Damon Hill - 10 Sep 2005 21:57 GMT

Proponent@gmx.net wrote in news:1126259765.889316.228790
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> According to SpaceX's press release of 8 September (website:
> spacex.com), both stages of its forthcoming Falcon 5 and and Falcon 9
> launch vehicles will be re-usable. The first stage, like that of the
> Falcon 1, is to parachute to the ocean. How are the second stages to
> be recovered? Retro burn followed by nose-first re-entry and descent
> under parachute to the sea? How practical is this?

I haven't run across an explanation for 'full' reusability. Making
the upper stage recoverable would incur some substantial payload penalty,
not to mention development costs. Much less difficult to recover
the first stage and boosters, but even that looks provisional for
the immediate future. If the tanks get too banged up and the engines
don't take well to saltwater immersion, I think those claims will be
amended.

If SpaceX can keep manufacturing costs down, recovery and refurbishment
may prove to be marginal.

> Finally, what is the difference between the Falcon 9-S5 and the Falcon
> 9-S9 that allows the latter to loft 50% more to LEO than the former?
> The diagram on the SpaceX site makes the two vehicles appear.

Looks like 5 engines in the core and boosters, and possibly a partial
propellant load for the -S5 version. The -S9 gets all 27(!) engines
and propellants.

--Damon

Reply to this Message

richard schumacher - 11 Sep 2005 05:51 GMT

Strapons: 5 engines versus 9 engines each.

Reply to this Message

Space Forum / Space Flight / September 2005

Recoverability of Falcons 5 & 9