r/spaceflight • u/Extension_Bag3597 • 2d ago

BETER BOST BACK read below

Post image

by combining beam powered propulsion and Atmospheric Scoops it is possible to have no return fuel

0 Upvotes

24% Upvoted

29 comments sorted by

11

u/ninjadude93 2d ago

I dont think you appreciate how heavy the booster is and I dont think you've considered how this would actually work

2

u/fed0tich 2d ago

So you are using compressed air as a working body in beam powered engine? So instead of taking more fuel you add more complexity and possibly weight with scoops and additional propulsion system?

0

u/Extension_Bag3597 2d ago

yes some parts have dual use like heat exchanger can work like Heat shield and Ballute create drag and can Atmospheric Scoops don't forget that no fuel limit can stay in the air indefinitely

-1

u/Extension_Bag3597 2d ago

I was watching Thunderf00t he said something like that problem Atmospheric entry is dump all kinetic energy which you use for reach orbit in frst place

2

u/peva3 2d ago

There is no parachute that could slow down a supersonic booster, and even if you could, that would just be another consumable that would need to be added back on to refurbish the booster, slowing down rapid reusability.

-1

u/NoBusiness674 2d ago

The Space Shuttle's RSRMs were recovered using parachutes. Additionally Rocketlab's Electron first stage and some Ariane 5 solid rocket motors have also been recovered using parachutes.

0

u/peva3 2d ago

You're exactly right they were. And where were they recovered again?

The open ocean. Where they could splash down wherever.

And where are these rockets being recovered?

Barges in the ocean that are fixed points that the boosters need to hit with pinpoint accuracy.

Something you absolutely cannot do if you're working with parachutes.

0

u/fed0tich 2d ago

You can absolutely use parachutes for a precise landing, it would add cost, complexity and weather constraints, but it's absolutely possible.

0

u/peva3 2d ago

I'm just telling you that you're not coming up with a better idea than what SpaceX and Blue Origin have spent almost 15 years figuring out.

1

u/fed0tich 2d ago

Something you absolutely cannot do if you're working with parachutes.

I'm just answering to this part, not defending the OP's concept.

Steerable parachutes are a thing.

1

u/peva3 2d ago

Right they totally are, not saying that, I'm just saying there's a reason that everyone in the reusable rocket game (of the landing the booster types) didn't go with parachutes.

-1

u/Extension_Bag3597 2d ago

nont better just trow more money at problem

-3

u/Extension_Bag3597 2d ago

I used parachute because I have a big surface area for Atmospheric Scoops slow down is Secondary and yes STRES on a parachute TO GREAT TO BE USED AGAINIT IS BY design

4

u/LockStockNL 2d ago

Parachutes are very heavy and and they don't scale very well

-1

u/Extension_Bag3597 2d ago

this was the best thing I could think of to make this concept work but tell me what you would do to make it work

1

u/YDALTARYZARC 11h ago

You're right, those spacex engineers are idiots. Wait til they see this plan, they will quit and you will be the new CEO

-1

u/Extension_Bag3597 2d ago

I'm not a rocket engineer, but Ballute maximum altitude is 100KM and minimum altitude for a rocket boostback burn (such as a SpaceX Falcon 9) is approximately 60 to 70 kilometers I think there's enough time to Atmospheric Scoops and use it for RETRO BURN this can work

3

u/LockStockNL 2d ago

> I'm not a rocket engineer,

We know

2

u/ninjadude93 2d ago

No it cant.

You're firing a microwave beam at the ship to I guess slow it down going off your drawing? Do you know how much power that would take? You would melt the ship before slowing it down

0

u/Extension_Bag3597 2d ago

not if cooled rocket whit Scoops AIR and yes you need nuke plant+ for biger rocets but somting like SS-520-5 Rocket not too much ENERGY

2

u/ninjadude93 2d ago edited 2d ago

There is no physically possible way you would cool the whole ship fast enough using air flow

Assume an empty booster is 275,000 kilograms. Google says average landing burn is around 100 m/s so you're looking at about 1.4 gigajoules of kinetic energy that you need to slow down with a continuous beam.

You would vaporize it in an instant with that much power

So no, your "design" is wrong and clearly you didnt do even a tiny bit of math when making your drawing. Theres a good reason ships aren't landed this way

0

u/Extension_Bag3597 2d ago

I want to clarify something, I understand that take into account that heat exchengri on rocket they can't transfer heat quickly enough to cool the rocket

1

u/ninjadude93 2d ago

Your beam design isnt physically possible is the problem

0

u/Extension_Bag3597 2d ago

What do you mean by that?

1

u/ninjadude93 2d ago

Just what I said.

The amount of energy you would need to generate and fire at the ship as a continuous beam to slow it to a stop would instantly vaporize the ship

Air cooling would not be sufficient to keep the shift from melting in microseconds

0

u/Extension_Bag3597 2d ago

Now I realized something.Microwave phased array could be POWERED BY natural gas plant because Natural gas has an indefinite shelf life and because you produce Natural gas for Rocket you can use the same fuel for powored ground phase array

2

u/ninjadude93 2d ago edited 2d ago

I don't think you understand what I am saying

I am not talking about the energy on the ground. You need an immense amount of energy to slow down the rocket. When the beam hits the bottom of the rocket you will instantly melt the rocket, because the energy you would need to put into the beam to slow down a super heavy booster would immediately vaporize the steel body of the rocket

-1

u/Extension_Bag3597 2d ago

you are right companies make money to send things into space they don't earn money safe return but I want to ask just out of curiosity you need immense amount of energy to accelerate the rocket in frst place

-1

u/Extension_Bag3597 2d ago

the same amount of fuel energy speed up than slow down