[HN Gopher] A helicopter will try to catch a rocket booster mid-air ___________________________________________________________________ A helicopter will try to catch a rocket booster mid-air Author : takiwatanga Score : 55 points Date : 2022-04-18 19:09 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (spectrum.ieee.org) (TXT) w3m dump (spectrum.ieee.org) | trhway wrote: | Hard to not wonder about success of combining 2 least robust | technologies. All the luck to them. Who knows where the true | disruption happens. | tantalor wrote: | Wonder no more, this was proven to work over 60 years ago. | | > As long ago as 1960, the U.S. Air Force snagged a returning | capsule from a mission called Discoverer 14 | bpodgursky wrote: | That was a capsule; look at the size of this relative to the | aircraft -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discoverer_14#/medi | a/File:Fair... | | A first-stage booster is order(s?) of magnitude larger. | Johnny555 wrote: | I suspect that this will only be a viable procedure until the | inevitable accident that causes a helicopter crash, then it will | be deemed too risky for regular use (unless the helicopter can be | unmanned) | trothamel wrote: | Something very similar (capturing space capsules) was done | regularly from the 1960s to the 1980s, so it's not like there | isn't precedent for this. | hutzlibu wrote: | But that was in military context, with higher risk tolerance | to loss of human life. (for getting intel, way more dangerous | methods are applied all the time) | gameswithgo wrote: | samwillis wrote: | While you are probably technically right, I think you are over | estimating the risks involved. The booster will be under a | parachute, travelling relatively slowly, and there will clearly | be many safety precautions and features involved. They will | certainly have a stringent check list before proceeding with | the attempt as well as some sort of fail safe cutting of the | lies if something goes wrong. | | I would expect the chance of a serious accident to be very low. | | Also keep in mind these sort of mid air captures were well | practiced by the US during the Cold War to capture returning | photographic film from spy satellites. Although that was with | airplanes not helicopters. A variation of it is actually shown | at the end of James Bond Thunderball where he and the girl are | rescued from a life raft via a balloon and capturing plane. | scoopertrooper wrote: | Low as it may be, it seems like an unreasonable risk, given | the recent advancements in pilotless (and remotely piloted) | aircraft. | Someone wrote: | I can't find its empty weight online easily, but this booster | is quite a bit heavier than these film canisters were. I | would be concerned about the impact catching it would have on | the helicopter. | | I guess the hook they use for catching it must be hanging | from a somewhat line that deforms on impact, becoming longer | while absorbing lots of energy. You don't want this behaving | like a heavy bungee jumper under your helicopter. | marcosdumay wrote: | Helicopters bring more risks than airplanes. Helicopters with | external attachments are notoriously risky (for aviation | standards). Helicopters with external attachments that bring | momentum independently of the main vessel are the kind of | thing that looks way too risky. | | An airplane would probably cope much better. And even then, | the fact that the military do something is not a good reason | to expect it to be viable for civilian use. Military | applications tend to accept much more risks. | moralestapia wrote: | >An airplane would probably cope much better. | | LOL. Yeah sure, so the plan is to have something traveling | at 800kph somehow intercept a falling rocket stage, | catching it in a web or whatever and start dragging it | along and somehow land safely afterwards? | | Thanks man, you made my day :D | mulmen wrote: | The first mid-air recovery of CORONA spy satellite film | canisters by a C-119 Flying Boxcar fixed-wing aircraft | was performed in 1960. This is a well understood | capability. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CORONA_(satellite) | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discoverer_14 | tapland wrote: | Yes. It's not a new thing. | | The Wikipedia article even has pictures for you | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-air_retrieval | | https://xkcd.com/1053/ | Rebelgecko wrote: | C-130s (like the planes that were used for retrieving | objects dropped from satellites) are fine flying at | 200kph, no need to max out their speed. | refulgentis wrote: | To their point, I'm not sure how well a carefully | controlled slow descent and catch interplays with an | object that can never be in place, in fact, it needs to | be at 200 kph. Sounds much less safe. | mulmen wrote: | It works great. This story isn't notable for the recovery | method. It is notable because of what is being recovered | (a reusable rocket booster). | Someone wrote: | The variation is | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to- | air_recovery... | HideousKojima wrote: | Which also plays a major role in Metal Gear Solid V (and | MGS: Peacewalker) | ortusdux wrote: | I have friends in forestry, and their industry routinely uses | helicopters, despite the risk, for a much lower ROI. Below are | some videos of a christmas tree farm and a remote logging | operation. I can't imagine that what rocket lab is attempting | will be anything short of 10-100x safer. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08K_aEajzNA | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kin7cxnyM1M | ISL wrote: | Power-line work on live transmission lines always seems | incredibly bonkers. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPNK7bc2qvM | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YmFHAFYwmY | | Let's fly a massive chainsaw beside a powerline. That'll be | safe: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mfz1YrpMbBg | AtlasBarfed wrote: | I could be wrong, but I though SpaceX catches its entire rocket | (all stages) now with rafts/boats, doesn't it? What does this add | over that already-implemented system? | | Wouldn't blimps be a far better tech to keep the net aloft? | mulmen wrote: | > I could be wrong, but I though SpaceX catches its entire | rocket (all stages) now with rafts/boats, doesn't it? | | Only some Falcon 9 launches recover the first stage. For | performance reasons sometimes the booster burns all fuel and | crashes into the ocean. The second stage has never been | recovered and no attempt has ever been made. Early concepts may | have mentioned it but I don't believe the capability even | exists on current Falcon 9s. | | Starship is an entirely different rocket which has never been | launched from a booster nor recovered from orbit. That is the | eventual goal but SpaceX is far from achieving it for anything | approaching "all" launches. | [deleted] | robotresearcher wrote: | For some mission profiles, SpaceX boosters land right back | where they took off. Neat as can be. | | Here's a photo capturing launch and landing at Cape Canaveral | in the same view. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Zones_1_and_2#/media/F... | zardo wrote: | Well, they return to a landing pad within a few hundred yards | of where they took off. A difference worth pointing out | because the plan for their next generation rocket is to | actually return directly to the launch site. | headcanon wrote: | This is a different company (Rocket Labs) so they wouldn't get | to reuse SpaceX's capture methods. This method appears like it | would allow them to use commodity helicopters instead of having | to develop and build their own drone ship tech, which has the | additional hassle of having to maintain a boat and have a dock | they can use to haul the rocket. I'm guessing this is for their | "Small Launch" offering so the heli option makes sense at that | weight. | martythemaniak wrote: | Peter Beck gives great interviews on YouTube. About this, he | said that helicopters are much, much cheaper compared to doing | anything with boats. Rocket Lab's rocket is small enough that a | helicopter can handle it, SpaceX's first stage is just too big. | | Blimps don't really exist, there's 25 of them in the world. You | can't just go out and get a blimp and operate it the way you | can a helicopter. | grayrest wrote: | > I though SpaceX catches its entire rocket (all stages) now | with rafts/boats, doesn't it? | | SpaceX doesn't catch anything at the moment. | | The first stage lands itself either at the launch site or on | the autonomous barge at sea. | | The fairings for the second stage get pulled out of the ocean | by ship after they splash down. They used to try to catch these | and that's what you're thinking of but they weren't that | successful at it. I believe they redesigned the fairings to be | okay spending a short amount of time in salt water and they | seem to be having a pretty good success rate for this. | | The second stage of the Falcon burns up in the atmosphere. | Their Starship project is attempting to fix this. | | The advantage of this approach for Rocket Lab is that they'll | be able to re-use the first stage. At the moment SpaceX is the | only one doing that and it's why they have such a commanding | position in the market. I haven't seen an explanation for why | (I'm sure it's out there, I just haven't seen it) but my guess | is that the Electron is a much smaller rocket than the Falcon | and they can't spare the lift capacity to propulsively land the | vehicle. | inglor_cz wrote: | "The second stage of the Falcon burns up in the atmosphere. | Their Starship project is attempting to fix this." | | Just in case: Starship is a whole new rocket, not just an | evolutionary upgrade of extant Falcon 9 to full reusability. | AngryData wrote: | Also there should be a weight/fuel reduction for not having | to hold enough fuel to land itself and every bit counts. | Along with not having to worry about igniting/firing your | rocket engines a second time in a flight which is reduced | complexity and also allows for solid booster recovery. | raphaelj wrote: | Indeed. | | Reusable SpaceX rockets have 30% small payload compared to | non-reusable ones, as they have to carry extra fuel for | landing. | | Catching the rocket instead of landing it could be | significantly more efficient as you wouldn't have to carry | much more weight except for the parachute. | dr_dshiv wrote: | Blimps and dirigibles are the solution for sure. Love those | things on principle. | rst wrote: | It means the rocket doesn't have to reserve fuel for a landing | burn, and has more leeway in how it positions itself after re- | entry, since the helicopter can move at least a bit to | intercept. (NB SpaceX Falcon 9 boosters are too large to be | snagged in midair by any extant helicopter -- and conversely, | RocketLab has already announced that they'll be attempting | SpaceX-style propulsive landing for their upcoming, much larger | Neutron rocket.) | _moof wrote: | They don't recover stage two. That's a much different problem | from recovering stage one, which has a ballistic trajectory; | stage two goes into orbit. | marcusverus wrote: | Maybe they're afraid of Blue Origin? BO has a patent that | covers "Sea landing of space launch vehicles and associated | systems and methods"[0]. | | Of course, BO sued SpaceX and lost, so I'm not sure that they | could win against Rocket Labs. | | [0]https://patents.google.com/patent/US8678321B2/en | frederikvs wrote: | SpaceX's first stage lands itself, either on a droneship or on | a landing pad near the launch site. The payload fairings splash | down in the ocean, and get fished up for reuse. The second | stage is not recovered. | | Rocket lab just has a different approach to the same problem. | mbostleman wrote: | Not with me in it. | sslayer wrote: | Has nobody thought to slap a set of retractable wings on them, | and turn them into remote controlled gliders? | gameswithgo wrote: | imtringued wrote: | That's completely over-engineered. You just need inflatable | floats and then the helicopter can pick the booster up within | minutes to prevent salt water corrosion. | Someone wrote: | "The first stage burns out after the first 70 km". There's very | little atmosphere there, so it would effectively free fall for | a while first, and then would have to start gliding. | | You can't rapidly get from a fast free fall (almost vertical) | to gliding (almost horizontal), or your wings will break of. | That means you either need something to rapidly (but not too | rapidly) decrease vertical speed, or you need lots of height to | make a slow turn (this thing will be falling at thousands of | km/hour before it reaches denser atmosphere). I guess "lots of | height" is a bit more than 70km for realistically strong wings. | | So, you need something to decrease vertical speed. A parachute | is the best solution we have for that. If you have that, why | add wings, too? | | If you launch to orbit, there is a gliding solution that will | work: wait for atmospheric drag to slowly bring the booster | down to denser atmosphere, but these boosters don't get into | orbit, and even if they did, it would take way too long. | avmich wrote: | > I guess "lots of height" is a bit more than 70km for | realistically strong wings. | | A drop test of Dream Chaser prototype was done a few years | ago from a helicopter, definitely not 70 km of altitude. The | prototype successfully landed onto a landing strip. | Someone wrote: | I maybe mistaken, but I don't see how that's relevant. | Dream chaser is designed to return from orbit. These | boosters won't reach anything like orbit, and will have | insufficient horizontal speed to start gliding. | | Also, if you want to glide these boosters to earth, the | challenge is to get them into more dense atmosphere with a | low vertical speed. Once you're there, it's 'easy'. | | A test dropping them from a helicopter doesn't test the | ability to do that at all; it tests the ability to land | after you've done that. | graupel wrote: | Many years ago I was at Dugway Proving Ground when NASA was | supposed to catch the Genesis Space Probe under parachute with | "hollywood stunt pilots" flying A-Star helicopters with long | probes mounted on the front, to hook the parachute in mid-air. | | It all would have worked out swimmingly if the parachute on the | Genesis would have opened, but an installation error caused it | not to and for the probe to smash into the ground, leaving some | very confused and disappointed helicopter pilots, among others. | | Space is hard. | aasarava wrote: | Hey, I was there, too! It was a long way to go to end up | watching the catch attempt on monitors in a hangar. | | If I remember correctly, the problem was that the deceleration | sensors were drawn upside down. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-18 23:00 UTC)