Reusable Spacecraft

REPORT

Iza Afzal – 20191131396

Sarqho Sifa Haliza – 20191131206
Farah Gulzar Syed Ahamed Kabir – 20191131222
Dzihada Sabic - 20191131353
Contents
1. Abstract ........................................................................................................................... 3
2. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4
3. What is a Reusable Rocket? ........................................................................................... 7
4. Components of a Reusable Rocket ............................................................................... 10
4.1 How Falcon 9 Achieves Reusability ...................................................................... 10
4.1.1 Flight plan ...................................................................................................... 10
4.1.2 Cold-gas thrusters.......................................................................................... 11
4.1.3 Fuel tanks ...................................................................................................... 11
4.1.4 Engines.......................................................................................................... 11
4.1.5 Grid fins ......................................................................................................... 12
4.1.6 Onboard computer ......................................................................................... 12
4.1.7 Landing legs .................................................................................................. 12
4.1.8 Drone barge ................................................................................................... 13
4.2 About Falcon 9 ...................................................................................................... 13
4.2.1 First Stage ..................................................................................................... 14
4.2.2 Second Stage ................................................................................................ 14
4.2.3 Interstage....................................................................................................... 14
4.2.4 Payload.......................................................................................................... 14
5. Pros & Cons of Reusable Rockets ................................................................................ 15
5.1 Advantages of Using Reusable Rockets ............................................................... 15
5.2 Disadvantages of Using Reusable Rockets........................................................... 15
6. Challenges Involved with Reusable Rockets ................................................................. 16
5.3 Challenges & Control Problems ............................................................................ 17
6.1.1 Providing Reusability of vertical Launch Vehicle Stages ................................ 17
6.1.2 Winged System of Horizontal Launch & Landing ........................................... 18
6.1.3 Projects of Wig-Craft use for Space Launch Assist ........................................ 19
7. Reusable Rockets Vs. Expendable Rockets .................................................................. 20
8. Cost Efficiency Comparison .......................................................................................... 22
8.1 How SpaceX is Making Space Cheaper ................................................................ 22
8.2 Launch Price Estimates ........................................................................................ 23
8.3 ADR Mission Costs & Launch Price Estimates ...................................................... 24
9. Environmental Sustainability ......................................................................................... 26
9.1 Impacts of Expendable Rockets on the Environment ............................................ 26
9.2 Impacts of Reusable Rockets on the Environment ................................................ 27

Page | 1
 9.3 Environmental Impacts caused by SpaceX. .......................................................... 32
9.3.1 Comparison of Falcon and Falcon Heavy to Super Heavy/Starship ............... 32
9.4 Environmental Impact Statement .......................................................................... 33
9.5 Conclusion for Environmental Impacts .................................................................. 35
10. Data Collection Analysis ................................................................................................ 37
11. Results .......................................................................................................................... 42
11.1 Number of Reuses ................................................................................................ 43
11.2 Total Launches ..................................................................................................... 44
11.3 Recovery and refurbishment cost .......................................................................... 45
12. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 46
13. Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 48

Page | 2
 1
Abstract
The aim of the project was to understand whether the reusable rocket will revolutionize the
way the space agency’s work. We considered various factors that the reusable rockets
influence, such as the cost study and environmental effects that gave us the answer to our
research project. Using a reusable rocket can reduce 64% global warming compared to the
expendable ones. It can also help in reducing the space debris and can avoid the pollution
caused by deorbit burn. The launch costs can be reduced if the rockets are reused many times
but if the reuse rate is very low then the preferred use is the expendable rockets. By constant
reduction in the launch costs and ease in the rocket launch, space travel for ordinary people
can soon be achievable. It must be noted that with the increase in launch rate, the pollution
may also increase as it is inevitable. Thus, more research must be made focused on the
environmental aspect of the rockets. By comparing all these factors, it was concluded that the
reusable rockets are worth the time and money spent on and can revolutionize the future of
pre-flight rockets.

Page | 3
 2
Introduction
According to UN sources, space technology such as remotely sensitive information,
subsequently enhanced scientific understanding of water cycles, air quality, forests as well as
other elements of their natural environment. These surveying and monitoring methods provide
useful insights into ecological health and provide empirical support for positive environmental
activities such as conservation and sustainable management of resources.

The study of the United Nations Office on Space Technology affects nearly all development
areas, such as healthcare, schooling and agriculture, management of the disasters, the
environment, communication, and transport. (UnitedNations, n.d.)

Studies and reports have helped scientists gain a better understanding of water cycles, air
quality, forests as well as other facets of the natural world, namely remotely sensed data using
space-based technologies. These forms of surveying as well as surveillance produce
important ecosystem health knowledge. All such academic papers and research provide
concrete evidence of positive environmental action, for example sustainability and sustainable
resource management. Economic growth in urban and surrounding regions as well as the
formation of new sectors including scientific fields as well as technological advances are just
a couple of small diverse, dynamic, and far-reaching consequences of space exploration.

Although the exploration of space allows us to be more intelligent, improves our lives which
improves their ability to overcome technological barriers, two important problems have been
identified as a barrier that is stopping from advancing in this sector. Limitation by cost would
be the first variable. Human space exploration is a hectic blend of bravery and drama capable
of inspiring nations as well as mankind, although at a massive financial cost. Less than a few
individuals have explored the low earth orbit or landed on the moon influenced by that of the
Cold War aspirations instead of just scientific objectives because of the current high launch
costs. The reusable starting vehicle construction is crucial to mankind in overcoming this cost
constraint and expanding space exploration. (Coates, 1999)

While the second factor is increasing impact on environment by the debris created by
the current spacecraft. Space launch incorporating existing spacecraft will have a strong
carbon emission, produced by the combustion of solid rocket fuel including loads of debris
plunging into the ground when it is launched. The world is plagued with tons of waste, and that

Page | 4
is also surrounding it. Any space start, failure and maintenance allowed room scrap to flow
both speed and orbit through our planets. A study indicated in low-earth orbit which up to 6000
tons of human made materials were floating. Any piece of debris glides beyond the
atmosphere and collides with each other faster than a bullet and the broken pieces destroy
the satellites and telescopes operating on the Earth. (Coates, 1999)

The classic example would have been the space debris that cracked a windscreen in 2006 at
the International Space Station. The space junk volume orbiting the earth increases with each
space flight. With that being said, the responsibility of all space-faring nations should not be
the task of any particular nation to begin cleaning of space debris. There are different ways of
cleaning up space, such as the giant magnets, harpoons and nets, and the suggestion that
space exploration should end perhaps to prevent space junk. (Coates, 1999)

A reusable spacecraft is among the latest solutions of its crisis. The reusable spacecraft will
be a type of spacecraft designed that would consider a frequent launch, orbit, orbit and
atmospheric entry. It also compares only with conventional spacecraft that have already been
designed, — in other words thrown aside, allowed to burn immediately after re-entering.

In recent years, several reusable spacecrafts were launched, but each would have its own
problems. SpaceX had a huge effect in 2017 when a racket booster was reutilized and the
expensive metal part of the rocket was not abandoned for the very first time in space travel
history, until a single application had been carried out. Consequently, the company
significantly reduced waste and space travel expenses. With all that said, its components used
on these rockets becomes exceedingly expensive and hard to reuse as the spacecraft works
longer. Its other launch would be when SpaceX established Falcon rockets dependent on
kerosene and oxygen, as well as carbon emissions are not almost as large as previous launch
missions. If SpaceX specifies the space flights rate which surpass twice a month, whereas the
cumulative carbon emissions from these SpaceX flights through themselves may exceed
some 4,000 tons.

In 2018 space started SpaceX the "Starman" Tesla roadster and the last update has
surrounded the sun 1.6 times. Surprisingly, the pieces that might join with the remaining space
debris do not appear to overcome any collision. The accident, such as other human-made
objects in space, may be likely, and the dispersion of the debris may cause serious harm to
future satellite missions. (Coates, 1999)

To both reduce the cost and to minimize the negative impact on environment, a re-usable
spacecraft is the ultimate solution. In this research, we will carry out the research on
revolutionizing re-usable rockets with advancement in space exploration, we will be focusing

Page | 5
on how to make reusable spacecraft more reliable and sustainable. This can be done by
considering all the factors from previous launches and works.

The main aims of this study are:

1. Understanding and assessing the positive effect on space exploration prospects of the
reusable spacecraft.
2. Understanding the environmental effect and sustainability.
3. To consider the economic advantages of reusable spacecraft and also to assess them.

The main objectives of this study are:

1. Determine the beneficial effect on space exploration of reusable spacecraft.

2. Establish environmental effects and sustainable development.
3. Establish its economic advantages of reusable spacecraft.

The estimated outcomes of these objectives are as follows.

1. Primary accomplishment of the effect on space exploration of reusable spacecraft in

space missions, to the benefit of humankind with minimum costs and environmental
impacts.
2. The minimal wastage produced by that of the spacecraft following their launch, thereby
making it cost-effective, sustainable also with limited environmental impacts, could
promote a positive impact on the environment well with reusable spacecraft.
3. The economic advantages of reusable spacecrafts will be that the cost of space travel
will reduce to less than a fraction what it is now and to allow for cheaper space travel.

Page | 6
 3
What is a Reusable Rocket?
The launch system which allows almost any of the component phases to be reused is a
reusable launch system. Numerous suborbital systems are completely reusable and partly
reused orbital systems have indeed been operated to date. The Space Shuttle in 1981 was
the very first reusable launch vehicle in orbit, and even the aim would not be to reduce the
launch costs below that of the traditional launch systems.

The business interest in reusable systems with so many functional launchers grew
substantially in the 21st century. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said the costs of entry to space
would be lowered by such a factor of just a hundred if you can find out how to reuse rockets
such as aircraft. The Falcon 9 rocket SpaceX is equipped with the first reusable stage including
capsule for Dragon flights. Spaceship Corporation has reused suborbital spacecrafts and
seems to have recoverable initial phase including crew capsules for the suborbital Blue Origin
New Shepard Rocket.

Figure 1 Some examples of reusable rockets.

Page | 7
The humans were still obsessed for space with a legitimate reason. Humans strive to see just
what space will have to give as well as what the world will gain. Space exploration leads to
better technologies, materials and opportunities being developed and explored. Throughout
many sectors and study areas, the expertise acquired during research and discovery could be
combined, leading several specialists to conclude that both resources and threats are
valuable.

To take advantage with all space, a concept is crucial: Firstly, we must be able to access
space. In addition, the costs of entering and exiting of the atmosphere must be minimized as
the frequency of launches increases. The space transport company, SpaceX, aimed to
address all such concerns such that space exploration also with invention of reusable rockets,
particularly the Falcon 9 rocket, could be carried out much more quickly and efficiently.

The secret to such a reusable launch system is that rockets will land at such a target area
within the first stage. SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket has indeed been tested with just a number of
successful rocket launch and landing efforts, following Space X engineers' learning and
developing new concepts despite previous failures. A series of complex processes enable the
boat to land correctly on target allows the successful landing phase for Falcon 9. The
sequence of descending procedures is phase separation, boost back burn, retro supersonic
burn, landing burn, touchdown as well as recovery. The Falcon 9 can be recovered as well as
recycled for future projects through adopting such measures. (Hyman, 2018)

Figure 2 Falcon 9’s landing process.

Page | 8
The technology that allows the recovery as well as restart of the very first rocket boosters is
used in this new space transport mode. Such rockets could save up to 70% of overall starter
costs in comparison with conventional one-time rockets with just the costs of inspection
including fuelling. The advantages using such rockets lead to a higher launch rate and
significantly lower money, resources, and energy costs. It allows us to significantly speed up
our access to and exploration of space.

Sustainability is a central feature of this breakthrough. Sustainability could be seen as a multi-

pillar philosophy that takes environmental, economic, and social considerations into account.
"The development and maintenance of environmentally friendly technologies is critical for
sustainable technological progress, have a beneficial effect on the society and raise the
standard of living."

The Falcon 9 rocket is intended to meet all three pillars of the sustainable concept. The Falcon
9 preserves important materials from an environmental standpoint for first phase rocket
production. Economical savings are made in the Falcon 9, comparison to standard rockets,
by such a single rocket launch. Such technology enables expanded space accessibility while
looking at the social effects. This would offer humanity a much more stable and prosperous
future for a deeper knowledge of our universe. (Hyman, 2018)

There are several advantages to come from exploring space. The several tools awaiting
exploration and use must be one of those advantages. For instance, the moon is rich in helium
3, a rare earth isotope that could be used for research into nuclear fusion. Besides materials,
greater access to space will give us a deeper understanding of the functioning of the universe.
This will give you a better opportunity to resolve unknown questions about the function of the
universe as well as its aspect. Since the universe is endless, it implies that space exploration
cannot stop practically. Maybe the main purpose for space exploration is to save earthly life
from extinction.

Numerous scientists, like Stephen Hawking, believe that the Earth cannot sustain human life
at a certain stage. While no asteroid collisions or endless nuclear wars occur, this is only a
matter of how long unless our growing sun as well as its finite natural resources make Earth
uninhabitable. If we are not multiplanetary, we have a rather small future as organisms. This
is a real time race to improve technologies which enable certain celestial bodies to recolonize.

Every one of the advantages of much more space travel and exploitation can be accomplished
by using reusable rockets that make access to space easier, more frequently and sustainably.

Page | 9
 4
Components of a Reusable Rocket
4.1 How Falcon 9 Achieves Reusability

Figure 3: Falcon 9 V1.1 (O'Connell, 2018)

4.1.1 Flight plan

The falcon 9 is built as a two-stage vertical takeoff, vertical landing (VTVL) rocket. The first
stage is responsible for the rocket liftoff and carries the rocket for about 100km in altitude. At
this point, right at the edge of the space, the first stage will separate from the second stage.
The second sage will use its own single engine to then carry the payload into the orbit while
the first stage returns back to the earth. (O'Connell, 2018)

Page | 10
4.1.2 Cold-gas thrusters
The first stage booster of the Falcon-9 is attached with small gas thrusters near the ‘nose’. It
is to expel the nitrogen gas into the atmosphere. Right after the first stage separates from the
second stage, a controlled blast will flip the first stage to bring it back to the earth.

Figure 4: Cold gas thruster in action (TheSpaceTechie, 2021)

4.1.3 Fuel tanks

Normally the first stage of expendable rockets uses every last drop of fuel available for
propulsion. In the falcon-9 first stage, there is extra fuel available that is used to land the first
stage rocket. As the first stage flips over, three of the engines will reignite in order to slowdown
the rockets reentry speed. As the rocket reaches the landing platform, the engines will fire
again. The speed of the first stage is slowed down form 4,700 km/h to just 20 km/h for landing.
(O'Connell, 2018)

4.1.4 Engines
The Falcon-9 uses 9 ‘Merlin-1’ engines to power the first stage booster rocket. It provides
about 600 tonnes of thrust force that is required for the liftoff. The engines are arranged in an
‘Octaweb” configuration in order to provide stability to the rocket. This configuration uses one
engine in the center and eight of engines surround it. For positioning the landing of the rocket,
every engine will be able to change the angle of thrust independently in order to control the
yaw, pitch and rolling movement during the descent. (O'Connell, 2018)

Figure 5: Octaweb configuration on engines (O'Connell, 2018)

Page | 11
4.1.5 Grid fins
The grid fins have a structure that looks like a tennis racket while having a size of the kitchen
table. As the first stage rocket begins its reentry to the earth by reigniting the three engines,
the heat resistant grid fins are popped out from the side of the rocket. The grid fins help for
the minute movements of the rocket to land correctly in the landing pad. The concept is pretty
similar to how the skydivers steer direction through the hand movements.

Figure 6: Grid fins (Space Stackexchange, 2017)

4.1.6 Onboard computer

There are dozens of sensors available on the booster in order to make a safe landing. When
the weather the unpredictable the rocket trajectory cannot be precisely found before the
launch. Hence, it has to be done when the rocket is just about to land. This must be done
quickly before the rocket runs out of fuel. These sensors include parameters such as the
orientation, velocity, position, altitude and acceleration. The land takes place soo quickly that
it is impossible for a human to react as quick during the touchdown. (O'Connell, 2018)

4.1.7 Landing legs

The falcon-9 consists of 4 landing legs that are deployed right before the landing. Each leg
consists of a shock-absorbing system in order to absorb the force generated on landing. For
extremely hot landings, there is a core made up of non-reusable material that will crush by
taking in all the impact force during landing. This is similar to the mechanism on how cars are
designed to crush by absorbing the impact in order to protect the people within.

Figure 7: Landing legs (Quora, n.d.)

Page | 12
4.1.8 Drone barge
The rocket is launched from sites nearby sea just like all other rockets and the booster after
separation will fall back towards the sea. So landing barges used to safely land the rocket and
the ship back to the land. This is done because although its much feasible for the rocket to fly
back towards it launch pad, it would require much costly fuel to be used for the purpose. The
drone barge is about a size of the football field and is attached with its own sensors that
constantly communicate with the sensors on the rocket. They have been given with various
names such as “Of Course I Still Love You” and “Just Read the Instructions”. (O'Connell, 2018)

Figure 8: Drone barge - 'Of Course I Still Love You' (Calandrelli, 2016)

4.2 About Falcon 9

The falcon 9 is the first orbital-level reusable rocket designed and manufactured by SpaceX.
It has successfully undergone 117 launches, 77 landings and 60 reflown rockets. The falcon
9 can be divided into 4 sections: the first stage, the second stage, the interstage and the
payload.

Figure 9: Sections of Falcon 9 rocket (Clark, 2016)

Page | 13
4.2.1 First Stage
The falcon 9’s first stage uses 9 merlin engines to produce the required thrust for launch,
which is about 1.7 million pounds thrust at sea level. It also consists of liquid oxygen and
rocket grade kerosene (RP-1) propellant which is kept inside tanks made up of aluminum-
lithium alloy. The 9 merlin engines are steadily controlled at the completion of the first stage
flight in order to reduce the acceleration of the vehicle. The engines are then used to flip the
rocket in order for the reentry into the earth and to slow down for the landing. During landing,
the rocket deploys its 4 landing legs that is constructed with the new technology carbon fiber
embedded with aluminum honeycomb structure to assist and absorb the shocks produced
during landing. (SpaceX, 2021)
4.2.2 Second Stage
The second stage is powered by only a single merlin vacuum engine to deliver the payload to
the required orbit. The second stage engine is ignited within a few seconds after the first stage
separation. The burn time of the engine is 367 sec. It can be reignited multiple times to deliver
the payloads to multiple orbits. (SpaceX, 2021)
4.2.3 Interstage
The interstage is the middle stage that connects the first and second stage. It is made up of a
composite structure and consist of pneumatic pushers that is responsible for initiation of the
separation of first and second stage. The interstage will separate along with the first stage. It
equips four hypersonic grid fins that helps the first stage booster rocket to orient during the
reentry and landing. (SpaceX, 2021)
4.2.4 Payload

Figure 10: Falcon 9 payloads a) Dragon, b) Fairing (O'Connell, 2018)

The payload is the structure that houses the people or cargo into the orbit. There are two types
of payload: fairing and dragon. The fairing is made up of carbon composite material and is
used only for cargo purposes. the fairing is jettisoned in about 3 minutes into flight. The fairings
are also recovered and reused. The dragon can carry both cargo and people (max 7) in the
pressurized section of the spacecraft. It is also capable of transporting secondary payload in
the unpressurized section. (SpaceX, 2021)

Page | 14
 5
Pros & Cons of Reusable Rockets
5.1 Advantages of Using Reusable Rockets
 Cheap - The ability to reuse a rocket reduces the cost of launch by tenfold or more, as the
only costs are fuel.
 Usage – The number of rockets that can be launched might be significantly increased if
the turnaround time on each rocket can be reduced.
 Reduce production money - Because the rockets are reused, they can be tested and
updated repeatedly to fix any small issues, rather than engineers having to start from begin
with a whole new rocket. (Pressreader, 2021)
 (An example of a reusable rocket engine) SpaceX's Merlin Rocket Engines run on rocket-
grade kerosene, a liquid fuel. They do not emit chlorine as exhaust, which has been shown
to be hazardous to the ozone layer because it reacts and destroys the ozone when it
oxidizes. (The Scribe, 2021)
 It is possible to efficiently reuse rockets in the same way that we can reuse aircraft, so
space travel will become more affordable. (RFWireless, 2021)
 The reusable rockets decrease the amount of space debris production as its rocket can
be used more than once, ended up going back to Earth instead of being a floating space
junk.

5.2 Disadvantages of Using Reusable Rockets

 Because reusable rockets make rocket flights less expensive, they will occur more
frequently, resulting in more exhaust and more harm to the atmosphere.
 (an example of a reusable rocket engine) SpaceX's Merlin Rocket Engines emits carbon
dioxide, which pollutes the atmosphere because of emissions at the stratosphere and
mesosphere. (The Scribe, 2021)
 Fuel cannot be reused in the rocket since it is expelled into the atmosphere at a rate of
300 pounds/second. (RFWireless, 2021)
 According to research, sonic shock waves created by the reusable Falcon 9 rocket caused
concentric moving ionospheric disturbances. Since the high atmospheric winds are related
to the ionosphere, this phenomenon can change them. These disturbances were proven
to move at high speeds and for long distances, up to a thousand kilometers. (Torres, 2020)

Page | 15
 6
Challenges Involved with Reusable
Rockets
Heat and weight are the two most significant challenges for a reusable rocket.

The friction of traveling thru the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds generates heat, and
dissipating heat is one of the most difficult tasks for any spacecraft. The first stage must
withstand the second stage's flame until it separates, and the second stage would need
substantial shielding to re-enter safely, let alone steer and perform a precision landing. Of
course, all of that shielding adds a lot of weight.

Moreover, ‘disposable' rockets are only capable of launching payloads weighing 2-4 percent
of their total weight. It necessitates a tremendous amount of thrust, which necessitates more
powerful engines, which necessitates additional fuel, which necessitates more thrust.

(Zach, 2011)

Now, let’s go back in time and see where main problems arose involving reusable rockets.
After the Apollo mission, NASA attempted to make a reusable space plane through the 1970s.
One of the main problems that they faced was taking apart and re-building the shuttle main
engines after each flight. They thought that reusing engines would be less expensive, yet they
had to spend more and more money on the engines after each flight. Moreover, the space
shuttle could not launch properly, and they had to spend billions of dollars every flight. This
was not very sustainable for the NASA. (Nova)

SpaceX has similar problems to NASA and any other space agency that has created reusable
rockets. SpaceX engineers will have to inspect engines, pumps and pretty much every other
part of the rocket. Many of these components may need replacement, which immediately cuts
into any potential savings. Moreover, there is a problem with testing the rockets too.
Damphousse said that SpaceX will need to fly the rockets “a lot to really see how it performs
over multiple flights”. This could take months, or even years. It is a very long process and
consumes a lot of money and fuel for each test flight.

Page | 16
 Figure 11 Refurbishing the space shuttle so it can be ready for the next launch.

After all these test flights and refurbishments, there comes another issue along the way:
finding customers who are willing to risk sending their cargo on a second-hand ride. Because
space travel is expensive, no company or government wants to see their cargo lost in an
accident. (Totten, 2015)

5.3 Challenges & Control Problems

Another issue involved with reusable rockets is the cost. There are two main approaches to
the control problems associated with the approach implementation.

The first solution is to construct a full-scale "aerospace plane" (ASP) that uses horizontal take-
off and landing as well as vertical take-off and landing. The use of a powerful air breathing
engine capable of operating at a wide range of speeds and altitudes, from very low to very
high, is a key component of this project. The ability to work without oxygen by drawing oxidant
directly from the atmosphere will dramatically lower the basic cost of launch, but a perfect air
breathing engine has yet to be developed. However, the requisite engine can be introduced
now for a suborbital flight with the corresponding reduced specifications for a max altitude,
and it will have a major impact on the future development of astronautics. The second
approach is to avoid using “heavy wheeled undercarriage” for ASP.

6.1.1 Providing Reusability of vertical Launch Vehicle Stages

SpaceX was the first to show a solution to the problem of reusability when it managed to land
the first stage of Falcon 9 rocket on a platform in the middle of an ocean. The first successful
landing was witnessed on April 8 th, 2016, and later it was shown twice again in May.

While the advantage of dropping rocket deceleration by using the rocket engine rather than a
parachute is not immediately apparent, this case is being considered. Installing a parachute

Page | 17
on the first stage of a rocket will exacerbate the design of a well-tested vehicle, and it does
not promise that this stage will not be damaged during landing. The project would most likely
increase the first stage's structural strength, obviating the necessity to repair hull damage.
There is almost no need to mount any additional hardware complex in the main engines for
the first stage soft landing. Numerous landing gears that fix the rocket vertically after landing
can be regarded as the only additional feature used during this first stage landing.

As a result, the mentioned SpaceX project does not allow for the reusability problem to be
solved, but it does highlight its significance and the willingness of businesses to invest heavily
in the advancement of space technology. (Nebylov & Nebylov, 2016)

6.1.2 Winged System of Horizontal Launch & Landing

A winged device is a safer solution to these reusability issues than vertical landing rockets. A
horizontal launch vehicle with a wide range of velocities and a full air breathing engine may
be considered.

It enables a mission to reach orbit quickly and efficiently. Along with this, it could have wings,
and each step could then be reused. One disadvantage of this method is that at cosmic
velocity, not enough air breathing engines may be used.

Consequently, wing units should be used for the engines for a period of the "final stage of
acceleration". It mostly happens in the upper atmosphere. Much of the time, this happens in
the upper atmosphere. Researchers have failed to develop an effective "air breathing
engine" capable of supersonic acceleration despite multiple attempts.

As a result, the concept of a single-stage ASP with such a horizontal launch approach is
currently out of the question. However, technological advances may have made it possible to
do that in the long run. There are three stages of ASP now. The first is a heavy booster rocket
with subsonic propulsion.

The second step is made up of a supersonic rocket with only an "air breathing engine". In the
third step, real rockets, primarily with rocket engines, will be created. Using "aerodynamic
descent" on its wings, either of these phases may theoretically be reused. The issue is that
the construction of horizontal launch vehicles is slower than that of vertical launch vehicles.

(Nebylov & Nebylov, 2016)

Page | 18
6.1.3 Projects of Wig-Craft use for Space Launch Assist
In 1995, the idea of WIG-craft assisting the ASP throughout takeoff and landing were
suggested. The WIG-craft would usually boost the ASP to 600-700km/h. Afterwards when,
using the air breathing engine, an ASP would be able to speed up by itself.

The ASP will be capable of transporting 500 tons of payload. The very next move would have
been to perform a feasibility analysis focused on landing the ASP on such a flying WIG-craft
while reducing speed then docking. For all of this, the high-precision automated motion control
system is necessary.

Figure 12 "The WIG-craft + ASP design".

There seems to be a good chance that the WIG-craft + ASP system will be developed in the
future. As seen, Russia developed the maritime transport known as just a WIG-craft.

Its advancements could eventually lead to its use in space missions. Furthermore, the concept
of horizontal take-off and landing has been regarded as a much more practical solution to
spacecraft reusability. Eventually, use of such suborbital spacecraft are growing, necessitating
relatively brief accessibility to just a height of 100 to 200 kilometres. (Nebylov & Nebylov, 2016)

The appropriate mass of WIG-craft was set at 500t, implying a valid maritime activity of 6
points (acceptable wave height is 6m). Despite the project's proven merits, an investor for the
construction of this integrated space transportation device "WIG-craft+ ASP" has not been
identified in the last 20 years. The explanation is obvious: there are so many technological
risks, as neither of the two elements of this integrated space transportation system exists yet.
However, in the last two years, things have started to improve. (Nebylov & Nebylov, 2016)


Page | 19
 7
Reusable Rockets Vs. Expendable
Rockets
Reusable Rockets Expendable Rockets

After each launch, reusable rockets

must be reconditioned as it will be Expendable rockets do not need
used again for the next several Maintenance maintenance after its usage as it
coming launches. (Pressreader, is made to be used only once.
2021)

It is more complicated because

there are more components and It is less complicated as its
components must be built stronger Construction components are relatively
to accommodate multiple flights. simpler in design.
(Smad, 2021)

The development and construction

Because ELVs are simpler to
of reusable vehicles is more
build than reusable launch
expensive as these components
Cost to build systems, they may have reduced
and systems must be designed to
production costs.
be reused and it has a complicated
(Wikipedia, 2021)
design. (Smad, 2021)

Since it can only be used once,

Expendable rockets can become when the rocket fails, it fails.

very reliable. If one fails during Chances to find out which part is
Reliable
launch, it is easy to find out what error is still possible, however, it

went wrong and fix it. (ESA, 2021) has a very low possibility for a
failed expendable rocket to find
out where have it went wrong.

Page | 20
 ELVs are usable only once, and
As it can be used more than once,
therefore have a significantly
its cost per launch may be far lower
higher per-launch cost than
than expendable rockets as it does Cost per launch
modern (SpaceX or post-STS)
only need cost to refuel and some
reusable vehicles. (Wikipedia,
components replaced when
2021)
necessary.

The fuel used for the reusable

rocket boosters must not be used
totally when launching the rocket as
an amount of fuel is still needed for
the boosters to go back to its place.
An ELV may use its full fuel
supply to accelerate its cargo,
Fuel usage
allowing it to carry more cargo.
(Wikipedia, 2021)

Reusable rockets are far new

technology compared to ELVs.
ELVs are a tested technology
Some reusable rockets have a
Technology that has been in general usage
promising technology included, and
for decades. (Wikipedia, 2021)
some of them are new tested
technology.

Page | 21
 8
Cost Efficiency Comparison
Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLVs) have the potential to increase space access by lowering
costs and increasing the availability of space transportation services. This can be
accomplished by amortizing launch vehicle production costs over many flights, which is
impractical for single use "Expendable Launch Vehicles" by definition (ELVs). This
advancement would minimize risk and increase the profitability of current commercial space
operations, as well as make potential new projects more feasible.

As a result, business plans that are currently deemed impractical in terms of cost may become
possible. (Richardson & Hardy, 2017)

8.1 How SpaceX is Making Space Cheaper

"SpaceX" announced a launch price of $57 million for "Falcon 9". At the time,
"Arianespace" dominated the rocket launch industry. SpaceX estimates that a Falcon 9 launch
costs about $62 million today, but the upcoming" Falcon Heavy" costs an approximate $90
million per launch. Elon Musk, the CEO of SpaceX, said in an interview that "the first stage of
the Falcon 9 accounts for 75 percent of the overall launch costs, or $46.5 million".

Since SpaceX is a private entity, it has not revealed its pricing strategy. It has also not applied
for any trademarks as they might disclose information about its technology. Nevertheless, in
an interview, Musk hinted at how SpaceX has managed to launch at a low cost. According to
him, the firm used a "Silicon Valley operating system and DNA as applied to the issue of space
transportation". This entails avoiding commonly held business principles, such as
outsourcing, which are widespread in the space industry. SpaceX, on the other hand, is
vertically integrated and has designed its entire supply chain from the ground up, from rocket
engines to the electronics components used in its rockets.

"SpaceX" has developed in terms of processes and technology in the procedure. For instance,
in the company's plant, the manufacturing "floor and engineering" are right next to each other
for quicker turnaround and better communication. Similarly, the two-stage rockets have only
one set of propellant-filled fuel tanks that will be used in both stages. Previously, many rockets
used three sets of propellants for the same number of stages. The company's costs are likely
to have been lowered as the cost of such products, such as sensors and electronics, has
decreased.

Page | 22
With the introduction of the first reusable rocket in recent years, SpaceX is likely to be able to
lower rocket launch costs even further. The operations of a reusable rocket benefit from
economies of scale. As a result, the more a rocket is reused, the less it costs to fly. According
to Arianespace, a partially reusable rocket will need to be relaunched 35-40 times per year to
realize its maximum cost savings. In 2020, the French company plans to launch its first
reusable rocket, which will be reused 12 times a year. (Sharma, 2018)

Next, we are going to look at various price estimates and the overall cost efficiency of RLVs.

8.2 Launch Price Estimates

Due to market & tech maturity, numerous RLV price estimates are established. An ELV launch
price is also provided for reference. In this subsection, both ELV & RLV launch price
estimations are based on the "SpaceX Falcon 9" rocket. The Falcon 9 is a good base for RLV
price modelling because it is the only orbiting partial RLV currently in commercial service. In
addition, as shown in the graph below, the Falcon 9 is now the most cost-effective launch
vehicle in the space industry transportation market, even as an ELV.

Figure 13 "Medium-lift launch vehicle prices".

According to SpaceX, the Falcon 9 ELV launch costs (USD) $62 million. Converting this to the
“FY2020 USD” by incorporating the inflation factors, this results in an ELV price estimate of
$66.2 million. (Richardson & Hardy, 2017)

Page | 23
8.3 ADR Mission Costs & Launch Price Estimates
Figure 14 depicts the launch price approximations for an ELV, and also low, middle, and high
maturity RLVs. Low-maturity RLVs have a price reduction of 19.6%, while high-maturity RLVs
have a price drop of 92.8 percent. While a high-maturity RLV may not be possible with current
tech, this report reveals that an intermediate-maturity RLV can yield significant cost savings.

This finding emphasizes the value of a competitive RLV market in reducing space travel costs.
It is inadequate to have a single launch operator developing RLV technology. Substantial cost
savings in space travel are unlikely unless operators are encouraged by competition to cut
RLV launch price margins.

Figure 14 Comparison between the launch price estimates.

Next, we have the ADR missions. The overall cost for the two ADR missions, with various
price scenarios are shown below. RLV tech can save anywhere from 2.8 percent for a low-
maturity RLV used on the "ADReS-A" mission to 21.7 percent for a high-maturity RLV utilised
on a foam-based debris clearance mission. The findings show that, in contrast to the "ADReS-
A" mission, deploying RLVs on the foam-based debris clean up mission can save more money
due to an increase in total launch mass demands.
The "ADReS-A" mission has a lower overall mission cost for ELVs or "low-maturity" RLVs, as
illustrated in figure 15. When "intermediate" or "high-maturity" RLV is deployed, however, the
foam-based debris clearance mission becomes the most cost-effective choice. The impact of
RLV tech on the viability of ADR mission topologies is demonstrated by this result.

(Richardson & Hardy, 2017)

Page | 24
 Figure 15 "Total mission cost estimates".

Figure 16 illustrates the “launch cost per kilogram to LEO” in dollars. Shows the comparison
between the cost of various rockets like the space shuttle, Falcon 9, Vanguard, etc. It is clearly
shown that the most cost-effective rockets are the Falcon rockets (9 and Heavy), as they can
be re-used, which means there is no need to buy an entirely new rocket. Only a few parts must
be repaired/replaced, and it can fly to space again.

(Jones, 2018)

Figure 16 Launch cost per kg.

Page | 25
 9
Environmental Sustainability
9.1 Impacts of Expendable Rockets on the Environment
To start analysing the environmental impacts a reusable spacecraft has and how it can be
sustainable, first we need to understand the impacts created by the expendable rockets just
so that we know how to reduce the impacts when it comes to designing reusable rockets.

Rockets are basically machines that have as much film energy as possible to just be extracted
from chemical bonds, as well as an enormous quantity of energy is required throughout a
rocket launch. (KORDINA, 2020)

A huge white cloud of smoke follows the rocket trailing as it has been removed. The big white
smoke cloud upon its launching pad is really not smoke, it is just a huge steam cloud. This is
due to all of its racks including launch pads are using a sound suppressor to not only maintain
the launch pad, instead it moisturizes its vehicle's sound energy, so it will not impact itself.

Whilst pouring more than a million litres of water also during launch phase, around 300,000
gallons, almost all of the water is pumped and transformed through steam, absorbing a great
deal of energy. One should find however that several rockets do not have enough dense white
cloud behind them because they clear its pad. (KORDINA, 2020)

Much different emissions could be generated by rockets. The number of usual suspects is on
here, however: CO2, water vapor, carbon soot, carbon monoxide, NO x, chlorine, sulfuric
compounds and aluminas that are very commonly bond and then become carbon dioxide.
There are several other trace gases which have been practically negligible aside from the
main gases, however we will concentrate on such primary gases, but rather on the least trace
gases.

From these gasses’ nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides as well as carbon monoxides are seen as
contaminants by the US environmental protection agency. Ozone-depleting substances
including ODS could be derived from chlorine, alumina and nitrogen oxides and also have,
from 1996, always been closely monitored thus restricted. (KORDINA, 2020)

CO2, oxides of nitrogen, soot as well as water vapor constitute or serve as greenhouse gasses
because particulates is just not gas. Such components consume additional heat, and this has
been termed radiative forcing than that of the present equilibrium of our environment. When

Page | 26
we have more of this in our atmosphere, we could trap further heat from the sun throughout
the atmosphere. The EPA considers chlorine to be a dangerous air pollutant. Moreover, acid
rain can be caused by sulphur compounds, nitrogen oxides and that it is harmful for marine
life, plants, etc. (KORDINA, 2020)

9.2 Impacts of Reusable Rockets on the Environment

One of the main factors in introducing reusable rockets is to reduce the environmental impacts
that an expendable rocket creates. The considered impact on the environment includes
atmospheric emissions, soil as well as low Earth orbit in the type of space debris. Reusable
orbital launch vehicles are however explicitly considered as having lower costs may increase
the frequency of launch. It was generally difficult to measure the effect of rockets, since rockets
really are not started much either, but mainly function in space. Research clearly shows
whether costs for launch decrease although its overall environmental impact is uncertain.
Study, moreover, accepts that space pollution is still a significant threat to future space
activities and would only worsen, because when it would become too extreme is not
acknowledged. (Torres, 2020)

The orbital launch vehicles include rockets which could also inject payloads through low earth
orbit with such a weight of at least 2000 kilograms. Several rockets with that same capacity
are currently operational, and then only two rockets can be reusable: Falcon 9 and Falcon
Heavy. Such rockets would not remove then remove its first phase as opposed to their
traditional counterparts. They are recovering and reusing this instead. Conventional and
reusable rockets are therefore similar, so after its pay loads have just been launched, these
discard its second phase. (Torres, 2020)

Under this study, the analysis was collected from databases obtained from the website of the
UC Merced library. It would not have been discussed due to its limited investigation into the
environmental consequences of rockets on the ocean. Extensive research has nevertheless
been carried out on soils, atmosphere including low earth orbit. It really is difficult to measure
why and how the environmental impacts of rockets as well as the ocean are so poorly
researched, except for a number of different purposes. (Torres, 2020)

Firstly, research may well have been performed, however the accessible databases are not
usable. Secondly, a quite hazardous, dynamic climate, particularly in the seas, makes it
increasingly hard to research. Thirdly, the launches have become so uncommon and may
have marginal overall impact relative to several other types of oceanic contaminants. (Torres,
2020)

Page | 27
Reusable rockets become preferable to traditional single-use rockets since the launch costs
are cheaper. It could be a direct outcome of its reusability, but it could also be due to the
benefits these modern businesses have over its older rivals. If cars including aircrafts had only
one-use features, it will be very costly to just use them. Pollution will also be much lower as
its costs would restrict its total use. This has yet to be established if reusability improves the
launch frequency and then in turn increases its effect on the environment. (Torres, 2020)

It really is critical to analyse the influence of traditional rockets to further evaluate the various
environmental impacts of reusable rockets. These could be compared since they are identical,
but clearly reusable rockets start many times. these work in the same way. Rockets pollute
but just not entirely measured its effect.

Rockets cause noise, thermal including visual radiation, chemical emissions, and pollution of
debris. While they are incredibly inefficient, not quite enough research have been conducted
on rocket effect. This is accurate that today's reusable rockets do not even discard its first
phase, reducing its earthly effect. With that said, they discard its second phase, that could also
influence the environment. (Torres, 2020)

Rockets pollute its chemical emissions, as stated earlier, particularly because of exhaust and
fuel by-products. Strong or liquid rockets, or perhaps both, are released. For instance, the
unsymmetric dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) as well as nitrogen tetroxide were used by the
unusable Russian Proton Rocket whereas the American Space Shuttle were using a mixture
of another liquid propellant through two rotated solid boosters. As its fuels varied, they often
varied in pollutants.

Even though this is well understood what forms of rockets producing by-products of
combustion, they do not have a very good impact on the atmosphere. Thousands of kilometres
have been shown to travel rocket plumes that are big smoke columns created mostly by
rockets. In comparison with other types of air pollution they have specific qualities. Particularly,
by-products comprising ionized iron including ionizing water vapor close to the pole of space
shuttle Mission STS-118 have been analysed and recognized.

The exhaust plumage has created exceptionally thick mesosphere clouds and water vapor.
The measurements indicate that wind speeds exceed 100 meters per second, approximately
one third sound speed. The plumes have been shown to be ballistic and thus to fly more and
more quickly than most other pollution sources. The effects of this phenomenon are uncertain,
but launches could be important. There has been currently minimal research to measure the
cumulative effects of rocket-generating greenhouse gasses, perhaps because they are rare.
In 2017, for instance, there are only about 23 launches from the USA. (Torres, 2020)

Page | 28
This other means that causes pollution created by rockets is acoustic pollution, that is normally
unrecognized other than in the immediate proximity of such a launch. Rockets are indeed very
noisy since its propellants are combusted and afterwards accelerated to just the acoustic
shock waves several times. Studies suggest that perhaps the acoustic shock waves emitted
by that of the Falcon 9 reusable rocket cause concentrated, moving ionospheric distortions.
The high atmospheric winds will change even though they are connected toward the
ionosphere. Such disruptions have shown to be instantaneous however incredibly remote to
1000 kilometres. As discovered recently, its full effect of such ionospheric disruptions still
seems to be uncertain.

Although the entire atmospheric effects of rockets are not known, the terrestrial influence is
quantified by studies. Different environmental impact measures have been documented in the
observation of crash sites. Rocket stages become discarded across land due to the launch
pads throughout the case of the Bayonore Cosmodrome in central Kazakhstan. The problem
is that start vehicles including Proton and Soyuz use those hazardous chemical propellants
such as UDMH and kerosene. These raises several environmental problems. (Torres, 2020)

UDMH is a first-hazard chemical class carcinogen and mutagen. Doses of more than 200 mg
UDMH per fauna of soil have been found to have kills for all microbial lives by UDMH impact
on soil animals. However, growth, development and productivity have also been shown to rise
at low doses. It was consistent with other studies, although the doses reported for stimulating
growth appear unique. Doses of up to one g UDMH for every kilogram ground have been
shown to boost growth in one research, whereas a different study has shown us that doses of
just under one tenth of just a gram of UDMH per kilogram of soil stimulate growth. There has
been consensus, but perhaps the principles are very different.

The time UDMH continues to pollute seems to be somewhat disputed. One research has
shown that just after a year has been UDMH occasionally considered in large concentrations.
A further research found that UDMH contaminates trace quantities four years later over such
a prolonged period. UDMH has become available in reusable rockets, however potential
designs may be because it would be a common and durable propellant. (Torres, 2020)

Certain research has shown a significant environmental effect for the Soyuz rocket, but has
the same propellant as that of the reusable rockets currently. Research has shown that fire-
powered rockets are the major threat. The substantially reduces the life cycle of the Microbials,
including UDMH, by fifty or 500 grams of kerosene each kilogram of soil. Kerosene has also
been shown to continue to pollute at the very same pace as UDMH across time. Moreover,
before a rise in lances is understood, the effects of kerosene-powered reusable rockets would

Page | 29
proceed unresolved. Since they recover during the first phase, although when launches
become increasing the amount of the surrounding region would not be contaminated in the
very same manner as that of the Soyuz.

Even though Soyuz and existing reusable rockets are using the same propellant then
discarded its second stage, they could be presumed to be identical to its pollutants. The
second phase creates lesser ecological consequences regarding just the Soyuz. Seventeen
separate Soyuz rocket second stage accident sites became identified and negligible quantities
of kerosene have been identified. In addition, the distribution of rocket debris became higher
than that of the crashing locations in the first stage since the second stage goes down
somewhat higher and has been probably breaking down and spreading. (Torres, 2020)

Although rocket emissions can, or may not, trigger less environmental pollution, a lasting
strategy. Sustainability implies reusability, however long-term reusability should decrease
costs further and the number of launches should grow. The research paper compares a non-
reusable Falcon 9 as well as a reusable Falcon Heavy. These two rockets were studied
through an environmental, social, and economic effect evaluation of both rockets. Pro unit
mass became carried out in the ecological part of analysis inside the non-reusable Falcon 9.
(Torres, 2020)

The study showed which Falcon Heavy reusable reduces expenses about 65% as well as the
future global warming with 64%. The global warming ability would be an important metric
throughout the standardization and comparison of various emission emitters. The greatest
reduction in global warming potential has been shown by the benefits of just a reusable rocket
and not some other actual start of development. One such decrease in the potential for global
warming is substantial and should only be compensated by such a rise in start-ups. Lightning
costs may be projected to increase, and whether reusable rockets are now the primary cause
remains uncertain.

The area known as low earth orbit is, however, polluted by rockets, which are fading satellites
as well as diverse sized debris. After space debris affects certain space objects, additional
debris is produced. And small fragments that are impossible to detect will make more. The
result can be a flat cascade effect called the Kessler Syndrome; whereby spatial debris is
constantly produced. The total volume of hazardous waste is uncertain, as when the NASA
Space Monitoring network could monitor items at least 10 centimetres in size quite efficiently.

This implies that, over this, the time span whenever Kessler's syndrome will begin is however
estimated to amount to far less than 10 centimetres in space. (Torres, 2020)

Page | 30
The deorbit of such old satellites is just a solution towards the space waste which is sometimes
regarded. It minimizes the total satellite population to order to minimize the likelihood of
generating scrap. When the threat gets too big, when older satellites become deorbed, they
crash, pollute the atmosphere, its ocean or the earth. Research has shown that between 10
and 40% of large objects will survive and affect the earth. That was the only method to remove
and handle spatial waste today, because there is no other realistic solution.

Many satellites as well as space debris is focused throughout the low-earth orbit area, that will
become more crowded and dangerous. Throughout the last decade, sales have risen 92 %,
although space debris has indeed been up 124 percent from 2006 to 2010, increasing through
one kilogram to 8300 kilograms. An active debris removal system (ADR) will have to be a
technology which might prove vital to the management of space waste. The Inter-Agency
Space Debris Coordination Board is really a scientist from all across the world group that helps
with active waste disposal strategies to address the issue of space debris. Such technology
would be to safeguard the income of $300 billion from possible hazards caused by space
pollution.

Studies indicated that the number of satellites in recent years has risen significantly in the low
Earth orbit, amounting about 14,000. Which does not include the number of space debris in
the very same area, that consists of 34.000 objects higher than 10 centimeters, 900.000
objects around 1-10 cm and 128 million objects between 1 mm and 1 cm in length. The number
of collisions is expected to rise, while accelerating possibly its emergence of Kessler
Syndrome, even as increasing number of satellites rises. (Torres, 2020)

Nevertheless, due to the uncertainty of the number of small debris but because the satellite
population increases throughout the low earth orbit, the timeframe in which it becomes an
enormous danger is unclear. This initial step in the development of new mega constellations
including SpaceX's Starlink, however final launches would only further occupy a lower earth's
orbit. This is projected that such satellites include between 12,000 and 30,000 satellites to
boost the web coverage. (Torres, 2020)

Many studies indicate which Kessler Syndrome more probably starts for long periods;
however, some incidents may intensify this. Some recommend that discarding old satellites
within twenty-five years of their operational life would be a sufficient solution, at the same time
it is estimated that the risk of collisions increased seven-fold over the past ten years. Some
suggest that what a discarded of old satellites in 25 years will become an enough resolution
but also at the same period its probability of collisions is expected to rise seven times
throughout the last 10 years.

Page | 31
Whatever the need for so many new satellite constellations would have had on the atmosphere
still seems to be unknown because it would be too soon to determine. There seem to be
currently 299 Starlink satellites, most of them on the reusable Falcon 9. Not quite enough
period to assess the overall environmental effect of just a crowded low-Earth orbit have
progressed since then for the number of studies. That being said, Starlink satellites, at such a
minimum, reflect light, which influence cosmological studies at dusk and longer - term
exposures.

(Torres, 2020)

9.3 Environmental Impacts caused by SpaceX.

SpaceX has been regulating the construction of a location for Falcon 9 as well as Falcon
Heavy launches from 4 to 12 launches annually. SpaceX also rendered eight modifications,
reviewed and authorized by that of the Federal Aviation Administration, during 2014 for
expanding the design and operations among its sites. The Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy have
never been started from Boca Chica, Texas. (SierraClub, n.d.)

Alternatively, SpaceX have planned to be using the launch facility to design, manufacture, test
as well as launch the Starship, an even larger vehicle than that of Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy,
which manufacture the Falcon Launch vehicles also at Boca Chica Launch Site. This would
be the largest rocket ever constructed which is the Starship plus Super Heavy.

9.3.1 Comparison of Falcon and Falcon Heavy to Super Heavy/Starship

Figure 17: Comparing Falcon and Falcon Heavy to Super Heavy/Starship (SierraClub, n.d.)

Page | 32
In the table above you can see the difference between each car. Falcon 9 would be a single
light payload rocket, whereas Falcon Heavy would be a Falcon 9 containing two additional
Falcon 9 heavier payload engine cores. The Super Heavy is just the booster (lower part only
for Starship lift), and the Starship is just the spacecraft.

(SierraClub, n.d.)

9.4 Environmental Impact Statement

It needs an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). SpaceX's recent Boca Chica plans imply
significantly increased effects on the environment. The EIS is required instead of an
Environmental Assessment (EA). The decision needs to be taken by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), not SpaceX (SpaceX was permitted to select). This is a condition by the
National Agency for Environmental Protection and therefore is specified in the rules of the
FAA. The EIS is much more detailed which enables the public to be much more active.
(SierraClub, n.d.)

SpaceX occupies the Starship prototype’s testing license on the launch facility. Which means
a sequence of suborbital launches, only from some inches to 18 miles above the ground, as
well as a testing of static fire engines. (SierraClub, n.d.)

The initial Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is seven years old which requires a
new FEIS. SpaceX again for Starship operation is very unique and therefore does not
represent what has been examined there in 2014's Final Environmental Impact Statement.
The updated EIS, namely State-listed including federally endangered threats to it and
endangered species or really any concerns reflecting SpaceX's operations, was required for
analyzing LNG impacts, LLC Jupiter, highway closures, access to Boca Chica including LRGV
NWR, as well as the environment.

In the 180 hours of closures annually identified in the 2014 FEIS, SpaceX proposes increasing
road closures to up to 300 per year. The Starship is conceptual which requires further
experimentation than it was stated for Falcon 9 as well as Falcon Heavy in 2014 which
contrasts with the Falcon Program. (SierraClub, n.d.)

In addition to the proposed proposal and therefore no alternative solutions, the FAA will also
be considered other options, including the launching of Starship from just an offshore platform,
the alternate previously stated by Elon Musk including two available jobs earlier in 2020. The
Starship launches are going to Cape Canaveral that already has the facilities needed to move
away from its national wildlife sanctuary and the state park.

Page | 33
The federal aviation administration must implement and hold SpaceX responsible for such
mitigation needed. SpaceX did not comply with any of the 2014's initial 29 requirements.
SpaceX rent/purchase through Brownsville Port Loma as well as other neighboring lomas
might limit the multiple changes in public, environmental including wildlife effects.

Including but not restricted to light, sound and vibration effects, construction as well as
operational impact. Test, launch as well as failure effects comprise fires, debris fields, ocean-
relieved debris, fire, smoke, including dangerous fuels & vapors, and are not really restricted
therein. A launch area is located next to and enclosed with national nature preserve, State
parkland, tidal flats, including public beaches.

To foresee the effects not described in the 2014 Final Environmental Impact Statement,
this new environmental effect declaration is essential. The Starship development leads to just
the unpredictable effects of explosions, wastes and brush fire each of which have a negative
effect on nature and specifically on nesting birds. (SierraClub, n.d.)

Steadily increasing spacecraft development, testing and launch increases the effect on the
wildlife and the habitat. Additional endangered species including threatened species are
ocelot, golf jaguarunde, piping powder, alpomado falcon and red knot in the area covered by
SpaceX operations.

The potential that marine turtle nests should not be identified or moved increases with growing
beach closures. Tested vibrations including start-ups may alter or discourage tortoises from
nesting on the shore, so they may destroy incubating eggs not detected or relocated. Changes
and changes to the Space X Starship Lighting Management Plan. Light affects nightlife,
especially hatchlings which are not moved could well be disturbed via any lighting from
its launch facilities. Lights have a major impact on the wildlife at night.

Another aspect are beach closures and certain public land impacts. SpaceX is suggesting that
the 180 hours of closing per year described in the 2014 Final Declaration on Environmental
Impact could raise road closures to 300 hours per year. Schedule surpassed however did not
impose its 180 hours of closing. Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR, Palmita Hill Battlefield, as
well as Boca Chica State Park, plus 7 miles of public beaches, would be closed for majority of
the day. According to Texas's Bill of Rights, Article 1, section 33, its people have a right of
admission to any and all Texas beaches. (SierraClub, n.d.)

The other factor is the methane and emissions. Sub-cooled methane including oxygen are
supplied to the Starship. Extremely volatile is methane. Significant amounts of methane were
not stored and included in the 2014 EIS.

Page | 34
During its first twenty years since publication, methane is a greenhouse gas and therefore is
84 times more active than that of carbon dioxide. Methane has been the main natural gas
element, most of which release towards the air during output, processing, storage, transfer,
distribution and then use. Annual sales, leaks, and bursts account for approximately three
percent of the global natural gas supply which lead to significant economic and environmental
expenses.

In November 2019 WR, the starship tests are illustrated. It is the following estimates of test
emissions. (SierraClub, n.d.)

Climate change is also an important factor according to Texas A&M study. By 2036, the
number of days with 100 degrees could almost double. Although the extreme precipitation is
increasing and intense, it is predicted that it will intensify. The severity of the hurricane is
predicted to increase dramatically and despite increased precipitation, its region has dried up.

Both of the above include tax dollars, public health, and public security implications. The study
must include the effects of the projected increase of the sea level. (SierraClub, n.d.)

9.5 Conclusion for Environmental Impacts

There have been insufficient studies to fully assess the impacts of reusable rockets upon
the environment. There are still no complete understanding of the impact of traditional rockets
on the atmosphere as well as the impact of reusable rockets are uncertain. There must be
more studies to study the air and terrestrial consequences with not enough information on
such concerns has really been obtained.

Although reusable rockets represent an important decrease in global warming potential, its
initial longevity can only be offset by a substantial improvement in launches. Reusable rockets
are all still recent however its decline in launch costs has so far not shown to increase launches
substantially. This is only supposed to keep increasing its frequency of startup by decreasing
costs. (Torres, 2020)

Page | 35
Space waste is a by-product of such space operations and has been generally accepted as a
possible hazard. But there are various levels of priority for the strategies suggested to
overcome such crisis. Launches are expected to rise, creating additional space debris.

The dangers of space waste could cause older satellites to be removed, although at the
present time would require these to be deorbited. This should raise the environmental impact
on the earth after the atmosphere has burned, these would be dumped over the oceans.
(Torres, 2020)

Just not a direct result of reusable rockets, this depends just on satellite population, which can
also rise because launches have become less expensive. However, there has never been
sufficient time for reusable rockets to adequately decide when these would occur specifically.

Page | 36
 10
Data Collection Analysis
The survey that we conducted got 185 responses in total and the results are shown below.

It seems to be safe to
point out that a lot of
all those who
responded to the
survey have some
prior information of
space exploration.
Just under 15% of the
participants had
never heard with this
subject before.

We got 185
comments, and 62.2
percent of those who
responded have
known of a reusable
rocket. This is a great
start for our project
because many
individuals are now
aware of the
developments
throughout the
aerospace industry.

Males made up 56.2

% of all those who
took part in the study,
whereas females
made up 40.5
percent. A small
number of them
opted to leave their
gender anonymous.

Page | 37
 The majority of all
those who
participated in the
survey were students.
As a result, 73.5 % of
these responses come
again from younger
crowd, who really are
interested in
potential
technologies.

People are most

familiar with NASA,
which is at the top of
the list of well-known
space agencies.
Around 99% of the
population is aware
of NASA, that has
enabled significant
advances in space
exploration. SpaceX
as well as the Indian
Space Research
Organization (ISRO)
will be the next most
well-known
organisations.
Reusable spacecrafts
are expected to
revolutionize the
industry, according to
91.9% of those polled.
This is a beneficial
move, considering our
research is focused on
determining whether
or not reusable
spacecrafts will
fundamentally change
the sector.

Page | 38
 If given the
opportunity, the
millions of individuals
would like to fly to
space. 84.3 % of those
individuals say they
would fly to space if it
were more
affordable.

This query elicited a

mixed response, with
42.2 % of those
surveyed believing
that their family and
friends would be
involved there too.
The established yes
was provided by 38.4
% of those polled,
whereas 13% were
undecided.
Which is among the
most crucial
questions about the
study. Around 21.
% of people is totally
unaware of such
space pollution
caused by spacecraft.
If voters had much
more information,
they could suggest
that the government
produce a more
environment
conscious spacecraft
for such launch.

Page | 39
 It really is
encouraging seeing
that 16.8% of
respondents are
extremely concerned
about such a
problem, whereas
36.8% are just mildly
worried. This suggests
that far more than
half of all those who
responded to the
survey are concerned
about the impact of
space junk.

SpaceX is actually
just one agency
which utilizes
reusable
spacecraft. Other
space agencies are
similarly in the
early stages of
growth.

NASA spends the

most money per
year. It has a
budget of $23.3
billion during the
year 2021.

Page | 40
 The reusable
booster for the
Falcon 9 could also
save close to $25
million every
launch.

The New Shephard

from Blue Roots
was the very first
completely
reusable vertical
take-
off, and vertical
landing spacecraft.
On November 23,
2015, it landed
safely.

The average points obtained by the participants on the four quiz questions was 1.86 from a
total of four, as seen in the graph above. Much of the people has correctly answered two
questions. This proves that people have some knowledge of the reusable rocket, but not
really a complete understanding of it.

Page | 41
 11
Results
To understand if the shift towards using reusable spacecrafts are worth it, a study was
conducted to compare the expendable launch vehicle (ELV) and the reusable launch vehicle
(RLV). The 9 engine RP1 configuration return to launch site (RTLS) vehicle is compared with
a wide range of expendable vehicles to understand its benefits. The study is based on same
initial conditions with a payload of 500kg to the orbit.

Propellant Configuration Price per flight [M$] Price per kg [k$]

9-engine RTLS 9.10 18.19

9-engine LS 13.01 26.03

RP1 9-engine 11.89 23.78

1-engine LS 11.53 23.07

1-engine 10.26 20.51

9-engine LS 15.21 30.41

9-engine 13.87 27.73

LH2
1-engine LS 12.26 24.52

1-engine 11.17 22.36

Solid – 11.78 23.56

In the above table, the LS represents the liquid first stage and solid upper stage configuration.
It can be noted from the table that there is a wide range of price per kg. The lowest price per
kg is for the 9-engine RTLS configuration with just $18.19k while the most expensive is the 9-
engine LS of about $30.41k. It can be noted that the RP1 propelled launch vehicles generally
have a lower cost estimation compared to the LH2 propelled launch vehicles.

Page | 42
 Figure 18: Price per flight vs inert mass (Contant, 2019)

When the price per flight is plotted against the total inert mass, we can notice a linear trend of
increase in the price per flight with increase in the inert mass. So one way to reduce the cost
is to reduce the dry mass. We can get more clarity when the price per flight is plotted against
various optimal design parameters. (Contant, 2019)

11.1 Number of Reuses

The price per flight of the ELV and RLV can be plotted in a graph by taking y-axis as the price
per flight and x-axis as the number of launches per annum. The SpaceX while operating the
expendable Falcon 9 launches, uses the same launch vehicle but changes the landing legs
and grid fins of the vehicle. Thus, the cost factors that were taken into consideration are
assumed as same for both ELV and RLV. However, the difference is in the added mass, the
ELV does not include the 10% extra mass and also does not carry extra propellant for landing.
By taking these criteria’s into consideration, the graph was plotted. (Contant, 2019)

Figure 19: Price per flight vs launches per annum graph for expendable and reusable rockets (Contant, 2019)

Page | 43
 The graphs gives a lot of insight on how the cost can be saved by using the reusable
spacecrafts. If noticed, a reusable rocket with no reuses is actually very costly and wasteful,
and it also means that it is basically just an expendable rocket but with added costs. However,
it is clear that as soon as the first stage is reused once, there is an advantage over the
expendable rockets as the cost is lower than the expendable rockets. It can be said that with
the cost of two expendable rocket launch, 3 reusable rockets could be launched. From the
graph it can be noted that when 10 or 5 reuses are made, then the cost decreases by about
30% compared to the expendable ones within the initially number of launches. (Contant, 2019)

Figure 20: price per flight reduction compared to the expendable launch cost (Contant, 2019)

11.2 Total Launches

The nominal system was created for 20 launches per year, with a production of 100
units and 10 reuses for first stage. We can now look into how deviations in these design criteria
will affect the price per flight. The number of launches per year was kept constant at 20 and
the number of reuses was varied for 50, 100, and 200. In the graph, the RP1 engine ELV is
also plotted for comparing with the RLV. (Contant, 2019)

Figure 21: Price per flight vs number of reuses (Contant, 2019)

Page | 44
 From the above graph, we can note that the 50 total reuses per RLV does not seem
efficient enough as it does not significantly reduce the price per flight. Although this situation
is not completely logical since the RLV will be used only for 2.5 years if there were only 50
launches. If we consider 100 or 200 total reuses per RLV, then we can see significant reduction
in the price per flight. Hence, it can be considered as a feasible design if the company plans
to reuse it for many numbers of times. By considering the cost ratio of expendable and
reusable vehicle launch, it can be noted that the RLV will be cost effective right after 4 reuses.
These estimates can be verified when considering more than 100 launches. (Contant, 2019)

11.3 Recovery and refurbishment cost

The recovery and refurbishment costs have a huge impact on the price per flight. If
these costs are increased from 0% to 50% then the price per flight may increase by 36.2%.
‘Wertz’ has set an upper limit and lower limit for these costs which ranges from 20% to 10%
respectively. It was noted that as long as the recovery and refurbishment costs are less than
20% of the operation costs, the ideal configuration will have less $20k as price per kg. The
variation of price per flight for refurbishment cost and recovery cost has been plotted on the
below given graph. (Contant, 2019)

Figure 22: Price per flight vs refurbishment cost and recovery cost (Contant, 2019)

Page | 45
 12
Conclusion
The reusable spacecrafts have become a mainstream development of some of the current top
space agencies. So we decided to find out whether the reusable rockets would revolutionize
the pre-flight rocket development stage. We have considered various aspects as to what is a
reusable rocket and why it has gained soo much popularity within these past 3-5 years. This
will allow us to come to a conclusion whether they are going to be worth the time and money
spent on.

The launch system that reuses some or all parts of the spacecraft can be termed as the
reusable rocket. The first ever made reusable rocket was the ‘Space Shuttle’ by the NASA.
Though it was reusable, the cost of production and refurbishment were still very high, which
did not provide any benefits as compared to the expendable ones. The recently achieved
orbital level reusable rocket booster is the ‘Falcon 9’ by the SpaceX, which is also currently in
development for a completely reusable rocket named ‘Starship’. There are several advantages
and disadvantages regarding the use of reusable rocket, after going through its pros and cons,
we can decide whether if it is worth the hype.

Why we think the reusable rockets are worth it:-

 The reusable rocket will have a positive impact on reducing the space debris that have
been forming. If the rockets aren’t reused, then they are normally made to undergo a
‘deorbit burn’, where the huge mass of rockets are burned in the earth’s atmosphere
so that they do not add up to the space debris. But this also means that the particles
that are formed after the burn will accumulate in the atmosphere and may cause
dangerous impacts on the environment. By reusing the rockets, they do not have to
undergo deorbit burn and can avoid the formation of such particles.

 Studies has shown that the Falcon heavy helps in the reduction of global warming by
about 64%. Only a huge increase in the launch rate per year will lead to potential
increase in the global warming.

 The launch cost per kg and total mission cost is comparably low when using a reusable
launch vehicle. It can have a price reduction ranging from 19.6% to 92.8%.

Page | 46
  Reduction in the launch costs and increase in the number of launches means that
there is a possibility for space exploration for the common people. As per the data
collected, 84.3% people were willing to experience space travel if it becomes
affordable.

Why we think the reusable rockets aren’t worth it:-

 The price per flight for a reusable rocket is high if the launches per annum or total
number of reuses is very low. This means that only with higher amounts of launch, the
reusable rockets will prove cost efficient. Otherwise, its best to use expendable
rockets.

 By increasing the number of launches, the impact on environment is detrimental. It

leads to noise pollution, thermal radiation, chemical emissions and debris
contamination. Mostly the pollution caused by the rocket launch is acoustic pollution.
But it may turn out to be dangerous once the launch rate of spacecrafts increase
steadily.

After considering both the aspects and all possible outcomes, we conclude that the reusable
rockets are worth it, and it would revolutionize the pre-flight rocket development stage.
The advantages the reusable rockets offer is much more than the disadvantages it has. As
engineers interested in the new innovations and space exploration, we think it is completely
logical for more space agencies to shift towards the usage of reusable rockets. The only point
that must be considered is the frequency of launch and its effects over the environment. More
developments are yet to occur on the environmentally efficient aspect of the rockets, because
as much as we strive for space exploration and settling on mars, we have to work hard towards
safeguarding the earth – our true home.

Page | 47
 13
Bibliography
Calandrelli, E. (2016). Amazon is buying MGM Studios for $8.45B. Retrieved May 26, 2021,
from https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/22/spacexs-ses-9-launch-and-why-they-land-
rockets-at-sea/

Clark, S. (2016). Falcon 9 rocket explosion traced to upper stage helium system. Retrieved
May 26, 2021, from https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/09/23/falcon-9-rocket-explosion-
traced-to-upper-stage-helium-system/

Coates, A. J. (1999). Limited By Cost: The Case Against Humans In The Scientific
Exploration Of Space. Retrieved february 27, 2021, from
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1013195025750

Contant, S. (2019). Design and optimization of a small reusable launch vehicle using vertical
landing techniques. Delft University of Technology.

ESA. (2021, may 28). Retrieved from Expendable or reusable?:

https://www.esa.int/kids/en/learn/Technology/Rockets/Expendable_or_reusable

Hyman, W. (2018). REUSABLE LAUNCH SYSTEM: THE GATEWAY TO THE FUTURE OF.
Pittsburgh : University of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering.

Jones, H. W. (2018). The Recent Large Reduction in Space Launch Cost. The Recent Large
Reduction in Space Launch Cost, 2.

KORDINA, F. (2020). WHAT IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ROCKETS HAVE ON

OUR AIR? Retrieved May 19, 2021, from https://everydayastronaut.com/rocket-
pollution/

Nebylov, A., & Nebylov, V. (2016, September). Reusable Space Planes Challenges And
Control Problems. Retrieved from sciencedirect.com:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405896316315555

Nova. (n.d.). The Challenge of Making a Reusable Rocket | Rise of the Rockets. Retrieved
from pbslearningmedia.org: https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/nvrotr-sci-
reusablerocket/the-challenge-of-making-a-reusable-rocket-rise-of-the-rockets/

O'Connell, C. (2018). Reusable rockets explained. Retrieved May 26, 2021, from
https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/launch-land-repeat-reusable-rockets-explained/

Pressreader. (2021, may 28). Retrieved from Pros and cons of reusable rockets:
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/how-it-works/20180419/283386242473371

Quora. (n.d.). What is the folding mechanism of the SpaceX Falcon 9 landing legs?
Retrieved May 26, 2021, from https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-folding-
mechanism-of-the-SpaceX-Falcon-9-landing-legs

Page | 48
RFWireless. (2021, may 28). Retrieved from Advantages of Reusable Rocket |
disadvantages of Reusable Rocket: https://www.rfwireless-
world.com/Terminology/Advantages-and-Disadvantages-of-Reusable-Rocket.html

Richardson, M. P., & Hardy, D. W. (2017). Economic Benefits of Reusable Launch Vehicles
for Space Debris Removal. Adelaide: International Astronautical Federation.

Sharma, R. (2018, December 18). How SpaceX Transformed Space Exploration. Retrieved
from investopedia.com: https://www.investopedia.com/news/how-spacex-reinvented-
rocket-launch-industry/

SierraClub. (n.d.). SpaceX Boca Chica Factsheet & Talking Points. Retrieved May 19, 2021,
from https://www.sierraclub.org/texas/lower-rio-grande-valley/spacex

Smad. (2021, may 28). Retrieved from Economic Model of Reusable vs. Expendable Launch
Vehicles: https://smad.com/economic-model-reusable-vs-expendable-launch-
vehicles/

Space Stackexchange. (2017). How do the F9 grid fins extend and rotate? Retrieved May
26, 2021, from https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/22316/how-do-the-f9-
grid-fins-extend-and-rotate

SpaceX. (2021). FALCON 9. Retrieved May 26, 2021, from

https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/falcon-9/

The Scribe. (2021, may 28). Retrieved from The Pros and Cons of Reusable Rockets:
https://scribewilcox.com/2250/op-ed/the-pros-and-cons-of-reusable-rockets/

TheSpaceTechie. (2021). Cold Gas Thrusters: How it works? Retrieved May 26, 2021, from
https://www.thespacetechie.com/cold-gas-thrusters-how-it-works/

Torres, A. (2020). Reusable Rockets and the Environment. Merced: University of California.

Totten, S. (2015, December 23). SpaceX faces more challenges now that it has landed a
rocket. Retrieved from scpr.org:
https://www.scpr.org/news/2015/12/23/56443/spacex-faces-more-challenges-now-
that-it-landed-a/

UnitedNations. (n.d.). Benefits of Space: Environment. Retrieved February 26, 2021, from
https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/benefits-of-space/environment.html

Wikipedia. (2021, may 28). Retrieved from Expendable launch system:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expendable_launch_system

Zach. (2011, September 30). The Problems of Reusable Rockets. Retrieved from
seradata.com: https://www.seradata.com/the_problems_of_reusable_rocke/

Page | 49