SpaceX's Grasshopper VTVL takes a 40 meter hop

_Tombstone_

the_syco wrote: »

Nice clean landing. Hope this bodes well for the price of future launches!

Around $61Million to build this Falcon 9 V1.2, three quarters of that is boost stage so $45Million minus whatever it'll cost to get ready for a relauch.

http://****elonsays.com/transcript/spacex-press-conference-september-29-2013-2013-09-29

Put shit in the **** to get link to work

Only costs $200,000 for fuel for this lauch.


They charge US Gov around $85Million a launch, everyone else gets up for cheaper.


Falcon Heavy is gonna make it all cheaper again when it comes along.

_Tombstone_

Vids from other launches were up in no time at all. They're making us wait this time.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/679137936416329728

_Tombstone_

BACKGROUND ON TONIGHT'S LAUNCH

nokia69

josip

The helicopter perspective was good.
Right on the crosshairs by the looks of it.
Wow.

Maximus Alexander

That's absolutely surreal to watch.

InTheTrees

Incredible. I watched it live last night and it really looked like the first stage landing was coming down too fast...amazing that it made it. Beautiful.

_Tombstone_

nokia69 wrote: »

Musk must be at the landing site, I saw Shotwell at mission control but not him, can't wait to see the better videos of this

Seems he wanted to watch this one live so hired out this




The Sonic Boom on the way down caught him out, he tought the Rocket blew up on landing.


Doesn't look like this Rocket is gonna be reused, it'll be tested and test fired but will be kept as an Artifact. They've two Launches next Month and a ISS resupply run in February so not long to wait for another go.



[IMG][/img]

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk eyes city on Mars after successful rocket landing

http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy (This is some Rocket, estimated launch in Spring - April maybe)

After SpaceX sticks its landing, Elon Musk talks about a city on Mars

shedweller

Thanks for all the updates tombstone!

nokia69

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Doesn't look like this Rocket is gonna be reused, it'll be tested and test fired but will be kept as an Artifact. They've two Launches next Month and a ISS resupply run in February so not long to wait for another go.

Yeah they don't really need to re use the first one, they will have plenty of cores collected next year, where will they store them all

Still a long way to go with this process and I expect to see some failures along the way too

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy (This is some Rocket, estimated launch in Spring - April maybe)

That one will be cool to watch, 27 engines firing at the same time, then two cores landing at the same time, and then the middle core returning alone or landing on the drone ship, hope its a daytime launch

_Tombstone_

No damage on the Engine apparently, been ready to go since Dec31, so a week to turn them around, quicker when they get good at it.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacexphotos


Elon Musk says SpaceX's first reusable Falcon 9 rocket is 'ready to fire again'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on6pzefo4t8

_Tombstone_

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cos2CBkg8kY

_Tombstone_

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ6tZtGrShg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGMPUClJ7pE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3PVG-7Sv4U

I thought Hydrogen was gonna be the next big thing Time Index 10.20

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_e7rA4fBAo

Toyota on hydrogen fuel cell technology: “Simply a better battery”

nokia69

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

I thought Hydrogen was gonna be the next big thing Time Index 10.20

If you look into the problems, producing, storing and transporting Hydrogen, its clear that fool cells are a bad idea

Capt'n Midnight

nokia69 wrote: »

If you look into the problems, producing, storing and transporting Hydrogen, its clear that fool cells are a bad idea

The first internal combustion hydrogen powered car had electric ignition. Back in 1813


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Rivaz_engine same date as the first practical ( walking speed ) steam locomotive Puffing Billy

_Tombstone_

New Hyperloop video shows off a bunch of tubes lying in the desert

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14Hs0r5RUww

nokia69

_Tombstone_

Nice one! I'd just checked the other day for a better one.

_Tombstone_

TAKE TWO!!

So, at the moment weather is 100% go for launch WITH landing on Sunday(Monday is good for launch aswell), landing out on the Barge this time due to not having permission for a land landing (they have no pad at vandenberg) and it's cheaper depending on what you're firing and where it needs to go apparently - this one will come down at wicked speed so Water landing safer for now as 5000mph could drop it on who knows what.

Sunday at 6.42GMT (I think, converted that from 1.42ET time)


Test firing of the landed rocket has thrown up problems with an engine.

Lots more Info

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-startups-idUSKCN0UT2D5
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-15/why-spacex-needs-to-land-a-rocket-on-a-floating-drone
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/15/10775522/spacex-falcon-9-launch-livestream-second-rocket-landing-january-17
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/noaa-s-jason-3-spacecraft-ready-for-launch-0

_Tombstone_

They're not using the newer Falcon, they're using the version that blew last year.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacexphotos/with/23778325594/

nokia69

The Jason-3 launch looks OK so far

But the drone ship landing failed, possible broken leg because of a hard landing

Knifey Spoony

https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/688816554306191360

Sounds like the first actually manage to land but one of the legs didn't lock so it fell over. Will be interesting to see the landing attempt video later.

Wibbs

Looks great and all and a fantastic effort, but IMH FWIW(not a lot), the use of rocket fuel to have a controlled landing is pretty wasteful and more about the "show". The same type vehicle using aerodynamically "free" parachutes to slow down and land, maybe with a last minute rocket assist a la the Russian crew module landings to bleed off the last bit of energy, makes far more sense on all sorts of levels. THe K.I.S.S. principle.

Maximus Alexander

I'd argue that it's keeping it much simpler to use engines that are already on the craft than to add extra complexity and mass in the form of parachutes.

In terms of cost savings, which is what SpaceX is all about, powered landing makes lots of sense.

josip

Wibbs wrote: »

Looks great and all and a fantastic effort, but IMH FWIW(not a lot), the use of rocket fuel to have a controlled landing is pretty wasteful and more about the "show". The same type vehicle using aerodynamically "free" parachutes to slow down and land, maybe with a last minute rocket assist a la the Russian crew module landings to bleed off the last bit of energy, makes far more sense on all sorts of levels. THe K.I.S.S. principle.

My understanding (worth less) is that if they want to have a controlled landing at a known safe site/ocean barge, they have to be controlling the downward trajectory from the very start of the descent.
This is especially the case for high speed insertions where significant re-orientation of the rocket is required at turn around rather than just letting gravity do its bit.
If they went the parachute route, they'd be at the mercy of different winds at multiple altitudes on the way back down and it would be both impossible to predict a landing site.
There would probably also be a lot of lateral velocity which isn't great for a rocket as tall as the Falcon.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I'd argue that it's keeping it much simpler to use engines that are already on the craft than to add extra complexity and mass in the form of parachutes.

In terms of cost savings, which is what SpaceX is all about, powered landing makes lots of sense.

It's a valid point, but I still think that the use of the engines is primarily about the level of control it gives them rather than saving on complexity and mass.
They have had to add steering vanes at the stop of the rocket that deploy to stabilise the descent.
While their mass is probably less than parachutes I'd be surprised if their complexity was any less than the well tested parachute design

Maximus Alexander

An additional and, I thought, convincing explanation, is that SpaceX rockets will ultimately need to be able land on the Moon / Mars where parachutes are less useful / no use at all. If you can perform a precise powered landing on Earth, it ought to be a piece of cake on other bodies.

nokia69

Wibbs wrote: »

Looks great and all and a fantastic effort, but IMH FWIW(not a lot), the use of rocket fuel to have a controlled landing is pretty wasteful and more about the "show". The same type vehicle using aerodynamically "free" parachutes to slow down and land, maybe with a last minute rocket assist a la the Russian crew module landings to bleed off the last bit of energy, makes far more sense on all sorts of levels. THe K.I.S.S. principle.

They tried parachutes already and it didn't work, the current method works and it looks like it would have worked yesterday if not for one bad leg

They will get the drone ship landing right soon enough, its only a matter of time

Wibbs

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

An additional and, I thought, convincing explanation, is that SpaceX rockets will ultimately need to be able land on the Moon / Mars where parachutes are less useful / no use at all. If you can perform a precise powered landing on Earth, it ought to be a piece of cake on other bodies.

Well we've already landed kit on Mars and Titan using parachutes(and a mix of chutes and retro rockets) even Venera managed it on Venus and pretty accurately considering. Precise powered landings on other planets have already gone off pretty well back in the 60's and 70's with Viking and of course Apollo. The latter was of course manned, but hampered by guidance and computer tech available at the time, but even so required remarkably little human interaction save for the last minute of final descent(program 66). Today's tech could replace that easily enough.

Plus as far as landing a Space X rocket on say the moon in anything like that configuration would be beyond wasteful, complex and expensive. It was one of the early ideas mooted for Apollo, the 1950's Hollywood idea of a moon rocket, but the size of the vehicle would have been huge. The compartmentalised idea was the better bet.

nokia69 wrote: »

They tried parachutes already and it didn't work,

As I say parachutes do work and work pretty well and the tech hasn't been updated that much since the 70's, so there is likely room for improvement. It's what they trust for manned return landings. With last second retro fire on the Russian system.

the current method works and it looks like it would have worked yesterday if not for one bad leg

They will get the drone ship landing right soon enough, its only a matter of time

Which is great, but it is expensive in fuel and in the complexity of crap that can go wrong. The latter is the biggie with rocketry and that won't go away with time. It'll get better sure, but the complexity remains. The K.I.S.S. principle is both generally cheaper and safer/more reliable. Time and time again NASA has learned that to their cost.

I do like Musk's approach in general though. The aim to making the crafts more like a production design rather than hand built one offs.

nokia69

Wibbs wrote: »

Well we've already landed kit on Mars and Titan using parachutes(and a mix of chutes and retro rockets) even Venera managed it on Venus and pretty accurately considering. Precise powered landings on other planets have already gone off pretty well back in the 60's and 70's with Viking and of course Apollo. The latter was of course manned, but hampered by guidance and computer tech available at the time, but even so required remarkably little human interaction save for the last minute of final descent(program 66). Today's tech could replace that easily enough.

But Musk's plans call for being able to land 100 tons of cargo on the surface of Mars which is far beyond anything that has been done so far, I doubt they will use parachutes, but who knows

Wibbs wrote: »

Plus as far as landing a Space X rocket on say the moon in anything like that configuration would be beyond wasteful, complex and expensive. It was one of the early ideas mooted for Apollo, the 1950's Hollywood idea of a moon rocket, but the size of the vehicle would have been huge. The compartmentalised idea was the better bet.

SpaceX will be landing rockets far larger than the Falcon9 on Mars, the Falcon9 is just a small model of what they will be doing about ten years from now, think of a rocket at least ten times the size

Wibbs wrote: »

As I say parachutes do work and work pretty well and the tech hasn't been updated that much since the 70's, so there is likely room for improvement. It's what they trust for manned return landings. With last second retro fire on the Russian system. Which is great, but it is expensive in fuel and in the complexity of crap that can go wrong. The latter is the biggie with rocketry and that won't go away with time. It'll get better sure, but the complexity remains. The K.I.S.S. principle is both generally cheaper and safer/more reliable. Time and time again NASA has learned that to their cost.

I think spaceX do like to KISS, they don't follow an idea just because they like it, they are 100% pragmatic and will drop an idea that is not working for whatever reason, you should take a look at ULA's plans for reuse, you might like it, they plan to use parachutes

Maximus Alexander

Wibbs wrote: »

Well we've already landed kit on Mars and Titan using parachutes(and a mix of chutes and retro rockets) even Venera managed it on Venus and pretty accurately considering. Precise powered landings on other planets have already gone off pretty well back in the 60's and 70's with Viking and of course Apollo. The latter was of course manned, but hampered by guidance and computer tech available at the time, but even so required remarkably little human interaction save for the last minute of final descent(program 66). Today's tech could replace that easily enough.

As far as I'm aware, the heaviest thing that's been landed on Mars to date was the Curiosity Rover, which massed under a ton, and even that required a powered landing. The Falcon 9 first stage is about 25 tons empty, and the Falcon Heavy... I'm not sure chutes would cut it to be honest. A suicide burn to land an almost empty rocket doesn't require much fuel. If you can refuel on the surface (which is the intention), then I don't really see how it's wasteful.