If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   Okay, smartass space engineers. I want you to blast off your rocket, hover it at 325 meters, then reduce power and land it back gently on the landing pad. I'll be watching from my hexacopter   (youtube.com) divider line 197
    More: Cool, landing pad, vertical takeoff, Chrysler Building, vertical takeoff and landing, rockets, grasshoppers, launch pads, SpaceX  
•       •       •

12986 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jul 2013 at 8:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



197 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-06 08:36:43 AM
Ok that is rather awesome.
 
2013-07-06 08:46:21 AM
Why didn't they just do what they needed to do with the hexacopter in the first place?
 
2013-07-06 08:47:05 AM
Holy f*ckballs Batman, that's incredible
 
2013-07-06 08:47:36 AM
Looks a lot like many of my Kerbal Space Program attempts, minus the intentional landing back on the launch pad part :P

/pretty cool
//wonder if they 3D printed any of the parts for it
 
2013-07-06 08:48:51 AM
Nice, but can it grab this pebble from my hand?
 
2013-07-06 08:50:07 AM
Didn't the Russians just do that with a Proton 5  'cept it landed with the pointy end down..
 
2013-07-06 08:50:49 AM
They must be using MechJeb.
 
2013-07-06 08:52:49 AM

dangelder: Why didn't they just do what they needed to do with the hexacopter in the first place?


Are you asking why they don't try to lift a payload into orbit using a 2-lb battery powered hexacopter?
 
2013-07-06 08:53:52 AM
piece of cake,
s23.postimg.org
 
2013-07-06 08:55:25 AM
That was cool.
 
2013-07-06 08:55:59 AM
Judging from the smoke, there was basically no wind.  I wonder if they could do that in a stiff breeze.

/still very awesome.
 
2013-07-06 08:56:09 AM

dangelder: Why didn't they just do what they needed to do with the hexacopter in the first place?


The point is that a rocket can do it. This is just a proof of concept; they ultimately plan to have a rocket go into space, return, and land intact.
 
2013-07-06 08:57:32 AM
Kudos for a headline that was very funny and yet absolutely accurate.
 
2013-07-06 08:57:54 AM

BumpInTheNight: Looks a lot like many of my Kerbal Space Program attempts, minus the intentional landing back on the launch pad part :P

/pretty cool
//wonder if they 3D printed any of the parts for it


My very first Kerbal launch (damn all of you Farkers for telling me about it) was one crazy ride.  That rocket ended up pointing every possible direction except straight down.  Yet I still managed to get the Kerbal back on the ground alive and safe.

I'm hoping he'll convince the rest of them that I can be trusted.
 
2013-07-06 08:59:31 AM
Wowzers.
 
2013-07-06 08:59:41 AM

Fluid: dangelder: Why didn't they just do what they needed to do with the hexacopter in the first place?

The point is that a rocket can do it. This is just a proof of concept; they ultimately plan to have a rocket go into space, return, and land intact.


Wouldn't the fuel needed to land like this from a trip into low earth orbit basically negate any payload carrying capacity?
 
2013-07-06 09:01:44 AM
Yeah, but think how cool it would have looked if it had crashed and exploded.
 
2013-07-06 09:03:12 AM

Brick-House: Yeah, but think how cool it would have looked if it had crashed and exploded.


We don't want to copy the Russians, we want our own unique space program
 
2013-07-06 09:03:14 AM
That's awesome, but I don't really understand why they're doing it.

What is it that can be done with this feature that would make it worth not only the development and production costs but also carrying that much extra fuel on every flight?
 
2013-07-06 09:03:44 AM

45cal: Wouldn't the fuel needed to land like this from a trip into low earth orbit basically negate any payload carrying capacity?


Yes and no. The whole point of developing this is that it's far more efficient - it's a refuelable, reusable system that is far less expensive. Like, the fuel is .3 percent of the total cost of a Falcon 9. Even with the small payload hit (which they somewhat compensated for slightly with larger tanks), it's still so much cheaper that you could do dozens launches and get way more into space for your money.
 
2013-07-06 09:03:56 AM

45cal: Fluid: dangelder: Why didn't they just do what they needed to do with the hexacopter in the first place?

The point is that a rocket can do it. This is just a proof of concept; they ultimately plan to have a rocket go into space, return, and land intact.

Wouldn't the fuel needed to land like this from a trip into low earth orbit basically negate any payload carrying capacity?


The fuel costs $200,000.  The rocket itself costs $60,000,000.
 
2013-07-06 09:04:27 AM

45cal: Wouldn't the fuel needed to land like this from a trip into low earth orbit basically negate any payload carrying capacity?


I thought the point was to have this be a reusable first stage booster that can land itself without damage.
 
2013-07-06 09:05:05 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: That's awesome, but I don't really understand why they're doing it.

What is it that can be done with this feature that would make it worth not only the development and production costs but also carrying that much extra fuel on every flight?


The fuel of a Falcon 9 is .3 percent of the cost of the launch - the rest is the launch vehicle, which is destroyed. Having a reusable one drives costs into the dirt. This functions as the lower stage that goes up high, the top bit shoots off into orbit, and this returns - saving the vehicle, and allowing many relaunches with just fuel costs/maintenance.
 
2013-07-06 09:05:35 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: That's awesome, but I don't really understand why they're doing it.

What is it that can be done with this feature that would make it worth not only the development and production costs but also carrying that much extra fuel on every flight?


Apparently, the cost of doing so is still below the cost of building a new rocket.
 
2013-07-06 09:05:36 AM

EngineerAU: 45cal: Wouldn't the fuel needed to land like this from a trip into low earth orbit basically negate any payload carrying capacity?

I thought the point was to have this be a reusable first stage booster that can land itself without damage.

 
2013-07-06 09:08:05 AM

45cal: Fluid: dangelder: Why didn't they just do what they needed to do with the hexacopter in the first place?

The point is that a rocket can do it. This is just a proof of concept; they ultimately plan to have a rocket go into space, return, and land intact.

Wouldn't the fuel needed to land like this from a trip into low earth orbit basically negate any payload carrying capacity?




Not necessarily.
For reusable We'd be comparing the weight of wings, parachutes,or some other system with the fuel it takes to go from terminal velocity (what... Like a hundred miles an hour or so in free fall?) to zero.
Rockets are very good at accelerating in a short space of time. Especially empty rockets with just a spit of fuel left.
While the approach wold be scary as hell, it should work just fine.
 
2013-07-06 09:09:31 AM
I want to take this to work.
 
2013-07-06 09:16:55 AM

LasersHurt: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: That's awesome, but I don't really understand why they're doing it.

What is it that can be done with this feature that would make it worth not only the development and production costs but also carrying that much extra fuel on every flight?

The fuel of a Falcon 9 is .3 percent of the cost of the launch - the rest is the launch vehicle, which is destroyed. Having a reusable one drives costs into the dirt. This functions as the lower stage that goes up high, the top bit shoots off into orbit, and this returns - saving the vehicle, and allowing many relaunches with just fuel costs/maintenance.


Ah, I didn't quite get the relationship to the payload.

But I'm wondering mainly about the part where they decided to go with a powered return rather than using some kind of gliding or parachuting approach.

(I meant the weight of the fuel, not the cost.)
 
2013-07-06 09:17:57 AM
upload.wikimedia.org

VITH DIS TECHNOLOGIE, VE VOULD HAF VON DER VAR!
 
2013-07-06 09:20:31 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: LasersHurt: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: That's awesome, but I don't really understand why they're doing it.

What is it that can be done with this feature that would make it worth not only the development and production costs but also carrying that much extra fuel on every flight?

The fuel of a Falcon 9 is .3 percent of the cost of the launch - the rest is the launch vehicle, which is destroyed. Having a reusable one drives costs into the dirt. This functions as the lower stage that goes up high, the top bit shoots off into orbit, and this returns - saving the vehicle, and allowing many relaunches with just fuel costs/maintenance.

Ah, I didn't quite get the relationship to the payload.

But I'm wondering mainly about the part where they decided to go with a powered return rather than using some kind of gliding or parachuting approach.

(I meant the weight of the fuel, not the cost.)


I largely presume it's because they did the math, and that was the best cost-benefit ratio. Though I don't have any specifics there.
 
2013-07-06 09:23:52 AM
This is MUCH better at 1080p resolution with your speakers turned up, btw. May freak out cats, though
 
2013-07-06 09:26:32 AM
golf clap...
 
2013-07-06 09:26:38 AM

LasersHurt: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: LasersHurt: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: That's awesome, but I don't really understand why they're doing it.

What is it that can be done with this feature that would make it worth not only the development and production costs but also carrying that much extra fuel on every flight?

The fuel of a Falcon 9 is .3 percent of the cost of the launch - the rest is the launch vehicle, which is destroyed. Having a reusable one drives costs into the dirt. This functions as the lower stage that goes up high, the top bit shoots off into orbit, and this returns - saving the vehicle, and allowing many relaunches with just fuel costs/maintenance.

Ah, I didn't quite get the relationship to the payload.

But I'm wondering mainly about the part where they decided to go with a powered return rather than using some kind of gliding or parachuting approach.

(I meant the weight of the fuel, not the cost.)

I largely presume it's because they did the math, and that was the best cost-benefit ratio. Though I don't have any specifics there.


Yeah, fair enough.

(I was confused by a remark about re-entry and thought the idea was to have this whole thing orbit and return which seemed strange.)
 
2013-07-06 09:30:38 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Ah, I didn't quite get the relationship to the payload.

But I'm wondering mainly about the part where they decided to go with a powered return rather than using some kind of gliding or parachuting approach.


The deal is, (I'm pretty sure anyway), that it comes down almost precisely where it will be launched again from, maybe within tens of meters of the launch site. (or at least a retrieval location). It will already be in launch position as well. Also, the gliding approach would have to deal with significantly more navigational issues/wind issues as well as how gentle it will land.
 
2013-07-06 09:31:16 AM
biatchin' Camaro
 
2013-07-06 09:32:21 AM
Monkeyfark Ridiculous:
But I'm wondering mainly about the part where they decided to go with a powered return rather than using some kind of gliding or parachuting approach.

(I meant the weight of the fuel, not the cost.)


Extrapolating further from existing comments, maybe the cost/weight penalty (my thought as well) of the fuel, and the expense to develop the technique, is still cheaper than trucking the booster from wherever it landed.

I mean, you think it's expensive to flatbed your Subaru to the dealer 60 miles away, try it with a booster stage.

/can you get AAA?
 
2013-07-06 09:36:32 AM
yup.... this is farking awesome... yuuuuup...
 
2013-07-06 09:38:37 AM

SmackLT: Holy f*ckballs Batman, that's incredible


This.
 
2013-07-06 09:39:01 AM
ummm...How do we know they didn't just tape a takeoff, then reverse the tape?  It could have been shopped!!

just saying
 
2013-07-06 09:39:47 AM
Next time put some insulation on the landing gear.
The infrared from the engine was giving itself a hotfoot!
 
2013-07-06 09:43:25 AM
Didn't they do this in the 80s with a wedge shaped craft?
 
2013-07-06 09:47:14 AM
fake
 
2013-07-06 09:47:20 AM

Giltric: Didn't they do this in the 80s with a wedge shaped craft?




Congress.
 
2013-07-06 09:48:02 AM
In the mean time, my local city government has thrown millions of tax dollars at XCOR, who has done nothing but show off a wooden mock-up in a local hangar.
 
2013-07-06 09:48:59 AM

45cal: Fluid: dangelder: Why didn't they just do what they needed to do with the hexacopter in the first place?

The point is that a rocket can do it. This is just a proof of concept; they ultimately plan to have a rocket go into space, return, and land intact.

Wouldn't the fuel needed to land like this from a trip into low earth orbit basically negate any payload carrying capacity?


I am betting you can do most of the job with parachutes, then use rockets for the last part...
 
2013-07-06 09:49:55 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: But I'm wondering mainly about the part where they decided to go with a powered return rather than using some kind of gliding or parachuting approach.


My guess:  SpaceX does not have an entire Navy at their disposal in order to sail out to whatever spot in the ocean the parachute approach would lead, so a system where the rocket can fly itself home to their own property (and using the pre-approved window for atmospheric flight) might be handy.
 
2013-07-06 09:53:34 AM
Can I commute to Starbucks in it?
 
2013-07-06 09:54:04 AM

way south: 45cal: Fluid: dangelder: Why didn't they just do what they needed to do with the hexacopter in the first place?

The point is that a rocket can do it. This is just a proof of concept; they ultimately plan to have a rocket go into space, return, and land intact.

Wouldn't the fuel needed to land like this from a trip into low earth orbit basically negate any payload carrying capacity?

Not necessarily.
For reusable We'd be comparing the weight of wings, parachutes,or some other system with the fuel it takes to go from terminal velocity (what... Like a hundred miles an hour or so in free fall?) to zero.
Rockets are very good at accelerating in a short space of time. Especially empty rockets with just a spit of fuel left.
While the approach wold be scary as hell, it should work just fine.


You mean last minute empty tank full throttle landings? They are fun *and* the most efficient.
 
2013-07-06 09:55:26 AM

JohnCarter: ummm...How do we know they didn't just tape a takeoff, then reverse the tape?  It could have been shopped!!

just saying


because the smoke did not start rushing back into the engine like if they reversed the tape...

just saying
 
2013-07-06 09:55:41 AM

Kyosuke: In the mean time, my local city government has thrown millions of tax dollars at XCOR, who has done nothing but show off a wooden mock-up in a local hangar.


In the mean time, my national government spends most of its money paying off bankers, and the citizens get nothing in return.
 
Displayed 50 of 197 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report