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 09:56:18 AM
I think the most important question here is.... when the frak did we get a space launch facility in McGregor Texas?
 
2013-07-06 09:57:07 AM

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

Congress.


If progressives had their way Elon Musk would only be allowed to keep 5% of his earnings and this feat of engineering would never have happened. Instead there would be more funding for social programs because the government has to make choices between handouts that generate votes for those who invent the social programs...and money that is spent on R&D for space exploration/science.

Citizens are not beholden to a voting bloc.
 
2013-07-06 10:02:30 AM

Click Click D'oh: I think the most important question here is.... when the frak did we get a space launch facility in McGregor Texas?


thats not all...  We may also have a space port in brownsville tx soon
 
2013-07-06 10:04:39 AM
Wow.
 
2013-07-06 10:05:08 AM

Kibbler: 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.


I`ve started experimenting with using jets as my first stage. Much less mass and they are cool for getting to 1300-1400m/s by 20-25k which means a smaller orbital insertion stage.

I have a manned probe that has 122 parts, weighs 66.7T on the pad and has over 12,000m/s Dv in LKO that uses jets for the first stage (over 20T of the weight is jets (0-25km), orbit insertion stage (25km-LKO) weighs 22T). Of course I could replace the first stage with a huge rocket but I am trying jets ATM.

Mind you, people get to Duna and back with 6 part craft that are under 30T...

/I also curse the first time I saw the word `kerbal` as I used to have a life...
 
2013-07-06 10:05:40 AM

Click Click D'oh: I think the most important question here is.... when the frak did we get a space launch facility in McGregor Texas?


We didn't. Read the text for the youtube vid.
 
2013-07-06 10:06:52 AM
Is it 1995 already? Oh boy.

Giltric: this feat of engineering would never have happened.


It already happened decades ago.

upload.wikimedia.org

So what? The concept is absurd.
 
2013-07-06 10:08:28 AM
People I worked with were doing this 18 years ago.
 
2013-07-06 10:10:46 AM

RocketRay: People I worked with were doing this 18 years ago.


No, this time a lucky billionaire is clicking "Buy" at Hobby King.com, therefore it is the future.

Luddite.
 
2013-07-06 10:13:04 AM

Did I Quit Lurking For This: 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.



And gliding requires wings, tail, landing gear, hydraulic equipment and a runway.  In a worst case scenario, the grasshopper can land in an open field.

Also there are plans to re-use much of the engineering so that the second stage can do this too.  A glide approach in that stage would require heavy thermal protection on the wings.
 
2013-07-06 10:15:23 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.


Beyond that, Musk intends to land all stages intact, so the entire system becomes reusable. Launch costs will be reduced to not much more than fuel and prep.
 
2013-07-06 10:20:03 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.

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


parachutes weren't working....this is Plan B
 
2013-07-06 10:20:26 AM
Probably the fourth or fifth thread Ive seen with Kerbal mentioned.... I have been able to fight it the urge so far but I think any Steam sale that goes below $20 will break me.... it's worth $20 isnt it?
 
2013-07-06 10:21:06 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: Is it 1995 already? Oh boy.

Giltric: this feat of engineering would never have happened.

It already happened decades ago.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 624x1000]

So what? The concept is absurd.



The DC-X was a concept in vertical landing, but had no practical use.  It wasn't part of a production launch system and wasn't designed to go into orbit.

Still cool though as a proof of concept.  We're a long way from orbit to vertical landing though.  SpaceX is doing it with the individual rocket stages first.
 
2013-07-06 10:29:31 AM

TheDirtyNacho: Still cool though as a proof of concept. We're a long way from orbit to vertical landing though. SpaceX is doing it with the individual rocket stages first.


It's still absurd. Oh look, we have to cut on payload (the part that brings profit to supposedly "private" space, yes?) so we can have enough fuel to land on our ass like in 1950s sci-fi.
 
2013-07-06 10:36:36 AM

Leishu: We didn't. Read the text for the youtube vid.


So.... I'm confused then... Does the SpaceX Rocket Development and Test Facility not exist then?  Because you know... the video clearly says McGregor, Texas...
 
2013-07-06 10:41:37 AM
Well done, Grasshopper.
 
2013-07-06 10:44:59 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: TheDirtyNacho: Still cool though as a proof of concept. We're a long way from orbit to vertical landing though. SpaceX is doing it with the individual rocket stages first.

It's still absurd. Oh look, we have to cut on payload (the part that brings profit to supposedly "private" space, yes?) so we can have enough fuel to land on our ass like in 1950s sci-fi.


Thaaat's right, stamp your little feet. The mean old rocket is hurting you, isn't it?
 
2013-07-06 10:46:12 AM
Very cool, Subby. Thanks.
 
2013-07-06 10:48:33 AM

Mentalpatient87: Quantum Apostrophe: TheDirtyNacho: Still cool though as a proof of concept. We're a long way from orbit to vertical landing though. SpaceX is doing it with the individual rocket stages first.

It's still absurd. Oh look, we have to cut on payload (the part that brings profit to supposedly "private" space, yes?) so we can have enough fuel to land on our ass like in 1950s sci-fi.

Thaaat's right, stamp your little feet. The mean old rocket is hurting you, isn't it?


That's right, keep mashing that keyboard. That'll get you on Mars...

I mean, that's Space-X's "goal", right? And I suppose you just breathlessly ran in circles flailing your arms and yelling MARS! with a fishbowl over your head for half an hour right?

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-07-06 10:49:34 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: TheDirtyNacho: Still cool though as a proof of concept. We're a long way from orbit to vertical landing though. SpaceX is doing it with the individual rocket stages first.

It's still absurd. Oh look, we have to cut on payload (the part that brings profit to supposedly "private" space, yes?) so we can have enough fuel to land on our ass like in 1950s sci-fi.


I don't understand.   The math is not so hard.  Right now, cost of payload = fuel + whole new launch vehicle + operations

If you don't destroy your launch vehicle every time then Cost of payload = fuel + amortized launch vehicle + operations.

Thus cost of payload goes down.  They are sacrificing little payload to accomplish this.  It's a cost/benefit analysis from there.
 
2013-07-06 10:51:33 AM

Mad Scientist: Judging from the smoke, there was basically no wind.  I wonder if they could do that in a stiff breeze.

/still very awesome.


If you check the Wikipedia article, the 5th test (this being the 6th) was to demonstrate its ability to "hold against wind," and was apparently a success.

That video was brain-melting. Also, it looks like it hits the ground fairly hard.
 
2013-07-06 10:52:38 AM

dready zim: Kibbler: 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.

I`ve started experimenting with using jets as my first stage. Much less mass and they are cool for getting to 1300-1400m/s by 20-25k which means a smaller orbital insertion stage.

I have a manned probe that has 122 parts, weighs 66.7T on the pad and has over 12,000m/s Dv in LKO that uses jets for the first stage (over 20T of the weight is jets (0-25km), orbit insertion stage (25km-LKO) weighs 22T). Of course I could replace the first stage with a huge rocket but I am trying jets ATM.

Mind you, people get to Duna and back with 6 part craft that are under 30T...

/I also curse the first time I saw the word `kerbal` as I used to have a life...


Just added 10T of intakes (4 ram intakes per turbojet now, 16 turbojets) so I was able to reduce my orbital insertion stage leaving me with a 62T craft with a TWR on jets of 5.86...

Now it gets me to 40K and 2000m/s so I might reduce my orbital insertion stage again as I still have most of my fuel left in that stage in LKO.
 
2013-07-06 10:53:36 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: Luddite.


That`s rich coming from you.
 
2013-07-06 10:55:54 AM

TheDirtyNacho: Quantum Apostrophe: TheDirtyNacho: Still cool though as a proof of concept. We're a long way from orbit to vertical landing though. SpaceX is doing it with the individual rocket stages first.

It's still absurd. Oh look, we have to cut on payload (the part that brings profit to supposedly "private" space, yes?) so we can have enough fuel to land on our ass like in 1950s sci-fi.

I don't understand.   The math is not so hard.  Right now, cost of payload = fuel + whole new launch vehicle + operations

If you don't destroy your launch vehicle every time then Cost of payload = fuel + amortized launch vehicle + operations.

Thus cost of payload goes down.  They are sacrificing little payload to accomplish this.  It's a cost/benefit analysis from there.


No use logic in Fark thread! Logics make Farkers moar angrier!

Can't stop the changes RAAAAAAWWWWWRRRRRR!
 
2013-07-06 10:56:19 AM

TheDirtyNacho: Quantum Apostrophe: TheDirtyNacho: Still cool though as a proof of concept. We're a long way from orbit to vertical landing though. SpaceX is doing it with the individual rocket stages first.

It's still absurd. Oh look, we have to cut on payload (the part that brings profit to supposedly "private" space, yes?) so we can have enough fuel to land on our ass like in 1950s sci-fi.

I don't understand.   The math is not so hard.  Right now, cost of payload = fuel + whole new launch vehicle + operations

If you don't destroy your launch vehicle every time then Cost of payload = fuel + amortized launch vehicle + operations.

Thus cost of payload goes down.  They are sacrificing little payload to accomplish this.  It's a cost/benefit analysis from there.


QA will argue 3 is 7 and atoms have no age and we (meaning he) will never get into space on every space related story.

His butthurt over not being in space is palpable. I feed on it. Yesssss... Express the butthurt...
 
2013-07-06 10:58:55 AM
From the same mind that brought us...
media.caranddriver.com
Thanks, Elon Musk!
 
2013-07-06 10:59:24 AM
This craft plainly needs moar boosters and moar struts...
 
2013-07-06 10:59:43 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: Mentalpatient87: Quantum Apostrophe: TheDirtyNacho: Still cool though as a proof of concept. We're a long way from orbit to vertical landing though. SpaceX is doing it with the individual rocket stages first.

It's still absurd. Oh look, we have to cut on payload (the part that brings profit to supposedly "private" space, yes?) so we can have enough fuel to land on our ass like in 1950s sci-fi.

Thaaat's right, stamp your little feet. The mean old rocket is hurting you, isn't it?

That's right, keep mashing that keyboard. That'll get you on Mars...

I mean, that's Space-X's "goal", right? And I suppose you just breathlessly ran in circles flailing your arms and yelling MARS! with a fishbowl over your head for half an hour right?


Tool 2 of 2 in the QA arsenal: make up a bunch of stupid shiat and say "that's you! That's the silly thing YOU'RE doing!"

You know, like an angry child might do.
 
2013-07-06 11:01:55 AM
Mildly impressed:

www.homerhickam.com
 
2013-07-06 11:05:48 AM

LasersHurt: 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.


Also if in the long run you can setup a refueling system in space, you wouldn't need to waste payload on double fuel. (though that would require getting fuel from space to be efficient), I think in the long run its more about things like round trip missions to Mars where building a new rocket there is pretty much impossible, but setting up a refinery system while difficult wouldn't be as hard as building a new rocket there.
 
2013-07-06 11:05:57 AM
Came for the KSP references, leaving happy.

/And that was pretty awesome...
 
2013-07-06 11:09:49 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: Is it 1995 already? Oh boy.

Giltric: this feat of engineering would never have happened.

It already happened decades ago.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 624x1000]

So what? The concept is absurd.


The point of DC-X was to build a Single Stage to Orbit spacecraft, that was easy to reuse and reliable, it looks from my few seconds of reading SpaceX is doing the same.
 
2013-07-06 11:13:36 AM
Now that was impressive.
 
2013-07-06 11:18:51 AM
I feel like I am missing something with KSP.  I build a rocket.  It launches.  Then it lands/crashes/whatever.  Am I supposed to have all the pieces unlocked to start with?
 
2013-07-06 11:20:24 AM
Ah man... Did they not have the Johnny Cash mannequin riding this time?
 
2013-07-06 11:21:52 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: Mentalpatient87: Quantum Apostrophe: TheDirtyNacho: Still cool though as a proof of concept. We're a long way from orbit to vertical landing though. SpaceX is doing it with the individual rocket stages first.

It's still absurd. Oh look, we have to cut on payload (the part that brings profit to supposedly "private" space, yes?) so we can have enough fuel to land on our ass like in 1950s sci-fi.

Thaaat's right, stamp your little feet. The mean old rocket is hurting you, isn't it?

That's right, keep mashing that keyboard. That'll get you on Mars...

I mean, that's Space-X's "goal", right? And I suppose you just breathlessly ran in circles flailing your arms and yelling MARS! with a fishbowl over your head for half an hour right?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x318]


Anne Francis in Forbidden Planet: CUTIE IN SPAAAACCEEE.

digilander.libero.it

/rocket goes up.
 
2013-07-06 11:22:48 AM
Eye popping!  Wow.

Wowowowow
 
2013-07-06 11:30:05 AM
This is why we have not had an alien invasion ....

"Look! They pack their tubes with exploding chemicals and ridethat into space! Exploding chemicals. Riding a gout of flame! You sure you want to tangle with beings that crazy?"
"Hell no."

UFO disappears
 
2013-07-06 11:31:24 AM
TheDirtyNacho:
I don't understand.   The math is not so hard.  Right now, cost of payload = fuel + whole new launch vehicle + operations

If you don't destroy your launch vehicle every time then Cost of payload = fuel + amortized launch vehicle + operations.

Thus cost of payload goes down.  They are sacrificing little payload to accomplish this.  It's a cost/benefit analysis from there.


Well, it's simple.  If technology doesn't emerge fully-formed from the start, then it is pointless to even try because why bother?  The only people to benefit are future generations, and fark those people.
 
2013-07-06 11:32:03 AM
There did seem to be some wind... Based on the shadow and the fact this happened in TX, it seems that the wind was out of the N roughly (no idea what time of day this occurred). The existence of wind is apparent in the movement of the white smoke drifting from the rocket when it's in the air..

I wondered how close it landed to the takeoff point.  Looks like it landed a few feet (?) south of where it started. Note sure - it's hard to tell from the video...

very cool video subby - thanks...
 
2013-07-06 11:35:52 AM

Valiente: Quantum Apostrophe: Mentalpatient87: Quantum Apostrophe: TheDirtyNacho: Still cool though as a

Anne Francis in Forbidden Planet: CUTIE IN SPAAAACCEEE.

[digilander.libero.it image 696x862]


we're one small step closer!

images.popmatters.com
 
2013-07-06 11:42:58 AM
I have played this game.
gamesdbase.com
 
2013-07-06 11:50:09 AM

dready zim: This craft plainly needs moar boosters and moar struts...


Well now, what doesn't?
 
2013-07-06 11:51:31 AM

TheDirtyNacho: I don't understand. The math is not so hard. Right now, cost of payload = fuel + whole new launch vehicle + operations

If you don't destroy your launch vehicle every time then Cost of payload = fuel + amortized launch vehicle + operations.

Thus cost of payload goes down. They are sacrificing little payload to accomplish this. It's a cost/benefit analysis from there.


If he could do math, he wouldn't be Quantum Apostrophe. The guy's becoming legendary around here for being a dumb sexist asshole who just doesn't quite grasp scientific reality.
 
2013-07-06 11:51:43 AM

TheDirtyNacho: Quantum Apostrophe: TheDirtyNacho: Still cool though as a proof of concept. We're a long way from orbit to vertical landing though. SpaceX is doing it with the individual rocket stages first.

It's still absurd. Oh look, we have to cut on payload (the part that brings profit to supposedly "private" space, yes?) so we can have enough fuel to land on our ass like in 1950s sci-fi.

I don't understand.   The math is not so hard.  Right now, cost of payload = fuel + whole new launch vehicle + operations

If you don't destroy your launch vehicle every time then Cost of payload = fuel + amortized launch vehicle + operations.

Thus cost of payload goes down.  They are sacrificing little payload to accomplish this.  It's a cost/benefit analysis from there.


QA is a space-thread troll.  Anything positive about space exploration development will either be ignored or insulted.  Last time anyone pinned him down he showed support for unmanned missions as the only thing logical and all "firecrackers" (manned rocketry) as childish stupid PR stunts for childish stupid rubes.  Of course I have seen him also bash unmanned missions and flip-flop on transhumanist futurism.  Basically he seems to be obsessed with shiatting on dreams of space, in whatever way hurts the most feelings and keeps the argument going longest.  For example, this video doesn't really get my launch pad heated because I remember the DC-X, but I don't extrapolate from that that their efforts are meaningless and stupid and that everyone who's excited is a childish retard watching 1950s space operas.
 
2013-07-06 11:51:50 AM
Apparently the wind helped clear the smoke. What would happen if there were no wind and the smoke obscured the landing? Nonetheless, incredible video.
 
2013-07-06 11:54:37 AM

Day_Old_Dutchie: piece of cake,
[s23.postimg.org image 800x600]


not sure what that is but it brings back memories of Jupiter lander on the commodore

da dat da daaaa da dat da dooooo dat dat dat dat
 
2013-07-06 11:55:57 AM
Oh, this? You guys didn't see this last month like I did? Fark really is slow. ¤.¤
 
2013-07-06 11:59:05 AM

Delay: Apparently the wind helped clear the smoke. What would happen if there were no wind and the smoke obscured the landing? Nonetheless, incredible video.


From the notes?  The only difference is it wouldn't be as pretty in the video, but would land just fine.

Or at least that's the impression.
 
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