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
 
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.
 
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.
 
2013-07-06 12:03:38 PM

Government Fromage: I have played this game.
[gamesdbase.com image 850x602]


yeah but did you ever land in the 10x crater shaft?
 
2013-07-06 12:03:51 PM

dready zim: 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.


Can you post a screen shot of your design?  I'm playing with vertical SSTO right now, and using jets for the first time.  I've got just enough dv to get into a 100km orbit, but not much else.  I don't think I can even re-enter without topping off at my space station.
 
2013-07-06 12:04:53 PM
It's just not a space thread without Quantum Apostrophe being a dick to everyone he can for no reason.
 
2013-07-06 12:04:56 PM

MindStalker: 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.


Since the payload is detached and a lot of the fuel is burnt, and you're descending instead of ascending, it requires way less to come down than it did going up.
 
2013-07-06 12:11:55 PM
i29.photobucket.com
Here's my jet-powered SSTO ship.  It's purpose is to ferry crew to/from orbiting ships.  I just added the gear for powered landing.  So far that's not gone well.  I managed to get it down on the gear during the last mission, but 10 m/s was too much for the structure.
 
2013-07-06 12:18:54 PM
LasersHurt:

Since the payload is detached and a lot of the fuel is burnt, and you're descending instead of ascending, it requires way less to come down than it did going up.

But since you're also burning extra fuel to carry the deceleration fuel up with you, I wonder if it neatly works out to be double (not exponential).
 
2013-07-06 12:22:40 PM

Mister Peejay: LasersHurt:

Since the payload is detached and a lot of the fuel is burnt, and you're descending instead of ascending, it requires way less to come down than it did going up.

But since you're also burning extra fuel to carry the deceleration fuel up with you, I wonder if it neatly works out to be double (not exponential).


Fair enough, not sure. I want to say no, but I'm not a rocket scientist.

/love how that works here
 
2013-07-06 12:24:02 PM

Fish in a Barrel: [i29.photobucket.com image 687x800]
Here's my jet-powered SSTO ship.  It's purpose is to ferry crew to/from orbiting ships.  I just added the gear for powered landing.  So far that's not gone well.  I managed to get it down on the gear during the last mission, but 10 m/s was too much for the structure.


That seems kind of overengineered, with the struts connecting the external LRBs to the main fuselage; are those really necessary?

Also, I don't recognized that octagonal unit underneath the command pod?

But thanks for showing the pic; now I get how jets are supposed to be put together.  I haven't played at all with those yet.
 
2013-07-06 12:29:59 PM

Kurohone: Fish in a Barrel: [i29.photobucket.com image 687x800]
Here's my jet-powered SSTO ship.  It's purpose is to ferry crew to/from orbiting ships.  I just added the gear for powered landing.  So far that's not gone well.  I managed to get it down on the gear during the last mission, but 10 m/s was too much for the structure.

That seems kind of overengineered, with the struts connecting the external LRBs to the main fuselage; are those really necessary?

Also, I don't recognized that octagonal unit underneath the command pod?

But thanks for showing the pic; now I get how jets are supposed to be put together.  I haven't played at all with those yet.


The struts served a purpose at one point, but they're largely vestigial now.  They do help me squeeze in a few more intakes.  The more intakes you have, the higher you can go before the engines flame out.

The octagonal unit is a small lander can.  It's there because this is a crew ferry; I need somewhere for the passenger to ride.
 
2013-07-06 12:32:11 PM
ataricade.videoarcade.it
 
2013-07-06 12:34:34 PM
Well that was a dismal failure.  Did you see where it touched down?  It was about 10" off from where it started.  What a bunch of farking idiots.
 
2013-07-06 12:39:10 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-06 12:41:34 PM

hardinparamedic: It's just not a space thread without Quantum Apostrophe being a dick to everyone he can for no reason.


He believes he's the lone voice of reason, a wolf pack of one.
 
2013-07-06 12:43:53 PM
I'm trying to find a way to bring my space station out to Moho. I have to attach an engine to the big docking port on the bottom. First, though, I need to get a super size fuel tank and a tri-coupler full of nuclear engines into orbit and docked.. I think I have an efficiency problem. I tend not to measure things. I don't know how much my station weighs and I never calculate delta v. I just kinda eyeball and add more boosters and space tape where needed.
 
2013-07-06 12:48:53 PM
Not impressed.

*looks at limited budget and little funding*

/impressed
 
2013-07-06 01:05:18 PM

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.


Their previous test in April had a quite stiff breeze.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoxiK7K28PU
 
2013-07-06 01:08:47 PM

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


Here, enjoy.
 
2013-07-06 01:15:44 PM
I don't have to look that up to tell it isn't Russian.
 
2013-07-06 01:15:57 PM

omeganuepsilon: hardinparamedic: It's just not a space thread without Quantum Apostrophe being a dick to everyone he can for no reason.

He believes he's the lone voice of reason, a wolf pack of one.


i1.ytimg.com

Our shenanigans are cheeky and fun. His are cruel and tragic.
 
2013-07-06 01:19:32 PM

hardinparamedic: omeganuepsilon: hardinparamedic: It's just not a space thread without Quantum Apostrophe being a dick to everyone he can for no reason.

He believes he's the lone voice of reason, a wolf pack of one.

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]

Our shenanigans are cheeky and fun. His are cruel and tragic.


OK, had to laugh at that. I do think he's in dire need of a good pistol whipping.
 
2013-07-06 01:22:42 PM
I can only see 107/188 comments in this thread.
 
2013-07-06 01:29:20 PM
It's just not a space thread without Quantum Apostrophe being a dick to everyone he can for no reason.

Omeg: He believes he's the lone voice of reason, a wolf pack of one.



QA makes a valid point: i.e., space tech is the cute puppy of engineering. There really is no valid reason *at present* to send people to the moon or Mars, but the awesome coolness of doing it makes normally rational sciency types go SQUEEEEE!

Guided parachutes and specially cushioned landing pads for retrieving spent rocket stages make a lot more engineering sense in terms of payload impacts, but it's undeniably cool to watch a rocket back down onto the pad.

The Shuttle was undeniably cool, but it was idiotic to stick with it after it was abundantly shown that it was NOT a cheap way to space. But there was far too much an emotional attachment to it, because it was an awesome thing to watch. I consider it a minor miracle we only lost ONE on reentry. A friend of mine rode the shuttle, and I held my breath the entire time. It was one scary beast. I'd rather ride a Soyuz.
 
2013-07-06 01:32:08 PM

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


Wow, I have to tell a Commodore gamer to get off my lawn today. His picture was the original Lunar Lander arcade game which inspired later knock-offs like your Jupiter Lander, and which consumed many of my hard-earned childhood quarters.
 
2013-07-06 01:34:33 PM

mark12A: There really is no valid reason *at present* to send people to the moon or Mars, but the awesome coolness of doing it makes normally rational sciency types go SQUEEEEE!


We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. - John F. Kennedy
 
2013-07-06 01:37:31 PM
I'd like to point out that Grasshopper is not aeronautically stable (where air flow pressure on fins helps it go straight) which would make no difference in hovering situations. Instead thrust control is used to maintain attitude.

In addition such a booster can't be controlled as if it were a solid rigid body. It is more like a tube of jelly in a thin plastic sleeve and can flex and slosh a bit. Kudos to the algorithms in its flight control computer. It seemed when it was hovering that it wasn't straight up and down (maybe due to wind) but I didn't see any oscillations. But then again this just good control in its normal flight envelope and it may be prone to shaking itself to death slightly outside of it.
 
2013-07-06 01:38:31 PM

mark12A: It's just not a space thread without Quantum Apostrophe being a dick to everyone he can for no reason.

Omeg: He believes he's the lone voice of reason, a wolf pack of one.


QA makes a valid point: i.e., space tech is the cute puppy of engineering. There really is no valid reason *at present* to send people to the moon or Mars, but the awesome coolness of doing it makes normally rational sciency types go SQUEEEEE!


The real value of space travel is what you learn while trying to do it.  Eventually more practical benefits will be possible...low gravity manufacturing, asteroid mining.  But before then you need to develop the technology to do it.

Guided parachutes and specially cushioned landing pads for retrieving spent rocket stages make a lot more engineering sense in terms of payload impacts, but it's undeniably cool to watch a rocket back down onto the pad.

Parachutes don't work well at the speeds upper stages have nor can they be steered with enough precision.  The 'cushioned landing pad' is the ocean when you're using parachutes.  You need helicopters, ships, dive teams...

The Shuttle was undeniably cool, but it was idiotic to stick with it after it was abundantly shown that it was NOT a cheap way to space. But there was far too much an emotional attachment to it, because it was an awesome thing to watch. I consider it a minor miracle we only lost ONE on reentry. A friend of mine rode the shuttle, and I held my breath the entire time. It was one scary beast. I'd rather ride a Soyuz.

The Pyramids were hugely expensive graves but they inspired centuries of architects and engineers.  I'd say they were worth it.
 
2013-07-06 01:44:14 PM

mark12A: It's just not a space thread without Quantum Apostrophe being a dick to everyone he can for no reason.

Omeg: He believes he's the lone voice of reason, a wolf pack of one.


QA makes a valid point: i.e., space tech is the cute puppy of engineering. There really is no valid reason *at present* to send people to the moon or Mars, but the awesome coolness of doing it makes normally rational sciency types go SQUEEEEE!

Guided parachutes and specially cushioned landing pads for retrieving spent rocket stages make a lot more engineering sense in terms of payload impacts, but it's undeniably cool to watch a rocket back down onto the pad.

The Shuttle was undeniably cool, but it was idiotic to stick with it after it was abundantly shown that it was NOT a cheap way to space. But there was far too much an emotional attachment to it, because it was an awesome thing to watch. I consider it a minor miracle we only lost ONE on reentry. A friend of mine rode the shuttle, and I held my breath the entire time. It was one scary beast. I'd rather ride a Soyuz.


Kitten.  Moon landings are the useless housecoat; but satellites are the barnyard mouse-hunter.
 
2013-07-06 01:52:09 PM

RangerTaylor: 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?


The game is still in development. IIRC there are plans to add a story mode later where you won't have access to all of the parts immediately, but for now it's just an open sandbox for you to explore. The bit you're missing between "it launches" and "it lands/crashes/whatever" is to visit some of the other planets or moons along the way. You should also look at some of the community add-ons which are available for the game.
 
2013-07-06 01:52:21 PM

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.


Yeah if it ends up working out like that then getting things into orbit wouldn't be such a big deal, financially speaking. There are other costs of course, but it's just such a huge money drain at the moment. There was also plans for a really long ramp to take off from, that wouldn't require separate rockets at all.
 
2013-07-06 01:53:11 PM
This is how rockets are supposed to work.

The idea of throwing the vehicle away after using it once came from the race to be first to the Mun.  It was never intended to be a template for the future of space travel.

By re-using the rocket stages, SpaceX can build them even better, with lighter more-expensive alloys that wouldn't make sense on a single-use vehicle.

The future is now.
 
2013-07-06 02:01:12 PM

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?


Return Trip From mars
 
2013-07-06 02:02:07 PM
Like others have said -done years ago as DCX  (Douglas Corporation Experiment) with (4) chamber modified RL10's. Full cyro lox/H2 rocket .

Was just to prove we could go bigger once technology/materials caught up and Single Stage To Orbit may work.

The Spac-X PR machine has repeated part of the trick decades later BUT a lox/kerosine booster can't overcome the physics involved for SSTO.
Even in 95 with DCX's special lightweight Lox tank the weight/mass ratio wasn't enough.

SpaceyX  site in Texas is the old Beal Areospace test site he purchased -many previous technologies are purchased or borrowed. However-unlike the others building all your own stuff so you control rates and quality is the right way to do it. Hasn't been partly done since McDonnell Douglas days during D1 and early Delta 2.

//Delta 2-the most reliable rocket on the planet. at 96 in a row with 4 more to go until our country throws it away for a  Ukrainian built/tested booster marketed by Orital-USA! USA! (Thought we here needed jobs?)


//My friend Bernie in the prop goup for DCX was a great old school guy!RIP.
 
2013-07-06 02:06:14 PM

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.


You want to talk about absurd, look at the Wright Brothers!  Their first plane had no payload!  Completely and totally useless aircraft for carrying cargo.
 
2013-07-06 02:08:33 PM

Mock26: 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.

You want to talk about absurd, look at the Wright Brothers!  Their first plane had no payload!  Completely and totally useless aircraft for carrying cargo.


Plus the retard doesn't realize how many MORE launches you can afford to do. Maybe it's 15% less payload, but you can launch x times more rockets for the same cost.
 
2013-07-06 02:16:01 PM
IIRC they're going to test the controlled landing feature on the next flight to the ISS.

The first stage will free-fall through the atmosphere intact, not going fast enough for re-entry heat to be an issue.

At a certain altitude it will come to life, right itself, and do a powered controlled descent to hover over the sea.

Then shut down and fall in.  The test is not mean to recover the stage intact, just practice the powered landing.
 
2013-07-06 02:38:44 PM

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.


A rocket that hits the ocean can't exactly be refueled and reused. At best, it would require a very long refurbishment amounting to a rebuild- SRB segments from the shuttle had to go back to the factory, and I think it took a couple of years before they were put back in circulation. Theoretically, I think an Apollo capsule could have been refurbished with a fresh heatshield and reused, but at a cost that couldn't be justified.

But landing a rocket back on its pad like this is a huge savings in time and cost. It'll still need a thorough inspection and maintenance before being reused, but much, much cheaper and faster than fishing it out of the ocean.
 
2013-07-06 02:47:21 PM
Meh, looks like a potentially disastrous rocket launch video that is just put into reverse at a critical failure.

"Look, it went up and...uh...well...look, it's going back down now! Success!"
 
2013-07-06 02:54:21 PM
The ONLY issue I have with recovery is the fact that rockets don't just go up to get to orbit, they head "downrange" as well, accelerating the cargo to orbital velocity.  If they plan to recover the booster in another place, and bring them back, then all is well.
 
2013-07-06 03:17:22 PM

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


This. So much this.
 
2013-07-06 03:20:35 PM
I remember seeing a similar test a few years back where the rocket went up to like 50 meters, then traveled horizontally a few hundred meters and touched down on another landing pad.    Anyone else remember that, or have a link?
 
2013-07-06 03:29:52 PM

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.


A powered tailsitter landing like this only make sense if there's no atmosphere at the destination and you're opposing a lot less than 1G.   It's a bloody stupid way to land a rocket on Earth or Venus.  For the moon or Mars, it makes more sense, although it's still very wasteful in terms of fuel (and therefore mass). Opposing gravity with nothing but thrust is stupid if you have an alternative. 

Hell, vertically launched rockets are pretty stupid to begin with.  It's brute-force engineering - nothing elegant or efficient about it.  The smart thing to do is use air-breathing engines and and wings (or a lifting body) to get yourself up into the stratosphere and then light off your rockets.
 
2013-07-06 03:31:50 PM

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.


Well, that was the reasoning for the shuttle, too. Unfortunately the cost of prepping it for a new flight (plus its initial budget overruns) was so high it would have actually been less expensive to use the old rocket system.
 
2013-07-06 03:41:12 PM

mark12A: There really is no valid reason *at present* to send people to the moon or Mars, but the awesome coolness of doing it makes normally rational sciency types go SQUEEEEE!


The valid reason to do it now is that the lead time to do it when we DO need it is measured in decades. 

Mars is pretty useless as a destination except for scientific curiosity - it's got too deep a gravity well to be useful as a base for going further out in the solar system, and the enviornment is almost as inhospitable as the moon or a large asteroid.

Now, a permanent moonbase is smart, because it does have a lot of mineral resources and COULD serve as a jumping-off point for the rest of the solar system.   There's a lot of environmental benefit to moving some of the nastier industrial processes to the moon as well.

The main problem isn't getting there, it's getting there ECONOMICALLY.   The cost to get to geosynchonous orbit is around $10,000 - $20,000 PER POUND.   To make commercial spaceflight and lunar industry feasible, we need to lower that by at least an order of magnitude.
 
2013-07-06 03:41:20 PM

hardinparamedic: mark12A: There really is no valid reason *at present* to send people to the moon or Mars, but the awesome coolness of doing it makes normally rational sciency types go SQUEEEEE!

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. we're damn well not going to let the Russians beat us to it like they've done with space tech so far. And once we've done it, we'll abandon the program, since we've got no long-term goals other than that. - John F. Kennedy


Fixed
 
2013-07-06 04:03:42 PM

clyph: I remember seeing a similar test a few years back where the rocket went up to like 50 meters, then traveled horizontally a few hundred meters and touched down on another landing pad.    Anyone else remember that, or have a link?


One of the Lunar Lander X Prize flights?
 
2013-07-06 04:33:10 PM
belhade

Meh, looks like a potentially disastrous rocket launch video that is just put into reverse at a critical failure.

"Look, it went up and...uh...well...look, it's going back down now! Success!"


Wouldn't be able to land fully fueled. Too heavy.  It will just enough extra fuel to land on one engine as an empty beer can.

/ Dunking it into the sea will scrap it.  No way to know the thermal and mechanical stresses the engines and airframe received, so they can't be used again.  Empty and sealed, it will float like a cork, and they can crane it onto a recovery vessel or at a minimum just tie a rope and tow it back to shore.
 
2013-07-06 04:42:43 PM
 I remember seeing a similar test a few years back where the rocket went up to like 50 meters, then traveled horizontally a few hundred meters and touched down on another landing pad.    Anyone else remember that, or have a link?
You are referring to the DC-x:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9n9Casp1o
 
2013-07-06 04:46:24 PM

Tyrone Slothrop: 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.

Well, that was the reasoning for the shuttle, too. Unfortunately the cost of prepping it for a new flight (plus its initial budget overruns) was so high it would have actually been less expensive to use the old rocket system.


The reusable shuttle was a sound idea in theory (and still is), but in order to get the money to make it fly they needed the Air Force.  And so it had to suit military missions.  Thus when designed it had to be able to abort once around in a polar orbit whilst carrying spy satellites the size of a bus.  It was also spec'd for satellite retrieval - publicly said so satellites could be brought back for repair, but really it was to possibly steal Soviet satellites.

This made the vehicle very large and much more complicated. The commercial economics went out the window because it resulted in using external fuel tanks and booster rockets that were only slightly reusable.
 
2013-07-06 05:02:05 PM

TheDirtyNacho: The reusable shuttle was a sound idea in theory (and still is), but in order to get the money to make it fly they needed the Air Force.


It does make you wonder what the CIA is doing with theirs. Do we have a more extensive space surveillance or space warfare program than any country is admitting? It really wouldn't surprise me if the next cold war is space dominance (and not the ICBM kind these days)
 
2013-07-06 05:09:17 PM

TheDirtyNacho: The reusable shuttle was a sound idea in theory (and still is), but in order to get the money to make it fly they needed the Air Force. And so it had to suit military missions. Thus when designed it had to be able to abort once around in a polar orbit whilst carrying spy satellites the size of a bus. It was also spec'd for satellite retrieval - publicly said so satellites could be brought back for repair, but really it was to possibly steal Soviet satellites.


Also a a large number of shuttle missions were fully or partially classified. Lots of what was classified were experiments to test military technology along the lines of "how well can this optics package see through clouds".

Eventually launch technology and experiment automation got to the point where it became much cheaper to deploy satellites or run experiments without also sending up people.
 
2013-07-06 05:11:54 PM

Any Pie Left: I remember seeing a similar test a few years back where the rocket went up to like 50 meters, then traveled horizontally a few hundred meters and touched down on another landing pad.    Anyone else remember that, or have a link?
You are referring to the DC-x:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9n9Casp1o


Delta Clipper, that's the bunny.   I was remembering a different test flight, but that's it.
 
2013-07-06 05:18:41 PM

Somaticasual: TheDirtyNacho: The reusable shuttle was a sound idea in theory (and still is), but in order to get the money to make it fly they needed the Air Force.

It does make you wonder what the CIA is doing with theirs. Do we have a more extensive space surveillance or space warfare program than any country is admitting? It really wouldn't surprise me if the next cold war is space dominance (and not the ICBM kind these days)


Well its better to be prepared, never know what's up there...
popcultureninja.com

/that movie had great potential, just needed less lame-ass earth-side fumbling and more space nazis and earth forces clashing
 
2013-07-06 05:34:04 PM
Came for KSP references and the inevitable QA threadshiatting. Leaving satisfied.

Elon Musk is a pretty cool guy.
 
2013-07-06 05:35:16 PM

BumpInTheNight: Well its better to be prepared, never know what's up there...


Ha. Still need to catch that one, that might be a good excuse to queue it up.
Troma and that company need to get together and make a sequel called "space nazis must die"..
 
2013-07-06 05:45:35 PM

Somaticasual: Troma and that company need to get together and make a sequel called "space nazis must die"..


Or they could just acknowledge where they stole the idea from in the first place.
 
2013-07-06 05:51:48 PM

Somaticasual: TheDirtyNacho: The reusable shuttle was a sound idea in theory (and still is), but in order to get the money to make it fly they needed the Air Force.

It does make you wonder what the CIA is doing with theirs. Do we have a more extensive space surveillance or space warfare program than any country is admitting? It really wouldn't surprise me if the next cold war is space dominance (and not the ICBM kind these days)


upload.wikimedia.org

Well the Air Force has this unmanned mini-shuttle.  Nobody is quite sure what it's for publicly.  It has orbital missions of many months long durations.

Surveillance seems obvious, but its orbit isn't particularly interesting (or hidden), and there's no surveillance that requires a reusable space plane.  I would guess its carrying out some kind of experiment or material processing that works best outside of the atmosphere and/or in low gravity.
 
2013-07-06 06:30:58 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Is it 1995 already? Oh boy.

Giltric: this feat of engineering would never have happened.

It already happened decades ago.



So what? The concept is absurd.


That craft has never put anything into orbit like the Falcon 9 has.(Grasshopper is a modified Falcon)
But I know..."It will never work!"
 
2013-07-06 07:51:47 PM

Precision Boobery: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x500]


Oh I'm so glad that that showed up in this thread.
 
2013-07-06 07:57:50 PM

BumpInTheNight: Somaticasual: TheDirtyNacho: The reusable shuttle was a sound idea in theory (and still is), but in order to get the money to make it fly they needed the Air Force.

It does make you wonder what the CIA is doing with theirs. Do we have a more extensive space surveillance or space warfare program than any country is admitting? It really wouldn't surprise me if the next cold war is space dominance (and not the ICBM kind these days)

Well its better to be prepared, never know what's up there...
[popcultureninja.com image 482x311]

/that movie had great potential, just needed less lame-ass earth-side fumbling and more space nazis and earth forces clashing


The Coming Race looks like it's shaping up well. They also have the profits from the first movie to fund it with.
 
2013-07-06 08:06:07 PM
shiat hovering & landing isn't special. It's not like they've got an extensive history of space shots that they can plan to return much of anything from space.
 
2013-07-06 08:23:37 PM

jaybeezey: 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!


If it's that logical, can you explain why Lockheed, Boeing, Martin Marietta et al haven't done so in the last five decades?

Rockets aren't planes.

Oh well, Mars is 56327040000 meters away, I guess 325 is a kind of start.

Better bust out your Estes kits, eh space cadets?
 
2013-07-06 08:27:45 PM

Wrencher: Quantum Apostrophe: Is it 1995 already? Oh boy.

Giltric: this feat of engineering would never have happened.

It already happened decades ago.

So what? The concept is absurd.

That craft has never put anything into orbit like the Falcon 9 has.(Grasshopper is a modified Falcon)
But I know..."It will never work!"


Who said it wouldn't work? I said it's absurd. You can make anything work once.

You guys suck at reading.
 
2013-07-06 09:03:29 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: jaybeezey: 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!

If it's that logical, can you explain why Lockheed, Boeing, Martin Marietta et al haven't done so in the last five decades?

Rockets aren't planes.

Oh well, Mars is 56327040000 meters away, I guess 325 is a kind of start.

Better bust out your Estes kits, eh space cadets?


Actually, at 7:36:54 (Chicago time) Mars was 227,401,287 miles away.  That is roughly 365,967,000 kilometers, which would be 36,596,700,000 meters.  And every minute that distance decreases by about 85.1 miles (13,695.5 meters) every minute.


Fun little site that updates the distance to Mars in "real time."
 
2013-07-06 09:12:49 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Wrencher: Quantum Apostrophe: Is it 1995 already? Oh boy.

Giltric: this feat of engineering would never have happened.

It already happened decades ago.

So what? The concept is absurd.

That craft has never put anything into orbit like the Falcon 9 has.(Grasshopper is a modified Falcon)
But I know..."It will never work!"

Who said it wouldn't work? I said it's absurd. You can make anything work once.

You guys suck at reading.


Your favorite mantra is "It will never work". And I can read just fine...I had a college level reading score in 6th grade.
I'm really tired of reading your moronic tirades and negative crap. Congratulations on being the first asshole I have ever ignored on here. Adiós Space Turd...
 
2013-07-06 09:18:43 PM
legion_of_doo

shiat hovering & landing isn't special.
Let's see one of your launch vehicles do it.

It's not like they've got an extensive history of space shots
3.bp.blogspot.com

Yeah they haven't been anywhere really.

that they can plan to return much of anything from space.
The cargo version of Dragon can return 7,300 lbs from space
The crew version of dragon can return seven people from space.

No vehicle currently flying can handle that much cargo or crew.

/ Go rip on someone else.  Like the Russians.
 
2013-07-06 09:30:49 PM
Has he claimed pictures are CG yet?

/QA has the smell of a moon landing denialist
 
2013-07-06 09:35:01 PM
Right now, NASA has to buy rides on 3-person Soyuz spacecraft:

wodumedia.com

Eventually (coupla years, tops) Dragon will be human-rated:
d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net
(This is not a flight vehicle, but the internal volume and seating arrangements are real)

/ Dragon already comes with a heat shield that can withstand re-entry from lunar orbit speeds.  And if it can land on its feet on earth, the Moon will be a piece of cake.  SpaceX will never talk about a manned Mun mission until they're ready to fly one.  Then they'll just go.  These spacecraft are privately owned.
 
2013-07-06 09:54:36 PM

studebaker hoch: legion_of_doo

shiat hovering & landing isn't special.
Let's see one of your launch vehicles do it.

It's not like they've got an extensive history of space shots
[3.bp.blogspot.com image 640x425]
Yeah they haven't been anywhere really.

that they can plan to return much of anything from space.
The cargo version of Dragon can return 7,300 lbs from space
The crew version of dragon can return seven people from space.

No vehicle currently flying can handle that much cargo or crew.

/ Go rip on someone else.  Like the Russians.


tempest.fluidartist.com

/where the fark was the RSO for that Proton M "mishap" video you linked there?
//oh, wait this is Russia - yep, he was drunk on the vodak, like normal
 
2013-07-06 10:10:14 PM

TheDirtyNacho: Surveillance seems obvious, but its orbit isn't particularly interesting (or hidden), and there's no surveillance that requires a reusable space plane.  I would guess its carrying out some kind of experiment or material processing that works best outside of the atmosphere and/or in low gravity.


Its for hacking foreign satellites and maintaining our own.  Its the only thing they could possibly be using it for.
 
2013-07-06 10:14:10 PM
Piece of cake.

i301.photobucket.com

Crap.  I meant piece of crap.
 
2013-07-06 10:15:27 PM
Obviously it means I need MOAR STRUTS

i301.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-06 10:20:28 PM

Alonjar: TheDirtyNacho: Surveillance seems obvious, but its orbit isn't particularly interesting (or hidden), and there's no surveillance that requires a reusable space plane.  I would guess its carrying out some kind of experiment or material processing that works best outside of the atmosphere and/or in low gravity.

Its for hacking foreign satellites and maintaining our own.  Its the only thing they could possibly be using it for.


I guessing they use it to test individual tech setups before integrating them into new satellites as well. They could also use it to retrieve old satellites.
 
2013-07-06 10:57:41 PM

Cpl.D: Obviously it means I need MOAR STRUTS

[i301.photobucket.com image 850x477]


Awesome struts!  Beware though, I've witnessed the terror of low FPS on launch vs struts, they are the first to go.  (in terms of counting towards your ship's physics calculations vs maintaining FPS).  The trick is to push that options menu item that keeps the physics vs realtime to the limit.  Sure it takes 5 minutes to get a 1000 piece craft off the ground but at least it stays intact with everything working as it should.
 
2013-07-06 10:59:44 PM

Alonjar: there's no surveillance that requires a reusable space plane


It's likely doing the same sorts of missions the SR-71 used to fly.   There are a lot of missions you can't do with satellites.
 
2013-07-06 11:16:37 PM
www.solaris7.com
Call me when they can build one of these.
 
2013-07-06 11:33:45 PM

Cpl.D: Piece of cake.

[i301.photobucket.com image 850x478]

Crap.  I meant piece of crap.


I built a rocket ship was the main module with three solid fuel booster rocks attached to the sides, forming a pyramid.  It was my first ship to make it into orbit.  Not only that, but it had enough power to make it out past the moon!
 
2013-07-06 11:59:28 PM

hardinparamedic: omeganuepsilon: hardinparamedic: It's just not a space thread without Quantum Apostrophe being a dick to everyone he can for no reason.

He believes he's the lone voice of reason, a wolf pack of one.

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]

Our shenanigans are cheeky and fun. His are cruel and tragic.


Hey guys, leave QA alone!  It's not easy living life as a man without a penis...
 
2013-07-07 12:28:57 AM

Maul555: hardinparamedic: omeganuepsilon: hardinparamedic: It's just not a space thread without Quantum Apostrophe being a dick to everyone he can for no reason.

He believes he's the lone voice of reason, a wolf pack of one.

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]

Our shenanigans are cheeky and fun. His are cruel and tragic.

Hey guys, leave QA alone!  It's not easy living life as a man without a penis...


That's not cool.  Making fun of him like that.  He does have one, it's just very small.  In his file at the psych ward it's called Baby Dick.  Apparently it's actually a medical condition. Says here that he has to sit down to pee.
 
2013-07-07 12:31:08 AM
Holy bozack, the son of a biatch worked!! It farking WORKED!!

These folks are crazy, but damn are they ever the right kind of crazy.

There was a pistol-whipping mentioned!

Someone!!

LEND ME AN M1911!!!!
 
2013-07-07 01:07:25 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: LasersHurt: 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.)


The powered return has a couple of reasons.

#1 it requires no additional hardware -- the entire return and landing is simply a manipulation of the normal operation of the booster.

#2 (not really discussed) SpaceX is going to be absolutely expert in powered landing software and control... which means if you can land under power on Earth, you have a system that can land anywhere else you would WANT to land (Moon, Mars, Mercury, Ganymede, etc)

Also, you should realize that the point of these launches is not the cool "oh we launched and landed"... this is a massive software engineering control tester.  This launch landed with zero velocity -- they were positively accelerating at the exact moment of touch -- that's an enormously tricky thing to do and is key to doing the landing with a really tiny amount of residual fuel (ideally the booster should be completely empty at touchdown so that the vehicle weight is the barest minimum)
 
2013-07-07 02:15:56 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: [www.solaris7.com image 494x442]
Call me when they can build one of these.


No love for the Leopard?
 
2013-07-07 02:32:54 AM
I saw an episode of the Thunderbirds  puppet show where a rocket backed up onto the landing pad.  I said, "rockets don't work that way".  Except now they do.  Although the Thunderbird rocket was backing in parallel to the ground.
 
2013-07-07 06:33:00 AM
Smithers, there's a rocket in my pocket

i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-07-07 11:40:32 AM
dweigert

The ONLY issue I have with recovery is the fact that rockets don't just go up to get to orbit, they head "downrange" as well, accelerating the cargo to orbital velocity. If they plan to recover the booster in another place, and bring them back, then all is well.

So far you are the only one to raise that issue. I am very interested to see how they address the "return to launch site" flight profile given that it involves doing a one-eighty without benefit of aerodynamic surfaces or countering thrust. Compare the flight profile of a regular Falcon 9 or equivalent booster with an SST RtLS abort profile. There is a point at which the downrange velocity can't be negated and potential landing sites are all downrange. The Falcon's first stage has to carry the second stage and payload to a velocity and altitude where the second stage can complete the orbital insertion. That has to be beyond any reasonable turn-around point, so a downrange landing site has to be available (and within the cross-track capabilities of the vehicle) unless a once-around profile is flown. I want to see what they have planned for this.

There is a CGI vid on the SpaceX site which shows the key points of the reusable stack. The first stage is shown touching down at the Cape. The stage does a pitch maneuver after staging to present the engines for a braking burn. This seems to indicate a once-around flight. The second stage is shown with a heat shield, which would be a necessity from orbital velocities. The Dragon is shown entering and landing without resorting to parachutes. All of these steps seem to rely on controlled free-fall to terminal velocity followed by engine braking to touchdown. It's obvious they've got the launch part down. The Grasshopper is working out the touchdown details. The math seems to indicate the part in-between is do-able. Here's hoping.
 
2013-07-07 11:53:31 AM
SpaceyX is doing good but they should really concentrate on launching one a month like the big boys do...


/Delta 2  could build 18 a year and launch 12-14 a year for decades all with 100% reliability.
Only one of 160+ a failure-and it was spectacular and luckily not a one of a kind science mission.
//D2 only took a year to develop from D1.D3 with a totally new upper stage still used on D4 only 18 months to launch. What is taking so long  space X.....

They are doing tons of good things but after a all these years it's time for the PR machine to give it a rest and let their actions do the talking.
 
2013-07-07 12:04:52 PM
omeganuepsilon

/QA has the smell of a moon landing denialist

No. He has the tenor of someone who persists in rubbing a fairly valid opinion into faces until ignition is achieved. The smell is the burning of the acne cream and Cheeto dust that adorns the acolytes of the Holy Prophet Roddenberry, whose Vision is Perfect and must not be disputed.

Seriously, too many of you deserve the "Space Nutter" label with your skiffy devotion displacing any grasp of the physics and chemistry of the Real World. Look at all the Kerbal clutter in this thread. A source of amusement? Yes. A source of practical design? No.
 
2013-07-07 01:25:47 PM

Larva Lump: omeganuepsilon

/QA has the smell of a moon landing denialist

No. He has the tenor of someone who persists in rubbing a fairly valid opinion into faces until ignition is achieved. The smell is the burning of the acne cream and Cheeto dust that adorns the acolytes of the Holy Prophet Roddenberry, whose Vision is Perfect and must not be disputed.

Seriously, too many of you deserve the "Space Nutter" label with your skiffy devotion displacing any grasp of the physics and chemistry of the Real World. Look at all the Kerbal clutter in this thread. A source of amusement? Yes. A source of practical design? No.


U MAD
 
2013-07-07 01:28:23 PM

Larva Lump: omeganuepsilon

/QA has the smell of a moon landing denialist

No. He has the tenor of someone who persists in rubbing a fairly valid opinion into faces until ignition is achieved. The smell is the burning of the acne cream and Cheeto dust that adorns the acolytes of the Holy Prophet Roddenberry, whose Vision is Perfect and must not be disputed.

Seriously, too many of you deserve the "Space Nutter" label with your skiffy devotion displacing any grasp of the physics and chemistry of the Real World. Look at all the Kerbal clutter in this thread. A source of amusement? Yes. A source of practical design? No.


Ask him where he thinks those efforts should be expended instead - then you'll get a better idea of why the rest of us set him to ignore.
 
2013-07-07 02:36:48 PM

Larva Lump: Look at all the Kerbal clutter in this thread. A source of amusement? Yes. A source of practical design? No.


You're gonna have to point out who is trying to use Kerbal as an actual design, because I don't see them.

Larva Lump: "Space Nutter" label with your skiffy devotion displacing any grasp of the physics and chemistry of the Real World.


Also, point out these people. And get back on your main profile, QA.
 
2013-07-07 03:08:40 PM
Mentalpatient87

You're gonna have to point out who is trying to use Kerbal as an actual design, because I don't see them.

Nor do I, but a thread that could discuss the merits and drawbacks of an actual engineering design goes off into FictionVille instead.

And get back on your main profile, QA.

I'm not QA. I think life extension is horseshiat and manned spaceflight can have long-term benefits, but nothing long enough to go to infinity and beyond. In the long run, everyone dies. As some fictional Magrathean once said, "Hang the sense of it and keep yourself occupied."
 
2013-07-07 03:27:09 PM

Larva Lump: In the long run, everyone dies


Considering the recent discoveries relating to apoptosis (automatic cell death) , something we consider so fundamental to the human experience may be changing.  We've got a lot of the pieces to that puzzle already - we might see life spans in the early to mid 100s become possible (if not common) over the next couple of decades. Granted, it does bring about some unique issues in society that will need to be addressed..
 
2013-07-07 03:54:58 PM
OhioKnight #2

(not really discussed) SpaceX is going to be absolutely expert in powered landing software and control... which means if you can land under power on Earth, you have a system that can land anywhere else you would WANT to land (Moon, Mars, Mercury, Ganymede, etc)

THIS.  Earth is a really hard planet to land on, due a thick atmosphere and high gravity.  If you can make it here you can make it anywhere.  Because Earth is so massive, and because it's "uphill" from the solar gravity well to Mars, the trip back is mostly a free ride.  You can return in a very small ship, like we did from the Moon.

What also isn't discussed is the highly variable distance to Mars at opposition.

Year, distance to Mars in miles:

2012  63
2014  57
2016  47
2018  36
2020  39
2022  51
2025  60
(source)

My $5 is on SpaceX sending an unmanned ship to Mars in 2018, and Elon going in 2020.
 
2013-07-07 04:26:23 PM

Larva Lump: Nor do I, but a thread that could discuss the merits and drawbacks of an actual engineering design goes off into FictionVille instead.


i290.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-07 04:32:36 PM
I SO did not see that coming.
 
2013-07-07 05:17:15 PM

Larva Lump: omeganuepsilon

/QA has the smell of a moon landing denialist

No. He has the tenor of someone who persists in rubbing a fairly valid opinion into faces until ignition is achieved. The smell is the burning of the acne cream and Cheeto dust that adorns the acolytes of the Holy Prophet Roddenberry, whose Vision is Perfect and must not be disputed.

Seriously, too many of you deserve the "Space Nutter" label with your skiffy devotion displacing any grasp of the physics and chemistry of the Real World. Look at all the Kerbal clutter in this thread. A source of amusement? Yes. A source of practical design? No.


badquaker.com

Be nice to the southern crop farmers. The crows are harsh this time of year. They need that straw.
 
2013-07-07 06:07:15 PM
Did I say miles?  I meant millions of miles.

/the scale is accurate :p
 
2013-07-07 08:50:39 PM
Just because you  can doesn't mean you should. Welcome to the worlds most implausibly inefficient rocket system!
 
Displayed 197 of 197 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report