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 50
    More: Cool, landing pad, vertical takeoff, Chrysler Building, vertical takeoff and landing, rockets, grasshoppers, launch pads, SpaceX  
•       •       •

12992 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-07-06 10:49:34 AM
3 votes:

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 09:05:05 AM
3 votes:

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 08:59:41 AM
3 votes:

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 09:18:43 PM
2 votes:
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 02:02:07 PM
2 votes:
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 01:34:33 PM
2 votes:

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 01:22:42 PM
2 votes:
I can only see 107/188 comments in this thread.
2013-07-06 12:04:53 PM
2 votes:
It's just not a space thread without Quantum Apostrophe being a dick to everyone he can for no reason.
2013-07-06 11:51:43 AM
2 votes:

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 10:59:43 AM
2 votes:

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 10:56:19 AM
2 votes:

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 10:53:36 AM
2 votes:

Quantum Apostrophe: Luddite.


That`s rich coming from you.
2013-07-06 10:44:59 AM
2 votes:

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 10:21:06 AM
2 votes:

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 09:17:57 AM
2 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org

VITH DIS TECHNOLOGIE, VE VOULD HAF VON DER VAR!
2013-07-06 09:04:27 AM
2 votes:

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 08:53:52 AM
2 votes:
piece of cake,
s23.postimg.org
2013-07-07 12:04:52 PM
1 votes:
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.
2013-07-06 09:35:01 PM
1 votes:
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 09:12:49 PM
1 votes:

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 06:30:58 PM
1 votes:

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 05:34:04 PM
1 votes:
Came for KSP references and the inevitable QA threadshiatting. Leaving satisfied.

Elon Musk is a pretty cool guy.
2013-07-06 04:42:43 PM
1 votes:
 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 03:41:20 PM
1 votes:

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 02:38:44 PM
1 votes:

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 02:08:33 PM
1 votes:

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 02:06:14 PM
1 votes:

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 01:32:08 PM
1 votes:

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 01:29:20 PM
1 votes:
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 01:05:18 PM
1 votes:

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 12:41:34 PM
1 votes:

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 12:39:10 PM
1 votes:
24.media.tumblr.com
2013-07-06 11:51:31 AM
1 votes:

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 11:31:24 AM
1 votes:
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 11:21:52 AM
1 votes:

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 11:13:36 AM
1 votes:
Now that was impressive.
2013-07-06 11:09:49 AM
1 votes:

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 11:01:55 AM
1 votes:
Mildly impressed:

www.homerhickam.com
2013-07-06 10:41:37 AM
1 votes:
Well done, Grasshopper.
2013-07-06 09:55:26 AM
1 votes:

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 09:23:52 AM
1 votes:
This is MUCH better at 1080p resolution with your speakers turned up, btw. May freak out cats, though
2013-07-06 09:05:36 AM
1 votes:

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 09:03:14 AM
1 votes:
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 09:03:12 AM
1 votes:

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 08:56:09 AM
1 votes:

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 08:55:59 AM
1 votes:
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 08:50:49 AM
1 votes:
They must be using MechJeb.
2013-07-06 08:50:07 AM
1 votes:
Didn't the Russians just do that with a Proton 5  'cept it landed with the pointy end down..
2013-07-06 08:47:05 AM
1 votes:
Holy f*ckballs Batman, that's incredible
2013-07-06 08:36:43 AM
1 votes:
Ok that is rather awesome.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report