SpaceX Grasshopper 250m Test | Ring of Fire

[BootinUp]

[Warpy]

1. The geeks in the comments section didn't think much of this

but they also seem to have missed out on the concept of "prototype."

I find this test to be pretty impressive, actually, although I have no idea what it's going to be used for. It's cheaper to let fuel tanks burn up or fall into the Atlantic for retrieval than it is to use fuel to return them to the launching pad.

It does recreate the 50s space opera takeoff and landing nicely, though.

[Posteritatis]

2. Only read Youtube comments if you've been bad and feel the need to punish yourself

It is impressive, though - the number of things that have to go right for something like that to remain stable and vertical is, well, rocket science.

[BootinUp]

3. I think it is impressive

My aerospace engineer dad thinks so too. They returned it exactly where they wanted to. Here's a brief video of Elon Musk talking about the project:

[Johonny]

9. Perhaps to move off the moonbase to the astroid to move material back and forth

Perhaps to move off the moonbase to the asteroid they moved to be mined. So they can move material back and forth. Not saying it is happening tomorrow or maybe ever but SpaceX wants to ultimately goto Mars etc...

[Warpy]

10. Right, I said it was impressive, just

not immediately useful.

[sofa king]

11. This is the plan:

I think that video is at least a year old now. Musk has repeatedly stated that reusability and quick turnaround is the key to lowering costs to orbit, at one point saying he would consider SpaceX to have failed if they don't pull it off.

The idea with the first stage is that it releases the second stage with a small reserve of fuel aboard, and since it is mostly empty, and its flight is mostly vertical and not too far downrange, it can be turned around and landed (like the Grasshopper test vehicle above).

The second stage has to complete a full orbit and reenter like a space vehicle in order to return to the launch/assembly area. But the key here is getting the two main components right back to the vehicle assembly area, where they can be cleaned, checked, refueled, and reused, with no immersion in seawater, and no cross-country or cross-ocean transportation costs.

I think it's very ambitious, and I wonder if there won't be problems involved in the fuel tradeoff--more fuel for the LV means less fuel for the payload, but Musk is absolutely correct that to make space pay, the costs to orbit must be a fraction of what they are today. It's very cool to see them starting.

[Warpy]

12. Yes, it's really ambitious. I hope they succeed

because something has to be around to take the place of the shuttle program.

[Trajan]

4. While I appreciate the novelty ...

I believe it would be a mistake to use this with real human beings ... there are serious questions as to whether this technology can be used, time and again, without a serious mishap that could topple the vehicle and ignite the fuel ...

REF: McDonnell Douglas DC-X ...

[BootinUp]

5. Interesting reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X#Flight_testing

and from 20 years ago. Not sure why you bring it up though.

[Trajan]

6. I bring it up

for 17 dead astronauts ... and their families ...

This method of rocket operations is inherently dangerous for astronauts ... The potential for flammability is far greater with a load off fuel on board.

[BootinUp]

7. None of those

were killed in the program you mention though, correct?

If all you are saying is from your point of view its too dangerous to pursue then thats fine I just wanted to clarify.

[Trajan]

8. Of course they were not killed in that manner

The causes for the loss of OV-099 and OV-102 and their crews have been thoroughly investigated, and neither has to do with vertical landings ... as I presume you already know...

Just an FYI: ... I worked on Challenger, Atlantis and Discovery during initial production in Downey, and then was aboard Columbia in the mid 90's in Palmdale ....

I can tell you how it feels to watch your own little baby break apart and come down in flames with the loss of all aboard ... It is as unpleasant as you might imagine ...

As far as I am concerned it is the role of the designer to make sure the design is inherently safe, or as safe as possible ...

I see the vertical basing mode as somebody's wonderful dream, and somebody else's dreadful sorrow ... there is no reason to bypass the current fuel-less re entry method in favour of a less safe, more problematic method that could expose the crew to unnecessary danger, without a very good reason to do so ...

[sofa king]

13. The unmanned components will be first to land vert.

It's the unmanned first stage that you really want back in one piece. It has 9 out of 10 of the Merlin engines you want back as well as the king-size fuel tanks and turbopumps. The second stage isn't nearly as expensive, and a crewed RV should probably be landed where it is safest, rather than cheapest..

Vertically landing a seven-person crew capsule? I'm not sure I see it. I'd put more faith in a paraglider landing system than that, and I wouldn't like that either.

It turns out that I was foolish all those years that I doubted the safety of the shuttle in its one-shot dead-stick landing. I was sure that was what was going to get them all in the end. But I was totally wrong, probably because that's where the crew had the most direct control. I should never have underestimated the reliability of a good pilot.