Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High

universetoday.com

131–140 of 207 posts

Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High

#131

For those of you who haven't seen it, here is SpaceX's fantastic animation of their ultimate goal for Falcon 9 (complete with soundtrack by Muse): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWFFiubtC3c This will give you an idea of how grasshopper fits into the full flight plan.

Weird bit of trivia... The pad the the rockets are landing on is a helipad (green perimeter lights). I suppose that makes sense for the video, since there isn't, AFAIK, an FAA spec for rocketpad lighting...

Takes off and lands vertically, same thing really :)

Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High

#132
post #129

For those of you who haven't seen it, here is SpaceX's fantastic animation of their ultimate goal for Falcon 9 (complete with soundtrack by Muse): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWFFiubtC3c This will give you an idea of how grasshopper fits into the full flight plan.

[deleted]

>Oh Lawd, how I hate this... :-) Same here. Its a shame and not what the Internet was supposed to be! I actually happen to know some of the people at Google who work on these stupid GEMA bans and have bagged them to offer a muted version in lieu. Alas, nothing.

Anyway, here is the version hosted by SpaceX http://www.spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=5&cat=rec... which should work in every country. Unfortunately, its without the Muse sounds track. Whereas, e.g., the Johnny Cash - Ring of Fire, soundtrack was kept on their site.

Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fuel is very inexpensive (~2% the cost of a rocket launch), rockets are very expensive. If you can trade off fuel for not having to build a new rocket you drop the cost to orbit by orders of magnitude. Additionally you can build more expensive rockets that are more efficient since rocket creation becomes a capital rather than a reoccurring cost.

But why not just use a parachute and airbags? They're going to be a vast amount lighter than the fuel you'd need for a rocket landing.

Think like systems administrator. They've gotta have a rocket engine and a nav system or its not much of a 1st stage. However adding parachutes, airbags, etc, is new systems. Which means much lower reliability and higher expense.

Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High

#134

The saddest part is that I would have been willing to capitalize SpaceX voluntarily, as an investor. Instead, Elon Musk steals from me through NASA.

On the bright side, SpaceX is so economical compared to NASA's past methods, that if it succeeds, we will all benefit. So what might be characterized as theft at one point in time, might eventually be seen as a great investment.

Only time will tell.

Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High

#135
post #66

For those of you who haven't seen it, here is SpaceX's fantastic animation of their ultimate goal for Falcon 9 (complete with soundtrack by Muse): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWFFiubtC3c This will give you an idea of how grasshopper fits into the full flight plan.

I don't understand the need for the intermediary stages, couldn't the main rocket just deliver the payload and then land? As it is in that video, it's having to carry engines and fuel for 3 separate stages, for no apparent reason.

A single stage rocket is desirable from a technological point of view since it sheds a lot of complexity: you don't have to deal with multiple engines, separation mechanisms, structural considerations, etc. However, multi-stage rockets can deliver more real payload to orbit, since they maximize the amount of fuel that is spent on taking the actual payload up there.

Single-stage rockets need to carry a lot of dead mass (empty tanks and engines) all the time, and that is a lot of wasted fuel. A multi-stage rocket can dispose the big first stage engines once it's cleared out most of the Earth's gravitational pull and use smaller engines to continue.

Another important consideration is that rocket engines don't run optimally during the whole burn. The first stages are optimized for atmospheric conditions, whereas later stages are optimized for vacuum conditions. Therefore having one big engine propel you up all the way incurs in an even grater loss of fuel due to the inefficiency at high altitudes. You could probably have a rocket engine capable of having a variable geometry to compensate for this but AFAIK is almost impossible to do it.

See the following for more details:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staging_(rocketry)#Advantages [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine_nozzle

Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High

#136
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost the entirety of the cost of an orbital launch is in manufacturing and operational costs. Cost of fuel is basically just noise. If you can reduce operational turnaround time and operational complexity, even at a cost of payload, then you'll save so much money it'll be worth it in the long term. SpaceX is aiming for a re-assemble, gas up and go workflow. If they can pull it off it might reduce their per flight l…

To put it in perspective, the fuel used to launch a Space Shuttle cost in the neighborhood of $1 million, while the cost of the entire launch was somewhere around $500 million to $1 billion.

Could and real or kerbal rocket scientists here explain why SpaceX isn't doing something like the curiosity rover landing? Sure there's 3 extra steps, deploy parachute, cut parachute, and evasive maneuver, but the fuel saving would massive.

Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High

#137
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the need for the intermediary stages, couldn't the main rocket just deliver the payload and then land? As it is in that video, it's having to carry engines and fuel for 3 separate stages, for no apparent reason.

It would be more convenient and cost effective to do so, if we could. But we lack the technology. The rocket equation is a harsh mistress, it demands exponential amounts of fuel the faster you want to accelerate a given stage (specifically, as a ratio to the exhaust velocity of the rocket). Given that orbital velocity is quite high (about 8.5 km/s) relative to the exhaust velocity of the best chemical propellants (ab…

> The rocket equation is a harsh mistress

Love this, totally making it mine ;) Also, there is the problem of efficiency loss due to over/underexpansion as you switch from atmospheric to vacuum conditions, and I have never heard of a rocket engine with variable nozzle geometry to compensate for it.

Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High

#138
post #134

The saddest part is that I would have been willing to capitalize SpaceX voluntarily, as an investor. Instead, Elon Musk steals from me through NASA.

On the bright side, SpaceX is so economical compared to NASA's past methods, that if it succeeds, we will all benefit. So what might be characterized as theft at one point in time, might eventually be seen as a great investment. Only time will tell.

For all Elon Musk's libertarian rhetoric, he sure disregards it whenever expedient.

Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High

#139
post #78

Anyone have experience working at, or with, SpaceX that can shed some light on what it's like to work there?

I've been on the Flight Software team at SpaceX for a little over three years. It feels a lot like a startup. The team is still relatively small and people are pretty passionate about what they are working on. The project variety is wide as well. Personally, I've gotten to work on low-level drivers and OS stuff, application code that runs on the vehicles and ground systems, Dragon's fault-tolerant platform, internal…

Hey! Can you spare some career advice for an aspiring aero engineer that wants to work on the software side of the rocket? If you could share what you would consider is a good path to follow to get to where you are right now, I would really appreciate it. I am a programmer at heart but even that could not pull me away from my love of space ;) so I decided to study aerospace engineering first.

Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High

#140
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the need for the intermediary stages, couldn't the main rocket just deliver the payload and then land? As it is in that video, it's having to carry engines and fuel for 3 separate stages, for no apparent reason.

It would be more convenient and cost effective to do so, if we could. But we lack the technology. The rocket equation is a harsh mistress, it demands exponential amounts of fuel the faster you want to accelerate a given stage (specifically, as a ratio to the exhaust velocity of the rocket). Given that orbital velocity is quite high (about 8.5 km/s) relative to the exhaust velocity of the best chemical propellants (ab…

I'd really love to see a spreadsheet with all this calculations. (Or better, an online html5 virtual rocket calculator tm.) With some default data (usual payload weight, fuel price, orbit speed, ...) and you can choose how many stages and haw much fuel each stage has and the spreadsheet calculate the total price of the mission.

You have a lot of information, but I understand that putting all of this in a xls would be a lot of work.

Post reply on HN