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...
SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High
131–140 of 207 posts
Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High
#132For 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]
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
#133Earlier 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.
Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High
#134The saddest part is that I would have been willing to capitalize SpaceX voluntarily, as an investor. Instead, Elon Musk steals from me through NASA.
Only time will tell.
Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High
#135For 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.
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
#136Earlier 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.
Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High
#137Earlier 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…
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
#138The 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
#139Anyone 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…
Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High
#140Earlier 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…
You have a lot of information, but I understand that putting all of this in a xls would be a lot of work.