[deleted]
SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High
31–40 of 207 posts
Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High
#32For 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 find this confusing. It's awesome, that's for sure. But it seems like lifting all the fuel needed to do a soft landing is inherently a tradeoff for less payload capacity. What is the benefit, then? Is it just so much cheaper to be able to re-use the first two stages?
Basically, yes. Fuel costs make up a marginal part of the rocket's cost. One reason the Space Shuttle was such a massive failure was because it was supposed to be "re-usable", yet it really wasn't. It threw away most of its volume every time it launched, yet it still had to carry more fuel into space for the soft landing. It had downsides from both sides of the equation.
Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High
#33Its likely that full-fledged Space Travel with reusable rockets will be possible in the coming years
I believe same thing was done by NASA in the 70s. So not really big step forward in this particular regard. edit: Can't find it at the moment. So far I've found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X which did what grasshopper and more almost 20 years back. I still believe I've read something earlier though. Will edit when/if I find it.
[citation needed]
Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High
#34Can't watch this in Germany of course.
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/se7_JpbtPwA&rel=1
Version with different music. Heard it works in other countries.
Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find this confusing. It's awesome, that's for sure. But it seems like lifting all the fuel needed to do a soft landing is inherently a tradeoff for less payload capacity. What is the benefit, then? Is it just so much cheaper to be able to re-use the first two stages?
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
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am also interested in this. I know where I can get detailed news and analysis in the Tech industry, but I haven't come across too many good resources for the space industry. If I could find great news sites or podcasts or similar I'd consume them like you wouldn't believe.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/ That is where you will find the best info for the space industry more than likely. A lot of the info is in the forums though and you will have to kind of hunt it down. They also have a private section of the site that you can pay to gain access that has a lot of insider info.
Thanks for the link
Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High
#37For 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 find this confusing. It's awesome, that's for sure. But it seems like lifting all the fuel needed to do a soft landing is inherently a tradeoff for less payload capacity. What is the benefit, then? Is it just so much cheaper to be able to re-use the first two stages?
I thought the same thing. One of the Youtube commentswas pretty insightful in that it mentioned that when you do a parachute landing into the ocean, it's landing in salt water. Therefore the craft has to be taken apart inspected, cleaned, and put back together. So I'm assuming they've done the cost benefits and figured it's cheaper this way.
I wonder if a combination parachute/thruster landing would be more feasible though? Sort of like the Mars Science Lab without the sky-crane.
Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High
#38Earlier 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.
Parachute and/or airbags are not necessarily lighter than fuel on a rocket as big as falcon. Parachutes don't scale linearly with the weight of the cargo. Plus they introduce an additional complexity and a point of failure.
Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High
#39For 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 am not that much of a space buff....but for some reason...when I see this video and the one posted by the OP - I get SOOO excited.
Perhaps it is the innovation of never seeing a rocket do a full-blown take-off and then land vertically and then seeing what the long-term result will be - which is orders of magnitude better and more efficient than how it is today....that just gets me excited.
But I am truly glad to be alive today and glad Elon Musk is who he is....and doing what he is doing.
In 40 years, if he continues on his current trajectory, my kids will find it weird that space travel was "novel" in my generation.
That's VERY exciting.
Re: SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High
#40Earlier 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.
You cannot land a large payload on Mars with a parachute due to the very thin atmosphere.