SpaceX's Grasshopper VTVL Finally Jumps Its Own Height 111
cylonlover writes "The SpaceX Grasshopper vertical takeoff vertical landing (VTVL) testbed has successfully flown to a height of 40 meters (131 ft), hovered for a bit and subsequently landed in a picture perfect test on December 17, 2012. The Grasshopper had previously taken two hops to less than 6 m (20 ft) in height, but the latest test was the first that saw it reach an altitude taller than the rocket itself, which is a modified Falcon 9 orbital launch vehicle. The flight lasted 29 seconds from launch to landing, and carried a 1.8 m (6 ft) cowboy dummy to give an indication of scale."
Ad astra (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I've seen the video a number of times already...
But you won't see it via any of the useless links in the Slashdot summary...
Re: (Score:3)
SpaceX posts everything to YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz-NYeH-CEY&feature=youtu.be [youtube.com]
Whats the advantage of this tech? (Score:2)
I really can't see one. It seems like a massive waste of fuel to carry more stores on board then land vertically. Couldn't there be a better way of slowing descent in the atmosphere and recovering the module, like parachuting it into the ocean?
Re:Whats the advantage of this tech? (Score:4, Informative)
I really can't see one. It seems like a massive waste of fuel to carry more stores on board then land vertically. Couldn't there be a better way of slowing descent in the atmosphere and recovering the module, like parachuting it into the ocean?
Quicker and cheaper recovery, enabling it to be reused far quicker, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX has tried this. The problem is landing in the water is violent. They kept destroying their rockets. The Shuttle SRB's can do it only because they are made of about 1/2" thick high strength steel. Even then when they built one for ARES IX test it went higher and landed harder and this was the result.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSkDV1l2N0CFkWZmpOxrEyo09JBWK34zbjSC6JRI55c0zNyGM8ht4rdbnvOJQ [gstatic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the shuttle's SRB's had a little trouble with the O-rings in their tang and clevis joins fitting properly. This may have been partly due to the mild deformation of the SRB's occurring during splashdown. The problem was mostly due to other design causes, but the deformation of the tanks was part of it. As a consequence of this problem and other factors, a jet of flame ended up spurting out of one of the SRB's during a launch and cutting into the liquid booster during Challenger's last launch. Also, for
Re: (Score:1)
sea water turns the module into scrap metal even if landing doesnt break it mechanically, everyone drops rocket stages into ocean, they are not usable after that.
the thing is that even though rockets look all big and sturdy they are not, they are really very thin walled and fragile, only meant to endure stresses in one direction - vertical, add salt water damages to that and you might just as well build a new rocket after splashdown.
this VTOL tech surely wastes a lot of fuel and thus reduces usable payload
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Whats the advantage of this tech? (Score:5, Informative)
The big advantage is that when you dunk a booster the seawater gets everywhere and you have to rebuild it.
SpaceX would rather bring it down powered, test it, then launch it again. The cost of the propellant is less than 100K per launch, its the refurbishment, and sometimes wholesale replacement of the parts that really costs a lot of money.
More info on strategy here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/elon-musk-on-spacexs-reusable-rocket-plans-6653023
Re: (Score:1)
Fuel is the least inefficient way to do it. You've already got an engine there, so why not use it again? You've already got fuel tanks, so why not just a keep a little for descent? Why go back to the drawing board to invent wings, or other massive stuff?
Re: (Score:1)
You need to slow down from launch speeds to even consider deploying a shute. Also even with such, landing on the ground is too high an impact speed to make the vehicle reusable, and sea landings introduce corrosion costs. Look at the shuttle boosters for ex, and ou have to factor in the cost of retrieval.
This is a long term investment on the pa rt of spaceX. We have been talking about reusable launch vehicles for decades, and it has never been achieved in any meaningful way to date. Yes, the shuttle air
Re: (Score:1)
It's not much of a waste of fuel because... it's mostly empty after stage separation! So it has maybe 5% (number pulled out of my urectum) reserve fuel left and no cargo. It takes a lot less fuel to bring an empty tank stage down with a powered descent than it would the whole vehicle assembly at launch. And then there's that little problem about sea water being so nasty when it gets into stuff.
And then on top of all that, it's frickin' cool, too.
Re: (Score:2)
You’re making the assumption that it is a bigger waste to carry excess fuel then it is to haul wings into space. I am not sure if that is true so I would like to see your calculations.
Re: (Score:2)
I really can't see one.
Its not rocket science.
Wait, yes it is. That might be your problem.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No advantage at all unless you are on the surface of Luna or Mars and wish return home to your loved ones.
This is no Space Shuttle, its better. (Score:5, Informative)
Payload to GTO: ~3000 kg.
Average cost per flight: 1.5 billion (cost of shuttle program / number of launches)
Falcon 9 rocket:
Payload to GTO:~2000 kg
Average cost per flight: 50m (cost of expendable rocket)
Falcon 9 rocket with grasshopper gear:
Payload to GTO:~1000 kg (rough estimate)
Average cost per flight: ~200,000 (expected figure for fuel + incidentals)
You can do the math to figure out why this is a big deal.
Re:This is no Space Shuttle, its better. (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree with the direction of the evolution of the programs, I don't think it is a fair comparison to define the cost of the Space Shuttle launch as the total program cost divided by the number of launches. Much of the technology and information Falcon is using is based upon the research done to achieve the Shuttle program.
Re: (Score:1)
Much of the technology and information Falcon is using is based upon the research done to achieve the Shuttle program.
Like what? *crickets chirping*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget to include the following for the Shuttle.
7 people to LEO for 2 weeks
AND
50,000 lbs of payload
AND
Dock and service a Satellite
AND
bring back 30,000 lbs of payload
AND
Land on runway with 1,000 miles cross range capability
Re: (Score:2)
And that 1000-mile cross range capability is useful for space travel... how?
Re: (Score:2)
And that 1000-mile cross range capability is useful for space travel... how?
Landing away from the weather that would otherwise prevent you from landing before your life support ran out?
Re: (Score:2)
What is the cross range capability of grasshopper? If you're going to pretend the shuttles cross range capability is useless, then grasshopper is even more so.
Re: (Score:2)
A parking orbit means practically indefinite cross-range capability, so long as the power systems last.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As you orbit the earth rotates underneath you. Having a large cross range allows you multiple landing attempts at the same place on earth in consecutive orbits.
Re:This is no Space Shuttle, its better. (Score:5, Insightful)
While the general tenor of your computation is in the right direction, you're not even closed to calculating the costs fairly. You're not being very rigorous with separating out capital vs operating expenditures. You are hitting shuttle launches with a share of all the development and infrastructure costs, but left that out for SpaceX.
But yes, the *incremental* cost of another shuttle launch is in the 500M range, which is still pretty pricey on a $/kg to orbit.
There are some aspects you've also sort of glossed over: Shuttle is a terrible way to get to GTO, so comparing GTO payload capacity isn't a good metric. Shuttle has the same 3000kg "downmass" capabilty, too, which I don't think F9 or GH have. If you want to bring things back for repair and refurbishment, that's a useful thing to have. Or, you could treat space like remote islands in the Aleutians.. never take anything back, and just dump the old stuff in an ever increasing pile out back for the amusement of workers on their time off.
That said, I think cheap expendable rockets like F9 are really the way to go for the immediate future.
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX does provide 'some' cargo return capability. http://www.spacex.com/crs1.php [spacex.com]
Of course it is nothing compared to space shuttle, but when is the last time that a space shuttle bring back anything huge? Or, has it ever done so?
Re: (Score:2)
The main unclassified use for the Shuttle's cargo return ability was Spacelab [wikipedia.org] missions.
Re: (Score:2)
LDEF, Spacehab (multiple times), Spacelab (multiple times), MPLM (multiple times), the Hubble handling fixture (six times) and maintenance equipment (five times)....
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the incremental cost of a Shuttle flight (that is, the direct costs to add a flight to the manifest) was down around $100-150M depending on who you ask. The annual cost per flight did range around $500M post Challenger, but that's because annual costs were dominated by massive fixed infrastructure costs that had to be paid regardless of how many flights were on the manif
Re: (Score:2)
For example, much of the water the Shuttle delivered was a byproduct of it's fuel cells and was thus essentially free.
As long as you ignore the billion dollar cost of launching the Shuttle each time, anyway.
You could send a lot of water into LEO for the cost of a single Shuttle launch.
Re: (Score:2)
If the cost was relevant, you'd have a point. But in your haste to make a smart ass comment (and thus expose your ignorance) you ignore than fact that the Shuttle was going to the ISS (in this example) anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
My ignorance? The whole post was based on a logical fallacy. "Hey, we were in the neighborhood, anyway." Um, no... you weren't. The Shuttle didn't just happen by the ISS and say "we were going to vent this water, anyway". The Shuttle was sent to ISS to deliver... water... food... parts, etc. You could just as easily say delivery of the parts were free, because they were going to have to come bring water, so why not bring the parts.
Same thing with the argument about fixed vs marginal costs for the prog
Re: (Score:2)
In your haste and ignorance, you fail to realize the existence of a third alternative - to fly *more* per year and amortize the fixed costs over a larger number of flights and thu
Re: (Score:2)
For what I gather, spaceX is mostly made up of ex-NASA people. From that it follows that spaceX probably did not invent the wheel, but simply copied and improved the one invented (and paid for) by NASA.
So, while spaceX stuff is better than the NASA stuff, it is not because spaceX is somehow hugely better at what they do. It is just that NASA paid for the initial development of space technology, and folded soon after delivering some proof-of-concept stuff. SpaceX was then simply able to pick up where NASA le
Re: (Score:3)
For what I gather, spaceX is mostly made up of ex-NASA people. From that it follows that spaceX probably did not invent the wheel, but simply copied and improved the one invented (and paid for) by NASA.
I expect that it's more of a case of "NASA won't let us build the cool vehicles we want to build, it makes us build all this expensive crap, and we get to do it for maybe three vehicles before we end up dead from old age; hey! Let's go work for this billionaire who actually has a vision of the future he wants to build, instead of these politicians and bureaucrats who don't get that roller coaster feel in their stomach every time someone plays the Kennedy moon speech..."
Personally, I'd rather work for someo
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, a LEO-to-LEO comparison is probably more apt than GTO-to-GTO capacity. Even so, the Falcon still wins easily, even without being reusable.
The big question-mark is how much the new reusability features will end up costing in terms of performance and payload. If they lose more than about 20% of current capacity on the F9, it probably won't be able to loft a standard Dragon capsule. They'll either have to develop a smaller Dragon or use Falcon Heavy instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's what I was trying to say. (A customer came into my shop as I was writing that, so I had to cut it short.) A Falcon Heavy (even a reusable one) would have plenty of excess capacity for a standard Dragon capsule. And the same economies of scale and reusability would all still apply in this case. Yes, fuel costs might be $500~600k per launch instead of $200k, but that's still "dirt cheap" for a ride to LEO, especially if you can split that cost between 4~6 passengers.
In any case reusable rockets wi
Re: (Score:2)
By your logic, we can replace semi-trailers and concrete trucks, and ambulances, and every other form of automotive transport - with motor scooters. After all, they're cheaper and they get great gas mileage.
Seriously, as I've said here before (many, many times), it's not all about cost. You also have to consider capability, what are you getting for your money? Nobody confuses a subcompact with a panel van, or a teaspoon with a frying pan...
Re: (Score:2)
This task is accomplished for less money by the falcon rockets.
Granted, If you put a ping pong table on the shuttle, its ping pong capabilities would be incomparable to the falcon rockets.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you just repeat what you said the first time - without addressing the issues I raised in my original reply.
Not to mention, as I discuss in another post, it's not clear at all that the Falcon is cheaper... when you consider how many Falcon flights it takes to replace a single Shuttle flight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I can get them to orbit FAR cheaper than SpaceX or NASA. Of course, they won't be able to do a thing when they get there as they'll be dead or otherwise damaged beyond usefulness. You can design a gun capable of lobbing things into space, the Gs from initial acceleration would destroy your people and cargo however.
As was said, cost is not the only issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you're not only stupid and ignorant - you're willing so.
Sad.
In other words, you just revert to personal attack (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
When I make a ridiculous claim, get back to me.
But you don't have the requisite background knowledge to recognize a ridiculous claim in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, if you ignore everything SpaceX got out of the Shuttle program then sure, the numbers look great.
The didn't invent rocketry, they've improved on research done before them by NASA and things like the Shuttle program.
Admittedly, NASA and the Shuttle program didn't invent it either ... but a metric fuckton of shit used today to make Falcon work WAS invented to make the Shuttle program work.
Thats not even to mention that you included ALL R&D costs in the shuttle, but none in SpaceX.
I think that the key accomplishment here... (Score:2)
...is maintaining stability while exiting and then re-entering the ground-effect region.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Rockets very near the ground experience a ground-effect augmentation of thrust. Response to thrust vectoring will also be affected.
Thrust measurement experiment on the ground effect of a vertical landing rocket. [sciencelinks.jp]
This means that the control algorithm must change as the vehicle lands.
Heh (Score:4, Funny)
I was just wondering what George Bush was up to these days.
No need to get nasty (Score:1)
Salvage 1 ? (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvage_1 [wikipedia.org]
and pics of the spaceship http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/9782/salestes.html&date=2009-10-25+06:41:49 [webcitation.org] [webcitation.org]
I loved that show as a kid now I just need a cement mixer, fuel tanker, and some recycled tyres
NASA bashing never seems to get old (Score:2)
NASA has the best record for space exploration of any organization in the world. If you give them sufficient resources and don't mix in politics they usually succeed beyond expectations.
The Shuttle is the poster child for political meddling. The mandate from Congress was that the military and NASA would us
Re:YAY !! 1952 ALL OVER AGAIN !! (Score:4, Funny)
Welcome to The Short Attention Span Era !!
Patience, Grasshopper.
Re:YAY !! 1952 ALL OVER AGAIN !! (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:YAY !! 1952 ALL OVER AGAIN !! (Score:5, Insightful)
We weren't doing massive VTVL space rockets in the 50's. And maybe the armchair know-it-alls should just build their own space rockets if it's as easy as picking up a dusty set of blueprints.
The arrogance and delusion is just astounding.
Re: (Score:2)
It's tough to compete with Hollywood expectations.
Heck, the governor of California was going to go to Mars, kill several bad guys, issue several lines of dry cool wit as he dispatched them and then install an atmosphere on Mars. Where is all that awesome stuff?
What was I saying again? Oh nevermind, did you see what Kim Kardashian was wearing?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact that we got to the moon was a coincidence: we got there by trial and error, instead of careful analysis on error bounds, and actually making sure everything works before launch. This is exemplified by the many failed (!) Apollo missions.
This time, we're carefully doing all the calculations, and you can see this from the fact that SpaceX has not yet failed any mission, even though they have exactly the same missions as we used to.
Re:YAY !! 1952 ALL OVER AGAIN !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The 1st launch where they were going to dock the Dragon Capsule to the ISS failed. The launch was aborted after "Liftoff" was proclaimed. Indeed, with a solid rocket booster that couldn't have been shut off, the launch couldn't have been aborted a second after liftoff, it would have had to try to soldier on with the mission, or maybe execute a planned crash / destructive abort procedure; However, liquid fuel was used, so they just cut off the fuel, and tried again another day...
Update: May 19, 2012 [spacex.com]
Today’s launch was aborted when the flight computer detected slightly high pressure in the engine 5 combustion chamber. We have discovered root cause and repairs are underway.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the first one sank into the swamp. So they built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So they built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone in aerospace thinks they're a joke.
Sure, because everyone else in aerospace can man up and do it themselves...
Re: (Score:2)
Define failure. Last trip had an engine break apart during launch.
Incorrect.
They had a controlled shut down on one engine. It did not break apart.
Re:YAY !! 1952 ALL OVER AGAIN !! (Score:5, Informative)
Adding to your thought ...
The 'breaking apart' was an intentional jettison of a panel to ensure any other actual issues would limit exposure to the rest of the craft. It was just like the safety blow off value on a water heater. Unacceptable tolorences were detected and the craft compensated to mitigate damage and ensure continued flight.
The 'break apart' was by design and couldn't have been a better example of designing for failure and still winning the game.
Re: (Score:3)
No. The engine bell imploded due to the sudden change in aerodynamic forces acting on the bell. With the engine running, the burning fuel pushes outward against the bell. The corner bells also experience strong forces from the airstream. Those forces are in equilibrium when the engines are running. When the engine shut off, the external force caused the bell to collapse.
Space-X was aware this would happen if one of the corner engines failed, and the engines are designed such that the bell can shear off
Re: (Score:2)
There is evidence that Europeans visited the America's before Columbus. However many years later boating technology improved so such a trip isn't nearly as heroic. And as time progresses further, today we can boat across the Atlantic without being considered a hero.
Yes we have been to the moon, we know it can be done. But we really don't have any pressing means to get there really, so we should take our time and find a way to make the trip safer and a bit less heroic.
While it has been a while and there i
I was going to moderate (Score:1)
Surely there must be a way of moderating this junk "Advertising" or something that doesn't affect your other mod point for relevant stuff. aaarrrggghh
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
As OT as this is, I was moderating but all I seem to being doing lately is moderating down advertising 'comment' crap like this wasting mod points that could have been used for of upmodding other, more relevant and interesting comments.
Surely there must be a way of moderating this junk "Advertising" or something that doesn't affect your other mod point for relevant stuff. aaarrrggghh
This is why slashdot is doomed and will likely fail completely within the next year or so. Readership apathy is increasing for the following reasons, among others:
Eventually people will tire of just filtering comment spam and wi
Re: (Score:1)
Use the little flag symbol to the right of the comment and type 'spam' in the box that appears. In theory editors with unlimited mod points will confirm it's spam and mod it down.
NB Not sure if the flag appears in all 'views' of slashdot...
Re: (Score:2)
Don't waste your points on spam, that's what that black flag is for. Just click that (you don't need mod points to do so) and an editor will look at it and do the downmodding for you.