Photos.
Space X Grasshopper VTL Rocket
- Thread starter Greenlantern101
- Start date
This is what a "a rapid, unscheduled, disassembly" looks like 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30860258
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30860258
Left a bit right a bit oh shit oh shit oh shit.......god dam it.
Last edited:
Dash Racing
Points Scorer
So close! These guys are really impressing me - even hitting a target that size is a big deal as far as rocket recovery goes. They're going to get it eventually!
Yeh I agree it easy to take the piss until you look at the constraints they work with. They are fuelled to the second. The target is moving (it's the sea) and the decelaration is mind blowing. They have done it on dry land over short distance and I'm sure they will crack it over mission distance soon. These chaps are applying cutting edge computing and science skills to master one of the fields considered the ultimate. Not just making a rocket take off but landing a rocket. This ain't just rocket science it's pure genius.
While I love the technology and challenge in what they are doing I just can't escape the feeling that it's over engineered. Firstly, the landing fuel and systems increase the weight of the over all system therefore increasing the cost of launch in itself. Secondly, NASA recycled their SRB's on the shuttle, up to six times after a water splash down. That's a far less complex and proven method of re-using rockets.
Can't wait to see them pull it off though.
Can't wait to see them pull it off though.
Last edited:
Dash Racing
Points Scorer
The problem is that commercially, a splash down and recovery may not be viable - remember, NASA used military vessels for recovery. The cost of recovering the stages could be justified in the budget as training exercises for the Navy. It may be that the cost of extra takeoff weight in fuel is not more expensive than the man hours needed for splashdown recovery. I don't know for sure, and have no figures to pull out of my rear on that, but it's the best reasoning I can come up with for why a space program might choose to land and reuse, rather than splash and reuse.
I don't really understand why this is a discussion. Refilling a rocket with fuel is way cheaper than building a new rocket and filling it with fuel. Does it need explained further. As far as I'm aware we do this with every other form of transport. You don't throw away a car/train/plane/boat at the end of a journey and build a new one, no you just put more fuel in. Very weird this is being questioned.
Clearly you didn't read my post. I'm not questioning the reason, that's obvious. I was discussing the method.
A water splash down and recovery has been proven and is the low tech option requiring a parachute and not much else.
As Dash pointed out, the recovery method including the cleaning of the tanks, ships, manpower, etc etc may be expensive.
For the solid landing the rocket becomes heavier and more complex (both bad in space launch terms) but the recovery method may be less expensive and enable a quicker turn around per rocket.
Anything to add to the discussion now?
A water splash down and recovery has been proven and is the low tech option requiring a parachute and not much else.
As Dash pointed out, the recovery method including the cleaning of the tanks, ships, manpower, etc etc may be expensive.
For the solid landing the rocket becomes heavier and more complex (both bad in space launch terms) but the recovery method may be less expensive and enable a quicker turn around per rocket.
Anything to add to the discussion now?
Last edited:
0-100 in 1.2 seconds. Me me me, pick me.
Amazon's Blue Origin just stole a bit of SpaceX's thunder.
People look such twits when they try to spray sparkling wine without knowing how it's done.
SpaceX rocket which blew up after take-off found in the UK - BBC News
Some of it got found after one of their "Rapid, unscheduled disassembly" events.
Some of it got found after one of their "Rapid, unscheduled disassembly" events.
several things I've just noticed now I've had a chance to watch the Blue Origin video.
1) why is shaped like a giant dildo ??
and
2) It's great that the rocket touched down gently but the crew capsule seemed to slam into the ground at back breaking speed.
1) why is shaped like a giant dildo ??
and
2) It's great that the rocket touched down gently but the crew capsule seemed to slam into the ground at back breaking speed.
yeh I noticed the crew capsule fatalities as well. I don't think that will be in the brochure. 
First ever launch and controlled landing that injected satellites into orbit. Incredible achievement.
That's a great achievement. I wonder what the turn around time will be for the next flight which really will be the final proof of concept.
Why does it have to land itself? Why can't it drift gently back to Earth with parachutes attached? I would have thought sending a vehicle to collect it would have used far less energy than all the rocket fuel needed to bring the thing back down from whence it came.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
