@miketv Yes, really. Landing the first stage vertically is actually the easiest of the three recovery scenes. Plenty of rockets have already done this, including DC-X, Scorpius, Project M, Xombie, and Blue Ball.
PICA-X is ablative, but very tough. SpaceX estimates their shield could be reused for up to dozens of flights, and measurements taken on the landed Dragon tend to bear that out.
The reason everything they are doing makes fantastic sense to me is that long ago I read a book called "Thrust Into Space" by Maxwell Hunter. It's all about the mass ratio and all the tricky things you can do to finagle it. Geary Hudson has written some great stuff on this too.
@DrZond I heard Max talk a few times at the Space Access Society conferences. He was clearly a really smart guy and also very soft-spoken and mild mannered. Too bad he isn't around to see what is happening with the suborbital RLVs and to advise SpaceX. Gary still comes to the conferences and always gives an excellent presentation.
I think this development is fantastic. Question. If this vehicle is taking off from Cape Canaveral, are all stages also landing at Cape Canaveral? Are all stages completing an orbit? including the first?
@DrZond The animation shows the 3 parts returning to the same site. However, Elon said there were some incorrect details in the animation plus some proprietary details left out. It appears that the 1st stage does not go around but instead flies back to the pad. If that turns out to be too hard, maybe they will try an alternative. E.g. Bezos has a patent app in which the 1st stage lands on an off-shore barge. It looks like the 2nd stage does go around.
@HobbySpacer Thank you for that answer. It seemed inconceivable that the first stage could amount to a single-stage-to-orbit with the whole upper stages contributing to it's mass.
Another advantage of this fully reusable technology, is that it can be transferred to the Moon or Mars and used there with continuous benefit. This marries the benefits of staging with the common sense of 100% re-usability. I love it (and I wrote a book about space-planes!)
200,000 vs 55,000,000 is like 2$ fuel for every 550$ of vehicle. Would you throw away 550$ to save about 25 cents return fuel? would you make that mistake with 100,000 times more money?
Just don't understand the vertical landing thing. So inefficient to boost fuel into space that will used for a descent that gravity and some good parachutes will do for free(or pretty close to it).
By the way, the reason we don't throw airplanes away after each use is that most of the mass is returned intact. Remember:in the space biz cost per pound to orbit rules ALL!
@quotoo Rapid re-flight is crucial for lo costs ops. Need to get all parts back to launch site directly & safely. Parachutes won't do it. Need powered return or to glide. Wings use up wt & useless in space. Wings vs return fuel is a design trade.
Rapid reuse gives a high flight rate that more than makes up for payload mass lost to return system mass.
Fuel is tiny fraction of costs: ~$200k for all fuel vs ~$55M for F9 hardware
Rapid reuse lowers cost to orbit by factor ~100 over ELV.
@lokitpiy Armadillo Aerospace is experimenting with that technique for their single stage suborbital rockets. For orbital multistage, still need to power the stages back fairly near to the launch site before deploying parafoils or parachutes. If they can return with powered landings, it would be far more straight-forward and reliable. NASA did some X-38 drop test landings with a parafoil. Even with a small lifting body, it was non-trivial. Doing it with a long tube stage looks hard.
Design completed for bringing rocket back to launchpad using only thrusters. Yay. Wings r just dead weight in space."
which some are interpreting means the landing will be done using a cluster of SuperDraco thrusters, not one of the Merlin-1D engines. This would probably result in a much deeper degree of throttleability.
Looks like the Dragon service module is the only thing that doesn't get reused. Are there plans to salvage that too? If not, how much does it cost to build? That, plus fuel, would be the minimum cost per flight.
@taiwanjohn88 I haven't heard anything from SpaceX about whether the animation is correct in showing that the service module would be discarded in an operational system. Even if it is, this would still represent a relatively modest additional cost compared to throwing away the whole vehicle or a large fuel tank as was done by the Shuttle. A 1st-gen F9 system that was 95% reusable with fast turnaround of the main components would still be a big step in lowering costs.
@taiwanjohn88 I haven't heard anything from SpaceX about whether the animation is correct in showing that the service module would be discarded in an operational system. Even if it is, this would still represent a relatively modest additional cost compared to throwing away the whole vehicle or a large fuel tank as was done by the Shuttle. A 1st-gen F9 system that was 95% reusable with fast turnaround of the main components would still be a big step in lowering costs.
@taiwanjohn88 I haven't heard anything from SpaceX about whether the animation is correct in showing that the service module would be discarded in an operational system. Even if it is, this would still represent a relatively modest additional cost compared to throwing away the whole vehicle or a large fuel tank as was done by the Shuttle. A 1st-gen F9 system that was 95% reusable with fast turnaround of the main components would still be a big step in lowering costs.
@HobbySpacer Hey, I'm not complaining. ;-) It's still a huge savings either way. I guess there isn't much to the service module anyway, it seems to be mostly just a cowling and some solar panels. Can't wait for the ISS mission in March! I hope they'll be able to demonstrate at least some of this reusable-rocket plan on that flight. Cracking that puzzle will be a real game changer.
Exciting video. I hope something of this sort can be reliably implemented. I would sugest using fold out helicopter blades possibly propelled by small rockets or jet engines for more efficiency in controlled landing by using the surrounding air. Also a backup system of air bags should be used to prevent a crash from propulsion failure down to the last moment.
what happen to this video no really I mean it use to be on the real spacex channel then it got deleted is it possible he change his mind about this plan
@TheCHUCKY1992 It got reuploaded without the music. Either they lost their rights to "Uprising" or else they decided that a rock sound track was painting them as unprofessional (in the eyes of the customers -- I love it). The video is still featured #1 on the SpaceX website.
@vaandor1: Pro-risk libertarian sentiments are solidly within the Space Community's mainstream, particularly the huge numbers of people aching for a new frontier and a practical right-of-exit. While not everybody's cup of tea, I'm guessing he didn't catch much flak for it.
Remember in the constellation videos, those "cool" radially folding solar panels?...
WHY!?
Why would you fold them in such a complicated, strange, unusual way!?
I think that's just a little telling thing, it shows that those Orion engineers were doing really pointlessly overcomplicated things for no good reason.
But he Dragon, doesn't do that crap. SpaceX knows the best way to do things is the simplest, cheapest. A very different philosophy that has changed spaceflight!
@Pulm0nary I would advise that you check the SpaceX website, but I have heard that it works on paper and would guess that a private company would strive to make this a reality due to it's potential to alter human history.
As to the heat shield - SpaceX is using an evolved proprietary version of NASA's PICA thermal protection system called PICA-X, which was developed in conjunction with NASA. It's lightweight, does not have to be very thick and is good for lunar or Mars re-entry. They're thinking WAY ahead.
The Shuttles were not fully reusable. Each External Tank, at a cost of $50M, was thrown away. The Solid Rocket Boosters were recovered but needed disassembly and total refurbishment. The Orbiter was extensively refurbished. Several thousand people did this rebuild between flights and that's why ach flight cost a billion dollars.
The goal of SpaceX is for full re-usability AND rapid turnaround for the next flight. That sort of near airline type of operation will achieve airliner type of costs.
Returning the first stage I can understand. Returning the second stage from the edge of space is just plain crazy. Heatshields are heavy, and any extra weight of the second stage translates into extra fuel on the first stage.
"thought it would be inefficient to carry fuel not only for take off but also for landing"
Airplanes do it all the time. It's extremely inefficient to throw a vehicle away for each flight. Far better to sacrifice some payload to gain a huge increase in cost-effectiveness. Can easily make up the lost payload capacity with extra flights.
@stevenrjanssens Parachutes only make sense if you can't make it work with powered systems. Minimizing operations costs is the goal.The lowest cost operations will come with just the following: launch, return, reattach the components, re-fuel and re-launch. Chasing down parachuted components out in the ocean greatly increases the complexity of the process, increases the number of people involved, will require refurbishment of components after seawater exposure, etc.
@stevenrjanssens Another note: Those rockets are already there, and, although rockets need an enormous amount of propellant to, literally, make astronomical changes in velocity, braking for landing takes a shockingly small amount of propellant.
@Tribersman "Airplane don't have to carry several time their own mass in fuel as par of their propulsive method."
I know that. Elon Musk and all engineers know that. That's why there have been innumerable designs using parachutes, parasails, etc. This effort is deliberately to avoid parachutes, parasails, etc. in pursuit of simple robust operations and fast turnaround. As Musk said in his news conf, they may fail but their calcs & sims say it will work and it is well worth a try.
Maybe but it doesn't change the fact those video look pretty much "exaggerated" (not to say blatant lie, 50% of this video is credible) about their rockets capacity. (Just like "Skylon" except this time it take the form of something that do exist).
They may succeed at getting better rocket but they aren't miracle worker.
@Tribersman No, the video is not a lie, blatant or otherwise. Musk said there were some things missing and some things wrong but it gives the basic plan. This project is funded with internal company money. They are not going to spend a big chunk of their limited money on this if they are not fairly sure it can work. They were the first non-country entity to put a capsule into orbit and retrieve it intact. They have credibility when it comes to doing something new & difficult.
@Tribersman No doubt most of the deceleration is aerodynamic. A capsule shape can decelerate to less than 200 mph on it's on. It is clear to me the thrusters in the apporach are for control and only throttle up to decelerate in the last few hundred feet.
Indeed, but I still consider the idea way too optimistic, clearly the 1st stage didn't reached orbital speed so braking will be easier and parachute can be used
The second stage on the other hand IS on LEO, so they need another abrasive shield, at this point they could even make it into a shuttle.
Conceptually anything that don't leave debris (even on LEO) is cool.
What annoy me is how this video is trying to look awesome "look no parachute", so lying a little.
Obviously they must have taken this into account - But I would have thought it would be inefficient to carry fuel not only for take off but also for landing - ?
Hi, fantastic technology , wish I could be a part of this, as this is the future , and it looks like its going to happen soon, please keep the momentum up, thank you.
@eacao Actually if they can pull that fantasy off the ship will be really expensive but the flights will be really cheap as they don't have to build a new rocket each time they launch or so they say ?
FAA just gave SpaceX the go-ahead to fly modified F9 first stage called Grasshopper, a testbed for the vertical landing systems.
Dragon stores ~1,300 kg of propellant in its service bay around the bottom of the capsule, but outside of the crew/cargo presdure hull.
The odds are that while it currently uses a toxic hypergolic (self igniting) fuel/oxidizer like shuttle used they may well switch to NOFBX, a single fluid propellant that's non-toxic.
Second stage and Dragon could land anywhere their orbit goes over, but where are they planning to land Stage1? It can't have enough fuel to kill all outward velocity and return to Florida without sacrificing useful payload too much.
IIRC it is forbidden to fly over populated areas during early phases of launch. so launch from Texas is out. Also a fixed landing site would allow only one fixed orbit inclanation that could be reached severaly limiting the flexibility of this launch system.
i dont get why use rockets to decelerate all the way from reentry speeds to full stop, wouldnt it be more mass effective to use parachutesfor the major part of deceleration and than only switch rockets on for the last 50 meters of altitude?
the whole concept is bad. why not make an airplane which can go in space? why the ROCKET has to be there? because of enormeous money invested in fuel? if there was no money restrictions, we would already have something from Star Trek. But one day they will sum up all costs and find out they could make half cheaper space ship
I have to agree with antinominianist and osychenko, this is nothing but a PR video. There is no viable, cost effective way to return launch stack components to the Earth's surface without aerodynamic aparati. Nearly all propellant would be expended going uphill and anything left over might just be merely adequate for a final braking manuver very close to the earth's surface. I would envision something involving inflatable airfoils, control surfaces, heat shields and light landing gear.
Stage 1 re-entry with non-aerodynamic nose (previously tail), burning fuel to reduce re-entry velocity and the resulting burnout due to atmosphere will fail.
Stage 2 re-orientation after re-entry will fail at high velocities in air.
I think this is a desperate plea to congress to get more funding. I don't think even the idiots in Washington will give the green light on this.
And by the way, if NASA hadn't poured half our net worth down the Space Shuttle dead end, we'd probably have developed a rocket system like this by the 1990's. We should have never abandoned capsules in the early 70's. The shuttle was delicate, cost more to launch than a Saturn V, and very unsafe. They did some great things with it (Hubble), but it really was a technological dead end. Back to capsules!
This is very cool. The first stage must have landed in Africa? It could not have made it "once around", and carrying enough fuel to completely zero out forward velocity and then return to Florida would reduce the cargo weight too much? I could see the second stage doing a "once around". They need to make this sucker totally autonomous so they don't have to pay a room with 500 people in it to monitor the mission - that most cost a fortune too. I like it.
"Currently, a Falcon rocket costs between 50-60 million dollars to build and launch, with fuel and oxygen costs making up just 200,000 dollars" -from a physorg article.
The shuttle carried extra fuel up on each flight which was left in the external tank so not a problem. If the extra fuel and systems means you don't have to build new rockets every time you launch then that equals big savings. And so what if you lose a rocket component every so often, They are unmanned. And as for the Dragon, it will have a back up chute too. Look up the DC-X project. it worked very well.
It seems really wasteful to me to haul enough extra fuel along to land 3 separate craft. I just don't see that being feasible. also looks to be overly complicated. you lose one engine and the whole thing is over.
@slappomatt - 1st stage mass penalty is minimal, the landing legs will probably cost more lost payload than the propellant. 2nd stage will be close to a 1:1 trade between landing propellant and payload; Dragon capsule with its built-in emergency separation system for launch will use that same propellant and engines for descent and landing. Overall, they can make this work because the Falcon 9 base design is very mass efficient. One hallmark of Falcon is multiple engine-out fault tolerance.
@elWaldinoo I think the idea is to make it so the Parachute is a secondary messure. Its used now but hopefully if they can get thos done in the next 10-15 years it WILL be revolutionary in every way.
@valcan321 I agree. If you think about it being able to land without the parachutes is just an extra level of safety. the parachutes can still be there as a backup.
From what I've heard, the Dragon's Launch Escape System is re-purposed for the task of landing. Chemical fuels can be more compact than you might realize.
@balkum And it might not take nearly as much fuel as one would think. I did some very rudimentary math and figured it'd only need about 400 kg of propellant to land a fully loaded Dragon weighing about 7 tonnes. The atmosphere slows the craft down from 8 km/s to perhaps about 100 m/s, and that's all the rockets have to deal with.
@Elukka Because rockets need enormous mass ratios to make those extremely, rediculously enormous velocities needed for spaceflight, people often forget: a little bit of rocket fuel actually goes a long way...
@chrisradcliff Agreed if they can do that the technological achievement wIll FAR out shine the price benefit its mind boggling…………also have they improved rocket efficiencies while I wasn't looking? I didn't think I was possible to carry enough fuel to slow decent as well ?
@chrisradcliff im not familiar with the capsule design, however i'd be willing to bet the RCS and powered landing motor tanks are behind the heat shield
@mojoeyFTW The thrusters are actually above the heat shield in the wall and thrust out at an angle. The odd thing is that retro thrusters can be pretty far off axis before they loose much efficiency. That is so cool because these angled thrusters can work even when a lower stage is behind them because they angle out. Multiple use.
why dont they use parachutes? isnt that cheaper?
PlutonGB 1 week ago
Looks cool, but the amount of fuel needed seems impractical. Then alas, I am no rocket scientist .
sufizmjim 1 week ago
00:58 really?
miketv 3 weeks ago
@miketv Yes, really. Landing the first stage vertically is actually the easiest of the three recovery scenes. Plenty of rockets have already done this, including DC-X, Scorpius, Project M, Xombie, and Blue Ball.
Odo987 3 weeks ago
@Odo987 I stand corrected....awesome
miketv 3 weeks ago
@Zond:
PICA-X is ablative, but very tough. SpaceX estimates their shield could be reused for up to dozens of flights, and measurements taken on the landed Dragon tend to bear that out.
docmordrid 4 weeks ago
The reason everything they are doing makes fantastic sense to me is that long ago I read a book called "Thrust Into Space" by Maxwell Hunter. It's all about the mass ratio and all the tricky things you can do to finagle it. Geary Hudson has written some great stuff on this too.
DrZond 4 weeks ago
@DrZond I heard Max talk a few times at the Space Access Society conferences. He was clearly a really smart guy and also very soft-spoken and mild mannered. Too bad he isn't around to see what is happening with the suborbital RLVs and to advise SpaceX. Gary still comes to the conferences and always gives an excellent presentation.
HobbySpacer 4 weeks ago
I think this development is fantastic. Question. If this vehicle is taking off from Cape Canaveral, are all stages also landing at Cape Canaveral? Are all stages completing an orbit? including the first?
DrZond 4 weeks ago
@DrZond The animation shows the 3 parts returning to the same site. However, Elon said there were some incorrect details in the animation plus some proprietary details left out. It appears that the 1st stage does not go around but instead flies back to the pad. If that turns out to be too hard, maybe they will try an alternative. E.g. Bezos has a patent app in which the 1st stage lands on an off-shore barge. It looks like the 2nd stage does go around.
HobbySpacer 4 weeks ago
@HobbySpacer Thank you for that answer. It seemed inconceivable that the first stage could amount to a single-stage-to-orbit with the whole upper stages contributing to it's mass.
DrZond 4 weeks ago
Another advantage of this fully reusable technology, is that it can be transferred to the Moon or Mars and used there with continuous benefit. This marries the benefits of staging with the common sense of 100% re-usability. I love it (and I wrote a book about space-planes!)
SuperMagnetizer 1 month ago
200,000 vs 55,000,000 is like 2$ fuel for every 550$ of vehicle. Would you throw away 550$ to save about 25 cents return fuel? would you make that mistake with 100,000 times more money?
Wesnex1 1 month ago
Just don't understand the vertical landing thing. So inefficient to boost fuel into space that will used for a descent that gravity and some good parachutes will do for free(or pretty close to it).
By the way, the reason we don't throw airplanes away after each use is that most of the mass is returned intact. Remember:in the space biz cost per pound to orbit rules ALL!
quotoo 1 month ago
@quotoo Rapid re-flight is crucial for lo costs ops. Need to get all parts back to launch site directly & safely. Parachutes won't do it. Need powered return or to glide. Wings use up wt & useless in space. Wings vs return fuel is a design trade.
Rapid reuse gives a high flight rate that more than makes up for payload mass lost to return system mass.
Fuel is tiny fraction of costs: ~$200k for all fuel vs ~$55M for F9 hardware
Rapid reuse lowers cost to orbit by factor ~100 over ELV.
HobbySpacer 1 month ago 9
@HobbySpacer
how about hangglider and paragilder?
lokitpiy 1 month ago
@lokitpiy Armadillo Aerospace is experimenting with that technique for their single stage suborbital rockets. For orbital multistage, still need to power the stages back fairly near to the launch site before deploying parafoils or parachutes. If they can return with powered landings, it would be far more straight-forward and reliable. NASA did some X-38 drop test landings with a parafoil. Even with a small lifting body, it was non-trivial. Doing it with a long tube stage looks hard.
HobbySpacer 1 month ago
Launch Mass Ratio: R
Launch and Landing Mass Ratio: R^2
Guess they have some R's to spare.
AndreasTziolas 1 month ago
Musk tweeted today -
"@elonmusk Elon Musk
Design completed for bringing rocket back to launchpad using only thrusters. Yay. Wings r just dead weight in space."
which some are interpreting means the landing will be done using a cluster of SuperDraco thrusters, not one of the Merlin-1D engines. This would probably result in a much deeper degree of throttleability.
docmordrid 1 month ago
Looks like the Dragon service module is the only thing that doesn't get reused. Are there plans to salvage that too? If not, how much does it cost to build? That, plus fuel, would be the minimum cost per flight.
taiwanjohn88 1 month ago
@taiwanjohn88 I haven't heard anything from SpaceX about whether the animation is correct in showing that the service module would be discarded in an operational system. Even if it is, this would still represent a relatively modest additional cost compared to throwing away the whole vehicle or a large fuel tank as was done by the Shuttle. A 1st-gen F9 system that was 95% reusable with fast turnaround of the main components would still be a big step in lowering costs.
HobbySpacer 1 month ago
@taiwanjohn88 I haven't heard anything from SpaceX about whether the animation is correct in showing that the service module would be discarded in an operational system. Even if it is, this would still represent a relatively modest additional cost compared to throwing away the whole vehicle or a large fuel tank as was done by the Shuttle. A 1st-gen F9 system that was 95% reusable with fast turnaround of the main components would still be a big step in lowering costs.
HobbySpacer 1 month ago
@taiwanjohn88 I haven't heard anything from SpaceX about whether the animation is correct in showing that the service module would be discarded in an operational system. Even if it is, this would still represent a relatively modest additional cost compared to throwing away the whole vehicle or a large fuel tank as was done by the Shuttle. A 1st-gen F9 system that was 95% reusable with fast turnaround of the main components would still be a big step in lowering costs.
HobbySpacer 1 month ago
@HobbySpacer Hey, I'm not complaining. ;-) It's still a huge savings either way. I guess there isn't much to the service module anyway, it seems to be mostly just a cowling and some solar panels. Can't wait for the ISS mission in March! I hope they'll be able to demonstrate at least some of this reusable-rocket plan on that flight. Cracking that puzzle will be a real game changer.
taiwanjohn88 1 month ago
They have stated many times this video is missing elements. They are trying to make money off this stuff you know :)
SolX2Mars 1 month ago
That looks amazing!
Flyberius 1 month ago
Jeff Bezos is going to be pissed about this xD
GO SPACEX!!!!!!!!!
FreedomLiberty21 1 month ago
Exciting video. I hope something of this sort can be reliably implemented. I would sugest using fold out helicopter blades possibly propelled by small rockets or jet engines for more efficiency in controlled landing by using the surrounding air. Also a backup system of air bags should be used to prevent a crash from propulsion failure down to the last moment.
Wesnex1 2 months ago
what happen to this video no really I mean it use to be on the real spacex channel then it got deleted is it possible he change his mind about this plan
TheCHUCKY1992 2 months ago
@TheCHUCKY1992 It got reuploaded without the music. Either they lost their rights to "Uprising" or else they decided that a rock sound track was painting them as unprofessional (in the eyes of the customers -- I love it). The video is still featured #1 on the SpaceX website.
Odo987 2 months ago
@Odo987 "or else they decided that a rock sound track was painting them as unprofessional"
Am I the only one thinking that singing "They will not control us" under a video of a controlled returning space vessel might be strange? :-)
Also: "let revolution take its toll (...) we should never be afraid to die" under a revolutional, human staffed spaceship???
Love the music though.
vaandor1 1 month ago 2
@vaandor1: Pro-risk libertarian sentiments are solidly within the Space Community's mainstream, particularly the huge numbers of people aching for a new frontier and a practical right-of-exit. While not everybody's cup of tea, I'm guessing he didn't catch much flak for it.
scholarsvoices 1 month ago
Bravo U.S. were at it again
usmctate 2 months ago
2:03
I love this...
Remember in the constellation videos, those "cool" radially folding solar panels?...
WHY!?
Why would you fold them in such a complicated, strange, unusual way!?
I think that's just a little telling thing, it shows that those Orion engineers were doing really pointlessly overcomplicated things for no good reason.
But he Dragon, doesn't do that crap. SpaceX knows the best way to do things is the simplest, cheapest. A very different philosophy that has changed spaceflight!
Eagle1Division2 2 months ago
Just an FYI - Dragon doesn't require much fuel because there's no downward acceleration fighting it. A small push goes a long way.
dleshkov93 2 months ago
"because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do!"
-"Think Different"-Apple Commercial
wegafunk 2 months ago
do asian americans work at NASA and SpaceX?
VanillaSnow23 2 months ago
Is this something they've actually developed, or simply a concept animation of something they're working on?
Pulm0nary 2 months ago
@Pulm0nary I would advise that you check the SpaceX website, but I have heard that it works on paper and would guess that a private company would strive to make this a reality due to it's potential to alter human history.
Starpilot149 2 months ago
@Pulm0nary lol, if they'd already developed this, you would know xp
Eagle1Division2 2 months ago
@pirlove
As to the heat shield - SpaceX is using an evolved proprietary version of NASA's PICA thermal protection system called PICA-X, which was developed in conjunction with NASA. It's lightweight, does not have to be very thick and is good for lunar or Mars re-entry. They're thinking WAY ahead.
tstetler 2 months ago 2
@tstetler Is it ablative? I would think for reusability they would try not to use an ablative shield.
DrZond 4 weeks ago
The Shuttles were not fully reusable. Each External Tank, at a cost of $50M, was thrown away. The Solid Rocket Boosters were recovered but needed disassembly and total refurbishment. The Orbiter was extensively refurbished. Several thousand people did this rebuild between flights and that's why ach flight cost a billion dollars.
The goal of SpaceX is for full re-usability AND rapid turnaround for the next flight. That sort of near airline type of operation will achieve airliner type of costs.
HobbySpacer 2 months ago
How is this different from the space shuttle, same technique different components...
xzaz2 2 months ago
Returning the first stage I can understand. Returning the second stage from the edge of space is just plain crazy. Heatshields are heavy, and any extra weight of the second stage translates into extra fuel on the first stage.
plrlove 3 months ago
"thought it would be inefficient to carry fuel not only for take off but also for landing"
Airplanes do it all the time. It's extremely inefficient to throw a vehicle away for each flight. Far better to sacrifice some payload to gain a huge increase in cost-effectiveness. Can easily make up the lost payload capacity with extra flights.
HobbySpacer 3 months ago 5
@HobbySpacer not to mention this could be used to land on planets like mars :P
EvilSiper 3 months ago
@HobbySpacer Agreed but wouldn't parachutes be both simpler and cheaper for weight?
stevenrjanssens 2 months ago
@stevenrjanssens Parachutes only make sense if you can't make it work with powered systems. Minimizing operations costs is the goal.The lowest cost operations will come with just the following: launch, return, reattach the components, re-fuel and re-launch. Chasing down parachuted components out in the ocean greatly increases the complexity of the process, increases the number of people involved, will require refurbishment of components after seawater exposure, etc.
HobbySpacer 2 months ago
@HobbySpacer
Newer parachute technology may become indistinguishable from controlled flight.
You are not forced to land on the sea when you have such a control.
Tribersman 2 months ago
@HobbySpacer yeah, the goal is less people involved
Ulterior1980 2 months ago
@stevenrjanssens Another note: Those rockets are already there, and, although rockets need an enormous amount of propellant to, literally, make astronomical changes in velocity, braking for landing takes a shockingly small amount of propellant.
Eagle1Division2 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@HobbySpacer
Airplane don't have to carry several time their own mass in fuel as par of their propulsive method.
Anyway this is just publicity stunt, by the time they reach this point there is a thousand project of very controllable parachute being worked on.
Tribersman 2 months ago
@Tribersman "Airplane don't have to carry several time their own mass in fuel as par of their propulsive method."
I know that. Elon Musk and all engineers know that. That's why there have been innumerable designs using parachutes, parasails, etc. This effort is deliberately to avoid parachutes, parasails, etc. in pursuit of simple robust operations and fast turnaround. As Musk said in his news conf, they may fail but their calcs & sims say it will work and it is well worth a try.
HobbySpacer 2 months ago
@HobbySpacer
Maybe but it doesn't change the fact those video look pretty much "exaggerated" (not to say blatant lie, 50% of this video is credible) about their rockets capacity. (Just like "Skylon" except this time it take the form of something that do exist).
They may succeed at getting better rocket but they aren't miracle worker.
Tribersman 1 month ago
@Tribersman No, the video is not a lie, blatant or otherwise. Musk said there were some things missing and some things wrong but it gives the basic plan. This project is funded with internal company money. They are not going to spend a big chunk of their limited money on this if they are not fairly sure it can work. They were the first non-country entity to put a capsule into orbit and retrieve it intact. They have credibility when it comes to doing something new & difficult.
HobbySpacer 1 month ago
@HobbySpacer
Don't exaggerate what I said. Arguably most of the video is indeed possible.
But even as advertisement this is a lie to pretend a truck size capsule can brake all this way on pure thrust.
And I insist on "all this way", slowing with parachute and then firing-rocket is what probe do.
The same way :
Virgin Galactic isn't going to have a true air-dropped SSTO shuttle anytime soon.
And we aren't landing on Mars in 2020.
Tribersman 1 month ago
@Tribersman No doubt most of the deceleration is aerodynamic. A capsule shape can decelerate to less than 200 mph on it's on. It is clear to me the thrusters in the apporach are for control and only throttle up to decelerate in the last few hundred feet.
DrZond 4 weeks ago
@DrZond
Indeed, but I still consider the idea way too optimistic, clearly the 1st stage didn't reached orbital speed so braking will be easier and parachute can be used
The second stage on the other hand IS on LEO, so they need another abrasive shield, at this point they could even make it into a shuttle.
Conceptually anything that don't leave debris (even on LEO) is cool.
What annoy me is how this video is trying to look awesome "look no parachute", so lying a little.
Tribersman 1 hour ago
Obviously they must have taken this into account - But I would have thought it would be inefficient to carry fuel not only for take off but also for landing - ?
Chumblybum 3 months ago
Hi, fantastic technology , wish I could be a part of this, as this is the future , and it looks like its going to happen soon, please keep the momentum up, thank you.
MrRock109 3 months ago
thats going to be reeeally expensive.
eacao 4 months ago
@eacao Actually if they can pull that fantasy off the ship will be really expensive but the flights will be really cheap as they don't have to build a new rocket each time they launch or so they say ?
Risenangelicaegis 4 months ago
FAA just gave SpaceX the go-ahead to fly modified F9 first stage called Grasshopper, a testbed for the vertical landing systems.
Dragon stores ~1,300 kg of propellant in its service bay around the bottom of the capsule, but outside of the crew/cargo presdure hull.
The odds are that while it currently uses a toxic hypergolic (self igniting) fuel/oxidizer like shuttle used they may well switch to NOFBX, a single fluid propellant that's non-toxic.
Next stop is a methane fueled engine.
tstetler 4 months ago
Comment removed
tstetler 4 months ago
looks like science fiction - please let me see this in 10 years. Musk is my f... hero
NASA can lick his balls.
lonkow 4 months ago
Second stage and Dragon could land anywhere their orbit goes over, but where are they planning to land Stage1? It can't have enough fuel to kill all outward velocity and return to Florida without sacrificing useful payload too much.
SkyyCaptainn 4 months ago
@SkyyCaptainn
Launch in Texas, land in Florida.
HaroldHoltCantSwim 4 months ago
@HaroldHoltCantSwim
IIRC it is forbidden to fly over populated areas during early phases of launch. so launch from Texas is out. Also a fixed landing site would allow only one fixed orbit inclanation that could be reached severaly limiting the flexibility of this launch system.
SkyyCaptainn 4 months ago
Looks reasonable. I hope they can pull it off and it's not just hype.
BrantMarcksson 4 months ago
*Results may vary.
CaveCricket48 5 months ago 24
it should self-assemble both stages and then a Dragon upon return - to be ready fueled up and go back to the space
kingsb76 5 months ago 2
i dont get why use rockets to decelerate all the way from reentry speeds to full stop, wouldnt it be more mass effective to use parachutesfor the major part of deceleration and than only switch rockets on for the last 50 meters of altitude?
mynicknametaken 5 months ago
the whole concept is bad. why not make an airplane which can go in space? why the ROCKET has to be there? because of enormeous money invested in fuel? if there was no money restrictions, we would already have something from Star Trek. But one day they will sum up all costs and find out they could make half cheaper space ship
dakkydakky 5 months ago
Um.. No way.. Uh.. What... uh... UHH.... UHHHH..
This thing.. Oh god.. This isn't sci-fi?
Is it more fuel-expense to go all the way around the planet with the first stage instead of backtracking?
ubentu 5 months ago
I have to agree with antinominianist and osychenko, this is nothing but a PR video. There is no viable, cost effective way to return launch stack components to the Earth's surface without aerodynamic aparati. Nearly all propellant would be expended going uphill and anything left over might just be merely adequate for a final braking manuver very close to the earth's surface. I would envision something involving inflatable airfoils, control surfaces, heat shields and light landing gear.
pinmode 5 months ago
if it lands perfectly like that I would be very very VERY impressed
PirateMcSandwich 5 months ago
I am skeptical.
Stage 1 re-entry with non-aerodynamic nose (previously tail), burning fuel to reduce re-entry velocity and the resulting burnout due to atmosphere will fail.
Stage 2 re-orientation after re-entry will fail at high velocities in air.
I think this is a desperate plea to congress to get more funding. I don't think even the idiots in Washington will give the green light on this.
antinominianist 5 months ago
also the possibility to land so precisely at the pods without any aerodynamic means looks pretty doubtful to me
osychenko 5 months ago
And by the way, if NASA hadn't poured half our net worth down the Space Shuttle dead end, we'd probably have developed a rocket system like this by the 1990's. We should have never abandoned capsules in the early 70's. The shuttle was delicate, cost more to launch than a Saturn V, and very unsafe. They did some great things with it (Hubble), but it really was a technological dead end. Back to capsules!
geocam2 5 months ago
make all the stages land on engines at least doubles the fuel consumption, and the whole efficiency thing goes to hell. Doesn't look feasible at all.
osychenko 5 months ago
This is very cool. The first stage must have landed in Africa? It could not have made it "once around", and carrying enough fuel to completely zero out forward velocity and then return to Florida would reduce the cargo weight too much? I could see the second stage doing a "once around". They need to make this sucker totally autonomous so they don't have to pay a room with 500 people in it to monitor the mission - that most cost a fortune too. I like it.
geocam2 5 months ago
Comment removed
kasuskasus 5 months ago
Good luck!
Alectr0n 5 months ago
"Currently, a Falcon rocket costs between 50-60 million dollars to build and launch, with fuel and oxygen costs making up just 200,000 dollars" -from a physorg article.
SurfAlbatross 5 months ago
The shuttle carried extra fuel up on each flight which was left in the external tank so not a problem. If the extra fuel and systems means you don't have to build new rockets every time you launch then that equals big savings. And so what if you lose a rocket component every so often, They are unmanned. And as for the Dragon, it will have a back up chute too. Look up the DC-X project. it worked very well.
dksharp1 5 months ago
It seems really wasteful to me to haul enough extra fuel along to land 3 separate craft. I just don't see that being feasible. also looks to be overly complicated. you lose one engine and the whole thing is over.
slappomatt 5 months ago
@slappomatt The engines have redundancy built in. And with a reusable system, you don't need to make new ones for each mission.
kenhes 5 months ago
@slappomatt - 1st stage mass penalty is minimal, the landing legs will probably cost more lost payload than the propellant. 2nd stage will be close to a 1:1 trade between landing propellant and payload; Dragon capsule with its built-in emergency separation system for launch will use that same propellant and engines for descent and landing. Overall, they can make this work because the Falcon 9 base design is very mass efficient. One hallmark of Falcon is multiple engine-out fault tolerance.
spacesterzone 5 months ago 4
Seems like they forgot there is something like a parachute, and can be used at least for the last return capsule
elWaldinoo 5 months ago
@elWaldinoo I think the idea is to make it so the Parachute is a secondary messure. Its used now but hopefully if they can get thos done in the next 10-15 years it WILL be revolutionary in every way.
valcan321 5 months ago
@valcan321 I agree. If you think about it being able to land without the parachutes is just an extra level of safety. the parachutes can still be there as a backup.
ajerojason 5 months ago
the second stage part blew me away with suprize
mobius1234 5 months ago
I thought it would be much longer before they had a viable design for full re-useability. SpaceX isn't holdin' back.
henik9 5 months ago
Wow. So crazy it might actually work.
Go SpaceX.
HarblesTheSkeptial 5 months ago
First off: I adore this. My jaw is still on the floor.
My second thought: where is all that fuel stored in the Dragon capsule?
chrisradcliff 5 months ago 19
@chrisradcliff ive got in the HD and have watched it 20 times already
mobius1234 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chrisradcliff ive got on the HD and have watched it 20 times already
mobius1234 5 months ago
@chrisradcliff
From what I've heard, the Dragon's Launch Escape System is re-purposed for the task of landing. Chemical fuels can be more compact than you might realize.
balkum 4 months ago
@balkum And it might not take nearly as much fuel as one would think. I did some very rudimentary math and figured it'd only need about 400 kg of propellant to land a fully loaded Dragon weighing about 7 tonnes. The atmosphere slows the craft down from 8 km/s to perhaps about 100 m/s, and that's all the rockets have to deal with.
Elukka 2 months ago 4
@Elukka Because rockets need enormous mass ratios to make those extremely, rediculously enormous velocities needed for spaceflight, people often forget: a little bit of rocket fuel actually goes a long way...
Eagle1Division2 2 months ago
@chrisradcliff Agreed if they can do that the technological achievement wIll FAR out shine the price benefit its mind boggling…………also have they improved rocket efficiencies while I wasn't looking? I didn't think I was possible to carry enough fuel to slow decent as well ?
Risenangelicaegis 4 months ago
Comment removed
tstetler 3 months ago
@chrisradcliff im not familiar with the capsule design, however i'd be willing to bet the RCS and powered landing motor tanks are behind the heat shield
mojoeyFTW 2 months ago
@mojoeyFTW The thrusters are actually above the heat shield in the wall and thrust out at an angle. The odd thing is that retro thrusters can be pretty far off axis before they loose much efficiency. That is so cool because these angled thrusters can work even when a lower stage is behind them because they angle out. Multiple use.
DrZond 4 weeks ago