Elon Musk confirms Falcon 9 first stage single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) capable.

[Nibb31]

10 minutes ago, cantab said:

Back on topic. As mentioned a fair few rockets can do this in theory. But will any do it in practice? It seems like Elon's making an off-the-cuff comment, I doubt there's any real plans, but I do think SpaceX has a better position than some because they've made their success by focussing on comparative mass production. If SpaceX want to move into the small-payload market beyond what they can do by offering "piggyback" rides on a larger launches, then a F9 SSTO might be considerably cheaper for them to develop and operate than a smaller multistage design.

I don't see how throwing away 9 Merlin engines for a 50Kg payload could ever be economical. A multistage rocket would be much cheaper and there are a couple of them on the market already.

[Rakaydos]

16 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

I don't see how throwing away 9 Merlin engines for a 50Kg payload could ever be economical. A multistage rocket would be much cheaper and there are a couple of them on the market already.

The only situation I can think of is if the merlin engines ARE they payload.

[Nibb31]

53 minutes ago, cantab said:

 

Why does the new forum software insist that I want to requote an old post ? This sucks !

20 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

The only situation I can think of is if the merlin engines ARE they payload.

I don't see how that would be practical or useful. You can't remove them from a stage on orbit without some serious EVA work for which the stage would have to be redesigned from scratch. They aren't optimized for use in vacuum either. You'd be better off launching a cargo pallet of 20 new Merlin 1D-Vacs on a single Falcon 9.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Nibb31

[sojourner]

SpaceX had a smaller multi-stage design. The Falcon 1.  It went out of production due to lack of market.

Edited November 30, 2015 by sojourner

[Sanic]

On November 25, 2015 at 10:24:25 AM, Shania_L said:

Not to poke all the Musk fanbois too much, but this just looks like a media friendly soundbyte a few days after a BlueOrigin success. Just a little "Hey remember us?" for SpaceX to stay current in a very short-term memory world.

Sure if you take all the payload off, I'm sure a whole range of different rockets could be SSTO, there is no reason to do such a thing though.

True. That's the business world. SpaceX wants to divert some attention, no matter how little, from Blue Origin's success with the launcher return from 100 km.

No offense, SpaceX fanbois.

[ColKlonk]

A bunch of idjuts with a lot of investors money to waste on fragile ego trips..

Buuutttt .. it's good for preliminary elimination of really stupid ideas wrt to space exploration.

:-)

Edited November 30, 2015 by ColKlonk

[Motokid600]

1 hour ago, ColKlonk said:

A bunch of idjuts with a lot of investors money to waste on fragile ego trips..

Buuutttt .. it's good for preliminary elimination of really stupid ideas wrt to space exploration.

:-)

You think SpaceX is an ego trip? Sorry I couldn't understand your post all that much.

[fredinno]

5 hours ago, sojourner said:

SpaceX had a smaller multi-stage design. The Falcon 1.  It went out of production due to lack of market.

It was even sponsored by DOD.

[Elukka]

On 11/26/2015, 3:14:11, LordFerret said:

Well Musk needs to pull something off 100%, he's running out of money according to business news... his big solar thingie (Solar City) went bust the other day, among other things. Word I've gotten is that he's now putting everything into his new battery. Might be the only thing that saves him.

What gives you that impression? SpaceX has a very robust launch manifest with a lot of customers and has reportedly been profitable for a number of years. Just earlier this year they secured a large round of investment that valued the company at $12 billion.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Elukka

[Nibb31]

High company value != Profitable

[Kryten]

$12 billion isn't a terribly credible valuation anyway, that's a a good bit higher than revenue for the entire launch industry.

[LordFerret]

29 minutes ago, Elukka said:

What gives you that impression? SpaceX has a very robust launch manifest with a lot of customers and has reportedly been profitable for a number of years. Just earlier this year they secured a large round of investment that valued the company at $12 billion.

What gives me the impression is the word and opinion of the business world - aka business news. Musk's ventures are failing, several of them, and along with that failure goes his fortune. Just about every venture he's currently got his fingers in is in the Red, not the Black. The only saving grace he's got at this moment is his new battery ... if it takes off he'll fair better.

What Musk says himself is one thing. You have to watch the money. Watch what his investors are doing... or rather, where they're going.

 

16 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

High company value != Profitable

Exactly.

[Apexazimuth]

I can't believe New Shepard is even being compared to Falcon 9.  One's an orbital launch vehicle, the other is an expensive toy.   The way the press are toting around that high mach number as if it's some kind of achievement is hilarious.  You don't see SpaceX talking mach numbers because their rockets work in ORBITAL velocities.   It's like comparing an unpowered glider to a supersonic jet...

[Kryten]

It's weird to see all the SpaceX fanboys go from 'reusability is going to make space stupidly cheap' to 'reusibility is meaningless if it isn't going fast enough'. Weren't these the people gushing over grasshopper not too long ago? Do they not realise this is going to be the first opportunity to really work out the economics of reuse?

[magnemoe]

10 hours ago, Apexazimuth said:

I can't believe New Shepard is even being compared to Falcon 9.  One's an orbital launch vehicle, the other is an expensive toy.   The way the press are toting around that high mach number as if it's some kind of achievement is hilarious.  You don't see SpaceX talking mach numbers because their rockets work in ORBITAL velocities.   It's like comparing an unpowered glider to a supersonic jet...

Well New Shepard reach around the same speed as Falcon 9 first stage, put an small second stage on it and you have an orbital launcher, 
Yes this will require landing downrange or boost back. 

[Nibb31]

New Shepard is suborbital and basically goes up and down. It probably reaches Mach 3 at one point, but when it reaches its apogee its vertical speed and horizontal speed are near zero. If you launch a second stage at that point, it will have to carry the total dV to reach orbit: 9-10 km/s. That's a lot for a second stage even without a significant payload.

Most rockets, including Falcon 9, stage at around Mach 4-5, meaning that the total dV to get to orbit is nearly equally divided between both stages.

 

Edited December 2, 2015 by Nibb31

[Rune]

11 hours ago, Kryten said:

It's weird to see all the SpaceX fanboys go from 'reusability is going to make space stupidly cheap' to 'reusibility is meaningless if it isn't going fast enough'. Weren't these the people gushing over grasshopper not too long ago? Do they not realise this is going to be the first opportunity to really work out the economics of reuse?

SpaceX fanboys aside, what irks me is that insistence on using the word "first". Plenty of reusable rocket vehicles out there. If anything this is the first H2/LOX reusable rocket vehicle. Wait, DC-X. Nope, no firsts on this flight. And I don't think that is the right propellant combination to build a reusable rocket vehicle anyway.

 

Rune. IIRC, the truly first one was the Me-163 Komet, circa 1941.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Rune

[Kryten]

Nobody's claiming it's the first reusable rocket, it's the first rocket to land from space.

[wumpus]

6 hours ago, Kryten said:

Nobody's claiming it's the first reusable rocket, it's the first rocket to land from space.

Nope.  First "powered landing" from space [to Earth].  Other rockets that have landed from space:

X-15: First!  And manned (199 X-15 missions, although few went into space.   That's more X-15 launches on 3 planes than the whole fleet of shuttles).

Shuttle: Manned and made it to orbit and back (for smaller value of rocket that left the launch pad).

Space Ship One: Space, manned, and quickly returned to space.

LEM "Eagle": first manned powered landing from space (not on Earth), (presumably there were probes as well).  More LEMs followed.

Curiosity: Powered landing from space (on Mars).  Did use some parachutes/airbraking.

[Apexazimuth]

12 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Well New Shepard reach around the same speed as Falcon 9 first stage, put an small second stage on it and you have an orbital launcher, 
Yes this will require landing downrange or boost back. 

Put a second stage on that configuration and it either doesn't gain enough velocity to deploy that stage usefully, or burns the fuel it needs for powered descent and landing, making it a normal 1st stage and nothing special. 

 

Its a great feat of engineering to be sure, and blue origin has a right to be proud. It's just lame that the press is comparing it to an actual orbital launch system. 

[pandaman]

On 02/12/2015, 19:48:27, Apexazimuth said:

Its a great feat of engineering to be sure, and blue origin has a right to be proud. It's just lame that the press is comparing it to an actual orbital launch system. 

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on watching the BO launch.

I'm no expert, and I don't want to downplay BO's significant achievement, but I suspect that what Space X are trying to do is probably a bit more challenging.

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

"OMG THE GRASSHOPPER IS SOOO COOL! THIS IS TRUE ACHEIVEMENT"

"The BO Landing from space is no achievement. Even if it is the exact same as SpaceX's landing, in the long run"

[Nibb31]

13 hours ago, pandaman said:

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on watching the BO launch.

I'm no expert, and I don't want to downplay BO's significant achievement, but I suspect that what Space X are trying to do is probably a bit more challenging.

And what BO did was a lot more challenging than what SpaceX did with Grasshopper.

[pandaman]

2 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

And what BO did was a lot more challenging than what SpaceX did with Grasshopper.

Yes. no question about that.  None of it is actually 'easy'.

[Exoscientist]

My opinion, SpaceX will not be able land the F9 first stage reliably and
consistently until they give it hovering ability. The argument has been made
that giving the F9 hovering capability would reduce its payload. However,
some simple and low cost modifications using existing technology, no
advanced tech required, would allow hovering and actually increase the
payload:

Hovering capability for the reusable Falcon 9, page 3: hovering ability can
increase the payload of a RLV.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2015/12/hovering-capability-for-reusable-falcon.html

  Bob Clark