New Space-X rocket is the most Kerbal rocket I've ever seen in real life

[iueras]

He called the other guy out, I presented a rebuttal as well as leaving another subject behind to avoid a fight.

Don't just blame one party, especially when the other one is being antagonistic.

Honestly, the only antagonistic person I have seen in this thread is you.

Oh my GOD, go away. You're obviously baiting a fight, and comparing a RL flight computer to Mechjeb is stupid in the first place.

"Well, a ship rocket actually." Tell me how that makes sense?

And I don't think the guy that replied to you in the first place even cared about the stupid joke, more the fact that you called a ship Kerbal after 1 failed launch out of hundreds.

Two jokes, both met with hostility from you. No one else said a word except the one guy that didn't get the pun. If it wasn't your intention then I apologize, but it really does seem like you are trying to start a fight, or at least coming across as hostile. And with that said I will say no more on the matter, because otherwise I am getting dragged into it and I don't want to fight.

[HeadHunter67]

He called the other guy out, I presented a rebuttal as well as leaving another subject behind to avoid a fight.

Don't just blame one party, especially when the other one is being antagonistic.

I'm not being antagonistic. I made a joke, which you clearly didn't get.

You say you don't want to start a fight, but you've been trying to do so even before I posted. I agree with iueras.

You know, if you don't find it funny and truly want to "leave a subject behind", the best way to do that is to refrain from posting in the first place. Please don't be the first and only person I have to ignore here.

[Mr Shifty]

Did you miss the pun? You do know the Russian word for "spaceship", nyet?

Totally went over my head:confused: Sorry for the misinterpretation:)

[HeadHunter67]

No worries, mate. Didn't occur to me either until recently - was watching The Right Stuff and the announcer was taling about Sputnik being launched on a "Korabl rocket" and it hit me. It may sound nonsensical to some (like "ATM machine" or "PIN number") but it's a proper name - so it's more like "the Inuit people" if you get my drift.

But anyways, I don't want my little joke to derail the topic. I've been continually amazed by SpaceX and this whole "grasshopper" thing. LazTek did include those landing gear in their latest release, but I know I'm not nearly good enough to set the rocket back down on the ground, let alone the pad, after I launch it. Landing's not something I do, y'know?

[SaturnVee]

First this is an first stage, it does not reach orbital speeds, no need for heat shields, secondly most of the speed is removed because of air resistance. Also the rocket has only has a bit fuel left.

Yes the first stage return has some challenges grasshopper don't have, they has to do an fast burn who take it back to the launchpad, who longer time they wait after separation who longer will it move eastward. Next it will move ballistic toward the launchpad so they can adjust path. they will move in supersonic speed so they has to point engine down, rocket will also need to be aerodynamic stable moving backward.

The final part will be pretty much like grasshopper

Ah, that makes more sense. Still going to be a pretty impressive feat.

[Kerbart]

Correction... most Kerbal rocket that didn't explode

...so it's not a close approximation of the average Kerbal rocket...

[iueras]

I've been continually amazed by SpaceX and this whole "grasshopper" thing.

Agreed. SpaceX in general is doing amazing things, and doing them for so much less than NASA -- no disrespect intended. The original and VERY expensive research could not have been done without NASA and the brave astronauts and test pilots who went first! But no one can argue that the NASA bureaucracy is entrenched, expensive, and very slow to do anything, especially change.

I've said for years and years that commercialization is the key to getting off this rock. Spaceflight for the sake of it is great, but a government funded institution like NASA is not who is going to make it cheap and profitable. Organizations like NASA are GREAT for the original research and bleeding edge breakthroughs (i.e., JPL, etc.). As a science and research organization, they work fantastically. But companies like SpaceX are who will bring spaceflight to the commercial level.

Edited August 15, 2013 by iueras
Forgot quote

[HeadHunter67]

While I think there will always need to be national (and international) space agencies for oversight and regulation (can't have just any fool launching a rocket), I think that privatization of the space program is one of the best things to happen to space exploration. You have more competition, innovation, technological advance, and options.

Consider the Orion (a great spacecraft from NASA) and SpaceX's Dragon. Dragon can carry more crew and do more - and with less mass. That's a very important factor in getting a spacecraft into orbit.

[Keome]

I've had rockets do this, but it's usually after some unplanned aerial maneuvers followed by an unscheduled disassembly of parts and a rise in the local ambient temperature.

[-RanZ-]

great video, spaceX is awesome

[SkyRender]

At first I thought, "So what? I can do that in KSP. I do that all the time." Then I remembered that this is real life, where aerodynamics are more than just drag and lift force applied simplistically. That is pretty darn impressive.

[Kosmic Debris]

It's cool that they've been able to do it with a rocket; Blue Origin and others have tested the approach and software with jets, but SpaceX looks like they have this nailed. Note that they also crossfeed the boosters on the Heavy...so it's even more Kerbal ;-)

The new redesigned Falcon 9 has the engines in a circle with one in middle vs. the prior square arrangement - I understand this allowed for the additional fuel required for the landing as well as configuring the single engine for the return. It also looks like they're planning to land the boosters the same way. Their revamped website shows landing legs on the 9 and the Heavy, and it looks like they're pretty close on the design!

[LameLefty]

... but SpaceX looks like they have this nailed. Note that they also crossfeed the boosters on the Heavy...so it's even more Kerbal ;-)

Just a correction - industry sources say cross-feed is not going to happen in the initial versions of F9H. They plan to add it (and they have to, to reach anywhere close to Elon's predicted performance numbers when the F9H was announced) but it won't be part of the first several launches at least.

[sojourner]

Yes, but I think that the ultimate goal of the project is to build the spiritual successor to the DC-X experimental VTVL SSTO.

Launched like a rocket, the conical DC-X was designed to re-enter facing forwards, then flip around and land the same way it took off. It was revolutionary because the testing program focused on operations rather than technology, preferring rapid-fire test flights in order to test the feasibility of it's quick-turnaround design. McDonnell Douglas managed to get the turnaround down to only 26 hours, compared to the Shuttle's multiple month turnaround. Unfortunately, funding cuts grounded the program before the craft went above 3,000 meters, which is still relatively impressive given the cost of the program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

The design of Grasshopper and the way SpaceX is testing it bear many similarities to the DC-X program.

This is incorrect. Falcon 9 is being designed as a two stage RLV. Not a single stage RLV. Grasshopper is the test version of that first stage. At some point they will start development of the reusable second stage. Watch this video from SpaceX to see how they hope it will work:

[Boakamxe]

Correction... most Kerbal rocket that didn't explode

So, you're implying kerbals are idiotic and intend for their rockets to explode?

[theflyingfish]

This is incorrect. Falcon 9 is being designed as a two stage RLV. Not a single stage RLV. Grasshopper is the test version of that first stage. At some point they will start development of the reusable second stage. Watch this video from SpaceX to see how they hope it will work:

I never said anything about Falcon 9 going SSTO. I know that Falcon 9 is two-stage, and I know that the Grasshopper testbed is testing reusable, autolanding stages.

I was just pointing out that the rocket design and testing regimen are very similar to the DC-X, which was a moderately successful testing program, and may indicate the future for SpaceX after the Falcon series.

If SpaceX manages to accomplish this autolanding feat, then they will have lots of experience building and handling VTVL rockets. Building a DC-X derivative would be a sensible next step.

[Shania_L]

Its very impressive, but umm, what is the point? This might sound odd for a KSP player, but rockets are horrible things, expensive, dangerous and very in-efficient.

Re-usability is a good idea, cut costs very admirable ... but why a rocket? seriously, what is this obsession with them? Don't get me wrong they have a purpose, they are big, ugly brute force lifters, why are they trying to get a rugby player to do ballet? If you want re-usability develop spaceplanes, if you want to get a sodding great big cargo into orbit use a 1-way rocket.

I have been trying to think of reasons why you would want to do a vertical landing of a rocket .... and I am struggling. Precision landing of cargo? lifting body and a steerable parachute? didn't NASA do some flights of an X-something lifting body that could steer itself under a rectanglular parachute to a precision runway landing? I would bet there is a whole heap of weight savings too vs the fuel and thrusters required to vertically land.

If I wanted to go all conspiracy on this I would claim there were vested interests in maintaining a vertical rocket building/operating industry that was keeping any serious development on orbital cargo spaceplanes from getting any investment.

[iueras]

Its very impressive, but umm, what is the point? This might sound odd for a KSP player, but rockets are horrible things, expensive, dangerous and very in-efficient.

Re-usability is a good idea, cut costs very admirable ... but why a rocket? seriously, what is this obsession with them? Don't get me wrong they have a purpose, they are big, ugly brute force lifters, why are they trying to get a rugby player to do ballet? If you want re-usability develop spaceplanes, if you want to get a sodding great big cargo into orbit use a 1-way rocket.

I have been trying to think of reasons why you would want to do a vertical landing of a rocket .... and I am struggling. Precision landing of cargo? lifting body and a steerable parachute? didn't NASA do some flights of an X-something lifting body that could steer itself under a rectanglular parachute to a precision runway landing? I would bet there is a whole heap of weight savings too vs the fuel and thrusters required to vertically land.

If I wanted to go all conspiracy on this I would claim there were vested interests in maintaining a vertical rocket building/operating industry that was keeping any serious development on orbital cargo spaceplanes from getting any investment.

The biggest reason I can think of is Mars and other bodies (asteroids, moons, etc) where a spaceplane is not practical. The atmospheres, if any, preclude the use of any kind of air-breathing engine for assistance to orbit, and the different atmospheric densities and varying gravities mean your wings that worked fine on Earth don't work elsewhere. For to and from Earth orbit, spaceplanes are great. But for general purpose travel to and from a general target in the system, rockets are just more versatile, while being cheaper to design and maintain right now than a complex spaceplane.

At least, that's my thoughts on it.

EDIT: All this is assuming you want to land and take off again, of course.

Edited August 15, 2013 by iueras

[OrbitusII]

The reason that humans haven't switched to an all-spaceplane fleet is because we haven't invested in it. There have been multiple concepts (Dreamchaser for one) that literally never got off the ground. We don't use spaceplanes yet because up until recently we haven't had the technology to do so. Reaction Engines Ltd. and their Skylon is the first spaceplane that's undergoing serious development, but unless they can get funding from the British government they may have to stop.

We use vertical rockets because they're a well-known, (relatively) easy to design method of transporting cargo to space using a concept that's been around for ages. Making rockets mostly reusable is the next logical step in rocketry, so that's what SpaceX is doing.

[eskimo]

Its very impressive, but umm, what is the point? This might sound odd for a KSP player, but rockets are horrible things, expensive, dangerous and very in-efficient.

Because rockets are simple. Everything I've heard about SpaceX's hardware has had the KISS principle applied to it. Now, their software and their vision? They're doing more, pushing harder, trying NEW things with rockets.

[HeadHunter67]

So, you're implying kerbals are idiotic and intend for their rockets to explode?

They have two traits: Courage, and STUPIDITY. You tell me if they're not idiotic.

As for explosions? They may not be intentional, but they're commonplace.

Just watch the official videos if you have any doubts.

[Geschosskopf]

The reason that humans haven't switched to an all-spaceplane fleet is because we haven't invested in it. There have been multiple concepts (Dreamchaser for one) that literally never got off the ground. We don't use spaceplanes yet because up until recently we haven't had the technology to do so. Reaction Engines Ltd. and their Skylon is the first spaceplane that's undergoing serious development, but unless they can get funding from the British government they may have to stop.

We use vertical rockets because they're a well-known, (relatively) easy to design method of transporting cargo to space using a concept that's been around for ages. Making rockets mostly reusable is the next logical step in rocketry, so that's what SpaceX is doing.

I really wonder how SpaceX plans to save money on reusable rockets. Cost savings was one of the reasons for doing the Shuttle, but it turned out in practice to be a myth. It cost more to refurbish the orbiter between missions than it would have to use a 1-shot rocket to do the same job, and mass-produced 1-shot rockets could have done many more launches per year, too. The cost of refurbishment very quickly led to the abandonment of plans to reuse the SRBs because it was cheaper (and probably safer) to make new ones. This is why the Shuttle's been replaced by 1-shot rockets and why nobody else is building Shuttles of their own. Bottom line: if reusability was such a good idea, you'd see a lot more of it, especially in the cost-conscious private sector

But even assuming SpaceX has this problem sorted (which remains to be seen), I still wonder why they don't use parachutes. Surely parachutes would be lighter than the fuel needed for a powered landing, so they could lift more payload.

[sojourner]

^parachutes for something that large are actually fairly heavy. They also offer the disadvantage of not allowing precise landings. If you think about it, they still needed most of the fuel in order to return to the landing site to begin with. When you factor that in, the remaining fuel to soft land vs the weight of parachutes becomes a no brainer. I would guess that Spacex probably did a fair bit of research into using/not using parachutes.

And the Shuttle is about the worst example of "reusable" you could come up with to compare to Falcon 9 considering the external tank is thrown away, the srbs were dropped in salt water and had to be refurbished/repacked and the orbiter itself had thousands of heat tiles that were hand placed and inspected requiring thousands more man hours of wages.

Spaceplanes in general only exist in KSP. To ask why nobody uses them is to ask why they don't work. SpaceX is trying to take a tried and true technology, tweak it, and make it better. A much more sensible approach business wise. Even if re-usability does not pan out they still have a damn good rocket that is cheaper than their competitors.

I was just pointing out that the rocket design and testing regimen are very similar to the DC-X, which was a moderately successful testing program, and may indicate the future for SpaceX after the Falcon series.

very similar in that it takes off and lands vertically, yes. But in every other way, not so much.

If SpaceX manages to accomplish this autolanding feat, then they will have lots of experience building and handling VTVL rockets. Building a DC-X derivative would be a sensible next step.

The problem with reusable SSTO is mass fraction. By the time you try to get the entire mass of the rocket to orbit there is no room left for payload. Reusable TSTO improves mass fraction immensely and even making that reusable has been a feat no one has accomplished.

We need big breakthroughs in materials since and propulsion before SSTO and Spaceplanes become possible.

Edited August 15, 2013 by sojourner

[Mr Shifty]

Bottom line: if reusability was such a good idea, you'd see a lot more of it, especially in the cost-conscious private sector

Umm.. you are seeing more of it.. in the cost-conscious private sector. This is what that looks like.

Returning to land upright via soft landing on a launchpad is a far different thing than a relatively fast landing into sea water requiring ships and divers for recovery. Not to mention refilling a liquid fuel tank is a whole different ballgame than re-packing a solid booster. SpaceX estimates a 10 day turnaround for the F9 first stage from launch to launch when the program is fully implemented. That is darn impressive.

[Landge]

All I could think about watching that video is "I wonder how much ISP does that engine have at sea level?"