I think Spacex is planning to land on the moon

[RocketBlam]

I really think Spacex is planning to send people to the moon.

Here's what set me off: CGI video of the Dragon lander in a powered landing. Now, as we Kerbal enthusiasts all know, parachutes are much cheaper than rocket fuel and rockets for landing. Why would Spacex be developing a lander that landed under thrust and not chutes? The answer seems pretty evident to me: they're planning on landing on a body with no atmosphere.

Here's the video:

Maybe even more interesting is this Spacex lifter which is also designed to land under thrust. Why would he want to land a lifter under thrust? Hmmm...

Edited April 25, 2014 by RocketBlam

[Xaiier]

DragonRider is designed for potential Mars landing capability without chutes, and the lifter is for reusability, which was demonstrated with the launch last week. The moon is an understatement.

[FenrirWolf]

SpaceX will happily tell you the answer to why they want powered landings. The booster stage in that second video is exactly that: a booster stage. That thing isn't going to the Moon, or even out of Earth's atmosphere. Its job is to push something skyward, then fall back to the ground once it has fulfilled its job.

The difference is, they want this stage to come back to the ground in one piece.

SpaceX is aiming to create the first truly fully reusable orbital launch system. This launch is a proof of concept for them that they're able to launch a stage and have it land again under its own power. Ultimately they want the first stage of their Falcon 9 rockets to do this after detaching from the stack, instead of just crashing into the ground or burning up like many a Rockomax fuel tank.

[Killerdude8]

The time where we send the first People to Mars is fast approaching, I'd make a bet that these are meant for a Martian landing.

[tutrakan4e]

Why isn't this in off-topic/science/any other forum? This has nothing to do with KSP, except it has the word "space" in it.

Also, I s doubt we will see another moon landing soon, there's nothing more to do there.

[BLUESTREAK]

It's pretty neat, but it's entirely a self recoverable/reusable 1st stage, it's not for exoatmospheric use and certainly not for the moon. They probably do have their sights set there at some point, but the Grasshopper won't be the craft doing it. There's still plenty to do on the moon though - if there was a continent the size of Africa, and we'd parachuted 6 teams of 2 guys with a tent in for up to three days apiece, would we consider it explored? Furthermore, it's the next logical step on the way to Mars, and we know we can get there.

I agree that this should be off topic though. Mods?

[TimePeriod]

Why isn't this in off-topic/science/any other forum? This has nothing to do with KSP, except it has the word "space" in it.

Also, I s doubt we will see another moon landing soon, there's nothing more to do there.

3.000.000 tons of helium3...

xx.000.000 million tons of hydrogen...

No no! Nothing to do up there at all...

[luizopiloto]

Maybe not to land at the Moon... but to land on Mars...

[Jas1126]

Why can't our games look as good as that first video? Man, I'm going to be very old before I see such beauty... How I wish Cryogenics was widely available.. I'd jump a hundred years.

Sorry, off-topic rant. /sigh

I really hope we're done with the moon (manned missions, anyway)... Probe drops and unmanned missions to study it, sure. But, manned missions seem like a wast of time to me.

[Epthelyn]

3.000.000 tons of helium3...

xx.000.000 million tons of hydrogen...

No no! Nothing to do up there at all...

Yeah...millions of tons of the two most abundant and readily available elements in the universe.

What Fenrir said is about right. SpaceX might be planning to land on the moon at some point, but right now they're staying closer to home.

[Osprey]

Yeah...millions of tons of the two most abundant and readily available elements in the universe.

The problem with that statement is two-fold...

1. Helium-3 is not abundant in any location that we can get to with ease. There are dead stars with diamond cores, but a diamond the size of the Earth tens of light years away does not make diamonds any more abundant on Earth.

2. Most of the hydrogen around us is (rather inconveniently) stuck to something else, usually oxygen. Getting it unstuck takes a lot of energy and effort, and finding a source that we could use in combustion without having to remove it from whatever it's stuck to would be very useful.

I disagree about there being nothing to do on the Moon, that's a lack of scientific curiosity talking. I don't however think that's what SpaceX are gunning for at present. If they wanted to help their PR, they wouldn't develop a Moon programme in secret.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Osprey

[timsfitz]

Yeah Helium 3 fusion is the next logical step in energy production. It doesn't occur naturally on Earth so we need to harvest it from the moon.

[vexx32]

Moved to the Space Lounge.

[R0cketC0der]

The reason SpaceX is going with powered landings is that they want to be able to land and not splash down. Rocket engines really don't like salt water. For this reason they make a turnaround maneuver after first stage separation, for which they need a lot more fuel than for the actual landing anyway. Also using engines to land makes it able to make pinpoint landings. It is planned to have the same landing accuracy as an average helicopter.

[Rickenbacker]

Maybe even more interesting is this Spacex lifter which is also designed to land under thrust. Why would he want to land a lifter under thrust? Hmmm...

Because that makes it a LOT easier and cheaper to refit it and use it again. NASA used to drop boosters in the ocean, and had to first recover, then completely refurbish them before reuse.

[Firov]

Because that makes it a LOT easier and cheaper to refit it and use it again. NASA used to drop boosters in the ocean, and had to first recover, then completely refurbish them before reuse.

Musk has claimed that a Falcon 9-R first stage that makes a soft landing in the ocean would be able to be refurbished for use within 2 months. If that same Falcon 9-R first stage sets down at the launch site it would be available for reuse within 24 hours.

Now, I imagine in reality it's going to take longer just to confirm everything is still in good shape, but either way, that's a lot of time and effort saved by having the rocket return to the launch site and make a soft ground landing which will obviously result in massively decreased launch prices. Especially for the Falcon 9 Heavy, which will theoretically have the ability to recover all three main boosters.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Firov

[vger]

SpaceX is aiming to create the first truly fully reusable orbital launch system. This launch is a proof of concept for them that they're able to launch a stage and have it land again under its own power.

Nice, a tech version of leaping into the air before shooting a basketball.

I hope it's pretty darned reliable though. Letting it fall into the ocean won't be an option here, so where's it going to crash if something goes awry?

[RocketBlam]

The reason I think they're planning to land on the moon is purely commercial. Branson is selling rides to space (not even orbit, just a sub-orbital flight) for a quarter of a million dollars. Musk is going to sell you a ride to the moon.

Think there are 10 people in the world willing to pay $10 million dollars to land on the moon? I'm sure there are. Probably more.

I think maybe he just wants to go to the moon himself. My bet is that he'll be on the first flight. But he's going to be selling tickets to the moon, I am sure of it.

I understand that the capsule was designed to potentially land on Mars, but Mars is orders of magnitude more expensive than the moon, and more of a hypothetical goal. Long-term it may do that, but short-term... I mean within the next 5-10 years, I bet Spacex lands a person on the moon.

It will also be the first private corporation to land a human on another planetary body.