HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

Bingo. They did similar tests with a Falcon 9 test article called "Grasshopper" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkItO-0a4

Not only this, but the spacex grasshopper test was the first that I saw that had the rocket do a vertical takeoff, and then land.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkItO-0a4

⬐ gozur88

This has been done a dozen times, from DC-X to JAXA's RTV to Armadillo's Stig. What makes the SpaceX effort different is it's part of a practical launch system and not an SSTO concept prototype like the others.

⬐ vpribish

get a load of this: https://youtu.be/wv9n9Casp1o?t=2m11s

1995, DC-X, and it's pyramidal

⬐ ChuckMcM

Yeah, I still have a newspaper clipping on my wall from Aug 21st, 1993 (San Jose Mercury News) showing it in the take off, hover, and landing stages. I really wanted to work on it then too!

⬐ pi-err

TIL that the DCX was canceled by Nasa not for technical reasons - looks more like politics. The program was 21 months old and cost $60M.

Is that correct? Amazing that this was achievable 20 years ago. Why no other re-usable rocket since 1996 if this was doable?

⬐ ChuckMcM

   > Why no other re-usable rocket since 1996 if this 
   > was doable?

Economics, technology, motivation. All were in short supply in the 90's. One of my favorites was Rotary Rocket. It made great strides but didn't have the right team to get it into production.

⬐ gozur88

You should read one of Jerry Pournelle's rants on the subject. There was a lot of bitterness from people who supported the program.

The problem with SSTOs, in general is that while getting them to take off and land isn't a big hurdle, getting them into orbit with more than a nontrivial payload is pretty difficult.

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/SSX.html

It's a concept with its supporters, but there's a pretty large program risk - the numbers are so tight you may get to the end of your development and realize your rocket works but can take only, you know, 25 pounds of payload to LEO. Or maybe a few tons. Or maybe you can't get to orbit at all.

SpaceX's plan to land each stage individually probably makes a lot more sense from the risk perspective.

SpaceX has been launching and landing non-orbit rockets for a long time: http://youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkItO-0a4

There's nothing magical about 100 km that makes Blue Origin's rocket more useful. 100 km is just a round number. It's not useful until it's literally 100 times more powerful so it can get to orbit. Implying that Blue Origin's achievement is comparable to what SpaceX is attempting is disingenuous. But, predictably, that's exactly what the news media is doing.

⬐ fixermark

100km is the edge of space. Reusable human transport payloads that go to space and back are sufficient for a space tourism ecosystem to start forming, which may be the orange Bezos is chasing (to Musk's "payloads to orbit and beyond" apple).

In that sense, this is exciting news for Blue Origin, as it gets them one step closer to the insane-but-possible goal of profitable space tourism---with the world's money being as disproportionately allocated as it is, one can imagine actually being able to find six people willing to pony up enough cash to get launched into the edge of space purely for the delightful view.

Elon's Grasshopper from 2 years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkItO-0a4

The New Shepard went much higher though (100.5km vs 744m).

Grasshopper was "just" a test vehicle, it never went to space. Here's a video of what they were doing with it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkItO-0a4

They've done lots of launches of the Grasshopper and F9R landing tests there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwwS4YOTbbw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjWqQPWmsY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkItO-0a4

That would be awesome. I was astounded the first time I saw one of their McGregor, Texas rocket tests from the point-of-view of a hexacopter flying near the rocket's flightpath.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkItO-0a4

In this video, the copter is actually HOVERING ABOVE the rocket as the rocket descends back down to the launchpad. The only time I've ever seen something like that before was Hollywood (Apollo 13, and then when the footage was re-used in Austin Powers 2).

1. How fast can a satellite travel up the tether? Let's say 50km/h, and it's going to an altitude of 35,000km. That's a month just in travel time. Using the tether for that period of time would be extremely costly. Currently, around 125 satellites launch a year, so they would need to be going up the tether at 500km/h, one after the other, day and night. And if we need to wait for a platform to descend, they need to be moving at 1,000km/h. Otherwise, we need multiple space elevators, or multiple shipments climbing at once and passing one another to meet current demand.

2. What's the cost of building and maintaining a space elevator?

3. What's the cost of having a satellite climb the tether to an altitude of 35,000km? That's a lot of energy.

Taking this into consideration, is it tantalizingly cheap compared to strapping on a rocket? SpaceX has run tests with a reusable Falcon 9 rocket. Cost of fuel for a launch is $200,000. I'm skeptical the space elevator would be much cheaper.

The magic of SpaceX...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkItO-0a4

Downside of a rocket, it's heavy, and most of the energy is wasted lifting the rocket, and not the payload. Advantage, you don't have to pay to maintain cables that are long enough to wrap around the entire Earth.

⬐ percentcer

Couldn't you launch multiple satellites at a time?

⬐ Schwolop

Seems legit to me - a bunch of robots on the elevator that are each responsible for perhaps ten kilometres of travel, and they pass the parcel to the next one in line then move back down. You could launch way more things in pseudo-parallel that way.

Or just an up line and a down line like most cable cars.

⬐ userulluipeste

Many activities are affordable only as long as the true costs are not paid in full. The world had to allow massive burning of fuels, even if it's costly for the environment, only because the alternatives were not feasible yet. When better technologies allowed even a mild reduction of the pollution's effects (like combustion engine improvements, and later development of hybrid/electric solutions), things started to change and the reckless burn of fuel is now discouraged. Don't stop at the level of 125 launches per year, expect it to grow orders of magnitude, and the effects to grow proportionally. The market cost for fuel may be only $200,000 and it might get even lower, but the true costs... well, I think you got the idea.

SpaceX, Hawthorne, CA - http://spacex.com (US citizen/PR only)

You've probably heard of SpaceX -- we build and fly rockets! Check out http://youtu.be/DjpUf__4vPA and http://youtu.be/9ZDkItO-0a4.

What you might not know is that we need software engineers. Some of the positions we are looking to fill currently are:

Lead front-end software engineer - http://www.spacex.com/careers/position/3895

Software engineer for Borg, our flight data logging and analysis system - http://www.spacex.com/careers/position/3366

Simulations software engineer, writing the software used to fool the flight software into thinking it's in space - http://www.spacex.com/careers/position/3858

⬐ sherjilozair

Do you consider foreign applications? Asked this a few months back too.

⬐ Tloewald

"US citizen/PR only"

⬐ basicallydan

In other words, no.

⬐ whitef0x

Even for canadian citizens on a TN visa?

⬐ samk9080

Is this onsite only or remote/telecommute for the right candidate?

⬐ lutorm

As a rule, candidates will only be considered if they can relocate. Relocation expenses are covered, though.

(And yes, we know getting people to move to LA is a handicap for us...)

⬐ OoTLink

I'd LOVE to move to LA! Right now I'm studying computer engineering at UC Davis with an embedded systems project (freescale cup) involved and some iOS app development on the side.

The tough part for me is I keep hesitating to apply to you guys because my projects are getting more interesting as time goes on (and I have more time to put into them, EE classes suck up a lot of time!)

Ah well, anyway, I will be applying for a few positions, including that one mentioned. Perhaps you'll get to interview me, that'd be awesome :)

⬐ ChuckMcM

744 meters is just over 2,440 feet, I wonder what they are doing to deal with the spin issue from the Falcon9 flight out of Vandenberg.

Watching this makes me feel the same way I did seeing the DC-X take off and land which is make me feel like "real" science fiction rockets are about to be realized.

⬐ lyndonh

I thought the spin problem was a non issue: they just wanted to see if they could relight the engine when Falcon is falling back to earth at speed. When it's relit they can compensate the spin and take control.

⬐ ChuckMcM

The challenge was that with the stage spinning they couldn't feed fuel to the engines to finish the retro burn. That is an issue. They need to work around that in the next attempt (either by not spinning or by allowing for it with a different fuel feed mechanism)

⬐ XorNot

Increasing tank pressurization would mitigate it, but I suspect it's a lot easier to plan to control the spin.

⬐ ChuckMcM

It is a fascinating problem, you launch with one type of space craft and then you recover with a different craft (in terms of mass distribution, fuel supply, etc). I'd love to hear how the avionics deals with the two systems. especially given that most of the rocket systems I've seen internal descriptions of are very narrowly tuned to be critically damped around their launch parameters. Unlike say aircraft that are dealing with fuel weight management issues and load balancing.

I know Elon said he would release the videos, and I'm sure they will, this is definitly the kind of 'rocket science' that is very intriguing to me.

⬐ InclinedPlane

Apparently simply having landing legs on the stage (and extending them) will be enough to stabilize the spin problem sufficiently to allow it to be controllable by the RCS et al.

⬐ ChuckMcM

I realize that Elon speculated that would be the case, but I wasn't neccesarily buying his explanation.

Two things need additional color, one being given the lack of atomosphere at the altitude where the first stage separates (tapes put it at just over 3 minutes into the flight), and two structural integirty of those struts making the atmospheric transition.

So you need to get the retro burn off while you are exo-atmospheric or you risk melting off the important bits when you re-enter. That suggests that you need some sort of RCS to cut rotational dynamics so that you can stage for retro, then re-enter at less than hypersonic velocity. Further you can't do you retro burn until you've allowed the upper stage to clear.

Another interesting bit is that the first stage appears to have cameras, they were showing video from them during the launch, but we've not seen the post separation video. I hope that video surfaces at some point as it could help design something to mitigate the whole roll thing before it got out of hand.

⬐ coob

Musk has mentioned posting that video online[1].

[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/1ne36t/partial_succe...

⬐ novalis78

great resource thanks. Looks like the first test with legs is going to be in FL.

⬐ revelation

Since you've been likely keeping up with this, has there been any video released on the fate of the return stage? Musk mentioned they would put something out there, but it doesn't seem to have materialized yet.

⬐ kcorbitt

This is really exciting technology, but as far as I can tell not even SpaceX is sure that it will be practical to include it in a production rocket (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIVCCaYWGpk).

That's not meant as a criticism though -- the fact that they're willing to try anyway already brings them to legendary status in my book.

⬐ cfreeman

Elon appears to be pretty confident after they tested booster return on the last Falcon 9 flight. See this tweet:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/384407846349062144

⬐ rajivtiru

You're pretty much right.

This has no production value. This is great "look at this thing that we can do" video but the reason no one else attempts it is because there is no next step. They didn't just stop at 744 meters for no reason, fuel is the limitation here.

It is impossible(unless you want to build something the size of Saturn V again) to put enough fuel on a launch vehicle to carry a satellite to orbit and then land it back like this.

I don't have the exact data, but as an guesstimate it would take twice as much fuel(fuel + "return fuel") to land the rocket back like this. We also need to put in extra fuel to take the "return fuel" up there in the first place...you get the idea.

Extremely un-economical. I do not see a next step for grasshopper because building another rocket is cheaper than returning the engine back like this.

⬐ voodoomagicman

The idea is not to slowly fly to orbit and back - it is for the stages to fall to earth and then decelerate from terminal velocity to a gentle landing. The reason for these tests is to develop the technology required to do that.

According to Musk, fuel accounts for only 0.3% of the costs of a launch, so a re-usable rocket could achieve significant cost savings even though it would require more fuel.

⬐ Kim_Bruning

Well, rockets are staged. If you only recover the first stage, that's still a big savings. As it happens, the first stage on a space rocket doesn't need to climb very high and doesn't need to move downrange very far; it just has to lift a lot of weight. Having it come back down afterwards is still a huge control problem, but not impossible in terms of physics. You're not that far downrange and have (relatively) little lateral movement to compensate.

A second or third stage could be more tricky, of course.

⬐ gridspy

Since most of the trip back is conducted at terminal velocity, you only need enough fuel to decelerate from that. In addition, you are no longer lifting the 2nd stage and all that fuel any more.

So it would be SUBSTANTIALLY less than 50% probably less than 10% extra fuel. Far far smarter though. Much harder design.

⬐ Axsuul

Fuel is cheap compared to the launch vehicle.

⬐ vectorjohn

"I don't have the exact data..."

Well said. You don't. Buy if you can do ticket science on the back of the envelope, imagine what the ACTUAL rocket scientists can do. You think they went "hey, I just came up with this guesstimate that this is going to be impossible, but let's go ahead and blow the money anyway."

I can bullshit rocket science too: you overlook all kinds of stuff. Such as when coming back to Earth they don't need fuel to fight air resistance which will actually do most of the work for them. Bam! No need to double the fuel.

But what do I know. I'm not the one doing it and neither are you.

⬐ deletes

Well said.

⬐ cryptoz

It doesn't matter to them that they think it might fail. The only reason that SpaceX exists is to colonize Mars, and the only way to do that is with reusable spaceships. The reason they're willing to try it is the same reason they were willing to build non-reusable rockets to start: it's the only way forward.

⬐ dhughes

As fantastic as that was I can't help but think that now I want a quadcopter with an HD video camera on it.

⬐ tgb

Anyone know what models and price ranges can get to altitudes like that? And how are these controlled - if manually in real-time what kind of connection is needed?

⬐ olex

A simple DJI Phantom will easily get to that altitude. Slight modifications would be required - possibly a different receiver and remote control to ensure the range, and an FPV system (camera and transmitter on the copter, and a receiver with a screen or video goggles on the ground). Altogether easily done in under $1000.

Control is real-time, just like any other flying model aircraft or multirotor. For flying at that altitude, I'd use FPV - meaning you'd fly using the camera image to pilot the copter viewed through a screen or even better, video goggles, as opposed to looking at the model from the ground.

Be aware though that at this altitude, you're often in controlled airspace, which is troublesome for model aircraft in most cases.

⬐ girvo

I may have just started looking at building a tricopter with FPV. This is going to be an expensive hobby, I can feel it. Satisfying, though!

⬐ ivarvong

I think this was shot with a DJI S800. The RC link to fly it is usually 2.4GHz. A separate link, often at 5.8GHz, is used to send the camera feed back to the ground to help the pilot or compose the shot, or both.

⬐ stevenrace

Good eye ID'ing the distinctive DJI arms on the hexacopter.

The convention seems to be 2.4Ghz for telemetry back the to base-station or radio display - and something lower in the UHF band like 433 or 900Mhz for actual control.

Mainly because Zigbee/802.15.4 radios are readily available in 2.4Ghz and 433Mhz goes a lot further (and through more things) by comparison at 1W.

[/sitting next to 3 hexacopters at the moment]

⬐ NickNameNick

What kind of transmitter are you using for manual control? I assume you aren't using a ground station all the time...

I only ask because most new 'brand name' (JR, Futaba, Airtronics, Robbe) tramsitters seem to be 2.4Ghz. I know FM radios are still available on 36 and 40 Mhz, among others, but I haven't seen many used for a while with new aircraft.

⬐ ivarvong

UHF transmitters can be rigged on a RC transmitter as a module or through the trainer port, depending on the radio. DragonLink and EZUHF appear to work this way. (I haven't used any of these.)

⬐ stevenrace

Correct. The EZUHF is my preferred transmitter.

⬐ olex

diydrones.com, flitetest.com, /r/multicopter and /r/fpv will help you out :)

⬐ JshWright

Start with a tricopter. They're a lot more fun to fly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCPMC_fiSMI

⬐ 6ren

This is so cool, it looks CGI. Unbelievable. At first I thought the camera was in a helicopter, but a drone makes more sense (and is even cooler).

Elon Musk is Tom Swift.

⬐ deletes

Did you notice how the rocket tilted to correctly position itself over the landing strip. Great camera angle.

⬐ GuerraEarth

RLV Grasshopper is well named.

⬐ bane

That may have been the coolest cinematography of a real piece of space hardware I've ever seen. One robotically controlled flying camera shooting and flying around a reusable spaceship, both right out of sci-fi.

⬐ girvo

I didn't read about what it was supposed to do before I watched the video.

Seeing it stop in mid-air then land perfectly... wow. It actually gave me chills. That's some year 2213 shit, here, now. Amazing.

⬐ flippyhead

More often I feel that I'm living in the future.