Holy fuck SpaceX

[Anonymous No.3823948]

first some background.
a week ago or so, space following websites where intrigued by a permit spaceX was asking for a suborbital, Falcon 9 tank with a single engine. Sort of a hopper, nicknamed Grashopper. a full tank, 1 merlin 1D engine, some steel structure. go up a few times, land.

And today, in a few hours Elon Musk will speak at the national press club.
And the stuff is around.
Holy fuck.

http://www.spacex.com/npc-luncheon-elon-musk.php
http://www.spacex.com/assets/video/spacex-rtls-green.mp4

download that mp4. holy fuck.

[Anonymous No.3823953]

A totally propulsive, VERTICAL POWERED landing of a falcon 9 first stage. after stage seperation, 3 engines burn for the deorbit burn. a single engine ( like in the grasshopper proposal ) makes a vertical, pinpoint powered landing on a concrete surface.

holy fuck. and that's not all.

[Anonymous No.3823966]

after the stage seperation, the 2nd stage burns. dragon decouples. all nominal.
But nope.jpg, 2nd stage does a deorbit burn as well. Hides the nozzle, has a pica-X heatshield on the front. The hiding / moving forward of the nozzle might well bring it's center of gravity forward enough.
Then, 4 super dracos ( upgraded control engines for the dragon ) make it land vertically, on a nice concrete surface as well.
If only heinlein could see this..

seriously watch the video. awesomely produced.

[Anonymous No.3823976]

And then, as the piece de resistance, Dragon reenters. no parachutes for you, bad boy.
Totally propulsive landing, using the abort system thrusters, to land on a nice circle as well.

I don't care how long it takes, if they get over the mass penalties for these systems, and get it working...holy fuck.

HOLY FUCK
this is the coolest rocket proposal ever.

[Anonymous No.3823981]

updatan! with more info!
live presser going on. stream just started!

http://press.org/events/npc-luncheon-elon-musk

[Anonymous No.3823985]

yeah, now explain which kind of fuel will it utilize.

nice CGI though

[Anonymous No.3823994]

>>3823985
They've launched 2 falcon 9's so far.

RP-1 ( kerosine ) and loX, or liquid oxygen.
The abort system might be NOFBX ( a total all in one fuel, currently slated to be tested on the ISS. Think hydrazine without the cancer.

SpaceX seems to think they can do the mass infraction.

[Anonymous No.3824001]

presser started! he'll take the stage in a few secs!

http://press.org/events/npc-luncheon-elon-musk

[Anonymous No.3824003]

>>3823976
if it is propulsion landing, does that mean it could work on planets without atmospheres?

[Anonymous No.3824006]

>>3823994
and here's the problem: Fuel mass:propulsion efficiency ratio

It's either too heavy to lift off, have low cargo, or limited flight.

If we could use nuclear propulsion though...

[Anonymous No.3824015]

>>3824003
easier, but no really easy. you need earth's atmosphere for a substantial slowdown.

>>3824006
SpaceX seems to think this is possible. Remember, it's only LEO. They could even do a F9 first stage stretch, the engines are a bit overpowered.

However! :

Remember that this is perhaps two 'generations' of development away, so there may be a lot of hardware we don't know about yet that will go into this. First they have to demonstrate passive return/splash-down core recovery. Then will come the propulsive core return and landing (which must be less ambitious). Then they can work out how to turn the second stage into a fly-back.


Musk now being introduced.

[Anonymous No.3824027]

reminds me of how the ships sat in parking in outlaw star...

wouldn't putting the stabilizers towards the top of the rocket make it easier/more efficient to steer?

[Anonymous No.3824033]

Musk now talking!

is 4chan slow as fuck or is that just me?

[cocksucker No.3824034]

Holy fuck Elon if you pull this off I swear I will suck your dick!

[Anonymous No.3824039]

SpaceX is great, reusable rockets could really revolutionise spaceflight. And I dont see why this should not work as intended.

[Anonymous No.3824042]

Omg, why did they have to put that annoying piece of shit of a song in that video. I had to mute the video to keep the rage at low levels (even still, knowing that shitty song is still playing, i can't help it).

But indeed, Capitalism will win the space race. China and their pathetic excuse at pointless dickwaving (communism has never been about anything but oppression and international dickwaving) will probably result to nothing and will either stop or will be taken over by patriotic Chinese capitalists (provided they can keep up after over 90% of the companies decide to move their factories to India within years).

[Anonymous No.3824054]

bump

[Anonymous No.3824055]

Elon Musk is my hero. Big plans man, hope they pan out.

[Anonymous No.3824088]

I want to have Elons babies

[Anonymous No.3824114]

>>3823948
This project must be ridiculously fuel extensive. The 1st, and 2nd stages need to carry substantial amount of fuel with them, hence heavy, hence even more fuel needed and keep very good precision in all the maneuvers.

This project seems to be just one big commercial low quality rubbish. They should rather pay more to their main designers then to CGI studios.

Yes perhaps in 2 generations of rocketry this will be achievable but in 2 generations of rocketry there will be different standards and this will be just 50 years behind in performance. There is so much that can go wrong that it's ridiculous to even assume it's reliability will be any different then poor to moderate. Currently Both US and Russia have more reliable rockets. Please enlighten me why is this rocket deceleartion any better then classical parachute (or even don't care burn it all attitude - thought I understand prices for rare earth metals are rising so perhaps in far future safe return might be a good idea)?

I like space related technologies but this seems just like a massive waste of fuel.

As >>3824006 already mentioned.

[Anonymous No.3824141]

>>3824114
Please, stop rambling. SpaceX seems to think they are able to do this. they also said CGI was not totally accurate, and that they left some proprietary information out.

Musk said the simulations say it is possible.

Remember that they are deorbiting and landing a mostly empty stage.
Also, remember that these are not _required_ if there was no reeuse, it'd still be a good cheap, rocket. Add reuse, and it switches to awesome. even if only the first stage works.

You are also overestimating rocketry advances. you're working against a wall of physics here.
it's better because it's targeted, which makes it possible to land on something hard, and where you have reuse buildings nearby. If they land on parachutes against a wall, you're fucked.
if you land on the water, you'll have to waterproof ( weight! ) and add flotation AND add shock ( again! )
Waste of fuel? that's the lowest concern here. it's waste of engines and control systems.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3824145]

>Tiangong launches successfully, China launched into the space fray
>now this

September has been a pretty great month. Well done humanity.

[Anonymous No.3824153]

also, youtube version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p176UpWQOs4&feature=player_embedded

[Anonymous No.3824179]

>>3824114

I like space related technologies but this seems just like a massive waste of fuel.

Cost of fuel is negligible. And you already have all the propulsion set up anyway, it is a fucking rocket. Using it to land the stage thus makes a lot of sense.

[Anonymous No.3824195]

>>3824042
I liked the song, especially the ending.
cue
"we will be victorious!" - SpaceX logo. Fade to black.

brilliant PR, really.

[Anonymous No.3824201]

>>3824114

Empty rocket stages are big and light, an ideal combination for aerobraking. There is also a lot of residual fuel left in the stage after every launch, anyway. This can readily be used for propulsive braking and landing.

[Anonymous No.3824220]

>SpaceX + Muse
>allofmycool

[Anonymous No.3824226]

>>3824179
The way it lands is ridiculous. Otherwise it seems pretty ordinary rocket apart from the reactive deceleration. Also more fuel -> bigger rocket itself -> more manufacturing, materials etc. So more fuel inevitably means more expensive project.

It won't float on it's parachute to the middle of Atlantic ocean if it's return was set to be somewhere in Texas. Even parachute can be steered so that it doesn't go to inappropriate surfaces.

The rocket semi empty on return? Yes Full agreement with that but lifting fuel up is the expensive part. Not the landing fuel.

[Anonymous No.3824236]

>>3824201
If there isn't any other problem hidden why wasn't it done yet? Why was it regarded as cheaper to build an entire space airplane with lot's of excess weight in wings etc. and why wasn't this the first choice?
I'm sorry if I'm spreading too much pessimism, but I just don't get it. We were doing theoretical programs for nuclear missiles (Orion), there were all sort's of airplane lifting shuttle like Buran ideas. Why not this one?

[Anonymous No.3824239]

>>3824006
>>3824114

You fucks realize that NASA has already built something like this right ?

The DC-X could have easily replaced the shuttle if they hadn't given up on it .

What SpaceX plans to build is based on what has been done before.

I don't know why SpaceX is such a lightning rod for detractors. I've never seen anything like it. There are hordes of people who actively root for the downfall of SpaceX and it blows my mind, because they don't do this to Boeing or Russian / European competitors.

To me it looks like a text book case of tall poppy syndrome. Very prevalent here in Australia, but I guess people like that are fucking everywhere.

[Anonymous No.3824254]

>>3824226

> Also more fuel -> bigger rocket itself -> more manufacturing, materials etc.

You seem to overestimate the amount of fuel and associated structural mass needed to pull this off. Its not that much. It may cost a bit more, but it will be built just once, and reusability will slash the costs A LOT.

[Anonymous No.3824262]

>>3824236

This design HAS been studied before.

It hadn't been widely implemented for the same reason the Russians haven't changed their designs in 40 years. Because good old fashion rockets are reliable and we have used them for many decades.

Taking risks costs money. Governments don't like to take risks.

And that's what private space companies can do.

[Anonymous No.3824260]

>>3824226
incorrect.
it is not ridicilous. It's the only way you're going to reuse a liquid of this size. Boostback is not ridiculous. ULA, NASA and roscosmos have all looked at it.

it isnt that they add more fuel. They use the fuel they have left over ( or thrust capacity ) for something usefull.
Reuse means it'll get cheaper. This is offset by the cost of making it reusable, but the only way to get there. Once you are there, you're all good.

Lifting fuel IS NOT EXPENSIVE
IT IS ABOUT 0.5 % OF THE LAUNCH COST
>>3824236
because it requires guts. Space shuttle was a failure. it was "middle of the way " because USAF wanted cross-country. The wings are too big.

[Anonymous No.3824264]

also, while we're busy.


http://www.tsenki.com/broadcast/broadcast/live1.php

http://mfile.akamai.com/98707/live/reflector:48760.asx?bkup=48761

Proton-M launch with quetzsat.

t-10 minutes or so.

Big russian commercial rocket.

[Anonymous No.3824269]

http://mfile.akamai.com/98707/live/reflector:48760.asx?bkup=48761

now showing the Proton-M launch profile.

[Anonymous No.3824273]

have a picture of the rocket on the pad.

[Anonymous No.3824274]

>Why was it regarded as cheaper to build an entire space airplane with lot's of excess weight in wings etc. and why wasn't this the first choice?

Whoever designed the shuttle fucked up big time from economic standpoint, it is almost order of magnitude more expensive than ordinary expendable rockets.

[Anonymous No.3824276]

and a picture of the fairing.

busy day today for space:
first the first chinese space station module is launched.
Then SpaceX shows off.
And now a proton launch for good measure!

[Anonymous No.3824282]

Get in here fags. A nice geosynchronary launch from a trusty rocket. Bigass TV/communication satellite for all you mexicans.

T-4 minutes.
showing a bit off satellite design.

[Anonymous No.3824289]

This is the kick-stage - a Breeze-M. brings the satellite to its place.

It has 3 stages before that. The first stage looks funny because the fuel is above each of the 6 rockets, and the oxygen for all 6 is in the middle.

This is also a hypergolic launch vehicle, meaning you don't want to get close

T - 30 seconds!

[Anonymous No.3824292]

Launch!

[Anonymous No.3824294]

>>3824282

>mfw Mexicans can now stream tacos and Chihuahuas all across the world with their satellite

Also, as an interesting side note. Mexico has actually been one of the first countries to approach SpaceX about possible contracts.

Instead of having to ship their satellites to Russia, they can just drive that fucker to California or Florida and launch it at a cheaper price.

[Anonymous No.3824295]

goddamn it goes off nice.
Bam, goes off.

Nominal so far. MaxQ so far.

[Anonymous No.3824300]

because it's a night launch you can still track it.

T+ 2 minutes all nominal.
seperation!

[Anonymous No.3824305]

all 4 second stage engines burning.

a few minutes till the next stage.

[Anonymous No.3824323]

3rd stage ignition confirmed, payload fairing removed confirmed.


all nominal so far.
continue your whining about how the fuel for spaceX's boostback program is too expensive ( lol )

[Anonymous No.3824331]

>>3824323
On what streaming link are you seeing this?
Also is that actually the rocket that have all its component that come back?

[Anonymous No.3824337]

>>3824331

http://mfile.akamai.com/98707/live/reflector:48760.asx?bkup=48761

no, this is a proton-M.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-M

Soviet-era, very workhorse type rocket.
Cheap, and it works. Nothing from this comes back.
The spaceX stuff is a proposal. You'll see it fly - if everything works out - in 5 years or so, no way it's earlier.

Breeze-M seperation confirmed, and first burn is underway.

[Anonymous No.3824352]

also, a fun fact about the proton:
See that grid just above the side-tanks on the first stage?

You know why that is?
The 2nd stage engine fires with the empty first stage till attached. yep. The exhaust from the 2nd stage escapes trough this grid. Only after a few seconds of nice grilling from the rocket engines does the first stage drop away.

[Anonymous No.3824364]

also holy fuck, nice to add a mexican song under all that, since this is in fact a mexican tv-satellite, to be placed into an orbital slot over mexico, so that you can watch all the tortilla food programming. hurrah, another burrito!

[Anonymous No.3824383]

coverage of the briz-m and sat deploy will halt soon - they'll stop after the first ( of 5 ) burns of Briz-M ( or Breeze-M )

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.3824398]

>www.spacex.com/assets/video/spacex-rtls-green.mp4

>mfw at 1:00

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME

[Anonymous No.3824403]

Breeze-M succesfully confirmed to have finished it's first burn; everything nominal. Loss of signal now, as expected.
I'm done with the coverage of this one.

Back to spaceX.
heinlein would be proud. Launching vertically, Landing vertically, on a tail of flames, like any real rocket should.

[Anonymous No.3824447]

>>3824289
And that is the excitement of this launch, because the Briz-M failed on the fourth burn of the previous launch.

Fingers crossed.

>>3824398
My sentiments exactly. Elon Musk has balls of niobium!

(P.S. pic was Energia's idea of how to recover their Zenit boosters for Buran launches.)

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.3824457]

>>3824447

>(P.S. pic was Energia's idea of how to recover their Zenit boosters for Buran launches.)

Fold-out wings? Oh you Russians!

[Anonymous No.3824478]

>>3824145
We needed a good month, after the triple failure last month. (Fingers still crossed for Briz-M's five burns in nine hours. And also for a good Soyuz launch on Saturday.)

[Anonymous No.3824498]

>>3824457
>>3824447
oh energia, if only you'd still be around...
well, zenith is, of course.

>>3824398
I was very impressed by that, but just went "oh you magnicifent bastards" when I saw the same for the 2nd stage.

[Anonymous No.3824531]

>>3824478
What failures were last month?

[Anonymous No.3824556]

>>3824531
A chinese, a proton, and a soyuz.

-chinese was because of a vernier engine failure on the 2nd stage
-Proton ( same as just launched ) had an upper stage Breeze-M burn, leaving the satellite useless.
-Soyuz 3rd stage shut down early, because of a pressure drop in the fuel lines. This grounded all soyuz and progress flights ( this was an unmanned progress on a soyuz rocket; soyuz on soyuz is manned ).

The Chinese have solved their problem, so has proton. The russians with soyuz have also, but have not released this yet because of manned requirements and checks.

[Anonymous No.3824571]

>>3824039
It is by no means clear that even successful recovery makes economic sense. One of the things learned in the 30-year Shuttle experiment was the large cost of refurbishment. It is yet to be seen whether requalifying used stages will be cheaper than building new ones from scratch. If anyone can do it, SpaceX can, since they have automated much of that process.

I am both proud of Elon for attempting this with his own fortune on the line, and ashamed of NASA for not trying this earlier. That is what NASA's research programs used to do.

[Anonymous No.3824585]

man these threads always make me wish id stuck with aerospace engineering instead of selling out and doing econ :(

[Anonymous No.3824784]

bumping with an erection

[Anonymous No.3826363]

a few more hours until the final Briz-M burn, and we can call the Proton launch a success.