SpaceX Falcon Heavy Successful Flight

[DrWho]

On 2/7/2018 at 10:14 PM, Mallette said:

So what's the benefit of landing a passenger plane as opposed to disposing of it?  Very weird question.  

Well that would be the snarky ignorant reply.....

 

SpaceX has the following on their website:

http://www.spacex.com/news/2015/06/24/why-and-how-landing-rockets

The question not answered in my mind is why that is the best approach. I don't think anyone questions the merits of reusing a rocket.

 

I understand that the raw fuel "material" itself isn't that expensive (proportionally speaking), but requiring a crap ton more fuel compounds other scaling issues - which ultimately obfuscates the true cost increase of having to pack the extra fuel. Basically, the rocket is a lot bigger (and therefore way more expensive) in order to accommodate the extra fuel needed for landing.

 

Obviously "rocket scientists" are working on this stuff, so it's not like they're not brilliant and aware of tradeoffs - but the space program seems to have a constant stream of overly complicated everything. I have a hard time fathoming that this is the most elegant solution to saving a rocket....especially when my small mind can dream up all sorts of other approaches that seem way simpler, cheaper, and move the cost out of the rocket entirely. I am absolutely not saying I could do a better job, but I would think it'd be possible to find some further explanation after doing my diligent research. Unfortunately Google searches on this subject are flooded with the nonsense propaganda from Musk who likes to over-exaggerate and showboat about everything.

 

And then any interest in further discussion is squelched by condescending remarks from someone blinded by the kool-aid.

[Jeff Matthews]

3 minutes ago, DrWho said:

I have a hard time fathoming that this is the most elegant solution to saving a rocket....especially when my small mind can dream up all sorts of other approaches that seem way simpler, cheaper, and move the cost out of the rocket entirely

Like...

[oldtimer]

45 minutes ago, Jeff Matthews said:

Like...

even smaller minds want to know...

[Travis In Austin]

7 hours ago, oldtimer said:

even smaller minds want to know...

Parachutes in the Mojavi Desert.

 

He is trying to catch and use the fairing pieces  now, on a boat with a giant net.  

 

I think if you look at the design proposals going way back where his design was selected, NASA did want, and approved demanding the boosters on land because this is what will necessary to go to Mars.

[Mallette]

23 hours ago, DrWho said:

And then any interest in further discussion is squelched by condescending remarks from someone blinded by the kool-aid.

Good grief, Mike. I stated my initial skepticism on VTOL rockets...but Musk (showboating or not) as shown it's the best approach. If you have a better idea, I'll bet he's all ears. I am not assuming you mean me concerning "condescending remarks" in that my own self image is not so high as to make any. I simply observe and comment on what I see. The future is not to predict, but to experience. Yes, I make some predictions, but that doesn't mean by any means I have faith in them. Just my thoughts based on the past and present. I am NOT a skeptic, as I see skepticism as non-objective. Prefer to be neutral. 

 

Dave

[DrWho]

On 4/5/2018 at 2:34 AM, dwilawyer said:

I think if you look at the design proposals going way back where his design was selected, NASA did want, and approved demanding the boosters on land because this is what will necessary to go to Mars.

Hmmm, interesting....now that makes a ton of sense. Is that now the plan of record for landing the crew on Mars? I just watched a documentary while on a recent flight talking about the physics of landing with Mar's atmosphere, and they hadn't identified a solution yet. I don't recall them talking about using rockets on the landing though - I'll have to watch it again. The plan of record at the time was a Rube Goldberg experiment - this rocket landing approach would be way more elegant than the other methods they were proposing.

[Mallette]

14 minutes ago, DrWho said:

The plan of record at the time was a Rube Goldberg experiment - this rocket landing approach would be way more elegant than the other methods they were proposing.

Certainly more elegant than the one a decade or so again where they mixed metric and medieval measurements and splatted 4 billion in our money all over the surface.

I don't think NASA had that much influence. Reusable spacecraft are an economic imperative. Worked on the Moon, and Mars isn't all that much more of a challenge. Earth is pretty tough given the heavy gravity and thick atmosphere. 

 

Dave

[Mallette]

23 minutes ago, DrWho said:

Hmmm, interesting....now that makes a ton of sense. Is that now the plan of record for landing the crew on Mars?

You don't seem to understand Musk's motivations at all. HIS is the "plan of record," with or without NASA. Of course, he'd like their support and money...but he will do this and do it the safest, most cost effective way, regardless. It is his sole motivation and has been since he was a teen.

 

Dave

[richieb]

 

--- might all this be predicated on whether or not Tesla goes bankrupt?  It is a possibility after all , their stock is off nearly 35% since fall. 

 

[Travis In Austin]

2 hours ago, Mallette said:

Certainly more elegant than the one a decade or so again where they mixed metric and medieval measurements and splatted 4 billion in our money all over the surface.

There was one 20 years ago, there was confusion between using pounds of thrust vs  Newton's.  It cost about 100 million but it didn't splat on anything, it burned up in the atmosphere.  It simply got closer than it was supposed.  It wasn't supposed to land, it was an orbiter. 

[Travis In Austin]

2 hours ago, Mallette said:

You don't seem to understand Musk's motivations at all. HIS is the "plan of record," with or without NASA. Of course, he'd like their support and money...but he will do this and do it the safest, most cost effective way, regardless. It is his sole motivation and has been since he was a teen.

 

Dave

Um no again, not the plan of record, and he was lagging behind Blue Origin, and he is a quarter of a century behind NASA.

 

NASA had first VTVL vehicle, it's called the LEM.   Landed our men on moon, brought them back to Command module. 

 

Reusable spacecraft was the goal and objective of NASA since the 70s.

 

 

 

They funded the DC-XA.  Over a dozen successful take offs and landings from earth in the 90s.

 

Here is a clip

 

 

A.photo below.  That's almost 25 years ago NASA spearheaded a project with McDonald Douglas.  That's White Sands.  

 

Some of the engineers from this project went to Blue Origin.

 

2010 NASA funds the suborbital Resuable Launch Vehicle project,  Blue Origin is one of three selected.

 

Blue Origin was the first to successfully land a booster rocket (New Shepard) for reuse.

 

 

 

[Mallette]

2 hours ago, dwilawyer said:

NASA had first VTVL vehicle, it's called the LEM. 

I mentioned that...but it wasn't terrestrial, which is a whole 'nother ball game. There approach was the Shuttle, good concept ruined by DOD demands.  Original concept was smaller to be launched from a mother ship, similar concept to Burt Rutan's.  

 

Not aware of significant NASA contribution to Delta Clipper. That was an incredible achievement that sadly couldn't continue due to lack of money. Musk and all could have been much farther ahead with just a little more vision on the part of NASA. Much as I respect their accomplishments, the "not invented here" thing spoiled many concepts until they got so short of funds they started reaching out, as they have to Musk. Much as I've blasted the administrations over the past decades for cut, cut, cut at NASA I have begun to think it was the right thing to do. Left to them, we'd be nowhere near where we are now.

 

Dave

[Travis In Austin]

2 hours ago, Mallette said:

I mentioned that...but it wasn't terrestrial, which is a whole 'nother ball game. There approach was the Shuttle, good concept ruined by DOD demands.  Original concept was smaller to be launched from a mother ship, similar concept to Burt Rutan's.  

 

Not aware of significant NASA contribution to Delta Clipper. That was an incredible achievement that sadly couldn't continue due to lack of money. Musk and all could have been much farther ahead with just a little more vision on the part of NASA. Much as I respect their accomplishments, the "not invented here" thing spoiled many concepts until they got so short of funds they started reaching out, as they have to Musk. Much as I've blasted the administrations over the past decades for cut, cut, cut at NASA I have begun to think it was the right thing to do. Left to them, we'd be nowhere near where we are now.

 

Dave

It's all NASA when it comes to VTVL.

 

First non-testerial VTVL, first testerial VTVL.  

 

In 2003 they can up with the Centenial Challenges (prizes)  which included VTV vehicles.  A vehicle to lift rocks off Mars and link up with spaceship to fly back to earth and the Lunar Lander X Prize.

 

NASA funds and organizes all of this.

 

Delta-XA was all NASA, and they were ready to go into X-33 with Lockheed, MD or Rockwell , 2/3 NASA and 1/3 private for first commercial spaceflight.  Lockheed got picked, but it never got finished.

 

Here is info graphic from Space.com on VTVL/reusable launchers by NASA.  VTVL goes way, way back for NASA.

 

[Mallette]

37 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

Lockheed got picked, but it never got finished.

The important part. I recall when that was mooted, and my first thought was "...it's a lot of graphics and nothing has actually been done." Nothing was done. Lockheed had nothing but a bunch of drawings. 

 

I didn't go back and really check, but still have my doubts NASA had much to do with Delta Clipper. If it's the case, they totally failed to capitalize on extraordinary technology far superior to the Shuttle. 

 

Let me know if you have some evidence of major NASA funding for this. I am always subject to correction.

 

Dave

[Travis In Austin]

They are getting closer 

 

https://amp.space.com/42387-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-nasa-certification.html