• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

SpaceX successfully land rocket vertically

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

krang

Member
Amazing feat of engineering, and achieved in a relatively short time. Trust Elon to do what governments can't.

Congrats to all the staff at SpaceX.

Landing on the barges was probably for safety more than anything - landing back at the Cape was always the intention eventually. What those failed landings proved is that it can hit the target, even if it doesn't survive the landing. I guess they were comfortable enough that they could avoid an unsafe reentry even if they crashed again.
 
O

Orbis

Member
If you'd have told me a few years ago that in 2015 we'd see a first stage of an orbital rocket literally turn around and land itself dead centre on a target right next to where it took off, I'd wager a lot of money against you.
 
C

Crispy75

Member
A true landmark in space history. Hopefully soon to be followed by another: Seeing this stage (or one just like it - I reckon this one will end up being thoroughly dismantled and investigated) refuelled and fly again :)
 
S

Snow

Member
Watched it live (at 2:30am local time for me) and it was just about the most exciting thing I've ever watched.

I'm not one to give in to hyperbole, but going from spaceflight where you have to chuck away the rocket after each launch to reusing it will change access to space completely. Single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO), where the entire vehicle goes up in one piece, does its thing in space and then lands in one piece has been the holy grail for space flight for decades now, because it would be such a paradigm shift in space travel. Nobody actually managed to make it work (e.g. see the failed Venturestar project), but having a rocket that still stages but can then fly those back pretty much gets us there in terms of the underlying goals of SSTO, i.e. reuse and cost.
 
H

hohoXD123

Member
Kenshin001 said:
Yeah, I think the details were a bit different, it was sub orbital or something, but it kind of deflates the achievement somewhat.
Click to expand...

Crispy75 said:
The BO rocket was much smaller, didn't go as fast, didn't travel downrange and had a thrust:weight ratio greater than 1 which made for a much easier landing.

SpaceX's is by far the more impressive achievement.
Click to expand...

Dave Inc. said:
Blue Origin was less than 10% the mass and thrust of Falcon 9, and wasn't a real mission delivering payload to LEO. Still impressive, but not nearly as much so as this one which proves the whole concept of functional and reusable first stages.
Click to expand...

Ah fair enough, thanks for the clarification.
 
G

GSG Flash

Nobody ruins my family vacation but me...and maybe the boy!
hohoXD123 said:
Didn't Blue Origin achieve this last month?

Edit: Link
Click to expand...

Not the same thing, the Falcon 9 travelled more than 2 times higher, was 23 stories tall(New Shepard was much smaller), carried a payload successfully, and it wasn't a straight up and down flight.

They Blue Origin landing was impressive but this was on another level.

Edit: Beaten multiple times :/
 
E-Cat

E-Cat

Member
hohoXD123 said:
Didn't Blue Origin achieve this last month?
Click to expand...
xxindex.php,,qaction=dlattach,,3Btopic=38873.0,,3Battach=1080966,,3Bimage,Mic.pEkHh9V140.jpg.pagespeed.ic.Ti5RLXO_kE.webp
 
S

Sotha_Sil

Member
Wish I was still living in Orlando so I can see these things. It was definitely the coolest part about living in that area.
 
S

Snow

Member
GSG Flash said:
Not the same thing, the Falcon 9 travelled more than 2 times higher, was 23 stories tall(New Shepard was much smaller), carried a payload successfully, and it wasn't a straight up and down flight.

They Blue Origin landing was impressive but this was on another level.

Edit: Beaten multiple times :/
Click to expand...
And the 'not straight up or down' is huge. There is a huge difference between suborbital and orbital launches. I feel the non-enthusiast media have a tendency to mash all these new space companies like Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin and SpaceX together as basically doing the same thing. Where in reality most are suborbital and what SpaceX is doing is pretty distinct and several orders of magnitudes more complex.
 
V

Venture

Member
This is so cool. Like something out of 1950's sci-fi movie. Now I just need to see one of these land, a little ramp come down, and astronauts walk out of it.
 
M

MrChocolate

Member
So in terms of usefulness:

- Is cheaper than to build a whole new rocket?
- Is safer?
- ???

Can anyone give me the pros and cons of this?
 
R

RoyalFool

Banned
Love watching the control room video, the sheer joy and excitement on all their faces - amazing stuff.

Glad the satellites made it up safely, are they looking into using this tech for space tourism down the line or purely for carrying freight?
 
A

Alexlf

Member
MrChocolate said:
So in terms of usefulness:

- Is cheaper than to build a whole new rocket?
- Is safer?
- ???

Can anyone give me the pros and cons of this?
Click to expand...

Literally tens of millions of dollars cheaper. Safer? There's no humans on it or any cargo at that point anyways, so same level of safety.
 
E-Cat

E-Cat

Member
MrChocolate said:
So in terms of usefulness:

- Is cheaper than to build a whole new rocket?
- Is safer?
- ???

Can anyone give me the pros and cons of this?
Click to expand...

Pros:

- makes launching a rocket about two orders of magnitude cheaper
- will enable cost-effective colonization of Mars

Cons, can't really think of any.
 
B

bionic77

Member
krang said:
Amazing feat of engineering, and achieved in a relatively short time. Trust Elon to do what governments can't.

Congrats to all the staff at SpaceX.

Landing on the barges was probably for safety more than anything - landing back at the Cape was always the intention eventually. What those failed landings proved is that it can hit the target, even if it doesn't survive the landing. I guess they were comfortable enough that they could avoid an unsafe reentry even if they crashed again.
Click to expand...
All props to the team.

But correct me if I am wrong, it is my understanding that NASA has helped the team tremendously and they would not be where they are today without that help. My understanding is that NASA helps all of these private outfits because they are awesome and want all of them to succeed.
 
S

snacknuts

we all knew her
I just watched the video of everyone celebrating after the successful landing and was nearly moved to tears. Incredible stuff.
 
D

duderon

rollin' in the gutter
bionic77 said:
All props to the team.

But correct me if I am wrong, it is my understanding that NASA has helped the team tremendously and they would not be where they are today without that help. My understanding is that NASA helps all of these private outfits because they are awesome and want all of them to succeed.
Click to expand...


NASA has a contracted SpaceX to bring cargo to the ISS and crew in the next couple years. So they have provided funding. SpaceX also has multiple private clients. Beyond that NASA has worked with SpaceX loosely, like sharing specifications on NASA's heat shield technology so SpaceX could modify that and create their own. SpaceX is largely independent, which makes what they have achieved even more impressive.
 
B

Bregor

Member
E-Cat said:
Pros:

- makes launching a rocket about two orders of magnitude cheaper
- will enable cost-effective colonization of Mars

Cons, can't really think of any.
Click to expand...

Two orders of magnitude cheaper? It's 1/100th of the cost? I find that difficult to believe.
 
D

duderon

rollin' in the gutter
Bregor said:
Two orders of magnitude cheaper? It's 1/100th of the cost? I find that difficult to believe.
Click to expand...

It would be like having to destroy an airplane after you fly it once. Once they can reuse the rocket without much refurbishment all they are paying for is fuel. $200k vs. $60 million
 
Q

QuicheFontaine

Member
duderon said:
It would be like having to destroy an airplane after you fly it once. Once they can reuse the rocket without much refurbishment all they are paying for is fuel. $200k vs. $60 million
Click to expand...

Holy shit, are those real figures? 300 times cheaper??

Time to start flinging stuff up to Mars!
 
B

Bregor

Member
Come on guys, you know there is a lot more to the expense of a launch than that, and only part of the rocket is getting reused. There is no way the cost of a launch is 1/100th of what it was.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very excited by this and they deserve the kudos they are getting, but lets keep the hyperbole under control.
 
G

GSG Flash

Nobody ruins my family vacation but me...and maybe the boy!
SpaceX themselves say this about the cost:

http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/03/31/reusability-key-making-human-life-multi-planetary

SpaceX believes a fully and rapidly reusable rocket is the pivotal breakthrough needed to substantially reduce the cost of space access. The majority of the launch cost comes from building the rocket, which flies only once. Compare that to a commercial airliner – each new plane costs about the same as Falcon 9, but can fly multiple times per day, and conduct tens of thousands of flights over its lifetime. Following the commercial model, a rapidly reusable space launch vehicle could reduce the cost of traveling to space by a hundredfold.
Click to expand...

edit:

Also this:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/01/14/shotwell/

SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell talks at the event last summer and discussed the price points for a reusable Falcon 9. The comments begin at the 13:17 mark.

“If we get this right, and we’re trying very hard to get this right, we’re looking at launches to be in the 5 to 7 million dollar range, which would really change things dramatically,” Shotwell said.

The main costs would be the initial investment in the stages, the cost of fuel, and mission operations expenses.
Click to expand...
 
A

Alexlf

Member
Bregor said:
Come on guys, you know there is a lot more to the expense of a launch than that, and only part of the rocket is getting reused. There is no way the cost of a launch is 1/100th of what it was.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very excited by this and they deserve the kudos they are getting, but lets keep the hyperbole under control.
Click to expand...

I'd be extremely surprised if the cost of setting up the rocket for launch cost anything over $5 Million
 
cebri.one

cebri.one

Member
Estimated cost:

- Full F9 : 55M~
- 1st Stage : 40M~
- Fuel : 300K~

So yeah, savings could be huge but it will all depend on how much it cost to put it on pad again.
 
B

Bregor

Member
Dan27 said:
The figures that have been put around (in press packs etc) is that they are looking for a 90% saving from $60m to $6m.
Click to expand...

That would be impressive (and one order of magnitude), but I have trouble believing even that.

Though I suppose the simple solution is for me to just wait and see how it goes, rather than just being an armchair aerospace engineer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SpaceX will try to launch most powerful rocket ever Monday
2 3 4 5
217
11K
Tams replied
Sand Land | Review Thread
Opinion Analysis Review
12
1K
bender replied
NASA announces $2.89 billion contract with SpaceX to use custom version of Starship to land on the Moon
2
73
6K
Smiles and Cries replied
Scientist Predicted 'Elon' Would Lead Humans On Mars Back In 1948
37
4K
Bernd Lauert replied
Searches For ‘VR’ Rocket 300% Worldwide After Apple Unveils Vision Pro
2
73
4K
Draxon Gamer replied
Top Bottom