Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX's Grasshopper VTVL Finally Jumps Its Own Height
cylonlover writes "The SpaceX Grasshopper vertical takeoff vertical landing (VTVL) testbed has successfully flown to a height of 40 meters (131 ft), hovered for a bit and subsequently landed in a picture perfect test on December 17, 2012. The Grasshopper had previously taken two hops to less than 6 m (20 ft) in height, but the latest test was the first that saw it reach an altitude taller than the rocket itself, which is a modified Falcon 9 orbital launch vehicle. The flight lasted 29 seconds from launch to landing, and carried a 1.8 m (6 ft) cowboy dummy to give an indication of scale."
per dot-com bubble!
Have you read my blog lately?
Welcome to The Short Attention Span Era !!
Patience, Grasshopper.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I really can't see one. It seems like a massive waste of fuel to carry more stores on board then land vertically. Couldn't there be a better way of slowing descent in the atmosphere and recovering the module, like parachuting it into the ocean?
The fact that we got to the moon was a coincidence: we got there by trial and error, instead of careful analysis on error bounds, and actually making sure everything works before launch. This is exemplified by the many failed (!) Apollo missions.
This time, we're carefully doing all the calculations, and you can see this from the fact that SpaceX has not yet failed any mission, even though they have exactly the same missions as we used to.
The Heinlein Trust in their wisdom have already awared Elon Musk the Heinlein Prize:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk5Mq3Zk2nw
Now all he needs to do is make a metal walkway unfold down the side of rocket.
They haven't had any failures since the advent of the falcon 9 rocket. The first three falcon launches failed, and if the fourth hadn't worked, spaceX would've folded. Luckily, the fourth did work, and they learned a lot from it. (mostly that 9 > 1)
He's right. A lot of technology they're using has already been developed, why do they have to start from scratch?
Isn't Slashdot a few days behind just about everybody else in giving coverage to this news? I've seen the video a number of times already, through any number of other sites.
I would've thought you guys would be more on the ball on this one. After all, a lot of us Slashdotters like anything about space, and about SpaceX in particular.
I recommend seeing Elon Musk's interview with Kevin Rose, just to hear more about his backstory from the man himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g92rP1Mi_oQ
Space Shuttle:
Payload to GTO: ~3000 kg.
Average cost per flight: 1.5 billion (cost of shuttle program / number of launches)
Falcon 9 rocket:
Payload to GTO:~2000 kg
Average cost per flight: 50m (cost of expendable rocket)
Falcon 9 rocket with grasshopper gear:
Payload to GTO:~1000 kg (rough estimate)
Average cost per flight: ~200,000 (expected figure for fuel + incidentals)
You can do the math to figure out why this is a big deal.
Surely there must be a way of moderating this junk "Advertising" or something that doesn't affect your other mod point for relevant stuff. aaarrrggghh
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
It's tough to compete with Hollywood expectations.
Heck, the governor of California was going to go to Mars, kill several bad guys, issue several lines of dry cool wit as he dispatched them and then install an atmosphere on Mars. Where is all that awesome stuff?
What was I saying again? Oh nevermind, did you see what Kim Kardashian was wearing?
The technology was developed for the moon using ase standards. Not earth or mars. Also NASA is not great in the records dept. NASA has had to go back to museum pieces to reverse engineer equipment because document changes in design were never kept. Resulting in vast changes that were made on the fly to systems. Aswell technology has advanced and those changes need to be made.
I'd be much more interested in the mass of the dummy instead of its height.
Wake me when Grasshopper can lift a Cowboy Neal dummy.
...is maintaining stability while exiting and then re-entering the ground-effect region.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Everyone in aerospace thinks they're a joke.
Sure, because everyone else in aerospace can man up and do it themselves...
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
There is evidence that Europeans visited the America's before Columbus. However many years later boating technology improved so such a trip isn't nearly as heroic. And as time progresses further, today we can boat across the Atlantic without being considered a hero.
Yes we have been to the moon, we know it can be done. But we really don't have any pressing means to get there really, so we should take our time and find a way to make the trip safer and a bit less heroic.
While it has been a while and there is some relearning lessons learned, we also have new technology available that was near impossible then. We can do calculations and adjustments with todays computers much faster than the old rockets. So many old methods that was tossed out as making too hard to control, may be perfectly usable now.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Coincidence? I don't think that word means what you think it means...
We weren't doing massive VTVL space rockets in the 50's. And maybe the armchair know-it-alls should just build their own space rockets if it's as easy as picking up a dusty set of blueprints.
The arrogance and delusion is just astounding.
I was just wondering what George Bush was up to these days.
i hope i don't feel this hung-over when they announce that fusion was accomplished for the power grid. ...
thank you very much, tyvm, i'll be here all week
The 1st launch where they were going to dock the Dragon Capsule to the ISS failed. The launch was aborted after "Liftoff" was proclaimed. Indeed, with a solid rocket booster that couldn't have been shut off, the launch couldn't have been aborted a second after liftoff, it would have had to try to soldier on with the mission, or maybe execute a planned crash / destructive abort procedure; However, liquid fuel was used, so they just cut off the fuel, and tried again another day...
Update: May 19, 2012
Today’s launch was aborted when the flight computer detected slightly high pressure in the engine 5 combustion chamber. We have discovered root cause and repairs are underway.
October 8, Update
Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night’s launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket’s nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. Our review of flight data indicates that neither the rocket stage nor any of the other eight engines were negatively affected by this event.
You see? It's not that the engines are less fail proof, it's that they have better fail safes.
P.S. SpaceX, please tell your webmaster to replace those <strong> tags with the preceding named anchor tags, keep the "blue smallText" class (though you should name the class semantically, not describe what they do, that's just as bad as per element style attributes! Derp!), and set the href attribute to be "#" + the name attribute, eg: href="#Update100712" to create self referential links; That way instead of delving into the source of your HTML to get at the anchor names I can right click the link and copy the URL when I want to link to the pertinent places in that giant list of updates (also, might want to break them into smaller pages, maybe by month?) Alternatively: Fire that moron, and I'll do it for you for free.
Actually, the first one sank into the swamp. So they built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So they built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up.
THL phish sticks
Define failure. Last trip had an engine break apart during launch.
Incorrect.
They had a controlled shut down on one engine. It did not break apart.
there weren't quite enough during that video, were there...
Idiots. Unbelievable. Couldn't they just use ONE shot, and let us appreciate it, rather than mixing a stupid number of different views of it? Assholes.
trial and error? more like steady progression...the russian were the hare to the USAs tortoise, but we all know how that one ends up, no?
failed apollo missions? 1 yes, 13, maybe.
compare Apollos 8 to 11 if you don't think there was any pre landing testing.
It was no coincidence men landed on the moon, it was INTENTIONAL...
we also have new technology available that was near impossible then. We can do calculations and adjustments with todays computers much faster than the old rockets.
so they used rockets for 'calculations and adjustments'?
ha ha ha ha =D
Adding to your thought ...
The 'breaking apart' was an intentional jettison of a panel to ensure any other actual issues would limit exposure to the rest of the craft. It was just like the safety blow off value on a water heater. Unacceptable tolorences were detected and the craft compensated to mitigate damage and ensure continued flight.
The 'break apart' was by design and couldn't have been a better example of designing for failure and still winning the game.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Of course! Why didn't they just use an Arduino and call it a day? Those dummies.
If it is so damn easy, why don't you go work for SpaceX, I'm sure they would pay anyone who could get this fully working in a few weeks very well.
Logic dictates that if it really was so easy it wouldn't take them so long to get it ready, it isn't like they have an endless stream of government money to piss away, it is mostly private investment and I'm sure Elon Musk doesn't want the money he invested to be wasted so they have no incentive to stretch out the development more than absolutely necessary.
No. The engine bell imploded due to the sudden change in aerodynamic forces acting on the bell. With the engine running, the burning fuel pushes outward against the bell. The corner bells also experience strong forces from the airstream. Those forces are in equilibrium when the engines are running. When the engine shut off, the external force caused the bell to collapse.
Space-X was aware this would happen if one of the corner engines failed, and the engines are designed such that the bell can shear off without causing wider problems to the craft, but that doesn't mean the engine was designed to break apart. Maybe you should say "the engine couldn't be designed to not break apart in that circumstance, so they insured that it wouldn't cause wider damage".
But even that wouldn't be accurate. Space-X has expressed concern about such bell implosions. The most likely outcome is what happened ... nothing. But there is concern about a chain reaction, where pieces of the bell might impact nearby bells, causing a chain-reaction failure. Just ask NASA whether the following logic is useful: "it looks bad, but it worked OK a few times, so we're just gonna go with it". Both shuttle losses were due to that logic.
There's been discussion of a faring to decrease the external pressure against the engine bell, but the faring needs to strong enough to support the same pressure that shattered the bell. (That's a little misleading, it wasn't static pressure that shattered the bell, but a sudden change in forces acting on it. But a faring would still have to withstand pretty strong pressure.) Unfortunately that means extra weight. And it means redesign and retesting, which is costly.
when you got nothing to backup your ridiculous claims and FUD, it's good to see you're at least consistent.
For single camera view, see here
When I make a ridiculous claim, get back to me.
But you don't have the requisite background knowledge to recognize a ridiculous claim in the first place.
Sure smells like appeal from authority logical fallacy in here.
Does no one remember the DC-X? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvage_1
and pics of the spaceship http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/9782/salestes.html&date=2009-10-25+06:41:49 [webcitation.org]
I loved that show as a kid now I just need a cement mixer, fuel tanker, and some recycled tyres
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
NASA has the best record for space exploration of any organization in the world. If you give them sufficient resources and don't mix in politics they usually succeed beyond expectations.
The Shuttle is the poster child for political meddling. The mandate from Congress was that the military and NASA would use the Shuttle. The Air Force put in the requirement for that led to the big wings, which have been the Achilles heel of the program: less efficient to get into orbit and more vulnerable to catastrophic failure. Then the AF dropped out (I never think they wanted to be a part of it) and left NASA with a seriously flawed design. Ironically, if you look at the wing/body size ratio for the X-37B it is proportionately much smaller then the Shuttle.
The Voyagers where initially intended as 3 year missions, and they are still producing data nearly 35 years after launch.
The Opportunity Rover, which was planned as a 90 earth day mission, is still going eight years after landing.
There have been eight USA attempts to land on Mars: Viking I, Viking II, Mars Pathfinder, Mars Polar Lander, Mars Exploration Rover Spirit, Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity, the Phoenix lander and the Mars Exploration Rover Curiosity. Of all these missions, only the Polar Lander failed, This is a 87.5% success rate. The overall success rate for all Mars missions is around 50%.
The only two missions to Mercury were NASA spacecraft.
After a serious failure, the Hubble was fixed in orbit. It was later upgraded in a way that was never originally planned for. Success is often about recovering from failure. (The Hubble mirror was flawed because the Air Force was making classified equipment at the same facility, and the number of NASA personal was restricted as a result. Lack of on site inspections was the management failure.)
I could go on and on, but I know the NASA bashing will never stop. I can only guess that those who try to denigrate the successful feel they are failures, and thus attempt to drag everyone down to their level.
Why is Snark Required?
Does no one remember the DC-X? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X
Just to point out... this was a DARPA initiative, not a NASA one, and operated on a relative shoestring of a budget.