SpaceX's Grasshopper VTVL Finally Jumps Its Own Height

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX's Grasshopper VTVL Finally Jumps Its Own Height

Posted by timothy on Thursday December 27, 2012 @02:30AM from the small-step-for-rocketkind dept.

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."

22 of 111 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:YAY !! 1952 ALL OVER AGAIN !! by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-12-27 02:43 · Score: 3, Funny

Welcome to The Short Attention Span Era !!
Patience, Grasshopper.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:YAY !! 1952 ALL OVER AGAIN !! by tulcod · 2012-12-27 02:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
Re:Whats the advantage of this tech? by dreamchaser · 2012-12-27 02:53 · Score: 3, Informative

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?
Quicker and cheaper recovery, enabling it to be reused far quicker, etc.
Re:YAY !! 1952 ALL OVER AGAIN !! by moniker127 · 2012-12-27 02:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

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)
Re:Whats the advantage of this tech? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 02:59 · Score: 5, Informative

The big advantage is that when you dunk a booster the seawater gets everywhere and you have to rebuild it.
SpaceX would rather bring it down powered, test it, then launch it again. The cost of the propellant is less than 100K per launch, its the refurbishment, and sometimes wholesale replacement of the parts that really costs a lot of money.
More info on strategy here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/elon-musk-on-spacexs-reusable-rocket-plans-6653023
This is no Space Shuttle, its better. by moniker127 · 2012-12-27 03:23 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
1. Re:This is no Space Shuttle, its better. by milgram · 2012-12-27 03:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  While I agree with the direction of the evolution of the programs, I don't think it is a fair comparison to define the cost of the Space Shuttle launch as the total program cost divided by the number of launches. Much of the technology and information Falcon is using is based upon the research done to achieve the Shuttle program.
2. Re:This is no Space Shuttle, its better. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 03:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  While the general tenor of your computation is in the right direction, you're not even closed to calculating the costs fairly. You're not being very rigorous with separating out capital vs operating expenditures. You are hitting shuttle launches with a share of all the development and infrastructure costs, but left that out for SpaceX.
  But yes, the *incremental* cost of another shuttle launch is in the 500M range, which is still pretty pricey on a $/kg to orbit.
  There are some aspects you've also sort of glossed over: Shuttle is a terrible way to get to GTO, so comparing GTO payload capacity isn't a good metric. Shuttle has the same 3000kg "downmass" capabilty, too, which I don't think F9 or GH have. If you want to bring things back for repair and refurbishment, that's a useful thing to have. Or, you could treat space like remote islands in the Aleutians.. never take anything back, and just dump the old stuff in an ever increasing pile out back for the amusement of workers on their time off.
  That said, I think cheap expendable rockets like F9 are really the way to go for the immediate future.
3. Re:This is no Space Shuttle, its better. by tlambert · 2012-12-27 04:18 · Score: 2
  
  For what I gather, spaceX is mostly made up of ex-NASA people. From that it follows that spaceX probably did not invent the wheel, but simply copied and improved the one invented (and paid for) by NASA.
  I expect that it's more of a case of "NASA won't let us build the cool vehicles we want to build, it makes us build all this expensive crap, and we get to do it for maybe three vehicles before we end up dead from old age; hey! Let's go work for this billionaire who actually has a vision of the future he wants to build, instead of these politicians and bureaucrats who don't get that roller coaster feel in their stomach every time someone plays the Kennedy moon speech..."
  Personally, I'd rather work for someone with an actual vision beyond "let's send up some robots and get results in a decade and a half so we can justify sending up some more robots".
4. Re:This is no Space Shuttle, its better. by billyswong · 2012-12-27 04:22 · Score: 2
  
  SpaceX does provide 'some' cargo return capability. http://www.spacex.com/crs1.php
  Of course it is nothing compared to space shuttle, but when is the last time that a space shuttle bring back anything huge? Or, has it ever done so?
5. Re:This is no Space Shuttle, its better. by DerekLyons · 2012-12-27 05:08 · Score: 2
  
  But yes, the *incremental* cost of another shuttle launch is in the 500M range, which is still pretty pricey on a $/kg to orbit.
  Actually, the incremental cost of a Shuttle flight (that is, the direct costs to add a flight to the manifest) was down around $100-150M depending on who you ask. The annual cost per flight did range around $500M post Challenger, but that's because annual costs were dominated by massive fixed infrastructure costs that had to be paid regardless of how many flights were on the manifest.
  
  That said, I think cheap expendable rockets like F9 are really the way to go for the immediate future.
  By how cheap are they really? Even setting aside the lack of downmass and it's inability to ship unpressurized cargo without additional expense, how many Falcon 9/Dragon flights does it take to provide the same crew, cargo, and reboost capability to the ISS as a single Shuttle flight did?
  
  There's hidden factors that most people don't know about or think about... For example, much of the water the Shuttle delivered was a byproduct of it's fuel cells and was thus essentially free. (If they didn't deliver it to ISS, it was vented overboard.) The reboost fuel frequently came from the contingency load - RCS fuel loaded onboard the Shuttle for a launch abort situation, and again thus 'free' when used to reboost the station instead. Then you have to consider that the 'additional' crew the Shuttle carried could be (and was) used to shift cargo, which minimized the time the vehicle was docked to the station and thus minimized the time there was constraints on the station's attitude and the number of time per annum that the microgravity environment on the station had to be disturbed. (And the fact that the Shuttle could deliver cargo and personnel on the same flight works to the same end.) Etc... etc...
  
  Cost isn't the only factor - capabilities matter. They matter a great deal.
6. Re:This is no Space Shuttle, its better. by cheesybagel · 2012-12-27 05:24 · Score: 2
  
  How about just waiting for the next orbit and then de-orbiting? Cross range is a military requirement and not necessary for civilian launches.
7. Re:This is no Space Shuttle, its better. by BitZtream · 2012-12-27 09:12 · Score: 2
  
  I can get them to orbit FAR cheaper than SpaceX or NASA. Of course, they won't be able to do a thing when they get there as they'll be dead or otherwise damaged beyond usefulness. You can design a gun capable of lobbing things into space, the Gs from initial acceleration would destroy your people and cargo however.
  As was said, cost is not the only issue.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Whats the advantage of this tech? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 03:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

No advantage at all unless you are on the surface of Luna or Mars and wish return home to your loved ones.
Re:YAY !! 1952 ALL OVER AGAIN !! by crakbone · 2012-12-27 03:50 · Score: 3

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.
Re:BIT LATE? by Joce640k · 2012-12-27 03:53 · Score: 2

I've seen the video a number of times already...
But you won't see it via any of the useless links in the Slashdot summary...

--
No sig today...
Re:YAY !! 1952 ALL OVER AGAIN !! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-27 06:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Heh by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-12-27 06:29 · Score: 3, Funny

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."
I was just wondering what George Bush was up to these days.
Re:YAY !! 1952 ALL OVER AGAIN !! by VortexCortex · 2012-12-27 07:03 · Score: 2

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.
... the next launch succeeded, and they historically docked with the ISS. On the following resupply mission an engine failed mid flight, but the liquid fuel engines can be shut down mid-flight, routing fuel to the remaining engines, so that's what happened.
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.
Re:BIT LATE? by SomePgmr · 2012-12-27 07:07 · Score: 2

SpaceX posts everything to YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz-NYeH-CEY&feature=youtu.be
Re:YAY !! 1952 ALL OVER AGAIN !! by BitZtream · 2012-12-27 08:58 · Score: 4, Informative

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
Re:YAY !! 1952 ALL OVER AGAIN !! by Chuckstar · 2012-12-27 14:09 · Score: 2

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.