SpaceX’s Grasshopper rocket successfully did a vertical take off and landing to a height of 130 feet last week.
SpaceX’s Grasshopper rocket successfully did a vertical take off and landing to a height of 130 feet last week. With video.
This is very cool engineering, but I remain skeptical any first stage rocket could carry enough fuel to both return to Earth vertically and also provide its payload enough thrust to get into orbit.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
SpaceX’s Grasshopper rocket successfully did a vertical take off and landing to a height of 130 feet last week. With video.
This is very cool engineering, but I remain skeptical any first stage rocket could carry enough fuel to both return to Earth vertically and also provide its payload enough thrust to get into orbit.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
I’m sure we both hope your skepticism will be proven unwarranted. A reusable launch system must be achieved to enable human settlement into space. Are there better ideas being worked on right now?
You’ve just got to run the numbers. Need more fuel, fly more strap-ons. They are reusable anyway. Who said 4, 6 or even 8 strap-ons are not viable? But like I said, you’ve got to run the numbers.
Hey, I hope you are right.
Yes, and it would seem that one wouldn’t have to carry enough fuel to cancel all of the velocity, just enough to prevent too much heating on reentry, use parachutes to void much of the verticle velocity and then just a bit more at the very end. Perhaps this is why, in their reusability video they don’t show the first stage coming down to the cape but only the last portion (after the parachute disconnected).
Also, initial reusability doesn’t have to be 100% in order to make a big difference. Even if only the first stage were reusable and if it didn’t cancel horizontal velocity but landed on a ship or an island, that would still significantly lower their launch costs and make them much more competitive than others. This would give them more time and money to perfect reusability further.
Regarding strap-ons, if you use crossfeed, then the strap-ons will detach earlier and so require less fuel to cancel vertical velocity.
isn’t This what von Braun and others designed back in the ’50s ? those designs proved to be too large to be cost efficient and were scrapped.
That is cool, but the coolest part of that video isn’t the engineering, it’s that it’s being done by private enterprise.
“isn’t This what von Braun and others designed back in the ’50s ? those designs proved to be too large to be cost efficient and were scrapped.”
No.
The stages of the launch vehicles of “Projekt Mars”, and other pre-sputnik proposals, were using different propellants, and were using wings to fly back into the atmosphere. They were hoping that enough wing surface could lower the heat load on the vehicle. It turned out that the wings that could do that enough were far too heavy, and the payload too small. In addition, the nitric acid oxidizer and hydrazine fuels were too corrosive on the one hand, and too poisonous on the other for continual rapid turnaround of vehicles.
In addition, until Vostok1 flew, there was no money in either ABMA’s or later NASA’s budget to build anything like that, anyway.
The vehicles cancelled in the Saturn program were steps between Saturn 1 and Saturn 5 that would push the Moon Landing back into the 1970s. Unfortunately, the Earth-Orbit Rendezvous techniques looked like they *might* do the same, and so they were cancelled as well. By the time Gemini 3 flew, Lunar Orbit Rendezvous was the assumed mode of flight.
Well, obviously a lot to be worked out here, but at least it looks like the basic concept works. Whether it will become practical is another matter, but it’s great to see someone trying. Many things we can do today take for granted once looked impossible or impractical, but someone had the courage to dream & actually try…
I’m just a layman, and I’m bound to be a bit wrong, but this is how I understand it.
1. The first stage dry mass doesn’t go to orbit, just part of the way, that means only a small part of the deltav is proportioned to speed it up. That means it isn’t traveling as fast when it needs to be slowed down. It also means that additional mass added to the first stage for recovery doesn’t exact a full 1:1 payload costs, but something like 10 to 1, or adding 10 pounds to the mass of the first stage booster only costs 1 pound reduction in orbital payload.
2. The first stage mass is mostly fuel. Once its burn is completed, the first stage is much much lighter, like only a few percent of the mass it was. It is basically an empty fuel tank. This is the dry mass. That means it costs much less in fuel to decelerate and land it. Using the estimated first stage mass figures at spacelaunchreport.com, a Falcon 9 weighs 419 tonnes at liftoff, but only 28 tonnes at burnout.
The rocket is also very overpowered for that duty, since the engine thrust is sized to get the whole fueled rocket off the ground.
So you are only returning a ~28 tonne mass(plus whatever recovery mass is necessary) to the ground, and the fuel and gear for that, as stated in point 1, doesn’t extract a full penalty from your orbital figures.
i agree libs0n, and further, these are the concepts of rocketry long Before any space programs were even tried. watch an old space movie, for instance, the 1955 film ” the Conquest of Space” .
Re: The first stage mass is mostly fuel. Once its burn is completed, the first stage is much much lighter, like only a few percent of the mass it was…
Right – good point…
I have to assume that the folks at SpaceX have run the numbers and the math works out with respect to having enough remaining fuel to slow and land a booster. If so, it then turns into an engineering effort to prove out the math. Something SpaceX seems to be making good progress on.