
SpaceX Grasshopper Flies High - navneetpandey
http://www.universetoday.com/101627/spacex-grasshopper-flies-high/
======
jessriedel
For those of you who haven't seen it, here is SpaceX's fantastic animation of
their ultimate goal for Falcon 9 (complete with soundtrack by Muse):

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWFFiubtC3c>

This will give you an idea of how grasshopper fits into the full flight plan.

~~~
deepblueocean
I find this confusing. It's awesome, that's for sure. But it seems like
lifting all the fuel needed to do a soft landing is inherently a tradeoff for
less payload capacity. What is the benefit, then? Is it just so much cheaper
to be able to re-use the first two stages?

~~~
InclinedPlane
Almost the entirety of the cost of an orbital launch is in manufacturing and
operational costs. Cost of fuel is basically just noise. If you can reduce
operational turnaround time and operational complexity, even at a cost of
payload, then you'll save so much money it'll be worth it in the long term.
SpaceX is aiming for a re-assemble, gas up and go workflow. If they can pull
it off it might reduce their per flight launch costs by a factor of 10 in the
short term and perhaps as much as 100 if they get really good at it (although
that's likely several generations of hardware down the line, at best). With
that sort of thing on offer a reduction in payload is easily justifiable.

Imagine if somebody replaced your car with a version that had twice the
carrying capacity, but would only run for one tank of gas. It wouldn't be a
worthwhile trade would it?

~~~
mikeash
To put it in perspective, the fuel used to launch a Space Shuttle cost in the
neighborhood of $1 million, while the cost of the entire launch was somewhere
around $500 million to $1 billion.

~~~
slacka
Could and real or kerbal rocket scientists here explain why SpaceX isn't doing
something like the curiosity rover landing? Sure there's 3 extra steps, deploy
parachute, cut parachute, and evasive maneuver, but the fuel saving would
massive.

~~~
JshWright
I'm not sure the savings would be as massive as you think (and would be offset
by other costs).

Parachutes (and associated equipment) are heavy, so you'll burn fuel lifting
that extra weight.

Parachutes are complicated, and would be an extra system to develop, test, and
validate.

Parachutes are annoying to repack/replace (increasing turnaround time).

Parachutes put odd stresses on large objects when they deploy (increasing the
amount of inspection you would have to do after each flight).

All that hassle to reduce the terminal velocity by a couple hundred miles an
hour. That's not that big a win for a pretty high cost.

~~~
Florin_Andrei
> _All that hassle to reduce the terminal velocity by a couple hundred miles
> an hour._

That's the TLDR. The delta-vee from the parachute is not worth the trouble.

~~~
mikeash
Or put it another way, parachutes are generally less effective than using a
system you already have for other purposes. A parachute probably beats a
rocket engine if your only task is landing, _but_ when you already have the
rocket engine, you're better off using it for landing than building a
completely separate landing system.

In short, same basic reason why we use wings and wheels to land airplanes
rather than dropping them from a parachute when they reach their destination.

------
MartinMcGirk
I can't even begin to describe how psyched I get when I see demos like this.
The advances that SpaceX and their competitors are making in terms of making
access to space cheaper are what will eventually lead to the human species
settling on other planets.

It also reminds me that when it comes to science, and who knows, maybe other
things as well, it's not just public sector vs private sector. SpaceX wouldn't
be driving us forward like this if NASA hadn't put in a whole heap of
groundwork first, but similarly NASA have other goals to worry about besides
keeping costs down. It's that combination of NASA's huge ambition and private
enterprise's drive to make efficiency savings that will eventually get us
colonizing places that aren't the Earth.

I hope it happens in my life time,

~~~
Florin_Andrei
It's like the Internet.

First, you need a massive government program to get the technology from the
pie in the sky stage to something usable - a multi-decade, arduous process
that produces no short-term profits, if any. Once that's done, it's time for
the private sector to step in.

~~~
qu4z-2
Something something Eternal September of Rocketry.

------
stigi
"Unfortunately, this video is not available in Germany because it may contain
music for which GEMA has not granted the respective music rights."

Here's a short link to bypass: <http://www.ssyoutube.com/watch?v=sWFFiubtC3c>

~~~
InclinedPlane
SpaceX uploaded a version without music:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUvbh-Z8Abk>

------
lutorm
This is probably a good place to point out: The SpaceX flight software team is
looking for skilled software engineers! There are openings from anything from
front-end RoR stuff to flight software and simulations infrastructure. If you
want to help making stuff like this video run, check out some of these:

[https://jobs.github.com/positions/bd54ba2a-a930-11e2-9c0e-5c...](https://jobs.github.com/positions/bd54ba2a-a930-11e2-9c0e-5c6dc1b4f99c)

<http://www.spacex.com/careers.php?jvi=oarEWfwV,Job>

<http://www.spacex.com/careers.php?jvi=odfMWfwU,Job>

~~~
Game_Ender
What are the upsides to living in LA?

~~~
lutorm
Depends on where you live now, I guess. Let's just say living in LA is not the
reason I work here... though it isn't nearly as bad as I had feared.

------
savrajsingh
Can someone share some details on how the rocket is stabilized? There are a
few different ways to do it -- how does this one work?

~~~
JshWright
I assume it's some sort of gimbal control/vectoring of the thrust (since I
don't see any 'extra' exhaust further up the rocket)

~~~
rst
It gimbals the engine for pitch and yaw, and uses cold-gas thrusters for roll
(around the vertical axis).

------
StylifyYourBlog
Its likely that full-fledged Space Travel with reusable rockets will be
possible in the coming years

~~~
rplnt
I believe same _thing_ was done by NASA in the 70s. So not really big step
forward in this particular regard.

edit: Can't find it at the moment. So far I've found
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X> which did what
grasshopper and more almost 20 years back. I still believe I've read something
earlier though. Will edit when/if I find it.

~~~
nkoren
Nope, aside from the Lunar Excursion Module and its simulators, NASA did
nothing like this until the 1990s, with the Delta Clipper. And that wasn't
really NASA - it was a BMDO project which later got taken over by NASA. (NASA
then crashed the Delta Clipper on their first flight with it, and promptly
went back to their preferred innovation strategy: very large contracts which
result in absolutely nothing).

~~~
JshWright
>very large contracts which result in absolutely nothing

That's a moderately ironic statement, given the fact that SpaceX wouldn't be
doing anything remotely close to what they're doing today without the very
large contract they got from NASA.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Without NASA contracts (to be noted: fixed price contracts predicated on
delivery of goods, for the most part) SpaceX would have much less cash on hand
and their pace of R&D would be much slowed. But they would still exist and
still be pushing the state of the art, just at a slightly slower pace. They
have one of the most competitive orbital launchers on the market, they have a
ton of commercial business already on the docket, and the next 3 SpaceX
launches are, in fact, non-NASA commercial flights (a Canadian weather
satellite, a commsat for servicing East Asia and Oceania, and several Orbcomm
commsats).

~~~
JshWright
That's essentially what I meant... They'd still be making progress, they just
got to make progress much faster thanks to some big contracts from NASA.

------
droz
Anyone have experience working at, or with, SpaceX that can shed some light on
what it's like to work there?

~~~
slackpad
I've been on the Flight Software team at SpaceX for a little over three years.
It feels a lot like a startup. The team is still relatively small and people
are pretty passionate about what they are working on. The project variety is
wide as well. Personally, I've gotten to work on low-level drivers and OS
stuff, application code that runs on the vehicles and ground systems, Dragon's
fault-tolerant platform, internal web-based tools, and operations in Mission
Control during the Dragon missions. Can't really give details about any of
this stuff but I do love working here.

There was an AMA with several of the software teams a little while back:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1853ap/we_are_spacex_s...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1853ap/we_are_spacex_software_engineers_we_launch/)

There are several openings right now for software engineers, including people
with web experience (people usually don't think we're looking for those
skills):

[https://jobs.github.com/positions/bd54ba2a-a930-11e2-9c0e-5c...](https://jobs.github.com/positions/bd54ba2a-a930-11e2-9c0e-5c6dc1b4f99c)

~~~
elteto
Hey! Can you spare some career advice for an aspiring aero engineer that wants
to work on the software side of the rocket? If you could share what you would
consider is a good path to follow to get to where you are right now, I would
really appreciate it. I am a programmer at heart but even that could not pull
me away from my love of space ;) so I decided to study aerospace engineering
first.

~~~
slackpad
It's hard to say what works best since we have so many different backgrounds
on the team. I think having an interesting portfolio of projects (professional
or side / hobby type stuff) is important - make sure you've done some awesome
stuff that you can map onto what you might do here. Also, hone your
communication skills. A big part of success at SpaceX is being able to work
with others in a team and quickly get ideas across. Getting an internship is
definitely a good way to go - we usually give interns pretty meaty projects
that are a good taste of what full-time work might be like. Good luck!

~~~
elteto
Thanks! I am already working on some robotics projects for both personal and
university research purposes. I am trying to build a strong portfolio, just
like you advice, and trying to figure out exactly what fits me best. Once
again, thanks for your advice!

------
omegant
Are that engines reusable in a short time? or must they go through a mayor
refurbishment after each flight?

~~~
deletes
Basically it is just refuel. The entire rocket is reusable. Musk mentioned in
some interview it would take a couple of days.

~~~
hughes
Impressively, he actually said "single digit hours" between flights for the
lower stages. See "turnaround time":
[http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/elon-m...](http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/elon-
musk-on-spacexs-reusable-rocket-plans-6653023)

------
smackfu
That aerial shot they have in the video is pretty neat... I wonder if they are
using a UAV for that, or just some ballsy helicopter pilot?

~~~
baggers
".from SpaceX’s hexacopter." They have all the nicest toys!

~~~
JshWright
Even buying something off the shelf, that's not an absurdly expensive 'toy'
(<$2k, certainly... so, not 'cheap' but certainly well within the 'hobby'
range for a lot of folks). The camera is a few hundred more, but it's amazing
how cheap HD-capable cameras have gotten recently.

If you build it yourself, you could put together a video platform like that
for under $1k (including the gyro stabilized camera gimbal).

~~~
BaconJuice
Hey JshWright, I recently got very interested in creating one of these and you
seem to be pretty knowledgeable about this. Can you please give me advice on
where a newbie can start with this? I would like to learn how to build one on
my own from scratch.

Thank you.

~~~
JshWright
I'm not much past the newbie stage myself...

The RCModelReviews youtube channel has a number of good videos on basic RC
concepts (not multirotor specific, but the RC stuff still applies).

One tip I'll give you is to look into getting a Eurgle/FlySky/Imax/Turnigy 9x
Transmitter (different brand names, same basic Chinese knockoff..). It's a
solid radio with a lousy stock firmware, but there are a number of good open
soruce firmwares out there that are very easy to flash onto the controller
(especially if you use something like the SmartieParts programming board). For
~$100 (for the radio plus the programmer) you end up with something that
rivals radios costing an order of magnitude more (or so I've heard... I've
never touched a high end radio).

I'm approaching the hobby in stages:

1) Buy a Blade mQX (which comes with a cheap transmitter) and learn the basics
of flying a multirotor

2) Get a 9x transmitter, mod it, and learn how it works

3) Get a 'JR compatible' OrangeRX DSM2/DSMX module for the 9x, so you can bind
it with the mQX and get used to flying with the full size 'real' tranmsmitter

4) Get an 'ARF' (almost ready to fly) kit (this should include the frame,
ESCs, motors, props, etc), and a flight control board (I'll probably start
with something cheap like the Kk 2.0). This is a good time to learn things
like "What is an ESC?".

5) Start modding your ARF quad (replace the ESCs, add a camera, get a more
capable flight controller (like the Arducopter), etc)

6) Build something from scratch

I'm currently on step 3, researching step 4.

------
DigitalJack
Haven't heard much from Armadillo Aerospace in a while. Are they still active?

~~~
adventured
Yeah they're still active.

[http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/News?ne...](http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/News?news_id=430)

------
octatone2
Can't watch this in Germany of course.

~~~
unwind
Of course, because ... no? Why? It works great in Sweden, for instance so it
can't be "side of the Atlantic" that decides. Some DRM/rights issue?

~~~
dredge
The video has a music soundtrack ("Ring of Fire") which gets it blocked in
Germany.

Wikipedia have an article about it:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_of_YouTube_videos_in_G...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_of_YouTube_videos_in_Germany)

------
russell
I watched the videos (no sound - at work) and it seems like from the
discussion that they are thinking of returning to the launch site. I looked at
the Saturn V data and the first stage came down 350 miles down range and the
second stage 2300 or so miles down range. Are the SpaceX launches going to
have little downrange component for the first stage?

~~~
schiffern
Yep, Elon Musk has publicly mentioned that it will light up the engine to
boost back to the launch site.

>So, I think, there's a number of improvements across the board, in
structures, avionics, engines and then, as I said, this version [the Falcon 9
1.1] is really designed to be able to have the first stage come back - _boost
back_ – to launch site, deploy landing gear and actually land propulsively.[1]

With a flyback stage the optimal separation altitude and velocity drops, and
the second stage gets even larger to compensate. But yes, the engine will
cancel the downrange component of velocity and reverse it. Since the stage is
empty the fuel requirements are actually quite modest.

[1] [http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/crs-2-post-landing-
teleco...](http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/crs-2-post-landing-
teleconference-2013-03-27)

------
ubersync
Would have loved to see what happened to the dummy cowboy. The final fews
frames are not very clear due to the smoke and dust.

~~~
danielweber
Did they have another cowboy? It makes me think it's the same test from a few
months ago.

~~~
JshWright
Most of the Grasshopper tests have had a cowboy on the landing gear frame.

------
_mulder_
So what's the big water tower for in the background?

~~~
luke_s
Probably stores water for their deluge system for rocket engine testing. From
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine_test_facility>

"The rocket exhaust is directed into a flame bucket or trench. The flame
trench is designed to redirect the hot exhaust to a safe direction and is
protected by a water deluge system that both cools the exhaust and also
reduces the sound pressure level (loudness). The sound pressure level of large
rocket engines has been measured at greater than 200 decibels — one of the
loudest man-made sounds on earth."

------
robomartin
A flying Segway! How cool is that?

------
rays
Poor bird gets killed in the video as it tries to fly away as the rocket takes
off

~~~
deletes
The bird is way closer to the camera than the rocket. Check the video again
when the bird starts to land it is approximately the size of half the width of
the rocket. That would make the bird be positioned halfway between the camera
and the rocket and well clear of the blast.

------
ParahSailin
The saddest part is that I would have been willing to capitalize SpaceX
voluntarily, as an investor. Instead, Elon Musk steals from me through NASA.

~~~
lutusp
On the bright side, SpaceX is so economical compared to NASA's past methods,
that if it succeeds, we will all benefit. So what might be characterized as
theft at one point in time, might eventually be seen as a great investment.

Only time will tell.

~~~
ParahSailin
For all Elon Musk's libertarian rhetoric, he sure disregards it whenever
expedient.

~~~
Florin_Andrei
I actually think he's pretty moderate. His views are not mainstream, but I
would expect someone like him to think in those terms.

OTOH, his pal Peter Thiel is pretty extreme. _That's_ someone I'm not
comfortable with.

