SpaceX launches Falcon Heavy successfully - biggest rocket since Saturn V

MikeMcMann said:
Question:

I get that it is a cool advancement to go to vertical landing from a water or land drop via parachute but what is the main benefit of that? Is it that theoretically a rocket that can land vertical can then take off again if it has fuel?

I think I am answering my own question here but...
Click to expand...

Yeah. Huge cost savings. Refuel, swap out the one time use parts, re-use the rest after a diagnostics check. Blast the sob up again
 
Der Eisbär said:
Ok then. Why is a private company putting rockets into space and the world's largest economy ever, isn't?
Click to expand...

Because they are focused on designin incredibly complex deep space observation instruments and interplanetary robotics -- they cant afford to do that and build transportation devices -- the complexities of the james webb telescope, mars rovers, and the plethora of probes show NASA is very much into play. Oh, and you're an environmental guy - NASA's work with NOAA have done leaps and bounds in measuring practical earth analytics.

You do realize the vast majority of rockets nasa used througout its history have been provided by private companies -- the caveat with spaceX is that they are hiring themselves and running their own missions.
 
Phr3121 said:
Yeah, he is a real genius alright. Married and divorced the same girl twice. If that doesn't qualify as stupid I don't know what does. :)
Click to expand...
ww102_jj_071715_004421.jpg
 
JudoThrowFiasco said:
Yep, their first - first stage landing on the water drone pad was in '16.

Company I work for has used them 2 times to deliver a LEO sat and GTO. Their business model revolves around an end to end design solutions developed in house and reusable first stage rockets -- getting their price line to be roughly 2500-3000 per KG for a launch.
Click to expand...
Next phase they plan on recovering the second stage as well


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_reusable_launch_system_development_program
 
JudoThrowFiasco said:
Because they are focused on designin incredibly complex deep space observation instruments and interplanetary robotics -- they cant afford to do that and build transportation devices -- the complexities of the james webb telescope, mars rovers, and the plethora of probes show NASA is very much into play. Oh, and you're an environmental guy - NASA's work with NOAA have done leaps and bounds in measuring practical earth analytics.

You do realize the vast majority of rockets nasa used througout its history have been provided by private companies -- the caveat with spaceX is that they are hiring themselves and running their own missions.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
AnGrYcRoW said:
Next phase they plan on recovering the second stage as well


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_reusable_launch_system_development_program
Click to expand...

Yep -- although the engineering behind that is far more complex. They need to solve their cryogenic helium issues with 2nd stage launches, especially when they would have to hold twice as much for a return launch. The dyanmics of it are complex because getting that right mix to flow in zero gravity is difficult -- remember when a f9 rocket blew up last year? It was because of malfunctions with their cryo-engine storage.
 
MikeMcMann said:
Question:

I get that it is a cool advancement to go to vertical landing from a water or land drop via parachute but what is the main benefit of that? Is it that theoretically a rocket that can land vertical can then take off again if it has fuel?

I think I am answering my own question here but...
Click to expand...
One of the main reasons they even thought of doing this is Mars, getting to Mars was musk motivation for starting SpaceX, landing and reusing Rockets is the only way Mars is feasible
 
JudoThrowFiasco said:
Yep -- although the engineering behind that is far more complex. They need to solve their cryogenic helium issues with 2nd stage launches, especially when they would have to hold twice as much for a return launch. The dyanmics of it are complex because getting that right mix to flow in zero gravity is difficult -- remember when a f9 rocket blew up last year? It was because of malfunctions with their cryo-engine storage.
Click to expand...
If anyone can do it...
 
AnGrYcRoW said:
If anyone can do it...
Click to expand...

sure.... but Musk has always been skeptical about it

In an interview in MIT in October 2014 Musk said:

“I don’t expect SpaceX’s Falcon line to have a reusable upper stage. With a kerosene based system, the specific impulse isn’t really high enough to do that, and a lot of the missions we do for commercial satellite deployment are geostationary missions. So we’re really going very far out – these are high delta-velocity missions, so to try and get something back from that is really difficult.”
 
JudoThrowFiasco said:
sure.... but Musk has always been skeptical about it

In an interview in MIT in October 2014 Musk said:

“I don’t expect SpaceX’s Falcon line to have a reusable upper stage. With a kerosene based system, the specific impulse isn’t really high enough to do that, and a lot of the missions we do for commercial satellite deployment are geostationary missions. So we’re really going very far out – these are high delta-velocity missions, so to try and get something back from that is really difficult.”
Click to expand...
Reusing the second stage is definitely a ways off but I believe it is neccessary for their larger Mars plans .
 
AnGrYcRoW said:
Reusing the second stage is definitely a ways off but I believe it is neccessary for their larger Mars plans .
Click to expand...

??

It would use a command module set up -- completely different than their falcon setup.
 
AnGrYcRoW said:
One of the main reasons they even thought of doing this is Mars, getting to Mars was musk motivation for starting SpaceX, landing and reusing Rockets is the only way Mars is feasible
Click to expand...
Excuse my ignorance as I know I could probably google search it.


But when you say 'getting to Mars' I assume you mean people to and from Mars? As the payload thing has been done.
 
MikeMcMann said:
Excuse my ignorance as I know I could probably google search it.


But when you say 'getting to Mars' I assume you mean people to and from Mars? As the payload thing has been done.
Click to expand...
The reason Musk founded SpaceX is Mars colonization, that's his goal
 
MikeMcMann said:
There will be fewer Musk's than there will be rocket scientists and that is because what Musk achieves or attempts to is greater and more challenging and takes a higher level of genius. Not sure why he would draw haters unless they are merely jealous?
Click to expand...

Man, I love what Musk is doing, but there is way too much 'hype' around this guy. Richard Branson did a lot of similar things. Not with rockets though. "Greater and more challenging"? I don't think so. First Atomic Bomb and the Apollo Program took way more genius than that. Let's not forget Bill Gates and Microsoft. Musk is the flavor of the month.
 
Phr3121 said:
Man, I love what Musk is doing, but there is way too much 'hype' around this guy. Richard Branson did a lot of similar things. Not with rockets though. "Greater and more challenging"? I don't think so. First Atomic Bomb and the Apollo Program took way more genius than that. Let's not forget Bill Gates and Microsoft. Musk is the flavor of the month.
Click to expand...
Musks stated goal is to ensure the survival of the species , move away from fossil fuels (Tesla , Solar City ) and be able to get off the planet just in case(SpaceX) , Branson can't compete imo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,049
Messages
55,463,645
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top