Elon Musk's new re-usable, hovering rocket ship in first test liftoff

"On Friday, September 21, SpaceX's Grasshopper
vertical takeoff and landing test vehicle (VTVL) took
its first test flight hop from the company's rocket
testing facility in McGregor, Texas.

The short hop of approximately 6 feet is the first
major milestone for Grasshopper, and a critical
step toward a reusable first stage for SpaceX's
proven Falcon 9 rocket ...

Testing of Grasshopper continues, with the next
big milestone - a hover at roughly 100 feet -
expected in the next several months."

See:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09..._initial_test/

It's going to be interesting to see how SpaceX approaches FAA
certification for this.

I'm going to bet that it would be easiest for SpaceX to appropriate an
otherwise uninhabited island off the East Coast of Florida for a landing
pad and barge it back to the Cape, rather than try to fly this thing
back over populated territory. Either that or a sea barge landing platform.

Dave

In article , David Spain
wrote:

It's going to be interesting to see how SpaceX approaches FAA
certification for this.

I'm going to bet that it would be easiest for SpaceX to appropriate an
otherwise uninhabited island off the East Coast of Florida for a landing
pad and barge it back to the Cape, rather than try to fly this thing
back over populated territory. Either that or a sea barge landing platform.

Any volcanos they can build a pad in?

--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'

David Spain wrote:
It's going to be interesting to see how SpaceX approaches FAA
certification for this.

I'm going to bet that it would be easiest for SpaceX to appropriate
an otherwise uninhabited island off the East Coast of Florida for a
landing pad and barge it back to the Cape, rather than try to fly
this thing back over populated territory. Either that or a sea barge
landing platform.

Does Falcon 9 launch over populated territory when it launches from
Canaveral? If not, unless the route back is somewhat circuitous
wouldn't the return to the launch site also avoid population centers?

It would have to be a Pretty Big (tm) barge to be terribly stable even
in calm seas I should think, though I guess the Sea Launch folks might
have some experience in that regard - albeit in the opposite
direction, and with, IIRC a converted drilling platform.

rick jones
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

In article , nospam@
127.0.0.1 says...

It's going to be interesting to see how SpaceX approaches FAA
certification for this.

I'm going to bet that it would be easiest for SpaceX to appropriate an
otherwise uninhabited island off the East Coast of Florida for a landing
pad and barge it back to the Cape, rather than try to fly this thing
back over populated territory. Either that or a sea barge landing platform.

This makes no sense. Launches from KSC are to the east and those don't
happen until downrange is clear (i.e. no aircraft, boats, and etc in the
area). Landing a first stage means it will come back to KSC from the
east. That approach is still going to be clear, since it was cleared
for launch.

Landing the second stage is a bit more tricky. In that case, you might
want to land it on an uninhabited island in the Pacific, that way the
stage does not overfly the continental US. Landing on an island off the
east coast of Florida would still mean the second stage would overfly at
least Florida.

Besides, SpaceX isn't the only company who has gotten approvals to fly,
and have actually flown, a VTVL rocket powered vehicle. Sure theirs
will be bigger, but it will also be mostly empty of fuel and oxidizer
when attempting to land.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

In article , David Spain
wrote:

It's going to be interesting to see how SpaceX approaches FAA
certification for this.

I'm going to bet that it would be easiest for SpaceX to appropriate an
otherwise uninhabited island off the East Coast of Florida for a landing
pad and barge it back to the Cape, rather than try to fly this thing
back over populated territory. Either that or a sea barge landing platform.

Any volcanos they can build a pad in?

You've been watching too much James Bond, haven't you?

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

David Spain wrote:
It's going to be interesting to see how SpaceX approaches FAA
certification for this.

I'm going to bet that it would be easiest for SpaceX to appropriate
an otherwise uninhabited island off the East Coast of Florida for a
landing pad and barge it back to the Cape, rather than try to fly
this thing back over populated territory. Either that or a sea barge
landing platform.

Does Falcon 9 launch over populated territory when it launches from
Canaveral? If not, unless the route back is somewhat circuitous
wouldn't the return to the launch site also avoid population centers?

No, it launches to the east, just like every other launch vehicle that
launches from there.

It would have to be a Pretty Big (tm) barge to be terribly stable even
in calm seas I should think, though I guess the Sea Launch folks might
have some experience in that regard - albeit in the opposite
direction, and with, IIRC a converted drilling platform.

The first stage could just fly back the way it came, over the same area
which was cleared by range safety before the launch. The second stage
is a bit more tricky. In that case, I'd think a Pacific island would be
more appropriate if your goal is to *never* overfly a populated area
when attempting to land.

At any rate, I think this is a bit too cautious since the second stage
will be mostly empty when attempting to land. It's mostly empty
tankage, so its terminal velocity won't be very great even if the
engines fail to ignite for landing (not likely since they would have
worked for the retro burn a few minutes prior to the attempt to light
them for landing).

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On 9/26/2012 10:00 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

This makes no sense. Launches from KSC are to the east and those don't
happen until downrange is clear (i.e. no aircraft, boats, and etc in the
area). Landing a first stage means it will come back to KSC from the
east. That approach is still going to be clear, since it was cleared
for launch.

Jeff, remember the term downrange. Implies your V is west to east. Now I've read that SpaceX plans to make the trajectory for the F9
1st stage nearly vertical in order to enable a RTLS. Otherwise flying out over the ocean is going to require some interesting flight
maneuvers to reverse course, esp. with that long lever arm of empty tankage waiting to be blown around by cross-winds. I'd say a
return that doesn't require V reversal makes more sense than a complete RTLS in this case. It's not that costly to barge tankage
around... OR flying a nearly vertical trajectory, but even so the east coast of Fla is heavily populated, its not like you're
bringing this back over the Everglades. As an aside; has the FAA granted waivers to the AF for drone training in US Airspace? What
are the restrictions there?

Landing the second stage is a bit more tricky. In that case, you might
want to land it on an uninhabited island in the Pacific, that way the
stage does not overfly the continental US. Landing on an island off the
east coast of Florida would still mean the second stage would overfly at
least Florida.

Actually if that could be done it would be a cool way to save expense, one site to retrieve both 1st and 2nd stages. Maybe an
abandoned drilling rig?

Besides, SpaceX isn't the only company who has gotten approvals to fly,
and have actually flown, a VTVL rocket powered vehicle. Sure theirs
will be bigger, but it will also be mostly empty of fuel and oxidizer
when attempting to land.

Um, you know as well as I do dry mass counts; aka mv**2. If those rocket motors were to fail on return, it really won't matter that
much to whomever is in the way. I witnessed first hand the aftermath of a B58H crash from altitude. Very impressive. Thank God it
was an empty field....

Jeff


Dave

Jeff Findley wrote:
You've been watching too much James Bond, haven't you?

Or The Incredibles

rick jones
--
No need to believe in either side, or any side. There is no cause.
There's only yourself. The belief is in your own precision. - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Invid Fan wrote:
David Spain wrote:

It's going to be interesting to see how SpaceX approaches FAA
certification for this.

Any volcanos they can build a pad in?

According to Alton Brown, Iron Chef America recently got the most
convenient one. ;^)