15 ms·

SpaceX Grasshopper Takes Off and Lands Vertically [video]

205 points by po 14y ago

jlgreco 14y ago
Similar work has been done by Armadillo, but it looks like SpaceX's Grasshopper is a bit bigger than anything Armadillo has done. Will be exciting to see the concept continue to scale up.
- gnarbarian 14y ago
  Bigger but this [1] test by Armadillo was more impressive in my opinion for the additional complexity involved in cutting the engine deploying a chute then cutting the chute and successfully landing from a turbulent freefall. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u0qlIoSSkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u0qlIoSSkQ
  - ramidarigaz 14y ago
    I knew armadillo was doing some impressive work, but wow. That was really cool.
    - eps 14y ago
      2010 :-|
      - gnarbarian 14y ago
        Hey cut him some slack he had to go finish RAGE and do his day job.
      - tsotha 14y ago
        Yeah, they seem to have stalled in recent years. Either Carmack has lost interest or they've reached the point of complexity where a few volunteers aren't going to cut it.
        Gravityloss 14y ago
        Armadillo has recently flown the Stig and Stiga rocket quite high with succesful recovery. Since they have the landing and low speed part pretty much covered, they're now looking at the high speed and altitude problematics. The Stig lands with a steerable chute. High speed stability, drag and turning for powered landing are a nasty problem field where testing is hard and expensive. Interplay of aerodynamics in a wide speed range, center of gravity shifts and everything else. Burt Rutan's SpaceshipOne solved it elegantly with feathering: the descent was safe and easy. The mechanism could be troublesome though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXKQ0v_YPWw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXKQ0v_YPWw
        tsotha 14y ago
        >Burt Rutan's SpaceshipOne solved it elegantly with feathering: the descent was safe and easy. The mechanism could be troublesome though. I wouldn't put too much stock in SpaceshipOne's descent scheme. It's not clear at all that's going to work from orbit.
        Gravityloss 14y ago
        Maybe, maybe not. And for a first stage, returning is not nearly as hard. At first, the reusable first stage might provide only a modest portion of the delta vee and an expendable second stage would do most of the work. That would mean a low payload. I don't think the SpaceshipOne solution would work "as is", but something like it might work. It only went vertically to 100 km. When the Space Shuttle was being designed, Max Faget toyed around with different ideas on how to arrange re-entry, with essentially something similar as SpaceshipOne in a sense: a high drag configuration at high speed and then flying at low speed. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuenara.htm http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuenara.htm
        tsotha 14y ago
        Sure, the first stage is easy from an energy perspective, so SpaceshipOne is a good model for that. From what I understand they intend to try to use the same idea for reentry from orbit, though, and I think they'll end up with something expensive and dangerous as a result. The space shuttle was a disaster from a cost perspective. I don't know how many lessons we can draw from the program beyond "don't do it this way".
  - ChuckMcM 14y ago
    Ok, that video is just freakin' amazing. Lets count the things they show in it: 1) Take off from the pad. 2) Loss of vehicle control (chute deploys), Loss of engine 3) Engine restart. 4) Attitude recovery after engine restart 5) Return to pad capability. I had no ideas these guys were that far along.
    - snogglethorpe 14y ago
      > I had no ideas these guys were that far along. ... with what, like 0.0001% of SpaceX's budget and other resources...? Maybe SpaceX should hire Armadillo...
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - robryan 14y ago
        They should acquire them and give them the freedom to keep doing stuff like this independently, just advancing SpaceX goals.
      - ChuckMcM 14y ago
        Its an intriguing question isn't it? Here we have two companies which together have all the moving parts necessary for a lunar landing and return mission. It would be fascinating if Bigelow Aerospace could put a habitat at the Lunar L1 point. Then SpaceX provides a boost to L1 capability, and Armadillo provides a transport service from L1 to/from the surface of the Moon.
  - BHSPitMonkey 14y ago
    I finished that video thinking, "huh, that guy looks/sounds just like Carmack". Sure enough... I had no idea he was involved with a project like this, and for so long. Too bad they don't appear to have been very active recently.
- Gravityloss 14y ago
  There are many other groups as well. These two competed in Lunar Lander Challenge in 2009 and have flown vertically landing rockets: - Masten Space Systems: https://www.youtube.com/user/mastenspace https://www.youtube.com/user/mastenspace - Unreasonable Rocket: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PO5cTb_T5M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PO5cTb_T5M (Couldn't find a better video now)
samishxc 14y ago
In what ways will this be useful? I imagine if a rocket carries a payload into space it wouldn't be able to land vertically like this, or is that the intention? Either way, very interesting
- ramidarigaz 14y ago
  Like the other commenters gave said, landing vertically is very much their intention. The rationale is that sea landings make repair work much harder.
  - nickik 14y ago
    > The rationale is that sea landings make repair work much harder. Ist the much more importend things the time and cost of getting the rocket back to where you want it much bigger?
    - ramidarigaz 14y ago
      I imagine that's a factor, but it's primarily the fact that sea water is really hard on the delicate parts of the rocket due to corrosion and mineral deposits.
      - jacquesm 14y ago
        And very rapid cooling as well as the chance of impact damage. Sea landings may look gentle but really they aren't.
      - riffraff 14y ago
        then wouldn't it make more sense to just build a very big pool/use an unsalty lake ? You'd still need to steer the rocket there but you can avoid worrying about vertical landing.
        stcredzero 14y ago
        There was an SSTO proposal from the 1970's that did involve building a huge splashdown lake. That proposal also used vertical landing, however. (The craft was so large, landing gear would've been prohibitive, so the whole thing just floated.)
turing 14y ago
For those interested, here is a similar video from Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin last year. http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2011-11-17-video-of-the-short-hop-flight-i.html http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2011-11-17-video-o...
- thematt 14y ago
  Thanks for the plug :) Here's another one: I'm looking for some top-notch software engineers if anyone is interested.
  - cryptoz 14y ago
    Hello! I have applied to Blue Origin in the past but have not got very far. I have been working very hard to improve my skills, I recently interviewed on site at SpaceX (but didn't get it) and I'm trying my hardest to write the best code I can in order to improve my chances at helping people build space ships. Do you have any advice for my next application to Blue Origin? My strongest points are my unending passion for spaceflight, science and desire to better myself. My code and software engineering skills improve by the hour (...it's Christmas in two hours and I'm working on pressureNET and reading HN). I have some excellent projects under my belt but I have no experience working on spaceships or related systems. But I'm not sure what else I can do. So if you have some advice that would be fantastic. Edit: And yes, I'm a US citizen.
    - eps 14y ago
      In many cases a choice between passionate intermediates and indifferent seniors boils down to whether they have a capacity for mentoring, which is a demanding process.
      - cryptoz 14y ago
        That is very much what SpaceX said to me, and so I've spent the last few months working as hard as I can to become top-notch so they'll pay attention. I know that I need to improve. I am still hoping that there are other angles, other things I can do, so that the answer to my question is NOT "25 year olds are bad. Come back when you're 40 and already have three of your own spaceships in orbit".
Gravityloss 14y ago
As far as I know, this is only the second turbopump fed liquid rocket to land vertically, after DC-X (that became DC-XA). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9n9Casp1o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9n9Casp1o This is important, as in practice only turbopump rockets have enough performance for orbital uses. If it can routinely and safely land vertically, then it's very easy to build a reusable first stage out of this. If everything works out, a reusable Falcon could fly every few days: Ideally you'd just refuel and go again, like an airplane. In this first generation though I expect a lot of maintenance and handwork by lots of people every flight. This will require a whole ecosystem too: low maintenance satellites that can be slapped on the rocket and launched at any time. Otherwise very flexible operations too like low overhead range and radar tracking sevices, safety zones etc. If the rocket can abort and land in case of problems, and demonstrates good safety by flying a lot, then a lot of safety criteria can be relaxed, which should enable better flexibility.
tsotha 14y ago
This is great and all, but it's been done many times since the 1950s.

205 points by po 14y ago

Similar work has been done by Armadillo, but it looks like SpaceX's Grasshopper is a bit bigger than anything Armadillo has done. Will be exciting to see the concept continue to scale up.

gnarbarian 14y ago
Bigger but this [1] test by Armadillo was more impressive in my opinion for the additional complexity involved in cutting the engine deploying a chute then cutting the chute and successfully landing from a turbulent freefall. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u0qlIoSSkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u0qlIoSSkQ
- ramidarigaz 14y ago
  I knew armadillo was doing some impressive work, but wow. That was really cool.
  - eps 14y ago
    2010 :-|
    - gnarbarian 14y ago
      Hey cut him some slack he had to go finish RAGE and do his day job.
    - tsotha 14y ago
      Yeah, they seem to have stalled in recent years. Either Carmack has lost interest or they've reached the point of complexity where a few volunteers aren't going to cut it.
      - Gravityloss 14y ago
        Armadillo has recently flown the Stig and Stiga rocket quite high with succesful recovery. Since they have the landing and low speed part pretty much covered, they're now looking at the high speed and altitude problematics. The Stig lands with a steerable chute. High speed stability, drag and turning for powered landing are a nasty problem field where testing is hard and expensive. Interplay of aerodynamics in a wide speed range, center of gravity shifts and everything else. Burt Rutan's SpaceshipOne solved it elegantly with feathering: the descent was safe and easy. The mechanism could be troublesome though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXKQ0v_YPWw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXKQ0v_YPWw
        tsotha 14y ago
        >Burt Rutan's SpaceshipOne solved it elegantly with feathering: the descent was safe and easy. The mechanism could be troublesome though. I wouldn't put too much stock in SpaceshipOne's descent scheme. It's not clear at all that's going to work from orbit.
        Gravityloss 14y ago
        Maybe, maybe not. And for a first stage, returning is not nearly as hard. At first, the reusable first stage might provide only a modest portion of the delta vee and an expendable second stage would do most of the work. That would mean a low payload. I don't think the SpaceshipOne solution would work "as is", but something like it might work. It only went vertically to 100 km. When the Space Shuttle was being designed, Max Faget toyed around with different ideas on how to arrange re-entry, with essentially something similar as SpaceshipOne in a sense: a high drag configuration at high speed and then flying at low speed. http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuenara.htm http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuenara.htm
        tsotha 14y ago
        Sure, the first stage is easy from an energy perspective, so SpaceshipOne is a good model for that. From what I understand they intend to try to use the same idea for reentry from orbit, though, and I think they'll end up with something expensive and dangerous as a result. The space shuttle was a disaster from a cost perspective. I don't know how many lessons we can draw from the program beyond "don't do it this way".
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  Ok, that video is just freakin' amazing. Lets count the things they show in it: 1) Take off from the pad. 2) Loss of vehicle control (chute deploys), Loss of engine 3) Engine restart. 4) Attitude recovery after engine restart 5) Return to pad capability. I had no ideas these guys were that far along.
  - snogglethorpe 14y ago
    > I had no ideas these guys were that far along. ... with what, like 0.0001% of SpaceX's budget and other resources...? Maybe SpaceX should hire Armadillo...
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - robryan 14y ago
      They should acquire them and give them the freedom to keep doing stuff like this independently, just advancing SpaceX goals.
    - ChuckMcM 14y ago
      Its an intriguing question isn't it? Here we have two companies which together have all the moving parts necessary for a lunar landing and return mission. It would be fascinating if Bigelow Aerospace could put a habitat at the Lunar L1 point. Then SpaceX provides a boost to L1 capability, and Armadillo provides a transport service from L1 to/from the surface of the Moon.
- BHSPitMonkey 14y ago
  I finished that video thinking, "huh, that guy looks/sounds just like Carmack". Sure enough... I had no idea he was involved with a project like this, and for so long. Too bad they don't appear to have been very active recently.
Gravityloss 14y ago
There are many other groups as well. These two competed in Lunar Lander Challenge in 2009 and have flown vertically landing rockets: - Masten Space Systems: https://www.youtube.com/user/mastenspace https://www.youtube.com/user/mastenspace - Unreasonable Rocket: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PO5cTb_T5M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PO5cTb_T5M (Couldn't find a better video now)

samishxc 14y ago

In what ways will this be useful? I imagine if a rocket carries a payload into space it wouldn't be able to land vertically like this, or is that the intention? Either way, very interesting

ramidarigaz 14y ago
Like the other commenters gave said, landing vertically is very much their intention. The rationale is that sea landings make repair work much harder.
- nickik 14y ago
  > The rationale is that sea landings make repair work much harder. Ist the much more importend things the time and cost of getting the rocket back to where you want it much bigger?
  - ramidarigaz 14y ago
    I imagine that's a factor, but it's primarily the fact that sea water is really hard on the delicate parts of the rocket due to corrosion and mineral deposits.
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      And very rapid cooling as well as the chance of impact damage. Sea landings may look gentle but really they aren't.
    - riffraff 14y ago
      then wouldn't it make more sense to just build a very big pool/use an unsalty lake ? You'd still need to steer the rocket there but you can avoid worrying about vertical landing.
      - stcredzero 14y ago
        There was an SSTO proposal from the 1970's that did involve building a huge splashdown lake. That proposal also used vertical landing, however. (The craft was so large, landing gear would've been prohibitive, so the whole thing just floated.)

turing 14y ago

For those interested, here is a similar video from Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin last year. http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2011-11-17-video-of-the-short-hop-flight-i.html http://www.blueorigin.com/updates/updates-2011-11-17-video-o...

thematt 14y ago
Thanks for the plug :) Here's another one: I'm looking for some top-notch software engineers if anyone is interested.
- cryptoz 14y ago
  Hello! I have applied to Blue Origin in the past but have not got very far. I have been working very hard to improve my skills, I recently interviewed on site at SpaceX (but didn't get it) and I'm trying my hardest to write the best code I can in order to improve my chances at helping people build space ships. Do you have any advice for my next application to Blue Origin? My strongest points are my unending passion for spaceflight, science and desire to better myself. My code and software engineering skills improve by the hour (...it's Christmas in two hours and I'm working on pressureNET and reading HN). I have some excellent projects under my belt but I have no experience working on spaceships or related systems. But I'm not sure what else I can do. So if you have some advice that would be fantastic. Edit: And yes, I'm a US citizen.
  - eps 14y ago
    In many cases a choice between passionate intermediates and indifferent seniors boils down to whether they have a capacity for mentoring, which is a demanding process.
    - cryptoz 14y ago
      That is very much what SpaceX said to me, and so I've spent the last few months working as hard as I can to become top-notch so they'll pay attention. I know that I need to improve. I am still hoping that there are other angles, other things I can do, so that the answer to my question is NOT "25 year olds are bad. Come back when you're 40 and already have three of your own spaceships in orbit".

Gravityloss 14y ago

As far as I know, this is only the second turbopump fed liquid rocket to land vertically, after DC-X (that became DC-XA). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9n9Casp1o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9n9Casp1o This is important, as in practice only turbopump rockets have enough performance for orbital uses. If it can routinely and safely land vertically, then it's very easy to build a reusable first stage out of this. If everything works out, a reusable Falcon could fly every few days: Ideally you'd just refuel and go again, like an airplane. In this first generation though I expect a lot of maintenance and handwork by lots of people every flight. This will require a whole ecosystem too: low maintenance satellites that can be slapped on the rocket and launched at any time. Otherwise very flexible operations too like low overhead range and radar tracking sevices, safety zones etc. If the rocket can abort and land in case of problems, and demonstrates good safety by flying a lot, then a lot of safety criteria can be relaxed, which should enable better flexibility.

tsotha 14y ago

This is great and all, but it's been done many times since the 1950s.