Post: #1

They did it, finally they did it. Amazing, cant believe it, history in the making.

The world first working reusable rocket.

Landing:





Full launch/landing:





This is some sci-fi stuff:

Post: #2

From Space X yes?

Post: #3

We went from this:


to this:


to this:


to this:


to this:


to this:


to this:


to this:


to this:


to this:




Humanity is incredible.

Post: #4

(12-22-2015 02:54 AM)Eskhander Wrote:  From Space X yes?

Yes

Post: #5

I hope none of the scientists responsible were wearing sexist shirts because that would totally render those achievements worthless in the light of the cis-gender-patriarchal struggle.

Post: #6

(12-22-2015 03:18 AM)Praetor Lupus Wrote:  I hope none of the scientists responsible were wearing sexist shirts because that would totally render those achievements worthless in the light of the cis-gender-patriarchal struggle.

Lets just enjoy the moment until the degenerates come out of the woodwork

Post: #7

This was literally more enjoyable than star wars.

Post: #8

To boldly go...

Post: #9

(12-22-2015 02:55 AM)Horus Wrote:  to this:


to this:




Humanity is incredible.

Well the pyramids were rocketships made by aliens anyway so I guess it's not such a big jump but still

(Also they stored grain)

Post: #10

I think I just saw a rocket flip around, go in reverse, and land right side up. Need to stop drinking

Post: #11

This is amazing! I still can't believe it's possible. Great job anyone involved with this project.

Post: #12

Amazing stuff. Well done to the typical strong independent empowered women at the forefront of....
Oh right. This is the real life altering Space X thread not the Social Justice Wars-The Farce Awakens thread. My bad.

Post: #13

This is truly a Game Changer. This will probably go down in history as the greatest feat of the 21st century.

Post: #14

Meanwhile someone, somewhere can't do a three-point turn on a secluded cul-de-sac.

Post: #15

That was fantastic, it gave me chills.

Post: #16

Hilariously, Bezos did it first at Blue Origin, but it got no coverage compared to this. Musk's following made this larger than it should've been, to be honest. Don't get me wrong, it's a huge feat, but still not the first it was done.

Edit: read an analysis on the rocket compared the Blue Origin's New Shepherd, this seems to actually have been about twice as hard to do as landing the much thicker New Shepherd, interesting story here as to why: Why Blue Origin's Landings shouldnt be compared to SpaceX

Post: #17

Score another one for patriarchy.

Post: #18

(12-22-2015 10:27 AM)Texas_Tryhard Wrote:  Score another one for patriarchy.

The icing on the cake would of been one of those Scientists rocking this button up:

Post: #19

(12-22-2015 09:51 AM)TheFinalEpic Wrote:  Hilariously, Bezos did it first at Blue Origin, but it got no coverage compared to this. Musk's following made this larger than it should've been, to be honest. Don't get me wrong, it's a huge feat, but still not the first it was done.

Edit: read an analysis on the rocket compared the Blue Origin's New Shepherd, this seems to actually have been about twice as hard to do as landing the much thicker New Shepherd, interesting story here as to why: Why Blue Origin's Landings shouldnt be compared to SpaceX

Landing a suborbital (New Shepherd) compared to an orbital (Falcon 9) vehicle is more like an order of magnitude easier.

Propellant mass fraction (the ratio of fuel mass to total vehicle weight at launch) is necessarily as close to 1.0 as possible for an orbital vehicle. Everything must be done to reduce weight. This means the Falcon 9 necessarily has more lightweight, high-tech alloys and integrated features that are much more difficult to design, organize, and test. And it has to reach a much higher speed, sideways, to push it's payload into orbit. And it also requires additional control systems, sensors, and other devices. Everyone is under an enormous pressure to keep the mass to the absolute minimum. This takes a lot of iterative design.

New Shepherd can get away with a lot of extra mass, because it is never meant to go to orbit. It only needs to get up, kiss space, then come back. So, there's extra "fluff" available for not optimizing the crap out of the design to get weight out. Probably a lot fewer integrated structures and features that need to be tested. I'm also pretty sure the team size to develop New Shepherd is almost an order of magnitude smaller. That alone, herding all of the engineering cats towards a single development target, is a huge feat when you are building an orbital rocket. Blue Origin can run a lot leaner than SpaceX, because they just need fewer people to get the job done in a given period of time. Leaner team, leaner management, less overhead, less internal BS.

New Shepherd was a great achievement as well, it's just not in the same ballpark.

Amateurs have been known to touch space with suborbital (unmanned) rockets. I'm unaware of any amateurs hitting orbit.

For instance, an amateur team hitting 72 miles altitude in 2004:

Post: #20

I wonder how long until the narrative shifts to women in STEM.

Post: #21

(12-22-2015 08:02 PM)philosophical_recovery Wrote:  Landing a suborbital (New Shepherd) compared to an orbital (Falcon 9) vehicle is more like an order of magnitude easier.

The part of the Falcon that's actually landing isn't orbital either.

Post: #22

(12-22-2015 09:51 AM)TheFinalEpic Wrote:  Hilariously, Bezos did it first at Blue Origin, but it got no coverage compared to this. Musk's following made this larger than it should've been, to be honest. Don't get me wrong, it's a huge feat, but still not the first it was done.

Edit: read an analysis on the rocket compared the Blue Origin's New Shepherd, this seems to actually have been about twice as hard to do as landing the much thicker New Shepherd, interesting story here as to why: Why Blue Origin's Landings shouldnt be compared to SpaceX

I'll get flamed for this but:

That chick's vocal fry makes her a LOT less attractive. And she's wrong about the short BO craft being more stable - and therefore making BO's craft less of an achievement. It's actually the exact opposite of what she said:

Quote:For a rocket to be stable, the centre of pressure needs to be closer to the tail end than the centre of mass.

So, longer is easier...whether launching, flying, hovering or landing.

Also, the Delta Clipper did this in 91 before the first Pentium chip was invented. The Falcon is bigger, faster, etc but it's just an evolutionary achievement - it's not some fantastic game changer.

And, let's not forget, for this to have any benefit over traditional rockets, it has to be refueled, launched and recovered several times with little repair or maintenance.

This reminds me of Musk's home battery system that was supposed to be a "game changer" back in the Spring. It looked cool, promised a lot, was wildly more expensive than the existing technology and the home electricity game remains unchanged.

Post: #23

(12-22-2015 08:55 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  

(12-22-2015 08:02 PM)philosophical_recovery Wrote:  Landing a suborbital (New Shepherd) compared to an orbital (Falcon 9) vehicle is more like an order of magnitude easier.

The part of the Falcon that's actually landing isn't orbital either.

It's the first stage of an orbital rocket. Every extra pound in that stage is a parasite, eating away fuel, that has to be accelerated to a significant fraction of orbital velocity. Each pound of extra system, structure, or unused thing on the first stage increases the initial takeoff weight by a multiple. Probably somewhere around 5-8 extra pounds of fuel for 1 extra pound in the first stage. Upper stages are even more sensitive, and take even more fuel to get off the ground.

   

Post: #24

To think that there is no other access to space, particularly with the Space Shuttle being retired is short sighted gentleman. Civilian access to space will be a great thing and will bring out the best (and perhaps worst) in man, but I can assure you that there is more and what you see is decades behind what exists.

audentis fortuna iuvat.

Post: #25

(01-08-2016 07:01 PM)NASA Test Pilot Wrote:  To think that there is no other access to space, particularly with the Space Shuttle being retired is short sighted gentleman. Civilian access to space will be a great thing and will bring out the best (and perhaps worst) in man, but I can assure you that there is more and what you see is decades behind what exists.

audentis fortuna iuvat.

Please do so