SpaceX's Grasshopper VTVL takes a 40 meter hop

The test on Wednesday is called a ‘pad abort test’, and will be taking place from Space Launch Complex 40 at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.

It involves the manned vehicle launching to safety from a simulated emergency on the launch pad.

For example, if the rocket carrying the spacecraft was in danger of exploding for some unknown reason, Dragon would have to launch its crew to safety.

For a spacecraft to be deemed safe for humans to travel in, it must be able to pass this test.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Why does it take the "service module" along with the command module, only to jettison it almost immediately?

shedweller wrote: »

NASA's Orion capsule has the escape rockets located out front for the same reason.

Agreements have been secured for a five-mile, $100 million test track in California.

Some of you may have been following our recent attempts to vertically land the first stage of our Falcon 9 rocket back on Earth.

There was this attempt in January, followed by this one in April.

But we’re not doing this just to produce cool videos. Our goal is to radically reduce the cost of accessing space by producing a fully and rapidly reusable rocket system.

Think about it: We don’t throw away an airplane after a one-way trip from LA to New York. Each new plane costs about the same as one of our Falcon 9 rockets, but takes off and lands many times per day and is likely to conduct tens of thousands of flights over its lifetime. Yet when it comes to space travel, rockets fly only once—even though the rocket itself represents the majority of launch cost.

The Space Shuttle was technically reusable, but its giant fuel tank was discarded after each launch, and its side boosters parachuted into corrosive salt water every flight, beginning a long and involved process of retrieval and reprocessing. This contributed to the system not being fully or rapidly reusable, which are key requirements in lowering the cost of spaceflight. So, what if we could mitigate those factors by landing rockets gently and precisely on land? Refurbishment time and cost would be dramatically reduced.

Historically, most rockets have needed to use all of their available fuel in order to get their payload into space. SpaceX rockets were built from the beginning with reusability in mind—they have enough built-in fuel margin to deliver a Dragon to the space station and return the first-stage to Earth. That extra fuel is needed to reignite the engines a few times to slow the rocket down and ultimately land the first stage after it has sent the spacecraft on its way.

In addition to extra fuel, we’ve added a few critical features to our Falcon 9 first stage for reusability’s sake. Our rocket has small, foldable heat-resistant wings called grid fins needed for steering the first-stage as it plummets from the edge of space through Earth’s atmosphere, cold-gas thrusters on the top of the first-stage that are used to flip the rocket around as it begins its journey back to Earth, and strong but lightweight carbon fiber landing legs that deploy as it approaches touchdown. All of these systems, while built and programmed by humans, are totally automated once the rocket is launched—and are reacting and adjusting their behavior based on incoming, real-time data.

So, while the norm is for rockets to be thrown away or burned up after their job is done, SpaceX rockets are built not only to withstand reentry, but also to return to Earth’s surface for a controlled vertical landing.

What have we learned from the most recent drone ship landing attempts?

The first attempt to land on a drone ship in the Atlantic was in January, and while we came close, the first stage prematurely ran out of the hydraulic fluid that is used to steer the small fins that help control the rocket’s descent. The vehicle has now been equipped with much more of that critical fluid for steering purposes.

Our second attempt was in April, and we were super close to sticking this landing. Check out this previously unreleased, longer video from our tracking camera. It shows the stage’s descent through the atmosphere, when the vehicle is traveling faster than the speed of sound, all the way to touchdown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcTOTeoaafU

That controlled descent was spectacular, but about 10 seconds before landing, a valve controlling the rocket’s engine power (thrust) temporarily stopped responding to commands as quickly as it should have. As a result, it throttled down a few seconds later than commanded, and—with the rocket weighing about 67,000 lbs and traveling nearly 200 mph at this point—a few seconds can be a very long time. With the throttle essentially stuck on “high” and the engine firing longer than it was supposed to, the vehicle temporarily lost control and was unable to recover in time for landing, eventually tipping over.

Last-second tilt aside, the landing attempt happened pretty much exactly as planned. Shortly after stage separation (when the second stage leaves the first stage behind and goes on to carry Dragon to orbit), cold gas thrusters fired to flip the stage to reorient it for reentry. Then, three engines lit for a “boostback burn” that slows the rocket and brings it toward the landing site.

The engines then re-lit to slow the stage for reentry through Earth’s atmosphere, and grid fins (this time with much more hydraulic fluid) extended to steer the lift produced by the stage. Our atmosphere is like molasses to an object traveling at Mach 4, and the grid fins are essential for landing with precision. The final landing burn ignited, and together the grid fins, cold gas thrusters and steerable engines controlled the vehicle, keeping the stage within 15 meters of its target trajectory throughout the landing burn. The vehicle’s legs deployed just before it reached our drone ship, “Just Read the Instructions”, where the stage landed within 10 meters of the target, albeit a bit too hard to stay upright.

But an internal investigation would likely be just the first obstacle the company will face before it gets the final go-ahead to fly NASA astronauts to the ISS and launch military satellites. Coming back from a disaster like this is rarely as simple as performing an internal investigation and handing it over the relevant government authorities—there will be Congressional hearings and political grandstanding to overcome, as well.

Before the crash, some members of Congress had already asked NASA to reconfigure its Space Launch System rocket, currently planned to go to a deep-space asteroid and to Mars, to be able to service the ISS because some lawmakers believe commercial companies can’t reliably get to the ISS. Navigating those politics won’t be easy, either.

shedweller wrote: »

And So Say We All!

Oh, and outsourcing isn't the be all and end all it is currently portrayed as.
Food for thought eh?

Vance relays a story from 2004, in which Musk asked Steve Davis, now SpaceX's director of advanced projects, to source an actuator that would help the second stage of the Falcon 1 rocket steer itself.

"Naturally, [Davis] went out to find some suppliers who could make an electro-mechanical actuator for him. He got a quote back for $120,000," Vance wrote. "'Elon laughed,' Davis said. 'He said, 'That part is no more complicated than a garage door opener. Your budget is $5,000. Go make it work

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

ULA is a bad comparison. Atlas is using Russian engines and lots of pre existing tech and getting top dollar for it.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

BUT these comparisons are moot when you look at costs elsewhere


Meanwhile in India
ULA's $380 per launch is close to what India is spending overall on developing the GSLV Mk. 3 And their successful scaled back suborbital test of a capsule cost $24m

The Falcon 9 medium-lift booster (capable of launching 10 tons to orbit) and Dragon capsule (potentially capable of being upgraded to transport up to seven astronauts) were created on a combined budget on the order of $200 million. In 2009, SpaceX’s Elon Musk told the Augustine commission that he could develop a heavy-lift vehicle for $2.5 billion. The commission chose to ignore him, instead insisting that development of a heavy-lift vehicle would cost $36 billion - See more at: http://spacenews.com/guest-blog-new-sputnik/#sthash.KM6aGzS2.dpuf

That’s why Elon Musk wants to put a million people on Mars.

Why a million people? Because that’s Musk’s rough estimate for the minimum number of people it would take to create a completely self-sustaining population