





Check out this video of the Grasshopper Project in action:





Source: Business Insider

Comments     Threshold


By TSS on 12/26/2012 7:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
I think this project is for more then just that. I mean if the aim was just a reusable rocket, why don't they have them dump in the sea like the solid rocket boosters of the shuttle? Why go through the trouble of making it land vertically?

which by the way wouldn't be usable in this scenario because of their solid fuel component and the biggest drawback to using solid over liquid fuel: Once you switch it on, you cannot turn it off until all the fuel has been burned.

I think it's more for planetary missions then putting things into orbit. No sense carrying fuel to orbit to land the rocket later, just more weight you have to send up in the first place.

But if you could launch a rocket to the moon that could land would mean you could seriously think about sending more goods there for possible longer stays. I mean on the cheap without having to build a whole atlas system for it. Make it a bit bigger, stick an ion engine or another tech for long space travel on it then use the rocket engine only for landing and taking off, and i'd see mars even being possible to ship stuff to.

Not saying they're going to colonize anything in the short term. But it's good to R&D for the long term, especially since it takes so long to develop. It is, after all, rocket science :p

By mjv.theory on 12/27/2012 6:53:12 AM , Rating: 2
You make a good point, especially in light of Musk's Martian colonisation plans. However, I believe that cost saving is still by far the primary motivation. In order to colonise Mars (or anywhere else) it will require a large amount of transportation. To fly to Mars, land and keep the vehicle there would simply be too expensive.

So, yes, you are correct, in that vertical landing is a goal in itself, but the cost saving of re-usability is a much more significant advantage. With re-usable vehicles, the cost of putting 10 tonnes into orbit reduces to less than $1,000,000 and perhaps even half that. Even if you're launching 200 tonnes to Mars on a "Falcon XX"; to use the vehicle only once would be prohibitively expensive in attempting to set up a substantial Martian colony.

Re-usability is the key to a space-faring future and a vertical landing is a nice side benefit. If Falcon 9 costs $50,000,000 and if you can fly 50 times at $1,000,000 operating costs per flight, then it has cost you $100,000,000 in total, where the cost of 50 disposable vehicles would be $2,500,000,000; a handy saving of 2.4 billion dollars. If you want to colonise Mars, it's not just the technology that has to improve, it also needs an improvement in cost efficiency.

