SpaceX Tuesday...

[Eric Mc]

Toaster said:

I am not decrying its clever but can it really claim to be the first landing?

Who did?

[Toaster]

Scuffers said:

it can in terms of it being a 100% commercial customer launch that then recovered the first stage as opposed to being a simple recovery test.

Not until they launch recover and re-launch and recover and that still has to be done...............

[Toaster]

Eric Mc said:

Who did?

You could argue that it was an X-15 not only is it powered by a rocket but landed and re-used many times

[p1stonhead]

Toaster said:

Eric Mc said:

Who did?

You could argue that it was an X-15 not only is it powered by a rocket but landed and re-used many times

Could it deliver payloads into orbit?

[Eric Mc]

p1stonhead said:

Toaster said:

Eric Mc said:

Who did?

You could argue that it was an X-15 not only is it powered by a rocket but landed and re-used many times

Could it deliver payloads into orbit?

It FELL back to earth ballistically. It didn't fly aerodynamicaly.

the only thing it had in common with an X-15 is that it had a rocket engine.

[Toaster]

p1stonhead said:

Could it deliver payloads into orbit?

if you consider the following it came in to service in 1959, carried a Pilot (payload) and designed for near space research it performed well within its design parameters, had it had a second stage (Rocket) it in theory it could have launched micro satellites. This is no different to the space X Falcon 9 in that the first stage which is recovered is not delivering payloads to orbit......

But with regard to a rocket 'craft' capable of getting in to space and being reusable this is it, unless someone can point out an earlier success happy for you to do that.

[Scuffers]

Toaster said:

if you consider the following it came in to service in 1959, carried a Pilot (payload) and designed for near space research it performed well within its design parameters, had it had a second stage (Rocket) it in theory it could have launched micro satellites. This is no different to the space X Falcon 9 in that the first stage which is recovered is not delivering payloads to orbit......

But with regard to a rocket 'craft' capable of getting in to space and being reusable this is it, unless someone can point out an earlier success happy for you to do that.

splitting hairs, but the X-15's first stage was a B52, and that was very re-usable!

[p1stonhead]

Toaster said:

p1stonhead said:

Could it deliver payloads into orbit?

if you consider the following it came in to service in 1959, carried a Pilot (payload) and designed for near space research it performed well within its design parameters, had it had a second stage (Rocket) it in theory it could have launched micro satellites. This is no different to the space X Falcon 9 in that the first stage which is recovered is not delivering payloads to orbit......

But with regard to a rocket 'craft' capable of getting in to space and being reusable this is it, unless someone can point out an earlier success happy for you to do that.

I wasn't asking a rhetorical question but a genuine one. Knew nothing about the x15 and as far as I have heard as a layman, space X was the first one to do what it's just done.

[Toaster]

Eric Mc said:

It FELL back to earth ballistically. It didn't fly aerodynamically. the only thing it had in common with an X-15 is that it had a rocket engine.

You do make me laugh Eric, all objects fall to earth ballistically ( is the return of an object under the force of gravity) even aerodynamic ones what you are talking about is means of control, so I suspect the way space X works is by placing a modicum of control on the booster (e.g. maintaining its attitude so that it comes in end first) When you use the term ballistically which clearly is only partially true for Space X as control is gained by firing its rocket engine and guidance thrusters.

I didn't say how much in common one technology had with another what I stated was a Rocket craft capable of traveling in to space, returning and being re-used is not new.

The X-15 has no rocket power on its return just lift but its ballistic return to earth is influenced by the force of gravity no difference really just one used aerodynamic lift (sounds like the space shuttle both of which can be reused again and again) and the other rocket power.

[Toaster]

Scuffers said:

splitting hairs, but the X-15's first stage was a B52, and that was very re-usable!

not really what you r saying both 1st and 2nd stages re-usable........those guys knew what they where doing back in the 50's/60's

[Toaster]

p1stonhead said:

Toaster said:

p1stonhead said:

Could it deliver payloads into orbit?

if you consider the following it came in to service in 1959, carried a Pilot (payload) and designed for near space research it performed well within its design parameters, had it had a second stage (Rocket) it in theory it could have launched micro satellites. This is no different to the space X Falcon 9 in that the first stage which is recovered is not delivering payloads to orbit......

But with regard to a rocket 'craft' capable of getting in to space and being reusable this is it, unless someone can point out an earlier success happy for you to do that.

I wasn't asking a rhetorical question but a genuine one. Knew nothing about the x15 and as far as I have heard as a layman, space X was the first one to do what it's just done.

Im glad you did ask that question I had no idea (but then why would I ) that NASA did consider the X-15 as a delivery vehicle http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/x15scout.htm

"American air-launched orbital launch vehicle. In March 1962, NASA proposed an orbital launch vehicle using the B-52/X-15 combination. A Blue Scout booster would be fitted to an extendable launch rail on the belly of the X-15. The X-15 would be air-launched from the B-52, and then itself air-launch the Blue Scout well above the earth's atmosphere.
The proposal was rejected due to concerns over safety and economics (despite it being promoted as a low-cost launch system)."

Status: Design 1962.

[Eric Mc]

As the report said - it wouldn't have worked. Read what happened during the X-15's fastest flight.

There were studies conducted into using the X-15 for suborbital and even orbital missions. All were rejected.

And I do think there is a big difference in gliding back to a landing compared to falling like a stone.

[Scuffers]

Toaster said:

those guys knew what they where doing back in the 50's/60's

No kidding...

When you look at the capabilities of the Saturn 5, current stuff is very lightweight.

Last launch put 77 tonnes of skylab up there.

[Toaster]

Eric Mc said:

As the report said - it wouldn't have worked. Read what happened during the X-15's fastest flight.

Clearly that is what developmental programs are for and as a R&D platform lessons were learned

Eric Mc said:

There were studies conducted into using the X-15 for suborbital and even orbital missions. All were rejected.

Didn't mean that none would have worked but I am not splitting hairs I suspect a part of it would have been financial and political and with what had been learnt new projects developed.

Eric Mc said:

And I do think there is a big difference in gliding back to a landing compared to falling like a stone.

Neither fell like a stone one had aerodynamic lift the other had control systems a 'correct attitude' and a big fk off engine. stones in case you haven't notice have little of these (unless its been shaped in a peculiar aerodynamic way by nature

[Toaster]

Scuffers said:

No kidding...

When you look at the capabilities of the Saturn 5, current stuff is very lightweight.

Last launch put 77 tonnes of skylab up there.

yup your right and when you think about how much computing power we have compared to the Saturn 5 with what effectively were main frames for guidance systems in the various stages its awesome to think what we have at our fingertips today along with the manufactures and techniques they use.Also to think that certain parts can be just printed rather than wait until the next supply rocket arrives

[Eric Mc]

Toaster said:

Eric Mc said:

As the report said - it wouldn't have worked. Read what happened during the X-15's fastest flight.

Clearly that is what developmental programs are for and as a R&D platform lessons were learned

Eric Mc said:

There were studies conducted into using the X-15 for suborbital and even orbital missions. All were rejected.

Didn't mean that none would have worked but I am not splitting hairs I suspect a part of it would have been financial and political and with what had been learnt new projects developed.

Eric Mc said:

And I do think there is a big difference in gliding back to a landing compared to falling like a stone.

Neither fell like a stone one had aerodynamic lift the other had control systems a 'correct attitude' and a big fk off engine. stones in case you haven't notice have little of these (unless its been shaped in a peculiar aerodynamic way by nature

One had aerodynamic lift and one didn't - my point exactly. Thanks for reinforcing it for me. Glad we agree on at least one thing

[Beati Dogu]

Gandahar said:

How much money does it save?

Elon Musk explains that and why it's important:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B5av0BOajU

[Eric Mc]

He's obviously talking rubbish because he didn't mention anywhere that he had cleared his comments with Toaster first.

[p1stonhead]

Beati Dogu said:

Gandahar said:

How much money does it save?

Elon Musk explains that and why it's important:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B5av0BOajU

Supposedly it's £2500 per pound of cargo to transport to space at the moment. With reusable first stages it could drop to £250 per pound. A massive saving.

[Scuffers]

p1stonhead said:

Supposedly it's £2500 per pound of cargo to transport to space at the moment. With reusable first stages it could drop to £250 per pound. A massive saving.

Bit more than that to put it somewhere useful, around $12,600 a kg. Assuming you use the full capacity of the falcon 9

Costs $61.2m a shot.