How come nobody's complaining about the fact that this thing drives itself?

http://news.yahoo.com/awesome-spacex-video-shows-rocket-landing-try-crash-223927085.html

[QUOTE=Oil_Is_Evil;159639]http://news.yahoo.com/awesome-spacex-video-shows-rocket-landing-try-crash-223927085.html[/QUOTE]

Ok I’ll bite, but I really need to get to bed soon.

So it drives itself…you mean it has a computer guidance system? Unmanned rockets have been around for decades. Werner von Braun etc.

Whatcha “driving” at?

stoopid, stoopier, stoopidest! when on earth have rockets been able to be landed? They only go up…what comes down needs a parachute.

two crashes in three months! these people going to be cited for air and water pollution?

You’re right, it’s never been done before so there’s no way it’ll ever happen, and the world is flat, the sun orbits the earth, man will never fly, and man will never walk on the moon. How many times did the wright brothers crash before they flew?
The guy behind this, Elon Musk, is probably one of the greatest innovators of our time and if he’s behind it id be willing to bet money he’ll get it figured out.

[QUOTE=Zep;159656]You’re right, it’s never been done before so there’s no way it’ll ever happen, and the world is flat, the sun orbits the earth, man will never fly, and man will never walk on the moon. How many times did the wright brothers crash before they flew?
The guy behind this, Elon Musk, is probably one of the greatest innovators of our time and if he’s behind it id be willing to bet money he’ll get it figured out.[/QUOTE]

and what is the point of landing a rocket with its own engine? why not land it by parachute?

sometimes ideas are just stoopid and can’t be made smart no matter how big the brains behind them…

Sometimes people are just stupid and can’t be made smarter no matter how much you tell them.

Bottom line is its progress; even if it’s never used for its intended purpose who knows what future technologies will be developed based on the science from this work.

Just google it man… WWW.GOOGLE.COM

It’s the Barge, Stoopid! Remote control DP 2.

The plan is to refuel the rocket and use it again. 80% cheaper than building a new booster every launch.

[QUOTE=Zep;159664]Sometimes people are just stupid and can’t be made smarter no matter how much you tell them.

Bottom line is its progress; even if it’s never used for its intended purpose who knows what future technologies will be developed based on the science from this work.[/QUOTE]

don’t know, looks pretty STOOPID to my eyes

//youtu.be/BhMSzC1crr0

parachute the effing thing back to the surface, recover with a ship, reuse without detonation

So does the DPO actually get a window to look out of on the mother ship? Or do they still alternate between the DP console and FB messenger? If the mothership is outside of the 500 who do they get permission from to enter? When was the last FMEA done and did a certified class society perform the testing? What union represents the DPO’s and crew of the mothership? Are any of these rockets and drone ships part of Skynet or connected to it in any way?

Amateur rocketry has been a long time hobby of mine and I know quite a few aerospace engineers in the industry (including at SpaceX)…

The differences between the Shuttle SRBs and the Falcon 9 are manifold. The SRBs after burnout are more or less hollow steel tubes, and in fact the internal space that was formerly occupied by solid propellant is trapped on landing upright in the water under parachute for buoyancy. They can be refurbished relatively easily. In contrast, the Falcon 9 (or any liquid propelled booster) is a much more complex machine, with many delicate parts that are destroyed if parachuted into the ocean. So until this time, liquid fueled rockets have always been very expensive one-time-use propositions. SpaceX is pursuing a variety of ways to bring down the cost per launch, and having a large part of your launch system be reusable will go a long way towards that goal when they get it right.

[QUOTE=socalguy;159677]Amateur rocketry has been a long time hobby of mine and I know quite a few aerospace engineers in the industry (including at SpaceX)…

The differences between the Shuttle SRBs and the Falcon 9 are manifold. The SRBs after burnout are more or less hollow steel tubes, and in fact the internal space that was formerly occupied by solid propellant is trapped on landing upright in the water under parachute for buoyancy. They can be refurbished relatively easily. In contrast, the Falcon 9 (or any liquid propelled booster) is a much more complex machine, with many delicate parts that are destroyed if parachuted into the ocean. So until this time, liquid fueled rockets have always been very expensive one-time-use propositions. SpaceX is pursuing a variety of ways to bring down the cost per launch, and having a large part of your launch system be reusable will go a long way towards that goal when they get it right.[/QUOTE]

and why exactly are they not using solid propellant?

No throttle, no restart.

So now C.Captain is a rocket scientist…

Liquid propellants such as liquid oxygen (LOX) and either kerosene (RP-1) or liquid hydrogen (LH2) have a much higher specific impulse than do even the best performing solid propellants Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant in the SRBs). So efficiency is one factor. Other issues related to mission specific factors will affect the propulsion design decisions. For example, there may be a need to tailor the thrust profile throughout the course of the flight. Throttling a liquid propelled rocket is a much simpler exercise than for a solid fueled one. In a solid rocket, the thrust profile is “baked in” based upon the geometry of the cast propellant segments. Once lit, there is no way to change the SRBs thrust or shut them off.

[QUOTE=coldduck;159682]So now C.Captain is a rocket scientist…[/QUOTE]

Scientist, soldier, statesman, scholar, singer, dancer, noted tuba virtuoso

[QUOTE=socalguy;159683]Liquid propellants such as liquid oxygen (LOX) and either kerosene (RP-1) or liquid hydrogen (LH2) have a much higher specific impulse than do even the best performing solid propellants Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant in the SRBs). So efficiency is one factor. Other issues related to mission specific factors will affect the propulsion design decisions. For example, there may be a need to tailor the thrust profile throughout the course of the flight. Throttling a liquid propelled rocket is a much simpler exercise than for a solid fueled one. In a solid rocket, the thrust profile is “baked in” based upon the geometry of the cast propellant segments. Once lit, there is no way to change the SRBs thrust or shut them off.[/QUOTE]

Except it seems intuitive that if you want low cost and reusability that solid propellant is what you need and it is too problematic to get everything in a liquid fueled rocket?

[QUOTE=coldduck;159682]So now C.Captain is a rocket scientist…[/QUOTE]

A google expert can be anything you want to be.

Low cost is a relative term. On the scale I do rocketry, solid propulsion make sense despite the high cost per unit for the chemicals, because manufacturing liquid fuel hardware requires some heavy duty machining and cryogenic valves/fittings/etc. When launching a satellite into orbit however, you are balancing a lot of different factors. Weight is your enemy when going into orbit, because to place something into orbit requires immense speeds (>17,500 mph), which requires a great deal of energy. The more efficient your propulsion-- the smaller and lighter your overall vehicle can be for a given payload, which brings down costs across the board, even though a LOX/RP-1 engine may be more expensive to build than an SRB. For anything more you’d like to know, I’d recommend a copy of Rocket Propulsion Elements by Sutton.

“Through proprietary adjustments that SpaceX won’t disclose, engineers recently lightened the engine to increase its efficiency, making it the most efficient rocket booster engine ever built.” Higher efficiency equals greater payload equals greater profits. The flights are already profitable, why not experiment and have a little fun with “RUD”?

Speaking of autonomous things, just happened to catch Apple’s experimental self? Driving van…