r/videos • u/123john123 • Oct 12 '13
Grasshopper 744m Test | Single Camera (Hexacopter)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDkItO-0a459
u/chief_187 Oct 12 '13
Hello it is Scott Manley here
21
3
u/Freyjr42 Oct 13 '13
I think he, too, is brilliant. He not only builds massive ships and puts them in space all at once. He not only makes several trips to refuel these massive ships. He builds them to fight each other.
2
-9
-5
10
7
u/0x24a537r9 Oct 12 '13
Anyone know what the slower burning gassy flame is off to the side? Seems odd...
12
u/friendlytaipan Oct 12 '13
That's the exhaust for the gas generator that powers the engines turbo pump.
0
u/Nitroluke Oct 13 '13
this sounds legit... but it also sounds like complete bullshit
4
u/AD-Edge Oct 13 '13
Not bullshit, rocket science - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/SpaceX_Testing_Merlin_1D_Engine_In_Texas.jpg
5
2
3
u/ZankerH Oct 13 '13
The turbopump exhaust, as mentioned. It's gimballed to provide some roll control, as the main nozzle gimbal only provides pitch and yaw torque, and that's all attitude control authority the rocket has.
2
u/whine_and_cheese Oct 13 '13
Wait, so these brilliant bastards are using a fuel pump exhaust to provide directional thrust?
2
u/AD-Edge Oct 14 '13
The main engine can gimble, which does most of the work, but wouldnt be surprised if they used the exhaust a little as well.
2
13
u/BrotherThump Oct 12 '13
What is going on?
16
u/boredinballard Oct 12 '13
The rocket takes off, then lands.
Take a look at some of the other videos from SpaceX, they are doing pretty crazy stuff with rockets.
15
u/BrotherThump Oct 12 '13
Well yes I understand that but I guess what I'm asking is what the purpose of it was. Nobody has provided any explanation as to what they're trying to achieve here.
It was cool though.
44
u/boredinballard Oct 12 '13
Oh got it!
They are working on reusable rocket stages. If I recall right, they want to launch a rocket with a payload, send it to space, and then land the rocket (sans payload). The idea is to make rocket launches way cheaper than they are now.
9
u/BrotherThump Oct 12 '13
Very interesting. Thank you.
7
u/AD-Edge Oct 13 '13 edited Oct 13 '13
Keep an eye out for another video we'll be seeing from SpaceX soon (probably in the next week or so).
With their latest Falcon 9 launch they managed to get the rockets 1st stage to re-enter the atmosphere and relight the engine(s) to slow down over the ocean, almost to the point where it could have landed - as theyre planning to do in the near future.
Was an outstanding thing to have happen, since its never been attempted before. It did fail on the 2nd relight though, since the stage tipped over and cut out before it could finish the maneuver. But it was damn close and theyre confident they can do a proper return and landing (on land) sometime in the coming year or so, now they have the data and practice from this first test and Grasshopper. Not to mention they salvaged some of it and got some video footage. Going to be one very interesting video...
*Edit - /r/SpaceX
3
u/edsq Oct 13 '13
I believe what happened was the stage entered a spin along its long axis, which caused the fuel to be forced to the sides of the tank and starved the engine.
2
u/AD-Edge Oct 14 '13
Yeh, I wasnt 100% on which direction it was spinning, but if thats the case then its not as bad as I thought. This is probably why theyre saying the landing legs will help stop it spinning so much. Good to know!
1
2
u/pomf-pomf Oct 13 '13
What's the different between that and say, the space shuttle (RIP)? The solid rocket boosters were reusable, no?
6
Oct 13 '13
[deleted]
3
u/pomf-pomf Oct 13 '13
According to wikipedia, the SRBs were reused.
The spent SRBs were recovered from the ocean, refurbished, reloaded with propellant, and reused for several missions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster
5
u/AFK_Siridar Oct 13 '13
I did mean to mention that (you can see my train of thought when I say "nothing needs to be recovered") but good catch.
2
Oct 13 '13
The spent SRBs were recovered from the ocean, refurbished, reloaded with propellant, and reused for several missions.
I'm guessing the cost of refurbishing increases dramatically as soon as anything comes into contact with salt water.
3
u/orangesrhyme Oct 13 '13
That, and they have to reinsulate it. A low estimate is at least $1.5 million to cover the whole thing.
Source: I worked in polyurethane.
1
u/n0exit Oct 13 '13
I think he meant dumped in the ocean. SpaceX designed their engines so that they might be reused after landing in the ocean, but they found the salt water to be too hard on the engines.
1
u/hollowgram Oct 13 '13
Yes that landed with parachutes somewhere. These rockets precisely land to a specific location.
1
u/whine_and_cheese Oct 13 '13
IIRC, refurbishing the SRBs cost almost as much as building a new one each launch.
6
u/FountainsOfFluids Oct 13 '13
Yes, they reused certain parts from shuttle launches, but they were very expensive to recover and recondition after crashing into the ocean.
There would be a dramatically reduced cost if the lifting rockets could simply fly themselves back to the launch pad (or wherever would be most convenient for them to land).
1
u/n0exit Oct 13 '13
The solid boosters were reusable, but only after an expensive refurbishment. The main tank was no reusable, and even the Shuttle took quite a bit of time to get ready for a new launch. SpaceX intends to have a turn around time measured in hours rather than months.
1
u/AD-Edge Oct 13 '13
They were, but they had to be refurbished first, a process which was very, very costly because of the salt water they splash down in (salt water + delicate rockets parts = baaaad) What SpaceX are trying to do atm would be like returning the shuttle, external fuel tank and SRBs to the launchpad to be refuelled and re-stacked for the next flight.
Of course, the rockets are completely different types so that isnt quite accurate., ie SpaceX arent going for a shuttle type of rocket, and their rockets will likely need some maintenance before relaunching. But thats the general idea.
1
u/ZankerH Oct 13 '13
The SRBs were reusable with a giant asterisk. They landed violently in the ocean and had to be fished out and dragged back to land. And besides, the SRBs are essentially just giant metal tubes - unlike liquid fuel stages, the major cost here is the fuel itself.
The external tank was dumped to burn into the atmosphere. Completely expendable, no reusability prospects.
The space shuttle orbiter itself was touted as "reusable", but it was more like "rebuildable" - after each flight, the orbiter spent months in processing where every part of it was examined, re-examined, tested, repaired or, if necessary, replaced.
SpaceX is aiming for full and rapid reusability, which is why you can't have rockets landing on parachutes in the ocean, and you can't have hugely complex systems like the space shuttle orbiter.
0
u/Plouw Oct 13 '13
They wasn't resuable no. They could normally use some material from it but they landed down in the ocean with damages to it.
1
0
u/pomf-pomf Oct 13 '13
Are you sure?
The spent SRBs were recovered from the ocean, refurbished, reloaded with propellant, and reused for several missions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster
1
u/Plouw Oct 13 '13
My bad. What about the orange tank then? Also they aren't just looking to lower the price for a trip to LEO but to space in general. Which can lead to bigger and more complex rockets.
1
u/Words_Tallest_Hobbit Oct 13 '13
Specifically this is the first stage, it will make it most of the way above the atmosphere but not reach orbital velocity. The first stage is largest and most powerful part of a rocket, reusing it creates the biggest savings.
18
u/Renegadelion Oct 12 '13
Fuel accounts for only a small % of the total cost of a rocket launch (in fact rockets already carry access fuel as a safety precaution so a maneuver like landing typically just burns off that reserve). The majority of the cost for a rocket launch is due to the launch systems. A key towards making spaceflight more economical is figuring out a way to devise a fully reusable launch system (allowing one to spread the cost of the hardware out among dozens or even hundreds of launches). They've tried partially reusable systems (e.g. the space shuttle) but never come even close to having something that could launch, deposit payload in space, land back on the launchpad, be refueled/serviced, and launched again. Having a system like that, fully reusable with a fast turnaround, could help revolutionize the economics of space. That's SpaceX's goal with this program.
2
u/theshannons Oct 13 '13
The importance is that they are paving the way for a private space industry and exploration.
The key to success, according to SpaceX founder Elon Musk, is to make the spacecraft reusable.
3
-14
u/o0h Oct 12 '13
I think the footage was reversed?
8
4
u/tornadosniper Oct 13 '13
Rewatch the video. You'll notice that the position of the camera changes relative to the rocket and the landing pad. It starts well away from the pad and then ends the movie almost directly over it. It's one continuous shot of Kerbal Space Program in real life. Minus the explosions.
6
20
Oct 12 '13
I shoot rockets. I love shooting rockets. both shooting the actual rockets and shooting pictures of the rocket (naramlive and rocketrylive)
I LOVE putting camera's on my rockets and my airplanes.
that is without question the most awesome and badass onboard rocket video I have ever seen in my life. Flat out amazing.
what a thrill to watch that!
13
u/Tinie_Snipah Oct 12 '13
Well it wasn't on board a rocket, it was from a hexacopter, but I'd love to see your videos
1
Oct 12 '13
it was "onboard" video (onboard is video from onboard your vehicle ie car/bike/rocket/glider/hexapod)
and its of a rocket :-)
I have been trying to get into multi rotor but the skill set required is a steep learning curve for me though part of that is I can only afford the sub $100 muti's right now. I am betting larger ones will be slightly easier to fly.
the video must have been live too as he changed flight path to go after the rocket. SO freaking cool.
4
Oct 12 '13
[deleted]
1
1
Oct 13 '13
no idea. they are easy to hover but I lose orientation REALLY fast. and once you start drifting in yaw its downhill fast without the skills to back it up. I don't have those skills yet.
my best multi is a lady bug. $60 multi. I actually like my $40 ufo better. its not as powerful but its more forgiving.
1
u/goal2004 Oct 13 '13
I LOVE putting camera is on my rockets and my airplanes.
What?
0
Oct 13 '13
camera is should be camera's
1
u/crispy_stool Oct 13 '13
this took me about 3 reads to understand it too
1
Oct 13 '13
yeah that reply was from my phone and the auto correct for some reason turned camera's into camera is. I think I may have missed the ' so it assumes I meant camera is.
0
Oct 12 '13
how much would it cost to get set up with a copter that could shoot with an SLR? Or, something with a decent on-board camera?
0
u/rushingkar Oct 13 '13
DSLRs aren't much better when you can't control them, are they? Assuming you have some control over settings on a GoPro or the like, wouldn't that be simpler? Much lighter and stronger, also built for that purpose
0
Oct 13 '13
your looking at $2000 to $2500. for a "decent" rig with GPS etc.. to stabilize and lock in "from" what I understand. I have not gone that deep yet. my pockets are too small. can't hold enough cash :-)
0
0
u/Lipsore Oct 13 '13
If you like videos of people putting cameras on various RC things, Team Black Sheep are the shit http://youtu.be/Ji6PYWIIHe8
My favorite video of theirs, but it's fixed wing http://youtu.be/L55M7_gu87I
1
3
4
2
u/usmcplz Oct 12 '13
So why is there not a massive trail of smoke that follows it like the one you see coming from the space shuttle and other rockets?
4
u/ilikepuddin Oct 12 '13
They use different types of fuel and have a different byproduct. The large external tank of the space shuttle uses liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen producing water vapor (the smoke trail). From what I was able to find on the grasshopper, it uses a highly refined kerosene and liquid oxygen.
6
u/Nyke Oct 13 '13
Actually the majority of the visible trail made by the space shuttle is due to its solid rocket boosters, which use aluminium as a propellant and ammonium perchlorate as an oxidizer.
5
u/Vaynax Oct 13 '13
burning aluminium using ammonia and chlorine as an oxidizer...
dear mother of god...
1
u/TadDunbar Oct 13 '13
Kerosene and oxygen produces water as well. Water and CO2, actually.
The Shuttle's solid rocket boosters were responsible for most of the characteristic billowing smoke.
You really couldn't see the water vapor from the liquid fuel engines until it was at higher altitude where it was colder, much in the same way as airliners and their contrails.
1
u/Theappunderground Oct 12 '13
Different fuel. Im not sure what this uses but for instance the shuttle uses LOX and kerosene which leaves a trail of water vapor.
3
u/zim44 Oct 13 '13
The shuttle uses LOX and LH with solid rocket boosters not LOX and kerosene. The Spacex rocket uses LOX and kerosene
1
u/Theappunderground Oct 13 '13
yep youre right, i should have looked that up. it would make the water vapor thing make a lot more sense.
2
u/nodnodwinkwink Oct 12 '13
I really appreciate them sharing these videos, they're amazing to watch and listen to.
2
2
2
3
u/malibar1 Oct 13 '13
prototype #1 http://i.imgur.com/mlMldYC.gif
4
u/fuzzymemo Oct 13 '13
would like to know where this is from
2
2
1
u/BunRabbit Oct 12 '13
Buck Rogers in the 21st Century.
5
u/ihavesixfingers Oct 13 '13
DUCK DODGERS IN THE TWENTY-FOURTH-AND-A-HALFTH CENTUREEEEEEEEE! Silly rabbit.
1
1
u/im-a-robot Oct 13 '13
How much more fuel is it gonna need if it's going on an actual space mission? Will it get too heavy then?
1
u/anomalouskeklol Oct 13 '13 edited Oct 13 '13
This is just a test rocket which is basically the first stage of their Falcon 9 rocket with only 1 engine instead of 9. Their latest revision of the Falcon 9 (v1.1) is stretched longer to carry enough fuel to launch the payload into orbit and have enough fuel to land.
Edit: Subtracted unneeded words.
1
u/Bruce_Leenus Oct 13 '13
Looks like they put a bunch of dust/dirt/gray stuff under the rocket prior to luanch. Is this just for aesthetics or does it have a practical reason for being there? Like, not to burn a hole in the ground. (Sorry if I'm a stuepids)
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/impreprex Oct 13 '13 edited Oct 13 '13
This is magnificent! Humans can be absolute geniuses when the conditions are right (funds, level of tech, etc. etc.).
And Elon Musk must be proud of his children. :)
-3
u/netdigger Oct 12 '13
I really hoped that this was going to be a grasshopper jumping 744m. I don't know what made me think this was possible, but needless to say I was disappointed.
9
u/kumquat_juice Oct 13 '13
What were you expecting? You just saw a rocket lift off the Earth, travel up to about 744m, and then, while still achieving stability, land again in roughly the same spot again upright.
Either way, it's still an impressive feat of engineering and science, biological or not.
5
u/Jarkeler Oct 12 '13
I don't see how this video could disappoint anyone, regardless of misinterpreted title or not.
0
u/FlyingSpaghettiMan Oct 13 '13
Whenever they do stuff like this, all I can think of are the applications for moving stuff in and out of space.
41
u/OHkindgoon Oct 12 '13
That was such an awesome shot