Harry, considering that SpaceX has already supplied the International Space Station in a non-reusable rocket ( http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/28/us/spacex-dragon/index.html ), the above video is far from a first small step. My guess is they will demonstrate a reusable rocket in a year or two.

Ya, I don't think the space agencies are going to be buying re-usable rockets from online auctions anytime soon.

You're right Harry. That's why it's called 'incremental testing.' That's something you can do with reusable vehicles of any kind (a new aircraft design of any kind, for example, undergoes all kinds of taxi tests before so much as getting daylight under the wheels...and even when that happens, the first time is just one or two turns around the field without even raising the gear...even if the plane is meant to ultimately go thousands of miles non-stop).

As opposed to expendables, where it's usually (though you may only test a first stage with dummy upper stages, as with the Saturn 1 and Ares 1-X) all the way to orbit the first time...or nothing.

Expect gradual 'expanding the envelope' much as Blue Origin is doing with a similar system...

SpaceX has been on quite a roll the last couple years... Congress needs to properly fund the COTS/CCDev NASA programs, as long as SpaceX (as well as SNC and Boeing) keep providing results and showing progress like this.

Regaining manned accessed to space and lowering the cost of spaceflight in general should be a priority for NASA, yet Congress only funds COTS/CCDev at roughly 1/30th of NASA's total budget. That's on Congress.

That looked very cool, but how can a rocket carry enough fuel to do a controlled descent from orbit, back to the ground?

Congratulations Mr. Musk !!

.

You are amazing !!

.

It is people like yourself and Steve Jobs who continue to make America great by its ability to reinvent itself and continue to move toward a better future.

Thank you Mr. Musk, and all best wishes on your future endeavors. You do us proud.

Bureaucracy and budget cuts. That and Congress doesn't have a lot of supporters for NASA except for a handful that continue to stand by what NASA is and what it has the potential to do.

Vertical landing as demonstrated here significantly reduces the payload which can be boosted into orbit, since the rocket has to carry enough reserve fuel into orbit so as to have enough for the powered landing. The idea of the NASA missions was to get maximum payload into orbit on each launch.

The vertical landing is also much more difficult, as there is no time for correction if something goes wrong. That's why they are increasing the maximum height of each test only a few meters at a time.

The idea of vertical landings is to have a completely reusable rocket vehicle, which would require more launches to get a given payload into orbit, but perhaps at a lower cost overall.

My sentiments exactly Robert, well spotted.

The technology is nascent, let's give 'em a chance to iron out the bugs.

Because our government over complicates most things. Such as the millions spent to come up with a writing device that could be used in space, under water, upside down, in hot and freezing conditions while the Russians just took a pencil.

I would like to see them iron out the bugs as well and make this work. The impressive part will be having the rockets be able to come back down vertically after releasing the main payload package and being subject to another rocket booster so close.

NASA isn't doing this because NASA doesn't really have a need for reusable rockets. And Congress, who directs the funding NASA gets, has no incentive to fund such a program. This is purely an entrepreneurial endeavor, since the established aerospace companies would likely tell you that it can't be done.

As to the capacity of the reusable 1st stage, who says it's first use will be as the 1st stage to a single-core Falcon 9 rocket? Remember that SpaceX has a rocket called Falcon Heavy (three Falcon 9 cores) that can lift twice the payload of ULA's Delta IV Heavy - so much more mass to LEO (53mt), that there are no known payloads that will max out it's capabilities. Now imagine if SpaceX uses two reusable boosters for the the Falcon Heavy instead of throwaway versions, and then you can see where the less efficient reusable boosters can be used without limiting the payloads SpaceX customers need sent to orbit.

Later, after the reusable 1st stage has been proven out, it can be used on the upcoming Falcon 9 v1.1, which can lift 40% more mass to LEO/GEO than the current Falcon 9 version. I think they have plenty of performance margin to use a less efficient reusable 1st stage, and once customers see how much less expensive it can be, it will create new markets. That's what lowering costs dramatically usually does.

Also a lot of the stuff that space x has is developed from off the shelf NASA derived technology, the rocket landing on its bum reusability has been around for a long time, technologically on the shelf as it were, just hasn't been used yet.

It's still kinda neat though, seen similar ideas tried before, see if it works out.

"Vertical landing as demonstrated here significantly reduces the payload which can be boosted into orbit, since the rocket has to carry enough reserve fuel into orbit so as to have enough for the powered landing."

That's true, Robert. It's the 'price' of re-usability. You carry hardware of some kind (wings, landing propellant, thermal protection surfaces, parachutes, whatever) that makes it possible It's why cruise missiles don't bother with the weight of landing gear...

But it's worth it, if you expect to fly it often enough. Even the Shuttle's per-flight costs could have been lower (though not as low as originally intended), if it had a higher flight rate than it did.

.

Good post Coastal Ron! You highlight a clear path toward a fully reusable heavy lift laucher that SpaceX appears to be on (i.e., Falcon Heavy with three reusable Falcon 9 v1.1 cores). Can you imagine the possibilities??

2012 has been a very good year for SpaceX and commercial spaceflight in general. Anytime we get to watch more videos than animations is a positive sign. I enjoyed the closeup of the the test article in the photo - the SpaceX hardware always has that clean, functional look - no extra fairings or superfluous covers. I suspect the picture was before the test, but it would be impressive if the cowboy's hat stayed on for the entire flight. By reusing so much of their existing systems, I'm curious to see if the Grasshopper work pays any dividends in more functionality and reliability in the control systems for their other vehicles.

I agree with Coastal Ron's excellent post. NASA has a tremendous amount of work on their plate considering the funding they have available and the fact they spend 24X7 having to rejustify / report on it. It should be pointed out that Project Morpheous has been conducted by NASA since 2010 and has been developing future lunar landing systems using lean development practices. This system is an autonomous version of the Armadillo Aerospace Pixel vertical lander. With Masten Space Systems, Armadillo Aerospace, NASA, Blue Origin, and now SpaceX working on vertical landing systems, we should see continued progress in the next generation.

In the 40+ years since Apollo, NASA has blown $500+ billion taxpayer $s on manned space... without getting a single American beyond low earth orbit, leaving itself incompetent/incapable of either crewing or even supplying our own space station...

@Amerman, my guess is that you're a typical right winger, given to making untrue statements because you never bother to enlighten yourself prior to spouting your ignorance for all to see.

Ever hear ofthe Space Shuttle? Here's a list of shuttle missions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_shuttle_missions

So much for your claim that NASA hasn't sent anyone in low earth orbit in the last 40 years. Now as for what NASA did with its funding, this page lists NASA's acomplishments just in 2010 alone:

http://science.nasa.gov/about-us/organization-and-leadership/accomplishments/

Ever hear ofthe Space Shuttle? =

====== =

Sure... Big govt, pork driven Nasa promised a gullible Congress/Americans a $7 million per flight 'cheap, safe, reliable access to space'.... then Nasa delivered a $1.5 billion/flight unaffordable/unsustainable white elephant boondoggle which killed 2 crew, and had several multi-year service outages..

Nasa's turkey Shuttle was the MOST BANKRUPTINGLY EXPENSIVE, DANGEROUS, UNRELIABLE SPACE VEHICLE IN HISTORY.....

Nasa followed it's Shuttle with a $200 billion useless boondoggle Space Station, and it's miserably failed/cancelled $20 billion Constellation disaster...

Now, Nasa wastes $60+ billion more on unneeded, unsustainable, unaffordable earmarked pork SLS/Orion, when SpaceX has vastly superior boosters/capsules already flying.

we should downslze or eliminate Nasa, and instead use the NSF to fund JPL and SpaceX directly….we must not 'double down' on more decades of Nasa incompetence/waste/shameless pork like SLS/Orion.

In the 40+ years since Apollo, NASA has blown $500+ billion taxpayer $s on manned space... without getting a single American beyond low earth orbit, leaving itself incompetent/incapable of either crewing or even supplying our own space station...

======== =

Gumps: So much for your claim that NASA hasn't sent anyone in low earth orbit in the last 40 years.

=====

Even the dullest Govt worshipping lib ideologue should grasp the word 'beyond'....

I watched Americans walk on the moon, and dreamed of what else I would see in my lifetime.... lunar colonies, Americans on Mars, trips to asteroids...

Then I watched my corrupt, incompetent, greedy, parasitic Govt/Nasa waste the next 40 decades on shameless red-tape, dead wood, top-heavy bureaucracy and pork..

It's refreshing, exciting, and hopeful to watch American innovative, spirited, efficient private enterprise take the lead….After 40+ years of bloated big Govt NASA wasting $500+ billion on dead end, pork driven manned space boondoggles like Shuttle, ISS, Constellation...

SpaceX boosters and capsules are far advanced beyond anything Nasa is capable of…. Produced for $300 million while Nasa wasted $20+ billion on it’s failed/cancelled Constellation earmarked pork disaster…

The US Space Program is too important to be further entrusted to our pork driven, greedy, incompetent Federal Govt.

So, just because NASA hasn't sent an astronaut beyond 2000KM just t suit your wishes (there has been no mission warranting such an effort), you regard it a waste. You ignored the accomplishments achieved - you whine only because we haven't sent anyone to the moon.

And why is that? Review your history, twit. Congress chose to cut funding.

It also reminds me of the classic video game "Lunar Lander".

It's why, ever since the DC-X, that such 'classic' rocket-powered vertical landings have been described as; 'The way God and Robert Heinlein intended...'

I was reminded of that, too. "The Conquest of Space" aired in '55, the year I was born. As a child, I owned and read the book incessantly, dazzled by that fabulous Chesley Bonestell artwork. I knew we would go into space one day and I'm simply delighted that I am able to witness the beginnings of that magnificent journey.

Good luck, Elon Musk and SpaceX. You may very well hold the future of humanity in your hands.

I played Lunar Lander on my TI-58 programmable calculator when I was in High School back in the late 70's.

They've already done that pesky part:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/28/us/spacex-dragon/index.html

They've actually done all three, in impressive fashion too (they have had two missions to the ISS now!) They just need to keep incrementally increasing capability, then put it all together in rapid succession.

Same reason I'm seeing Virgin Galactic use an aircraft to carry the rocket ship piggy-back to the upper atmosphere, where the rocket detaches and fires into space. I mean, I drew that on my desk in 1985!

We should have gotten patents, Mo. We'd be rich.

Big difference between drawing it, and making it really happen (it's those pesky laws of physics!)

Not everyone wants to use 'cheap' (though not if you anticipate using and throwing away a lot of them) but lower performance solid fuel stages.

Re-usability makes perfect sense, if the system isn't too fragile (as the Shuttle was), and you expect to fly it often enough...

Actually, one of those 'pesky' theories (not really laws but should be) of physics is: "All things are possibe. However, most things are improbable." This is one of those improbables that people could only dream about during the days of putting man on the Moon.

Impossibility doesn't exist, nor does improbability. Should a person something is impossible, then it is to that person. Improbability exists, but the person says it's improbable but I'm going to try anyway. And if it proves to be possible, then what the hell, it worked.

VTOL has been around since the 1950's. It's about time someone with imaginization did something with it.

That's actually what I was thinking of when seeing this, the DC-XA project, see if this turns out better, wonder if that was where some of the technology was developed from?

The first DC-X flight didn't do much more than this, either. That's what incremental testing is about.

They're not at all done.

And Burn, Blue Origin grabbed up a lot of former DC-X engineers. That's why they've been doing similar things...

Also a take-off on the Flash Gordon shows called "Flesh Garden". :D

So do I.

And the vehicle in 'Destination Moon' was also a nuclear thermal rocket...

Amerman, I agree with the first paragraph of your post, but this statement is false: "SpaceX boosters and capsules are far advanced beyond anything NASA is capable of."

SpaceX didn't and couldn't at this stage constuct or operate something on the scale of ISS on orbit for example. SpaceX is not yet capable of putting a manned or unmanned mission on or in orbit around the moon or another planet for another example. The list goes on. NASA is capable of these things, and has accomplished these things... they have just lacked focused direction and funding of late, mainly thanks to Congress.

I am very supportive of SpaceX, but let's not get ahead of ourselves... SpaceX has proven they can lauch unmanned cargo into Earth orbit, that's it.