Beat Musk to the punch (though he's trying to land one on a barge). This is a big step toward reusable rockets and MUCH cheaper space flight.
quote:I read that. This one went to orbit (100k feet) instead of space/outer orbit (300k feet). But shouldn't that matter very little to the landing? They turned the thrusters completely off at ~100k feet and let it free-fall to 5k feet before turning them back on. That's more than enough height to reach terminal velocity, so where's the increased difficulty coming from?
Although to be fair to SpaceX, the Falcon 9 rocket travels to a max altitude of 90 miles, whereas Blue Origin only went to 50 miles.
As a result, the Falcon 9 hits a max speed of Mach 10 instead of Blue Origin's Mach 3.7. Much, much harder to land.
Still though, this is very impressive.
quote:He's bleeding all over Twitter.
If Musk is as intense to work for as I've read, I would NOT want to work for SpaceX today. I doubt he'll be happy that SpaceX wasn't the first to land it, even if it didn't go as high up.
And regardless of that, it's a hell of a feat.
quote:quote:I read that. This one went to orbit (100k feet) instead of space/outer orbit (300k feet). But shouldn't that matter very little to the landing? They turned the thrusters completely off at ~100k feet and let it free-fall to 5k feet before turning them back on. That's more than enough height to reach terminal velocity, so where's the increased difficulty coming from?
Although to be fair to SpaceX, the Falcon 9 rocket travels to a max altitude of 90 miles, whereas Blue Origin only went to 50 miles.
As a result, the Falcon 9 hits a max speed of Mach 10 instead of Blue Origin's Mach 3.7. Much, much harder to land.
Still though, this is very impressive.
quote:It's not height, its speed needed to become orbital without falling right back.
It does seem to answer my question, though. Going higher requires more fuel, which requires a bigger rocket, which is heavier, which is harder to land.
quote:I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Point is, you need a much more powerful rocket to reach "space" as you need to hit mach 30 instead of mach 9 (according to Musk's Twitter post). A rocket that can hit mach 30 is going to be much bigger and heavier than a rocket that only needs to hit mach 3 (as the 1st will need to carry MUCH more fuel), and a rocket that is much bigger and heavier is going to be more difficult to land upright.quote:It's not height, its speed needed to become orbital without falling right back.
It does seem to answer my question, though. Going higher requires more fuel, which requires a bigger rocket, which is heavier, which is harder to land.
Imagine the arm strength you would need to fire a baseball or football in order for it to travel around the whole world at a height of 5 feet, it needs to travel fast enough that it covers so much distance that by the time gravity pulls it toward the ground, the ground is also already falling away due to the curve of the earth so that the ball would be in orbit at a height of 5 feet (it would be traveling at like 20,000 mph). Then, having done that, imagine trying to catch it again when it comes back around...
The arm you would need to flip the ball from the ground to 5 feet off the ground and catch it again is miniscule in comparison
quote:quote:I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Point is, you need a much more powerful rocket to reach "space" as you need to hit mach 30 instead of mach 9 (according to Musk's Twitter post). A rocket that can hit mach 30 is going to be much bigger and heavier than a rocket that only needs to hit mach 9 (as the 1st will need to carry MUCH more fuel), and a rocket that is much bigger and heavier is going to be more difficult to land upright.quote:It's not height, its speed needed to become orbital without falling right back.
It does seem to answer my question, though. Going higher requires more fuel, which requires a bigger rocket, which is heavier, which is harder to land.
Imagine the arm strength you would need to fire a baseball or football in order for it to travel around the whole world at a height of 5 feet, it needs to travel fast enough that it covers so much distance that by the time gravity pulls it toward the ground, the ground is also already falling away due to the curve of the earth so that the ball would be in orbit at a height of 5 feet (it would be traveling at like 20,000 mph). Then, having done that, imagine trying to catch it again when it comes back around...
The arm you would need to flip the ball from the ground to 5 feet off the ground and catch it again is miniscule in comparison
I think your ball catching analogy is inaccurate as a reason for the difficulty of the landing. Both rockets slowed down enough to basically hover above the ground (so the height from which they fell was irrelevant at that point), but the BO rocket stuck the landing whereas the SpaceX rockets have landed in unstable positions, fallen over, and blown up.
quote:quote:I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Point is, you need a much more powerful rocket to reach "space" as you need to hit mach 30 instead of mach 9 (according to Musk's Twitter post). A rocket that can hit mach 30 is going to be much bigger and heavier than a rocket that only needs to hit mach 3 (as the 1st will need to carry MUCH more fuel), and a rocket that is much bigger and heavier is going to be more difficult to land upright.quote:It's not height, its speed needed to become orbital without falling right back.
It does seem to answer my question, though. Going higher requires more fuel, which requires a bigger rocket, which is heavier, which is harder to land.
Imagine the arm strength you would need to fire a baseball or football in order for it to travel around the whole world at a height of 5 feet, it needs to travel fast enough that it covers so much distance that by the time gravity pulls it toward the ground, the ground is also already falling away due to the curve of the earth so that the ball would be in orbit at a height of 5 feet (it would be traveling at like 20,000 mph). Then, having done that, imagine trying to catch it again when it comes back around...
The arm you would need to flip the ball from the ground to 5 feet off the ground and catch it again is miniscule in comparison
I think your ball catching analogy is inaccurate as a reason for the difficulty of the landing. Both rockets slowed down enough to basically hover above the ground (so the height from which they fell was irrelevant at that point), but the BO rocket stuck the landing whereas the SpaceX rockets have landed in unstable positions, fallen over, and blown up.
quote:quote:It's not height, its speed needed to become orbital without falling right back.
It does seem to answer my question, though. Going higher requires more fuel, which requires a bigger rocket, which is heavier, which is harder to land.
Imagine the arm strength you would need to fire a baseball or football in order for it to travel around the whole world at a height of 5 feet, it needs to travel fast enough that it covers so much distance that by the time gravity pulls it toward the ground, the ground is also already falling away due to the curve of the earth so that the ball would be in orbit at a height of 5 feet (it would be traveling at like 20,000 mph). Then, having done that, imagine trying to catch it again when it comes back around...
The arm you would need to flip the ball from the ground to 5 feet off the ground and catch it again is miniscule in comparison
quote:quote:quote:I read that. This one went to orbit (100k feet) instead of space/outer orbit (300k feet). But shouldn't that matter very little to the landing? They turned the thrusters completely off at ~100k feet and let it free-fall to 5k feet before turning them back on. That's more than enough height to reach terminal velocity, so where's the increased difficulty coming from?
Although to be fair to SpaceX, the Falcon 9 rocket travels to a max altitude of 90 miles, whereas Blue Origin only went to 50 miles.
As a result, the Falcon 9 hits a max speed of Mach 10 instead of Blue Origin's Mach 3.7. Much, much harder to land.
Still though, this is very impressive.
This one didn't go to orbit. It was a suborbital trajectory.
I don't know if either of the rockets ever reach terminal velocity, simply because there's so much energy and they are falling so fast. Could be wrong about that though.
If I'm right, then it takes much, much more energy to slow down the Falcon 9 for landing, as it would be going much faster.