Devon
1 HN recommender · recommended in 3 months, 2012–2021
3:58 · 124K views · Sep 29, 2011
A SpaceX concept animation showing the planned fully reusable Falcon 9, with both first and second stages performing vertical landings.
Linked as a historical artifact of SpaceX's early reusability ambitions, including the once-planned reusable second stage.
6 comments from Hacker News
For those of you who haven't seen it, here is SpaceX's fantastic animation of their ultimate goal for Falcon 9 (complete with soundtrack by Muse): this video This will give you an idea of how grasshopper fits into the full flight plan.
IMO the reason that Rocket Lab is doing an eight tonne rocket is not because of the market for mega constellations. It's because 8 tonnes is about the minimum size for a fully reusable rocket. You need a rocket big enough to launch all the propellant and shields needed for landing and still have room for payload. And so the bigger the rocket, the more margin you have. Once fully reusable, costs drop dramatically, so I wouldn't be surprised if the price of Neutron is similar to that of Electron. Who would use a small launch vehicle when a medium one is the same price, giving you a lot more room for maneuver propellant. This is the size of Falcon 9 v1.0, and they once believed full reusability was possible. this video Edit: they haven't announced full reusability. But I believe they're working on it. Edit 2: I still don't believe mega-constellations are the reason for Neutron. It being the minimum size for full reusability could be one, but another explanation is it being the minimum size for human space flight.
This follows from the first test flight in late-September [LINK] . > "Testing of Grasshopper continues, with the next big milestone -- a hover at roughly 100 feet -- expected in the next several months." This is preparation for the vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) rocket SpaceX wants to build this video And the reason why they're doing this: [LINK] > But a fully reusable rocket could change the equation dramatically. Musk illustrated the point by citing SpaceX's Falcon 9, which costs between $50 million to $60 million per launch in its current configuration. > "But the cost of the fuel and oxygen and so forth is only about $200,000," Musk said."So obviously, if we can reuse the rocket, say, a thousand times, then that would make the capital cost of the rocket for launch only about $50,000." (Resubmission of [LINK] . I rarely resubmit, but this really is HN material and warrants quality discussion)
This follows from the first test flight in late-September [LINK] . > "Testing of Grasshopper continues, with the next big milestone -- a hover at roughly 100 feet -- expected in the next several months." This is preparation for the vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) rocket SpaceX wants to build this video And the reason why they're doing this: [LINK] > But a fully reusable rocket could change the equation dramatically. Musk illustrated the point by citing SpaceX's Falcon 9, which costs between $50 million to $60 million per launch in its current configuration. > "But the cost of the fuel and oxygen and so forth is only about $200,000," Musk said."So obviously, if we can reuse the rocket, say, a thousand times, then that would make the capital cost of the rocket for launch only about $50,000."
"Unfortunately, this video is not available in Germany because it may contain music for which GEMA has not granted the respective music rights." Here's a short link to bypass: this video