Did anybody watch the SpaceX launch today?

[The Silver Surfer]

Entirely dependant on the article you read but from what I've seen, to build the rocket cost $60m or so, but to referbish one costs $500K to $1m.

the aim is a $6/7m launch cost when they get into full swing. Fuel costs being about $200k per launch.

To put that in context the space shuttle was about $450m per launch.

Thanks for the info, I guess it makes sense then.

 

[inbetween]

It is absolutely incredible how they've managed to accomplish this yet I do wonder how much money is saved doing it this way to get a charred but reusable launch rocket back when I would've thought the way to go would be invest in a similar concept to the space shuttle but that could maybe take off like a plane as well as land like one.
You could have a fleet of them, some for delivering satellites, some for study or travel to moons/planets.
A bit like Thunderbirds.

Unfortunately it will never be possible for a plane to do such a thing. It takes a massive amount of power and fuel to take something into space and straight up is the most efficient option. A plane strapped onto a rocket is a rocket so there is no point really in having a plane attached to it.

The shuttle was designed to land only as a glider but it was terrible as a plane and was the equivalent of a flying brick. The reason it was designed like that was to carry both large payloads and people to the space station but it also had to return back. The Russians started a shuttle program too but realized they could do more or less the same thing with Soyuz albeit for far cheaper and it has been proven to be more safe.

The rockets we have nowadays can carry even larger payloads and then some without any need to land or takeoff like a plane. As for manned missions well again is it better to design a complicated shuttle/plane or just use the same rockets that carry those payloads and stick a capsule on top.

Have a look at Falcon Heavy going up later this year, it is set to be one of the most powerful in history (not quite a Saturn V though).

 

[Chippy_boy]

Yeah i saw it, i must say re-entry is a masterclass of mathematics, there are no margins for error here and i admire greatly the science involved.

Makes it even more remarkable how we managed to use the same basic technique to land on the moon in 1969, with computers less powerful than what's in a modern washing machine.

 

[TCIB]

Makes it even more remarkable how we managed to use the same basic technique to land on the moon in 1969, with computers less powerful than what's in a modern washing machine.

Yeah i watched stuff on that, on the return when they had to time it to meet up with the orbiting vehicle was insane. You see all the boffins with glasses pouring over data and you know they were not doing it for the camera, those guys had to be brilliant with numbers. I would barely know where to even start tbh, just so much maths everywhere.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Unfortunately it will never be possible for a plane to do such a thing. It takes a massive amount of power and fuel to take something into space and straight up is the most efficient option. A plane strapped onto a rocket is a rocket so there is no point really in having a plane attached to it.

The shuttle was designed to land only as a glider but it was terrible as a plane and was the equivalent of a flying brick. The reason it was designed like that was to carry both large payloads and people to the space station but it also had to return back. The Russians started a shuttle program too but realized they could do more or less the same thing with Soyuz albeit for far cheaper and it has been proven to be more safe.

The rockets we have nowadays can carry even larger payloads and then some without any need to land or takeoff like a plane. As for manned missions well again is it better to design a complicated shuttle/plane or just use the same rockets that carry those payloads and stick a capsule on top.

Have a look at Falcon Heavy going up later this year, it is set to be one of the most powerful in history (not quite a Saturn V though).

Not sure I agree with this to be honest. As an aside, the Shuttle glides pretty well, albeit at pretty high speed to give it enough lift, but it lands pretty smoothly doesn't it. Flying bricks can't land smoothly at any speed.

But my main point is that we can use conventional jet engines to take aircraft up to about 100,000 ft. That's about 30 km up. Lowest earth orbit is about 100 km, so 30 km is a substantial part of the way there. Main engine cut off is typically at about 80km, BTW. I would imagine a HUGE amount of energy - i.e. fuel - could be saved by piggy-backing on a plane up to the 30km mark and then letting the rockets take over. Getting to 30km using a plane is incredibly "cheap" energy-wise since it relies on aerodynamic lift rather than simply being pushed up in to the air.

 

[Irwell]

Don't know about anyone else, but I'm watching the Falcon Heavy launch.

The scientific part of me wants to see this completed successfully with loads of useful telemetry so they can take a step nearer to colonisation of other planets.

The childish part of me wants to see a really big, expensive thing explode in a huge ball of flames.

 

[mat]

Love watching this kind of thing. I was full of space exploration as a kid.

 

[Bozo]

Knew you would be watching this! Mad shit.

 

[aguero93:20]

Did it go up or explode?

 

[billfromthehill]

They will need all the luck in the world with their track record
But good luck