The 21st century may never top this and it's only 2015.

[Bronzeage]

Falcon 1 comes back to the nest.

Ever since multistage rockets have been used to achieve orbit, the lower rocket stages become scrap metal as soon as they are exhausted. A tremendous amount of money and hardware falls into the ocean. The Space Shuttle solid rocket boosters were recyclable, but this required an air-sea search and rescue operation.

The engineering feat of landing a rocket stage upright and intact is a step forward, equivalent to landing on the moon and getting back.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Yeah that was freaking awesome to see. Blue origin got there first, but their rocket is a lot less complicated and doesn't go as far into space. I consider this accomplishment the better of the two. Well done.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Yeah that was freaking awesome to see. Blue origin got there first, but their rocket is a lot less complicated and doesn't go as far into space. I consider this accomplishment the better of the two. Well done.

What Blue Origin did isn't really comparable, so I don't see them as achieving something before Space X.

 

[rjh01]

Much cheaper space flights, here they come.

 

[Bronzeage]

Much cheaper space flights, here they come.

According to Elon Musk, reusing the first stage rocket could reduce costs by 99%. I imagine that also factors in the extra cost of a rocket that comes back home by itself.

 

[barbos]

Much cheaper space flights, here they come.

According to Elon Musk, reusing the first stage rocket could reduce costs by 99%. I imagine that also factors in the extra cost of a rocket that comes back home by itself.

I find it hard to believe. For 99% to be true they have to reuse the rocket 99 times, and I am not even taking into account that you still need to spend on preparing it for the start, and pay for the fuel.

- - - Updated - - -

Much cheaper space flights, here they come.

more junk in the space, here it comes.

 

[fast]

All this multi-stage stuff seems like an unfortunate pursuit taken because of problems not solved. That led to a secondary trail of problems that when solved can only later become obsolete when the original problem becomes solved. It's nice that we're solving problems, but we're solving problems that we wouldn't have if we solved the original problems we didn't. The windy way of progress I guess.

 

[barbos]

All this multi-stage stuff seems like an unfortunate pursuit taken because of problems not solved. That led to a secondary trail of problems that when solved can only later become obsolete when the original problem becomes solved. It's nice that we're solving problems, but we're solving problems that we wouldn't have if we solved the original problems we didn't. The windy way of progress I guess.

I don't understand what are you trying to say here, but rockets are multi-stage because chemical propellants are not powerful enough for single stage, you need rocket consisting mostly of fuel.

 

[fast]

All this multi-stage stuff seems like an unfortunate pursuit taken because of problems not solved. That led to a secondary trail of problems that when solved can only later become obsolete when the original problem becomes solved. It's nice that we're solving problems, but we're solving problems that we wouldn't have if we solved the original problems we didn't. The windy way of progress I guess.

I don't understand what are you trying to say here, but rockets are multi-stage because chemical propellants are not powerful enough for single stage, you need rocket consisting mostly of fuel.

Then chemical propellants not being powerful enough is the unwon challenge that redirected us from the path of (solving the other problems that would have arisen had we sought to perfect single stage rocket design) to the path of (solving the other problems that did arise as we sought to perfect the multi stage design). So, we're not on the path we would have preferred, as we would have preferred to have been on the original path. It's nice that we're solving the problems that we come across on this path, but it's going to be nicer once we solve the original unwon challenge and get back on the path it would have been nice to never have had the need to diverge from. Then, we can get to solving the future problems that will arise on that more preferred path.

 

[barbos]

But multi-stage IS a solution of problems of single-stage design.
I don't think you understand how rockets work.
For single stage to work you basically need a rocket with a propellant, engine, and tank which are a small fraction of the total mass of the rocket. That's not even theoretically possible with chemical propellant.
The only way to have practical single stage rocket is to have nuclear propulsion.

 

[skepticalbip]

I don't understand what are you trying to say here, but rockets are multi-stage because chemical propellants are not powerful enough for single stage, you need rocket consisting mostly of fuel.

Then chemical propellants not being powerful enough is the unwon challenge that redirected us from the path of (solving the other problems that would have arisen had we sought to perfect single stage rocket design) to the path of (solving the other problems that did arise as we sought to perfect the multi stage design). So, we're not on the path we would have preferred, as we would have preferred to have been on the original path. It's nice that we're solving the problems that we come across on this path, but it's going to be nicer once we solve the original unwon challenge and get back on the path it would have been nice to never have had the need to diverge from. Then, we can get to solving the future problems that will arise on that more preferred path.

That path being to find a way to economically lift mass out of Earth's gravitational well. With our current technology that is with chemical rockets and dropping empty fuel tanks (multi-stage) along the way to reduce the mass being lifted is the most economical. This doesn't mean we have given up on alternatives. Materials science may soon give us a material that has enough tensile strength and low enough mass that we can construct a space elevator to lift our payloads our of Earth's gravity well on a cable, one end moored on Earth and the other end moored to a synchronous satellite. We can then forget about rockets except for those constructed in orbit to travel to other planets and moons in the solar system.

 

[barbos]

http://news.sciencemag.org/space/2015/12/video-watch-60-years-space-junk-accumulate-1-minute

 

[Sarpedon]

Don't forget the possibility of railguns. (for unmanned flights, obviously)

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Don't forget the possibility of railguns. (for unmanned flights, obviously)

Or manned, with the astronaut yelling, "Hey y'all, watch this" just before liftoff.

 

[barbos]

Don't forget the possibility of railguns. (for unmanned flights, obviously)

Earth atmosphere will prevent railguns for spaceflight.

 

[Perspicuo]

The 21st century may never top this and it's only 2015.

The century is young... and no one knows the future.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't understand what are you trying to say here, but rockets are multi-stage because chemical propellants are not powerful enough for single stage, you need rocket consisting mostly of fuel.

Then chemical propellants not being powerful enough is the unwon challenge that redirected us from the path of (solving the other problems that would have arisen had we sought to perfect single stage rocket design) to the path of (solving the other problems that did arise as we sought to perfect the multi stage design). So, we're not on the path we would have preferred, as we would have preferred to have been on the original path. It's nice that we're solving the problems that we come across on this path, but it's going to be nicer once we solve the original unwon challenge and get back on the path it would have been nice to never have had the need to diverge from. Then, we can get to solving the future problems that will arise on that more preferred path.

There simply is no possible chemical propellant that can do it.

What I've wondered about is if they could do something sort of along the lines of the shuttle--the rocket goes all the way but sheds drop tanks instead of stages. As the acceleration becomes too high you shut down some of the engines. The rocket has a heat shield but it only protects the engine and a small fuel tank, the payload is sitting on top of the shield. It goes to orbit, releases it's payload, retrofires and enters nose first. Once it's bled off it's velocity it turns over and lands on one engine like the Falcon 9 does. It's the engines and the avionics that are expensive parts.

 

[Sarpedon]

There's no real reason the atmosphere could prevent a ground based projectile from achieving orbit. It is just another obstacle to be overcome. Air resistance is a factor with rockets as well. Also, one could imagine a hybrid system, where the railgun takes the place of the first rocket stage, or something.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's no real reason the atmosphere could prevent a ground based projectile from achieving orbit. It is just another obstacle to be overcome. Air resistance is a factor with rockets as well. Also, one could imagine a hybrid system, where the railgun takes the place of the first rocket stage, or something.

1) A gun system can't put anything fully into orbit. It can get it up there but you'll still need a circularization burn--you still have to carry a motor or have some other system. (Say, catch a tether.)

2) While the atmosphere doesn't make it impossible it makes it very hard indeed. Trying to launch anything like horizontally means you're punching through more atmosphere than can be done by any reasonably-sized object. A high angle shot can only insert into a highly elliptical orbit and still requires a pretty big spacecraft.

3) The accelerations mean only bulk cargo or stuff built for extreme acceleration can be launched this way.

 

[Bronzeage]

There's no real reason the atmosphere could prevent a ground based projectile from achieving orbit. It is just another obstacle to be overcome. Air resistance is a factor with rockets as well. Also, one could imagine a hybrid system, where the railgun takes the place of the first rocket stage, or something.

If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass when he hit the ground. As long as the projectile is within practical Earth gravity, Newtonian physics still apply. Air resistance increases with the cube of the velocity. A greater atmospheric velocity consumes more of the thrust just to overcome the greater air resistance. The law of diminishing returns comes in real soon.