Model 3 Vs Elio

[pistonboy]

SpaceX actually has a very good reason to land its first stage rockets on an ocean barge instead of on dry land, which SpaceX has also done successfully. It takes a lot less fuel to land out on the ocean than it takes to fly the rocket back to solid ground then land. This is important because this extra fuel can instead be used to lift a heavier payload and/or launch a payload to an orbit which requires a higher escape velocity.

Blue Origin has definitely developed an interesting reusable launch vehicle with some neat technology behind it however the booster they are using and their current goals with it are a very different than what SpaceX is doing. It only takes about 1% of the fuel, and thus a much smaller and less complicated rocket, to lift a sub-orbital payload straight up and down than it does to lift the same payload to the same height while also accelerating that payload to an orbital escape velocity of approximately 15,000 MPH which is needed to place a payload into orbit.

Goofyone is very correct. It takes much more power to lift a payload to orbital velocity than to lift it up and straight down. In fact, just going up and straight back down is only good for tourist joy rides. It is much simpler than putting something into orbit, slowing it down from orbit so it arrives close to the landing zone, and then landing it.

Launching and landing in the ocean is a good idea. There are no people or buildings around to crash into. It is much safer. Plus, you can tow the barge to the equator for launch. All countries try to launch their rockets as close to the equator as possible. That is because the equator of the earth is moving approximately 1,000 MPH due to the rotation of the earth. This is 1,000 MPH less acceleration the rocket must provide, requiring less fuel. This is why the USA launches rockets from the southern tip of Florida. This is why Europe launches rockets from the northern part of South America. Both are close to the equator. This is also the reason Russia was famous for having such large rocket boosters. They are a northern country and cannot launch from close to the equator and thus the rocket must be bigger to provide the extra power needed.

SpaceX has the right idea.

 

[floydv]

Sure, I don't doubt launching and landing near the equator is better than other locations. It's the method he chose for landing on a floating barge -- that's constantly moving up and down with the ocean waves -- which seems iffy to me since it relies on such precision in order to succeed. Seems like, given the constant motion of the barge, a more forgiving catch system would be more successful. Even having a cylindrical ring of heat resistant airbags that instantly inflate to surround the rocket as it touches down might work better than a straight up landing on an ocean barge in vertical motion.

 

[Sethodine]

Sure, I don't doubt launching and landing near the equator is better than other locations. It's the method he chose for landing on a floating barge -- that's constantly moving up and down with the ocean waves -- which seems iffy to me since it relies on such precision in order to succeed. Seems like, given the constant motion of the barge, a more forgiving catch system would be more successful. Even having a cylindrical ring of heat resistant airbags that instantly inflate to surround the rocket as it touches down might work better than a straight up landing on an ocean barge in vertical motion.

But if you CAN achieve it, then you've just beat out all the competition and proved to investors/customers that YOU have the best technology.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

Sure, I don't doubt launching and landing near the equator is better than other locations. It's the method he chose for landing on a floating barge -- that's constantly moving up and down with the ocean waves -- which seems iffy to me since it relies on such precision in order to succeed. Seems like, given the constant motion of the barge, a more forgiving catch system would be more successful. Even having a cylindrical ring of heat resistant airbags that instantly inflate to surround the rocket as it touches down might work better than a straight up landing on an ocean barge in vertical motion.

Yeah, they'd have to be.... you know.... rocket scientists to pull that off....

 

[floydv]

Yeah, they'd have to be.... you know.... rocket scientists to pull that off....

Well yeah, if they can pull it off, more power to them. But there's probably a darn good reason landing on floating ocean platforms has not been done before, despite the potential benefits. What's the use of having a reusable rocket if it crashes at the landing?

 

[Sethodine]

Well yeah, if they can pull it off, more power to them. But there's probably a darn good reason landing on floating ocean platforms has not been done before, despite the potential benefits. What's the use of having a reusable rocket if it crashes at the landing?

Well, under normal circumstances the rocket crashes into the ocean anyways. So maybe they figure, "If it crashes, then it's business as normal, but if it succeeds then we can save $$$$$".

What gets forgotten in all of this, is the fact that this is a private space agency that has developed their own rocket engine. Ever since the shuttle program ended, NASA has been relying on Russian rockets to get astronauts and payloads into space. SpaceX's first ever Nasa contract famously exploded at launch, so today's launch could mark the beginning of ending our reliance on 40-year-old Russian BDR technology (that's "Big Dumb Rocket").

 

[Thomas Malkin]

Space X, one of Elon Musk's companies besides Tesla, has attempted several reusable rocket landings on an autonomous drone barge in the Pacific Ocean. Basically, it's Elon doing his typical showing off, overthinking and making it too complicated. The results so far have been several crash landings (to be fair, they're getting closer with each one). Since his rival space company Blue Origin (run by Amazon's Jeff Bezos) has nailed several landings with its reusable rocket on dry land, I figured the rocket scientists at Space X can motivate themselves even more by forming a landing circle with Tesla's only Model 3 prototypes.

Something I read up on yesterday.

The reason to land in the ocean is to launch larger payloads to orbit. When the first stage is done firing, it is already over the ocean, and the shortest distance to touchdown is, physically, always the ocean. To land back on the launch pad, the rocket has to literally fly back the path it has already flown, which requires more fuel.

Recap: if you burn less fuel, you can lift a larger load to orbit. It's not a stunt; it has to land (ocean) in the shortest distance possible to maximize orbital payload weight. If the payload isn't maximized, flying back to land is not a problem.

 

[floydv]

Don't get me wrong, I'm cheering for both Space X and Blue Origin. In fact, I bought into Space X early in its life. I just think Space X, as a commercial venture, should first focus on building its commercial launch business into a robust and routine service, then expand into the more challenging Equatorial landing model. But either way, I have total respect for the science and engineering that goes into this venture, particularly because they are private and don't have the resources that NASA or Russia's space agencies have.

 

[Rickb]

I'm cheering for both Elio and Tesla vehicles. Perhaps EM will have a space program someday..........a floor space program in the Shreveport Manufacturing Plant.

 

[floydv]

I'm cheering for both Elio and Tesla vehicles. Perhaps EM will have a space program someday..........a floor space program in the Shreveport Manufacturing Plant.

Agreed. I'm all for any vehicle that shakes up and disrupts the status quo: battery and fuel cell EVs, alternative configurations (Elio, Blade Glider, i-Road), etc.