PDA

View Full Version : SpaceX Grasshopper Sets Record



Centaur
2013-Apr-23, 03:01 AM
The SpaceX Grasshopper rocket has now set a new record of 250 m (820 ft) in the air before reversing for a landing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoxiK7K28PU&feature=youtu.be

Zwart Gat
2013-Apr-23, 09:53 AM
It's like Hergé's Tintin - Explorers on the Moon.
"Hey, click undo, I forgot my phone charger!"
Rocket science at its height, well, figuratively speaking.

NEOWatcher
2013-Apr-23, 12:11 PM
The SpaceX Grasshopper rocket has now set a new record of 250 m (820 ft) in the air before reversing for a landing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoxiK7K28PU&feature=youtu.be
I like that they did the overhead view. It's a lot more informative visually.

I hope that bird in the beginning (0:11) didn't get hurt. It looked like it was far enough away, but it did head for land pretty quick.

There was another video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orUjSkc2pG0) that has more close ups. It shows that chap riding the machine. Based on his hat, he might be the singer in your llink.

Centaur
2013-Apr-23, 02:49 PM
It's like Hergé's Tintin - Explorers on the Moon.
"Hey, click undo, I forgot my phone charger!"
Rocket science at its height, well, figuratively speaking.

It's indeed similar to the way rockets landed in old sci-fi films. Private firm SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has become the embodiment of Tom Swift. I found the link to the video in a Musk tweet. He is a Johnny Cash fan, hence the music. Some viewers think the video is fake. If it were, the smoke during landing would be moving toward the rocket.

Musk founded and later sold PayPal. He is also the CEO of Tesla Motors and the chairman of SolarCity, both publicly owned. The stock prices of those two are at all-time records today. At the bottom of my website homepage you will find a National Geographic YouTube video describing the design and assembly of a Tesla Model S with many comments from Musk: www.CurtRenz.com

NEOWatcher
2013-Apr-23, 05:23 PM
Some viewers think the video is fake. If it were, the smoke during landing would be moving toward the rocket.
I can see why. The picture is nice and clear.
How many people really know that smoke moves outward? :whistle:

FarmMarsNow
2013-Apr-24, 03:06 AM
I'm impressed. That rocket appears to have zero directional controls at the top. The steering is done from the bottom end. How very human.

AtomicDog
2013-Apr-24, 12:43 PM
So much for the hoax believers who say that it is impossible for a rocket to descend on a single thruster without falling over.

MaDeR
2013-Apr-24, 12:54 PM
Some viewers think the video is fake.
I have impression they were trolling. Posting "Fake" under random videos on youtube is fad these days.


So much for the hoax believers who say that it is impossible for a rocket to descend on a single thruster without falling over.
Eh, they can always say it could not be done with '60 technology or something.

cjl
2013-Apr-24, 05:54 PM
I'm impressed. That rocket appears to have zero directional controls at the top. The steering is done from the bottom end. How very human.



Why would you want controls at the top? The ones at the bottom seem to work just fine.

samkent
2013-Apr-24, 06:32 PM
But will this ever be used for an Earth based launch?
The fuel consumption to land a 'used' first stage has to be horrendous.

Swift
2013-Apr-24, 06:38 PM
But will this ever be used for an Earth based launch?
The fuel consumption to land a 'used' first stage has to be horrendous.
I think that is what they are working toward; we will see if they get there.

It may use more (lots?) of fuel, but it gives you a completely reusable rocket. I suspect they have worked through the economics and it is at least close enough to pursue the research.

cjameshuff
2013-Apr-24, 07:23 PM
But will this ever be used for an Earth based launch?
The fuel consumption to land a 'used' first stage has to be horrendous.

The entire second stage and payload are gone, as is the propellant used to launch them. You've only got to kick a lightweight near-empty first stage over to a landing site and do final deceleration from terminal velocity...a small fraction of the propellant required for launch. The vehicle is light enough at the end that minimum thrust from a single engine is greater than its weight.

Even if it requires taking a payload hit from staging early, it means they get the first stage back with 90% of the launcher's engines and likely the bulk of the launcher's overall hardware cost. What's really questionable is whether it's worthwhile to save the second stage. Recovery propellant and systems on the second stage have a bigger payload penalty, getting it back intact is much more difficult and perhaps only achievable for a limited subset of target orbits, and there's less to gain from doing so.

cjameshuff
2013-Apr-24, 07:26 PM
I have impression they were trolling. Posting "Fake" under random videos on youtube is fad these days.

Indeed. One guy was claiming it wasn't a rocket because it wasn't pointy enough.

Garrison
2013-Apr-24, 10:05 PM
Indeed. One guy was claiming it wasn't a rocket because it wasn't pointy enough.

It's moments like that when you think about volunteering for a one way Mars mission...

FarmMarsNow
2013-Apr-25, 12:58 AM
Why would you want controls at the top? The ones at the bottom seem to work just fine. ...but then I also all think that cars should have a steering wheel for each front seat. That way if the primary driver falls asleep the secondary driver can scare them back to wakefulness.

cjameshuff
2013-Apr-25, 01:55 AM
...but then I also all think that cars should have a steering wheel for each front seat. That way if the primary driver falls asleep the secondary driver can scare them back to wakefulness.

But how do you tell if a driver has fallen asleep? If their inputs disagree, either one might be the one who's asleep. You need at least a third steering wheel (logically located in a back seat) to act as a tie breaker.

Trebuchet
2013-Apr-25, 03:30 PM
It shows that chap riding the machine. Based on his hat, he might be the singer in your llink.

It took me a a couple of run-throughs to see him! I assume he's just there for scale?

I wasn't familiar with this project but it looks very similar to the McDonnell Douglas DC-X. As I recall, DC-X did a bit of horizontal maneuvering on its test flights, I suppose Space-X will be doing that in the future. At least Space-X is using fixed landing gear so the rocket won't fall over and destroy itself like DC-X.

cjameshuff
2013-Apr-25, 04:33 PM
I wasn't familiar with this project but it looks very similar to the McDonnell Douglas DC-X. As I recall, DC-X did a bit of horizontal maneuvering on its test flights, I suppose Space-X will be doing that in the future. At least Space-X is using fixed landing gear so the rocket won't fall over and destroy itself like DC-X.

It's not that much like the DC-X, apart from being VTVL. It's a Falcon 9 first stage with the center engine and legs, meant as a testbed for a recovery system for actual Falcon 9 first stages. Foldable legs will eventually be used. The legs may be much simpler than those on the DC-X, as they only need to extend for landing...they might be deployed with a simple spring mechanism.

They demonstrated some ability to handle crosswinds in this test, but their goal doesn't involve any hovering, just control and final deceleration while descending to land. In fact, as the tanks empty, minimum reachable thrust to weight goes above 1, so they can't just keep hovering...hence the "slam" part of these "hover slam" tests. At the end, they require downward momentum just in order to reach the ground.

samkent
2013-Apr-25, 06:45 PM
How about a parasail into a field of bubblewrap?

Jerry
2013-Apr-26, 06:02 AM
Very impressive demo.

Pelagian
2013-Apr-26, 08:28 AM
On their next F9 launch (the first flight of a massively upgraded version) they'll try to do a controlled first stage reentry followed by a mock propulsive "landing" in the ocean, just as with grasshopper. Should be pretty spectacular.

publiusr
2013-Apr-26, 09:35 PM
Now that's a beauty of a test--tail sitter rocket the way God and Robert Heinlein intended. Now to get huge all metal fins that won't melt and nice silver paint.

joema
2013-Jun-03, 07:38 PM
The SpaceX Grasshopper rocket has now set a new record of 250 m (820 ft) in the air before reversing for a landing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoxiK7K28PU&feature=youtu.be

That's interesting but I don't see how it's a record. The DC-XA also took off and landed vertically. On June 8, 1996 (17 years ago) it achieved 10,300 feet altitude and landed vertically:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/x-33/dc-xa.htm

NEOWatcher
2013-Jun-03, 07:48 PM
It must be a personal record stated that way so it sounds good to the press...:rolleyes:

26 hours turnaround time... Interesting, were they designing it to fly from Bajor? :lol:

publiusr
2013-Jun-03, 08:26 PM
Now would this option reducethe payload of Falcon Heavy down to to Delta IV levels?

To recover the strap-ons means some loss in payload, with perhaps end-of-life boosters expended in the usual fashipn for heavier payloads. Still less that truely disposable strap-ons due to stronger construction I would think.

here, you have to monitor both a launch and a return window both. You can sneak an expendable launch into a tight window because you aren't concerned about the weather of a spent stage on the way down.

Ilya
2013-Jun-04, 01:31 AM
It must be a personal record stated that way so it sounds good to the press...:rolleyes:

26 hours turnaround time... Interesting, were they designing it to fly from Bajor? :lol:
No, Yellowstone :)

Bynaus
2013-Jun-06, 09:43 AM
To recover the strap-ons means some loss in payload, with perhaps end-of-life boosters expended in the usual fashipn for heavier payloads. Still less that truely disposable strap-ons due to stronger construction I would think.

I guess they could just add one or two additional strap-ons. This wouldn't really increase the price by much, if they are also re-usable.


here, you have to monitor both a launch and a return window both. You can sneak an expendable launch into a tight window because you aren't concerned about the weather of a spent stage on the way down.

Well, the lower stages will return to the launch-pad within minutes. Not so much of a difference regarding the weather.

NEOWatcher
2013-Jun-06, 02:57 PM
I guess they could just add one or two additional strap-ons. This wouldn't really increase the price by much, if they are also re-usable.
I don't think it's as easy as that for the F9H.
The so-called strap-ons are common core boosters that not only straps them on, but configured to be crossfed.
(I say "so-called" because of the crossfeeding)


Which brings up another point:

Well, the lower stages will return to the launch-pad within minutes. Not so much of a difference regarding the weather.
The strap-ons may return with minutes, but the core is still fully fueled. How far would that component go before it's spent?

publiusr
2013-Jun-08, 06:24 PM
I don't think you are going to get that center core back, unless you want it to land on some distant island or other--and that gives you logistical problems. And then it may be coming down too fast. Take the landing feet off an end of life booster, and use that for the core.

Remember, Elon didn't want to launch from some tropical island early on. It was "range safety" (cough) that forced him of EELV West Coast.

An all propulsive landing keeps him away from landing strips needed for wings or ships needed for at-sea logistics.

Here, all rocket methodologies keeps him from having to deal with other folks turf, as it were. He's had enough of that. Launch off one pad, land on a different, flatter one. Have the rocket do the work, so you won't have to.

Bynaus
2013-Jun-08, 09:15 PM
It might still be possible (depending on inclination of the targeted orbit, and the cross-range of the returning booster, of course) to launch in Texas and land in Florida. But I agree that it will be much more challenging to recover the central core compared to the strap-ons.

I still think that Dragon 2.0 (that will look like an "Alien spaceship", according to Musk) will integrate the second stage of the Falcon with the Dragon. After all, the second stage makes it to orbit just as well, so there is no mass penalty on that. But then, there would be only two systems: a suborbital one that returns to the launch-pad (the booster/lower stage) and an orbital one that needs thermal protection etc. Granted, the total Dragon mass at landing (and during maneuvering in orbit) would be higher, but by combining upper stage and Dragon, only one, instead of two, landing systems (engines, structural frames, landing struts, etc.) and thermal protection systems are required, which will save a lot of mass.

cjameshuff
2013-Jun-08, 10:44 PM
I still think that Dragon 2.0 (that will look like an "Alien spaceship", according to Musk) will integrate the second stage of the Falcon with the Dragon. After all, the second stage makes it to orbit just as well, so there is no mass penalty on that. But then, there would be only two systems: a suborbital one that returns to the launch-pad (the booster/lower stage) and an orbital one that needs thermal protection etc. Granted, the total Dragon mass at landing (and during maneuvering in orbit) would be higher, but by combining upper stage and Dragon, only one, instead of two, landing systems (engines, structural frames, landing struts, etc.) and thermal protection systems are required, which will save a lot of mass.

It would be an efficient approach for crew and resupply to the ISS, but would require the second stage to come along with the Dragon during an abort scenario. That's a lot more mass to haul away to safety, and landing with full tanks of RP-1 and LOX would be risky and a very different set of operating conditions than typical landings with empty tanks. It would also sacrifice flexibility in placing Dragon on other Falcon variants.

publiusr
2013-Jun-09, 08:46 PM
I think it is just the capsule that has the landing legs. The Russians look to be making a copy of their own: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ptk_pu.html

Bynaus
2013-Jun-09, 08:50 PM
You are making some really good points here, cjameshuff. More mass might be overcome with higher thrust engines, although there are of course limits to that. An alternative might be to keep a separable crew compartment within the integrated Dragon/Upper-stage structure, just for abort scenarios (no thermal protection needed), but that might make things a bit too complicated. Regarding left-over propellant, it should be possible to shed most of the RP-1 / LOX without burning it (similar to airliners) - or just burn it while hovering over the landing pad. Yes, there would be some loss in flexibility - but there might also be some nice other features: Such a Dragon 2.0 could perhaps even double as a Moon/Mars lander after re-fueling (? would have to check that ?).

cjameshuff
2013-Jun-09, 09:11 PM
You are making some really good points here, cjameshuff. More mass might be overcome with higher thrust engines, although there are of course limits to that. An alternative might be to keep a separable crew compartment within the integrated Dragon/Upper-stage structure, just for abort scenarios (no thermal protection needed), but that might make things a bit too complicated. Regarding left-over propellant, it should be possible to shed most of the RP-1 / LOX without burning it (similar to airliners) - or just burn it while hovering over the landing pad. Yes, there would be some loss in flexibility - but there might also be some nice other features: Such a Dragon 2.0 could perhaps even double as a Moon/Mars lander after re-fueling (? would have to check that ?).

Dumping RP-1 and LOX while accelerating away from a potential fireball seems like a situation I'd rather avoid, and would probably take about as much time as doing a second stage burn. Also, it still weighs you down during the time you most need to be getting away. Higher thrust engines to compensate would then be greatly over-sized for orbital maneuvering and normal landings.

Lighting the engine to burn it off by flying in circles (the vehicle would probably be too light to hover) is another possibility, but there may be problems with operating the vacuum variant engine near sea level. Besides, another abort scenario to consider is a failure of the second stage engine...that makes it kind of hard to safely burn off the propellant or compensate for the extra mass.

It is an appealing approach for many missions, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a specialized manned second stage vehicle eventually, but I doubt it's what they're working on now.

BetaDust
2013-Jul-10, 09:52 AM
SpaceX's 'Grasshopper' Reusable Rocket Prototype Makes Highest Flight Yet

From Space.com
(http://www.space.com/21881-spacex-grasshopper-rocket-highest-test-flight.html)

A private company's prototype reusable rocket made its highest leap to date last month, soaring 100 stories into the air before landing softly back at its launch pad as planned. More... (http://www.space.com/21881-spacex-grasshopper-rocket-highest-test-flight.html)


In its sixth-ever test flight, SpaceX's experimental Grasshopper rocket hopped to a maximum altitude of 1,066 feet (325 meters) on June 14. It then made a slow and controlled descent back to Earth at the company's rocket development facility in McGregor, Texas. More... (http://www.space.com/21881-spacex-grasshopper-rocket-highest-test-flight.html)


-- Dennis

publiusr
2013-Jul-13, 07:52 PM
There may be a new threat to newspace concerns--mostly sub-orbital efforts.

There is a rumor concerning Darin W Toohey, Professor, Dept of Atmospheric & Oceanic Science at the University of Colorado. He had delivered a talk about his year (2011) in Washington as a Jefferson Science Fellow in the in the U.S. State Department.

There seems to be a concern over carbon black that "the coming fleet of sub-orbital rockets are going to inject into the upper atmosphere...So,
in keeping with the OB trend to do things via executive order through agencies (and around congress), the State Dept. snuck in all sorts of rules, limits and
future "cap-n-trade" crap on rocket emissions into the newest Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) act."
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=20806

Swift
2013-Jul-14, 04:24 AM
There may be a new threat to newspace concerns--mostly sub-orbital efforts.

There is a rumor concerning Darin W Toohey, Professor, Dept of Atmospheric & Oceanic Science at the University of Colorado. He had delivered a talk about his year (2011) in Washington as a Jefferson Science Fellow in the in the U.S. State Department.

There seems to be a concern over carbon black that "the coming fleet of sub-orbital rockets are going to inject into the upper atmosphere...So,
in keeping with the OB trend to do things via executive order through agencies (and around congress), the State Dept. snuck in all sorts of rules, limits and
future "cap-n-trade" crap on rocket emissions into the newest Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) act."
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=20806
Even if this is true (and a comment to a blog post about a supposed talk they heard is far from proof in my book), what does it have to do with SpaceX's Grasshopper?

publiusr
2013-Jul-14, 08:46 PM
This rocket will have to burn for quite a bit longer than normal--both going up and coming down. Some may well wonder at the impact of exhaust at all levels. A typical strap-on parachutes back or just falls away to surface. What I am wondering about is this--could the grasshopper approach be targeted by folks worried about emissions?

Power generation, cars--that should be the focus. I am just worried that this new landing approach may gain detractors from out of the blue...

Here is what I have looked up on the subject:
http://www.academia.edu/342831/Potential_Climate_Impact_of_Black_Carbon_Emitted_b y_Rockets
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL044548/abstract

It seems like when something gets popular, there are folks who can be counted on to try to kill it:

Take the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. For many years environmentalists pushed for pure hydrogen to replace hydrocarbons.
When HFI was rolled out by the previous administration: http://beta.dawn.com/news/678745/hydrogen-cars

--we started seeing articles like this:
http://www.edie.net/news/0/Hydrogen-fuel-cells-could-damage-ozone-layer/7157/

I'm starting to wonder if anything is good enough for some people.

Elukka
2013-Jul-15, 07:10 AM
It's not going to burn all that much on the way down. I imagine it'll be one burn in near-vacuum to put it on a ballistic trajectory to the landing target and then another one in the low atmosphere to slow down from terminal velocity. (Is there any actual info on this?)
Since an empty first stage is what, 15 tonnes, it's going to be a pretty minimal amount of fuel compared to going up. Or to an airliner.

publiusr
2013-Jul-15, 09:36 PM
I hope you are right

I think Grasshopper may play a role in the MCT http://twitpic.com/d1rwr6/full

if it is permitted.

BetaDust
2013-Aug-15, 08:29 AM
SpaceX's Reusable 'Grasshopper' Rocket Leaps Sideways In Amazing Test Flight

From: Space.com
(http://www.space.com/22379-spacex-grasshopper-rocket-sideways-flight-video.html)
An experimental reusable rocket built by the private spaceflight company SpaceX has soared though a series of ever-higher test flights over its Texas launch site, but it may have just taken its most awesome leap yet: a sideways rocket hop.
Nicknamed Grasshopper, the rocket prototype successfully performed a sideways "divert" test yesterday (Aug. 13) at SpaceX's proving grounds in McGregor, Texas. SpaceX released an amazing video of the sideways Grasshopper rocket flight today (Aug. 14). More...
(http://www.space.com/22379-spacex-grasshopper-rocket-sideways-flight-video.html)


The Grasshopper rocket, which is officially known as the Falcon 9 test rig at SpaceX, stands roughly 10 stories tall and its large size presents a challenge of control for sideways maneuvers. SpaceX officials said in a statement that the test proved "the vehicle's ability to perform more aggressive steering maneuvers than have been attempted in previous flights." More...
(http://www.space.com/22379-spacex-grasshopper-rocket-sideways-flight-video.html)

-- Dennis

NEOWatcher
2013-Aug-15, 12:00 PM
What's the record? And what is the previous record holder?

It seems to me that the DC-X has a longer, more horizontal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9n9Casp1o) test flight.

Garrison
2013-Aug-15, 12:07 PM
What's the record? And what is the previous record holder?

It seems to me that the DC-X has a longer, more horizontal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9n9Casp1o) test flight.

I think it's essentially it's own record; more like a 'personal best' really. :)

NEOWatcher
2013-Aug-15, 12:19 PM
I think it's essentially it's own record; more like a 'personal best' really. :)
I can accept that.

I think of "record" when there are more players involved.
Plus; I also think that any development project is always having personal bests, so even "personal best" comes often enough to dilute the meaning.

Although, whatever I think of the words, it still doesn't diminish the achievement.

Polyrealastic Observer
2013-Aug-18, 07:30 PM
Grasshopper reminds me of Walt Williams' impression at the beginning of Apollo. He was hearing that the spacecraft required to land on the moon via direct ascent might be as much as 70' tall. Considering how difficult he was finding it to get an Atlas OFF the pad, the thought of backing one down TO the pad gave him shivers. How far we've come!

ravens_cry
2013-Aug-19, 12:34 AM
Grasshopper reminds me of Walt Williams' impression at the beginning of Apollo. He was hearing that the spacecraft required to land on the moon via direct ascent might be as much as 70' tall. Considering how difficult he was finding it to get an Atlas OFF the pad, the thought of backing one down TO the pad gave him shivers. How far we've come!
I wonder what the conspiracy theorists who claim that a single engine rocket can't land on its tail like that think.

NEOWatcher
2013-Aug-19, 01:08 PM
I wonder what the conspiracy theorists who claim that a single engine rocket can't land on its tail like that think.
The atmosphere is helping hold it vertical. :rolleyes:

BetaDust
2013-Oct-14, 10:35 AM
Article From: Space.com
(http://www.space.com/23186-spacex-grasshopper-makes-highest-hop-yet-hexacopter-video.html)

The 10-story Vertical Takeoff Vertical Landing (VTVL) vehicle rose to an altitude of 744m (2440 feet) on October 7th, 2013. A single camera hexacopter got closer than any previous flight, delivering the stunning view.

Link to Video.


(http://www.space.com/23186-spacex-grasshopper-makes-highest-hop-yet-hexacopter-video.html)-- Dennis

Noclevername
2013-Oct-14, 10:51 AM
Perfect landing!

(Also, just to alert viewers the video is preceded by a 30 sec ad.)

BetaDust
2013-Oct-14, 11:11 AM
(Also, just to alert viewers the video is preceded by a 30 sec ad.)

?!? I don't. I clicked that link several times but did not see any ad whatsoever.

-- Dennis

Noclevername
2013-Oct-14, 11:18 AM
?!? I don't. I clicked that link several times but did not see any ad whatsoever.

-- Dennis

Went back again twice and it's the same ad for me, Edward Jones investing. I have no explanation for the different experiences.

BetaDust
2013-Oct-14, 11:43 AM
Ok. Thank you for double checking. I'll need to be more careful with my links in the future.

Thanks again,

-- Dennis

Trebuchet
2013-Oct-14, 04:54 PM
I got about a 20 second ad for National Geographic.

It's a very cool video, and great that they're trying to make a reusable first stage for an otherwise conventional rocket. Now if they can just solve that aerodynamic spin problem....

cjl
2013-Oct-14, 11:00 PM
It appears that Adblock blocks that ad. I tried it and didn't get the ad, but then I turned off adblock plus, and I did get the ad.

Also, I love the hexacopter vantage point. Not something you normally would get to see around a rocket that size. Now they just need to do something similar for the F9 launches.

Swift
2013-Oct-14, 11:36 PM
It also doesn't look real. Very cool

publiusr
2013-Oct-19, 07:02 PM
Here is video of a booster just above the ocean: http://www.space.com/23230-spacex-falcon9-reusable-rocket-milestone.html

Garrison
2013-Oct-19, 10:13 PM
Here is video of a booster just above the ocean: http://www.space.com/23230-spacex-falcon9-reusable-rocket-milestone.html

Interesting to read the comments from Space X that go with the video; looks like the spin that caused problems with the landing may not be all that big an issue after all.

NEOWatcher
2013-Oct-21, 07:19 PM
It also doesn't look real. Very cool
ditto.

I got an ad in the beginning which was amusing. The ad was for the Atlantis exhibit at KSC. So when the liftoff of F9 started, I was only half paying attention and didn't realize the video started.

publiusr
2013-Oct-26, 08:11 PM
O/T but Dream chaser flipped over on the runway
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33155.msg1112928

I wish Dream Chaser's folks would choose Falcon as their LV provider, then pretty much everything is reusable.

Falcon Heavy would allow a larger craft, and a greater level of margin. More standard landing gear perhaps...

Next at bat
http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/10/blue-origins-suborbital-reusable.html
http://www.space.com/23300-nasa-orion-spacecraft-2014-test-flight.html