How do they do that ?
Get a rocket to land back on the ground after it has launched it's payload.
That's a really cool trick.

Must be about the greatest advance in rocketry in a long time.
(if it proves to be a sustainable reliable trick , long term. unlike the shuttle)

If it is reliable , it might even help solve the problem of bringing people back from Mars
(if they ever get there) .
Given mars gravity is only 38% of earth's , the payload would only weigh 38% ,
meaning they could theoretically land a rocket weighing near three times as heavy on mars as on earth ,
and only 38% of energy required to lift off from mars and to escape it's pull on a trajectory for home.

I wonder

 

SpaceX was again able to recover the booster stage. As the second stage ignited to push the cargo capsule to orbit, the booster turned around back toward land. Eight minutes after it left the ground, it set down on a landing site a few miles away. It was the eighth successful landing and the third on land. (The other landings occurred on floating platforms in the ocean.)

They are due to try reusing recovered vehicles soon

 

Things always seam to advance faster and smoother when there's a profit margin involved.


That is pretty cool!!!

 

Yep, very cool. I can remember people saying SpaceX wouldn't be successful after failing to land on the platform the first couple of attempts.

 

SpaceX in profit ?

Is it , I very much doubt it , or that it will be any time soon.

an indicator of part of their costs;

The cost of all work leading up to the first Mars launch is expected to be "on the order ofUS$10 billion"[39]
and SpaceX expects to expend that much
before it generates any transport revenue.[9]

 

i had no doubt in SpaceX's Falcon 10 program, it was successful. i also have hunch on that SpaceX was going to be NASA's partner on Mars missions

 

Space X is a shuttle service. Long range space travel would require a ship launched into orbit in pre made sections and fully assembled in orbit. Unless a new form of propulsion is found.

 

true, but it would ship cargo to Mars from here.

 

Ok, so far they (the astronauts types) have managed to keep people in space for well over a year. However it takes a number of missions to keep the people supplied with their needs In a Mars mission the people would have to take everything needed for the two to three year journey to Mars. Supplies could be sent to Mars before hand and while the people were on Mars for resupply, and return mission. Folks, that is a WHOLE lot of maybe's for the astronauts. I do not think that we have the technology yet to pull this thing off. Aside from the risk, what about the cost? Why spend this much money on a trip that will basically provide no benefit? There are tremendous needs right here in America on which that money could be better spent.

Please remember I an a science kind of guy, but I am also a realist.

 

note: picture missing , obviously.

Rendering of ITS launch vehicle stack ascending with an Interplanetary Spaceshipon top
Function Mars colonization
Manufacturer SpaceX
Country of origin United States
Project cost US$10 billion (before generation of positive cash flow, 2016 estimate)[1][2]
Cost per launch US$62 million (2016 estimate)
Size
Height 122 m (400 ft)
Diameter 12 m (39 ft) booster rocket
Width 17 m (56 ft) spaceship or tanker
Mass 10,500 t (23,100,000 lb)[3]
Stages 2
Capacity
Payload toLEO 300 t (660,000 lb) reusable
550 t (1,210,000 lb)expendable[3]
Payload to Mars 450 t (990,000 lb)[3] with propellant refill in Earth orbit
Launch history
Status In development
Launch sites

• Launch pad 39A, Florida
• SpaceX South Texas Launch Site (proposed)

 

for comparison for those that weren't around then.
the largest and most successful rocket ever built

Saturn V
Function Apollo lunar program
Launch of Skylab
Manufacturer Boeing (S-IC)
North American (S-II)
Douglas (S-IVB)
Country of origin United States
Project cost $6.417 billion in 1964–73 dollars[1]
Cost per launch $185 million in 1969–71 dollars,[2] ($1.16 billion in 2016 value) of which $110 million was for vehicle.[3]
Size
Height 363.0 ft (110.6 m)
Diameter 33.0 ft (10.1 m)
Mass 6,540,000 lb (2,970,000 kg)[4]
Stages 3
Capacity
Payload toLEO (90 nmi (170 km), 30° inclination) 310,000 lb (140,000 kg)[5][6][note 1]
Payload to TLI 107,100 lb (48,600 kg)[4]
Associated rockets
Family Saturn
Derivatives Saturn INT-21
Comparable N1 rocket
Launch history
Status Retired
Launch sites LC-39,
Kennedy Space Center
Total launches 13
Successes 12
Failures 0
Partial failures 1 (Apollo 6)
First flight November 9, 1967
(AS-501[note 2] Apollo 4)
Last flight May 14, 1973
(AS-513 Skylab 1

 

The Saturn V (spoken as "Saturn five") was an American human-ratedexpendablerocket used by NASAbetween 1967 and 1973.[7] The three-stageliquid-fueledsuper heavy-lift launch vehicle was developed to support the Apollo program for humanexploration of the Moon, and was later used to launch Skylab, the first American space station. The Saturn V was launched 13 times from theKennedy Space Center in Florida with no loss of crew or payload. As of 2017, the Saturn V remains the tallest, heaviest, and most powerful (highest total impulse) rocket ever brought to operational status, and holds records for the heaviest payload launched and largest payload capacity to low Earth orbit (LEO) of 140,000 kg (310,000 lb), which included the third stage and unburned propellant needed to send the Apollo Command/Service Module andLunar Module to the Moon.[5][6]

 

Skylab , was actually a second stage module of a Saturn 1B rocket with the station built inside it.
* *
the station (now known asSkylab) would be built on the ground from a surplus Saturn IB second stage and launched on the first two live stages of a Saturn V

 

mhm.. i remember Apollo 13, NASA's largest near-disaster but with mission success of returning crew home safely.

 

LOL , yep
Hoostin , we have a problem.

that was an incredible bit of improvisation ,
and a one chance possibility to slingshot it round the moon to get a return trip.
No backup option.
and they nailed it.

Just shows the robustness of the whole program.

What a shame they scrapped SaturnV.
Just imagine what could have been done , with the massively improved systems , technology , avionics , and materials over the years.
(no deadly shuttle lemon , no relying on old lesser Russian delivery equipment etc. and much bigger lift capabilities)

 

last part, so true lol only if they scrapped shuttle program and went with Saturn V to Mars

 

You were smart not to include pic's/clips, mine was moved to P&M. The first time I watched one land it looked like a well made copy of the old syfy films that were so cheesy but it really is something to see. I hate to admit it but the failures are pretty cool to watch too. Trump probably still thinks it is fake news lol.

At least it is a private company that won't bankrupt the government and they actually know how to run it without political interference (and that pisses some politicians off) ... NASA's contribution is basically pre payment for payload shipments.

Another company that Google has their fingers in the pie.

Well done Elon Musk and company.

 

Pre positioning supplies is probably the best and only way to go, but we are already dropping a bunch of space tourist junk on Mars and the Martians are probably gonna get pissed soon. They may even steal our shit before we get there.

 

Earthlings really should pay closer attention.
With a Matter Transformation Unit, travel to Mars becomes a matter of minutes, not Months.

And how does one build or obtain a Matter Transformation Unit?

Understand Fractals.

Seriously.

 

That was impressive and no small feat . It looked a lot easier than it surely was .
That accomplishment is as impressive as this interesting thread here .