SpaceX Grasshopper (reusable launcher testbed) tests


Recommended Posts

Separate thread now that SpaceX's Grasshopper reusable launcher testbed is actually doing test flights and not just hops oc a few meters.

Height: 32m

Diameter: 3.66m

Engine: Merlin 1D - 650 kN / 147,000 lbf, throttleable

A second version of Grasshopper will be 50% taller, in line with the Falcon 9 v1.1 tank stretch, have a lighter thrust structure (engine mount) and have legs that fold up along its sides while in flight - akin to those on their "Future" Falcon RLV concept of operations (CONOPS) reusable launcher video (bottom)

The FAA license for Grasshopper tests at SpaceX's McGregor, Texas test facility covers flights up to 3,500m / 11,500ft. Higher than that, and supersonic flights, will be done at the White Sands Missile Range.

SPACEX?S GRASSHOPPER TAKES GIANT LEAP TOWARDS REUSABILITY WITH 12-STORY FLIGHT

SpaceX?s Grasshopper took a 12-story leap towards full and rapid rocket reusability in a test flight conducted December 17, 2012 at SpaceX?s rocket development facility in McGregor, Texas.

Grasshopper, SpaceX?s vertical takeoff and landing vehicle (VTVL), rose 131 feet (40 meters), hovered and landed safely on the pad using closed loop thrust vector and throttle control. The total test duration was 29 seconds.

Grasshopper stands 10 stories tall and consists of a Falcon 9 rocket first stage, Merlin 1D engine, four steel landing legs with hydraulic dampers, and a steel support structure.

The 12-story flight marks a significant increase over the height and length of hover of Grasshopper?s previous test flights, which took place earlier this fall. In September, Grasshopper flew to 1.8 meters (6 feet), and in November, it flew to 5.4 meters (17.7 feet/2 stories) including a brief hover.

Testing of Grasshopper will continue with successively more sophisticated flights expected over the next several months.

Single-camera -

Multi-camera -

Falcon RLV CONOPS -

The Grasshopper programs FAA flight approval is for a 3 year program at their McGregor Texas test facility, but at this pace it may not take that long to get to a larger missile range like White Sands with Grasshopper 2.0.

Then the real fun starts; GH2 gets the longer gen-2 Falcon 9 v1.1 tanks and thrust structure, folding landing gear, and possibly a full 9 engine pack. The first F9 v1.1 flies early in 2013 from Vandenberg AFB in California, so those parts are already in production.

If it all works out, these techs will go into their 3rd generation launchers, most likely using larger methane fueled engines evolved from the staged combustion (more efficient) Raptor upper stage engine that's already in development.

Methane is the future. Cheaper, easier engine refurbs, higher efficiency, etc. than RP-1 (rocket-grade kerosine) and far easier handling and les tankage & fuel system degradation than liquid hydrogen. Methane can also be made from the atmosphere and ices of Mars.

The Dragon spacecraft is, of course, already flying to the ISS and the SuperDrago escape/landing thrusters are deep into development and nearing integration into Dragon itself. There will 4 pairs for a total of 8, which gives redundancy - it can lose 2 and keep flying.

When crewed Dragon (aka: DragonRider) test flights start ~2015 the SuperDraco's will initially be used to do a Soyuz-style landing (parachutes down to 10 meters, then thrusters to land), and fully propulsive landing tests will commence shortly after.

The 2nd stage would be last. It'll most likely go into orbit, do its satellite orbital insertions (it can do several), do a retro-fire, re-enter using SpaceX's high-end PICA-X heat shield on its top, free-fall to a few hundred meters, then land using SuperDraco's positioned around the bottom prrimeter.

Their PICA-X heat shield was developed to out-perform NASA's best heat shield, the original PICA, and can handle re-entries from not only orbital returns or from the Moon but also Mars - over 30,000 mph.

SLS has a lot of political backing, buf its weakness is bang-for-buck. It and Orion could well eat up $30 billion by 2030, leaving little money for actual missions. SLS's base version is 70 mT and its top version is 130 mT - if they can fund it and not everyone is convinced they can. Cost per launch is going to approach $1 billion.

OTOH, SpaceX is already talking about a super-heavy launcher with an even higher lift to LEO - estimates are 150-200 mT (metric tons). Their development cost estimates are under $4 billion.

Even without a super-heavy SpaceX could push SLS on cost alone using Falcon Heavy. With a kerosine 2nd stage its expected to loft 53 mT, and possibly 70+ mT with a methane 2nd stage. Cost: kerosine = $133 million, unknown for methane but probanly far less than $250 million. 2 launches would exceed SLS's lift and be cheaper. The first Falcon Heavy is prepping for flight in early 2014.

Mr. Musk wants to go to Mars, with or without NASA, and later this year he's to roll out details on a project called MCT. One SpaceX employee says this stands for 'Mars Colony Transport'. No one is laughing.

Info just came over the transom that SpaceX may try to return a Falcon 9 v1.1 core during one of the next few test flights. This attempt would be without landing legs, and likely set down in the waters just off the coast, but it would prove the principle. It has to be a v1.1 because the only remaining v1.0 cored flight is CRS-2 to the ISS, which launches in 8-10 weeks.

Since the only scheduled "test" flights using v1.1 cores are the Falcon 9 v1.1 and Falcon Heavy maiden flights, the 2 USAF qualification flights of both, and the unmanned DragonRider launch abort test are the likely candidates.

  • 1 month later...

Johnny Cash Hover Slam?

Launch, hover, shut down the engines, free-fall a bit, re-light the engine & stick the landing?

If so, whoa!

If a fail, you get a 'Ring of Fire'?

Elon Musk

Next Grasshopper rocket test is called the Johnny Cash Hover Slam (yeah baby!). Might be our first smoking crater...

Only generally. When Elon tweets something like that it's peobably within a month of their test date.

There has also been significant activity at the McGregor test site, some of which could be connected to another Grasshopper test but also obviously the building of a HUGE new test stand.

It looks like the old tripod stand used for Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 v1.0 is being decommissioned or added to, the new one being able to handle anything up to Falcon Heavy and whatever monster (MCT or Falcon X?) comes after it. Satellite photos show a huge new flame trench and a monster water tower (which previous statements say will be >500,000 gallons.)

Whatever, it won't be dull.

  • 4 weeks later...

Tweets by SpaceX'ers Thursday. Sounds like a new video will be making an appearance :)

RT @GraehamF: Woohoo! Go Go Gadget Grasshopper! @SpaceX #space #weLiveInTheFuture

RT @alias_amanda YEEEEHAW!!! That is all.

Rumors are that in today's hop GH descended faster than before, and "stuck" the landing. Next time they plan on a shutdown-restart.

The embargo ended some time ago, so no harm. First showing was at Musk's SXSW interview at 2:00 PM, which was UStreamed.The text was included for the private upload during the embargo, but not removed when it went public.

262 feet, mainly to test updated avionics code and go higher. We'll see more of this as they plan on using the a ionics code to attempt a water touchdown after the maiden Falcon 9 v1.1 launch in late June from Vandenberg. Moving FAST.

Looks like the legs got a little cooked :)

So, are there any specific timelines for when:

I. Stage one of the grasshopper will be done?

II. The upper stage of grasshopper will hit operational capability?

III. And lastly, when can the dragon expected to land on its on feet?

Other than that, im loving how SPACEX is smoking Nasa's rear, funny thing is, S.L.S is behind several year, and 2014 is the first test flight with just the capsule, shame...NASA could use the FALCON 9 to go to deep space

So, are there any specific timelines for when:

I. Stage one of the grasshopper will be done?

The FAA license for GH 1 tests with the current Falcon 9 v1.0 tank has a 3 year lifetime and they're limited to 11,500 feet. Given that most people had thought it would take 5+ years to get to a first stage recovery test, but SpaceX just announced that they're going to attempt to turn the first stage around and touch down on water (minus landing gear) this coming June (!!) with the first Falcon 9 v1.1 flight. Wow.

Now all bets are off. IF they pull it off in June GH 2 will likely just test the landing gear, and its tank is already vertical & undergoing structural tests. Aggressive, they are.

II. The upper stage of grasshopper will hit operational capability?

Probably 2 years after the first stage & DragonRider do it. See III. That said, who knows? If the June water touchdown test goes well they might start working on it sooner.

III. And lastly, when can the dragon expected to land on its on feet?

Two development phases, both using the DragonRider crew variant and the new SuperDraco (SD) thrusters which are alreay deep into testing. Launch abort tests using the SD's are scheduled for less than a year away. Phase 1 is landing Soyuz style; parachutes down to about 10-15 meters then the SD thrusters to land, and Phase 2 where it's propulsive all the way down.

The first crewed DragonRider flight is in 2015 and it will use the Phase 1 system per the CCiCap agreement with NASA. Most observers expect an unmanned Phase 2 full propulsive landing test shortly after using a previously flown cargo Dragon retrofitted with the SuperDraco thruster pack. Might be sooner at the rate they're going.

Other than that, im loving how SPACEX is smoking Nasa's rear, funny thing is, S.L.S is behind several year, and 2014 is the first test flight with just the capsule, shame...NASA could use the FALCON 9 to go to deep space

Falcon Heavy is the one for flights to, say, the moon or near beyond Earth orbit missions. Beyond that we're looking at the 7 meter diameter core, notionally called BFR (big f'ing rocket). Falcon X or Falcon XX. More on it later this year if all goes well.

What if 3 stages rockets are running out of liquid fuel? :/

The Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage and DragonRider have been designed with quitelarge fuel reserves, much more than flight & landing require. The F9 tanks one are almost 45% larger, and its new engines much more powerful and throttleable.

DragonRider will also have 3 parachutes as a backups to its 8 SuperDraco thrusters and each other (it only needs 1 'chute), and it can afford to lose 2 of the SD's and still land without the 'chutes. Redundancy is a good thing, and safer.

The second stage recovery system is expected to use a separate set of SuperDraco thrusters with their own avionics, fuel & oxidizer apart from the main engine, and it will have its own heat shield.

Also: NASA is helping in terms of using its test facilities and resources, and the Astronaut Office is working with SpaceX on how they'd like DragonRiders flight controls & accomodations to work. The US astronauts have been very impressed, and when the first cargo Dragon arrived at the ISS the Russian crew were very surprised at its systems, large size, and sutomation. A cramped Soyuz made for 3 it ain't - DragonRider can carry up to 7 with room to spare for cargo.

There's some truth to that, they tend to innovate all manner of new techs but end up going with what's been done before. Part of this is risk aversion, and part is Congress not wanting to chane thongs in ways that'll lose pork jobs in certain powerful members districts.

Examples are plentiful, ranging from Bigelow's habitats to Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser spaceplane - both cancelled after NASA developed the basic techs. It's taken private companies to move the ball down field. Current things being held back are centrifugal gravity, electromagnetic radiation shields, plasma propulsion, space tugs, fuel depots and other exploration technologies.

SpaceX post -

SpaceX?s Grasshopper doubled its highest leap to date to rise 24 stories or 80.1 meters (262.8 feet) today, hovering for approximately 34 seconds and landing safely using closed loop thrust vector and throttle control. Grasshopper touched down with its most accurate precision thus far on the centermost part of the launch pad. At touchdown, the thrust to weight ratio of the vehicle was greater than one, proving a key landing algorithm for Falcon 9. Today?s test was completed at SpaceX?s rocket development facility in McGregor, Texas.

Grasshopper, SpaceX?s vertical and takeoff and landing (VTVL) vehicle, continues SpaceX?s work toward one of its key goals ? developing fully and rapidly reusable rockets, a feat that will transform space exploration by radically reducing its cost. With Grasshopper, SpaceX engineers are testing the technology that would enable a launched rocket to land intact, rather than burning up upon reentry to the Earth?s atmosphere.

This is Grasshopper?s fourth in a series of test flights, with each test demonstrating exponential increases in altitude. Last September, Grasshopper flew to 2.5 meters (8.2 feet), in November, it flew to 5.4 meters (17.7 feet) and in December, it flew to 40 meters (131 feet).

Grasshopper stands 10 stories tall and consists of a Falcon 9 rocket first stage tank, Merlin 1D engine, four steel and aluminum landing legs with hydraulic dampers, and a steel support structure.

Grasshopper 2 info is leaking out

? The program is accelerating now that "hoverslam landing" (decending with a thrust / weight ratio of >1) has been proven

? Grasshopper 2 will be seen sooner than later, perhaps shortly before or shortly after the first Falcon 9 v1.1 flight in late June.

? it will use the first Falcon 9 v1.1 stage, which is already vertical on the qualification stand at McGregor Texas

? the Grasshopper 2 thrust structure / engine mount will have folding landing legs and have high commonality with the thrust structure for Falcon 9 v1.1, so once turnaround & landing has been proven legs can be added to the F9 v1.1

? Grasshopper 2 will have some number of test hops at McGregor, then it will be shipped to the White Sands missile range for test flights up to 300,000 feet

I get shivers just thinking about that las one :)

  • 1 month later...

SpaceX Grasshopper flies again. Yes, the cowboy mannequin in Johnny Cash gear went for another ride. Last hop was 80m, so they're tripling+ the previous effort on each attempt.

[Musk:] Grasshopper rocket flies up 250m, holds against wind and lands. Vid taken from our hexacopter

[Question:] Was the rocket leaning into the wind while it was holding it's altitude?

[Musk:] yes

[Question:] is the rocket evolving each trial or are you just testing what is capable of?

[Musk:] evolving

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!