Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Launches Load to ISS, Successfully Tests Falcon 9 Over Water
mosb1000 (710161) writes "SpaceX is reporting that they've successfully landed the first stage of their CRS3 Falcon 9 rocket over the Atlantic Ocean today. This is potentially a huge milestone for low-cost space flight." In another win for the company, as the L.A. Times reports, SpaceX also has launched a re-supply mission to the ISS.
If you read the LATimes link, SpaceX says they believe the first stage recovery was probably not successful, on account of very rough conditions (25' waves - about 8m - where the rocket tried to come to a hover over the water's surface). They were sending ships out to see, but estimated the odds of success at only 40%.
If anybody has an update on that attempt, please post it!
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Interesting that a russian naval ship (called a tug, but how many miles off florida coast ? ) was there at the landing site to watch this.
I think that everybody who continues to knock SpaceX, is realizing that they are all in serious trouble.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The landing of the first stage in the Atlantic (a process that required decelerating it and bringing it to a hover just above the surface of the ocean before letting it fall in), is part of the resupply mission to the ISS. That is, once the first stage boosted its cargo towards the ISS, it then performed this test.
Too bad that they didn't try to return the first stage to land and then try to land it there but I understand their desire to do things one step at a time (it's safer this way also). I'm curious to know if this first stage had landing gear attached (maybe not because of the additional weight, drag). Also, in the future when they DO try to land it on land, where will they be aiming? If the flight profile of the first stage is mostly vertical then, without much fuel I guess they could return to Florida, otherwise would they be going for a Caribbean island? The Azores or Canary Islands? Africa? I'm sure they've got this figured out, I'm just curious.
Anyway, if they manage to recover the first stage by soft landing it without dunking it in salt water, it could REALLY drop the costs of space flight, even if they don't manage to reuse the 2nd stage (which they plan to do also). I remember reading that of the $20 million cost of a launch only about $500,000 was due to fuel, so this is a complete game changer. Even if the stage can only be reused a few times it'll make access to low earth orbit (the expensive part of space travel) much cheaper!
I only hope and pray that it works reliably and that the weight penalty is not too great! I thought they would have to use a lot more fuel to slow down and turn around but I guess they're using air resistance for the braking and the (now almost empty) booster is very light. Pretty unbelievable when you see a 10 story tall rocket turn around and land on a pillar of fire.
Is it in either the Kerbal Space Program or Elite: Dangerous?
If I can't launch it or blow it up, how can I know if it really exists?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Thousands of years of scientific development, and the popular media and its howling audience gives the credit to one banker and the people he took out of other established organisations to stick his brand name on.
The beginning of the end of space exploration was when Khrushchev decided that competing against the US was a better tactic than discovery for its own sake. The second blow was Reagan, whose new marketing-directed NASA paved the way for the Challenger disaster. Teat-sucker SpaceX is the final nail in the coffin.
The West and the Soviet Union did more between 1940 and 1970 than they'll do for a long time, and if we really need to see advancement, we're now going to have to look to India and China. China in particular understands that progress comes not from the Invisible Hand, but from directing your resources to a primary goal of human development. (If you doubt this, just look at every other facet of modern American life and economy.)
WTF?
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Exactly right.
Hopefully, later on, they will put it on an oil rig, rather than taking it all the way back to land. That will allow a lot more payload.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
FYI. The newest version of their grasshopper test vehicle flew on thursday at their facility in Texas. This one is as tall as the F9R that launched to the ISS and sports the same landing legs. But it only has 3 engines instead of 9.
F9R First Flight Test | 250m
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So, is NASA currently paying a nearly 3x premium to SpaceX just to get their technology off the ground or what? Not that I object to such long-term thinking, quite the opposite in fact, but I could swear the SpaceX contract was marketed as a cost-saving maneuver.
It says here that it currently costs $10,000 to get a pound of payload into orbit, but from TFA SpaceX has a $1.6 billion contract for 12 launches, and if the current ~5000 pound payload is typical that works out to ~$27,000 per pound. Granted, assuming SpaceX perfects the reusable F9 that stands to potentially reduce launch costs 5 to 20-fold, easily making it one of the cheapest options available, even assuming that the current contract strictly covers launch costs and profit and without any R&D budget. But it's hardly a cost-saving maneuver in the short term.
Also, gotta love the phrasing in the summary "In another win for the company, as the L.A. Times reports, SpaceX also has launched a re-supply mission to the ISS." As though completing the mission that's actually paying the bills was just an added bonus.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.