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.
Which, presumably, is why China has done in 40 years what it took the US eight years...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
WTF?
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Perhaps, but NASA made their own bed to lie in half a century ago when they decided their launch systems should be made of the most pork possible. No need to scoff at private enterprise being more efficient and agile than government.
Basically, this is a story about SpaceX continued success and the fact they are pushing technological boundaries. However, you managed to squint at this and see nothing but squalor, failure, and abrogation of duty, plus a hint of civilization collapse.
You seem to be a person who delights in finding the cloud behind every silver lining. This is odd for me to say, because I'm a goddamn engineer and no one has ever accused me of not being cynical.
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.
And the Chinese inherited the technical knowhow, since they went after the US. So, given the technical know-how, the Chinese still took 40 years, after watching us do it in eight.
Yeah, there was a lot of "who cares?" from China that saw them ignore space for a long time. But even after they started taking it semi-seriously, there was still a couple decades before they managed that lunar lander (made with 21st century tech) that the US did in eight years (using 1960's tech).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Was it NASA or the senators in charge of funding who decided that?
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st