SpaceX Releases Video of Falcon Rocket's Splashdown

First time accepted submitter cowdung (702933) writes In spite of Elon Musk's characterization of the landing as a KABOOM event. Judging by this video SpaceX has managed to land the first stage rocket booster nicely on the ocean after their Orbcomm launch on July 14th. It seems we're one step closer to a landing on dry land. Both this and the previous landing seem to have gone well. Hopefully the next landing test camera has something to deice the camera lens.

Comments

Re:Getting good use out of commercial launch tests

[i kan reed]

Well, I'm sure it cost at least a little more than doing just what they were contracted to do. It's just that we haven't gotten to the point of taking space launches for granted yet.

When we do, some middle manager will whine endlessly about this sort of experimentation.

I wonder how long it would've taken NASA?

[HangingChad]

That is flat freaking amazing. NASA does some pretty cool stuff, but I can't help but wonder how many billions it would have cost taxpayers for them to manage development of technology like that? It's hard not to see NASA as an organization with its best days well behind it.

Re:I wonder how long it would've taken NASA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that before or after Congress fights for pieces of the rocket like dogs over a bone?

Re:I wonder how long it would've taken NASA?

[Hadlock]

It's really hard to do this kind of landing burn (nicknamed 'suicide burn' as you run out of fuel as the landing feet touch the ground at 0 velocity, and miscalculation and splat or a nice bounce (elon called it the hover slam)) with a solid rocket booster, which we keep buying/making to prop up the ICBM industry with civilian dollars. The shuttle ended up with SRBs instead of L(iquid)RBs purely due to political reasons.
 
Actually, for the Saturn V, blueprint drawings do exist made by NASA of a cockpit on the side of the main booster tank with glider wings, to take it the 300 miles back to a safe landing site. Obviously that complication got scrapped in the mad rush to get to the moon in a decade.

Re:I wonder how long it would've taken NASA?

[WindBourne]

Actually, I would agree, except for where you claim that SpaceX has done nothing new.
For starters, NOBODY has taken anything as large as the first stage to space and landed it under power on earth. This is absolutely a first.
Secondly, they have the cheapest launches going. Why? Because they automated heavily. That has not been done.
Thirdly, no escape system has been a pusher system ever before (though boeing is attempting it as well).
Fourth, no capsule has landed under power on earth. If he succeeds at that, it will be a first.
Fifth. nobody has successfully launched a rocket with 28 engines. If Falcon heavy succeeds, it will be a first.
Sixth, nobody has built a full-flow staged combustion engine using methane. SpaceX is working on just that, with raptor.

Now, do not get me wrong. I support NASA, as does most ppl from SpaceX. BUT, to claim that SpaceX is not doing anything innovative, is just as wrong as those that knock NASA.

Re:I wonder how long it would've taken NASA?

[zbychu900]

Not only blueprint drawings - this has actually been tested with the Saturn I booster: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Moving forward well

[Katatsumuri]

First soft landing on solid surface expected in Oct-Dec 2014.

Re:Getting good use out of commercial launch tests

[queazocotal]

'some middle manager will whine endlessly about this sort of experimentation.'

And will be sacked by the board.
Around 60% of the total cost of the rocket is the first stage.
The aim is to have this reusable in a few hours turnaround time.
If this works, savings per launch are tens of millions of dollars, even if it only works half the time.
If the second stage can be made reusable as well, going from $60M price to launch 10 tons to LEO to half of that _and_ making more profit per launch is quite possible.

From their official page

[Scottingham]

"At this point, we are highly confident of being able to land successfully on a floating launch pad or back at the launch site and refly the rocket with no required refurbishment. However, our next couple launches are for very high velocity geostationary satellite missions, which don’t allow enough residual propellant for landing. In the longer term, missions like that will fly on Falcon Heavy, but until then Falcon 9 will need to fly in expendable mode."

Landing on a floating platform would be so crazy-awesome I can't even stand it! NASA should really stop wasting its time with its outdated SRB shiz.

Re:From their official page

[afidel]

You're probably thinking of floating platform as something that moves around like a boat, more likely it's going to be a converted deep sea oil platform like Broglio Space Centre or Sea Launch.

Re:What flyout and back plan?

[Guspaz]

At the point where the booster separates, it has burned most of its fuel, and weighs a fraction as much as it did at launch. As a result, it requires far less fuel to kill its velocity and put itself on a trajectory back towards the launch site than the initial launch did (far less mass to accelerate on the return trip).

It does still require some extra fuel (hence why they talk about having to use expendable Falcon 9s for missions that are close to the max payload capacity until they can get Falcon Heavy flying), but for small to medium sized cargoes, they have the fuel to burn.

Re:Daily Elon Musk article

[Xoltri]

I wondered, why the hate for Elon Musk? So I googled it: http://www.cantechletter.com/2...

He's head of 3 technology companies that are currently in the news, so suprise, news articles about him and his companies are showing up on a technology news site. Get over it.