Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX's Falcon 9 Crashes Into Droneship (cbsnews.com)

Posted by msmash on from the sad-news dept.

SpaceX failed to successfully land its Falcon 9 on a drone ship at sea on Wednesday. Prior to today's crash, the company was able to conduct three successful experimental landing of its used rocket in a row. SpaceX founder Elon Musk noted that the booster rocket had a RUD (rapid unscheduled disassembly, he explained) on droneship. From a CBS News report: It was the California rocket company's fifth unsuccessful drone-ship landing after three straight successes, one in April and two in May. Including a successful landing at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station last December, SpaceX's recovery record now stands at four successes in nine attempts. But the landing attempt was a strictly secondary objective. The mission's primary goal, the launch of two powerful all-electric communications satellites, was a complete success and regardless of the loss of the first stage, company engineers expected to collect valuable data as they continue their push to make such landings routine.

130 comments

  1. RUD FUD by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Informative

    I like that....

    This is still lots better than what NASA is doing. Stressing the technology. Doing new things.

    Going ka boom. Everybody needs an earth shattering kaboom now and again. I just wish they'd have audio on the drone ship.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:RUD FUD by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is still lots better than what NASA is doing. Stressing the technology. Doing new things.

      NASA's funding depends on pleasing politicians. So they need to be overly cautious and avoid pushing tech till it breaks, even if we would learn more that way. SpaceX's investors have a longer attention span than voters. In may seem that caution is prudent, but excessive caution can be very expensive in terms of lost opportunities. So far, SpaceX has spent less than 2% of NASA's annual budget.

    2. Re:RUD FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      SpaceX made 9 launches plus development and early testing with less than USD 340M? That's quite impressive.

    3. Re: RUD FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well to be fair NASA did stress those O-rings.

    4. Re:RUD FUD by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

      This completely misunderstands NASA's role. NASA is a space research agency, not a rocket company or a launch vendor. As others have said, NASA being highly supportive of SpaceX means that what SpaceX is doing and what NASA is doing ARE THE SAME THING. NASA runs space missions. If they choose an innovative launch vendor like SpaceX, then they are doing exactly what you want them to. The fact that congress is so pork-oriented that a huge fraction of NASA's budget is mandated to pay for another launch system that has no clear purpose is not NASA's fault. I want NASA to focus on running good space missions, which may have been about rocketry in the 60's but today it's about spacecraft and the rocketry is just the delivery service.

    5. Re: RUD FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think the difference is SpaceX is willing to take some risks on LANDINGS, as has been shown many times (delayed launches, hold down tests, etc) they are far less willing to do risky things on launch. Which is exactly how it should be.

    6. Re:RUD FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ideally, not with Astronauts and/or a couple hundred million dollars in satellites aboard...

    7. Re: RUD FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it's SpaceX's risk, not the launch customer's (the one paying for delivery of the payload) risk. The landing testing is total gravy for SpaceX, as from their perspective, it's seen as a "someone paid us to launch this rocket into the air so we can test landing it".

      So, yes, you could argue that part of the cost of a Bugatti Veyron is the destructive crash testing required to meet various crash safety standards bodies' criteria.

  2. All Electric? Cool! by BenJeremy · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...the launch of two powerful all-electric communications satellites

    I'm glad we are finally getting past the era of internal combustion and the earlier coal-fired satellites!

    1. Re:All Electric? Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Gotta push the memes while they're hot. Gluten free water. Asbestos free turkey. Non radioactive microwave oven.

    2. Re:All Electric? Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what's the range? We talking 200 miles or is this the new 300 mile configuration?

    3. Re:All Electric? Cool! by Burdell · · Score: 4, Informative

      The majority of satellites use chemical rockets for orbit changes and station keeping. When the relatively small amount of propellant is used up, so is the satellite (even if it is otherwise still functional). Using ion propulsion instead could increase the life of satellites, which reduces costs.

    4. Re:All Electric? Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      ion propulsion is NOT "all electric". Still need some particles to ionize.

    5. Re:All Electric? Cool! by Ormy · · Score: 1

      What was wrong with RTGs?

    6. Re:All Electric? Cool! by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      So what's the range? We talking 200 miles or is this the new 300 mile configuration?

      I'm not sure, somewhere between 100 and 1200 miles. But it did have the ludicrous speed option.

    7. Re:All Electric? Cool! by ClayJar · · Score: 5, Informative

      Also, chemical propellant is "heavy", meaning it takes much more mass to get an equivalent kick. If you want real words, the Isp (specific impulse) is lower for chemical propellant engines than for ion engines. With all electric satellites, you can carry much less propellant, meaning you can have a satellite of comparable capability in much less mass. In the case of these two satellites, the Boeing BSS-702SP platform they're built on means you can fit two on a "normal" GTO launch. That basically halves your launch costs.

      The tradeoffs are that while all electric propulsion is very "fuel efficient", the thrust of ion engines is a very small fraction of that of the more conventional chemical propellant engines, so instead of taking days to settle in to your final orbit, it can take weeks of slow orbit raising. This is a "cost" that may or may not be worth the trade. Also, since the 702SP satellites are launched in pairs, a launch failure could take out two birds with one... rocket. To give a bit of insurance against this, Eutelsat and ABS chose to split two rockets. They'd each fly one satellite per launch, meaning they only risked one of their two each flight in case of a Very Bad Day.

    8. Re:All Electric? Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Technically earlier satellites do in fact use internal combustion engines, since a rocket motor (including the chemical thrusters used for satellite manoeuvring) is classed as an internal combustion engine. Coal, I'm not so sure about as far as satellites are concerned. However hybrid rocket motors using coal as the solid fuel have been tested in the past. A quick search reveals for example this article, if you scroll down to "Pioneers", we have

      "In Germany from 1937-1939, I.G. Farben ran tests using coal and gaseous NOX, which developed 10,000N for 120 sec. Hans Oberth also tested a LOX and tar-wood-saltpetre mixture.

      The first US tests were conducted from 1938 to 1941 by the Californian Rocket Society using coal and GOX. In 1947, the Pacific Rocket Society tested wood and LOX motors.".

      So not only coal but wood-powered rocket motors have existed.

    9. Re:All Electric? Cool! by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      I can't wait for the age of steampunk satellites.

    10. Re:All Electric? Cool! by suutar · · Score: 2

      at a guess, difficulty getting more plutonium and fear of a launch accident spreading plutonium around.

    11. Re:All Electric? Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But the real future is in wind powered rockets and satellite propulsion systems. Musk is so behind the times.

    12. Re:All Electric? Cool! by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative
      I am for nuclear power, but RTGs are:
      • Rare. The isotopes whose properties match the use criteria are mostly generated in breeder reactors or reactors specialized for generating medical isotopes, or as a byproduct of weapons grade plutonium production.
      • Expensive. Due to protests over their use, any launch with a RTG aboard undergoes extra scrutiny and requires additional studies before approval. You also need to have extra security to protect the launch site and payload from protesters.
      • Produce energy in the form of heat. This is good far from the sun where you need heat to keep your electronics from freezing. But closer to the sun you have the opposite problem, and you have to work hard to expel heat from the satellite. So closer to the sun, an energy source not based on heat is preferable.
      • Dangerous. I don't mean they'll burn up on re-entry and spread plutonium all over the atmosphere. The canisters which contain the radioactive materials have demonstrated they will survive re-entry intact in the event of a launch mishap or satellite de-orbit. The problem is after they re-enter, they're a powerful radioactive source in a cannister lost in some random location where anyone could potentially find it. That is not a good combination. Responsible use of RTGs near the Earth means doing a controlled de-orbit of the satellite (not always possible) so RTG lands in the deep ocean, or conducting an expensive search and recovery operation afterwards to find the RTG before thieves do.

      Save the RTGs for the deep-space missions. There's plenty of solar energy in Earth orbit to power satellites (solar flux is nearly 2x what it is on the Earth's surface without an atmosphere to scatter and absorb sunlight, and the high launch costs mean you can afford the expensive high-efficiency panels). Batteries (to power the satellite during the 45 minutes it's in the Earth's shadow) can operate for a decade or more, which is about the time you start thinking of replacing the satellite anyway due to its technology being outdated.

    13. Re:All Electric? Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It remains as an exercise to the gentle reader to determine the length of wire necessary to extract a usable amount of electricity from the solar wind

    14. Re:All Electric? Cool! by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Who said there was (aside from reentry concerns)? But RTGs only provide electricity, you still need something to provide thrust.

      Traditionally thrust has been supplied by internal-combustion chemical rocket engines, but electrically powered ion drives are starting to catch on - they still rely on consumable reaction mass, but accelerate it to much higher speeds than chemical rocket exhaust, and so can get far more delta-V from the same amount of reaction mass.

      The other option is magnetic-drive, having the satellite actually push against the Earth's magnetic field rather than throwing away reaction mass. I'm not certain if such a thing has actually been tested, but as I understand it designs typically involve running a current through a long coaxial cable dangling from a satellite, so that the outer current interacts with the Earth like the coil in a motor, speeding or slowing its rotation around the Earth. You do end up replacing the reaction mass with probably greater cable-mass, but the cables are non-consumable so the satellite will be able to maintain its orbit for as long as sufficient electricity is available.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    15. Re:All Electric? Cool! by camperdave · · Score: 1

      I thought communications satellites were pushed outward into a graveyard orbit when they were at end of life, rather than de-orbitted.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    16. Re:All Electric? Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but even ion engines use reaction mass. You can however use the _gradient_ of gravity for station keeping, though. This requires a counterweight at the end of a long tether, which rotates around your satellite. By periodically varying the tether length, you can generate a net average force. Small, but sufficient for station keeping. Orbital changes will still require a conventional or ion engine, though.

    17. Re:All Electric? Cool! by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Well, we're essentially using steam powered, and internal combustion powered rockets to launch them.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    18. Re:All Electric? Cool! by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also, chemical propellant is "heavy", meaning it takes much more mass to get an equivalent kick. If you want real words, the Isp (specific impulse) is lower for chemical propellant engines than for ion engines. With all electric satellites, you can carry much less propellant, meaning you can have a satellite of comparable capability in much less mass.

      Ion propulsion is heavy too. While the ISP is very impressive - ISP isn't everything, except to armchair engineers. T/W matters too, and for electric T/W isn't all that impressive... and unlike chemical engines, there's very little benefit gained as fuel is exausted as the mass of the fuel is such a small fraction of total powerplant mass. There's a reason why electric propulsion has only found niche applications.
       

      In the case of these two satellites, the Boeing BSS-702SP platform they're built on means you can fit two on a "normal" GTO launch. That basically halves your launch costs.

      At the cost of requiring four to six months (as opposed to four to six days) for the satellite to reach it's station on orbit. (TANSTAAFL.) It's also worth noting that this is only possible because during orbital transfer, the communications systems that are the reason for the satellites existence are turned off - making their substantial power supply available for the electric engines.

    19. Re:All Electric? Cool! by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      As if a wind-up satellite wouldn't suffice.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    20. Re:All Electric? Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pedantic.

      Yes, it is all electric.
      No, it has consumables that run out...but they aren't fuel and a little goes a lonnng way since v is large.

    21. Re:All Electric? Cool! by dpilot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My impression is that satellites have been using this as part of their attitude control for quite some time. More specifically, they have gyros that they use to change the attitude. Periodically the gyro gets near the limits of what they can do. When that happens, they reset the gyros back to a neutral setting, and offset that with a matching torque against the Earth's magnetic field so the attitude remains constant.

      The gyros can move the satellite faster and more easily than the magnetic torquing system, so that's what's used for normal attitude control.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    22. Re:All Electric? Cool! by starless · · Score: 3, Informative

      But it is electrically powered rather than by chemical reactions.
      So I think it's still a pretty good description.

    23. Re:All Electric? Cool! by Immerman · · Score: 1

      That sounds about right, other than resetting with the Earth's magnetic field - I suspect that would require larger currents and longer moment arms than most satellites are designed for, and maneuvering thrusters are used instead.

      Because you still need maneuvering thrusters. Gyros let you make "reactionless" changes to orientation, but to correct for the inevitable perturbations in your orbital path, conservation of momentum demands that you push against something outside the satellite itself to change speed.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    24. Re:All Electric? Cool! by Bengie · · Score: 2

      Got you beat. I saw "Gluten-free low-sodium table salt" at the store.

    25. Re:All Electric? Cool! by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Since delta-v scales with the log of the mass of fuel and linearly with the exhaust velocity, it doesn't take much to beat chemical thrust. Very low thrust, but very high delta-v.

    26. Re:All Electric? Cool! by calque · · Score: 1

      Got you beat. I saw "Gluten-free low-sodium table salt" at the store.

      I believe silicon dioxide is used as an additive to salt - add enough and it would be "low sodium".

    27. Re:All Electric? Cool! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      So? That has precisely nothing to do with what I posted.

    28. Re:All Electric? Cool! by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 2

      Got you beat. I saw "Gluten-free low-sodium table salt" at the store.

      Yes, but even the "low sodium" part is true as these table salts usually substitute potassium chloride for the more common sodium chloride. So they really are both "table salt" and low sodium.

      That large concentrations of potassium aren't necessarily good for you either is another matter, but getting more is probably a good idea as most people don't get enough potassium compared to sodium.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    29. Re:All Electric? Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As funny as that sounds to a somewhat scientifically informed observer, you have to remember that food labeling has to be aimed at the lowest common denominator - after all, everyone has to eat, even the poorly educated.

      In respect of the salt you mention, both of the 'adjectives' are aimed at people with dietary health issues. Granted the gluten-free is more than a little redundant (after all, why not peanut-free?) but the low-sodium almost certainly means that the package contains a mixture of sodium chloride and potassium chloride (commonly known as diet salt), which might be considered useful information ... well, if you really care about these things that is. Personally I think worrying / stressing about your health to that degree is the surest way to cause yourself health problems...

    30. Re:All Electric? Cool! by torkus · · Score: 1

      Deorbiting (diving into the gravity well) is easier. The atmostphere and gravity do most of the work for you whereas climbing to a higher orbit you're doing all the work. As far as I know, anything in LEO will decay and re-enter all on it's own given some time and a lack of boosting to restore orbit. This (running out of fuel) is what defines EOL for sats.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  3. why no upper body capture loop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still don't know why they decided no to use some sort of upper body capture loop to help with keeping it standing. It could keep well out of the way and swing into place as the exhaust descends below that point.
    It would not have to be that strong just to provide a little help in standing the thing up.

    1. Re:why no upper body capture loop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta love willfully ignorant armchair "engineers".
      Hint: What are the structural properties of a thin walled cylinder?

    2. Re:why no upper body capture loop? by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      I don't know why, but I can provide some guesses:

      1. any contact with a loop, or possibly just aerodynamic effects, risks messing up the engines/thruster control calculations and/or knocking the rocket over
      2. loop clearance is going to have to be small if it is going to help (eg. if landing leg fails) but large to avoid (1) - maybe there is no right size
      3. need to add in the effects of wave motion on loop and whatever structure is holding it up - for a start, the higher up it is the more it will move, relative to descent path, with the waves
      4. a strong enough loop suspension structure may add significant weight to the barge, but more importantly moves it's CofG upwards, making it less stable and giving more roll in the waves, quite possibly negating any benefit from the loop (in terms of chance success)

      But I think the big one is this: the rocket _looks_ hugely unstable on landing, and the little legs don't look wide enough, but this is deceptive. With most of the fuel gone and a lot of weight in the engines I bet the CofG of the rocket is probably much much lower than it intuitively looks. Think a long cardboard tube with a lead weight at the bottom - how much do you actually need to stabilise it to get it to stand up?

      Now, wind might be a problem, but then it's at sea, if you have high winds you have big waves and you are stuffed anyway.

      Last point: they only need to re-use some of the rockets to make launches a _lot_ cheaper, and they don't have much storage space left that they could have put this one in anyway :-)

    3. Re:why no upper body capture loop? by Immerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I imagine adding a ~60m tall gantry with support arm, sturdy enough to withstand repeated rocket detonations at point-blank range (because accidents will still happen), would be a little expensive on what's currently basically a big floating target to shoot massive bullets at. Plus you then have to avoid it during the landing, and have the support arm get in place, adapting to an uncertain rocket position, within a second or so of touchdown before it's too late to do any good.

      Then, assuming you solve those problems, you now have a "safety net" that would be financially foolish to not use every time, essentially killing any further advancement in unaided landing stability. Which is counterproductive to their long-term goal of developing the technology to land people on Mars, were there won't be any "safety nets" available. Because *that* is what Musk has repeatedly said is motivating him - launching payloads into orbit is just an economically viable means to that end.

      Besides, even here on Earth, being able to land anywhere flat and solid offers far more long-term options than needing a landing gantry.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:why no upper body capture loop? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Well, it seems to be pretty strong if they can transport it on a truck with just one support at each end.

    5. Re:why no upper body capture loop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could grip it by the husk.

    6. Re:why no upper body capture loop? by psergiu · · Score: 1

      The body of the rocket, made of thin aluminium, empty of fuel, will crush like an empty soda can when the catch wires will snap.

      They need a system with some long articulated arms ending in huge pillows to catch-it :)

      They could ask the Tesla engineers who designed the articulated charging arm.

      --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    7. Re:why no upper body capture loop? by sconeu · · Score: 1

      I think they need a giant articulated arm ending in a gigantic catcher's mitt.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    8. Re:why no upper body capture loop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair that thin aluminum is pretty robust given how it is utilized. You're quite right, rocket stages are a lot like a pop can. When they're unpressurized they are somewhat fragile, some can't even be moved without adding a bit of pressure to them. But when pressurized they are almost as sold as a rock. Which is why they are kept pressurized throughout flight, this is of course a double edged sword though, it adds a lot of strength to the stage but it also makes it likely to fail catastrophically if the container is breached. The reasoning behind keeping the landing site simple is probably pretty straight forward, if the rocket comes down that hard it's probably going to be of little use anyway so why bother with all of the extra equipment (which means more to go wrong) to get back a pile of mangled parts.

    9. Re:why no upper body capture loop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Mars part is key. Armchair engineers fail to grasp that SpaceX's long game is Mars, and there are no nets/magnets/giant mecha mitts on Mars.

      Landing anywhere that's reasonably flat and firm -- that's a capability that you can take anywhere.

    10. Re:why no upper body capture loop? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      4. a strong enough loop suspension structure may add significant weight to the barge, but more importantly moves it's CofG upwards, making it less stable and giving more roll in the waves, quite possibly negating any benefit from the loop (in terms of chance success)

      That's a well-known problem, with a playbook of solutions in Departments of Nautical Engineering around the world.

      Solution (1) - the semi-submersible route (relatively cheap - go buy a redundant offshore drilling rig. Personally I like Aker-H4s, but there are plenty of designs with different motion characteristics and waterplane areas. Chop the derrick off and restructure the deckspace to give the area you want. Build what craneage you want. When landing time approaches, ballast-down to lower the CoG to what you want.)

      Solution (2) - Couple the ascent of your "loop suspension structure" to the lowering of massive objects down into the water to get the CoG you want. the Aker-H4 design, for example, can accommodate 2 or 3 25-tonne dead weight anchors at each corner without any re-working - the structure accommodates mounting space and strength for appropriate winches and chain stowage. There's a wheel-reinvention avoidance strategic consideration here.

      You know ... decades of design and use of MODUs (Mobile Offshore Driling Units - drilling rigs to those who don't work on them) have led to (a) recognition of the problem of not being able to reach a part of the deck with a crane, when one of the cranes is out of service for [reason], and (b) various different craneage layouts to provide adequate lift/ slew capabilities to the deck area for the design purposes of the particular unit.

      Now, I know this may be heretical to the Slashdotter in the street, but, since these are very thoroughly studied problems, and SpaceX don't seem to be using these fairly obvious solutions, then just possibly SpaceX have thought further on this than the Slashdotter in the street an see a problem which we don't, or they've costed it and decided that it isn't worth the money. I'm not going to judge between those two possibilities.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  4. Someone is playing Kerbal Space Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The KSP community has been using the term RUDE (Rapid Unplanned Disassembly Event). Also lithobreaking is used as a term for crashing.

    1. Re:Someone is playing Kerbal Space Program by MrLogic17 · · Score: 1

      Elon is on record as loving KSP. Wouldn't be surprised if that's where the term came from.

      Googe'ing for the relevant Reddit thread is left as an exercise for the reader.

    2. Re:Someone is playing Kerbal Space Program by ray-auch · · Score: 5, Informative

      RUD = "Rapid Unplanned Disassembly" has been around a _lot_ longer than ksp.

      See google books for one example from 1991, but it goes back much further than that.

    3. Re:Someone is playing Kerbal Space Program by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Also lithobreaking is used as a term for crashing."

      No, that refers to a type of prison labor. You mean lithobraking.

    4. Re:Someone is playing Kerbal Space Program by camperdave · · Score: 2

      I'm sure lots of things break when a rocket reaches the lithosphere.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    5. Re:Someone is playing Kerbal Space Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still love it.

      lol, one of our wheelchair customers had a Rapid Unplanned Disassembly when her son forgot to tie down her power wheelchair in their pickup, that's a perfect description of the result too :O

    6. Re:Someone is playing Kerbal Space Program by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Spontaneous Thermal Self Disassembly (STSD) has been used by racers to describe blowing up a motor sense before the 80s (when I first heard it).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:Someone is playing Kerbal Space Program by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

      Whoever came up with that term either had a great sense of humor, or no sense of humor at all.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
  5. Telemetry by JamesPLynch · · Score: 5, Informative

    Musk tweeted:
    "Looks like thrust was low on 1 of 3 landing engines. High g landings v sensitive to all engines operating at max."
    "Upgrades underway to enable rocket to compensate for a thrust shortfall on one of the three landing engines. Probably get there end of year."

    Landing video froze at the last moment but it looked like a bulls-eye landing. There was flame climbing up the side of the stage. Telemetry should be helpful in making improvements.

    1. Re:Telemetry by kheldan · · Score: 1

      So basically you need to have enough margin designed into the engines that 2 out of 3 can still compensate for loss of thrust from 1, assuming there's also enough thrust available from attitude jets to stabilize? Does the engine design have that margin already?

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    2. Re:Telemetry by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      No, that's why he says that the upgraded engines will have it.

      Also it is not just about having the margin it is about having the ability to react fast enough - the landing burns are very short and you only get one chance (and too much thrust will bounce which ain't helpful either).

    3. Re:Telemetry by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does the engine design have that margin already?

      FWIW, the Falcon 9 heavy will have nine of these engines. 8/9 seems easier than 2/3 (and of course 7/9 is easier on the eyes).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Telemetry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Falcon 9 has 9 of those engines. they only use 1 to 3 of them for landing depending on the launch profile, using all 9 of them would make the rocket go back up instead of landing (technically if they left 1 of them turned on long enough it would make the rocket go back up, part of what makes landing a falcon so challenging compared to the blue origin's rocket)
      Falcon heavy will have 9 on each core, with 3 cores, total of 27 of engines, but each core will have to land independently. So for the landing, not much actually changes, other than two of them happening at the same time (and one slightly later if they try to recover the center core, probably only going to be feasible on very heavy launches to LEO)

    5. Re:Telemetry by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      I wonder how they're going to "compensate" for a thrust shortfall on one engine. They start those three engines pretty much at the last possible moment. Once they've detected a thrust shortfall, that platform is getting pretty close. So what are they going to do? Add two other engines? Can they start them that quickly? They don't have much fuel to work with either.

    6. Re:Telemetry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      F9 Heavy lands as 3 separate F9s. -FYI

    7. Re:Telemetry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Slashdot, so the incorrect answer gets "5, Funny", and your correct correction gets "0".

    8. Re:Telemetry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess that's why it takes until EOY ?

      Maybe they start, say, 5 earlier and at lower throttle, and which 2 shut down depends on which ones are working.

      Or I guess they could just work out why some engines sometimes don't work and fix that ?

    9. Re:Telemetry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My mod points expired yesterday. In lieu of that, here's some couterfeit reddit gold...

    10. Re:Telemetry by dpidcoe · · Score: 1

      My understand of what makes these sorts of landings complex is that because the rocket is so light having expended all of its fuel, the engines can't throttle down low enough to not overcome gravity by a large margin. As such, it's basically falling at terminal velocity until the last few seconds when the engines cut in just long enough to cancel out the downwards velocity. Since the throttles are at minimum, I would suspect there's plenty of thrust available to do it with even just a single engine (assuming it can stabilize on one engine, as you rightly pointed out). It's just comes down to how quickly can it detect that there's less thrust than expected and then compensate for it, since the timing is extremely critical.

    11. Re:Telemetry by cbhacking · · Score: 2

      That's for single-engine landings, when they have more than a trivial amount of fuel left and can afford the time to land gently. That really only works for launches to low earth orbit (LEO).

      Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO) or Super-Synchronous Orbit (SSO) launches are another matter entirely. Those use very nearly all the first stage's fuel, and go extremely fast. The rocket doesn't have enough fuel to "boost back" the way it does for LEO landings, so the droneship needs to be much further out to sea. More relevantly here, though, the rocket doesn't have enough fuel to make a (relatively) long minimum-thrust burn on one engine. Instead, it runs three engines (at an unknown throttle level, but possibly a fairly high one) for mere moments, to kill its velocity as quickly as possible (this exerts about 12G on the rocket, much more than it takes at any other part of the flight). This actually requires less fuel than the single-engine burn, because of gravity losses. The entire time the engine(s) are firing, a portion of their produced thrust is wasted countering gravity; a shorter burn means less time spent in the gravity-fighting range between terminal velocity and touchdown.

      This launch was to SSO, and carrying two satellites at once to boot. The rocket was coming down extremely fast. Even if it wasn't running those three engines at max - and it may well have been doing so - there probably wasn't time to throttle other engines up in response to one engine underperforming. The entire maneuver is over in a few seconds, and at that kind of acceleration (12G!!) every fraction of a second counts.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    12. Re:Telemetry by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      Possibly run the other engines up over 100%.

      They're used for a few minutes at 100% thrust and in reality they should be able to punch out at least 20% more than that for a few seconds.
      If the alternative is 'ka-boom', I'd probably do that.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    13. Re:Telemetry by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      That would work if the center engine failed. But if it's one of the outers, will it have enough thrust vectoring to compensate for the imbalance?

    14. Re:Telemetry by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      The number of engines they use depend on the mission. I believe on the last webcast they said something like 1-3-1 for a GTO mission. So they first start one, then add two more for the 12g deceleration, then turn those two back off and land with just the center engine to have more precision.

      The engines can throttle between 45% and 100%, and for a nearly empty rocket a single engine at 45% is already more than 1g. That indeed makes it a lot more challenging than landing the blue origin rockets which are a lot less powerful but can hover.

  6. Takeoffs More Important by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More important than a successful landing is a successful second takeoff of the recovered Falcon 9 stage. Without that this is just scrap metal recovery.

    So we will need to wait and see.

    1. Re:Takeoffs More Important by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't forget about turn around time.
      That is going to be an issue. Will the second flight of the first stage be as reliable as the first flight and how long and how much to get to the first flight.
      If you can reuse the stage but you have a good chance of it not working the second, third, ...... x time then is it worth it?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Takeoffs More Important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, the re-use value of individual components, like the engines, is significant even if they entire first stage is not re-used intact

    3. Re:Takeoffs More Important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but... it's flight-stressed metal recovery, which is valuable for R&D. Getting used samples back closes the model-design-verification loop, so even if these don't fly they all contribute to design improvements that will lead to reflight.

    4. Re:Takeoffs More Important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine that customers won't pay as much to have their goods launched in refurbished rockets. Assuming that happens, customers with the payloads that have a higher payload cost to fuel cost ratio will want the increased safety of a new rocket, whereas people with cheaper nanosats and the like will like the lower price point of the riskier, refurbished rockets.

  7. Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly = Leadership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Mr. Musk "get's it". His engineering team is working on the edge of what can be done and failures are going to happen (they're landing a frigging rocket on a ship... backwards). He can either say "we failed" or he can say we had an "RUD". It means the same thing and everyone knows it but it deflects from the technical team somewhat and is gentle signal to the team that their heads aren't on the block (at least yet). It's a good way to lead. Just hope he never uses the world "fail"... because he does have that whole evil genius vibe going.

    1. Re:Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly = Leadership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, yes. Our organization does not tolerate failure.

    2. Re:Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly = Leadership by Tablizer · · Score: 0

      That's the most corporate-speak way to say "blew up" I've ever seen. Their marketers deserve a PHB award.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly = Leadership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mr. Musk "get's it"."

      But do you get that "get's" means "get is"? Gets. No apostrophe. Why would you put one?

    4. Re:Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly = Leadership by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Musk is inarguably a superb marketer - he understands his core audience.

      I think that's probably his best skill.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re:Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly = Leadership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North Korea does not tolerate failure, how is that working for their 'satellite launch' capability?

    6. Re:Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly = Leadership by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      I think the term RUD is an old school engineering/rocketeering term. It's actually the complete opposite of a corporate-speak term imaginable.

      Now if Musk had said: "Upon reentry the first stage suffered a propulsion anomaly that cased a loss of the vehicle." and then dropped the mike and walked off stage... that would be corporate speak.

      I want more of these. I want them to understand every shortcoming of their system possible. Every failure means they (hopefully) make it more reliable.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    7. Re:Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly = Leadership by mschuyler · · Score: 1

      So what? See my sig.

      --
      How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    8. Re:Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly = Leadership by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      You need to attend some management seminars or something. Here's my effort:

      "Upon reentry the first stage enjoyed a propulsive challenge. Our team leveraged this opportunity to widen the already commanding lead enjoyed by our best-in-class rentry vehicle. We look forward to offering our partners even more amazing solutions in the immediate future!"

    9. Re:Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly = Leadership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a software engineer. We're going to give you what you ordered. And then we're going to find the failure modes that our test cases didn't catch. And in the process, we're going to uncover a lot of edge cases that may lead to more edge cases. Iterate, iterate, iterate. As long as you have the capital, this is the way you learn, adapt, and progress.

    10. Re:Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly = Leadership by WheezyJoe · · Score: 2

      What? No mention of maximizing shareholder value?

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  8. Re:Priceless.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Some posts are hard to read. For everything else, there's too many links.

  9. Pushing the envelope by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    NASA's funding depends on pleasing politicians. So they need to be overly cautious and avoid pushing tech till it breaks, even if we would learn more that way.

    I think that philosophy is just timidity at its worst. NASA could go and push the envelope and blow some stuff up. They've done it before. The problem is that they lack an administrator with the cojones to stand in front of congress and explain why blowing up the occasional rocket is a good thing.

    SpaceX's investors have a longer attention span than voters.

    Voters don't have much say in the funding of NASA. In fact very few of them really give much of a shit about NASA at all and NASA hasn't given them much of a reason to give a shit. SpaceX has a CEO who is also a substantial shareholder (reportedly at least 25%) and controls the company which has a LOT to do with the laser focus and long term outlook.

    1. Re:Pushing the envelope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SpaceX is doing many of these things under contract to NASA *using NASA funding*

    2. Re:Pushing the envelope by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Well, it's also kind of difficult when politicians are writing their funding bill with "NASA gets X dollars, as long as they spend it working with company Y, NASA gets A dollars, as long as they spend it doing B." It's having complete morons micromanage NASA.

      It is not surprising NASA doesn't do stuff like SpaceX does.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:Pushing the envelope by MattskEE · · Score: 1

      That's no surprise, NASA is probably the largest single non-military space launch customer in the world. And it's probably also the only customer in the US currently interested in putting down money for manned flight hardware.

    4. Re:Pushing the envelope by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this is NASA's biggest problem. Congress sees NASA as just another porkbarrel project. That's why there are ten different "Space Excellence Centers". That's why solid rockets for the space shuttle were built in Utah, which meant they had to be segmented (and have o-rings that could fail) so they could be shipped by train. That's why launches are in Florida but mission control is in Texas. You would never willingly run an operation like that.

      It's not just NASA either - defense contractors have been forced into this kind of stuff for ages. I suspect over time individual congressmen will force NASA to write contracts such that SpaceX will need to open a dozen facilities all over the country, increasing costs and decreasing the company's ability to produce new designs quickly.

    5. Re:Pushing the envelope by torkus · · Score: 1

      And at that point SpaceX balances the $ income vs. cost (in $ and complexity and risk) of distributing their operations according to a buyers request. It's incredibly common for large purchasers to put specific terms and requirements around doing business with them. This would be no different.

      The advantage of NOT being a government line item is they can say no to things that go beyond their acceptible operational risk. In reality large companies and large $ contracts are very rarely ever black and white on these things. Everything gets negotiated...

      Besides...SpaceX can launch at a fraction of NASA's price (oh wait, they don't have an active launch platform at all). The $500m invested is peanuts. It's about the same as the consolidated *per-mission* cost (~$450m) for the Space Shuttle. One can wonder what the per-mission cost for the Falcon will be over it's lifetime...seeing as how they're actively selling launches for ~$60m today.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    6. Re:Pushing the envelope by drsquare · · Score: 1

      NASA could go and push the envelope and blow some stuff up.

      Nasa can't develop a re-usable rocket program by themselves, they need Congress to give them permission and the money. Except Congress doesn't want reusable, it wants expendable so there are more jobs rebuilding rockets.

  10. Give up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let this be a lessen to you Space Nutters. Doing anything in space is destined to failed. Space travel is impossible. You suck and everything you do sucks. Give up now to avoid humiliating defeat.

    1. Re:Give up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump, its you?

    2. Re:Give up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Close, Kim Jong Un.

    3. Re:Give up by blackomegax · · Score: 1

      QUIET, SPACECUCK

    4. Re:Give up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Harry Reid here.

    5. Re: Give up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All it needs is a new app.

  11. But don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're on track to colonize Mars any time now. Bring shovels and diapers, the Great Human Diaspora Into Space begins today!

  12. I just wish they'd have audio on the drone ship. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hear :-) it is, embedded in hex:

    0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF
    (Stupid slashdot filter nag. I've got your repetition alert right HERE.)
    0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF 0xFF

    NO CARRIER

  13. SpaceX customers by sjbe · · Score: 4, Informative

    SpaceX is doing many of these things under contract to NASA *using NASA funding*

    SpaceX has had six launches in 2016 so far and only one of them had any relationship to NASA as far as I can tell (a supply mission to the ISS). The rest were private launch contracts. NASA is a customer of SpaceX and has helped them a lot but if you look at the launches SpaceX has scheduled, relatively few of them are NASA funded.

    1. Re:SpaceX customers by jpapon · · Score: 3, Informative
      NASA has invested *heavily* in the development of the Falcon 9. From Wikipedia:

      As of May 2012, SpaceX had operated on total funding of approximately $1 billion in its first ten years of operation. Of this, private equity provided about $200M, with Musk investing approximately $100M and other investors having put in about $100M (Founders Fund, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, ...).[54] The remainder has come from progress payments on long-term launch contracts and development contracts. As of April 2012, NASA had put in about $400–500M of this amount, with most of that as progress payments on launch contracts.[55]

      NASA does take major risks. One of those risks was paying for SpaceX launches long before SpaceX had a track record.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    2. Re:SpaceX customers by nitehawk214 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      NASA isn't stupid. They know if a rocket with their name on the side explodes, politicians will go apeshit and immediately cut funding. If a SpaceX or Orbital ATK rocket explodes (which both had a NASA ISS payload explode), well that the cost of being on the forefront.

      And it is the cost of pushing the envelope, so NASA does what it can to get these missions flying on American hardware from American launch sites. Politicians be damned.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    3. Re:SpaceX customers by tsotha · · Score: 2

      That's an odd use of the word "invested". Typically when you purchase something from a company you don't consider yourself an investor.

    4. Re: SpaceX customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless it's from kickstarter

  14. water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Curious, why don't they land it in the water and just have some big inflatables blow up to keep it afloat until they can winch it out?

    1. Re:water? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Try parking your car up to the hubs in salt water. See how that works.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  15. RUD vs. RSD by larryjoe · · Score: 1

    RUD = rapid unscheduled disassembly

    So, a rocket experiences RUD, while a missile experiences RSD?

    1. Re:RUD vs. RSD by tsotha · · Score: 1

      A missile or the first stage of a normal launch. Even for Falcon 9 launches if the customer needs every last m/sec of dV the first stage is a write-off.

    2. Re:RUD vs. RSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not North Korean ones

  16. what a bunch of girly-men! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're not snagging it out of the air with a skyhook, you're just playing with yourself.

  17. The mission was successful by MrJones · · Score: 2

    Falcon 9 Landen, then exploded. That article is too negative. SpaceX managed to deploy 2 satellite into 2 different orbits, successfully!!!!

    --
    Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt
  18. That streak couldn't last. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They say this was the hottest landing yet and I think that has been the case with each successive attempt. Which makes me wonder if they've been deliberately trying to discover the upper threshold of its landing capability. Every crash gives vital data. Posted to the Elon Musk facebook group http://www.facebook.com/groups/ElonMusk

    1. Re:That streak couldn't last. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It appears they are better at recovering when the payload is well below the max lift capacity and the orbit is relatively low. In other words, they need to keep a lot of fuel to recover.

  19. What RUD really means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is Ridiculous Unnecessary Denominator. Americans love making up new words, acronyms etc. that sound "cool", and replace a single word that has been in use for hundreds of years. Just say that the rocket exploded.

  20. Barbed feet by Traf-O-Data-Hater · · Score: 2

    An upper capture loop sounds worthwhile, but I have been puzzled as to why the deck of the droneship is not a mesh grid, and the landing feet don't have semi flexible barbs.

  21. Consider the facts by Skythe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sure I am preaching to the crowd here, but the crash should be considered in light of the following facts:
    - SpaceX customers still pay for the entire rocket, there is no discount applied yet
    - All other competing rockets do not have this capability and burn up on re-entry
    - Every landing attempt provides new and unique data that can be used for continuous improvement
    - The primary mission (what they are being paid for) was still accomplished

  22. Thus spake the Drone Ship: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    "Of Course I Still Love You", Falcon 9. But it got kinda painful there at the end.

  23. You Homophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am Clark Gibmon, conducting an in depth report for National Public Radio's on point journalism project. I am going to take another look at this space exploration from a liberal open minded non racist point of view. The first thing I am going to emphasize is the dismal success record. Then I am going to focus on the terrible environmental burden these silly rockets are playing on our environment. Exactly how many fishies have to die to make this white man's silly ambitions come true. Then I am going to focus on how rich he is, and how much better the world would be if he had instead donated his riches to the Clinton campaign for goodness and racial equality. Then I'm going to talk about the inherent racial inequality involved in space exploration. How many African Americans really care about space exploration. Because I am NPR journalist I can explain the feelings of every African American and Latino on the planet Earth. I know none of them care about it. I know this because I am a white liberal and I understand and feel the phlight of the disadvantaged like noone else can one the planet. Next I am going to focus on the fact that a rocket is a hugh falic symbol created by a man to keep the women down. After all is said and done I am going to cause you people to really hate yourself, encourage a sense of defeatism and make you want to give up all sense of national purpose and instead hand the world to China and Mexico in the name of inclusiveness.

    Yea Liberalism.

    1. Re:You Homophobe by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Nice straw man. Who but an unemployed conservative living off the hard work of liberals would have time to waste on such nonsense.

      Here's the real story:

      http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/13/study-finds-14-15-biggest-moocher-states-republican-controlled.html

      http://taxfoundation.org/blog/which-states-rely-most-federal-aid-0

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  24. Routine what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "as they continue their push to make such landings routine."

    Why would anyone wish to make RUD landings routine? Wouldn't it be better to make the previous 3 "safe" landings routine?

  25. more like opening the envelope (of money) by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

    You make very valid points, but there is an issue that I think you are missing. All of what you say is basically true, except the part where you say voters don't have much of a say in NASA funding. they actually do, even if it is indirect. They elect the politicians that control policy, and theoretically this is a good thing. But our democracy is corrupted by special interests, so the voters don't don't always get what they voted for, while special interest groups get often get exactly what they paid for. And the fossil fuel industry definitely got what they paid for in the case of the guy voters in the 21st Congressional district elected to represent them in Congress, Lamarr Smith. Smith is an anti-science, religious nutbar from Texas, a card-carrying climate change denier firmly in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry, who incidentally believes the age of the Earth is "10,000 years or so."

    The Republican leadership in Congress put Smith in charge of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction over programs at NASA, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This one guy basically controls the $39B US government R&D budget. So, what did the fossil fuel industry's money buy them? Check out this brilliant piece of legislation sponsored by Smith. In a bucket, he is trying to get a law that prevents the EPA from getting data from real scientists, and at the same time, forces the EPA to use "data" from oil and gas industry "experts."

    I mentioned all this so that you can understand why it is going to take more than balls and a desire to explore to rescue NASA, and why even if voters did care about science policy (remember I agreed with you when you said they didn't) the damage is already done. NASA is now in Smith's sights because they had the temerity to defy Smith by providing independent confirmation of climate change when Smith accused the EPA of using "secret science" to confuse Congress during hearings on the "myth of climate change" as Smith repeatedly characterizes it. Smith is going to strangle funding to NASA if they don't stick to a fossil fuel industry approved script of research activities (read: stop doing research on climate change and stick to patriotic buck rogers stuff, or else.)