Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX Returns To Flight, And Nails Another Drone Landing (cnn.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the final-frontier dept.

Applehu Akbar writes: SpaceX successfully launched a 10-satellite Iridium NEXT package, and then landed on a drone ship — this time from Vandenburg AFB in California. The launch had been delayed several days by this week's record rainfall and flooding.
CNN has video of the launch, and points out its obvious significance. "Because rockets are worth tens of millions of dollars, and they have historically been discarded after launch, mastering the landing is key to making space travel more affordable... Saturday's launch marks the seventh time SpaceX has successfully landed a rocket."

8 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. Great strides by Dorianny · · Score: 5, Informative

    Landing a rocket is quite an achievement but the real test (and the ultimate goal) is to actually relaunch a used rocket successfully without extensive refurbishing

    1. Re: Great strides by Strider- · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't normally reply to ACs, but the fuel cost is roughly negligible. The propellants used for landing are mostly the contingency propellants they woudl need to cary any way in case of a problem with one or more engines. As far as refurbishment costs go, we'll see, but the second landed booster has had at least 10 full duration test firings since landing, without anything going boom, and minimal refurbishment.

      And finally, ok, so SpaceX is getting government funds. Do you think that ULA isn't? Competition and different approaches are a good thing. From a strategic perspective, the United States Government needs to maintain launch capabilities for its own payloads. It's better to have multiple options for those launches.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    2. Re: Great strides by catchblue22 · · Score: 5, Informative

      ULA, the launch consortium of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, got $1 billion dollars per year just to maintain "launch readiness". Then they charged $400 million or so for each launch. SpaceX charges about $130 million for cargo launches to the space station. Oh, and do you really think that Boeing or Lockheed Martin paid fully for the development of the Delta or Atlas rockets? SpaceX is providing an essential service for a fraction of the cost of "competitors". The Musk "government subsidy" meme has been a laughable piece of propaganda put forward by Musks competitors, who are themselves recipients of FAR MORE government largesse than Musk could ever hope for. For all I know, repeaters of this meme are in fact getting paid by ULA, GM, Ford, Exxon, or any number of competitors who are likely to lose billions to Musk's companies.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
  2. Re:Awesome by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Informative

    SpaceX is launching for Iridium, a private corporation, and making lease payments to the Air Force for use of SLC-4B at Vandenberg. At the Cape, SpaceX sells launch services to NASA as a replacement for the more expensive Russian launches of its Progress space sattion supply missions. Eventually, it will take over NASA's other Russian operation, ferrying ISS crews.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  3. CNN video sucks.. here's the link on Youtube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTmbSur4fcs

    1. Re:CNN video sucks.. here's the link on Youtube by Nutria · · Score: 4, Informative

      To skip over the music, https://youtu.be/tTmbSur4fcs?t...

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  4. Re:Making America great again by Andreas+Mayer · · Score: 3, Informative

    What do people mean when they say "make America great again"?

    I think most of those people actually mean "I want the world to revert back to how it was X years ago". With X depending on personal experiences.

    Of course, that's impossible.

  5. Re: Awesome by khallow · · Score: 4, Informative

    And mostly fail if you look at the launch record..

    Take a gander at Falcon 9's launch statistics. 30 launch attempts with 4 failures (including one while test burning the engines). "Most" would be 16 or more, not 4.

    Even if we try to inflate the number of failures by including Falcon 1 (3 failures of 5 launch attempts) and all 6 Falcon 9 first stage landing failures (even though not a one of those counts as a launch failure since NASA didn't pay for even one of those), we still end up with 13 out of 35 launches. 18 is "most".

    That's brazenly wrong.

    You sir, have the credibility of CNN.

    Look who's projecting.