Slashdot Mirror


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

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."

16 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. Sweet by NEDHead · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can't wait to see three boosters land at once

    1. Re:Sweet by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can't wait to see how much more free money the govt. gives them.

      So now building an object 23 stories tall that can fly into orbit is free? Good to know.

      Or maybe you're just an asshole.

    2. Re:Sweet by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Russia trolling /. They're pissed that the U.S. won't have to buy Russian rocket engines. Seems some people with sense in D.C. realized having an adequate native heavy lift capability was strategically important.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    3. Re: Sweet by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      no, the assholes are those screaming about it, but backing the competitors who are getting 3-10x as much subsidies.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re: Sweet by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      well, the Asshole Coward before does have a point that the feds HAVE given SpaceX money. In particular, they have given 300 M to SpaceX to help develop Dragon, F1, and F9. Of course, it was a billion to build everything, so most money came from private funding.
      What Asshole Coward purposely lies about is that ULA gets 1B / year for the last 10 years, AND SpaceX has lowered the costs of launch to the gov so much, that in the first couple of years, the feds made back their 300 Million.

      And if the Asshole Coward tries to bring up 'gov subsidies' for Tesla/Solar City, he will only make more of an asshole out of himself.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  2. 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)
  3. Re:more CNN fake news by jfdavis668 · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's because this was actually filmed in a sound stage on the Moon.

  4. 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/...

  5. 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
  6. Making America great again by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What do people mean when they say "make America great again"? My understanding is that they want a USA which is making new innovative industries, employing lots of people in the USA with high paying jobs, and making profit in the process (the more the better.) Elon Musk is the poster child for doing all of those things - yet many people crying "Make America great again" are trying to tear him down. The kindest explanation is that they are so blinded by ideology that they can't think straight.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  7. Am I the only one... by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

    .... who can't help but cheer at my screen when they nail one of those landings? Now I finally understand how sports fans feel when they watch a game and do the same thing ;)

    One thing nobody can deny about them is optimism. ;) Seriously, their IPS numbers are, pardon the pun, out of this world. $200k per booster launch. $500k per tanker launch. I mean, really? Good luck with that. No, seriously, good luck with that; I won't be expecting anything close to that, but please by all means prove me wrong ;) ITS would be a great system to have, I've been playing around with some Venus trajectories with it recently. Looks like it can do a low-energy transit with nearly 300 tonnes of payload from LEO and back again with the same, over 400 if starting at a high orbit - but from an economics perspective the high energy transfers actually make more sense.

    I noticed a lot of people were confused about why Musk wanted the trips to be so short and was willing to sacrifice so much payload to do so - many assumed it had to do with radiation or something. But the issue is, when your craft costs so much but your launch costs are cheap, you can't have it spending all of its time drifting in deep space, you need to get it back for a new mission as soon as possible. There's a balancing point, in that if you try to go too fast, you reduce useful payload below the point of making up for it with going faster - but a minimum energy trajectory is just not optimal when the ratio between launch costs and transit vehicle cost is so extreme. I come up with the same thing from Venus as they were getting for Mars, although for the Venus case you end up aerobraking to a highly elliptical orbit rather than to the surface for ISRU refill (you need ISRU, but for the ascent stages, so it's not realistic to do so for the return stage in the nearer term). So for Venus they get no refill like on Mars, but they also don't have to do a powered landing nor do an ascent on return - it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. Both are quite accessible with it.

    --
    Dear Diary...today I was pompous and my sister was crazy.
  8. Re:Awesome by naughtynaughty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Awesome, hating on Elon for having a private company pay to launch private satellites on a private launch vehicle.

    Successfully

    At a lower price than the competition

  9. 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.