Slashdot Mirror


SpaceX Makes Aerospace History With Successful Launch, Landing of a Used Rocket (theverge.com)

Eloking quotes a report from The Verge: After more than two years of landing its rockets after launch, SpaceX finally sent one of its used Falcon 9s back into space. The rocket took off from Cape Canaveral, Florida, this evening, sending a communications satellite into orbit, and then landed on one of SpaceX's drone ships floating in the Atlantic Ocean. It was round two for this particular rocket, which already launched and landed during a mission in April of last year. But the Falcon 9's relaunch marks the first time an orbital rocket has launched to space for a second time. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk appeared on the company's live stream shortly after the landing and spoke about the accomplishment. "It means you can fly and refly an orbital class booster, which is the most expensive part of the rocket. This is going to be, ultimately, a huge revolution in spaceflight," he said. "It's been 15 years to get to this point, it's taken us a long time," Musk said. "A lot of difficult steps along the way, but I'm just incredibly proud of the SpaceX for being able to achieve this incredible milestone in the history of space."

27 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. I'm On a Boat! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Major kudos to the SpaceX team! Thank you for letting me get to see the future.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:I'm On a Boat! by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Funny

      A pipe with some fuel in it, that goes to the same place at the same speed as 60 years ago? This is what excites you?

      My direct flight to Australia from California in about 13 hours is just a boring rerun of Magellan's voyage, then? Except for the part where he got killed?

  2. Just wait for Falcon Heavy by MrLogic17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With this huge milestone down, the next big one is Falcon Heavy - with 3 of these boosters landing for reuse.

    We are on the cusp of a new age of space - prices are going to drop like crazy, and Mars just got a whole lot cheaper to reach!

    1. Re:Just wait for Falcon Heavy by petermgreen · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://forum.nasaspaceflight.c...

      "BREAKING news: Payload fairing LANDED SUCCESSFULLY. Fairing has thruster systems and steerable parachute. Was just shown pic of intact fairing floating in ocean."

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    2. Re:Just wait for Falcon Heavy by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Informative

      The plan is for 2 ground landings and one barge for the center booster, which is going to be way downrange. But there is always a delta-V cost for returning the boosters, and there could be a super-heavy mission that recovers them downrange or expends them.

    3. Re:Just wait for Falcon Heavy by Kjella · · Score: 5, Informative

      With the heavy - will the side boosters always be able to land at the launch site, or will they need 3 drone ships?

      Depends on the payload, they get more capacity with drone ships and if it's heavy enough they'll just be expendable. But given that the Falcon Heavy has a far higher max capacity than the heaviest current heavy lift vehicle (Delta IV Heavy) most launches should be able to land all three at the launch site, I imagine that's the main plan to drive costs down. Launch, land, refurb, fuel, launch again. Using the barge will have a much longer turn-around time, risk of bad weather conditions both on landing at on return to port, exposure to salty spray from the ocean etc. while going back to the landing site will give you almost the same conditions as when launching. If SpaceX manages to make them durable and have a short turn-around they could become a real workhorse doing launch after launch after launch.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Just wait for Falcon Heavy by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, the next milestone is rapid reuse :) Tweet from Musk this evening:

      Incredibly proud of the SpaceX team for achieving this milestone in space! Next goal is reflight within 24 hours.

      SpaceX has a backlog. It'll be nice to see if they can really up their launch rate and clear it all out.

      --
      Kneel Before Christ!
    5. Re:Just wait for Falcon Heavy by oobayly · · Score: 4, Interesting

      F9 boosters are only travelling at about 2,300 m/s (64km AMSL) at MECO, compared to the space shuttle's 8,200 m/s (120km ASML) during reentry, so it's understandable that more work needed to be done to get the space shuttle flying again. Personally, I think you should be comparing the F9 booster rebuild to the SRB recovery and rebuild - what SpaceX are doing there is order of magnitude more complex.

      That said, there's no real point in comparing the two - they don't have much in common apart from the fact they're both launch systems.

    6. Re:Just wait for Falcon Heavy by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Funny

      you end up with three week points in the apparatus.

      Well, at least it's not a month point....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:Just wait for Falcon Heavy by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only way to view this that makes sense is to view it as a cost proposition of dollars per pound lifted to a given orbit. An expendable Falcon 9 flight already costs less per pound to low earth orbit than the same flight using the Space Shuttle. SRBs alone could not complete the mission, it's the whole Shuttle system that you have to cost. A reusable Falcon 9 lowers that cost. The question becomes how great an economic efficiency SpaceX can develop, based on how low they can drive the cost of recovery and reuse and their fixed costs.

  3. Some people by future+assassin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    become politicians and try to enslave the population others take their money and move humanity forward. Imagine if more billionaires did this .

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Some people by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd be the first to encourage people to innovate. But you're painting your portrayal of politicians with a rather wide brush. While we have some deplorable examples of politicians, we also have some who made a major positive contribution to the world.

      Then we can talk about lawyers. You might not like them, but the alternative to using them is that we duke everything out or have shooting feuds to settle our disputes.

    2. Re:Some people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Then we can talk about lawyers. You might not like them, but the alternative to using them is that we duke everything out or have shooting feuds to settle our disputes.

      Okay, but what's the argument in favor of keeping lawyers?

    3. Re:Some people by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Okay, but what's the argument in favor of keeping lawyers?"

      Their physiology is closer to human than the standard lab rat, and researchers are less likely to feel remorse during Stage I trials of anything.

    4. Re: Some people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Funny. Ancient Athens did not have lawyers. They still had trials and courts and arbitration. Each side of a case represented himself. You don't need lawyers when the law is simple and short enough for the common citizen to understand.

  4. Crazy Elon's Used Rocket Emporium by turkeydance · · Score: 4, Funny

    one owner. only been driven twice.

  5. Re:Reusable - like the shuttle? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Informative

    "But they skimped on the maintenance, allowing tiles to get loose. Over time they loosened and fell off, resulting in major catastrophe."

    Neither crash was caused by tiles falling off the Shuttle.

  6. Re:Not yet by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bet your ass that rocket was gone over with a fine-toothed comb, at great expense.They won't have proven the economy of re-launching rockets until it's routine with zero to very few accidents and the finance numbers are in.

    Be happy that Elon made those goalposts out of fiberglas so you can move them all by yourself.

  7. Re: Reusable - like the shuttle? by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Let me rephrase. We didnt save nearly as much money as we thought we would by re-using them. The cost to refurbish was ridiculously high. Yes they were 'reusable', but not in the way they were planned to be. WE would have gotten a lot more flights than 135 if they had been cheaper to refurbish.

    --
    Good-bye
  8. Re:History? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Informative

    The SRBs fell, uncontrolled, into the ocean and were re-filled with firecracker stuff. It was always only marginally economical to reuse them. In contrast, the Falcon 9 is a liquid fueled rocket with on-board avionics, which soft-lands in a usable state. Its engine has been tested after landing, without any refurbishment at all.

    The new goal is to turn around a booster and re-fly it in 24 hours.

  9. Re:Reusable - like the shuttle? by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In addition to the corrections to your post concerning the tiles, the Shuttle orbiter was basically a second stage (at best, a 1.5 stage). A significant minority of the dry mass of the system. The SRBs were also "recovered", but A) they landed in saltwater, B) "landing" is being generous, they hit *hard*, C) solid rockets aren't just a "refill and reuse", you have to disassemble and recast. The net result is that reuse didn't really save any money on the SRBs.

    The Shuttle's TPS was a big maintenance problem (not an issue for Falcon). The SSMEs were also pretty high maintenance. Shuttle had to build a whole huge ET each launch. And NASA has such huge amount of heavy infrastructure overhead.

    It's hard to say how well reuse of Falcons will go at this point. But it should at the very least fare far better than the Shuttle system.

    It's also worth noting that Falcon is only the start of SpaceX's plans. While they've learned what to do and what not to do from the Shuttle program, they want their experience with F9 and FH to influence their design of ITS and its support infrastructure.

    --
    Kneel Before Christ!
  10. Re:Always listen to experts by hey! · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Excellent advice when you have an author looking after your interests who will ensure things work out in the end. But in real life, if you believe that, you should get to work on your perpetual motion machine now.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  11. Re: Reusable - like the shuttle? by jandrese · · Score: 5, Informative

    As far as I know NASA never skimped on tile maintence, it was one of the many reasons every shuttle flight was so damn expensive.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  12. Re:about the IP perspective ... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does Musk share his discoveries with other space programs?

    No. As has been pointed out on multiple occasions, SpaceX is doing little or no new science. They are doing groundbreaking, revolutionary engineering, but they're not discovering new things about the universe in order to do it, so there isn't anything to share of the nature you're referring to.

    Beyond the engineering, they are also doing highly effective management. Management so effective that ULA partisans have claimed repeatedly that it's impossible. They're producing quality rockets, with continuously improving quality, with team sizes far smaller and far more effective than ULA can currently field. It may be that someone has written and published something about how they do that, but as with all things managerial, it's effectively impossible for an organization that isn't run that way to remake itself into an organization that is run that way.

    SpaceX is successful not for what they are discovering, but for what they are not doing. They're not operating with a cost-plus contract with the US government, which has the same effect on an engineering project that an unlimited budget has on a movie (see Michael Bay), and they're not operating with a bloated, dysfunctional management structure. Those two simple things allow them to pull off what are being called engineering miracles, but they're not miraculous. It's just that our standards have become so absymally low thanks to decades of bumbling by Lockheed, Boeing, and yes, NASA, that when we encounter competence, it appears amazing.

    When you get right down to it, Elon Musk doesn't have anything to share that would do any good. The Atlas and Delta rocket families already work, after all. Elon Musk could talk about the design decisions he made that made the Falcon 9 far cheaper, but Lockheed and Boeing have reams and reams of PowerPoint presentations about why those were the wrong decisions. They simply can't back down from that now.

  13. Re: What's your track record? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Jesus, you doubters are dense. At least pick at SpaceX over their faults instead of spouting off with this bs.

    If the guy only gets two throws per booster, the market is going to get rocked. If it's 10, the Big Boys are dead. 100 is almost unpredictable because there's no way to test the elasticity of the market that far out.

    At some point, the boosters get too many flights. Take the old ones, and use them as the expenable middle stick in the big F9H or as a single stick throw. Or boost them all the way and make space station volume from them (STFU if you don't know about SkyLab or the other Apollo Application projects).

    Pick on SpeX over their ability to sustain a culture of quality while maintaining innovation and risk taking. Big companies don't do this well, and I haven't heard a good story about how this will happen.

    Or any other valid attack vector...

  14. Re:History? by slashcross · · Score: 3, Informative

    I dunno, I watched the webcast and that leeward fin will definitely need a new paint job. So, like I said, I dunno about 24hr turn around so far.

    In the press conference after the launch, Elon Musk specifically said that the grid fins would be made from titanium instead of aluminum on the final revision of the Falcon 9 so it would not suffer from that problem.

    --
    Slashdot your i and slashcross your t.
  15. Enough with the cynicism by sjbe · · Score: 4, Informative

    musk says a lot of things.. how about 9 out of 10 successfull landings first.

    Yes he says a lot of things and he backs a huge number of them up. His company managed to launch and land a booster twice and they did it successfully on their first try at landing a used booster. Gives pretty good confidence that SpaceX can replicate the results. More work to do of course but unlike snarky slashdot posters, he's actually doing the work. What have you done to advance human kind today?

    This is a huge stepping stone. Your cynicism is misplaced.