SpaceX Lands the 13th Falcon 9 Rocket of the Year In Flames (theverge.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX Lands the 13th Falcon 9 Rocket of the Year In Flames (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Monday October 30, 2017 @08:50AM from the coming-in-hot dept.

SpaceX launched a Falcon 9 rocket from Florida this afternoon and, while the rocket successfully delivered the Koreasat-5A to its designated orbit, it managed to catch fire after landing on one of SpaceX's autonomous barges. The Verge reports: That rocket's mission [was] to send a satellite known as Koreasat-5A into space, where it will hang above Earth for 15 years while providing communications bandwidth for Korea and Southern Asia. SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket successfully delivered Koreasat-5A to its designated orbit, marking the the company's 16th successful mission of the year -- twice the number of successful missions in 2016. Shortly after liftoff, the first stage of the rocket returned to Earth and landed (flamboyantly) in the Atlantic Ocean on one of SpaceX's autonomous barges. (The fires eventually went out.) It was the 13th successful landing of a Falcon 9 rocket this year, the 15th in a row, and the 19th overall.

106 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

impressive by servo335 · 2017-10-30 08:53 · Score: 1, Offtopic

So why couldn't NASA do this?
1. Re:impressive by 110010001000 · 2017-10-30 09:07 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  They did. They have been sending satellites to LEO for 59 years. Pretty cool! Oh, did you think SpaceX was first?
2. Re:impressive by geekmux · 2017-10-30 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  So why couldn't NASA do this?
  Ever try surfing the intertubes from a 30-year old computer?
  Technology evolved. NASA technology did not.
3. Re: impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-30 09:17 · Score: 0
  
  Hitler survived WWII
  https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/HITLER%2C%20ADOLF_0003.pdf
4. Re:impressive by ShanghaiBill · 2017-10-30 09:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So why couldn't NASA do this?
  Do what?
  Put a satellite in LEO? NASA did that more than 50 years ago.
  Have a rocket catch on fire? NASA did that many times in the 1950s, and again in 1967.
  Land a rocket on a barge? They never did that, because NASA's attempt at reusable rockets was based on tech from the 1970s. NASA could do it with modern tech, but why should they, when they can buy launch services from the private sector?
5. Re:impressive by knightghost · 2017-10-30 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Voters didn't evolve. Do you think there wouldn't be a massive public backlash if NASA was frying rockets at the same rate as X does?
  It comes down to risk management, acceptable loss, and designing a system to fit in that rather than risk avoidance.
6. Re:impressive by Guspaz · 2017-10-30 09:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  NASA has never landed an orbital-class booster, or re-launched any spacecraft with relatively minimal refurbishment.
7. Re:impressive by idji · 2017-10-30 09:54 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  NASA launched the Moon Landers after landing them on the Moon.
8. Re:impressive by Guspaz · 2017-10-30 10:01 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The LEM wasn't an orbital-class booster (as far as Earth is concerned), and it wasn't re-used (it was essentially staging, since the descent stage was left behind).
9. Re:impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-30 10:06 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Not the same rocket motors.
  Decent and ascent were different .
10. Re:impressive by Kjella · 2017-10-30 10:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Land a rocket on a barge? They never did that, because NASA's attempt at reusable rockets was based on tech from the 1970s. NASA could do it with modern tech, but why should they, when they can buy launch services from the private sector?
  With that attitude NASA doesn't need to do jack shit while the private industry develops the products and services NASA needs, except fund it. NASA is supposed to do the experimental science, making rovers and probes and testing new propulsion technologies, power sources, zero-g experiments, spaceships, landers, habitats etc. that eventually may become a commercial product. Reusable rockets is exactly the sort of thing NASA should have been first to do. Instead they're in the back seat of SpaceX's taxi, which is nice because they pay the bills but they're no longer at the forefront of technology when it comes to rockets. They're just a layer of funding with Congress paying NASA paying SpaceX. Except for the SLS, which I'm guessing will be their last chemical rocket project ever.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
11. Re:impressive by layabout · 2017-10-30 11:07 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  https://www.space.com/22391-re... the nasa DC-X did the first boost-hover-land cycle in 1993. Nasa proved it could be done but tech was not advanced enough to take it further.
12. Re:impressive by HornWumpus · 2017-10-30 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  Lunar lander trainer had to have been first for that. But IIRC that had a jet engine.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
13. Re:impressive by Jeremi · 2017-10-30 11:28 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  With that attitude NASA doesn't need to do jack shit while the private industry develops the products and services NASA needs, except fund it.
  You say that like it's a bad thing. To me, that sounds like we've finally attained a long-standing goal.
  
  NASA is supposed to do the experimental science, making rovers and probes and testing new propulsion technologies, power sources, zero-g experiments, spaceships, landers, habitats etc. that eventually may become a commercial product.
  Perhaps chemical rockets are now a sufficiently mature technology that they no longer need to be a primarily-government-developed technology? I'd like to see NASA concentrate more on the exploration of space (i.e. scientific space probes and alternative propulsion technologies), and (assuming SpaceX and its competitors are now up to the task) let private industry take over the routine delivery tasks.
  Government has the resources to operate on long timelines that most private companies cannot, but outside of that it can be awfully slow, inefficient, and un-creative. So as soon as private companies can take over provisioning for a technology sector, they should be encouraged to do so.
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
14. Re:impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-30 11:37 · Score: 0
  
  It's hard to tell if you are criticizing or praising... NASA has always been buying a lot of what they need from private industry. I think NASA has even been buying launch services (instead of rockets) for many years for unmanned missions. There is no reason for NASA to duplicate what already exists in private industry. They don't make their own cars or laptops either, they just buy them like launch services. Just because the transition to quickly reusable rockets is happening at the same time that it makes sense for NASA to shift to a model in which they purchase manned launch as a service instead of assembling it themselves doesn't mean that SpaceX is "ahead" of NASA. The two things are largely independent. NASA had a largely "reusable" launch system. It was just so burdened by mission creep that it was more of a boondoggle than a launch system. And the SLS? that exists wholly to keep the vendors paid. The purpose of the project is to make a heavy lift vehicle that it *specified* to be shuttle-derived technology. So corporate welfare is essentially part of the stated mission.
15. Re:impressive by ShanghaiBill · 2017-10-30 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  With that attitude NASA doesn't need to do jack shit while the private industry develops the products and services NASA needs, except fund it.
  That would be fantastic. But we aren't quite there yet.
  
  NASA is supposed to do the experimental science, making rovers and probes and testing new propulsion technologies, power sources, zero-g experiments, spaceships, landers, habitats etc.
  NASA already outsources many of those tasks to industry contractors.
  
  Reusable rockets is exactly the sort of thing NASA should have been first to do.
  They were first. It was called "The Space Shuttle", and is a classic example of a government project driven by politics, rather than a commercial project driven by profit.
  
  Except for the SLS, which I'm guessing will be their last chemical rocket project ever.
  I certainly hope so.
16. Re:impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-30 11:55 · Score: 0
  
  Voters didn't evolve. Do you think there wouldn't be a massive public backlash if NASA was frying rockets at the same rate as X does?
  Uh, wow. You might want to look at NASAs track record before beating that drum.
17. Re:impressive by Richard_at_work · 2017-10-30 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  Im a SpaceX fan, but ... SpaceX have yet to re-launch a spacecraft with "relatively minimal refurbishment".... the boosters and Dragon relaunches have been of *heavily* refurbished units.
18. Re: impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-30 14:11 · Score: 0
  
  Bingo! DC-X was the template. SpaceX finished what NASA started with McDonnell Douglas. MacDac transferred the tech to NASA the year before MacDac merged with Boeing.
19. Re:impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-30 14:33 · Score: 0
  
  ^ Dude has a point.
20. Re: impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-30 14:52 · Score: 0
  
  Elon: Another successful launch, team!
  (inaudible off screen)
  Elon: So apparently the rockets are NOT supposed to catch fire upon landing. Hold up; how about we talk about lowering the bar a little here?
21. Re:impressive by 0123456 · 2017-10-30 15:07 · Score: 2
  
  DC-X was an SDIO project. They then gave it to NASA.
  Who then crashed it.
22. Re: impressive by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-10-30 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  They could't have been reused anyway since they used ablative lining.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
23. Re:impressive by cjameshuff · 2017-10-30 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  There were unmanned landers even before that. They presumably built some testbeds on Earth to develop the technology rather than just throwing it together and hoping it worked when it got to the moon.
  However, it's not landing a rocket that's the big deal. Armadillo Aerospace was able to fly and land rocket vehicles with an absurdly low budget. The big deal is landing the first stage of an orbital launch vehicle (with the scales and mass fractions that implies) for reflight, and doing so without making the system so ridiculously complex and expensive to operate that you'd be better off with expendable rockets.
24. Re:impressive by Brett+Buck · 2017-10-30 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  They could, and they had some notion of it, back in the early 60s. The reason they didn't is that it cost too much in terms of performance. You have to carry landing gear of some sort and enough fuel to land, and also the necessary throttling engines to make it viable. That might cut the mass ratio of the stage by 30%.
25. Re:impressive by ckatko · 2017-10-30 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  Where's the contractor money in REFURBISHING when you can MAKE A NEW ONE?!
  Devil's Advocate: That said, the Space Shuttle lasted for much longer than originally planned/designed.
26. Re:impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-30 20:11 · Score: 0
  
  You are a cow.
27. Re:impressive by jeremyp · 2017-10-30 21:00 · Score: 2
  
  The USAF doesn't build its own fighter planes, why does NASA need to build its own launch vehicles?
  
  --
  All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
28. Re:impressive by AC-x · 2017-10-30 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  Reusable rockets is exactly the sort of thing NASA should have been first to do.
  
  NASA were the first to fly a reusable rocket, they just never managed to get the cost down to referb between launches.
29. Re:impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-30 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  the idea of a rocket landing (on its tail or otherwise) or even landing on a barge is not new, spacex just did it first... bravo spacex, thats what counts
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u-p1jlp6fc&feature=youtu.be
30. Re:impressive by Megane · 2017-10-31 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  "First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?" - S.R. Hadden
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
31. Re:impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-31 01:08 · Score: 0
  
  This is Slashdot FFS
32. Re: impressive by CaptSlaq · 2017-10-31 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  Elon: Another successful launch, team!
  (inaudible off screen)
  Elon: So apparently the rockets are NOT supposed to catch fire upon landing. Hold up; how about we talk about lowering the bar a little here?
  I can picture Elon being Cave Johnson sometimes...
33. Re:impressive by Megane · 2017-10-31 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  Also, the computer power needed to make it work couldn't be fit on a rocket back then. It takes a lot of local computer power to do active trust attitude control that way. Even with an unbroken telemetry link (and there is almost always some telemetry loss during re-entry), the communications lag would be too much to use a remote computer.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
34. Re:impressive by Gavagai80 · 2017-10-31 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  Voters could not care less how many unmanned rockets explode. The real problem is, NASA isn't allowed to build rockets -- they're only allowed to inefficiently subcontract rockets to commercial entities.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
35. Re: impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-31 02:59 · Score: 0
  
  go back in history. Early US rocket efforts blew up a long string of rockets.
  NASA's contractors insisted with all sirts of feasibility studies that landing and reusing launch hardware was "NP-hard", or "inefficient" if it could be done, since one has to not optimize things (carrying extra fuel and more robust hardware reduces to-orbit payload capacity, etc) to bother with even trying to make it work.
36. Re: impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-31 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  Relative is relatively relative.
37. Re:impressive by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-31 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  Moo.
38. Re:impressive by Guspaz · 2017-10-31 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'm defining "relatively minimal refurbishment" in comparison to the space shuttle, which cost $1.5 billion per launch when calculated by dividing the cost of the program by the number of launches. A significant portion of that was the cost of the 25,000 workers that handled shuttle operations.
39. Re:impressive by Agripa · 2017-10-31 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  So why couldn't NASA do this?
  They can. It only took NASA four tries to light the Delta Clipper on fire after landing.
40. Re:impressive by Brett+Buck · 2017-10-31 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  That problem was more-or-less already solved - if you have sufficient inertial guidance to go up (which the Saturn V certainly had) and stabilize the rocket, you can certainly add the less demanding navigation system.
  Computer technology of the 60s was not a significant limiting factor for these missions, and having a lot of computer power (and associated endless software bloat) may actually be a liability now.
Interesting idea of success by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-30 08:57 · Score: -1

Yes it got the rocket into orbit but having the main launch vehicle in flames is not what I would consider a success.
If it was in flames then the best option is it was caused by some combustible that was on the landing pad that got ignited and started to burn the rocket. Worst option is there was a fuel leak that almost caused the rocket to explode.
Hopefully they solve this before they use this for launching people.
1. Re:Interesting idea of success by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-10-30 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Why does it matter for the people it the rocket has a landing issue without people in it? This potentially damages the vehicle to the extent of preventing its further use for any purpose but it is no issue for the people.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
2. Re:Interesting idea of success by bill_mcgonigle · 2017-10-30 09:24 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  If it was in flames then the best option is it was caused by some combustible that was on the landing pad that got ignited and started to burn the rocket. Worst option is there was a fuel leak that almost caused the rocket to explode.
  Did you even see the video? There was a bit of kerosene burning on the rocket, after it landed in a column of flame. Rockets can handle flames. The commentator described it as "a little bit toasty", which, yes, probably means a little bit more refurbishment before they launch this rocket again.
  Hopefully they solve this before they use this for launching people.
  They're not going to land any people on rockets until BRF which uses methane, not kero.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
3. Re:Interesting idea of success by mschuyler · 2017-10-30 09:26 · Score: 2
  
  It is what I would consider a success. They got the satellite into orbit at half the price anyone else could do. No one else has been able to land boosters AT ALL. That one of them landed a bit toasty is immaterial to the overall success of the mission.
  
  --
  How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
4. Re:Interesting idea of success by 110010001000 · 2017-10-30 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, whats the big deal? Rockets can handle flame. They will just refurbish it and launch it again. How many refurbished rockets has SpaceX launched commercially?
5. Re:Interesting idea of success by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-30 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  If I recall correctly, they've relaunched three. They've also recovered those twice used rockets as well.
6. Re:Interesting idea of success by petermgreen · 2017-10-30 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  Only a handful so far. According to wikipedia the launch on October the 11th was the third reused booster. TFA doesn't seem to say if todays launch was a reused booster.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
7. Re:Interesting idea of success by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-10-30 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, whats the big deal? Rockets can handle flame. They will just refurbish it and launch it again.
  
  It actually is a big deal if your intention is to get rid of the refurbishing phase altogether, at least after most landings. (But admittedly, it may not be necessarily an issue for Falcon 9 in particular due to the hard lower limit on its launch costs imposed by the expendable upper stage.)
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
8. Re:Interesting idea of success by short · 2017-10-30 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  BFR TLA, not BRF
9. Re:Interesting idea of success by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-30 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, whats the big deal? Rockets can handle flame. They will just refurbish it and launch it again. How many refurbished rockets has SpaceX launched commercially?
  Indeed the consensus on r/spacex (which is filled with some VERY knowledgable people about the Falcon line) is that such post-landing fuel burnoff is both normal and harmless. The remaining fuel is dumped intentionally before the rocket is "made safe" so crews can approach to secure it to the barge, and sometimes it ignites from contact with hot things. The temperatures are much less than those structures sees in normal use so it doesn't hurt anything.
  As for how many: three so far. Note that is also three more than any other organization on the planet!
10. Re:Interesting idea of success by Rei · 2017-10-30 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  The GEO landings are much harder than the LEO ones. A lot more energy in the first stage. But the refinements continue to make it easier. Also, eventually Falcon Heavy is going to be taking over the more marginal launches from Falcon 9.
  
  --
  The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
11. Re:Interesting idea of success by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-10-30 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  That is very much true. And the next generation vehicle should also get rid of the harder landings anyway. Everything will be RTLS, and GTO launches could use orbital refueling for improving the payload way beyond what two separate launches to GTO could deliver anyway (with the reusable upper stage's dead mass of ~80 mt going to GTO only once instead of twice).
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
12. Re:Interesting idea of success by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-31 02:07 · Score: 0
  
  Well personally, it doesn't instill great confidence in me if a machine that I was "on" blows up/catches fire/has some major malfunction several minutes after I'm no longer "on" it. It makes me feel damn lucky I survived. Not exactly great for customer retention.
13. Re:Interesting idea of success by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-31 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  I'm a little doubtful that we're going to see too many FH launches. It sounds like they want to mostly skip FH and head straight for BFR to save some money and simplify development. If I've heard right the FH won't even use purpose built hardware but some recovered side stages and a new center stage. They seem to want to just get it basically functional in order to launch some of their short term heavy cargo flights while they build the BFR after which they'll get rid of both. When you think about it are some pretty compelling reasons do so, it massively simplifies production, does away with a lot of development for a less capable craft, will cover pretty much any short/midterm launch vehicle market needs & will support their Mars ambitions. Of course it is completely dependent on them succeeding in it becoming a fully reusable and easily refurbishable craft, but given that that this all happened after their tank and meth/lox engine tests I'm guessing that they were very encouraging.
14. Re:Interesting idea of success by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-10-31 22:06 · Score: 1
  
  Technically, it's not a malfunction. Anyway, so far, the Soyuz launch vehicles have been having much worse "malfunctions" after you're no longer "on" them.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
15. Re:Interesting idea of success by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-10-31 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  Even a more-expensive-than-expected BFR/BFS launch will be cheaper than a FH flight, quite likely with regards to total launch costs, and almost certainly with regards to $/kg. So it makes perfect sense that delaying the FH by several years and bumping up BFR/BFS would result in early FH cancellation.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
They need a landing trench by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-10-30 08:57 · Score: 1

They need a landing trench. And maybe some LN2 system to displace oxygen. And they definitely need to get rid of kerosene. This is why it was predicted for Saturn V that any on-pad detonation would be worse than for a purely-hydrogen rocket.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
1. Re:They need a landing trench by JoshuaZ · 2017-10-30 09:02 · Score: 2
  
  Their next generation of rocket engine will use methane rather than kerosene for a whole bunch of reasons. The Sabatier process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction allows one to make methane which allows you to make methane from CO2 and hydrogen. This is good because a) it allows one to make carbon neutral rockets if one makes the methane from the air (Musk is really concerned about global warming) and b) It allows one to make fuel on Mars without too much work. Unfortunately, no matter what fuel source you are going to use at the end of the day you are talking about extremely flammable fuels and the risk of problems will always be high. In this case it looks like the rocket landed essentially intact but we'll have to see.
2. Re:They need a landing trench by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-10-30 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  If you get a propellant leak on engine shutdown (because there's a time between the flameout and the cessastion of the flow of the liquid) and then you get a pool of a combustible fluid below the vehicle, that's a problem for kerosene, but not for methane. That was my point.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
3. Re:They need a landing trench by 110010001000 · 2017-10-30 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  "It allows one to make fuel on Mars without too much work"
  
  Hilarious!
4. Re:They need a landing trench by Kjella · 2017-10-30 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  Uhm, it's a rocket engine. What kind of temperatures do you think it experienced during launch/reentry/landing burn? A tiny bit of excess fuel burning away post-landing is hardly a concern, probably a small timing issue with keeping the rocket fueled exactly until engine shut-off.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
5. Re:They need a landing trench by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-10-30 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  That it *is* a concern is obviously proven by the post-landing pictures. Regarding rocket engines, there's a reason why they have regenerative cooling. It's because it works very well. (In fact, in LH2 engines, it cools the inner surface of the chamber and nozzle to room temperature.) But *not* post-landing when the engine isn't operating.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
6. Re:They need a landing trench by gman003 · 2017-10-30 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Or, they could put it on a steel barge in the middle of the ocean. If some fuel spills and catches fire, what's it gonna do? Burn down the ocean?
7. Re:They need a landing trench by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-10-30 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  The barge is cheap. The vehicle is expensive. Lowering the reuse costs, and therefore the total operating costs, too, remains a concern. Hence, damage prevention.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
8. Re:They need a landing trench by sconeu · 2017-10-30 10:31 · Score: 2
  
  All they need to do is feed the crew a steady diet of beans.
  Proof.
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
9. Re:They need a landing trench by JoshuaZ · 2017-10-30 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I get that. My point was that they are already switching to methane for other reasons.
10. Re:They need a landing trench by ElizabethGreene · 2017-10-30 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  Question, not trolling.
  Wouldn't the hypersonic exhaust of the decelerating engine effectively flush out any gas you put in the trough?
  If they get the rockets to land back on their mounts this becomes more workable. Just have the mount spray the rocket.
  Landings like this one are exciting. SpaceX wasn't sure they'd be able to land the GTO payload boosters, and they've managed to do it a couple of times now. Sweet!
11. Re: They need a landing trench by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-30 17:48 · Score: -1
  
  Getting paid in beans will probably be more valuable than getting paid in SpaceX stock options.
That grinding noise.... by ColaMan · 2017-10-30 09:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

This does feel like a bit of goalpost shifting.
"Reusable boosters are impractical. And landing on a barge? Not possible."
SpaceX begins to sucessfully reuse boosters.
"But these reusable boosters, they catch fire when they land!!"
WHEN THEY LAND - you know, that goal that, if you recall, was said to be impossible just a couple of years ago?
Or maybe they've just made landings boring enough that a bit of burning fuel on a section that is routinely covered in flames and hot gases during ascent and descent is news now.

--

You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
1. Re:That grinding noise.... by 110010001000 · 2017-10-30 09:05 · Score: 2
  
  Who said reusable boosters were impossible? It is difficult, not impossible. I don't think anyone said it was impossible.
2. Re:That grinding noise.... by fluffernutter · 2017-10-30 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't been a fan of Musk, but yeah there's not a lot of news here. As long as the rocket is useful enough times so that it creates a profit and it doesn't destroy more than it benefits, then it just comes down to being part of the cost of business. The trick is to stay ahead financially.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
3. Re:That grinding noise.... by Mr+D+from+63 · 2017-10-30 09:22 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  "they" said it. Those hypothetical people that exist to help make arguments. Now, maybe somebody said it, but it was never generally thought by any group or sect that it would be impossible.
  
  Regardless, because somebody might have said it, we all must bear with the false arguments that use it forever.
4. Re:That grinding noise.... by 110010001000 · 2017-10-30 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  Oh THOSE people. Well since THOSE people were wrong, then everything must be possible. I am packing my bag for Mars.
5. Re:That grinding noise.... by Mr+D+from+63 · 2017-10-30 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Exactly. And because 'they' said it, anything that goes wrong is not nearly as bad as it would have been if "'they' hadn't said it.
6. Re:That grinding noise.... by R3d+M3rcury · 2017-10-30 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  I think the term was "impractical."
  Basically, NASA didn't build re-usable launch vehicles because re-use only becomes practical with more launches. NASA claims they're not in the rocket business, unless a suitable launch vehicle doesn't currently exist for what they want to do. That's why they're building SLS. Yeah, I know...
  So the arguments were that (a) they'll never get it to work, (b) even if they get it to work, they won't see the cost savings in the lifetime of the vehicle, and (c) no one will pay to send their multi-million dollar satellite on a "used" rocket.
7. Re:That grinding noise.... by Rockoon · 2017-10-30 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  You did.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
8. Re:That grinding noise.... by HuguesT · 2017-10-30 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  I think both NASA and ESA said they had looked at reusing booster but did not find the idea economical after simulations.
  Links I could find 1: Europeans. 2: Russians. These agencies have various ideas of how to compete with Space-X, I guess this is very good news for whoever wants to put a satellite in LEO.
Oops! Guess it's parts! by foxalopex · 2017-10-30 09:22 · Score: 1

With the amount of heat and the fuel involved, I'm a bit surprised this doesn't happen more often. I suppose that booster is parts now or is SpaceX going to risk trying another flight with it. Maybe dangeriously discounted? :)
1. Re:Oops! Guess it's parts! by 110010001000 · 2017-10-30 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  Here is an easier question: how many "refurbished" rockets has SpaceX launched commercially?
2. Re: Oops! Guess it's parts! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-30 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Three if memory serves, and recovered two of them (the third was a planned loss due to the nature of the mission)
3. Re:Oops! Guess it's parts! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-30 09:54 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  They have used refurbished rockets at least twice this year. Launched a total of 16 and landed 13. Three had too heavy of a payload to have enough fuel to land, so it was not attempted.
4. Re:Oops! Guess it's parts! by chmod+a+x+mojo · 2017-10-30 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  If you bothered to ask the almighty google overlords you would find out that they launched at least two commercial payloads on refurbished rockets. And have more scheduled already.
  
  --
  To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
5. Re:Oops! Guess it's parts! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-30 10:29 · Score: 0
  
  The Falcon Heavy debut launched will use 2 refurbed boosters with a new core.
6. Re:Oops! Guess it's parts! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-31 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  Compared to the heat that is involved in reentry/launch I highly doubt that the comparatively low temperature of those flames is anything to worry about, as long as it is doused before it can spread too far. I would imagine it is just some of the fuel residue that caught, worst case a fuel line got a hole in it somehow which might necessitate some extra insulation on those lines. This is probably one of the reasons why they're trying to switch over to methane/lox fuel to avoid such buildup both in the rocket engines and on the hull.
A picture tells a thousand lies by SuperKendall · 2017-10-30 09:43 · Score: 1

That it *is* a concern is obviously proven by the post-landing pictures.
So you can see there is internal damage, or indeed any damage at all, through the images??
I don't see anything that looks to me like there is any kind of lasting damage. But unlike you, instead of assuming I know what actually happened through a few pictures of some kerosine flames, I'm not presuming anything about damage until the company comes out with more detail.
Would say you the regenerative cooling was active during the entire re-entry phase even after it has separated and stops firing?

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:A picture tells a thousand lies by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-10-30 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  The cooling isn't active during the passive flight. But that doesn't mean there is no issue with the kerosene burning. The aerodynamic heating at reentry involves a shock wave in the most stressing phase that can be expected to protect the upper portions of the engine machinery. But the simple post-landing flame gets to these parts easily. I'm pretty sure you want to avoid it if you can.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
2. Re:A picture tells a thousand lies by ColaMan · 2017-10-30 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Avoid flames if possible, of course. But kerosene burning from a puddle is pretty sub optimal combustion - orange flame temps of maybe 1500 degrees C or so. Not good, but it's not a blowtorch.
  But the structure should be able to deal with it. Apart from atmospheric heating, the bottom of the F9 is exposed to the exhaust of three engines for a minute or so during reentry. There is also direct exposure to the turbopump exhaust during launch and landing which simply exits straight out of the bottom of the vehicle - it's not directed to the S1 engine bells, or to the sides, or anything. If you have a close look behind the engine bells on ascent you can often see a lot of flame from the turbopump exhaust in there.
  Have to wonder if they're doing something different with regards to engine shutdown - the last few landings have been a bit burny, earlier ones not so much.
  
  --
  
  You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
  There is a lot of hype here.
3. Re:A picture tells a thousand lies by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-10-30 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Apart from atmospheric heating, the bottom of the F9 is exposed to the exhaust of three engines for a minute or so during reentry
  There may be some kind of a boundary layer escape but this flow is generally supersonic so the bulk of it will go elsewhere. Of course some gases will get there...the question is how much, both in repropropulsion, and in ascent/subsonic retropropulsion (the two seem comparable). A recent German analysis has some simulations in it (on page 11), and interestingly, the "business-end" temperatures seem better during the retro burn, not outside of it. They even explicitly spell it out: " After retro-propulsion heat flux peaks on lower skirt and nozzle region".
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
I know what did it! by AndyKron · 2017-10-30 09:56 · Score: 1

Fucking Lipo batteries!
Link to SpaceX not Verge by spire3661 · 2017-10-30 10:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why in the hell do all the links go to social media or an ad-spam site? Linking to some schmo's twitter post is just poor form. Cant you just fucking link to the SpaceX site instead of perpetuating this incredibly shitty era we have gotten into where all data must include ads? Why is slashdot sending me over to The Verge when spacex has all the relevant info? Just give us the data, fuck off with your partnerships.

http://www.spacex.com/webcast

--
Good-bye
NASA has now approved using flight-proven boosters by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-30 10:29 · Score: 4, Informative

NASA has now approved use of flight-proven boosters, which is huge for SpaceX.
The re-use rate in 2017 will be about 25%. SpaceX is aiming for 50% in 2018, and will pivot to block-5 which will further decrease work required during booster turnaround.
Exciting times... looking like rocket reuse is finally a thing!
Re:NASA has now approved using flight-proven boost by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-30 10:33 · Score: 1

USAF is also on board after some number of successful re-use flights, as are a bunch of comsat co's.
At this point anyone NOT having the ability to refly boosters is gonna be in more and more trouble going forward.
Not on Google Maps by Tablizer · 2017-10-30 10:50 · Score: 1

It landed in Flames? I'm not familiar with country of Flames.

--
Table-ized A.I.
1. Re:Not on Google Maps by mschuyler · 2017-10-30 11:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  A little bit of lighter fluid spilled out and caused a small fire on the deck which was put out within seconds. Meanwhile the entire Internet has its panties in a twist proclaiming a "failed mission" when the satellite it launched is now in geo-stationary orbit and functioning as it was designed at a launch cost that is half what anyone else could do it for. Ask the Koreans if they think this launch was a failure.
  
  --
  How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
2. Re:Not on Google Maps by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-30 12:53 · Score: 0
  
  Meanwhile the entire Internet has its panties in a twist proclaiming a "failed mission"
  Those are mostly ULA employees.
3. Re:Not on Google Maps by solartear · 2017-10-31 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  A little bit of lighter fluid spilled out
  Even better, it is only spilled fuel, kerosene. Falcon 9's lighter fluid is TEA-TEB, a very toxic, self-igniting fluid which creates the green flame when Falcon 9 engines start.
Metaphor by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-30 12:54 · Score: -1

The rocket is a metaphor for what is going to happen to the money of Elonâ(TM)s investors.
Why not land them in a pond? by angel'o'sphere · 2017-10-30 13:14 · Score: 0

I wonder why not land them in a pond and then fish them out of the water.
Perhaps they would not survive the heat stress?

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
1. Re:Why not land them in a pond? by n329619 · 2017-10-30 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder why not land them in a pond and then fish them out of the water. Perhaps they would not survive the heat stress?
  It's because the rocket is really heavy. If it can float on water, then it will be easier pull it back out of the water. Otherwise the engineers will need a very big and strong fishing rod.
2. Re: Why not land them in a pond? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-10-30 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  Dumping a hot metallic object into seawater? Surely that wouldn't corrode very quickly...
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
3. Re: Why not land them in a pond? by Gavagai80 · 2017-10-31 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  Ponds aren't seawater. But, for a car analogy, landing a rocket in a pond to keep it cool is like driving your car into a pond when it starts overheating -- yes that'll cool it off, but you'll have worse problems.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
4. Re:Why not land them in a pond? by Sperbels · 2017-10-31 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Because the danger of fire is overblown by a poorly worded clickbait headline.
5. Re: Why not land them in a pond? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-10-31 22:12 · Score: 1
  
  The only pond around the landing site is the big one.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
Still a success by wjcofkc · 2017-10-31 02:50 · Score: 1

That fact that they are pursuing this and having successes at all is remarkable. Back when they first announced landing the first stage as a goal, it was called out left and right as being impossible. More power to them.

--
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Fire suppression system? by nedgofast · 2017-11-01 05:36 · Score: 1

It seems that the barges could easily accommodate a fire suppression system. A matrix of foam shooting nozzles would do it. The system could be autonomous with heat sensors, or just "fire all upon landing". Just an idea.