Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Lands the 13th Falcon 9 Rocket of the Year In Flames (theverge.com)
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.
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.
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?
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)
NASA has never landed an orbital-class booster, or re-launched any spacecraft with relatively minimal refurbishment.
NASA launched the Moon Landers after landing them on the Moon.
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).
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 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!
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
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.
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.
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.