SpaceX Successfully Launches Satellite Into Orbit On a Used Falcon 9 Rocket (techcrunch.com)

Darrell Etherington reports via TechCrunch: SpaceX has launched a Falcon 9 rocket loaded with a geocommunications satellite commissioned by the Government of Luxembourg. The satellite, created by Orbital STK and to be operated by SES, will support humanitarian and military operations for Luxembourg, among other communications functions. The rocket took off from Cape Canaveral on Wednesday, a day after its initial planned launch. The original window wasn't viable due to weather, but the rocket launched as planned at the opening of its backup date with favorable weather conditions today. This launch today didn't include a recovery attempt of the Falcon 9 first stage booster used during the launch. The booster used was a reflown rocket, however, having been used May last year during a mission for a different client.

Comments

The big show is on Feb 6

[Woldscum]

Falcon heavy is launching on Feb 6. That will be a show. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/s... Test fire https://twitter.com/SpaceX/sta...

No recovery, but they did soft land

[jfdavis668]

I guess they do this to obtain data, but they go through the landing procedure even if they don't plan on recovering. The first stage did its reentry burn, landing burn, deployed the landing legs and soft landed into the water. You can hear the call outs in the video.

Re:No recovery, but they did soft land

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like it was a really soft landing: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/958847818583584768

Re:No recovery, but they did soft land

[Rei]

Yeah, this was a pretty mundane launch until that happened. A rocket not designed for water landings, assigned for disposal at sea while testing a new landing approach, apparently survived a water landing intact and afloat. How? Beats me. I'd think that, with its propellant and pressurant spent, it'd be crushed when it fell over. Or that those engines would drag it deep enough into the water to crush the tanks at the base. And once its ruptured, the whole thing (up to the bulkheads) can flood

But, there it is.... guess it's hardier than I thought. Probably a higher residual pressure than I assumed.

Re:No recovery, but they did soft land

[Richard_at_work]

I'm actually convinced (not seriously) that Musk is recovering these "soft water landing" disposable boosters so he can have a private, secret stash of rockets somewhere, almost certainly called "Moonraker 1" and "Moonraker 2"...

Re:No recovery, but they did soft land

[Rei]

Falcon 9 is thin alumium, not heavy stainless steel. And it's not a question of being buoyant, it's a question of not ripping the fragile skin/tank in the situation where the propellant has been used up. You have a structure the height of a 25 story building, built of thin alumium, falling over (after being dragged a couple stories into the water by the heavy engines at the bottom).

The only reason that the rocket doesn't collapse just from launching forces alone is the internal pressure. That's why they have the CF helium tanks, to maintain that. But I would think that the pressurant would be gone by this point. Perhaps they keep it fully pressurised through landing. Even still, that's a major whallop we're talking about here.

Re:No recovery, but they did soft land

[Kjella]

How? Beats me.

Well we've seen them do smooth landings so I assume the simulation ended with them hovering right over the water. A 2009 quote said:

Weighing in at over 7,700 kg (17,000 lbs), the thrust assembly and nine Merlin engines represents over half the dry mass of the Falcon 9 first stage.

Basically you got a very heavy end which means it'd splash pretty much straight down in the direction it's built to withstand max-q, it wouldn't really tip over trying to keep its balance as some of the failed landings did. And the empty tanks obviously provide a lot of buoyancy as long as they stay intact, in fact either the LOX or RP-1 tank should suffice alone. The impressive part is the quasi-landing. That it can survive the drop into the ocean, eh... the heavy part probably took less of a beating than a diver jumping from the 10m board.

Me too :-)

[Bruce Perens]

If you who have "Feel the Heat" tickets: I'll be there. Happy to meet any Slashdotters who happen to be going too.

Re:Luxembourg? Military?

[Bruce Perens]

When they say "military" and "Luxembourg" in the same sentence, that always means "NATO". Some equipment purchased and operated directly by NATO, including a squad of aircraft, is on paper owned by Luxembourg. Also, look at the number of their all volunteer military staff of 350 and 100 civilian employees and their military budget of about $360 Million/year which is $1 Million per military staff person regardless of rank. Obviously most of this goes to NATO.

Re:Luxembourg? Military?

[nospam007]

"Why would Luxembourg require a satellite for military operations?"

Because it's part of Nato and this is one of its contributions.
They also plan to rent out its results.

We also own half a warship and half something I can't remember, together with Belgium.

It was quite a joke around here in Luxembourg.
We have an wee army of +- 600 soldiers, 3 companies.

Re:Luxembourg? Military?

[Gunstick]

Hi Bruce, greetings from Luxembourg.

As you can already extrapolate from the other inaccuracies in the Slashdot text, this is indeed not a satellite for Luxembourg, but a Luxembourg owned military communication satellite. The transponders are to be rented out to military organization for profit.
And of course this is mainly NATO as Luxembourg is a NATO member.
There have been some criticism about if this is a good idea, as it may be supporting drone operations and other less moral activities.