Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the another-one-for-the-record-books dept.

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.

7 of 38 comments (clear)

  1. The big show is on Feb 6 by Woldscum · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

  2. No recovery, but they did soft land by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:No recovery, but they did soft land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    2. Re:No recovery, but they did soft land by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Funny

      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"...

    3. Re:No recovery, but they did soft land by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  3. Me too :-) by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  4. Re:Luxembourg? Military? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Bruce Perens.