Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX Launched and Landed Another Used Falcon 9 Rocket, Marking Its Record-Tying 18th Launch of the Year (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the mission-accomplished dept.

SpaceX has successfully sent up a communications satellite for the country of Qatar, marking the aerospace company's 18th mission in 2018, which ties the company's record in 2017 for the most launches done in a year. Since the company has several more missions planned for this year, it's very likely that the company will set a new all-time high soon. The Verge reports: For this mission, SpaceX is employing another one of its used rockets, a Falcon 9 booster that launched the Telstar 19 VANTAGE satellite in July. After that mission, the rocket landed on one of SpaceX's autonomous drone ships in the Atlantic Ocean, and the company hopes to pull off the same feat following today's launch. If successful, this particular Falcon 9 booster could be capable of flying a third time in the near future.

The payload is the Es'hail-2 satellite, which is meant to provide communications services to the Middle East and North Africa. It's primarily meant to be used for government and commercial purposes, however, amateur radio operators can also use this satellite. Es'hail-2 has two transponders on board that can connect to amateur radios from South America to Asia. It's not the only satellite with this capability, but Es'hail-2 is going to a particularly high orbit 22,000 miles up. That will make it the first satellite at this altitude to link amateur radios from Brazil to India. SpaceX managed to successfully deploy the Es'hail-2 satellite into orbit "32 minutes after takeoff," The Verge reports in an update. "The company also landed its Falcon 9 rocket on one of its drone ships following liftoff, bringing its total number of successful booster landings to 31." You can watch the full launch here.

29 of 72 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    LEO

    Yeah, 22,000 miles is geosync, dummy.

  2. Re:Zach Patterson / ZIP = "better programmer" - no by aybiss · · Score: 1

    Nobody cares dude.

    --
    It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
  3. Reusable rockets will never work.. by thesupraman · · Score: 1

    So we need much MOAR yummy juicy goverment PORK deals, because private industry will never be able to supply a working space launch system.

    Dont worry you know its a good deal, because its cost+, so we only make a guaranteed profit as a %age of your cost, no matter how badly we run.
    Also dont worry about the cost blowouts, thats just what it takes to consume quality PORK!

    Signed: ULA.

    1. Re:Reusable rockets will never work.. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      "Demonstrated" is the right word. I suppose you're referring to the Space Shuttle.
      For starters, rocket reuse is not a goal in itself, it is a means by which launch costs can potentially be lowered. The Space Shuttle was a reusable launch system, but launches were pretty expensive (in terms of kg to orbit), and reusing the SRBs did very, very little to bring those costs down. In contrast, using refurbished Falcon 9 first stages turns out to be a real cost saver. The amazing part is not just the technology (especially landing those stages on land or barges, which is where the cost savings come in), but the economics as well. If SpaceX meet their upcoming development goals, they are going to be a game changer.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Reusable rockets will never work.. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Still bitter about losing your shirt shorting TSLA? eh? Get over it.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:Reusable rockets will never work.. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Hate to break it to you guys, but reusable rockets were demonstrated over 25 years ago. Yeah, I know, amazing stuff.

      A solid-fuel booster that splashes down in seawater so it takes months of replacing corroded parts to ready it for a new duty cycle is not "reusable" in any modern sense.

    4. Re:Reusable rockets will never work.. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hate to break it to you guys, but reusable rockets were demonstrated over 25 years ago. Yeah, I know, amazing stuff.

      Not really. We had a few things that hovered a few hundred feet over concrete, like DC-X and Rotary Rocket and a more recent NASA experimental lander. The only "reusable" rocket to make orbit was the Space Shuttle, and that was so reusable that refurbishment cost more than an expendable Falcon Heavy launch. In fact the cost per launch of the Space Shuttle was about 5 times what a reusable Falcon Heavy launch would cost for a civilian satellite and about 3 times what government launches cost (government wants a lot more qualification and paperwork).

      So, SpaceX Falcon 9 is the first practical reusable first stage, which is a big deal because the second stage only has 1 engine, vs. 9, and supposedly Dragon is somewhat reusable, although proof that it costs less to recycle than build anew is rather thin so far.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    5. Re:Reusable rockets will never work.. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Of course it is the first practical one, because it has no real value, and is not a very useful thing to do so companies didn't feel the need to pursue it. My point is it isn't an amazing accomplishment, because it was demonstrated 25 years ago. It is amazing how Musk has such a cult following. He announces a 1 mile tunnel and it makes the world news. Even though...it is a tunnel. He launches a satellite and people act like no one has ever launched a satellite before. He builds a crappy hyperloop (an idea that was rejected by sensible people over 100 years ago) and the techonuts drool over it.

    6. Re:Reusable rockets will never work.. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Not everything in this world revolves around money. You should learn that.

    7. Re:Reusable rockets will never work.. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Nope. Not the Shuttle. You Musk nuts are incredibly ignorant of even recent history. No one you think everything he announces is astounding. Plus you guys all turned into space accountants all of a sudden.

    8. Re: Reusable rockets will never work.. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Of course it is the first practical one, because it has no real value

      lol

      Even you can't be stupid/insane enough to believe this.

    9. Re:Reusable rockets will never work.. by AC-x · · Score: 1

      Reusable rockets will never work ... So we need much MOAR yummy juicy goverment PORK deals, because private industry will never be able to supply a working space launch system.

      FYI NASA was a big early supporter of SpaceX and since 2006 has pumped billions into it through development grants and contracts.

    10. Re:Reusable rockets will never work.. by AC-x · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The boosters aren't the main cost saving part - the theory with the Space Shuttle was you'd be able to land the Shuttle orbiter part and basically just strap it to a new tank and booster set. If that had worked launch costs would have been very low, but the orbiter parts weren't strong enough so the thing had to be stripped down and rebuilt for every launch.

    11. Re:Reusable rockets will never work.. by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      So, which demonstration are you referring to? The Shuttle was the only spacecraft to do this from orbit, anything else was experiments that didn't demonstrate a reentry from orbital speed.

      And yes, reuse IS a big deal.

      Companies didn't feel the need to start reusing rockets because the market wasn't there (chicken and egg problem), up to ~12 launches per year it's not cheaper to reuse stages. Arianespace and IIRC Boeing did financial studies on this ~30 years ago. At low launch numbers, you still need all the infrastructure to build rockets, but it's sitting still most of the time if you reuse.

      Musk found a way around that, by developing an expendable rocket that had a growth path to reusability, and by not caring about the financial aspect as much (going for way-out-there goals becomes a lot easier if you have a billion or two lying around).

      What impresses me is that Musk is making access to space a lot cheaper, and he's doing so at a very high speed. He's lit a fire under the rest of the launcher industry.

    12. Re:Reusable rockets will never work.. by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Buying or even investing in a service isn't pork. Cost plus contracts are pork -- every last one of them, since the cost plus concept practically ensures that the bid winner will vastly inflate their costs.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    13. Re:Reusable rockets will never work.. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      I never paid any attention to money. I never trade. I just do what I love doing, and what I love doing pays me well.

      Your cynicism is beyond the normal range, approaching bitterness due to seeing something/someone you hate succeed. Given TSLA is the largest short for several years running, it is very much possible you are just a TSLA short who got electrocuted.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    14. Re:Reusable rockets will never work.. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      The Space Shuttle was a reusable launch system, but launches were pretty expensive (in terms of kg to orbit), and reusing the SRBs did very, very little to bring those costs down. In contrast, using refurbished Falcon 9 first stages turns out to be a real cost saver. The amazing part is not just the technology (especially landing those stages on land or barges, which is where the cost savings come in), but the economics as well.

      NASA was deceptive at best when referring to the Space Shuttle as reusable and Feynman's report touched on this. Major systems like the SSMEs had to be completely refurbished after every launch because the original design goals of reusability and reliability were not met; they always returned with damage which normally would have been considered a failure but NASA redefined failure as a maintenance issue.

    15. Re:Reusable rockets will never work.. by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Hate to break it to you guys, but reusable rockets were demonstrated over 25 years ago. Yeah, I know, amazing stuff.

      A solid-fuel booster that splashes down in seawater so it takes months of replacing corroded parts to ready it for a new duty cycle is not "reusable" in any modern sense.

      Nor is one where the sections are so bend out of round that the press used to straighten them is jury rigged to use more force then the reliability requirements allowed.

  4. Re:Wow by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

    Space age means cheap launches and the means to get a lot of heavy stuff to orbit. And after decades of stagnation, SpaceX is finally making some progress on that front again.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  5. Re:Wow by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    Go do it yourself. And note that the Falcon Heavy demo is now past the orbit of Mars.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  6. We will soon... by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    How does one company launching and running 7000+ satellites grab you? In rockets that they can fly again and again basically just by refueling like a car?

    That sounds pretty space-age to me.

    I can see you harumph-ing all the way past multiple Mars landings and human colonies...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:We will soon... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      That's pretty amazing too! 7000 satellites! 8000 would be even more amazinger! What if you could launch 10,000 satellites? That would be truly impressive. And reusable rockets? Who knew that was even possible? We truly live in a golden age where we can launch 7000 satellites. Just what we need.

      Then you'll be happy to know that actual number is 11,943 satellites. This 7000+ was just an addition to what had already been approved.

    2. Re:We will soon... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      How does one company launching and running 7000+ satellites grab you? In rockets that they can fly again and again basically just by refueling like a car?

      That sounds pretty space-age to me.

      I very much agree. Especially since this will quadruple the total number of satellites in orbit and be over ten times the number of working satellites currently in orbit.

  7. Re:Wow by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    You are easily impressed by the cult of Musk. People have been launching satellites for many decades. The Voyager probe is out of the solar system and that was launched in 1977. Why people are impressed by launching commercial junk into space is beyond me.

  8. Re: Wow by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Funny

    What's this "we" stuff? I'd honestly be surprised if you could tie your shoes ...

  9. Re:Wow by Kokuyo · · Score: 2

    Frankly, the only raving cultist I can spot here is anti Musk. Seems to me he's more relevant to your life than you are insinuating he is to ours.

  10. Monday's launch... by Tomahawk · · Score: 2

    ... will be the first time a SpaceX booster is launched for the 3rd time. Until now, no booster has flown more than twice. Booster B1046 is the first block 5 booster.

    Ths booster was previously used on May 11 to launch the Bangabandhu-1 satellite, and again on August 7th to launch Telkom-4 (both launches from Florida). On Monday it will be launched from Vandenberg in California, launching 114 small satellites into sun-synchronous orbit.

    The booster will land on the drone ship (Just Read The Instructions) in the Pacific.

  11. Re:Wow by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

    forget it, it's 3,208 he's anti space, among other things

  12. Re:Engineers vs Politicians. by Agripa · · Score: 1

    On the one side we have all the states in history. Many wielding the power of life and death.

    On the other side, we have one programmer with money and his engineer friends.

    The result?

    Every country on the planet is being outperformed by a handful of engineers and techs.

    PS - that company is run by an engineer who happens to be a woman.

    Everything that programmer and engineer have accomplished can be undone by lawyers and politicians. Range safety is very important.