Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX Sends Dragon To ISS But Falcon 9 Rocket Misses Landing Pad (cnet.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the A-for-effort dept.

On Wednesday, SpaceX successfully sent a Dragon spacecraft to the International Space Station to deliver supplies, but unfortunately it wasn't able to recover the Falcon 9 rocket that launched with it. "The first stage of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle appeared to lose control as it approached Landing Zone 1 at Cape Canaveral," reports CNET. "The live feed from the rocket cut away on the SpaceX webcast, but video from people in the media area at the cape showed the Falcon 9 appearing to regain control before making an unplanned landing in the water rather than ashore at the landing area." From the report: Musk tweeted shortly afterward that cutting the live feed "was a mistake" and shared the full clip of the water landing from the rocket's perspective. The rocket took off from Kennedy Space Center in Florida at 1:16 p.m. local time, a little more than 48 hours after SpaceX sent another Falcon 9 to space from the West Coast on Monday. Dragon's flight to low-Earth orbit was supposed to happen Tuesday, but the mission was pushed back a day to replace some food being sent to the space station for experimental mice living there.

SpaceX had planned to land the first stage of the brand-new Block 5 Falcon 9 rocket at a landing zone ashore at Cape Canaveral, but as the rocket descended toward the cape, the live feed from the booster's onboard cameras appeared to show the craft going into some sort of uncontrolled spin. Musk tweeted that the problem was that a "grid fin hydraulic pump stalled, so Falcon landed just out to sea." Musk also tweeted that the pump that failed didn't have a backup because "landing is considered ground safety critical, but not mission critical. Given this event, we will likely add a backup pump & lines."

133 comments

  1. All things considered... by epiphani · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's nice that a failed landing is news.

    They haven't missed a landing for quite some time now.

    --
    .
    1. Re:All things considered... by Strider- · · Score: 5, Informative

      The more impressive thing is that it managed to splash down intact, under full control. Due to the stuck hydraulics for the grid fins, it was rolling at a fairly extreme rate. The rocket had already aimed at this spot in the water (it's designed this way) and was actually able to arrest the roll just prior to splash down. After splash down, it remained operational, despite falling onto its side, and successfully safe itself. Apparently it was still in communications and operational while bobbing away in the ocean.

      For the uninitiated, the landing profile has the initial trajectory set with the booster aimed for a region away from the landing pad, be it the one on the ground, or the barge. This is in case of exactly a situation such as this, if something goes wrong during the landing process and the booster loses control authority, it will impact somewhere safe. It's only during the final landing burn (aka the hoverslam) that the booster side slips and changes its trajectory to land in the landing zone.

      So yeah, the system worked exactly as designed, and is fail safe. All in all a successful failure.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    2. Re:All things considered... by dpidcoe · · Score: 2

      To be fair, even the failed landings back when they'd had zero successes were news as well.

    3. Re:All things considered... by starless · · Score: 1

      So yeah, the system worked exactly as designed, and is fail safe. All in all a successful failure.

      Well, not exactly as designed since it ended up in the ocean...

    4. Re:All things considered... by Z80a · · Score: 4, Funny

      Come on, they should be able to get it by now. It's not like this is rocket science.

    5. Re:All things considered... by markass530 · · Score: 1

      do you know why they throttle down to land instead of just using parachutes or literally anything else? seems like such a waste

    6. Re:All things considered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parachutes are heavy and only work during landing.

    7. Re:All things considered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      parachutes were tried originally and had made failings. More importantly, nobody could come up with a good design for it. So, they finally decided that they wanted to make systems that land on earth, as well as mars and the moon.

    8. Re:All things considered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, the fuel is heavier than the parachutes. However, with parachutes, even if they got them working, the only place they could land was in earth's oceans. Not on land. Not the moon. Not on Mars.

      Windbourne (moderating).

    9. Re: All things considered... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      do you know why they throttle down to land instead of just using parachutes

      Because parachutes large enough to do the job would be ridiculously heavy and would add systems which aren't needed for anything else. They also can't really be steered very well, let alone well enough to land on a barge in the middle of the ocean. SpaceX is trying that now with the payload fairings, and it's not going all that well; It seems to be pretty hard to catch the damn things. They have at least managed a soft splashdown in the ocean now, which is OK since the material they're made of doesn't rust in seawater ... but you wouldn't want to do that with a rocket.

      You also can't use parachutes to reverse trajectory, so you would need the ability to flip and burn back towards land anyway. If you already have systems to do that, why not use a bit more fuel and land the damn thing?

      From what I remember ... early on, spacex actually was working on recovery systems using parachutes, but eventually concluded that propulsive landings would be much better.

      or literally anything else?

      Like literally what? A giant trampoline?

      seems like such a waste

      I don't see why. What everyone was doing previously - expending the rockets on every launch - was an incredible waste. This system is far less wasteful than anything we've done before. I'm curious as to why exactly you believe that your proposed alternative would be less wasteful.

    10. Re:All things considered... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Designing for safety means taking possible mechanical failures into account. Either you provide redundant backups, or have the system fail gracefully (as in this case), or both. So the system did work as designed.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    11. Re:All things considered... by sphealey · · Score: 1

      - - - - - - However, with parachutes, even if they got them working, the only place they could land was in earth's oceans. Not on land. Not the moon. Not on Mars. - - - - -

      Soyuez lands on dry Earth with parachutes. Multiple Mars landers have landed on Mars with parachutes.

      Landing on the Moon does require a reaction engine. Or the Universe's largest pogo stick.

    12. Re:All things considered... by Hairy1 · · Score: 1

      Because the landing wasn't considered mission critical, only landing critical, they don't have redundant systems for the gridfins. The amazing thing here is that it managed a soft landing at all rather than a uncontrolled impact with terrain. Clearly something clever implemented here to stabilize in the event of the failure of a gridfin. In regard to Astronauts - the BFROWICTW will be rated for people, meaning redundancy and abort mechanisms. But regardless of this we are still talking controlled bombs going into one of the least friendly environments we know. Astronauts risk their lives on every launch.

    13. Re: All things considered... by Zorpheus · · Score: 2

      As I understood an issue was also that a parachute would pull on the top, while during start the rocket is pushed at the bottom. It would puta different load on the whole rocket, causing deformations each time and require a more stable construction. Rocket assisted landing creates the load on the rocket in the same way as during launch.

    14. Re: All things considered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a parachute would pull on the top, while during start the rocket is pushed at the bottom

      Well, rockets aside, who doesn't like to be pulled at the top and pushed at the bottom? ;-)

    15. Re:All things considered... by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      Where is its safe initial aim point when doing a return to launch site (RLS) on the west coast? Is the landing site close enough to the coast for this also to be at sea?

      The west coast launch a couple of days ago could have done RLS, but was not allowed to because another rocket was readying for launch on another pad, and they didn't want an unexpected booster falling on them. I expect (justified or not) this event will reinforce that worry.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    16. Re: All things considered... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Heh. Failing gracefully is "working as designed". I like it. When Windows throws a Blue Screen of Death, it's working exactly as designed!

      Ok, bad example ... but imagine trying to get a pilot to take a plane with that argument.

      "I tried to start #2 engine and it caught fire!"

      "That's OK, you still have 3 more engines, and a fire suppression system. Plane is working as designed. Enjoy your flight!"

    17. Re:All things considered... by ColaMan · · Score: 2

      I expect (justified or not) this event will reinforce that worry.

      I don't know about reinforce, as such. There will already be an engineering estimate about failures in landing based on probability of equipment failure. This actual failure will be another data point to help refine that estimate further.

      If they can recover the booster they can take it apart and get a good idea of what failed exactly and engineer a solution. I've got to wonder how many boosters have been launched over the decades that have had a near-catastrophic issue in flight (eg a crack slowly expanding in the 3 minutes of flight), then fallen into the ocean with that issue never detected.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    18. Re: All things considered... by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      Clearly something clever implemented here to stabilize in the event of the failure of a gridfin

      From watching the footage, it looked like at least one of the fins was still functional enough to counteract the spin somewhat, and the thrusters were firing quite a bit as well. Those both seemed to slow the spin but not stop it. The main engine was gimballing like crazy too but I'm not sure that that would have had much effect.

      What finally stopped the spin almost completely seemed to be the extension of the landing legs. Which makes sense - same principle as a figure skater stretching out or tucking in his arms to increase or decrease rotational speed. Not sure that part of it was "clever" ... it was probably completely unintended ... but it was pretty damn cool.

      Either way I'm amazed. I watched both the onboard video and footage from land ... this is the most exhilarating thing I've seen since the Falcon Heavy double landing.

    19. Re: All things considered... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      They already know what failed, just not sure why yet. And they're already talking about adding a second pump and associated plumbing to avoid the same problem on future missions.

    20. Re: All things considered... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      When Windows gives you a blue screen instead of erasing your hard drive, it's working as designed.

      When your plane engine catches fire but the wing which is full of fuel doesn't explode, it's working as designed.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    21. Re: All things considered... by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      The mars rover which used a parachute weighed 18,000 lbs and the parachute had a 21 meter diameter. Even with those numbers the parachute alone was not enough; it only slowed the descent while the final landing was done with rockets.

      The second stage of the proposed BFR will have a maximum weight of just under 3,000,000 lbs. Wanna do the math on how big your parachute needs to be?

    22. Re:All things considered... by quenda · · Score: 2

      was actually able to arrest the roll just prior to splash down.

      That should not be surprising. When the fin stuck, the rocket was travelling at considerable airspeed. But "just prior to splashdown", with the hoverslam, the velocity was approaching zero, and so also was the spin force from the fin.

    23. Re:All things considered... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      And salt water is not very good for rocket engines you plan on using again.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    24. Re: All things considered... by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      No, it's not. I've worked on aircraft, and I've experienced emergencies both on the ground and in the air. By no stretch of the imagination is an airplane with a burning engine "working as designed". The safety systems may work as designed to put out the fire, and the redundant systems may be working as designed to prevent catastrophic failure, but the plane as a whole is certainly not working as designed. Even a fucking child looking at it would be able to say "nope, that's not supposed to happen", so I'm flabbergasted why an adult would fail to understand this.

      Even an airplane with a busted microwave oven isn't working as designed, and pilots get really pissy when they can't nuke their coffee. An engine is a weeee bit more important than that.

    25. Re: All things considered... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      A blue screen isn't a graceful failure. Saving all your work before rebooting would be.

      When you're engineering a complex system you know that failures are inevitable, so you design for them. An engine on a plane catching fire (on very rare occasions or in exceptional circumstances) and not hurting anyone is definitely working as designed. Ask a pilot.

    26. Re:All things considered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, it STOPPED the spin. That's the impressive part. If it did nothing it would continue to spin at about the same rate.

    27. Re:All things considered... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Launches on the US west coast are from Vandenberg launch complex. It's right on the ocean. No launch can be over populated areas (until it's really high) so launches from Vandenberg have to be pretty close to polar orbits, launching to the south.

      Map:

      https://www.google.ca/maps/pla...

    28. Re:All things considered... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It would be a seriously awesome trick to land a rocket on a barge or landing pad under a parachute. You have to pull the chute fairly far up so it has time to slow you down, but that makes you subject to wind and other uncertainties. You could use a steerable, airfoil-style parachute, but you can't steer them unless they're moving forward, so now you've got your rocket coming down to land with forward velocity. Theoretically you could have it pull off a perfect flare like a paraglider doing a no-step landing but... that would be impressive.

    29. Re:All things considered... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      A great example of the engineering. It didn't come down hard either so they might be able to recover and reuse the booster with the added cost of pulling it out of the water.

    30. Re: All things considered... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      An engine on a plane catching fire (on very rare occasions or in exceptional circumstances) and not hurting anyone is definitely working as designed. Ask a pilot.

      I have one sitting right beside me. Showed him your comment. He laughed.

    31. Re: All things considered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just glad you don't engineer things.

    32. Re: All things considered... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      By no stretch of the imagination is an airplane with a burning engine "working as designed". The safety systems may work as designed to put out the fire, and the redundant systems may be working as designed to prevent catastrophic failure, but the plane as a whole is certainly not working as designed.

      We're really getting down to semantics here because the system as in "the set of all contingencies and modes of operation" can be working as designed because the failure modes are part of that plan. Somebody obviously considered "what if an engine catches fire" and made that part of the design and if you have an actual fire it either works according to that plan or it doesn't.

      The grid fin failed so that's obviously not "working as designed", duh. But there was a design for what should happen in the event of loss of control and it worked as intended. There's really no ambiguity here unless you look for absurd possibilities like that somebody intended for the grid fin to get stuck or that nobody designed for this contingency and the way it played out was just pure luck.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    33. Re:All things considered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This also lends credence to the "bathtub curve" theory of failure modes. The 3-rd flight booster the other day was 100% successful, while this 1st flight booster had an infant mortality issue.

      Mechanical systems start out less reliable than they get after some period of successful operation, before eventually becoming less reliable again later in their life due to various old age failures.

    34. Re:All things considered... by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Soyuz lands on dry earth by using a combination of parachutes and rockets. A series of small solid rocket motors do a "braking burn", igniting one second before landing. And even then, a Soyuz landing is often compared to a road-speed car crash.

      AFAIK no Mars lander used solely parachutes. They all used retrorockets (Viking, Curiosity), or airbags (Mars Express), or both (Pathfinder, Opportunity/Spirit). While Mars has less gravity than Earth, it has even less air, so parachutes are mainly used to get subsonic.

      Further, note that even an empty Falcon 9 booster (~30 tons) weighs substantially more than a Soyuz descent stage (2-3 tons).

      Finally... SpaceX *tried* parachutes first. The first two Falcon 9 launches, back in 2010, had parachutes. It didn't work. Apparently they didn't even survive atmospheric reentry, they were disintegrating before parachutes could be deployed. Fixing that would require retropropulsion for a pre-reentry slowdown burn... and if you've figured that out, and added all the new capabilities required (with all the mass that entails), it makes sense to use that for final landing as well, instead of a separate system. So, three years later, they started those preliminary soft-landing-in-water tests. Took them a year to start getting those to work, then another year to get actual landings to work. And now, it only makes the news when one *doesn't* work. Seems like they made the right call.

    35. Re: All things considered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Preach!

    36. Re:All things considered... by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Not just pulling it out of the water, but more importantly cleaning out all the salt water and replacing the parts that got damaged by it. Salt water is very bad for rocket components.

    37. Re:All things considered... by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Another interesting bit was the maneuvers it was doing during the last seconds, tilting heavily before righting itself again. Looks like it was canceling a significant amount of horizontal velocity. Did it intentionally try to get as close to land as possible and cancel the horizontal speed at the last possible moment? Or was it just trying to land wherever it ended up? Certainly impressive how the control systems didn't give up and made the best of a bad situation. And especially with the rocket still spinning, being able to get the right tilt angle is amazing.

    38. Re:All things considered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a rare thing to have a mostly intact rocket to examine after a rocket failure, rather than a field of burnt rocket crumbs.

    39. Re: All things considered... by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      No it would be more like a pSeries box detecting a fault in a CPU core and shutting just that core down. It then takes you a couple of days to actually realize what is going on because you are not monitoring for core failures on your CPU's and the only outwardly visible sign of a problem is the overnight backups on TSM are taking longer (it was a TSM server) than normal which they occasionally did anyway due to some researcher dumping several TB of data onto the file server, and this was like a decade ago so that was a fair amount of data.

    40. Re: All things considered... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      We're really getting down to semantics here because the system as in "the set of all contingencies and modes of operation" can be working as designed because the failure modes are part of that plan.

      How is that relevant? Your TV has a designed failure mode too; when its stops working you take it a shop and they swap whatever component failed. Does that mean a TV which isn't displaying a picture is "working as designed"?

      Or take a car. If your brakes go out, you have an emergency brake. If the emergency brake fails you can downshift. If you don't have enough space to stop with downshifting, the vehicle is designed to crumple on impact. It also has seatbelts and airbags to protect you from more injury. But while you're trying to climb out of the mangled wreck which used to be your car, I very much doubt you would say that it was "working as designed". Nor would you be congratulating the manufacturer on planning for all of these contingencies. On the contrary, I suspect you'd be looking forward to suing either the manufacturer or whatever clown last worked on your brake system.

    41. Re:All things considered... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Funny story, two of my friends from uni now work in different industries. One is literally a brain surgeon, the other is literally a rocket scientist (guidance systems). The rocket scientist always says "It's not brains surgery"
      The brain surgeon always says "It's not rocket science"

      I make it a point to only ask them about problems at their work when they are both standing next to each other. Hillarity ensues.

    42. Re: All things considered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're really getting down to semantics here because the system as in "the set of all contingencies and modes of operation" can be working as designed because the failure modes are part of that plan.

      How is that relevant?

      Are you retarded? This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

      The landing process of the fucking rocket has a safety feature in the event of a failure to control the rocket during descent: Don't aim for the landing zone until close to the end of the landing process.

      You would have seen the same thing happen when the Falcon Heavy centre core "landed" next to the drone ship. That's what happened here, it was aiming at the water near the landing zone, and the engines did their part to gimbal and "land" on the water. That's another safety feature: launching from a coast, flying over ocean, away from populated areas.

      I'm just glad you don't engineer things.

      I hope this is true.

    43. Re: All things considered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you like to argue just to argue.

    44. Re:All things considered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny story, two of my friends from uni now work in different industries. One is literally a brain surgeon, the other is literally a rocket scientist (guidance systems). The rocket scientist always says "It's not brains surgery" The brain surgeon always says "It's not rocket science"

      I make it a point to only ask them about problems at their work when they are both standing next to each other. Hillarity ensues.

      The three of you should walk into a bar and let us know how that joke plays out.

    45. Re: All things considered... by r1348 · · Score: 1

      "not monitoring for core failures on your CPU"

      And this is what went wrong.

    46. Re: All things considered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God you're an insufferable cunt. You shouldn't even be allowed near a keyboard and you'd be doing the world a favor if you killed yourself.

    47. Re: All things considered... by froggyjojodaddy · · Score: 2

      Engineer here. I feel like this argument is going nowhere but I'll try nonetheless to give a different perspective

      Your cars brakes fail and you crash into a tree. If the following happened, the system is working as designed:

      - Assuming total failure of the hydraulic braking system, you have a handbrake. In an emergency, you can use that to reduce your speed, but you lose some directional stability
      - You can downshift gears to reduce speed. Directional stability remains unaffected but the rate of speed isn't reduced significantly
      - You can throw the car into reverse or park. Some cars might not even let you do this, older ones will. You'll likely destroy major mechanical components but you'll also slow down pretty quick
      - You crash into the tree. Your airbag, crumple zones etc. work in tandem to protect you. Car is likely a write off but hopefully your speed wasn't so high that you can still survive

      In this context, individual components may have failed, but the system as a whole is working as designed. It's not even semantics, it's being able to step back and look at the system as a whole rather than focusing on individual components. A car is a system that consists of hundreds of components working together. If the fin component failed but other systems kicked in to account for that failure, then the system is indeed working as designed. Others have mentioned this numerous times, it just makes sense..

      Brake engineers don't design their system in a vacuum, they do what they can to ensure brakes don't fail but they'll work with their drivetrain, safety, structural etc. peers to account for the possibility that their system may have a catastrophic failure and then need the other engineers to account for it.

    48. Re:All things considered... by Megane · · Score: 2

      Something that the other replies to your post haven't mentioned is that parachutes are damned hard to control, while a propulsive landing has very good control authority. You can't land the rocket upright when it's floating around like a feather. Have you ever watched a feather drop? It's only good at all for a water landing, and those are right out because sea water is bad for a re-usable spacecraft.

      * Reserve fuel is cheap (compared to the cost of the rocket it's spare change), and it needs to have some anyhow
      * The empty rocket is very light (even one engine can't throttle down enough to maintain a hover)
      * Parachutes are extra weight that isn't needed except when landing. And they're a lot of extra weight. Also, there has been a limit to man-rated space landing parachutes in that only one company has been making all of them since the 1960s. Crew Dragon will be the first to use a new manufacturer, and there is some concern about their process simply because they're new at it.
      * It's not a man rated landing, so the objective isn't to keep humans alive, it's to keep the rocket from breaking
      * And as someone else mentioned, the parachute would put different loads on the frame than during launch, so the whole can would have to be stronger and thus heavier. I'm sure you've crushed a few aluminum soda cans. It's the same thing scaled up, except it's more like a 50cm+ tall soda can, with rocks in the bottom.

      I think the thing that bugs me most is that years after they quickly decided that parachutes were a really dumb idea, we still have naive people suggesting the "obvious" idea that they should use parachutes, as though nobody else was smart enough to consider it. It's not like you can't google for "why doesn't spacex use parachutes" and get a bunch of good answers.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    49. Re: All things considered... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      In this context, individual components may have failed, but the system as a whole is working as designed. It's not even semantics, it's being able to step back and look at the system as a whole rather than focusing on individual components.

      And this seems to be the issue right here. That's just wrong. An aircraft with a broken engine is considered unservicable and unfit for flight. Nobody in their right mind would dream of sending it up. You're confusing the fact that the system can compensate for some failed components with the idea that it's operating as designed. It is not. As soon as a single component fails, the system is operating in a degraded state. If it were "operating as designed" there would be no need to fix anything.

      You can certainly say that the redundant parts of the system are operating as designed, but the system as a whole is not. "Operating as designed" implies that the system is functioning 100% within specifications, not that it's kinda sorta limping along in a way that the designers planned as a fallback mode.

    50. Re: All things considered... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. I've worked on aircraft, and I've experienced emergencies both on the ground and in the air. By no stretch of the imagination is an airplane with a burning engine "working as designed".

      Clearly the engine is not working as designed, but that's produced by a different contractor than the airplane itself. If the engine catches on fire and the plane doesn't explode due to the fire spreading to a fuel tank, then the plane is working as designed. Unless you think that safety features happen by accident, you have to acknowledge that they are design features. Keeping the fire from spreading is working as designed.

      Even a fucking child looking at it would be able to say "nope, that's not supposed to happen", so I'm flabbergasted why an adult would fail to understand this.

      An adult can understand that the world is a lumpy place where bad things happen to good products and bad products alike. An engine can be set on fire because it ingests something offensive, like a large bird. The engine may not have been designed to destructively deflagrate, but it wasn't designed to run on a mixture of jet fuel and waterfowl either.

      Things are "designed" in multiple different ways. Failure modes are designed in. That means that something can be working as designed even while it's failing to work as designed in other ways. This has been your English lesson for the day. Spend more time reading, it's good for your brain.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    51. Re: All things considered... by dasunt · · Score: 1

      Or take a car. If your brakes go out, you have an emergency brake.

      Since we are nit-picking, in a conventional auto, master cylinders are split, with one side braking the front left/right rear wheel, and the other braking the front right/left rear wheel.

      So if there's a problem "downwind" of the master cylinder, there's a good chance the car can still be stopped by the main brake system. If all brakes shared the same hydraulic line, then even one leak would drop the pressure, causing the brakes to fail.

      Admittedly there can still be a problem with the master cylinder itself, or the linkage to the brake pedal. But the system is designed for some degree of fault tolerance.

    52. Re:All things considered... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And salt water is not very good for rocket engines you plan on using again.

      SpaceX uses Inconel (among other alloys) in their rocket engines, and Inconel in particular is highly resistant to seawater. I'd assume that the engineers at SpaceX were intelligent enough to know that corrosion and pitting are potential problems with metals exposed to seawater, and unlike you to be knowledgeable enough to know that they can get alloys which effectively eliminate this problem given the brief periods of exposure involved.

      Seriously, you don't even know that we have alloys that resist damage from seawater? What are you doing here?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    53. Re: All things considered... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You're arguing that as long as some parts of a system are working, the whole thing is working as designed. That's idiotic. Sure, your brakes failed, your ebrake failed, your gearbox fell out, your airbags failed to deploy, and your seatbelt fell apart ..... but hey, the radio still works! System is working as designed!

    54. Re: All things considered... by Megane · · Score: 1

      While the "figure skater" argument is interesting, I had noticed that the spin was almost gone before the legs came out. I think I figured out another reason the spin slowed down.

      The stuck grid fin was causing the spin because it was making air go sideways. But once the vertical speed decreased, that effect went away, making it easier to stop the spin. Then you can see the flame of the center engine gimbal around. There may also have been some cold thrust off-camera. Not that the legs didn't help slow it down, but the spin is almost gone just before the legs open up.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    55. Re: All things considered... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You're arguing that as long as some parts of a system are working, the whole thing is working as designed.

      Nope. Not at all. I'm arguing that a plane is designed to fly, and designed to protect the occupants when something goes wrong. Same for any vehicle, hopefully. I know this is complicated, but the world is a complicated place, and you should try to adapt to that fact.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    56. Re: All things considered... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      But once the vertical speed decreased, that effect went away, making it easier to stop the spin. Then you can see the flame of the center engine gimbal around.

      Yeah I noticed that too. Obviously as velocity decreased the amount of force needed to counteract the spin lessened, but there was still plenty of roll left right up until the legs deployed. I did notice the engine gimballing around like crazy too but, AFAIK, there's no way to control roll with just a single centrally mounted engine. You can control pitch and yaw but not roll.

    57. Re: All things considered... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Listen to the engineers. We're the ones that actually create the designs you're critiquing. (Okay, so I'm not technically an engineer, but I was a stone's throw from getting my certification when life took me in a different direction)

      One question: Was the airplane designed to be able to continue to fly after an engine failure?

      Yes? Then operating with an engine failure is operating according to design. It's a part of the design that everyone hopes will never be needed, but it IS part of the design.

      A very big part of engineering is recognizing that entropy always wins, and something WILL inevitably fail, possibly at the worst possible moment. And then designing the system to be as sure that doesn't automatically mean that a lot of people die.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    58. Re:All things considered... by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      was actually able to arrest the roll just prior to splash down.

      That should not be surprising. When the fin stuck, the rocket was travelling at considerable airspeed. But "just prior to splashdown", with the hoverslam, the velocity was approaching zero, and so also was the spin force from the fin.

      Yup, as the rocket slows down, the aerodynamic forces on the fins diminish, and the reaction control system (small rockets) can take over.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    59. Re: All things considered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The world is complicated so I can make shit up"

      Cute.

    60. Re: All things considered... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why you think that being an engineer makes you an expert on the English language, but maybe we can take a different approach to clear this up: give me an example of when an aircraft is NOT operating as designed.

    61. Re: All things considered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      things inevitably fail, the design is to minimize the bad outcome from that failure.

      no complex system has ever been used with regularity that has not at some point , failed.

    62. Re: All things considered... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about the English language - we're talking about engineering design.

      When is an airplane not operating as designed? When a whole lot of people die in a crash caused by equipment failure.

      If you design an airplane only to fly when everything is working properly, then the first major component failure will kill everyone on board. If you want it to continue to stay in the air and have some measure of control so that it can hopefully land without killing too many people, then you have to design it to be able to do so. You think a plane can fly with only one engine because they got lucky? You think the backup avionics systems just appeared by magic? Not a chance - a whole lot of design work went into making sure people could survive the inevitable failures.

      Nobody *intends* for a plane to land with only one engine (outside of safety testing) - but they do *design* it to do so, because they know that sooner or later an engine *will* die in flight, there's no way to avoid that. And designing it to keep flying anyway is the only way that anyone will survive the experience.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    63. Re: All things considered... by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      If all of those things failed, and you're still alive to evaluate if the radio is still working, I'd say the system operated as intended. In the aircraft example, engine fails but aircraft is able to return safely, the system worked as designed because it was designed to be able to "limp home" without killing everybody on board. In this case, the rocket system was designed to fail in a way that didn't imperil the landing site or nearby people. Seems to have worked as designed.

      You can design something to meet multiple requirements. Requirement 1: Rocket should be able to return to earth and land. Requirement 2: If unplanned events occur, rocket should crash into the ocean instead of the launch pad. The design took into account a known likely failure mode and acted according to design.

      Obviously you wouldn't knowingly start driving a car with bad brakes, or take off in a jet with one less engine than intended, because that would be using them against their intended design. But I also think you are smart enough to comprehend all of that, and are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

    64. Re:All things considered... by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      I'd be surprised if any significant component of this rocket flies again. Just my 2c, but with unknown impact damage from falling over, being immersed in salt water (even "briefly") all of the systems are too compromised to risk flying again. My guess, it'll be evaluated for failure mode, used for testing, and scrapped.

    65. Re: All things considered... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about the English language - we're talking about engineering design.

      No, at this point you are definitely arguing about English. I'm well aware of how aircraft are designed, and how they function. I've acknowledged from the very beginning that failsafes and emergency equipment are part of the design. You just don't seem to understand the words we are using.

      When is an airplane not operating as designed? When a whole lot of people die in a crash caused by equipment failure.

      So are you saying that your only metric is how many people die? If two identical planes suffer the same engine-loss event but one aircraft is at the right altitude to make it survivable while the other one is not ... in your world, one of those aircraft functioned perfectly to design, while the other did not?

      Do you not see the absurdity of that position?

      If you want to try again, go ahead ... but I suspect you're going to have a lot of trouble drawing any real distinction.

    66. Re: All things considered... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You can design something to meet multiple requirements. Requirement 1: Rocket should be able to return to earth and land. Requirement 2: If unplanned events occur, rocket should crash into the ocean instead of the launch pad.

      And you would say that a system which only meets some requirements due to mechanical failure is a system which worked as designed?

      Cute. You must work in the Chinese automotive industry.

    67. Re:All things considered... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      That would depend on how long it sat in the water of course. But yes, the will be extra cleaning/inspection for landing in water. The point is it didn't rapidly disassemble itself.

    68. Re: All things considered... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I think you're confusing "functioning nominally" - i.e. everything is working as intended, with "functioning as designed", which also includes all the myriad ways that things can fail that the engineers have anticipated and made allowances for.

      > If two identical planes suffer the same engine-loss event but one aircraft is at the right altitude to make it survivable while the other one is not ... in your world, one of those aircraft functioned perfectly to design, while the other did not?

      Well, you seemed to want a simple answer, so I gave you one. But yes, more or less. Design is always context sensitive - the planes were not designed to deal with an engine failure at low altitude, and so when such a failure occurs, it's now operating outside the designed functionality, with fiery death being the probable result. There's a reason takeoff and landing are the most dangerous parts of a flight, and part of it is that low altitude failure tolerance mostly comes at a much higher cost(by price, weight, efficiency...) and is thus intentionally left out in favor of operating profits.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    69. Re: All things considered... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      There's a reason takeoff and landing are the most dangerous parts of a flight, and part of it is that low altitude failure tolerance mostly comes at a much higher cost(by price, weight, efficiency...) and is thus intentionally left out in favor of operating profits.

      So, in other words, the intentional failure mode at low altitudes is for the plane to crash and kill everyone? I.e. that's the way it's designed? And when it fails and kills everyone, it was operating as designed?

    70. Re:All things considered... by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1

      was actually able to arrest the roll just prior to splash down.

      That should not be surprising.

      I was extremely surprised at this, actually. I'll be dammed if I can figure out how a single engine on a gimbal induces roll on the axis in line with the centerline of the engine.

    71. Re: All things considered... by Pascoea · · Score: 2

      And you would say that a system which only meets some requirements due to mechanical failure is a system which worked as designed?

      That depends on the requirements and the end result. Specifically in the case of the Block 5 Falcons, yes, the system so far has demonstrated it works as designed.

      No, the rocket didn't work as INTENDED this time, I will give you that, 100%. If it worked as intended it wouldn't be bobbing in the ocean. However, they have proven that their design works, because they have landed their rocket on a pad before. They've met requirement 1. It was also designed to land in the ocean if it isn't safe to land on the landing pad. So yes, the god damn thing did what it was designed to do: fail safely. Requirement 2 met.

      Again; You're intelligent, I've read quite a few of your comments, you are capable of making good arguments. I also get that you are just here to argue, so with that, I say good day.

    72. Re: All things considered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the alloys they are worried about you cuck.

    73. Re: All things considered... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Yes. Exactly.

      Or more precisely, they decided that a failure at low altitude was outside the design scope, and so if it happens, the aircraft by definition cannot function as designed, because it was not designed function in that scenario. They didn't design it to kill everyone - if they did, then it would be functioning as designed. They just ignored the problem, knowing that was the likely outcome.

      That's standard behavior in engineering - everything is a compromise, and perfect safety is impossible. So you mediate the risks you can, and ignore the ones that are too expensive or unlikely to deal with.

      They could have designed it to be able to recover from an engine failure at low altitude. The people calling the shots decided that being able to do so wasn't worth the assorted costs it would impose, and so they didn't.

      The same cost-benefit reasoning goes into every car, building, bridge, elevator, etc. you've ever seen. Some problems they're designed to deal with - hopefully all the most likely ones. The rest? If you ever find yourself in one of those situations pray hard and hope for the best.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    74. Re: All things considered... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      However, they have proven that their design works, because they have landed their rocket on a pad before.

      The fact that the design works has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not this particular rocket worked as designed. Just like the fact that their emergency procedures worked has nothing to do with whether or not the rocket worked as designed. The rocket did NOT work as designed. That's why they had to land it in the water. If it had worked as designed it would have landed on the pad, and I wouldn't have ended up wasting thousands of words arguing with people who don't seem to understand that systems aren't designed with the goal of failing.

    75. Re: All things considered... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Yes. Exactly.

      Or more precisely, they decided that a failure at low altitude was outside the design scope, and so if it happens, the aircraft by definition cannot function as designed, because it was not designed function in that scenario. They didn't design it to kill everyone - if they did, then it would be functioning as designed. They just ignored the problem, knowing that was the likely outcome.

      You say "yes exactly" and then go on to say (simplifying) "well actually no". Which is it?

      Take another example - the planes which slammed into the WTC on 9/11. Were they functioning as intended?

      My persoective: mechanically they seemed perfectly fine, so I would say yes.

      Your perspective: Well they killed a fuckload of people, so you would say no. Except the expected failure mode of slamming into a building is that everyone dies, so you would say yes. Except nobody actually designed them to do that, they just kinda ignored the possibility, so you would say ... no?

      Can you try to make up your own mind before trying to change mine?

    76. Re:All things considered... by markass530 · · Score: 1

      I read that first, and those aren't good answers and don't address the downside to using fuel

    77. Re: All things considered... by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      I believe I understand where the disconnect is (maybe). The difference between "did what it was designed to do" and "behaved as designed". The rocket did not meet the intent of its design, landing on the landing pad. But given the failure, it did behave as designed, failing in as safe a manner as possible. Is that a reasonable statement?

    78. Re:All things considered... by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1

      It's also worth noting that SpaceX is trying to land something with Parachutes, the fairings.

      They have a crazy fast boat with a massive net that is supposed to slip under the fairings on the way down and still miss every time.

    79. Re: All things considered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop being a dick.

    80. Re:All things considered... by quenda · · Score: 1

      I'll be dammed if I can figure out how a single engine on a gimbal induces roll on the axis in line with the centerline of the engine.

      Don't take media reports too literally. It would be the cold-gas thrusters controlling the spin.

    81. Re: All things considered... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I did tell you my "killing a lot of people" was a simple answer (and thus likely false in all but the most straightforward scenarios - I figured that was implied)

      I apologize if I made the distinction too subtle. Let me try again, perhaps I can phrase it better:

      In both your examples, the planes functioned as designed, right up until they were subjected to a situation they were never designed to deal with. Whether that's losing an engine at low altitude, or suddenly colliding with a building - the moment that happens, "functioning as designed" becomes an undefined concept. Which logically means that literally *anything* can happen while still "functioning as designed", but more practically just means "we don't care", or "no, because it's outside the scope of the design, so the question is invalid"

      Hmm... on second thought there's probably a good bit of design on how a plane comes apart in a collision, so the crashing plane was quite possibly operating as designed even after impact.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    82. Re:All things considered... by markass530 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure I Didn't suggest a fucking thing

    83. Re:All things considered... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yes. The fairings use the airfoil chute approach and apparently can steer themselves. But the fairings are a lot smaller, lighter, and more aerodynamic than the boosters. I'm a bit surprised SpaceX can't get them to hit the net. Paraglider spot landings take a bit of practice, but they're not that hard. Maybe next time the US navy decommissions a carrier SpaceX should pick it up.

    84. Re: All things considered... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Sure, that's a lot more reasonable.

  2. That must set a record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Between the payload cost and delayed mission cost, that has to be the most expensive mouse food in history.

  3. Just like commercial passenger planes... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    the Falcon 9 appearing to regain control before making an unplanned landing in the water

    Just like with passenger airplanes, a "water landing" is known as a crash.

    1. Re:Just like commercial passenger planes... by DaHat · · Score: 2

      Just like with passenger airplanes, a "water landing" is known as a crash.

      I'm pretty sure the passengers & crew of US Airways Flight 1549 would disagree.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    2. Re:Just like commercial passenger planes... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      From your link: " pilots Chesley Sullenberger and Jeffrey Skiles glided the plane to a ditching in the Hudson River"

      The definition of "ditching" from the Wikipedia entry for water landing: The phrase "water landing" is also used as a euphemism for crash-landing into water an aircraft not designed for the purpose, an event formally termed ditching

    3. Re:Just like commercial passenger planes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You aren't addressing the facts that A: it's unmanned, B: it's a husk of a completed mission being recollected for recycling C: it was malfunctioning and D: this is the planned programmed behavior in a fault event.

      So no, it's really nothing like a crash or "ditching" as it landed exactly where it was supposed to given that it had lost the stabilizer to maintain vertical landing orientation, which is entirely optional and bonus.

    4. Re: Just like commercial passenger planes... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      It absolutely is a crash. It's just a more or less planned crash. When we crash cars into walls for testing purposes we don't call it "high speed parking", we call it crashing.

      The fact that the rocket managed to come down safely in the water and remain intact is nothing short of amazing, but it's not a very good reason to start redefining the English language.

    5. Re:Just like commercial passenger planes... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      You aren't addressing the facts that A: it's unmanned

      So any unmanned vehicle cannot crash?

      B: it's a husk of a completed mission being recollected for recycling

      Is it supposed to be reusable? It was my understanding that it is. But it certainly is not after landing in saltwater, and it will be damaged beyond repair after falling over. Do they break these down and separate the various materials for recycling? What about the composite and electrical components? As far as I know, the only way these get recycled is if they can use them again.

      So no, it's really nothing like a crash or "ditching" as it landed exactly where it was supposed to given that it had lost the stabilizer to maintain vertical landing orientation, which is entirely optional and bonus.

      This is exactly what ditching is. It failed to land as hoped for and went into a safe failure mode by ditching into the water. In doing so essentially destroying any possibility of being reused.

      Just because it wasn't a catastrophic failure, or one that caused death or injury, doesn't mean it didn't crash. The idea of ditching is to not cause unnecessary casualties. This is exactly what it did.

      C: it was malfunctioning and D: this is the planned programmed behavior in a fault event.

      AKA ditching.

    6. Re:Just like commercial passenger planes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So any unmanned vehicle cannot crash?" - Nobody said that. It was said that your analogy to a passenger plane was 100% wrong. It was.

      "But it certainly is not after landing in saltwater" - Wrong. They've done that specifically dozens of times, you know nothing about this.

      "This is exactly what ditching is" - Wrong. Ditching is unplanned. If that were the terminology then they "planned to ditch" all along, making it self-contradictory.

      "Just because it wasn't a catastrophic failure" - Like just about all the other similar spent rocket husks, it fell harmlessly into the water and was recovered. You don't know what you're talking about.

      AKA blathering and you can't admit it's different from a passenger plane, nor that you're wrong. Too bad for you, that's an important skill in Engineering.

    7. Re:Just like commercial passenger planes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Just like with passenger airplanes, a "water landing" is known as a crash."

      I'm pretty sure the passengers & crew of US Airways Flight 1549 [wikipedia.org] would disagree.

      Probably the only known case of a modern passenger jet having a 'water landing', quite incredible actually.

      But I remember years ago when I worked in the airline industry, one of the many dark jokes that went around the maintenance people was "in the event of a water landing these convenient yellow debris markers under your seat will allow the wreckage to be found faster".

      Because that's all anybody ever expected to find.

      Prior to that, it really was just treated as something SAR could spot from the air to locate the black box.

    8. Re:Just like commercial passenger planes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pilots sometimes joke: "A good landing is one you walk away from. An excellent landing is one where you can use the airplane again". On that scale, Flight 1549 was definitively a "good" landing.

      Whether you call it a crash or not depends a bit on the precise definition of the word "crash". To me the word conveys a concept of "smashed to a million pieces". That certainly didn't happen here.

    9. Re: Just like commercial passenger planes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are legit a grade A idiot.

  4. Well, no, that's 100% wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Except that's 100% wrong. This is an unmanned spent rocket husk, and if it's got any malfunctions the idea is to keep it away from the population as much as possible. The ocean is pretty unpopulated with people. Try again.

  5. Crash implies harm by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Just like with passenger airplanes, a "water landing" is known as a crash.

    It didn't though, it landed fairly softly in the water and so is reusable.

    A plane water landing is a "crash" because (A) it was never a target for landing (where water landing is the backup landing spot for the booster) and (B) the plane is pretty much unusable after a "water landing", along with great risk to those inside.

    With the Falcon9 water landing, there was not much risk to the craft. It's just harder to collect.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Crash implies harm by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      It didn't though, it landed fairly softly in the water and so is reusable.

      That's news to me. As far as I understand once they land in saltwater, they are no longer usable. Electronics don't hold up well once exposed to saltwater and the effort to recondition would not be worth the risk or the potentially reduced usability. Corrosion is also a structural issue.

      With the Falcon9 water landing, there was not much risk to the craft. It's just harder to collect.

      From this link:A Falcon 9 first stage is too fragile to just let fall into the water. Unlike the Space Shuttle solid rocket boosters, which are massive steel tubes, a Falcon 9 is a thin-walled aluminum tube which can't survive falling over into water, and probably wouldn't survive extended wave action even if you gently lowered it in to the water on its side.

      It turns out that the only way to recover a Falcon 9 first stage intact is to gently land it right-side-up on landing legs, either on land with a boostback burn, or out in the ocean on a barge.

    2. Re:Crash implies harm by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Informative

      As far as I understand once they land in saltwater, they are no longer usable. Electronics don't hold up well once exposed to saltwater

      There are quite a lot of non-electronics though that can still be reused.

      From this link: A Falcon 9 first stage is too fragile to just let fall into the water.

      That would be a crash but it not what it did in this case, it still did a burn kind of like it was intending to land., touched down lightly and was fetched fairly quickly.

      From the ACTUAL ARTICLE linked to in the summary, which you probably should have read before you scoured the internet for other random Falcon9 links:

      "Appears to be undamaged & is transmitting data. Recovery ship dispatched," Musk wrote, latter adding: "We may use it for an internal SpaceX mission."

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re: Crash implies harm by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      That's news to me. As far as I understand once they land in saltwater, they are no longer usable. Electronics don't hold up well once exposed to saltwater and the effort to recondition would not be worth the risk or the potentially reduced usability. Corrosion is also a structural issue.

      It's safe to say that it will need some heavy duty inspection and refurbishment, but SpaceX as of now has stated they plan to fly it again if the inspections turn out OK. So they at least don't seem to think it's impossible. They did however say they would use it for "internal missions" (ie. launching their own stuff), so they seem to be acknowledging that there's some element of risk involved.

    4. Re:Crash implies harm by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      There are quite a lot of non-electronics though that can still be reused.

      There's more than electronics that need to be worried about once it's in salt water.

      That would be a crash but it not what it did in this case, it still did a burn kind of like it was intending to land., touched down lightly and was fetched fairly quickly.

      I didn't see it's final landing, but it sure looked like it fell over in the water. But the video cut off.

      "Appears to be undamaged & is transmitting data. Recovery ship dispatched," Musk wrote, latter adding: "We may use it for an internal SpaceX mission."

      I'm pretty neutral on Musk. I admire a lot of what he's done, and even how he does some things. But, he's also a showmen and certainly likes to bend the truth at times. How he can make that determination from a video is beyond me. Nor would I guess he is actually qualified to make that decision. If they are only willing to use if for internal SpaceX missions, then he's certainly not confident about it.

  6. Well... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "SpaceX Sends Dragon To ISS But Falcon 9 Rocket Misses Landing Pad"

    Better than the other way around.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  7. Redundant backup pump? by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Naaa make it submersible, able to take off and land under water... for those water worlds u know. Hell UFO's do it all the time. Half serious, far fetched idea... but still... :)

    --
    [($)]
    1. Re:Redundant backup pump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, that is not far fetched: Sea Dragon.

      Windbourne (moderating).

    2. Re: Redundant backup pump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a fucking concept. It is far fetched because no one has made any yet. Until they do it's a far fetched idea.

      Now I know why you are all in on musk and a resident musk dick sucker. You think this shit is ready to go. I bet you think in 5 years we will all be on mars getting amazon drone deliveries.

      Fucking idiot.

      Yea we know why you are nodding this story. Because it has musk name in it. Anything musk you must protect, and savior.

      Again..fucking idiot.

  8. This is a spent rocket shell. Not a plane. Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it fell onto the LAND, that would absolutely be a crash. They were aiming for the water intentionally, it's safer. Stop being dumb anytime just because you dislike Musk, this isn't about him.
    Just because Musk says silly things when he's high doesn't mean you're smarter than a Billionaire. You're a moron who impersonates APK online because your life is that boring and shallow. Tsk.

      Grow up child.

  9. Any landing you can walk away from... by Hairy1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    From the article: "Remarkably, it seems SpaceX may still be able to recover the rocket."

    What this means is that it was like a plane landing on water so gently that it could be removed and reflown. What is amazing here is that a major system failure didn't result in a terminal velocity crash into the ocean with the total loss of the vehicle. If this had been a crewed mission:
    a) The crew would have been safe in orbit.
    b) Even if a human were onboard the landing was survivable/soft.

    I say well done SpaceX - even when something goes wrong it goes right.

    1. Re: Any landing you can walk away from... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      b) Even if a human were onboard the landing was survivable/soft

      Maybe. The rocket is 200 feet tall. Assuming passengers are at the top, when it topples that's a 200 foot fall. If you have good restraints it might be survivable, but they probably won't be walking away from it, and fatalities would not be unexpected. I certainly wouldn't want to try it!

    2. Re: Any landing you can walk away from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know anything about it, and nobody would let you near it anyway, ever!

  10. Re: This is a spent rocket shell. Not a plane. Wr by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    If it fell onto the LAND, that would absolutely be a crash. They were aiming for the water intentionally, it's safer.

    Makes sense. This one time I was about to crash into an oncoming truck, so I drove off the road and hit a fence instead. Totally not a crash, because it was safer.

    Stop being dumb anytime just because you dislike Musk, this isn't about him.

    I like Musk; I've never really had a "role model" a such, but he definitely makes the very short list of people whom I respect immensely. This isn't about him - it's about reality. You're the weirdo that suddenly decided to make it about him.

    Just because Musk says silly things when he's high doesn't mean you're smarter than a Billionaire. You're a moron who impersonates APK online because your life is that boring and shallow. Tsk.

    I'm certainly not smarter than Musk, but I'm a regular fucking Einstein compared to you, Pete.

  11. Re:Another fail by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Failure is another opportunity for learning.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  12. Re: This is a spent rocket shell. Not a plane. Wr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't know about Engineering safety contingencies into flight plans because you're a moronic nazi faggot, not an Engineer. We know. None of this is surprising to anyone.

  13. Re: This is a spent rocket shell. Not a plane. Wr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your "engineering" skill are just as shit as your "programming" skills, Kowalski.

  14. Except they do and have dozens of times, so false. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except they do and have dozens of times, so that's false.

  15. THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES NAZI FAGGOT KEN DOLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR LIES NAZI FAGGOT KEN DOLL FOR YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY

    Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

  16. See for yourself by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative

    This really is a case where a picture is worth a thousand words.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
    1. Re: See for yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go eat a fat dick Bruce.

      You overweight man child.

  17. mice mice every where by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    geez even in space your cannot avoid rodents.... they really get every ware

  18. And the next time... by DrYak · · Score: 1

    I make it a point to only ask them about problems at their work when they are both standing next to each other. Hillarity ensues.

    And before next time you'll ask them such a question, they'll train to be able to say "it's not rocket surgery!" in perfect unison.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  19. Re:Another fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actually, it was a fairly successful "failure", seeing how the first stage recognized that it had an issue and did not attempt to land at the landing site where it could have caused massive destruction, and instead completed a "soft" landing just off-shore, where the first stage could be easily recovered.

  20. Re:Another fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    exactly, getting information on what went wrong is a successful failure. knowing what went wrong means you can fix it for next time