Slashdot Mirror


SpaceX Loses the Center Core of Its Falcon Heavy Rocket Due To Choppy Seas (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: SpaceX successfully landed the center core of its Falcon Heavy rocket on a drone ship last week, but the vehicle accidentally fell into the ocean while in transit to the Florida coast. The company blamed the loss on choppy seas. "Over the weekend, due to rough sea conditions, SpaceX's recovery team was unable to secure the center core booster for its return trip to Port Canaveral," SpaceX said in a statement to The Verge. "As conditions worsened with eight to ten foot swells, the booster began to shift and ultimately was unable to remain upright. While we had hoped to bring the booster back intact, the safety of our team always takes precedence. We do not expect future missions to be impacted."

SpaceX does have ways to secure the rockets it lands in the ocean, including a robot known as the "octagrabber" that latches on to the base of the boosters. But because the center core connects to two side boosters, it has a different design than a normal Falcon 9 booster. So the octagrabber cannot hold on to it in the same way.
The center core is a modified Falcon 9 booster -- one of three that make up the Falcon Heavy rocket -- which flew last week during the second flight of the Falcon Heavy. "Following takeoff, all three cores of the rocket successfully landed back on Earth: the two outer cores touched down on dual concrete landing pads at the Cape while the center core touched down on the company's drone ship named Of Course I Still Love You in the Atlantic," reports The Verge.

103 comments

  1. I blame backwardian measures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Metric swells would've had significantly lower numbers.

  2. stupid gravity well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and its stupid water
    holding us back from 3D printing human hearts in the asteroid belt

  3. Obvious response by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Funny

    "You're gonna need a bigger boat"

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Many of us are not narcissistic attention seeking whores and do not want to be in the spotlight for any reason." - He wasn't referring to you, Kendall.

    2. Re: Obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True dat

    3. Re:Obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the droneship would clamp on, then pull the rocket down about 20 feet to reduce the leverage? A different design for the droneship would be needed, but the lower center of gravity could help. It'd also reduce risk of topple for the falcon 9s too.

    4. Re:Obvious response by darkain · · Score: 2

      Maybe they should contact Boaty McBoatface for advice!?

    5. Re:Obvious response by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative

      It wasn't physically possible. The side boosters came back to Florida, but the center booster was going too fast to land anywhere but in the Atlantic. They will fix the problem, which was that the robot which locks down recovered boosters did not work with the center one from a Falcon Heavy.

    6. Re:Obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say RTFA, but it's even in the *summary*:
      the two outer cores touched down on dual concrete landing pads at the Cape

      They brought two of them back to land. Don't you think they would have brought the third one there as well if they could?

    7. Re:Obvious response by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      More like faster, but bigger would have helped, too.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re: Obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, you don't know how this works.

    9. Re:Obvious response by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      We know that it didn't have the fuel to return to Florida. However what about if you keep going to say Lajes Air Base on the Azores, aka a Space Shuttle launch abort landing site? Not seen a reason why that is not possible other than having to negotiate with the Portuguese about it.

    10. Re:Obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you even physics bro?

    11. Re:Obvious response by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Or, oh I dunno, some tiedown straps?

    12. Re:Obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably don't have the fuel for that either. It's trajectory from launch puts it in the Atlantic, and any change beyond a little maneuvering from the fins is going to require fuel.

    13. Re:Obvious response by bigpat · · Score: 1

      They will fix the problem, which was that the robot which locks down recovered boosters did not work with the center one from a Falcon Heavy.

      Yes, that seems about right from what has been said. The center rocket just didn't have the compatible anchor points needed to secure the rocket in heavy seas. Solved problem, just need to do it next time so they can launch in a wider variety of offshore weather. Sounds like it could add a few pounds here and there, but it should be doable.

    14. Re:Obvious response by Strider- · · Score: 1

      The drone ship was only a few hundred nautical miles offshore, not a few thousand like the Azores. The thing with the shuttle was that once you lit the SRBs, you were committed to flying, at least until the SRBs were exhausted. Given the amount of thrust and duration, that would put you within range of the Azores.

      Also, hitting the Azores would require the rocket to be launched on a specific azimuth, which isn't a due-east launch like what is done for Geostationary.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    15. Re:Obvious response by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      They're going to need to learn how to land it on . . . . . LAND.
      Seriously, there are lots of uninhabited areas to land a rocket.

      Except that the vast majority of Earth's surface is covered by water, and most of that water's surface is uninhabited

    16. Re:Obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I got this scar from a Merlin 1 back in 2011..."

    17. Re: Obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By humans. It's damn sure inhabited by animals.

    18. Re: Obvious response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't add weight to the rocket. Add weight to the boat. In the form of giant rubber bungee cords/adjustable belt vulcanized rubber band wrenchs. Better a thousand kilo of rocket condom on the boat ride home than carrying one kilo while doing the deed.

  4. Great engineering! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean who could have forseen such a thing as "choppy seas"? Clearly this was a once in a hundred year event . . .

  5. Years later we will all find by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 0

    Kids playing on the seashore will be finding Falcon parts on the shore for years after this, and use their Sponge Bob Squarepants phones to call their friends about the amazing discovery.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re: Years later we will all find by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You do remember that the ocean contains vastly more rocket parts from Saturn V, Atlas, Delta, and Titan boosters, right? Picking on the one company that actually tries to keep their trash out of the ocean is pathetic.

    2. Re: Years later we will all find by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      You do remember that the ocean contains vastly more rocket parts from Saturn V, Atlas, Delta, and Titan boosters, right? Picking on the one company that actually tries to keep their trash out of the ocean is pathetic.

      No let's pick on this company. How dare they try and prevent equipment from landing in the ocean where it provides wonderful artificial reefs which have been shown time and time again to benefit ocean life in what is otherwise a wasteland.

    3. Re: Years later we will all find by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even funnier is that some people think the company believes losing it and building another is far cheaper, than recovering and refueling it.

  6. Insuffient support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's always seemed to me that there just isn't enough physical support for the rocket stages on those barges. There really should be some sort of guy wire supported tower that can be raised to hold it in place.

    1. Re:Insuffient support by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Why a guy wire? It could be a girl wire.

    2. Re:Insuffient support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's you! The cunt that everybody hates. Posting at zero because you're so popular. Fuck off.

    3. Re: Insuffient support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, then you're being gender binormative. It's a "Trans-Mission Wire".

    4. Re: Insuffient support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hater! Trans was so 2018! Get with the times. In 2019 we are all about non binary poly bi morphing mass-trans mutli polarity opt-in genderism.

      For haters like you entirely focused on 2018 transism (so out dated, like 1950s 2 gender world), you need to stop hating and move on.

      Gender is violence!

  7. still cheaper. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

    Losing one reusable rocket is still cheaper than using three non-reusable rockets.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re: still cheaper. by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Losing part of the launcher renders it a non-reusable instance.

      They will need to keep trying.

    2. Re: still cheaper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This ignores the modularity of the Falcon system. The first Falcon Heavy reused 2 previously flown Falcon 9s as side boosters. The two side boosters recovered in this mission can be reflown either as boosters for another Falcon Heavy, or as 2 individual Falcon 9 flights.

  8. Okay, gotta ask by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 0

    Perhaps they should come up with a way to lay the booster down on its side, once it's successfully landed on the drone ship?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Okay, gotta ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      or, re-fuel and fly it home.

    2. Re:Okay, gotta ask by JoshuaZ · · Score: 3, Informative

      Perhaps they should come up with a way to lay the booster down on its side, once it's successfully landed on the drone ship?

      Doesn't work. The rockets are not designed to handle heavy horizontal stress. They can handle pretty extreme vertical stress but to make them survive being on their sides that reliably would require a lot more reinforcements which means the rockets would have a lot more mass.

    3. Re:Okay, gotta ask by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

      It likely has neither the internal structural strength to be laid on its side or nor the outer skin isn't strong enough to support its weight without a very delicate bed to lie it on.

    4. Re:Okay, gotta ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Doesn't work" = Complete horseshit, not engineering. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ViHzjzAIg They need a frame to mount them onto obviously. That part does not need to fly with the rocket. Derp.

    5. Re:Okay, gotta ask by Kjella · · Score: 2

      The crane to do that would have to be massive. They already have a solution though, it's a giant Roomba that goes under the center of the rocket and clamps on like a giant weight like this, the problem is it's not yet compatible with the Falcon Heavy center. If the weather had been better they could have welded it to the deck, that's what they did before but maybe the conditions were too rough for that. Either way once they adapt the clamps this won't happen again.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re: Okay, gotta ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have a robot to clamp it down. However the center core has fewer clamp points than a normal falcon 9. The center core has to attach to the side boosters so it is a bit different than a falcon 9.

    7. Re:Okay, gotta ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Falcon 9's are transported horizontally by truck. https://youtu.be/oUDes_wpGvg?t...
      When it is on the landing barge they have a robot lock onto the bottom of it, but it sounds like the robot couldn't get a proper grip and it tipped over. SpaceX can reliably get payloads into orbit, but the landing and turnaround operations are still having teething problems. In fairness, nobody else has ever even attempted what they are doing, so mixed results is actually pretty good.

    8. Re:Okay, gotta ask by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they should come up with a way to lay the booster down on its side, once it's successfully landed on the drone ship?

      Doesn't work. The rockets are not designed to handle heavy horizontal stress. They can handle pretty extreme vertical stress but to make them survive being on their sides that reliably would require a lot more reinforcements which means the rockets would have a lot more mass.

      They could pressurize the interior after landing with something inert, such as nitrogen gas, which could give it enough structural strength to tip on its side.

    9. Re:Okay, gotta ask by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Plain compressed air would work just fine.

    10. Re:Okay, gotta ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they got stuck using the Falcon 9/H for a while I have little doubt that they'd rig up some system for better handling landed stages, I would guess some kind mobile strongback. But they're pushing hard to get Starship/Super Heavy up and running, if they can do that they'll render F9/H obsolete in short order.

    11. Re:Okay, gotta ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they ARE pressurized on landing (with helium), and for safety reasons they seem to have to depressurize (at least partly) after they're sure they've touched down to make them a bit safer to be around. You can clearly see them venting something a few seconds after they land, I'm sure a lot of it is the Nitrogen thruster "propellant" but I'm pretty sure at least some of it is the Helium tank pressurant. It was quite a time ago, but I remember hearing that the F9 was one of the few (or only) currently operational rockets that could be transported unpressurized for easier transportation.

    12. Re:Okay, gotta ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Then how does it survive being integrated horizontally and raised to the vertical?

    13. Re: Okay, gotta ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, they could drill a hole in the barge and lower the rocket into the hole, lowering the center of gravity. And the hole could be open to the ocean too.

      Then SpaceX could just land the rocket in the hole. For safety's sake they should widen the hole. Wait, why not remove the sides of the hole entirely?! In fact, just remove the barge. Then you just have to hit the ocean.

      Something about this sounds familiar...

    14. Re:Okay, gotta ask by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 2

      > "Doesn't work. The rockets are not designed to handle heavy horizontal stress."

      Nope.

      They are assembled horizontally and set upright on the pad. When they get to port they crane them off the boat and lay them horizontally onto a truck. Grabbing it and laying it down is just a matter of engineering.

    15. Re:Okay, gotta ask by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1

      ⦠but it probably doesn't make sense to do that if you can just grab it and hold it upright instead.

    16. Re:Okay, gotta ask by religionofpeas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Grabbing it and laying it down is just a matter of engineering.

      But there's no need. The center of mass is very low due to empty fuel/oxygen tanks, and heavy engines at the bottom, and the booster is already very stable standing upright. The only thing that needs to be done is grab the legs with an improved octograbber, so it doesn't start sliding around.

    17. Re:Okay, gotta ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, the Falcon Heavy is assembled with all boosters laying on their sides.

    18. Re:Okay, gotta ask by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they should come up with a way to lay the booster down on its side, once it's successfully landed on the drone ship?

      It would require a crew to attach the booster to a crane and lift it, which is much more dangerous in rough seas than just quickly welding the feet to the deck.

      And, even in horizontal position, it would have to be secured, otherwise it would still slide around and get damaged, or fall off the deck.

    19. Re: Okay, gotta ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the whole idea was to keep saltwater OUT of it?

      Like, literally, the entire idea.

    20. Re:Okay, gotta ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could pressurize the interior after landing with something inert, such as nitrogen gas, which could give it enough structural strength to tip on its side.

      M'kay, Trump.

      **rolls eyes**

    21. Re:Okay, gotta ask by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      Not the problem here: They are assembled horizontally but they aren't horizontal in a functional stormy environment. If one has severe enough waves to topple over a standing core (where almost all the mass is that the bottom in the engines), a sideways core isn't going to be happy in that environment.

    22. Re:Okay, gotta ask by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they should come up with a way to lay the booster down on its side, once it's successfully landed on the drone ship?

      Doesn't work. The rockets are not designed to handle heavy horizontal stress. They can handle pretty extreme vertical stress but to make them survive being on their sides that reliably would require a lot more reinforcements which means the rockets would have a lot more mass.

      Wrong: take a look at the pre-launch videos. The entire 3-booster assembly is transported to the launchpad horizontally, on a specially designed carrier. It remains in full contact with the carrier bed as it (the bed) is hydraulically lifted to vertical.
      I will grant you that implementing such a gizmo on the barge is not cost-effective. But putting in a new set of grapplers and tiedowns is almost certainly in the future for the OfCourseIStillLoveYou

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    23. Re:Okay, gotta ask by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      maybe the stresses of the flight weakens the integrity of the skin? just a guess

    24. Re: Okay, gotta ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep doubling down on stupid after you've been proven wrong. Classic slashdot. Keep moving the goalposts.

    25. Re:Okay, gotta ask by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      To be honest I was wondering why they used a smooth deck instead of the a grid type used to land helicoptors on:

      https://cramm-yachting-systems...

      Yes, yes. i know: "rocket exhaust" - but there's nothing stopping you putting a grid surface over the deck to have something for feet latches and the octagrabber to hook onto for stability.

  9. Nothing doobies and booze won't cure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makes it all go away.

  10. Bigger Ship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They make all this cash why not some ship upgrades? Blue Origin is planning a big ship to land on.

    Then they could move the core inside the ship for safe transport.

  11. I love it by Snotnose · · Score: 5, Funny

    A bunch of armchair aeronautical scientists telling SpaceX how to fix their problem.

    1. Re:I love it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I do understand, I'm constantly losing rockets up my aft hull. /Kendall

    2. Re: I love it by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      You don't need to be an expert to recognize and acknowledge a failure for the launcher to be reusable.

      Now let's all handwave some more.

    3. Re:I love it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair Musk is an expert at nothing and manages quite well through showmanship alone.

    4. Re:I love it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually this is exactly what /. used to be about, and frankly, a suggestion from an armchair insert-kind-here scientist is infinitely more valuable than that of all the armchair insert-kind-here critic who only has an "I told you it would never work" to contribute...

    5. Re:I love it by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'll confess, I just came to laugh at them being able to launch payloads into space, land and retrieve the launch vehicle but then let it fall off a barge into the sea.

      Yeah, I know, it's petty.

    6. Re:I love it by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Hey I played Kerbel I'm qwalified!

    7. Re:I love it by timeOday · · Score: 2, Funny

      Let he whose Christmas Tree never fell over cast the first stone.

    8. Re:I love it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh, everyone knows they should just drop water on it from a forest fire plane.

  12. Re:Headline should read by murdocj · · Score: 1

    Please learn how to troll properly.

  13. Xbox Controller by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Pilot it remotely :) Obviously

    --
    [($)]
  14. "I still love you, really" ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or, they merely need to adapt the existing boat bracing system to the design of the center core booster. Obviously, they should have already done this.

    Maybe this is just because eyes are so focused on the Falcon Super Heavy. However, even the little starhopper blew over in the wind not too long ago. I hope SpaceX puts more attention to the upright parking of rockets, in general. It would suck to have one fall over on the Moon or Mars.

    Matthew C. Tedder

  15. refuel it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    refuel the booster on the barge and fly it home :)

    1. Re:refuel it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fly it to India and let them deal with it.

  16. Where did it sink? Will China recover it and copy by cheekyboy · · Score: 0

    If its still in shallow waters, it could be picked up recovered later for analysis, but useless for launch.

    Where is it? First one to find it , keepers? Maritime salvage rights?

    If its on the continental shelf it would be easy to drag it up 300 ft?
    If its in deep ocean water, I am sure China will send a recover sub to "steal" all the in perfect condition tech they can.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  17. safey? its Autonomous by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    The vessel is Autonomous

    What safety is needed for the Team?

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:safey? its Autonomous by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      The team that would be required to weld the feet to the deck. That's a dangerous job if the ship is moving too much and there's a risk that the booster will slide around.

  18. Star trek drops the core... by ClarkMills · · Score: 1

    ...Falcon Heavy's core seems to like the drink me thinks... Irrespective very well done.

    Hm, I suspect the core is more engineered than the side boosters... might this affect the short-term calendar of work for FH?

  19. Shut up, APK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you have anything better to do in your $1 house than constantly post this spam? Are you really that desperate for attention that you feel the need to constantly stalk and harass SuperKendall, raymorris, and ShanghaiBill? The answer appears to be yes, though your efforts would be better spent completing a MacOS version of your toy string sorting program.

    Your spam and harassment is unwelcome, Alexander. You've harassed many other users, too, including Subie, Ol Olsoc, webmistressrachel, c6gunner, Zontar The Mindless, amicusNYCL, Coren22, and so many others. Isn't it time you stop being such a bitter crybaby and do something useful with your life? Although your string sorting program (APK Hosts File Engine) is complete shit, working on it would still be better than crapflooding Slashdot.

    Grow up, APK. You're 54 years old. Act your damn age.

  20. Re:Where did it sink? Will China recover it and co by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If its in deep ocean water, I am sure China will send a recover sub to "steal" all the in perfect condition tech they can.

    Or SpaceX asks the airforce or navy to air strike it, similar to the CRS-17 booster.

  21. Stabilisers by ytene · · Score: 1

    A few months ago, having watched video of another (successful) F9 landing on "Of Course I Still Love You", I wrote to SpaceX, suggesting that they might consider stabilizing out-riggers for their recovery barges.
    Specifically, I had something like this in mind:-

    https://images.app.goo.gl/CyBo...
    https://images.app.goo.gl/jiPX...

    [ the first image shows an outrigger canoe, the second a mobile crane].

    I think the crane example is a good one, because it shows that OCISLY you could modified with hydraulic rams that are set in a horizontal configuration, with flotation units attached to the extensible end. By carefully tuning the size of the flotation unit, it would be possible to set them up to act as a "dampening" effect on the waves experienced by the barge.

    Obviously, I didn't get a reply - but then I honestly didn't expect one. Now, the linked article doesn't really go in to detail as to why the first stage was lost. It isn't clear if the first stage is left upright for transit or whether there is a folding crane aboard that can be used to lower it to the deck... If the preference is to keep it upright, surely it is possible to have a set of extending metal braces, again, powered by hydraulics, that can fold up from horizontal storage to a vertical brace position, then maybe simply wrap a loop around the circumference of the first stage, attach that to lines up to the top of the upright braces, and raise the support loop until it is just beneath the fold-out fins... That would stop the stage from toppling over, even in rough seas.

    Who knows, maybe they will look at something like this...

    1. Re:Stabilisers by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Now, the linked article doesn't really go in to detail as to why the first stage was lost. It isn't clear if the first stage is left upright for transit or whether there is a folding crane aboard that can be used to lower it to the deck...

      It is kept upright. There's video footage and photos of the barge returning to port with boosters standing on it.

      ... surely it is possible to have a set of extending metal braces, again, powered by hydraulics, that can fold up from horizontal storage to a vertical brace position, then maybe simply wrap a loop around the circumference of the first stage, attach that to lines up to the top of the upright braces, and raise the support loop until it is just beneath the fold-out fins...

      They already have a better solution, as was mentioned in the summary. They built a big flat low tug-like remote controlled vehicle they call Octagrabber which rolls under the booster and clamps onto the legs. They use it for Falcon 9 recoveries. The only reason they didn't use it for the Falcon Heavy central core is the legs are in a different place and the vehicle can't reach them. Yet. They will undoubtedly reengineer it to handle both leg designs.

    2. Re:Stabilisers by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I'd be kind of worried about the forces that the struts for the outriggers would have to endure. On a canoe the outriggers make a narrow boat wider, but still not that large. On a barge you'd have to have quite a long extension to get much more stability.

      I would instead propose using a platform supported by underwater pontoons like deep sea oil rigs. So long as the pontoons are deeper than the troughs of the waves the platform should be rock steady. Makes towing it a lot more fuel inefficient, Though you can increase buoyancy to bring the pontoons to the surface when you need to move it. Just leave it low and stable until the weather improves then float it to haul to shore.

  22. Re:YOU NEED TO STOP LYING DERIVATIVE FAGGOT TRAITO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You jerked off when you heard the tale about a young girl. Admit it, leftie.

    Says the guy whose mom swallowed any chance of him ever having a little brother to beat up on, that he ended up so deranged he became a Trump supporter.

  23. Reminds me of this classic for some reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM

  24. Re: Where did it sink? Will China recover it and c by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    An airstrike on the seabed... probably wouldn't be an airstrike. ;)

  25. Heroic ability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Octograb only has a 3-second duration and a 50-second cooldown. They should have followed up with a Ring of Frost.

  26. Re:BORING FAGGOT KENDALL HANGS FROM HER INCEL GLAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is APK out of meds again?

  27. Hey asshole trying to FRAME me... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey asshole trying to FRAME me, tell you what: ANYTIME you want to accuse me of the bs lies you're spouting, meet me face to face & do it - I will fucking END you motherfucker...

    * I SHIT YOU NOT!

    (You PUSSCAKE PUNK hiding behind UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous posts weezil)

    APK

    P.S.=> I will FRACTURE YOUR SKULL cocksucker - guaranteed... apk

  28. Woosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Woosh!

    1. Re:Woosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woosh!

      No, splash!

  29. The sea is like that by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    Frequently underestimated force of nature. You never really get the idea of the true power without experiencing it. I really have my doubts about the reliability of any floating landing platform. Better start thinking about investing in some concrete pylon if this landing at sea thing really is going to work.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  30. Hey APK SPH!!!! by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

    Oh god you're a hilarious idiot.
    Take your medications.
    You couldn't END a shit properly.
    Threats no less. From a cowardly keyboard warrior.
    And calling out an AC while posting as an AC.
    SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP IMMEDIATELY.
    (Preferably from someone trained by Dr. Kevorkian..)

    --
    Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable