SpaceX Successfully Launches Twice-Flown Falcon 9, Catches Fairing At Sea (techcrunch.com) 91
SpaceX successfully launched a Falcon 9 first-stage that had previously served two missions in July and November of 2018, today carrying its final payload, the AMOS-17 satellite for Spacecomm. "SpaceX had configured the Falcon 9 in its 'expendable mode' for this mission, which means it made use of all available fuel on board to carry the 14,000+ lb satellite to orbit, without enough left over to come back in a controlled descent and landing," reports TechCrunch. From the report: The multi-purpose geostationary communications satellite, which will provide mobile, streaming and video connectivity across parts of the Middle East, Africa, and Europe, reached geostationary transfer orbit and then reached its target orbit and deployed as planned. SpaceX also recovered at least the fairing used to protect the cargo as it ascends to space tonight -- it managed to catch one half in a giant net strung across support structures on 'Ms. Tree,' a ship operated by SpaceX specifically for this purpose. The other half fell into the ocean, and SpaceX will try to collect that half as well, using a second ship it has for that purpose. Elon Musk tweeted a video of SpaceX's droneship catching the fairing.
Can't say anything bad about SpaceX (Score:1)
Sure the anti-musk trolls are about to come storming in, but you just can't say anything bad about SpaceX. They've done what they set out to do, and some. They've developed better space technology than all of Asia and Europe combined (though saying they have more than Europe doesn't say much, admittedly, given the long pattern of craptacular fail established by the ESA.)
Animated Gif? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they weren't in permanent Crunch mode, then they'd have time for implementing such high Tech.
Re: (Score:2)
How come nobody else can do what Space-X does? (Score:1)
Reusable rockets, that's what Space-X is famous for.
How come only Space-X can do this, and not Boeing, or the Russians or the Indians or the Europeans?
Re:How come nobody else can do what Space-X does? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
SpaceX has shareholders. Being a public or a private company has no bearing on that, it only changes who can buy shares and how. Musk only owns 54% of SpaceX. Major shareholders include Google (now Alphabet), Fidelity, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, Founders Fund, Valor Equity Partners, and Capricorn. There may be a few others at this point.
Re: How come nobody else can do what Space-X does? (Score:2)
Hilarious. "Only" owns 54% of a company which isn't subject to stock price fluctuations. Yeah no difference there at all.
Re:How come nobody else can do what Space-X does? (Score:4, Insightful)
Boeing probably could develop this if they wanted to, and they were involved in studies of such a system 10 years ago, but that program was dropped. They are now building SLS, which is not re-usable and has very generous margins for cost per launch, meaing no incentive to develop untried technology in order to drive down costs. They probably shat themselves when NASA briefly considered using SpaceX or ULA vehicles for their moon shots because of the many delays, but (sadly) NASA reaffirmed that they still firmly plan on using SLS rockets for those missions. The $14B they have already sunk into that boondoggle might have something to do with that...
The Russians probably prefer to stick to their ageing but proven and highly reliable existing launch platforms. India might figure it is already cheap enough... and given their low operating budget, they might prefer to focus on missions rather than developing new tech to re-use their rockets.
Re:How come nobody else can do what Space-X does? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Russian system is not ageing, it has been continuously updated and improved in small increments over the past 50-60 years... this is why it is so reliable
The USA repeatedly creates a system, runs it largely unmodified for years then throws it away and develops a brand new system from scratch
SpaceX is doing it right ..
Re: (Score:3)
The Russian system is not ageing, it has been continuously updated and improved in small increments over the past 50-60 years...
Like the Boeing 737 right? I understand what you're saying, but ultimately the base platform definitely fits the term "ageing". At some point regardless of how much rejuvenating moisturiser I pour on my face my bold spot will give away that I am no longer 30.
Re: (Score:3)
This is why there was an in flight abort of a Soyuz recently. Though it is good that the escape system worked perfectly.
Re: (Score:2)
Launching into space will always be dangerous, accidents will happen ... this is why they have redundant safety systems, the ones on Russian systems work
All the people killed in flight in the last 40 years have been on fully tested and commissioned US systems ...
SpaceX is going through the experimental/testing phase currently, and they regularly lose rockets/boosters but this is expected
Re:How come nobody else can do what Space-X does? (Score:4, Informative)
meaing no incentive to develop untried technology in order to drive down costs.
Not just "no incentive", but rather outright hostility. [twitter.com]
Competition (Score:2)
How many countries have been to the moon?
Who gives a shit? We haven't been back in almost 50 years. What have we done lately?
And if you want to get into a dick measuring contest the Russians beat the US to pretty much every milestone you can imagine. First satellite, first man in space, first woman in space, first black person in space, first space station, first probe on the moon, first spacewalk, first remote controlled rover, and the list goes on. The US can't even launch a person into space at all right now without Russian help. We got to
Re: (Score:2)
I just love the way you articulated your well reasoned argument, and refuted the reasoning of the original poster who had the audacity to post with his actual login username instead of the much better Anonymous Coward username. It just goes to show how a logical, well thought out and intelligent response to someone who clearly does not know anything about space travel other than it's entire history, is clearly at fault.
When you don't like somethi
Re: (Score:2)
Shotwell has repeatedly said that SpaceX has been profitable for years. Being a private company, we may not know how profitable, but they're on the record saying that they're not "losing massive amounts of money".
Re:The answer is trivial (Score:5, Insightful)
Musk and SpaceX have single handy brought back the satellite launching business back to USA. How? By dramatically bringing down launch costs with reusable rockets that allows SpaceX to substantially underbid every other launching company and still be profitable. Pretty good for "stupid shit". The Block 5 Falcon 9's can keep doing this as long as SpaceX wants.
Re:The answer is trivial (Score:5, Insightful)
there is absolutely no practical way of testing any piece of reused equipment for small defects that can have fatal consequences
As per your reasoning, there is also absolutely no practical way of testing any piece of new equipment for small defects that can have fatal consequences. Has that stopped us from spaceflight?
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably, if a spacecraft stops workin people die, right?
Only if there are people on or directly under the spacecraft. So SpaceX sends up unmanned reused rockets a couple of timed, and check how they perform and what issues develop over time. You know, test how stuff holds up under multiple re-entries.
By the way, Buran was not scrapped because of real or imagined material defects, but because the Russians lost interest in this technology (and cut funding) after the breakup of the USSR. That might have something to do with the fact that it only made one flig
Re: The answer is trivial (Score:2)
Such techniques already exist; we use them on aircraft all the time.
The most important thing is building up a large enough data set so that you can reliably predict when a given airframe is likely to have developed issues. That way you can do basic visual inspections in the intervening periods, and save exhaustive inspection for your periodic or conditional inspections. For instance on an aircraft you would thoroughly examine the wing mounting bolts ever, say, 4,000 hours of flight ... plus you would exam
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The answer is trivial (Score:5, Informative)
What's hilarious is that SpaceX does indeed test resused equipment. They test their engines in static fires a bunch of times after each flight. The flight in this very damn article was delayed due to the need to replace a valve in an engine, which they discovered in testing!!!
It's like the AC you replied to lives in another reality.
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX is fairly unique in their testing ability. They vigorously avoid non-testable designs, e.g. explosive bolts. They use (more expensive, heavier, and complex) hydraulic systems instead because it gives them the ability to repeatedly test, flight prove, and retest assemblies.
It's a nontrivial part of the SpaceX secret sauce.
Re: (Score:2)
there is absolutely no practical way of testing any piece of reused equipment for small defects that can have fatal consequences.
How do you test the equipment before it is used then? You know what is more violent than re-entry? A fucking FORGE!!
BTW, not only is your logic empty, you are factually wrong. X-rays are an excellent tools for checking for defects, and I would suspect that every part expected to see serious stress would go through an X-ray machine. And, to keep you from saying something stupid: The machine doesn't try to look through the part like looking for a broken bone. It looks for evidence of cracks or even stre
Re: (Score:3)
Rocket Labs just announced their plans to develop re-usable rockets. They're also very focused on low launch costs (just for small sats). Their Photon satellite platform is also a great idea, too (all the "rocket science" parts of a satellite, in a commercial package).
Go Hobbit rocketry!
Re: (Score:2)
While Rocket Lab is doing some neat stuff (like the electric pumps on Electron), their business case is questionable. They charge $5 million to put a 150kg payload into SSO, while SpaceX just started advertising regularly scheduled smallsat launches to SSO (at least one per year) with a price tag of $2.25 million for a 150kg payload.
Re: (Score:2)
Their pitch is "you don't have to share a rocket". They likely know what they're doing. Below a certain point, launch cost stops being the dominant cost anyhow, and perhaps the Photon platform will save customers enough in the development process to make it attractive.
Re: (Score:2)
That pricepoint and pitch, though, was before SpaceX announced their rideshare plans/prices. The "don't have to share" thing was important because SpaceX so rarely had secondary payloads, and when they did have them, they were treated as comparatively unimportant. The schedule could slip because of delays in the primary payload. The Falcon 9 rideshare thing has no primary payload: the whole launch is just rideshare smallsats, and they won't delay the launch because one of the payloads isn't ready, they just
Re: (Score:2)
Catching parachutes has a very long history in rocketry, going back to the early 60s IIRC. I don't think that will be the difficult part. Re-entering safely without re-starting the rocket will be a heck of a trick.
Company structure (Score:3)
How come only Space-X can do this, and not Boeing, or the Russians or the Indians or the Europeans?
Real answer? Because their organizations weren't built with low cost as the primary driver. Yes even the government ones (except maybe India). It's like asking why Neiman Marcus can't match Walmart prices. Boeing and ULA are organizations built in a different time and for a different purpose and with a different cost structure than SpaceX. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but it does mean they will have a hard time competing on some types of launches with SpaceX because their cost structures simply c
Re: (Score:1)
How come only Space-X can do this,
Do the words "space" and "shuttle" ring any bells?
The Russians even built their own version.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. We know the story. The point is to answer the question - other people *have* tried it, just with less success.
There is a myth that booster re-use is what makes the Falcon-9 cheap and successful.
> Reusable rockets, that's what Space-X is famous for.
Because the landings make a good spectacle? But their bigger achievement is to drive down costs across the board. Re-use is nice, but not essential.
Shuttle was an expensive boondoggle, Falcon-9 could compete well without re-use. At least in operatin
Twitter scam (Score:3)
Beware the crypto scam on the stories link, looking like a post from Elon.