Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Communications Space Businesses Technology

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SpaceX Successfully Launches Twice-Flown Falcon 9, Catches Fairing At Sea

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    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.)

  • WTF?????? Just embed a high res video ffs. Animated gifs look like shit.
  • 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?

    • by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2019 @03:42AM (#59055770) Journal
      Because they want to (and the others don't, and don't have to). SpaceX had the ambition for reusable rockets from the get-go, and has aggressive targets to drive down launch costs. This has been their goal - and on their roadmap - from the start.

      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.
      • by JasterBobaMereel ( 1102861 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2019 @04:47AM (#59055880)

        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 ..

        • 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.

          • This is why there was an in flight abort of a Soyuz recently. Though it is good that the escape system worked perfectly.

            • 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

      • by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2019 @07:38AM (#59056324)

        meaing no incentive to develop untried technology in order to drive down costs.

        Not just "no incentive", but rather outright hostility. [twitter.com]

    • by lgw ( 121541 )

      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!

      • by Guspaz ( 556486 )

        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.

        • by lgw ( 121541 )

          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.

          • by Guspaz ( 556486 )

            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

            • by lgw ( 121541 )

              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.

    • 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

    • by quenda ( 644621 )

      How come only Space-X can do this,

      Do the words "space" and "shuttle" ring any bells?
      The Russians even built their own version.

  • by labnet ( 457441 ) on Wednesday August 07, 2019 @07:29AM (#59056296)

    Beware the crypto scam on the stories link, looking like a post from Elon.

It is not best to swap horses while crossing the river. -- Abraham Lincoln

Working...