SpaceX Launches 47 Starlink Satellites, Lands Rocket Making 11th Flight

SpaceX launched 47 satellites and landed the returning rocket on Thursday morning (March 3). Space.com reports: A two-stage Falcon 9 rocket carrying 47 Starlink internet satellites launched from Kennedy Space Center in Florida Thursday at 9:35 a.m. EST (1435 GMT). About nine minutes later, the Falcon 9's upper stage came back to Earth for a vertical landing on the SpaceX droneship Just Read the Instructions, which was stationed in the Atlantic Ocean a few hundred miles off the Florida coast. The successful landing was the 11th for the booster, tying a SpaceX rocket reuse record. [...] Thursday's launch was the sixth Starlink mission of the year already for SpaceX. You can watch the Falcon 9 launch via NASASpaceflight on YouTube.

That is impressive.

[Insanity Defense]

bout nine minutes later, the Falcon 9's upper stage came back to Earth for a vertical landing on the SpaceX droneship Just Read the Instructions, which was stationed in the Atlantic Ocean a few hundred miles off the Florida coast.

Very impressive that the upper (2n) stage managed to go to orbit and land again after deploying the satellites in orbit when normally only the lower (1st) stage does so considering it isn't designed or equipped to do so and has never done so before.

A fully reusable rocket NOW in spite of the fact that SpaceX didn't expect to achieve that for a at least a couple of years with Starship. Well done.

Re: That is impressive.

[saloomy]

The upper stage landed? I dont think so. The first stage did.

Re:

[Valgrus Thunderaxe]

Why do you hate Elon Musk?

Re:

[saloomy]

Why do you think I do? I am annoyed at the editors on /. for not even checking the record. The first stage landed, which is amazing. But the second stage is expended on each launch. Starship resolves this.

Re:

[Megane]

It was copied literally from TFA. I'm more concerned that a site called "space.com" has made such an obvious mistake.

Re:

[Insanity Defense]

It was copied literally from TFA. I'm more concerned that a site called "space.com" has made such an obvious mistake.

Exactly the point I was making when I mentioned that the upper stage isn't designed or equipped to return and land. Looks like some didn't understand that.

Re:

[Joce640k]

The upper stage landed? I dont think so. The first stage did.

Whoosh.

Re: That is impressive.

[Quatermass]

I wonder how much doesn't return? It'll have panels and wires that you see breaking off on the videos.

Re:

[Ecuador]

I am pretty sure the parent post is sarcastic, due to the fact that the summary is wrong (it should say lower stage). The "interesting" moderation might confuse people further, it should have been modded "funny" instead...

Re:

[Insanity Defense]

I am pretty sure the parent post is sarcastic, due to the fact that the summary is wrong (it should say lower stage). The "interesting" moderation might confuse people further, it should have been modded "funny" instead...

Correct. Mentioning that it isn't designed or equipped to land and that it makes Falcon 9 fully reusable well ahead of Starship achieving the same (if it does) was supposed to make that clear to anyone who actually thought about what they read. It is moderated as 30% funny so some did get it. :) .

Re:

[gweihir]

Hahahaha, no. The booster landed. That is the lower stage.

Quite an achievement

[93 Escort Wagon]

Especially give I'd heard we only have brooms for launch vehicles.

Re:

[Insanity Defense]

Especially give I'd heard we only have brooms for launch vehicles.

We would have but mega Pastor Greg Locke is threatening witches now so back into hiding with their brooms. :(

Re:

[crow]

Time to start naming the boosters. I propose "Broomstick 1" for the next booster to launch to the ISS.

SpaceX is Impressive

[nextTimeIsTheLast]

They've consistently extended the record for re-use (although I'm not clear if they are doing a major refurb between 10 and 11 launch landings for the lower stages). Presumably that will continue. No other company or state for that matter is even close to what SpaceX are achieving (operationally and I'm assuming cost wise also).

I know there's a lot of hatred on /. for Elon Musk but who (or which other country/company) even comes close to what he's achieved with SpaceX. His personality may not be likeable, but we do need people making this sort of progress - which I suspect is partly due to his personal characteristics.

Re:

[Insanity Defense]

I'm waiting for Starship to prove itself so Musk can call up Bezos and say "Hey Jeff, I know how you can get New Shepard to orbit - in the cargo hold of Starship. Want a price?".

;)

Re:

[gweihir]

They are doing a major refurbishment between launches. The human race cannot yet, for example, build rocket-engines with a reliable long lifetime. Still, refurbishing is much faster and cheaper than building a new one. And once you have mastered the process, it may be even more reliable than new ones, because part of the hardware has been certified to not have hidden flaws by the simple fact that it did survive a launch already.

Re:

[RobinH]

Five years from now there will be millions of people posting online complaining about Musk, all via their shiny new Starlink receivers. The majority of people are willfully uninformed about this stuff. Lots of people still think the space shuttle landed on the moon. Heck, look at the hatred of Bezos' big boat, all from people who shop at Amazon all the time, and none of them even aware of the irony.

Re:SpaceX is Impressive

[mspohr]

Musk does not suffer fools.
He speaks his mind. This upsets some people.

Re:

[antdude]

Everyone upsets and get upsets. It's normal.

Re:

[Insanity Defense]

if all goes according to plan. In the meanwhile a constellation of lawyers will take on SpaceX in every possible orbit.

I'd be impressed if he hired SpaceX to do the launches for his "Orbital Reef" instead of taking 10 or 20 more years to develop the ability himself. His "Pogo stick carnival ride" doesn't impress after taking 20 years to actually function.

Space is hard. Getting to orbit is harder. Jeff just can't seem to get it up. If by some type of miracle he does launch a New Glenn to orbit he should call the mission Viagra.

Re:

[nightflameauto]

Bezos is gonna do something impressive? Like what? Pogo stick his Blue Origin tourist rockets?

Re:

[TomGreenhaw]

I would be impressed if Blue Origin and Space-X merged.

Re:

[Insanity Defense]

I would be impressed if Blue Origin and Space-X merged.

That would be impressively stupid for SpaceX to do unless they were buying all of the BO assets (land and factories especially) for pennies on the dollar. Maybe they could fix the BE-4 engine designs to sell to 3rd parties but who knows if they are salvageable or fatally flawed?

Re:

[TomGreenhaw]

I would think the engineering talent and contracts alone would make it a win for everyone. The biggest issue might be federal anti-trust law and opposition by the old guard and the pork barrel politicians in their back pocket..

Re:

[Insanity Defense]

SpaceX could get those if BO just went under. Merging though brings in all the "management talent" that causes minimal progress and would have BEZOS in a high level of ownership of the new company and that could sink SpaceX and would sink the aspirations of going to Mars.

Re:

[earl pottinger]

Of-course the Starlink can come under attack. That however does not say the attacks will be successful.

Re:

[Insanity Defense]

So because the viasat terminals were successfully attacked and rendered permanently unusable it means the Starlink satellites will all be successfully permanently disabled as well? Does not compute. They might or they might not. They might not be attacked. The attack might fail. It might be partially successful or yes it might be just as successful. We don't know which. Especially since Russia itself it under cyber attacks.