11 ms·

- Successful soft landing in the Atlantic - Seas were too rough for a quick recovery - Rocket subsequently destroyed by wave action - Will attempt recovery o

- Successful soft landing in the Atlantic - Seas were too rough for a quick recovery - Rocket subsequently destroyed by wave action - Will attempt recovery of the next Falcon 9 launch - A Falcon 9 recovered on land could be re-used the next day (!) - SpaceX is lobbying to allow private competition for National Security launches (eg GPS satellites)

redthrowaway 12y ago
Is "the ocean was wavy" really a justifiable reason for losing the rocket? Surely sea conditions are something they'd take into account when planning and executing the mission.
- DanielStraight 12y ago
  The mission was to launch the satellite they were being paid to launch. Recovery of the rocket was a test they were running on the side. The mission justifiably got priority.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    It's strange how many people seem unable to understand this. SpaceX got a bunch of testing essentially for free. NASA was gracious to allow it. They could have easily said, "We're paying you to launch stuff to ISS, keep those crazy landing legs far away from our payload." Sea conditions were too rough for recovery. Their options were to wait for better weather, annoying the customer and possibly losing the launch (they had one more launch window after the one they used before the payload went to another launch company), or go for it and still accomplish a great deal of testing even though they probably couldn't recover the rocket. Total no-brainer to choose the second option.
    - kristofferR 12y ago
      NASA isn't stupid, they know that if SpaceX manages to get rocket reusability they'll save a lot of money which would otherwise be spent on rocket launches.
      - mikeash 12y ago
        Of course. But in the short term, they have a bunch of cargo that needs to get to the ISS soon, and they weren't in a position to tolerate many more delays. It goes beyond NASA as well. If SpaceX can demonstrate that their reusability testing doesn't impact the launch, that increases the odds that their other customers will allow it on their launches too.
      - clarky07 12y ago
        On the other hand, it probably just means their budget will be cut by a similar amount. NASA isn't a for profit company. It's tax payer funded. No guarantees they really benefit much from saving money.
- venomsnake 12y ago
  Well Mashable said that the Coast Guard refused to go out. So it was probably wavy slightly above it is awesome for surfing.
- freehunter 12y ago
  It's certainly possible that they have a level of wave action that they can handle, and this landing's wave conditions exceeded that. I'd imagine it's hard to predict what the ocean will be like far enough in advance to design a rocket from the ground up to support heavier wave action. They were on NASA's timeline for the launch, not their own.
- jack-r-abbit 12y ago
  Is "recover an un-manned rocket" really a justifiable reason for potentially losing lives at sea?
  - lutusp 12y ago
    Not really. Which may explain why (according to one report) the Coast Guard refused to go out after the booster.
- lutusp 12y ago
  You clearly have not been at sea, close to the water. A cylindrical object, without a sea anchor, in moderately rough seas, would naturally turn sideways to the waves and be destroyed very quickly in the breaking waves. I don't know whether SpaceX has fitted their boosters with sea anchors yet, but I wouldn't be surprised to see this addition after the present loss. In windy conditions, a sea anchor provides some drag and keeps the boat (or booster) pointed perpendicular to the waves, thereby minimizing the force expended on the object. > Surely sea conditions are something they'd take into account when planning and executing the mission. Ocean experts are constantly preparing for extreme conditions, then discovering they didn't prepare for conditions that were extreme enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave
  - keehun 12y ago
    How much weight would be such an anchor to hold down something as large as a rocket? Wouldn't you have to launch that into space, too?
    - lmm 12y ago
      Sea anchor, i.e. something like a parachute that drags through the water, so it can be made of light materials.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      A sea anchor is a pretty lightweight device whose purpose is to create some drag against the water when the wind blows. It can take the shape of a small parachute, but in the water, at the end of a long line. The idea is when the wind blows, endangering the booster, the sea anchor will force the booster to point directly into the wind, thus minimizing wave damage. > Wouldn't you have to launch that into space, too? Yes, which is definitely a drawback -- every ounce that isn't payload is regarded as a serious waste, because it all has to be launched at great cost (the ratio of payload to fuel is often greater than ten to one). On the other hand, the SpaceX people report that the booster was destroyed, so this well-tested idea is very likely in their minds right now.
    - ericcumbee 12y ago
- beachstartup 12y ago
  hmm, an armchair rocket scientist... don't think i've seen that one before.
  - freehunter 12y ago
    How many thousands (millions?) of people play Kerbal Space Program? Obviously that qualifies as a rocket scientist/
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  The launch window was being dictated by factors other than the landing weather and storms in the Atlantic are a justifiable reason for losing pretty much anything you care to put in them.
- derekp7 12y ago
  Just to be clear, it is not their goal to reuse rockets that are soft-landed in the ocean. This particular attempt was to prove that they could make the rocket slow to zero meters/sec at the surface of the ocean, with it upright. Which they did. Their next attempt will be to target a smaller radius, to prove their aiming accuracy. Finally, after a couple more ocean landings (with possible recovery for analysis purposes), they will attempt to land on dry ground. To do this, they need to prove they can set down within a 1-mile radius. But they believe they should have the same precision of a helicopter. After this, they are aiming for same-day reusability.
- syncsynchalt 12y ago
  Rockets are surprisingly fragile when empty. Most of their strength is compressive, and only in one direction, and only when filled with compressed gas.
  - robryk 12y ago
    I'm not sure about strength being mostly compressive -- for example, Apollo 9's Saturn V withstood a longitudinal oscillation with an amplitude of 12g[1] and it wasn't deemed to be dangerous enough to cause an abort. I'd expect maintaining pressure in the tanks not to be a significant problem, though it would need to be addressed -- pressure needs to be maintained reasonably constant during the whole burn, and it's done by admitting helium from compressed helium tanks. If the fuel/oxidizer tanks don't leak too much, the same mechanism could be used after the rocket has landed. [1] http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080018689.pdf http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/2008001...
chidevguy 12y ago
My jaw dropped reading that the rocket could be re-used the next day. That seems like an enormous leap forward for space flight.
- grinich 12y ago
  Rockets are built to be pretty durable machines (obviously). The environment they operate in outside of the atmosphere is harsher in many ways. Two big issues with sea landing: transport (tug, crane, huge truck, etc.), and corrosion/contamination from saltwater. They'll still need to verify all systems and components before a second launch, but that's way easier to do when the vehicle is sitting empty on the pad next to all your people and equipment.
  - HarryHirsch 12y ago
    They'll still need to verify all systems and components before a second launch That. You need to re-qualify the engine after each launch. The cost of labour far exceeds the cost of materials, you need to strip and re-build the thing, and you ask yourself just how much money you can save through re-using the first stage. I don't think it's much.
    - jessriedel 12y ago
      > I don't think it's much. SpaceX disagrees. They expect to cut the cost of launch by 1 order of magnitude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_reusable_launch_system_development_program#Economic_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_reusable_launch_system_...
    - mikeash 12y ago
      Unlike NASA's adventures with the space shuttle, SpaceX is a for-profit business with a goal of making money. They wouldn't be pursuing reusability if they didn't think it would increase their ability to make a profit.
    - cfreeman 12y ago
      The Merlin engine was designed from the beginning to be re-useable. They don't have to be "stripped and rebuilt" after each launch. They have already fired engines on the test stand for multiple mission durations with no problems.

redthrowaway 12y ago

Is "the ocean was wavy" really a justifiable reason for losing the rocket? Surely sea conditions are something they'd take into account when planning and executing the mission.

DanielStraight 12y ago
The mission was to launch the satellite they were being paid to launch. Recovery of the rocket was a test they were running on the side. The mission justifiably got priority.
- mikeash 12y ago
  It's strange how many people seem unable to understand this. SpaceX got a bunch of testing essentially for free. NASA was gracious to allow it. They could have easily said, "We're paying you to launch stuff to ISS, keep those crazy landing legs far away from our payload." Sea conditions were too rough for recovery. Their options were to wait for better weather, annoying the customer and possibly losing the launch (they had one more launch window after the one they used before the payload went to another launch company), or go for it and still accomplish a great deal of testing even though they probably couldn't recover the rocket. Total no-brainer to choose the second option.
  - kristofferR 12y ago
    NASA isn't stupid, they know that if SpaceX manages to get rocket reusability they'll save a lot of money which would otherwise be spent on rocket launches.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      Of course. But in the short term, they have a bunch of cargo that needs to get to the ISS soon, and they weren't in a position to tolerate many more delays. It goes beyond NASA as well. If SpaceX can demonstrate that their reusability testing doesn't impact the launch, that increases the odds that their other customers will allow it on their launches too.
    - clarky07 12y ago
      On the other hand, it probably just means their budget will be cut by a similar amount. NASA isn't a for profit company. It's tax payer funded. No guarantees they really benefit much from saving money.
venomsnake 12y ago
Well Mashable said that the Coast Guard refused to go out. So it was probably wavy slightly above it is awesome for surfing.
freehunter 12y ago
It's certainly possible that they have a level of wave action that they can handle, and this landing's wave conditions exceeded that. I'd imagine it's hard to predict what the ocean will be like far enough in advance to design a rocket from the ground up to support heavier wave action. They were on NASA's timeline for the launch, not their own.
jack-r-abbit 12y ago
Is "recover an un-manned rocket" really a justifiable reason for potentially losing lives at sea?
- lutusp 12y ago
  Not really. Which may explain why (according to one report) the Coast Guard refused to go out after the booster.
lutusp 12y ago
You clearly have not been at sea, close to the water. A cylindrical object, without a sea anchor, in moderately rough seas, would naturally turn sideways to the waves and be destroyed very quickly in the breaking waves. I don't know whether SpaceX has fitted their boosters with sea anchors yet, but I wouldn't be surprised to see this addition after the present loss. In windy conditions, a sea anchor provides some drag and keeps the boat (or booster) pointed perpendicular to the waves, thereby minimizing the force expended on the object. > Surely sea conditions are something they'd take into account when planning and executing the mission. Ocean experts are constantly preparing for extreme conditions, then discovering they didn't prepare for conditions that were extreme enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave
- keehun 12y ago
  How much weight would be such an anchor to hold down something as large as a rocket? Wouldn't you have to launch that into space, too?
  - lmm 12y ago
    Sea anchor, i.e. something like a parachute that drags through the water, so it can be made of light materials.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    A sea anchor is a pretty lightweight device whose purpose is to create some drag against the water when the wind blows. It can take the shape of a small parachute, but in the water, at the end of a long line. The idea is when the wind blows, endangering the booster, the sea anchor will force the booster to point directly into the wind, thus minimizing wave damage. > Wouldn't you have to launch that into space, too? Yes, which is definitely a drawback -- every ounce that isn't payload is regarded as a serious waste, because it all has to be launched at great cost (the ratio of payload to fuel is often greater than ten to one). On the other hand, the SpaceX people report that the booster was destroyed, so this well-tested idea is very likely in their minds right now.
  - ericcumbee 12y ago
beachstartup 12y ago
hmm, an armchair rocket scientist... don't think i've seen that one before.
- freehunter 12y ago
  How many thousands (millions?) of people play Kerbal Space Program? Obviously that qualifies as a rocket scientist/
lotsofmangos 12y ago
The launch window was being dictated by factors other than the landing weather and storms in the Atlantic are a justifiable reason for losing pretty much anything you care to put in them.
derekp7 12y ago
Just to be clear, it is not their goal to reuse rockets that are soft-landed in the ocean. This particular attempt was to prove that they could make the rocket slow to zero meters/sec at the surface of the ocean, with it upright. Which they did. Their next attempt will be to target a smaller radius, to prove their aiming accuracy. Finally, after a couple more ocean landings (with possible recovery for analysis purposes), they will attempt to land on dry ground. To do this, they need to prove they can set down within a 1-mile radius. But they believe they should have the same precision of a helicopter. After this, they are aiming for same-day reusability.
syncsynchalt 12y ago
Rockets are surprisingly fragile when empty. Most of their strength is compressive, and only in one direction, and only when filled with compressed gas.
- robryk 12y ago
  I'm not sure about strength being mostly compressive -- for example, Apollo 9's Saturn V withstood a longitudinal oscillation with an amplitude of 12g[1] and it wasn't deemed to be dangerous enough to cause an abort. I'd expect maintaining pressure in the tanks not to be a significant problem, though it would need to be addressed -- pressure needs to be maintained reasonably constant during the whole burn, and it's done by admitting helium from compressed helium tanks. If the fuel/oxidizer tanks don't leak too much, the same mechanism could be used after the rocket has landed. [1] http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080018689.pdf http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/2008001...

chidevguy 12y ago

My jaw dropped reading that the rocket could be re-used the next day. That seems like an enormous leap forward for space flight.

grinich 12y ago
Rockets are built to be pretty durable machines (obviously). The environment they operate in outside of the atmosphere is harsher in many ways. Two big issues with sea landing: transport (tug, crane, huge truck, etc.), and corrosion/contamination from saltwater. They'll still need to verify all systems and components before a second launch, but that's way easier to do when the vehicle is sitting empty on the pad next to all your people and equipment.
- HarryHirsch 12y ago
  They'll still need to verify all systems and components before a second launch That. You need to re-qualify the engine after each launch. The cost of labour far exceeds the cost of materials, you need to strip and re-build the thing, and you ask yourself just how much money you can save through re-using the first stage. I don't think it's much.
  - jessriedel 12y ago
    > I don't think it's much. SpaceX disagrees. They expect to cut the cost of launch by 1 order of magnitude https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_reusable_launch_system_development_program#Economic_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_reusable_launch_system_...
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Unlike NASA's adventures with the space shuttle, SpaceX is a for-profit business with a goal of making money. They wouldn't be pursuing reusability if they didn't think it would increase their ability to make a profit.
  - cfreeman 12y ago
    The Merlin engine was designed from the beginning to be re-useable. They don't have to be "stripped and rebuilt" after each launch. They have already fired engines on the test stand for multiple mission durations with no problems.