5 ms·
>Although the rocket's landing did not go according to plan, the other half of the launch mission was a success. Describing the first stage landing as "half" t
by tsotha 12y ago
>Although the rocket's landing did not go according to plan, the other half of the launch mission was a success.
Describing the first stage landing as "half" the mission is disingenuous. The mission was the ISS resupply, and even if the first stage landed properly if the resupply failed it would have meant a 100% mission failure.
- teraflop 12y agoSo you're complaining that they're being disingenuous by describing their mission as a partial success instead of a complete success? Really?
- oh_sigh 12y agoWhy not? The key was to deliver supplies to the ISS.
- cldellow 12y agoI disliked that element of the reporting too. Your use of "they" is funny, too--SpaceX and NASA would say that CRS-5 was a complete success from the point of view of the mission. The reporter's not being disingenuous, she's just...not using words correctly. The mission was to keep the ISS astronauts supplied and alive. The mission succeeded. The tests around rocket reuse were not part of the mission.
- SapphireSun 12y agoTrue, but one is transformative and the other is more mundane. The issue is that to make progress in rocketry (the mission) you have to get other people to pay for it (making it ostensibly their mission). Not to knock the ISS in any way, it's just that any of the big players could have done this resupply run afaik.
- jpgvm 12y agoSpaceX also does them cheaper and with a higher max cargo due to Dragon being a more advanced vehicle than most, it can also return significant cargo from the ISS. So no, the other big players currently aren't on the same level as SpaceX when it comes to ISS missions.
- tsotha 12y agoThe Dragon capsule is a bit less capable than one would like in that it can't actually dock. That's what makes the Soyuz necessary and NASA's whatever-they're-calling-it-this-week capsule necessary. Technically the Dragon is "berthing", in that the space station's arm is what's actually bringing the two craft together, and any failure in that arm would render Dragon unable to connect or disconnect from the station.
- Rooster61 12y ago"There's nothing routine about flying to the Moon." - Apollo 13 Film This isn't a moon mission of course, but I don't know if I would ever call something reaching orbit mundane. Especially for a company with only 5 successful dockings to their name.
- tsotha 12y agoNo, I'm complaining because they're pretending the first stage landing is "half" of the mission. It's not. The fact that it didn't work is almost meaningless, whereas a failure of the resupply mission would be a disaster.
- grecy 12y agoI agree with you, and I find it fascinating that in May 2012 everyone celebrated SpaceX successfully docking with the ISS for the first time. [1] It's only been 2.5 years, and they'd only docked to the ISS a total of 5 times before this mission, and yet everyone now takes the mission and successful docking for granted and is looking for the next great thing. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unmanned_spaceflights_to_the_International_Space_Station#Current_and_completed_spaceflights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unmanned_spaceflights_t...
- jccooper 12y agoThe mission was delivering the cargo. That was a success. The landing was a free experiment operated as an adjunct to the launch. The experiment didn't quite go as hoped, but went pretty darn well.
- logfromblammo 12y agoThe first stage recovery was essentially bonus points. They were trying for 120% of the contracted, revenue-generating mission goals and only got 101%.
- khuey 12y agoThis is where the concept of secondary objectives comes in.