SpaceX Fails A Third Time To Land Falcon 9 On Barge

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Third time’s the—oops, maybe next time. To be fair, the company did succeed with its primary mission: propelling the Jason 3 satellite into orbit.

SpaceX has failed to land its Falcon 9 rocket on an autonomous drone ship in the Pacific Ocean after launching the vehicle into space. The vehicle made it to the ship, but came in too hard and broke one of its landing legs. This marks the third time the company has failed to land the rocket upright on the floating ship; the last two times the company attempted ocean landings, the rockets exploded.
 
The sea were rough at 11 feet, even during the webcast the ship could be seen moving. Not very surprising one of legs failed, either due to the wave action, or the leg did not latch open. They also did lose the live uplink from the barge during the landing timeframe, but they should have video soon.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/688837706005131264
 
11ft seas.. Pretty rough for attempting something like this. I think its incredibke they even got the thing on the barge!
 
Atleast it did not explode. This combined with the rough weather and only breaking a leg i'd call this a partial success.
 
first two times it exploded, this time it only broke a leg. I would consider that a partial win. you can replace a leg and use it again. You can't reuse it from an explosion.
 
Why do they need to land at sea? they cant get approval for some area around Nevada desert or somewhere to land safely on?(doesn't even have to be in the U.S really)

anyway , these are mild setbacks , try to lookup early NASA/Soviet attempts , they were losing Rockets left and right and that was on the way up not down... not to mention this is a private company and not a whole national endeavor.
 
Why do they need to land at sea? they cant get approval for some area around Nevada desert or somewhere to land safely on?(doesn't even have to be in the U.S really)

The first stage of the rocket comes off over the Atlantic during ascent. SpaceX wants to recover those boosters instead of dropping them in the ocean.
 
That landing was heartbreaking - they were sooo close.

But you learn more from the failures than the successes. Even if this isn't economically the best thing for near-space travel, it's still wicked cool stuff.

-- The names on the barges is the name of that barge. The latest was named "Read The Instructions" I guess when your rich and eccentric you can name your barges whatever the hell you want.
 
Why do they need to land at sea? they cant get approval for some area around Nevada desert or somewhere to land safely on?(doesn't even have to be in the U.S really)

anyway , these are mild setbacks , try to lookup early NASA/Soviet attempts , they were losing Rockets left and right and that was on the way up not down... not to mention this is a private company and not a whole national endeavor.
Private company.... That sits on top of all that accumulated knowlage of course.
 
Why do they need to land at sea? they cant get approval for some area around Nevada desert or somewhere to land safely on?(doesn't even have to be in the U.S really)/QUOTE]

Because Nevada desert is all around the globe.
 
I'm sure this is feasible and they will do it. However, due to the fact its at sea probably reduces the success ratio to 1 in 10.

Probably not worth the effort.
 
I been wondering about this, wouldn't mass production (and maybe recycling if rocket engines have so much materials) be cheaper and less risky than re-using?
 
I been wondering about this, wouldn't mass production (and maybe recycling if rocket engines have so much materials) be cheaper and less risky than re-using?
SpaceX are doing a few launches per year. In order for economies of scale to kick in, they would need to be doing at least *hundreds* of launches per year, I'm guessing. Creating the tooling to enable mass production is a very expensive process, far more expensive than building a small number of products the more expensive way.
 
Looks to me like the landing was successful, unlike the first two that involved crashes prior to engine shutdown. Just need to work on that post shutdown stability. A previous poster's suggestion for pillows could be done via quick inflate airbags. Might not save the body of the booster but could save several of the motors.

I have wondered for a while if the weight of a 5th leg outweighs(literally) the stability advantages. With 5, any one can fail and it would still be somewhat stable.
 
I been wondering about this, wouldn't mass production (and maybe recycling if rocket engines have so much materials) be cheaper and less risky than re-using?

LEO is already a disaster area of discarded rocket bits. That we aren't already seeing regular damage to space vehicles from out Cold War space dumping is damned lucky.

SpaceX are doing a few launches per year. In order for economies of scale to kick in, they would need to be doing at least *hundreds* of launches per year, I'm guessing. Creating the tooling to enable mass production is a very expensive process, far more expensive than building a small number of products the more expensive way.

100s of launches/year won't bring lift prices down. Further these clowns already have gotten bankrupt states and counties like New Mexico to build "spaceports" they aren't using.
 
Private company.... That sits on top of all that accumulated knowlage of course.

you can be cynic , but i truly believe Elon Musk is actually committed to making progress for the whole of humanity and profit is a secondary objective for him , perhaps only being a means to an end (more R&D).

but thats just me...
 
you can be cynic , but i truly believe Elon Musk is actually committed to making progress for the whole of humanity and profit is a secondary objective for him , perhaps only being a means to an end (more R&D).

but thats just me...

Meh...he took the state of New Mexico and one of the poorest counties in the USA for $1,000,000,000 USD so far in outright construction costs for "Spaceport America"...then there's the extra $3,000,000+ a year in firefighter contracting costs plus $500,000 in operating costs....all for a facility that no one knows if and or when it will be used.

Musk is like all the other billionaires. He wants toys, but would like for anyone else to build and pay for them. Yah. "for whole humanity".


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/04/space-travel-virgingalactic-haunts-new-mexico-town
 
Why do they need to land at sea? they cant get approval for some area around Nevada desert or somewhere to land safely on?(doesn't even have to be in the U.S really)

When I saw the video I imagined mission control had about 2 seconds of celebration when it looked like they got it and then Elon was just like "huh..." lol

I actually just read this morning, I think it was ifuckinglovescience.com, the reason is that they'd have to guide the rocket back to the landing pad, which requires even more fuel and additional maneuvering capabilities instead of just positioning a barge very near wherever the rocket vertically descends. The fuel to have a controlled landing is a lot less than the fuel required to "fly" it back to it's launching point. Having launches done over the sea also significantly limits the potential for collateral damage if/when these things malfunction and explode into tiny bits. Remember the shuttle that broke up coming out of orbit a few years back, the debris trail was across a couple states.

SpaceX is going to get it right, they've invested too much and are too close to just give up. I'm curious though, with rough seas and an object THAT long with those short legs, it seems like even if they landed it with no problem, the thing would still potentially tip over during transport. Why not create some sort of capture system that would stabilize the rocket from the mid/top section? They don't have a problem with precision locating the rocket, they just have a problem at this point with it staying upright once they're near the ground.
 
spacex-falcon-9-reusable-first-stage-150210b-02.jpg
 
Why do they need to land at sea? they cant get approval for some area around Nevada desert or somewhere to land safely on?(doesn't even have to be in the U.S really)

One:

Jason-3 mission used too much fuel to leave enough left-over to propel the rocket back to the launch pad.

Two:

Even if the fuel were available, the landing area at Vandenberg is not ready yet. Now that they've hit the target in their previous earth landing, I imagine they have clearance to do it anywhere.

It takes fuel to move a rocket. :D The water landing is just the least fuel required. Since they expect this to be a requirement in the future (smaller payloads can land on earth, bigger payloads must land at sea), they have a good reason to keep trying to get this right :D
 
The title is misleading. That was actually a pretty good landing. The failure was in a strut.
 
Meh...he took the state of New Mexico and one of the poorest counties in the USA for $1,000,000,000 USD so far in outright construction costs for "Spaceport America"...then there's the extra $3,000,000+ a year in firefighter contracting costs plus $500,000 in operating costs....all for a facility that no one knows if and or when it will be used.

Musk is like all the other billionaires. He wants toys, but would like for anyone else to build and pay for them. Yah. "for whole humanity".


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/04/space-travel-virgingalactic-haunts-new-mexico-town

It didn't really cost $1 billion to build and it wasn't actually Musk was it?
 
It didn't really cost $1 billion to build and it wasn't actually Musk was it?

The Bransons, Musks, and Bexos(es) and so on are pretty much all the same.

"Lobbying" taxpayers to build them facilities at great expense on taxpayer dime and operated on their dime....in the hopes that maybe one day there might be tons of revenue in it. Kind of like the NFL. Except at least with NFL stadiums you can sometimes afford a ticket. And further the facilities even sometimes get used by the NFL.
 
The Bransons, Musks, and Bexos(es) and so on are pretty much all the same.

"Lobbying" taxpayers to build them facilities at great expense on taxpayer dime and operated on their dime....in the hopes that maybe one day there might be tons of revenue in it. Kind of like the NFL. Except at least with NFL stadiums you can sometimes afford a ticket. And further the facilities even sometimes get used by the NFL.

Except it is Branson connected to Spaceport America and it didn't cost $1 Billion to build.
 
Elon just released a view from inside the rocket as it was tipping over.

ksp-590x330.jpg
 
Back
Top