Ars Technica reports SpaceX launches, and lands its "flight proven" rocket:
SpaceX did it. Its flown booster launched on Thursday evening from Florida, delivered its payload into orbit, and then returned safely to Earth by landing on a drone ship in the Atlantic Ocean. During a brief interview on the SpaceX webcast, company founder Elon Musk was almost at a loss for words. "It's been 15 years to get to this point," he said. "It's taken us a long time. A lot of difficult steps along the way."
Ars will have a comprehensive, new story posted later tonight.
Cnet reports SpaceX launches recycled rocket in historic first:
A few minutes after sending the Dragon on its way April 8, [2016] the rocket successfully landed on the SpaceX drone ship "Of Course I Still Love You" in the Atlantic Ocean. It was the first such Falcon 9 landing attempt that didn't end in a spectacular explosion. Clearly, this rocket had to be the one.
The rocket was recovered, reconditioned and reloaded for its second launch, which happened at 3:27 p.m. PT Thursday.
Roughly ten minutes later the Falcon 9 made its second visit to "Of Course I Still Love You" of the coast of Florida, landing right in the center of the landing pad bullseye.
"This is going to be ultimately a huge revolution in spaceflight," SpaceX CEO Elon Musk said immediately after the landing. "It's the difference between if you had airplanes where you threw away an airplane after every flight versus you could reuse them multiple times."
Way to go SpaceX! I have watched rocket launches from way back in the Mercury, Gemini, and Saturn days, as well as many Shuttle launches. That we have finally reached a point where we can successfully vertically land then re-use rocket boosters kindles a feeling of amazement and awe in me that I struggle to put into words! This certainly adds credence to Elon Musk's plans to reduce the cost of commercial space launches and bodes well for his Mars ambitions, as well!
[Updated: 00:55 UTC] Launch and landing are available on YouTube: SES-10 Hosted Webcast and SES-10 Technical Webcast.
Related Stories
http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/28/15071288/spacex-launch-recycled-falcon-9-rocket-landing-schedule
On Thursday, SpaceX is set to launch yet another satellite into orbit from the Florida coast — but this mission will be far from routine for the company. The Falcon 9 rocket that SpaceX is using for the launch has already flown before. Around the same time last year, it sent cargo to the International Space Station for NASA, and then came back to Earth to land upright on a floating drone ship at sea. This is the first time that SpaceX will attempt to reuse one of its rockets.
[...] In truth, only part of the Falcon 9 is being reused on this upcoming mission. After each launch, SpaceX tries to save just the first stage of its vehicles. That's the 14-story-tall main body of the Falcon 9 that contains the primary engines and most of the fuel.
[...] Not only is this Falcon 9 rocket launching for a second time, but it's landing again, too. The first stage will attempt another drone ship landing in the Atlantic Ocean after takeoff, meaning this particular vehicle could see even more flight time in the future. It's still unclear just how many times a single first stage of a Falcon 9 can be used again. In the past, Musk has boasted that parts of the Falcon 9 could be reused up to 100 times, but he expects 10 to 20 reuses out of a single vehicle.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday March 30 2017, @11:31PM (2 children)
Let's see if we can get Musk to cheep on Twitter about how cheap the reusable rocket was compared to fresh.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Friday March 31 2017, @01:33AM (1 child)
http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/30/15117096/spacex-launch-reusable-rocket-success-falcon-9-landing [theverge.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday March 31 2017, @04:23PM
I'd assume you'd get a much higher discount because it was experimental
... but a smaller discount because of the advertising, regardless of success
... but a much higher payload insurance cost because it was experimental
... but a higher SES discount as a repeat GTO customer
... That definitely cost more than my last Amazon delivery! There. Certainty is good in the space business!
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday March 30 2017, @11:36PM (4 children)
In the future this day will be remembered as a milestone in spaceflight. No it isn't Apollo 11, but it is the day it got cheap to get into space. Now we can hope to put a lot of stuff up, stuff that was far to expensive to even consider until today. Now we aren't just exploring, we can exploit space.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday March 30 2017, @11:44PM (2 children)
Be sure you want what you wish for.. spam.. or a car with a pole through it as modern art orbiting. Why? because they can afford it. Not counting all the additional junk.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday March 30 2017, @11:50PM (1 child)
A can of spam is 12 0z. It would cost no more than $1-3k to launch it into LEO already.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Funny) by bob_super on Friday March 31 2017, @12:32AM
"Following a certain Mars mishap, we apologize for not being allowed to launch non-metric cans anymore".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @12:20AM
Now if only the EM-drive also pans out, we could be in for a big space boom where mining asteroids and Neptune vacations become common-place. (Sorry, Uranus, we'll still ignore you.)
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday March 30 2017, @11:37PM (5 children)
Hmm where have I heard that before?
Oh yeah. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program
"Way to go SpaceX! Having watched rocket launches from way back in the Mercury, Gemini, and Saturn days, as well as many Shuttle launches, that we have finally reached a point where we can successfully re-use rocket boosters kindles a feeling of amazement and awe in me that I am unable to put into words. This certainly adds credence to Elon Musk's plans to reduce the cost of commercial space launches and bodes well for his Mars ambitions, as well!"
I hope you changed your knickers after writing that bit, sheesh.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday March 31 2017, @12:42AM
> Hmm where have I heard that before?
In one space shuttle mission in 1984, two satellites were removed from their incorrect orbits and brought back to Earth. Later they were reflown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-A [wikipedia.org]
Buran was supposed to be reusable, but it was only flown once.
Blue Origin has a reusable booster.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 31 2017, @04:10AM (3 children)
In 2016, SpaceX managed 8 successful launches and despite a launch failure disrupting their schedule for five months of last year, have since done four more launches so far this year. SpaceX is on track to achieve a higher launch rate than the Space Shuttle this year. A high launch rate and this reusability program will I think make the difference, particularly if they can get the Falcon Heavy going as well.
High launch rate is what makes reusability viable. I think SpaceX is on track to make that happen.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday March 31 2017, @07:43AM (2 children)
Musk has a habit of promoting these "revolutionary" ideas of his own, when in fact they're usually old ideas that were well known and understood long before he came on the scene. He's just waited until technology advanced a bit more, making the idea a bit more easily implemented, then he comes along and pays some engineers to implement it. Which is fine, really, all except for this pretending to be a fount of original ideas and inventions, which is exactly the opposite of what he actually is.
People have been working on re-usable launch vehicles since the 1960s at least, and the idea is much older. A man who stands there with a straight face and claims it as his own "revolutionary" insight has the character of a con man and should be viewed with deep suspicion at best. Certainly not with the squealing hero-worship he gets around here.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Friday March 31 2017, @10:47AM
Musk has a habit of promoting these "revolutionary" ideas of his own, when in fact they're usually old ideas that were well known and understood long before he came on the scene.
SpaceX wouldn't exist, if that were true. The forty year period through to 2005, the year that SpaceX was founded is a period of squandered lessons and stagnation in the industry.
He's just waited until technology advanced a bit more, making the idea a bit more easily implemented, then he comes along and pays some engineers to implement it. Which is fine, really, all except for this pretending to be a fount of original ideas and inventions, which is exactly the opposite of what he actually is.
Then where are the previous SpaceX's of the past forty years? Orbital Sciences was the only success outside of companies (presently, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and United Launch Alliance) that were already established aerospace firms in 1965 and they stagnated as just another government contractor in the early 1990s. There are numerous businesses throughout the late 1980s and 1990s which attempted to build that illusive cheap rocket to orbit (including Beal Aerospace, E'Prime Aerospace, and Rotary Rocket to name some examples from the late 1990s). SpaceX succeeded where there had been a lot of failure.
Currently, SpaceX is on track this year to reach second place behind the Chinese Long March rocket and if they can get Falcon Heavy to launch later this year, they'll have a rocket that no one can currently match.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday March 31 2017, @04:30PM
Jobs didn't invent the phone with a touchscreen, nor the tablet
Gates didn't invent the windowed operating system
Berners-Lee didn't invent networking
Boeing didn't invent the jet plane
...
When the market and tech are finally ready, old ideas become viable, and someone gets the credit for making the first practical implementation, despite/by learning from the people who tried too early ...
(Score: 2) by Rich on Thursday March 30 2017, @11:38PM (1 child)
Congratulations to everyone involved! That's some historical stunt to pull off.
No one can whine "well, it's wasn't exactly rocket science" now :)
But, I fear, if Elon would turn super-villain, James Bond would be no match for him. Even more so that none other than him got hold of Bond's submarine Esprit.
(Score: 2) by mrpg on Friday March 31 2017, @12:31AM
Thank you.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday March 30 2017, @11:58PM
Youtube video of the launch and landing:
SES-10 Hosted Webcast [youtube.com]
(unfortunately the video blanked out 1-2 seconds when it landed on the barge..)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @11:58PM (1 child)
Wiki offers all these different meanings, which one did our fearless editor mean?
Calima may refer to:
Calima Aviación, a Spanish airline
Calima culture, a pre-Columbian culture from Colombia
Calima, a dust wind originating in the Saharan Air Layer
CALIMA or The Temple of Semos, a place in Planet of the Apes (2001 film)
Calima River, a river in Colombia
(Score: 2) by mrpg on Friday March 31 2017, @12:29AM
The one from the movie:
[spoiler alert!]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Apes_(2001_film) [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @12:10AM (2 children)
It is indeed an amazing feat. However, there is something I don't get. NASA has designed some boosters to fall back into the ocean with parachutes for reuse. This seems a cheaper way to reuse the booster (or at least a large part of it) because it doesn't need landing fuel and landing guidance control hardware. True, the guts get soaked. Is soaking versus non-soaking the alleged key difference in cost savings? Is the difference big?
(Score: 5, Informative) by martyb on Friday March 31 2017, @12:26AM
IIRC, those were solid rocket boosters that strapped to the side of the shuttle. That is, solid propellant. Once they are ignited, they just go until they run out of fuel. Think of a really BIG fireworks tube, packed with solid fuel.
This is a liquid-fueled rocket booster. Liquid oxygen (LOX) and RP-1 (rocket-grade propellant (kerosene) -- also cooled to "densify" it.) This goes through turbo pumps to be fed into the combustion area. These pumps run at something like 10K RPM, can be throttled or even stopped, and can later be restarted. This is a far FAR more complicated device.
From first-hand experience, salt water does really nasty things to stuff, especially metals.
So, to answer your question: Yes, keeping the rocket from soaking IS a BIG deal.
I am NOT a rocket scientist, and these are from memory; some of the details may be a bit off, but the basic point stands. Also, there's not much ocean to land in on Mars. Vertical landing and relaunch (using in situ derived fuels) makes a return journey from the surface potentially much more feasible.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 4, Informative) by ese002 on Friday March 31 2017, @12:29AM
It is indeed an amazing feat. However, there is something I don't get. NASA has designed some boosters to fall back into the ocean with parachutes for reuse. This seems a cheaper way to reuse the booster (or at least a large part of it) because it doesn't need landing fuel and landing guidance control hardware. True, the guts get soaked. Is soaking versus non-soaking the alleged key difference in cost savings? Is the difference big?
It's huge. Salt water and relatively hard impact in the ocean messed up the boosters so badly that the best that NASA could do was disassemble the units and refurbish and reuse some of the parts.
Space-X reused an entire rocket nearly as-is. As I recall, only the landing pegs were new.
Quora [quora.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @12:14AM (3 children)
There was some gossip that maybe they would attempt to recover the nose cone (or payload fairing) today. Anyone know if that actually happened or not?
(Score: 2) by martyb on Friday March 31 2017, @01:58AM (1 child)
I was able to find this: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/spacex-may-try-a-daring-rocket-fairing-recovery-tonight-too/ [arstechnica.com] (emphasis added.):
I had no idea those were so expensive! Have not found any official word on an actual recovery attempt or how it may have faired.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @03:05AM
That Ars page, in second page of comments, links to:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42544.msg1661124#msg1661124 [nasaspaceflight.com]
It says "floating", but nothing about if in water (not as planned) or ship.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday March 31 2017, @08:17PM
http://www.space.com/36291-spacex-used-rocket-launch-landing-success.html [space.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Snospar on Friday March 31 2017, @12:48PM
Every time I see another of these launch then land videos I am awestruck. Congratulations to all involved!
And back to Kerbal Space I go, where my landings are seldom successful :(
Huge thanks to all the Soylent volunteers without whom this community (and this post) would not be possible.