SpaceX Crashed Another Rocket Onto an Ocean Barge

[Hamartia Antidote]

They are failing at such a rate that all other countries combined can't even reach.I don't believe they can bear this without the help from NASA or government.

Technically by your definition every rocket China has ever launched in its history has failed miserably since you have yet to recover one of them in one piece.

The satellite launched is in orbit. The rocket landing was not a success.

The cost of the launch has no discount. It includes the cost of the entire rocket.

 

[F-22Raptor]

SpaceX narrowly misses booster landing at sea

One of four landing legs mounted to the base of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 booster failed to engage on the rocket’s final descent to a barge in the Pacific Ocean on Sunday, leaving wreckage scattered on the football field-sized deck of the landing ship after an otherwise successful launch with an ocean research satellite.

The rocket landings have become a regular fixture on SpaceX launches as the California-based company tries to perfect techniques to make the Falcon 9 first stage reusable, a goal SpaceX founder and chief executive Elon Musk says is vital to reducing the cost of spaceflight.

It was SpaceX’s third attempt to land a Falcon 9 booster on the company’s drone ship positioned downrange in the ocean. SpaceX’s first rocket landing attempt on shore in December was successful, giving the company a triumph to close the year after a launch failure in June grounded the Falcon 9 for nearly six months.

The Falcon 9’s first stage, which stands 14 stories tall and measures 12 feet (3.7 meters) in diameter, flew on course to the drone ship Sunday after liftoff from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The booster jettisoned from the Falcon 9’s upper stage, which continued into orbit with the Jason 3 oceanography satellite for U.S. and European science institutions, then flipped around and slowed down before reaching the landing platform.

The rocket’s center engine, one of nine Merlin engines on the Falcon 9 first stage, fired to put on the brakes just as the vehicle approached the drone ship named “Just Read the Instructions” after a starship featured in science fiction writer Iain Banks’ novels.


The Falcon 9 first stage descends to a soft landing on SpaceX’s drone ship in the Pacific Ocean on Sunday. The rocket tipped over moments later. Credit: SpaceX


The rocket was right on course — just 4.3 feet (1.3 meters) off center, SpaceX said — but a collet on leg No. 3 failed to latch, and the landing gear crumpled as the booster settled on the ship’s deck.

A video posted to Instagram by Musk showed the rocket falling over and breaking apart in a fireball, and a photo released by SpaceX showed wreckage strewn across the platform positioned about 170 miles (280 kilometers) south of Vandenberg in the Pacific Ocean.

The failed landing makes SpaceX 0-for-3 when targeting touchdowns on the ocean-going barge, but Sunday’s try came closer to sticking the landing than earlier attempts.

Engineers blamed the explosive crash landing of a Falcon 9 booster in January 2015 on insufficient hydraulic fluid for the rocket’s steering fins, and a first stage made a hard landing in April 2015 after a throttle valve on the landing engine became stuck.

No such problems haunted the Falcon 9 rocket’s descent Sunday, and officials said the landing would have been successful without the broken leg.

Officials admit landing on a ship presents more challenges the returning than booster to land, but if SpaceX eventually aims to recover and reuse all its Falcon 9 boosters, the barge is essential.

“Definitely harder to land on a ship,” Musk tweeted Sunday. “Similar to an aircraft carrier vs land: much smaller target area, that’s also translating & rotating.”

Underwater thrusters on SpaceX’s drone ships keep the vessels in place, but the barge can spin and is susceptible to rocking from waves.

“However, that was not what prevented (Sunday’s landing) being good,” Musk tweeted. “Touchdown speed was ok, but a leg lockout didn’t latch, so it tipped over after landing.”

He added that a similar problem on a landing back on the coast would have probably had the same result.

High-energy Falcon 9 flights, like the next launch scheduled for early February from Florida with the SES 9 television broadcasting craft, must reach higher speeds during the first stage’s nearly three-minute burn, leaving no fuel to turn around and fly back to the launch site.

“Ship landings are not needed for flexibility or to save fuel costs,” Musk posted on Twitter. “Just not physically possible to return to launch site if speed at stage separation > ~6000 km/hr (3,728 mph). With a ship, no need to zero out lateral velocity, so can stage at up to ~9000 km/h (5,592 mph).”

Most communications satellites are deployed into high-altitude trajectories on the way to geostationary orbit 22,300 miles (36,000 kilometers) above Earth, requiring extra speed over launches to low Earth orbit like the Jason 3 mission.

Hans Koenigsmann, SpaceX’s vice president of mission assurance, said before Sunday’s launch that the Falcon 9 rocket’s first stage could have returned to Vandenberg after the Jason 3 launch due to the satellite’s relatively low mass and low orbit.

But SpaceX could not secure environmental approval for the onshore landing in time.

SpaceX narrowly misses booster landing at sea | Spaceflight Now

 

[Chanakyaa]

So what? Its still a failed test, he still needs to go back drawing board, burn cash for more analysis and making of prototype. He cannot afford this for long. We know he is at his edge.

He is Making Money. Then how he will go bankrupt ?

You do not know how expensive these space expenditure can cost. USA is a very practical world. Only money talks. Creds is nothing if you have no cash.

In Plain English : He is Earning Millions with Each Launch !

Plz educate yourself : SpaceX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gambit]

So the Chinese is criticizing US for failures in progress.

Why not ? China is just waiting for US to make successful a new technology and method in space program so China can use it later. Making fun of US is just candy on the side.

 

[F-22Raptor]

The landing was actually successful. It was almost dead center. The rocket being able to stand was the issue. That shouldn't be to difficult to correct.

 

[Dungeness]

Technically by your definition every rocket China has ever launched in its history has failed miserably since you have yet to recover one of them in one piece.

The satellite launched is in orbit. The rocket landing was not a success.

The cost of the launch has no discount. It includes the cost of the entire rocket.

This is a silly statement, as landing of the first stages was never an objective of any Chinese rocket, but it is for SpaceX. Anyway, I applaud SpaceX's vision, its pioneering efforts, and its resiliency.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

This is a silly statement, as landing of the first stages was never an objective of any Chinese rocket, but it is for SpaceX. Anyway, I applaud SpaceX's vision, its pioneering efforts, and its resiliency.

So you don't hink his statement of "They are failing at such a rate that all other countries combined can't even reach.I don't believe they can bear this without the help from NASA or government." is just as silly? Or is China just a land of people who simply give-up easily?

The entire cost of the rocket is paid per launch. If they get t back it is even more profit.

 

[Dungeness]

So you don't hink his statement of "They are failing at such a rate that all other countries combined can't even reach.I don't believe they can bear this without the help from NASA or government." is just as silly? Or is China just a land of people who simply give-up easily?

The entire cost of the rocket is paid per launch. If they get t back it is even more profit.

The real question should be if the TOTAL cost of recycling part of the launching system is economically viable.

We know one of the original objects of Space Shuttle was also to lower the cost of each space launch, and hundreds of billions and 6 lives later, we gave up the program. Should we have invested in different technology, we might not have to rely on Russians to send our astronauts to ISS today.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

The real question should be if the TOTAL cost of recycling part of the launching system is economically viable.

We know one of the original objects of Space Shuttle was also to lower the cost of each space launch, and hundreds of billions and 6 lives later, we gave up the program. Should we have invested in different technology, we might not have to rely on Russians to send our astronauts to ISS today.

The space shuttle launched 833 passengers into space. That's a mind blowing number. That in itself is probably more than the entire history of the Russian and Chinese space programs put together. I don't see it being topped anytime soon. Unless Musk gets a big ship working.

 

[Dungeness]

The space shuttle launched 833 passengers into space. That's a mind blowing number. That in itself is probably more than the entire history of the Russian and Chinese space programs put together. I don't see it being topped anytime soon. Unless Musk gets a big ship working.

I have no intention to discount the overall success of the Space Shuttle program, but it certainly did not meet one of its original promises of lowering the costs of space launch, therefore, the program was not economical viable to continue anymore . While tax payers pick up the costs of Space Shuttle program, successful or not, for profit SpaceX will have to take the cost per pound launched into consideration. So far, they have not launched rocket that is recycled, so we have to wait to see their success in economy front.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Guys calm down. I don't understand why some Chinese are making fun of a successful/pioneering private company like space X. We should all be applauding their effort/skills and creativity and the contribution they are making to mankind as a whole. In fact what these guys are doing many space powers today won't be able to do it this century.

So let's give credit when due, and leave rivalry/enmity/jealousy aside for once.

 

[razgriz19]

The landing was actually successful. It was almost dead center. The rocket being able to stand was the issue. That shouldn't be to difficult to correct.

one of the legs didn't lock properly. It happens even in aviation to this day. Not a huge deal, they will correct it on the next one for sure

 

[Oldman1]

one of the legs didn't lock properly. It happens even in aviation to this day. Not a huge deal, they will correct it on the next one for sure

I think the tilting caused the leg to break. It can only go so far before the stress is too much. It worked on land but not a moving barge.

 

[Blue Marlin]

 

[jhungary]

The real question should be if the TOTAL cost of recycling part of the launching system is economically viable.

We know one of the original objects of Space Shuttle was also to lower the cost of each space launch, and hundreds of billions and 6 lives later, we gave up the program. Should we have invested in different technology, we might not have to rely on Russians to send our astronauts to ISS today.

That's where you are wrong. Space shuttle is never about affordability and economic concern, but it is a breakthrough required for future space mission.

Look at it this way, 6 50 cal. Machinegun on a F-86 Sabre will be a lot cheaper than a single non-reusable AIM-9 Sidewinder Missile, would you consider the development of AIM-9 Sidewinder is a failure as it increase the cost per use count of its weaponry platform.

You have to develop and master reusable space launch in order to progress in space exploration, that's not just for passenger transfer, but also work cargo and workstation.

And I would not say US gave up the program because of hundred of billions and 6 live later (The program cost 209 billions in total, with 134 launch which account for 1.5 billions per launch) it is actually quite cheap in cost for manned space mission against 200-500 million per launch for non-reusable rocket (And don't forget you still need to factor in the cost of rocket itself)

The main reason why the space shuttle fleet retire is due to its age, it turn 31 this year.....