The day was not that long ago where every booster was expended after every launch. So the fact that this thing launched 23 times before failing is quite frankly amazing.
True but also something that should have been tested for and known before it was upright and fuelled again. I.e. why didn't safety checks catch the issue(s)?
Oh, absolutely. And this failure here will just show that these are things that need to be done in the maintenance, which will make them last even longer.
I think the other idea is to retire them before they fail to avoid unnecessary risks and landing pad repairs.
That's true, but the more resilient they can be made the better. I know at first they were talking about potentially reusing them 10 times each and now they have successfully demonstrated that they can do it 20 times each instead. So perhaps with some extra maintenance work and some inspections they could get it up to 30 or 40 times per booster. There would obviously become a point where maintenance would cost more than just building a new booster at which point they would obviously start retiring boosters and making new ones to replace them instead of reflying them.
Those two astronauts are never coming down at this rate
A price Boeing is willing to pay... Now please pay executives their bonus peasants. They are your better
The build this fucking country with their barehands
Don't worry, I'm thinking about starting my own rocket company so we can go get them!
In our first year, I plan to deploy at least 3 fully functional 1/50th scale prototypes.
That's really what sets us apart from the rest. Our commitment to 1/50th scale prototypes. I can't wait, it's going to be pretty sweet!
So, the plan is to launch a rocket carrying a thin string. The astronauts will reach out to catch said string. Then, they will pull a strong chain with the string so they can tie the space station to the chain. Then they will slowly climb down until reaching atmosphere. At the point they will jump with a parachute or continue climbing down slowly. It's their choice.
This must be that string theory u keep hearing about.
This was a landing failure of a booster after returning from it's mission. Boosters have always been expendable one-and-done parts that would be jettisoned to burn up in the atmosphere. Boeing currently has no roadmap for reusable boosters, meanwhile SpaceX has launched this particular booster 23 times! These booster failures are extremely rare and any booster recovery for any space agency/company that isn't SpaceX is notable. SpaceX is the only agency/company that has recovered and reused a booster, and they've done so hundreds of times.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Launch_outcomes
Note there was 1 launch failure this year which was their first launch failure since 2016, almost 10 years with hundreds of launches between failures.
The last booster to be lost on a landing was in 2023 and not even a booster failure but simply rough seas:
First booster to fly for the 19th time. Despite the landing being initially successful, the booster later tipped over during transit due to rough seas, high winds and waves, the stage was unable to be secured to the deck for recovery and later tipped over and was destroyed in transit. SpaceX has already equipped newer Falcon boosters with upgraded landing legs that have the capability to self-level and mitigate this type of issue.
So in short, yes it is bad that a booster which shouldn't have been lost was. But in terms of crew safety this isn't a huge concern. SpaceX simply has an incredible track record for successful missions and has become the "safe" bet in aerospace
Seems a little bit unfair to me that a reusable launch system can be grounded for issues on the way back, when discarding launch systems do not have to content with that.
It’s not really because it fell over. It’s because it wasn’t supposed to fall over. Consumable launch materials don’t contend with this because failure to return is a success. This is a failure. This must be learned from and fought against/prevented going forward.
Seems reasonable. This is exactly what the FAA should be doing and is why flying is so safe since every crash and accident becomes an opportunity to learn and adjust procedures to minimize the risks.
Let’s find out why it failed and then identify metrics for when a module can be reused.
i think part of the issue with the 'throw away' systems is they know exactly where that shit will land regardless of success. the re-use systems actively modify their flight path on the way back, and could poptentially veer off into populated places. maybe.
There are (or at least were) actually competent engineers at spacex. While we can't rule out overengineering to an obscene degree, the amount of propulsion is going to be very limited. Basically enough to make minor adjustments and then one last burn to "safely" land.
Which is basically comparable to wind carrying a conventional booster off course. Yes, it is possible but it is mitigated by landing in an ocean and not doing this on windy days.
No, The issue is that there was a failure. Doesn't matter when or where it happens. Something that was supposed to work didn't and we need to understand that before we have yet another Challenger.
Let's put it this way (yay metaphors, these never leave to pedantism and derailment): You just got home from driving to the local fun fair. You close your door and your mirror falls off. It happened AFTER you drove and AFTER you turned off the engine but... are you going to go on any road trips before figuring out what the hell happened?
are you going to go on any road trips before figuring out what the hell happened?
If you live in Maryland, sure why not? It'll go along with the duct-tape-and-garbagebag oil pan.
If I remember correctly, they steer the rocket a little off from the landing spot until the last second so if anything were to go wrong it crashes in a safe, predetermined spot.
I mean. Traditional systems go through a LOT of very rigorous and documented-ish processes to be reused (not quite Rocket of Theseus but...). They are expected to be unusable after a launch and being able to reuse them is kind of an added bonus.
Reusable systems are specifically designed to be... reused. So if they aren't reusable after a launch, something went horribly wrong and we need to understand why. Because maybe we got lucky and the proverbial door fell off after landing this time. Maybe next time it falls off mid-flight.
Especially when you take into consideration the fact that the booster landed (and subsequently fell over) on a floating platform out at sea.
The problem is that something unexpected happend, so now we gotta understand it.
Was it caused by something during ascent? Now that's a problem.
If it's something that was caused during decent we "only" need to understand how to spot it, but it won't be a critical flight safety problem.
I doubt this grounding will last long since it’s unlikely to affect other flights. They’re just looking for an understanding of why this happened and it could very well be due to some wear that wasn’t expected.
It's kinda went Boeing Boeing!
The space station astronauts peed a little when SpaceX got grounded. The alternative is to jump with a parachute.
I remember the old videos of rockets exploding on launch pads when we were first building them. We have come a long way.
I suspect they will just learn something new from this and they will last even longer.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
