With a way smaller rocket that didn't put a payload into orbit. It's not the same class. Still very impressive of course, but this is a bigger achievement imo.

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

December 22 2015 12:46 GMT

#1382

Never mind the grasshopper tests... anyways:

arbiter_md

Moldova1219 Posts

December 22 2015 13:29 GMT

#1383

This is beautiful landing. Now I wonder when will we see the first rocket with "second-hand" first stage to be launched.
Anyway, amazing achievement by spaceX.

Nilrem

United States3684 Posts

December 22 2015 13:47 GMT

#1384

History in the making. I got chills watching its successful launch and landing. Sort of wish there was a wider, larger coverage for it. Slightly disappointing when checking the news site how little coverage and attention seems to have been given. Still, such awesomeness.

Flaccid

8917 Posts

December 22 2015 15:24 GMT

#1385

On December 22 2015 18:07 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Blue Origin already did it earlier this year. so umm, ya.

A decent run-down of why this is a very different beast:

Rassy

Netherlands2308 Posts

December 22 2015 16:38 GMT

#1386

Didn't the space shuttle have re-usable boosters as well in 1986?
Curious how often this rocket can be re-used and how much it costs to prepare it for the next launch.

JimmyJRaynor

Canada17710 Posts

December 22 2015 17:33 GMT

#1387

the first ever shuttle flight was in 1981 i think.
the only 1986 shuttle flight blew into a million pieces. i don't think it got "re used"

is the Falcon9 better than the 1981 Space Shuttle?
the devil is in the details. if the Falcon9 costs as much as the shuttle did to make a return flight then Musk's accomplishment means very little. If ,on the other extreme, SpaceX can put the Falcon9 back up into space a few days later with as much maintenance as a 747 requires THEN this is a major accomplishment.

the actual technical feat does not mean a lot. what means a lot is the maintenance costs of re-usability.

Another technical milestone that is not completed is putting actual cargo into space the way the Shuttle did.

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

December 22 2015 17:43 GMT

#1388

At one point in the SpaceX webcast of the launch the moderator had to remind viewers looking at SpaceX employees whooping and hugging after the landing that the mission’s main objective, after all, was to deploy the Orbcomm fleet.

But it is the second stage’s performance that will position SpaceX to conduct commercial operations the way it has long intended. SpaceX said the second stage engine performed the full re-ignition and burn sequence needed for geostationary satellites.

Source

JimmyJRaynor

Canada17710 Posts

December 22 2015 17:48 GMT

#1389

spectacular video footage means very little. The celebrating occurs in the CEO's office as they look at spreadsheets outlining the costs of this stuff.

there was lots of engineers celebrating during the Shuttle and Apollo Era.. and where are we after all that?

Sn0_Man

Tebellong44238 Posts

December 22 2015 17:54 GMT

#1390

This launch literally just put cargo in space lol
also the space shuttle had some parts that were NOT fully reuseable (the big orange tank burned up) and some parts that had to be rescued to be reused (the solid boosters fell into the ocean and required considerable effort to be functional again) etc. Much higher cost.

And in truth, we aren't comparing the same things. The shuttle wasn't a reuseable launch system, it was a reuseable orbiter. Most of the launch system was not reuseable or at least difficult and expensive to reuse. Falcon 9 is completely different in that it's an entirely reuseable launch system. What it launches is somewhat irrelevant (although the payload does have fairly specific parameters).

JimmyJRaynor

Canada17710 Posts

December 22 2015 18:11 GMT

#1391

the other thing that needs to be examined is the probability of failing to land. It appears a Falcon9 is destroyed when a landing fails. The shuttle was successful 133 of 135 times + the Enterprise landings. So far, how is the Falcon9 doing?

any way you slice it its all about lowering costs. if it costs me $50,000 to rebuild a completely new entity that can stick heavy cargo into space then we have a winner. it does not matter how good or how bad it looks in a video, it does not matter how much of the thing gets re-used. its all about a low cost solution.

Sn0_Man

Tebellong44238 Posts

December 22 2015 18:32 GMT

#1392

When disposable cars are cheaper than reusable ones you may have a point

JimmyJRaynor

Canada17710 Posts

December 22 2015 18:35 GMT

#1393

when a rocket can fly into space and land as many times as i start my car.. lemme know.

and also raw # of re-uses is another factor.
how "re usable" was the shuttle?. 1 shuttle got what? 30 flights maximum. and didn't 2 out of 6 fail.
if 50% of the Falcon9's fail to land properly are they "re usable"?

if a Falcon9 can take off and land as reliably as a 747 we have a winner.

if its just another 30 max re-use product that fails regularly then i'll borrow a famous american saying
" its deja vu all over again "

arbiter_md

Moldova1219 Posts

December 22 2015 19:19 GMT

#1394

I find simplistic to say that 30 max re-use product is a deja-vu. Everything depends on the cost of refurbishment. If the stage is fully functional and all it needs is just some functional tests and being placed back at the launch site, then SpaceX is in a win position even if the stage 1 landing fails 10% of the times.

JimmyJRaynor

Canada17710 Posts

December 22 2015 19:27 GMT

#1395

On December 23 2015 04:19 arbiter_md wrote: Everything depends on the cost of refurbishment.

ya, and that's exactly what i said in my previous posts about "re usability".

also this is a PR exercise so that US tax payers who fund NASA will be happy with NASA giving money to SpaceX.. all the celebrating etc.. its just PR so taxpayers can feel good about NASA money going to SPaceX.

the real accomplishment ( if there is one at all ) occurs when the CEO examines the cost spreadsheets and discovers its way less expensive to put stuff in space than it was say .. 10 years ago. this type of conclusion can't be arrived at after a proof-of-concept flight and landing.

these videos are designed to grease the skids for an influx of taxpayer cash.

HugoBallzak

700 Posts

December 22 2015 20:11 GMT

#1396

On December 23 2015 04:27 JimmyJRaynor wrote:

Show nested quote +

You literally repeated yourself twice on this page of the thread alone. We get it, you are not impressed.

Faust852

Luxembourg4004 Posts

December 22 2015 20:31 GMT

#1397

I think sending a 500tons rocket into space then letting it land at the same place afterward cannot be not impressive.

misirlou

Portugal3308 Posts

December 22 2015 20:36 GMT

#1398

It's pretty clear your head is far up your ass when you say something like "Another technical milestone that is not completed is putting actual cargo into space the way the Shuttle did." when this exact launch put 11 satellites in LEO. Previous falcon 9 launches sent cargo to ISS (6 times) and plenty other sats to LEO, GEO and even a L point. "proof of concept flight" is 10 years late buddy, when they started flying the falcon 1 and their first merlin engines. You might get that vibe from all the boundaries they keep pushing with each flight, like being the first time they used LOX this cold and dense, but that's just how they do business.

Comparing what SpaceX accomplished live for the world to see to BO's secret project is simple ignorance. The technical feat is orders of magnitude apart.

You should also be happy if Nasa spends less money in their projects and funnel it to private companies (Spx, ULA, BO, SNC, BA) because they are clearly capable of spending that money better. All the money they got in the last 30 years didn't accomplish anything as ground breaking for spaceflight as Musk's little fortune did. Unless you're happy with SLS costs for what it actually does. Or maybe you think that money is better spent on the DoD.

Sn0_Man

Tebellong44238 Posts

December 22 2015 20:44 GMT

#1399

Please keep the mod note in mind, thanks.