9 ms·

SpaceX Falcon 9 booster 'tipped over' into the ocean during landing

14 points by mikro2nd 2y ago

cherioo 2y ago
It’s amazing how this is now the news, not when it successfully lands!
- gregoriol 2y ago
  "This was the booster's 23rd launch." that's the thing I'll remember from the article
- grecy 2y ago
  Think about who stands to lose the most if Tesla and spacex dominate (answer: old money) Think about who controls the media (answer: old money and friends of old money) It is very easy to see why they want everyone to think spacex and Tesla are collapsing
  - Arnt 2y ago
    "Old money" is one way to put it. It seems to be dominated by pension funds and people's savings. Please don't put your savings into Vanguard's famous index fund — Vanguard currently has 7.47% of the shares and you don't want to ruin that by forcing Vanguard to increase its stake to 7.48%.
raverbashing 2y ago
As much as I think the FAA response might be a bit unfair, I think the issue here is what is promised vs delivered Even with a disposable booster you want it to follow a certain flight path and be discarded at a given area. If you promised that it will land and it doesn't, even if it is inconsequential to the rest of the mission, well...
- Sakos 2y ago
  I just don't understand the repeated takes that this is unfair. There was a failure, it should be investigated and a fix found. Once SpaceX has done that, they can continue launching rockets. I'm not sure where the problem is. This is what we expect from every plane crash too, or did I imagine the existence and purpose of the NTSB? The same thing happened with the last explosion and the Falcon 9 was eventually allowed to fly again once it was determined there was no public safety issue: https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/spacexs-falcon-9-cleared-by-authorities-return-space-faa-says-2024-07-26/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/spacexs-falcon-9-cl... They were even allowed to fly again before SpaceX finished their investigation as soon as the safety question was answered. This isn't a punishment.
  - krisoft 2y ago
    > There was a failure There are failures which only cost the company money and there are failures which risks lives. By all indications this is the first kind. It would be entirely different situation if the rocket thumbled out of control and hit the sea in the wrong spot. Then a grounding would be warranted. Here by all accounts they flown to the right spot but did not stick the landing. > This is what we expect from every plane crash too, or did I imagine the existence and purpose of the NTSB? We would not ground the whole fleet of an aircraft model if something adverse but expected happened to one of them.
  - saberience 2y ago
    It is kind of ridiculous though, every other rocket launched by any other company or country basically just blows up in the sea or the air. Penalizing SpaceX for being the most successful company seems silly. Are they grounding other companies whose rockets cannot land at all?
    - firesteelrain 2y ago
      First, take a deep breath. All other companies are investigated if this happens. It’s news because SpaceX launches so well and so often that it’s out of the norm.
curiousObject 2y ago
This is the second recent glitch in a SpaceX mission. The other, more serious, was the failure of a Starlink Falcon 9 to quite reach a viable orbit because of an oxygen leak on an engine. These minor blips only stand out in the context of SpaceX’s unprecedented consistency, which surpasses anyone else. But, if they have another snafu soon, maybe it could hint at a slight decline in their normal technical excellence? Edit : OTOH, this was launch 23 of that booster, as mentioned by @gregoriol, so I for one might see that as a successful test discovery of the reuse limits of the structure. And also, the F9 that didn’t reach orbit probably wouldn’t have threatened the lives of a human crew, although it would have scrubbed their mission.
- quartesixte 2y ago
  The industry has been poaching a lot of talented technicians away. And the OGs are starting to retire...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
h_tbob 2y ago
I watched Jeff bezos’s tour of blue origin facility with everyday astronaut. He gave the reasoning for why New Glen has more than three legs (I think 6) He said that the more legs you have, the smaller each leg has to reach out to give the same probability of tipping over. So there’s a formula to pick the best number of legs given their weight etc. Interestingly he said they picked their number not just for that but also because it went well with the engine distribution.

14 points by mikro2nd 2y ago

cherioo 2y ago

It’s amazing how this is now the news, not when it successfully lands!

gregoriol 2y ago
"This was the booster's 23rd launch." that's the thing I'll remember from the article
grecy 2y ago
Think about who stands to lose the most if Tesla and spacex dominate (answer: old money) Think about who controls the media (answer: old money and friends of old money) It is very easy to see why they want everyone to think spacex and Tesla are collapsing
- Arnt 2y ago
  "Old money" is one way to put it. It seems to be dominated by pension funds and people's savings. Please don't put your savings into Vanguard's famous index fund — Vanguard currently has 7.47% of the shares and you don't want to ruin that by forcing Vanguard to increase its stake to 7.48%.

raverbashing 2y ago

As much as I think the FAA response might be a bit unfair, I think the issue here is what is promised vs delivered Even with a disposable booster you want it to follow a certain flight path and be discarded at a given area. If you promised that it will land and it doesn't, even if it is inconsequential to the rest of the mission, well...

Sakos 2y ago
I just don't understand the repeated takes that this is unfair. There was a failure, it should be investigated and a fix found. Once SpaceX has done that, they can continue launching rockets. I'm not sure where the problem is. This is what we expect from every plane crash too, or did I imagine the existence and purpose of the NTSB? The same thing happened with the last explosion and the Falcon 9 was eventually allowed to fly again once it was determined there was no public safety issue: https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/spacexs-falcon-9-cleared-by-authorities-return-space-faa-says-2024-07-26/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/spacexs-falcon-9-cl... They were even allowed to fly again before SpaceX finished their investigation as soon as the safety question was answered. This isn't a punishment.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > There was a failure There are failures which only cost the company money and there are failures which risks lives. By all indications this is the first kind. It would be entirely different situation if the rocket thumbled out of control and hit the sea in the wrong spot. Then a grounding would be warranted. Here by all accounts they flown to the right spot but did not stick the landing. > This is what we expect from every plane crash too, or did I imagine the existence and purpose of the NTSB? We would not ground the whole fleet of an aircraft model if something adverse but expected happened to one of them.
- saberience 2y ago
  It is kind of ridiculous though, every other rocket launched by any other company or country basically just blows up in the sea or the air. Penalizing SpaceX for being the most successful company seems silly. Are they grounding other companies whose rockets cannot land at all?
  - firesteelrain 2y ago
    First, take a deep breath. All other companies are investigated if this happens. It’s news because SpaceX launches so well and so often that it’s out of the norm.

curiousObject 2y ago

This is the second recent glitch in a SpaceX mission. The other, more serious, was the failure of a Starlink Falcon 9 to quite reach a viable orbit because of an oxygen leak on an engine. These minor blips only stand out in the context of SpaceX’s unprecedented consistency, which surpasses anyone else. But, if they have another snafu soon, maybe it could hint at a slight decline in their normal technical excellence? Edit : OTOH, this was launch 23 of that booster, as mentioned by @gregoriol, so I for one might see that as a successful test discovery of the reuse limits of the structure. And also, the F9 that didn’t reach orbit probably wouldn’t have threatened the lives of a human crew, although it would have scrubbed their mission.

quartesixte 2y ago
The industry has been poaching a lot of talented technicians away. And the OGs are starting to retire...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

h_tbob 2y ago

I watched Jeff bezos’s tour of blue origin facility with everyday astronaut. He gave the reasoning for why New Glen has more than three legs (I think 6) He said that the more legs you have, the smaller each leg has to reach out to give the same probability of tipping over. So there’s a formula to pick the best number of legs given their weight etc. Interestingly he said they picked their number not just for that but also because it went well with the engine distribution.