SpaceX Falcon 9 booster 'tipped over' into the ocean during landing
1–10 of 41 posts
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 booster 'tipped over' into the ocean during landing
#2It’s amazing how this is now the news, not when it successfully lands!
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 booster 'tipped over' into the ocean during landing
#3As 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...
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 booster 'tipped over' into the ocean during landing
#4It’s amazing how this is now the news, not when it successfully lands!
"This was the booster's 23rd launch." that's the thing I'll remember from the article
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 booster 'tipped over' into the ocean during landing
#5This 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.
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 booster 'tipped over' into the ocean during landing
#6As 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...
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-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.
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 booster 'tipped over' into the ocean during landing
#7This 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?…
The industry has been poaching a lot of talented technicians away. And the OGs are starting to retire...
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 booster 'tipped over' into the ocean during landing
#8This 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?…
[deleted]
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 booster 'tipped over' into the ocean during landing
#9As 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...
> you want it to follow a certain flight path
It followed the promised flight path all the way to the drone ship and then tipped over.
I would understand the consternation if it left the keep out zone and landed in an entirely different area of the sea. But it sounds like that was not the case.
> even if it is inconsequential to the rest of the mission, well...
Could you finish your sentence please? The job of the FAA is to keep everyone safe. There is no indication that something unsafe happened here. What happened here is the reason why the recovery people are standing-by outside a declared safe zone and not chilling on the drone ship. (In other words this is the reason why the droneship is a drone ship.)
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 booster 'tipped over' into the ocean during landing
#10As 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...
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 allowe…
> 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.