Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 41 posts

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

#21

Post by firesteelrain »

philwelch wrote: post #19
firesteelrain wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is simply not true that “all other companies” are investigated if their rockets fail to make a successful landing on a ship at sea. This is because no other company in the world has ever successfully landed a rocket on a ship at sea.

You are incorrect. Everyone is subject to the same rules.

See FAA Rule 450 Final: https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/additional_inf...

See 14 CFR Chapter III Subchapter C Part 417: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-III/subchapter...

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

#22

Post by philwelch »

firesteelrain wrote: post #21
philwelch wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is simply not true that “all other companies” are investigated if their rockets fail to make a successful landing on a ship at sea. This is because no other company in the world has ever successfully landed a rocket on a ship at sea.

You are incorrect. Everyone is subject to the same rules. See FAA Rule 450 Final: https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/additional_inf... See 14 CFR Chapter III Subchapter C Part 417: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-III/subchapter...

So you’re telling me every rocket launch from the US prior to 2015 led to an investigation, as well as every rocket launch not performed by SpaceX since then?

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

#23

Post by h_tbob »

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.

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

#24

Post by firesteelrain »

philwelch wrote: post #22
firesteelrain wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are incorrect. Everyone is subject to the same rules. See FAA Rule 450 Final: https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/additional_inf... See 14 CFR Chapter III Subchapter C Part 417: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-III/subchapter...

So you’re telling me every rocket launch from the US prior to 2015 led to an investigation, as well as every rocket launch not performed by SpaceX since then?

Yes, in part:

"Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) data show that 50 commercial space launches from 2000 through mid-January 2023 resulted in “mishaps”—the industry term for incidents such as catastrophic explosions and other failures. This represents about 12 percent of 433 launches during the period and caused no fatalities, serious injuries, or significant property damage to the public."

and

"When mishaps occur, FAA can conduct an investigation itself or instead authorize launch operators to lead investigations of their own mishaps under FAA oversight, according to FAA. In practice, however, FAA has authorized operator-led investigations for all mishaps where it had lead investigative authority, GAO found."

Source: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105561

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

#25

Post by bryanlarsen »

krisoft wrote: post #9
raverbashing wrote: post #3

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...

> 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 FA…

The FAA needs to know that if the same failure would have happened at a different point in the sequence, that all human lives would be safe.

So if Scott Manley was right and it was a landing leg strut failure, SpaceX could quickly report that and close the investigation. A landing leg strut failure would never threaten human lives so that's all the FCC cares about.

OTOH, if it was an engine failure leading to the rocket coming in hot (like others have speculated), it's possible that the same problem at a different point in the flight path could threaten lives. But SpaceX has redundancy in basically all systems for the "going up" portion of the flight so it could just say "yup, if that had happened at a different time the redundant systems would have had to take over".

During landing the center engine is a single point of failure. Going up they have 8 other engines and can get to space on just 8.

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

#26

Post by AnimalMuppet »

firesteelrain wrote: post #18
raverbashing wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was a failure, it should be investigated and a fix found. Yes but you don't need to delay other missions because of this specific failure

How do we know this isn’t currently systemic? Time to take a knee and pause then examine what went wrong.

Yeah, what raverbashing said. Let's say it is systemic. Let's say that boosters that have flown more than 10 times have a high rate of collapse and explosion when they land on the barge. OK, so? Why does the FAA care? It's not like the explosion endangers aircraft - the airspace should be cleared because of the booster's descent anyway.

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

#27

Post by philwelch »

firesteelrain wrote: post #24
philwelch wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you’re telling me every rocket launch from the US prior to 2015 led to an investigation, as well as every rocket launch not performed by SpaceX since then?

Yes, in part: "Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) data show that 50 commercial space launches from 2000 through mid-January 2023 resulted in “mishaps”—the industry term for incidents such as catastrophic explosions and other failures. This represents about 12 percent of 433 launches during the period and caused no fatalities, serious injuries, or significant property damage to the public." and "When mishaps occur,…

Why are you deliberately being obtuse?

Here, I’ll make it simple for you. On July 30, ULA launched USSF-51, an Atlas V mission in which the first stage did not successfully land on a drone ship, but rather was unceremoniously dumped in the Atlantic Ocean. Can you find me the investigation for that launch?

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

#28

Post by firesteelrain »

philwelch wrote: post #27
firesteelrain wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, in part: "Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) data show that 50 commercial space launches from 2000 through mid-January 2023 resulted in “mishaps”—the industry term for incidents such as catastrophic explosions and other failures. This represents about 12 percent of 433 launches during the period and caused no fatalities, serious injuries, or significant property damage to the public." and "When mishaps occur,…

Why are you deliberately being obtuse? Here, I’ll make it simple for you. On July 30, ULA launched USSF-51, an Atlas V mission in which the first stage did not successfully land on a drone ship, but rather was unceremoniously dumped in the Atlantic Ocean. Can you find me the investigation for that launch?

I am not understanding. Dumping in the Atlantic Ocean was part of their plan. The recent SpaceX landing failed. Landing was part of their overall flight plan.

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

#29

Post by firesteelrain »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #26
firesteelrain wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we know this isn’t currently systemic? Time to take a knee and pause then examine what went wrong.

Yeah, what raverbashing said. Let's say it is systemic. Let's say that boosters that have flown more than 10 times have a high rate of collapse and explosion when they land on the barge. OK, so? Why does the FAA care? It's not like the explosion endangers aircraft - the airspace should be cleared because of the booster's descent anyway.

I think FAA cares because it is under their purview and it did not follow their flightplan.

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

#30

Post by me_me_me »

philwelch wrote: post #27
firesteelrain wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, in part: "Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) data show that 50 commercial space launches from 2000 through mid-January 2023 resulted in “mishaps”—the industry term for incidents such as catastrophic explosions and other failures. This represents about 12 percent of 433 launches during the period and caused no fatalities, serious injuries, or significant property damage to the public." and "When mishaps occur,…

Why are you deliberately being obtuse? Here, I’ll make it simple for you. On July 30, ULA launched USSF-51, an Atlas V mission in which the first stage did not successfully land on a drone ship, but rather was unceremoniously dumped in the Atlantic Ocean. Can you find me the investigation for that launch?

ummm... someone is trying really hard to be a smartass and making himself looking like an ass.

> unceremoniously dumped in the Atlantic Ocean.

It wasnt ' unceremoniously dumped in the Atlantic Ocean' it was crashed into a designated area. Ensuring no, dmg to any property boat or people. They dont crash anything randomly somewhere in the ocean.

Post reply on HN