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.
So they should have only flown this one 22 times? How do you determine the best “before they fail” point?
You bring it up to specs before the next launch. If you can’t do that, you have to scrap it.
Is there something saying they flew this out of spec? The way I understand the situation is that something failed which can happen.
How would it fail if it was within specs? Is it a design error you say?
I would bet it’s the same reason Boeing is currently going down, greed over safety.
I mean, how much can we trust SpaceX, when they try to tell us that exploding starships, that were said to land on mars at 2026, are a huge success?
Tbf, it might not even be greed, but trying to meet the impossible expectations musk seemingly makes up on the spot. It’s lies over lies with him, and SpaceX can only do so much to work around him.
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
Sorry, what?
Boeing is willing to pay for spacex not being perfect? And we should put astronauts on known safety risks because Challenger and Columbia weren’t enough for you?
Look, I get it. Everyone is influencer-pilled. But this isn’t even reddit: it is fricking lemmy. So how about trying to respond to topics and discussions rather than just non-existent karma and engagement farming with non sequitors?
To summarize the comment you are replying to:
“astronauts dying is a price Boeing is willing to pay”
“now pay the executives their bonus because, as executives, they are better than you. They also built this country by themselves with their bare hands, without help”
It’s extremely facetious, and pointing out that Boeing doesn’t give a shit about safety or the people in space, they just want money.
If you’re upset that lemmy isn’t trying to solve this problem… Well then I can’t help you there. This isn’t a place to investigate solutions to global problems or company management issues.
If you want to have one, by all means go make one yourself! unless you turn the speed dial to Plaid, it literally can’t be worse than the shitty job the companies are currently doing.
Sorry, did I miss something? Boeing took over the FAA?
JESUS GOD DAMNED CHRIST!!! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!! Now THAT is news.
It has nothing to do with “trying to solve this problem” and pretending it does is just an obnoxious strawman. The issue is coming into a completely unrelated thread to spew some idiocy because your favorite influencer does the same. It is engagement farming for absolutely zero reason.
The ONLY mention of Boeing in that article was that they were being considered for a fallback. Which also includes misinformation about NASA deeming it unsafe (as opposed to not as safe/unnecessarily risky when there are safer options). Which… is an FAA and NASA decision. Because you can bet spacex would gladly fly their rockets if they were allowed to as well.
The issue is coming into a completely unrelated thread to spew some idiocy
Good to know you’re on the same page as the rest of us regarding whatever it is you’re comments have to do with anything.
It is engagement farming for absolutely zero reason.
So what? Should we ban people posting memes too? Should we ban the engagement system/up vote system? Like what’s your point here? That people share ideas and thoughts? Wow, what news.
The astronauts in space are a big deal and the latest development had SpaceX rescuing them which is why that person brought it up. They weren’t bringing up Boeing originally, they were bringing up the astronaut story since it all ties together. If SpaceX is grounded, how will they get those astronauts?
And then the next person points out that Boeing and most CEOs tend to feel like worker deaths are the cost of business. That’s pretty apropos when talking about those astronauts getting stuck up there. Worker solidarity and all.
You replied to the wrong comment.
Or you need to take your meds. Idk which.
¿PNLD?
Programa Nacional do Livro e do Material Didático?
No… porque no los dos
porque no los dos
Ah! Haha yes I agree
Learn to read
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.
somewhat relevant xkcd what-if: https://what-if.xkcd.com/157/
That was phenomenal! 👏
This must be that string theory u keep hearing about.
This is not string theory, this is string practical
In theory. But you’re right, we’re gonna try and try hundreds of millions… “millions and millions” (of times) as someone smarter than me once said. But by gally (don’t know what that means) by gally we’ll do it! Even if it doesn’t ever work, we’ll do it! Because with practice comes…?
Finally the kind of competition that can knock Conksat from it’s pedestal!
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
I’m not sure if I even would want to board a SpaceX at this rate
A booster crash landed, so now you’re afraid of the capsule?
To be fair the booster is an important part
Technically almost every booster not made by SpaceX ended up crashlanding. It’s just notable that this one wasn’t supposed to crashland
Not for coming down
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.
Especially when you take into consideration the fact that the booster landed (and subsequently fell over) on a floating platform out at sea.
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.
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.It’s a safety issue
Is it? This happened miles offshore.
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.
Or they could ask the Russians really really nicely.
deleted by creator
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.
i’d be more shocked if a spacex launch didn’t end in flames.
I don’t think anyone has a better record of landing their rockets.
Their CEO is a terminally online white nationalist anti-Semite who supports the overthrow of American democracy. I’ll be rooting against them and enjoying their every setback until that changes.
Forget that the work the company is doing is actually interesting, challenging, and bettering the world. Focus on Elon, just how he wants it.
think nasa does since they actually landed on the moon.
NASA landed a lunar module on the moon, not the rocket stage.
I’m sure SpaceX could land on the moon, there just isn’t an economic incentive to do that. NASA had a ton of failed launches before that happened, as well as several afterward. SpaceX’s record has been phenomenal.
…SpaceX is part of the program to get back to the moon.
Sure, and they’re making good progress and seem to be on-track. I don’t see any reason to think NASA is “superior” or whatever just because they landed on the moon ages ago, the only reason SpaceX seems to be doing this is because NASA has made it a priority (i.e. an economic incentive).
More specifically SpaceX got a contract to bulls the moon lander for NASA.
So SpaceX is going to land in the moon.
…why? The vast vast majority don’t.
The guy who owns it is a piece of shit, but they absolutely are crushing it in the launch business.
Why does OP keep promoting state propaganda? Username is a psyop.
The state want people to believe that SpaceX is bad?
Most people here keep telling me that VOA is a propaganda News outlet without any proof.
If it’s a propaganda news outlet then it would not publish something like that.
I mean, Voice of America is explicitly a state funded propaganda organization used to advance American interests abroad.
I think the confusion most people have is that they incorrectly believe that propaganda means lies , it doesn’t.
Propaganda is information published and used to influence opinions and actions. Doesn’t matter if it’s accurate, or inaccurate, information.
So yeah, VOA is a US government run propaganda outlet. While it doesn’t mean that they’re some dystopian disinformation factory, they also aren’t typically breaking news either, so I would recommend using alternative sources without that baggage.
