SpaceX just launched a satellite with a re-used booster which then landed again.

[captain cactus]

Sauce: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/spacex-first-reused-rocket-space-science/

 

 

Quote

In a milestone for the private spaceflight company, SpaceX today successfully launched a reused Falcon 9 rocket booster into space—the same first stage that carried a bouncy house into space last year. The rocket booster had previously stuck a spectacular landing on a drone ship floating off the Florida coast, playfully named “Of Course I Still Love You.”

 

That reused booster stuck its landing again on Thursday, and on the same drone ship no less, after blasting off from Cape Canaveral, Florida. This time, the rocket wasn’t carrying an inflatable space pod, but was instead delivering a communications satellite to orbit for a company called SES.

So, there we go. SpaceX just placed themselves in the history books, again. It shows they're capable of reusing the booster safely AND land it again ready for another go. I'm kinda geeking out right now.

[GDRRiley]

yes!!! a good thing

[2FA]

Technically this isn't anything new since the boosters for the Space Shuttles got reused but those were also many times more expensive than these rockets.

[Taf the Ghost]

Space is really hard, but massive credit to Musk & SpaceX for pulling this off.

 

It still amazes me how routine it already seems to be able to land the first stage back on Earth in one piece.

[SammoFS]

"SES"

State Emergency Service?

[Urishima]

52 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Technically this isn't anything new since the boosters for the Space Shuttles got reused but those were also many times more expensive than these rockets.

No. The Space Shuttle boosters were solid fuel engines, while the first stage of the Falcon 9 is fueled by liquid oxygen and kerosene, and runs on 9 Merlin-1D engines. Solid rockets are far simpler and cheaper than liquid fueled engines. With solid fuels you don't need fuel pumps, ignition chamber, valves, or or anything like that. They work without any moving parts (though you can use thrust vectoring with them if you put a nozzle for that at the end, but the Space Shuttle SSRBs didn't). The fuel is ignited in the stack and the exhaust goes out the bottom, that is it. It's basically just a tube with stuff in it that burns and nozzle at the end where the burn goes out.

[sof006]

It takes a private company to get shit done, always. Government ran projects are always slow to progress due to paper work and things getting in the way.

 

If you're one man running a massive private company then you can in theory not let anything stop you, especially if you have tons of money... NASA would be doing this most likely if the US government allowed them to do it.

[Dabombinable]

4 hours ago, sof006 said:

It takes a private company to get shit done, always. Government ran projects are always slow to progress due to paper work and things getting in the way.

 

If you're one man running a massive private company then you can in theory not let anything stop you, especially if you have tons of money... NASA would be doing this most likely if the US government allowed them to do it.

Or gave NASA the funding.....

[TheRedViper]

21 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Or gave NASA the funding.....

Build O wall

[Joelbanks5]

3 hours ago, TheRedViper said:

Build O wall

In space 

[Thunderpup]

10 hours ago, Urishima said:

No. The Space Shuttle boosters were solid fuel engines, while the first stage of the Falcon 9 is fueled by liquid oxygen and kerosene, and runs on 9 Merlin-1D engines. Solid rockets are far simpler and cheaper than liquid fueled engines. With solid fuels you don't need fuel pumps, ignition chamber, valves, or or anything like that. They work without any moving parts (though you can use thrust vectoring with them if you put a nozzle for that at the end, but the Space Shuttle SSRBs didn't). The fuel is ignited in the stack and the exhaust goes out the bottom, that is it. It's basically just a tube with stuff in it that burns and nozzle at the end where the burn goes out.

The downside however is that solid fuel rockets only have 2 available speeds On & Off.
 

 

[Urishima]

Just now, Thunderpup said:

The downside however is that solid fuel rockets only have 2 available speeds On & Off.
 

 

For the longest time, that was the case with liquid fuel engines as well. Throttleable rocket engines are actually quite advanced, and those that exist still have a minimum that they can't go under.

 

Quote

The Merlin 1D engine was developed by SpaceX in 2011–2012, with first flight in 2013. The Merlin 1D was originally (April 2011) designed for a sea level thrust of 620 kN (140,000 lbf).^[27] In 2011, it was revealed^[28] that the engine would have a vacuum thrust of 690 kN (155,000 lbf), a vacuum specific impulse (I_sp) of 310 s, an increased expansion ratio of 16 (as opposed to the previous 14.5 of the Merlin 1C) and chamber pressure in the "sweet spot" of 9.7 MPa (1,410 psi). A new feature for the engine is the ability to throttle from 100% to 70%.^[3] Later refinements of the Merlin 1D have been operated down to 40% of full thrust.^[29]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine_family)#Merlin_1D}

[sazrocks]

That's awesome. Have they released figures on how much money this saves them?

[Cela1]

15 hours ago, Rika Shiguma said:

"SES"

State Emergency Service?

Formerly Société Européenne des Satellites, comsat operator.

[suicidalfranco]

Remember when someone here said that SpaceX should just stop and all their plans are bound to fail? Cause i 'member

[bob345]

8 hours ago, Thunderpup said:

The downside however is that solid fuel rockets only have 2 available speeds On & Off.
 

 

While true for the shuttles boosters, it not for all rockets that use solid fuel. Take hybrid rockets for example. Uses solid fuel and a liquid oxidizer that can be regulated to control thrust.

[Nicnac]

I love this stuff

[TheRandomness]

On 31/03/2017 at 6:42 AM, DeadEyePsycho said:

Technically this isn't anything new since the boosters for the Space Shuttles got reused but those were also many times more expensive than these rockets.

It is new, because the boosters from the Shuttle didn't land themselves, did they?

[Mihle]

15 hours ago, sazrocks said:

That's awesome. Have they released figures on how much money this saves them?

Musk said in one video 30 million $, but I dont know if that if thats what they save, or if that it what it would cost to build a new one.

[Teddy07]

are rockets expensive?

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, Teddy07 said:

are rockets expensive?

When you look at how much the Patriot missile that shot down that drone cost-yes.

[Sakkura]

1 hour ago, Teddy07 said:

are rockets expensive?

Yeah.

 

The reason this is a big deal is they can cut the cost of building new first stages. Throwing them away each time is pretty wasteful. It's like flying an aircraft, but instead of landing you just ditch the plane and parachute out every time instead. You can probably imagine air travel would be more expensive that way.

[Tieox]

Now add some RGB, and it's perfect.

 

(totally geeking out about this launch/landing)

[2FA]

8 hours ago, TheRandomness said:

It is new, because the boosters from the Shuttle didn't land themselves, did they?

If you want to be Mr. Technical, everything is new in the world because the exact conditions are never the same.

[MrDynamicMan]

13 hours ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

If you want to be Mr. Technical, everything is new in the world because the exact conditions are never the same.

PHILOSIPHYING INYENSIFIES