FAA grounds SpaceX after rocket falls over in flames at landing : technology

[-] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 47 points 3 months ago

The stranded peeps on the ISS must feel really good about their situation now.

[-] JadenSmith@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 months ago

The title makes it sound like the FAA told SpaceX to go to their room, for being very naughty.

[-] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 5 points 2 months ago

Considering I was unmanned, and there wasn't really any damage that seems extreme.

I mean this is the same guy whos been selling self-driving cars for the last decade that constantly warn you to never let them self-drive.

[+] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

[deleted]

[+] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business -12 points 3 months ago

Wonder how much toxic waste that rocket dumped everywhere.

[-] rtxn@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago

Not as much as you might think. Space launch rockets don't carry a lot of extra fuel beyond what's absolutely needed. Even propulsively landed rockets are almost empty.

If you want to be outraged, look at how much carbon dioxide is produced during ascent.

[-] Steve@startrek.website 18 points 3 months ago

Most rockets crash into the ocean with all their contents on purpose. This one flew 23 times before finally shitting the bed on this landing.

[-] Morphit@feddit.uk 6 points 2 months ago

Plus it did land on the barge. Most of the debris should be there, though the remaining fuel would have mainly gone overboard. Probably the flight termination explosives also.

[-] wabafee@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

That's impressive, I do wonder if they have some estimated lifespan for each rocket or how many times it's reusable. Unless they intend to just keep using it with minimal to no maintenance at all. Which I guess would eventually lead to this.

[-] Steve@startrek.website 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yea the previous goal was 10 flights, now the goal is send it until something breaks.

Big advantage of having a built in customer (starlink)

[-] lefty7283@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Iirc the original goal was ‘at least 10’ but maybe up to 100 flights for a booster. No way to really know without flying them a lot

[-] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 3 months ago

Significantly less than the extremely toxic, hypergolic fueled boosters China drops on their villages.

[-] pwnicholson@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

Pretty much just kerosene. So not the best, but not horrible. It just uses LOX and RP-1 (highly refined kerosene) for fuel.

[-] schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business 3 points 2 months ago

What I get for saying something without googling first. I was expecting the hypergolic fueled mess of older rockets, but this is just a mess, but like, not THAT bad of a mess.

It's me, I'm the boomer.

[+] DrSleepless@lemmy.world -12 points 3 months ago

Musk taking Ls left and right

[-] witx@lemmy.sdf.org 23 points 3 months ago

Can you explain how a booster that flew 23 times is a loss when no other companies are doing it? I don't like Musk but people need to separate their views of him from SpaceX

[-] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 15 points 3 months ago

The rocket blasted off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station and got all 21 Starlink internet satellites to orbit. But the first-stage booster fell over in a fireball moments after landing on an ocean platform, the first such accident in years. It was the 23rd time this particular booster had launched, a recycling record for SpaceX.

Shit happens.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 months ago

a recycling record for SpaceX.

The article writes "a recycling record for the entire fucking world" a little funny.

[-] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make there.

Technology

Our Rules

Approved Bots