Back to Squawk list
  • 68

SpaceX successfully landed its Falcon 9 rocket after launching it to space

Share on Facebook Tweet Share Pin SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket successfully landed upright on solid ground at Cape Canaveral, Florida this evening, after traveling into space and back. It's the first time SpaceX has been able to gently touch down the Falcon 9 post-launch — something the company has been trying to do for the past year. It’s a big first step toward reusable rockets. This launch was also the first time SpaceX has flown since June, after one of its Falcon 9 rockets exploded en… ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Just viewed the Space X video. What a magnificent accomplishment. Truly American excellence and ingenuity. Well done. A bright future for private entrepreneurs in the U.S. space program.
Tom Wright -1
High opinion sort of sickening really? US program was largely Canadian personnel but you wouldn't believe that.
Largely is an exaggeration. Clearly the Avro Arrow engineers played some key roles, but nowhere near the connotation of 'largely.'
jbqwik 2
outstanding video coverage. Amazing achievement.
Way to go SpaceX! #historymade
Strange that little or no mention is made of the fact that this launch also accomplished its mission: to place 11payloads in orbit.
Space exploration hs only a small audience here in the USA. The public is too busy with th BS politics to care about anything technical.
In our current bread-and-curcus culture, failure is newsworthy but success is not.
Unless you are a clinton or live in hollywood. In which case there is no failure.
You have your facts twisted... it's the rightwing crazies that distort reality, just like the war in Iraq which was a war based on LIES and created ISIS!
The video that I watched took the time to show the placing of every one of the individual payload satellites into orbit. Nothing missing!
I watched that video of course, but I think that most people reading the headlong would never realize what else was acheived.
oowmmr 1
What a terrific achievement placing 11, count 'em, 11 OrbComms on orbit with Crème De La Crème boost back landing, ASTOUNDING!!
Now we need to store fuel in space so the return flight can be done with new fuel rather than having to factor in the return fuel load at launch.
The first stage does not attain enough energy to make orbit. It can't make a pit stop at apogee.
And I don't think the second stage would survive the re-entry heating form orbit, regardless of how much fuel could be gained at a "pit stop". Now what may be possible is to park the second and any third stage for later recovery for use as a Lunar Booster, or perhaps other solar system vehicles.
Art Pfe 1
SpaceX just made America great again!
Well done, Gentlemen
I was just a little kid when the moon shot took place. That was an accomplishment. This is the next step.... Impressive
Yes, A new era has dawned!!! The first is always the best experience. Now to make this happen with great routine and develop a Heavy Lifter with this capability.
jbqwik 1
yes. superlatives apply here.
C172Rpilot -6
That was excellent! Amazing what you can do when the government isn't involved.
zennermd 9
Your comment makes no sense to me. Look at what NASA has accomplished. Are they not a govt. run agency? If you haven't been keeping up with NASA news, they are well on the way to going back to the moon and then Mars. I think everyone is making great strides... Exciting times are coming.
BurntOut 0
Gov't first demonstrated vertical takeoff and vertical landing back in the 1980's with the DC-X program (McDonnel Douglas). It was a technology demonstrator. The US Gov't has done NOTHING with vertical takeoff/landing since then. They are stuck in the ELV mindset. They have been working on the Orion capsule for over a decade and have only one suborbital flight test (of the heat shield) to show for it. Elon and Besos (sp?) are way ahead of the Gov't. You need to step away from the kool-aid.
zennermd 2
First, you might want to check your facts, a suborbtial by definition is less than one revolution around the earth. Orion make approximately 2 orbits. Second, did NASA not just test the most powerful rocket ever designed and constructed? Third, did they not just undergo a comprehensive review of the space vehicle system? Fourth, the govt. cut spending on current space flight because it is cost prohibitive to fund a near earth base and further exploration. And finally correct me if I am spaceX is only planning in sending people to Mars with a one way ticket, and NASA actually plans on bringing them home.
BurntOut 2
I worked Space Shuttle from womb (design) to tomb (museum pieces). Believe me NASA does more PR BS then the USSR ever did.
NASA has planned on a lot of things.
TI think Congress had the most to do with the demise of the US space program. NASA always wanted to do more, but were given less. Administrations talked big but when it became appropriations time Congress looked the other way. This was also a constituent problem as once you got past the "gee whiz" aspect, few were interested in tax money going into space efforts.

There has always been an interest in promoting commercial space ventures, but up until now there weren't any techno/billionaires to lead the way. The space industry did not have private funding it was totally dependent on government contracts and that was all it wanted anyway - the profits to be made. The mistaken mantra of "share holder value" ruled the day.

Privatization of the space effort so it would be better? Think about the contracting out of such federal functions as airport security, background checks, and the collection of IRS payments.

I remember what John Glen said (I was there) when asked what he was thinking about while he was in the capsule waiting for lift off replying that "Every part of the launch vehicle had been made by the lowest bidder." (But all the parts were evaluated by Federal inspectors.)

The time is ripe and we are on our way!!!!!!!
Privatization is better because the government won't address the real cause of its sloth: internal personnel regulations that make it difficult to fire poor performers and do not reward good performance as well as the private sector does. Procuring under firm fixed price rather than cost-plus (which is really what we're talking about) also forces the government engineers and managers to get their requirements right up front since later changes cost more.
NASA has spent over a hundred billion on incomplete projects since STS-1. I struggle with why anyone believes they will do any better on the next NASA-led project built by cost-plus contractors. There's no evidence for it. Design reviews and tests are as far as any project has gotten in the past many years.
Tom Lull 0
Wonder what the differential in fuel weight requirement is between one-way and recoverable rocket systems. Wouldn't this change the thrust requirement at launch?
Something like 15-20%. However, the only metric that matters is cost. If this method that requires extra fuel and thrust is cheaper in the long run, it's the right one.
The REAL reason for SpaceX's success is its mission is COMPLETELY dedicated to space; whereby, NASA always was competing and forced to cooperate with the Industrial Military Complex war machine!

Too bad our nation is bent on continual warring around the world for 214 years of the 236 years we have been a nation.
Which were the other 22?


계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..