News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SpaceX's Falcon 9 first stage has landed (again) by gozur88 on Friday May 27, 2016 @06:16PM (#11789428)
At the CRS-8 post-launch presser Musk said "sometime in June", though lately I've seen them describe it as "later this year". That sort of implies after June.
Re:SpaceX's Falcon 9 first stage has landed (again) by never4ever on Saturday May 28, 2016 @11:03AM (#11791856)
Is the plan to re-launch the booster during their normal launch schedule (i.e. carrying a client's satellite/material into space)? Or is the plan to simulate a launch and not add additional risk to the launch?

If it is the former, do they think they will be able to adequately calculate a risk percentage for the re-launch? I would assume that if a client is going to be the first test dummy for this process, that they will negotiate significant rate decreases based on the perceived additional risk and the cheaper cost associated with reusing the booster.

Re:SpaceX's Falcon 9 first stage has landed (again) by therein on Sunday May 29, 2016 @11:26PM (#11799396)
They could just simulate a client cargo by loading it up with various heavy objects. They can even be funny about what they load it up with. Imagine 2 tons of "Make America Great Again Hats", floating in orbit, wreaking havoc.
Re:SpaceX's Falcon 9 first stage has landed (again) by ok_craig on Friday May 27, 2016 @06:30PM (#11789506)
How many do they have?
Re:SpaceX's Falcon 9 first stage has landed (again) by 51Cards on Friday May 27, 2016 @06:32PM (#11789518)
4 now, though the first one is going on display at their headquarters. I believe the second one is going to be examined and undergo ground testing only (might be wrong on that). So that leaves just the third and now this one as candidates for re-flight.

I like being able to use the term "re-flight".

Re:SpaceX's Falcon 9 first stage has landed (again) by eganist on Friday May 27, 2016 @06:34PM (#11789525)
The high velocity drone ship landing (#3) landed too hard and was deemed unusable for launch duty (Edit 1: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/731984739012251648), so realistically, it's likely just two of the four so far.

Edit 2: per mikeash, it's definitely flyable (i.e. I'm wrong), but it'll still be grounded to aid with testing efforts. Thanks for the correction, Mike! https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/734274360588926976

Re:SpaceX's Falcon 9 first stage has landed (again) by iamcreasy on Friday May 27, 2016 @06:49PM (#11789615)
That's not what he said. He said SpaceX will start testing with the booster that took the most damage, because if it works well then there is high chance that the others will work too.
Re:SpaceX's Falcon 9 first stage has landed (again) by gozur88 on Friday May 27, 2016 @06:52PM (#11789624)
The problem isn't that it landed hard, it's that it had to slow down very quickly. That's going to be the case for any GTO launch, including today's flight.

From what I understand there was heat damage around the engines.

Re:SpaceX's Falcon 9 first stage has landed (again) by eganist on Friday May 27, 2016 @06:54PM (#11789631)
Thanks for the clarification. I'd read that elsewhere but couldn't ID a source in time. Where've you seen that?

The good news there is that it might mean the rocket can be rehabilitated if needed since structural damage would be less likely.

Re:SpaceX's Falcon 9 first stage has landed (again) by gozur88 on Friday May 27, 2016 @07:13PM (#11789728)
Nothing official. This is based on comments (at Ars, I think) from people who studied the pictures closely.

According to the latest Musk tweets today's rocket was actually somewhat damaged in the landing - the scrificial "crush core" was, well, crushed.

Re:SpaceX's Falcon 9 first stage has landed (again) by InclinedPlane on Friday May 27, 2016 @06:36PM (#11789545)
Nope, wrong. It took as much damage as any returning stage could be expected to, but is still reusable.
Re:SpaceX's Falcon 9 first stage has landed (again) by eganist on Friday May 27, 2016 @06:38PM (#11789567)
> Nope, wrong. It took as much damage as any returning stage could be expected to, but is still reusable.

Edited my comment with source tweet from Elon.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/731984739012251648

It's very likely not going to fly again.

Edit 2: per user mikeash, it's definitely flyable (i.e. I'm wrong), but it'll still be grounded to aid with testing efforts. Thanks for the kind correction, Mike! https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/734274360588926976

Re:SpaceX's Falcon 9 first stage has landed (again) by mikeash on Friday May 27, 2016 @06:47PM (#11789608)
"Max damage" doesn't imply unflyable. A later tweet clarified that it's capable of flying again. They'd rather keep it for extensive testing, though, as an example of the most extreme conditions. It won't fly again, but not because it's too busted.
Re:SpaceX's Falcon 9 first stage has landed (again) by eganist on Friday May 27, 2016 @06:53PM (#11789629)
Edit: disregard per Mike's comment below.

I would think if damage was within tolerances (even at the maximum of such), they'd be willing to relaunch. Implications from the tweet and subsequent conversations are that the damage exceeded thresholds to guarantee safe future flight, which is why they'd use it for testing on the ground.

I'd still read his tweet as meaning it's "too busted" to fly, but I suppose it's up to each person's own interpretation. Your point is well received.

Re:SpaceX's Falcon 9 first stage has landed (again) by mikeash on Friday May 27, 2016 @06:56PM (#11789641)
No need look for implications, there was a clear statement that it's flyable:

https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/73427436058892697...

It's being recruited as the testing leader because it represents the extreme, not because it's grounded.

Re:SpaceX's Falcon 9 first stage has landed (again) by eganist on Friday May 27, 2016 @07:52PM (#11789902)
Nice catch; I went digging through his tweets and must've missed it. Thanks!
Re:SpaceX's Falcon 9 first stage has landed (again) by mikeash on Friday May 27, 2016 @08:31PM (#11790042)
Some of this info can be hard to dig up, for sure. Of course, most companies are much tighter with their information, so I can't really complain!
Re:SpaceX's Falcon 9 first stage has landed (again) by InclinedPlane on Friday May 27, 2016 @07:24PM (#11789778)
https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/73427436058892697...

Check your sources. Max damage meant upper limit of the range of expected damage.

Re:SpaceX's Falcon 9 first stage has landed (again) by eganist on Friday May 27, 2016 @07:55PM (#11789915)
Yup, user mikeash linked this soon after and clarified it for me, so I expressed my gratitude for his far more graceful and generally polite correction of the error in my comment. heh
Re:SpaceX's Falcon 9 first stage has landed (again) by 51Cards on Friday May 27, 2016 @06:35PM (#11789535)
Ah good, thanks. That might have been the one I was thinking of then that was just going to be examined. This flight though was also a high velocity landing so it might have similar issues if that's the case.
Re:SpaceX's Falcon 9 first stage has landed (again) by agumonkey on Friday May 27, 2016 @06:37PM (#11789548)
At least 3 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/731981135454986240

4 including todays one, granted nothing wrong happens in transportation.