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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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.