SpaceX landing

SpaceX landing

SpaceX just landed its first stage at Landing Pad 1!

mgtesla1 | 21. Dezember 2015

They made history tonight. Congratulations to all at SpaceX!

hcwhy | 21. Dezember 2015

Gives one goosebumps. Great job, Mr.Musk and all at SpaceX. Just fantastic!

Red Sage ca us | 21. Dezember 2015

Git 'er done.

David N | 21. Dezember 2015

Congratulations to the entire Space X team.

David N | 21. Dezember 2015

Video link?

ian | 21. Dezember 2015
David N | 21. Dezember 2015

Absolutely incredible.
The enthusiasm and reaction to the landing is beyond words.
History in the making!

Ross1 | 22. Dezember 2015

See also the other thread on SpaceX launch.

Going to watch the 45 minute video at Xmas.

So happy for them all.

Nexxus | 22. Dezember 2015

Coming from someone who works for their competition, this is a real game changer. The take away here is now everyone will have to play catch up and design their own stage one return/reuse cores, otherwise Space X will be able to undercut everyone else on price alone to win the contracts.

This is going to make access to space at least 1/3 cheaper than it is now.

Benz | 22. Dezember 2015

Historical achievement


Mel. | 22. Dezember 2015

Hopefully this will allow other Senators to go against Shelby and Durbin . As many know these 2 Senators are for using Russian rockets to launch military sat. Go Space. X

Mark77 | 22. Dezember 2015

Congratulations to the Space X team, very impressive achievement.

sosmerc | 22. Dezember 2015

It was thrilling to watch ! Jules Verne could not have done it better :).....quite an achievement and milestone for space adventure.

It does concern me a bit though that Jeff Bezos may try to duplicate by building larger rockets and then trying to prove that he can quickly "home deliver" larger packages to your driveway :) !

Brian H | 22. Dezember 2015

1/3 cheaper? More like 3X - 30X cheaper. Depending on re-usability of the booster?

Brian H | 22. Dezember 2015

... of the booster.

David N | 22. Dezember 2015

I haven't heard anything on the news about this, as if it never happened.

Benz | 22. Dezember 2015

BBC World News
Dutch National TV
Belgian National TV

I guess that it should already have been reported by all National TV channels. It's a big historical achievement.

Nexxus | 23. Dezember 2015

@ Brian H,

Having worked in the rocket industry for 33 years I made the claim of 1/3 cheaper for a couple of reasons.

1) The stage one core, while being the largest portion of the rocket, it is just one of the main parts. The others' being the stage two core and the payload apparatus.

2) Even though it can now be re-used, it will have to be refurbished prior to use. It will have to be cleaned and tested to be re-certified as well as cabling and secondary structures that will need replacing because of heat damage.

If they can only get one more flight from the stage one core, the added bonus will only reduce the hardware cost by 1/3, at most. The rest of the costs would recur anyway as the man hours still have to be spent on the re-certification as if the stage were brand new.

Nothing will make the flight to space 3X to 30X cheaper unless everything on the rocket can be re-used, or another way to launch items into space is found, and since we know that the stage two core and payload structures burn up on re-entry, that will never happen. The payloads obviously aren't re-usable but their cost isn't usually calculated in the base rocket costs. However, each new payload requires new engineering, that must go into the overall design costs of the rocket, to determine the overall flight simulations prior to launch. This is to proof-out that the rocket will achieve orbit and payload insertion into the proper window per contract. There is a lot of recurring engineering that has to go into every flight that is unavoidable.

But having said this, Elon's team has made a remarkable achievement that others have said couldn't be done and will leave the rest of us playing catch-up. Just like Tesla is leaving the rest of the automotive industry do with their BEV's.

Earl and Nagin ... | 23. Dezember 2015

@Go_Peddle_4_me and BrianH,
Interesting discussions about whether reusable is cheaper:
I guess the question is whether the extra first stage fuel required for a soft return landing plus the extra durability that must be built into the first stage plus the cost of refurbishment exceed the cost of building a new single-use first stage.
Like Tesla's battery swap station, the good thing is that Musk has the guts to try new things to find out the actual answer, unlike so many in most industries today. Most just try to mask their fear of the unknown by trying to pretend they know that new things won't work using some sort of weak analysis that provides the safe answer they're looking for.

Nexxus | 23. Dezember 2015

@Earl and Nagin

My points exactly. While it may be cheaper to reuse the stage one core, what if the tanks can't handle the pressurization the next flight? What if they discover stress cracks in the tanks from the first flight?

They'll have to redesign the core again to handle the additional stresses from flight to flight, and re-engineering is never cheap, but we'll see how things shake out for Space X. I actually wish them the best and all, because I think it will help the space faring countries/organizations out in the long run.

SamO | 23. Dezember 2015

The main savings from the first stage are the merlin engines which have ~ 3 minutes of firing time. Even if the tanks are disposed of, the Merlin engines are good as new.

Nexxus | 23. Dezember 2015


Not trying to argue semantics here, but even the engines will need to be refurbished and tested again. The stage one cores are not cheap to build either, so if they can be reused, they will save a lot of $$'s.

SamO | 23. Dezember 2015


Me neither, but you are talking about the difference in cost between a tune-up and a new engine. 3 minutes of use may require NEITHER.

Unless you can cite to a source showing differently . . .

But since nobody has ever landed a rocket (Jeff Bozo excepted - lulz) we don't know.

Ankit Mishra | 23. Dezember 2015

They are going to land stage 2 in the future too. Its going to make the launches cheaper too. Isn't it?

Captain_Zap | 23. Dezember 2015

@Ankit Mishra


Ankit Mishra | 23. Dezember 2015

Oops. Got confused by recalling Falcon heavy animation video. It was not stage 2 but multiple stage 1 landings. I was wrong.

Nexxus | 24. Dezember 2015


By working for Space X's competition, I can only go by our company cost, schedules, testing data, but prior to any launch, each engine goes through a hot-fire test on a separate test stand, prior to integration with the stage 1 core. Not exactly sure what Space X does, but since they are launching for NASA/Military I would think that hot-fire tests are required by contract for certification.

Although we've never re-used an engine before, I am sure that the engines must be inspected and cleaned, which means tearing the engine down some to see the internal chambers to ensure there is no cracking or breaking of welds and such.

The biggest cost in the non-recurring engineering involved.

To you and yours, have a great holiday!

Red Sage ca us | 24. Dezember 2015

I look at it as the difference between building a motor for a top fuel dragster, and building a motor for a Chevrolet Corvette. A lot of the same principles are involved. Large cylinders. Pushrods. Cam location. General familiarity.

But the guys who design them for hotrods know full well they will break down the entire engine after every single run. They know they will remove, replace, inspect, reassemble, balance, blueprint, and certify every single thing in the engine every time it is run. It is a highly tuned machine, with precision expectations, but a very, very short half life. It is designed from the outside, to come and go... Or rather, run and blow.

When you build a Corvette engine, you absolutely do not want it to have to be broken down every quarter of a mile. Unless you decide to adapt/modify it as a track racer, you probably don't even want to do so every 500 miles. Truly, it would seem to be overkill to be forced into a thorough, microscopic inspection at even the 50,000 mile mark. And these days, with regular maintenance schedules, superior spark plugs, and a lot of competition on the quality and reliability front, it is a good idea for the car to last 100,000 miles with the Owner never cracking the hood at all.

Well, airline operations are somewhere between the two extremes. While aerospace operations are even more critical than the top fuel drag racers. I believe that SpaceX wants to make launches at least as commonplace as regular air travel. So that the level of inspections that are required for GE or Rolls-Royce engines that are in service for airliners is sufficient to maintain superb operation and a solid reliability rate with rockets. This has not been attempted in any manner beyond the erstwhile Space Shuttles, which were renamed as 'Orbiters' for some reason.

DTsea | 24. Dezember 2015

Red sage. According to spacex website they were planning to land stage 2 eventually as well by having heat shield on forward end for Mach 25 reentry. Supposedly dragone ad well.

I dont know if still the plan to land stage 2 but why not?

Brian H | 26. Dezember 2015

dragone ad??

Jolinar | 26. Dezember 2015

here is the original concept video for landing both stages.

qualitypointopm1 | 09. April 2016

SpaceX made History by landing its Rocket on a Floating Drone Ship for the First Time. This is the second time SpaceX has successfully landed one of its rockets post-launch;

sosmerc | 09. April 2016

Pretty amazing accomplishment.....though I notice they were a bit off-center :).......the seas looked pretty heavy and the deck appeared to be pitching quite alot. How that rocket managed to stay upright is interesting.
To see this happen in real time brought tears to my eyes. Congratulations to all of the SpaceX crew !!

Ross1 | 09. April 2016

Stayed upright like a Segway.

risingsun | 09. April 2016

The fossil fuel industry is attempting to disparage Elon Musk because he threatens their business. The success of SpaceX makes it harder for them to succeed. I love when the right side wins. :)

Red Sage ca us | 10. April 2016

That was an awesome launch and landing! I like the coverage at The Verge:

youtube -- lEr9cPpuAx8

nelscharli1970 | 06. Mai 2016

Space X landed successfully on the drone barge for the second time last night! This time coming in a lot hotter and faster!

Tesla-David | 06. Mai 2016

Fantastic, congratulations SpaceX, Elon Musk and team! Very impressive.

Ross1 | 06. Mai 2016

So great.
And he needs more room to store them.

Turn them around, EM, and fire them up.
No storage required

Brian H | 10. Mai 2016

Landed dead center, this time.

Ross1 | 10. Mai 2016

Just missed his sleeping bag at the end of the line

yongliangzhu68 | 27. Mai 2016

looks like another on is on the 'Of Course I Still Love You' and the Sat is in geyosynchronous orbitt.

Ross1 | 28. Mai 2016

Really? Why arent these historic things in the news?

yongliangzhu68 | 28. Mai 2016

Ross: 4th time = routine and routine ain't news.

Benz | 28. Mai 2016

How many more launches and landings in 2016?

yongliangzhu68 | 28. Mai 2016

Benz: 12 more scheduled (Cape Canaveral&Vandenberg) including the Heavy test. Also they will probably throw in another 'test' launch of a reused booster.

rlwrw | 28. Mai 2016

Remember Ralph Williams? (Car dealer in Los Angeles)
"Hey friends. We have a sweet deal on a used rocket here."
Actually SES has been rather enthusiastic about buying a used rocket, and wants to be first.

carlgo2 | 28. Mai 2016

I want to go down to Vandenberg for the first launch of the heavy. Can only hope for no delays...

BTW, does anyone know what the best accessible viewing spot would be for this?

yongliangzhu68 | 29. Mai 2016

carlgo2: The Heavy test is at Cape Canaveral. Also not positive but I don't think Vandenberg has the facilities to assemble and support the Heavy anyway.

Ross1 | 29. Mai 2016

I typed a response to @rlwrw, but it was caught by Mollom.

It merely said: "Running on snake oil"
What is it with this software? Was it cheap or something?