Failed SpaceX landing.

[ZenOps]

That is to say, it has failed three times out of three attempts so far. But you can tell that this last time it was ever so close to being successful.

Still, even a minor failure will result in an skull exploding kaboom, which is probably why there are all unmanned trials of course. At this rate, it could be several decades before one can launch a car sized payload and have it land successfully back on earth. That is if you consider that the space shuttle isn't really a space vehicle because it doesn't go geostationary.

[Sentry]

BAN ROCKETS!

[16hypen3sp]

Did they not land one successfully on the ground just a couple months ago??????

I think it's always failed on the barge.

[KPHMPH]

Yeah, like 1 month ago they successfully landed a Falcon....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B6oiLNyKKI

It's going to be awhile before they land everyone but they CAN land.

[spike98]

It landed just fine and on target.

It was a stabilizer that failed. It failed at standing upright. The value of determining the cause is much more valuable than the rocket itself as it wouldn't have been reused anyways. Learning what went wrong after it landed successfully will prevent future mishaps.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by 16hypen3sp
Did they not land one successfully on the ground just a couple months ago??????

I think it's always failed on the barge.

The landing on the ground is just basically give Jeff Bezos the finger telling him what he did was too easy.

They always want to land on barge because you don't have worry about people on the ground and there is a lot more window for launches on ocean.

[ZenOps]

Size does matter, as it has to have practical use. An ant will survive a fall from a two story building just fine.

Perfecting, or at least getting to 50/50 chance on this type of landing is very important as there is no atmosphere or landing strip on asteroids, moons and smaller planets.

[ZenOps]

Originally posted by spike98
It landed just fine and on target.

It was a stabilizer that failed. It failed at standing upright. The value of determining the cause is much more valuable than the rocket itself as it wouldn't have been reused anyways. Learning what went wrong after it landed successfully will prevent future mishaps.

Standing upright is important too. Landing on a specific spot on a moon or planet is a guessing game. Maybe the moon is made of cheese, maybe three of the four feet where the lander hits are on solid iron rock, but the fourth is situated on something like mud. If it doesn't land upright and stay upright, it goes kaboom - period.

Worst, is if it lands on a not perfectly flat spot, where one of the legs may land on a rock that shifts a couple inches under the weight or heat blast of the rocket.. Pretty much a guarantee of failure there.

Which does not say good things about planets with an atmosphere either, a 100 kilometer crosswind would make this type of landing impossible.

I'm not saying the challenges are insurmountable, but getting 19 out of 20 successes would be bare minimum before I would consider manned attempts.

[killramos]

This is a booster landing. This approach is never intended to bring astronauts back, the pods work more than great for that and are far simpler, also the boosters need to detach before orbit anyways.

This is about saving costs by reusing expensive rockets and just refuel and perform maintenance rather than building and trashing a new one every time.

Humans are completely irrelevant in this case.