back to article Giant Musk-stick test-firing proves a rocket can rise twice

A SpaceX video posted late last week is as boring as it gets: the Falcon 9 rocket doesn't even lift off. It is, however, special for this: it's the first time a rocket's first stage has been fuelled up and fired* after it's been to space. Youtube Video The nine Merlin engines were dosed up with kerosene and given their full …

  1. a_yank_lurker

    Good Job

    To Space X - Good Job on refurbishing one used booster.

    1. DryBones

      Re: Good Job

      I thought they fueled and fired the first one too. No? So this is the second one that came back without being a mess, and now it went through a firing? Okay, so they've tested avionics, the engines, and the structure between the engines and the hold down bolts.

      Honestly, I saw one article that said this one had been relaunched, which was a genuine surprise considering it was just another hold-down test. Same thing? Um, no, it's not the same thing at all, because it's not moving.

      1. Bubba Von Braun
        Happy

        Re: Good Job

        Yes they did, back in Jan of this year on Pad 39A sent a correction through earlier seems some folks must have had a "big weekend" ;-)

  2. NotBob

    A little overconfident with the predicted timeframe, but still awesome

  3. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

    Splitting hairs

    "it's the first time a rocket's first stage has ever been fuelled up and fired after it's been to space."

    NS2 has been into space and back four times. You can almost exclude New Shepard from the above statement because the first stage is the only stage (and has only half the thrust of a Falcon 9 stage 2). Despite New Shepard's much less demanding missions suborbital test flights, I still think Blue Origins wins the prize for flying the first re-usable stage 1 rocket.

    1. Mark Solaris

      Re: Splitting hairs

      Splitting all the hairs...

      The JCSAT-14 F9-024 is an orbital class rocket, it goes sideways to actually put things in orbit. The Blue Origin New Shepard is sub-orbital... it goes straight up and falls back again... of limited use except for tourists.

      This isn't the first time a returned orbital booster has been re-fires, the OG2 flight in December was re-fired within a few days at the Cape, to validate it and prove the point. It was a short duration static fire.

      1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

        Re: Splitting hairs

        Well, if you're a bit flexible regarding the criteria... the shuttle's solid fuel boosters flee sub-orbital and were re-used...

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Splitting hairs

          "the shuttle's solid fuel boosters flee sub-orbital and were re-used..."

          For some versions of reused. It would have been cheaper to dump them.

    2. Bubba Von Braun
      FAIL

      Re: Splitting hairs

      Well if we are splitting hairs, sorry, but there are a number of Amateur rocketeers (CSXT) who like punching the boundary.. Then you can add Spaceship One and it was re-usable (and carried humans too something Bezos has not done yet)

      Mr. Amazon is just riding coat-tails, sub-orbital is a dammed sight easier than slowing a stage down from an orbital launch. Watch the speed gauge on the SpaceX feed if you want some idea of just how fast its traveling.

    3. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Splitting hairs

      NS2 is a sounding rocket. It goes straight up and comes straight down.

      You're comparing Granny's car that gets driven slowly once around the block on Sundays with a F1 racer that gets thrashed within millimetres of its design limits over a hard race. They only thing they really have in common is that they get taken out for a drive on Sunday.

  4. Winkypop Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Ahhh musk sticks

    That quintessential Aussie lolly!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musk_stick

  5. seven of five

    All nice and well, but

    This all looks very fancy, but can the rocket also start and land from... say

    .

    .

    .

    inside an old volcano?

    ...Now wheres me cat? pardon: Wo ist meine Katze?

    1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

      Re: All nice and well, but

      I told you not to put the kitty litter next to the launch pad!

    2. XSV1

      Re: All nice and well, but

      Haven't seen Ms Galore in quite a while, but then I am gay which probably explains why.

    3. DropBear
      Trollface

      Re: All nice and well, but

      can the rocket also start and land from... say... inside an old volcano?"

      Sorry, no. This one's only certified for launch from under swimming pools...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: All nice and well, but

        And have you remembered to move the swimming pool before take off this time?

  6. Bitbeisser

    Did that first stage actually ever reach "space" in the first place? I don't think so, AFAIK,it separates from the rest of the rocket before even reaching space.

    If it would have been to space, it would need to go through the scorching of the re-entry into the atmosphere, which for most cases, only the space shuttles (with one sad exception) have accomplished...

    R

    1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Approximately

      I keep seeing "first stage separation at about 100km". After separation, stage one is still going really fast, but near horizontal. If a stage one does not get into space before separation, it probably covers the last few hundred meters after separation. There is still plenty of atmospheric heating on the way down, but not as much as for the space shuttle or Falcon 9 stage 2. NS2 has a much easier return path as it is just going up and down with no attempt at getting into orbit.

      1. James Hughes 1

        Re: Approximately

        It gets above the Karman line (Space), but not to orbital velocity. Big difference. Coming in from orbit is HOT, coming in from height isn't as ho as speeds are much lower. Not insignificant, just lower.

    2. Brangdon

      It does get above the atmosphere and has to make a scorching re-entry. It's not going at orbital speed, but it is going nearly Mach 10. It doesn't need as good a heat shield as the shuttle because it does a re-entry burn. It rotates until the engine is facing direction of travel, then fires its rocket to slow down, so the re-entry speed is relatively slow. (It later needs another burn to land, so the engine is switched on and off 3 times per flight.)

  7. Richard 12 Silver badge

    Only the first if you ignore the Shuttle

    The Space Shuttle main engines are first stage and each orbiter was refurbished and returned to actual orbit several times.

    The refurbishment was rather more extensive than originally hoped of course.

  8. Anonymous Coward Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Seriously impressive.

    Not the rocket firing stuff - Musk has basically achieved his dream of that being boring.

    What impresses me is that the launch pad could take that much heat & thrust for so long. I understand that they were probably dumping swimming pools of water onto it to keep the temperature down, but it is still an incredible amount of force it's withstanding there.

    And nice barbecue, but I think the sausages are slightly over-done.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Seriously impressive.

      I just want to know just how much that laterally ejected thrust has affected the Earth's rotation. Do we have longer or shorter days now?

      1. DropBear
        Facepalm

        Re: Seriously impressive.

        "Do we have longer or shorter days now?"

        That's an accurate portrait of J.T. Maston of the Baltimore Gun Club --->

      2. Anonymous Coward Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: Seriously impressive.

        "Do we have longer or shorter days now?"

        Neither. Just less exaggerated seasons. The thrust was directed (roughly) south, so rotating the earth north slightly. As this was done while in summer, it will reduce the tilt of the earth. Slightly.

  9. Vulch

    And again again

    The stage has had two more full duration firings since, one each Friday and Saturday. It appears they took Sunday off though. Elon did say they would fire one of the recovered stages 10 times in a row so we may be due a busy, and noisy, week.

    1. Dave Bell

      Re: And again again

      And they will be having a good look for anything obvious between each firing. They're testing their instruments too, and if something does fail, they might have an "if you see this, don't launch it" rule to use

  10. phuzz Silver badge

    Smutty

    All very impressive, but couldn't anybody be bothered to wash off the soot?

    1. cray74

      Re: Smutty

      All very impressive, but couldn't anybody be bothered to wash off the soot?

      It might be rather baked on or embedded in the paint, which would necessitate paint stripping and replacement. Despite all their formulation to be benign to aircraft, aerospace paint strippers that work well** pose some risk to seals, adhesives, and even some metals. If SpaceX didn't painstakingly select materials, it might be an unnecessary gamble to make a functional booster look pretty.

      (**Meanwhile, the new eco-friendly, less carcinogenic paint strippers can either pose a greater corrosion risk, and/or don't remove paint well. In a former life I got to evaluate 14 eco-friendly paint removers.)

      An alternative explanation is that SpaceX thinks the sooty, worn-in look establishes the rugged credentials of its hardware.

      1. Julz

        Re: Smutty

        Sooty and worn-in is the preferred Star Wars look...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Smutty

          And indeed the title of my first hand-puppet slash fiction.

      2. Jon 37
        Boffin

        Re: Smutty

        SpaceX's goal is reliable, cheap and fast. So I'd expect them to only repaint the booster if it really needs it. If it's just cosmetic, then it's not worth the time/money/risk to do it.

  11. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
    Joke

    Apparenty...

    ....according to YouTube, none of it's real anyway.

    1. fnj

      Re: Apparenty...

      I realize it's childish and pointless of me, but I always get mad as hell when confronted by the awesome level of ignorance and stupidity exhibited in the comments for videos like that one. Obviously every one of the comments offered by anyone with two brain cells to rub together have been fastidiously expunged so all we get is an echo chamber of retards.

    2. phuzz Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: Apparenty...

      What bothers me is that after watching (for example) a video about a SpaceX launch, YouTube then suggests some of these "UFO sHown In nasa FOOTAGE!!!11one!" videos.

      No Youtube! You should be able to tell from the amount of NASA etc videos I watch that I like science, not woo! Stop bloody suggesting these credulous idiots to me.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like