SpaceX loses an historic booster during recovery

[thewayne]

The booster, B1058, had two historic high-points in its life. It was the first private space flight to launch people to the International Space Station, which is quite an achievement in and of itself. But the thing that has really made SpaceX's name is the reusability of its boosters: 1058 has made NINETEEN LAUNCHES!

Sadly, its nineteenth recovery was not 100% successful.

It landed on its landing craft, as it was designed to do, but a combination of very rough seas and high winds did it in. It ultimately toppled and broke in half, the top half of the booster falling into the sea.

Part of the problem is that it is an old booster, and the recovery ships are unmanned. A manned ship they could have chained down the landing struts and better secured it, but then you're risking human lives if there's problems in the landing. The other problem with the booster's age is that the new boosters have auto-leveling features in the landing struts: in heavy seas and winds, they can compensate for the booster shifting and rebalance it, at least to a certain degree. And 1058 did not have those features retrofitted.

The recovered parts of 1058 will still be of value as the engines will be recovered and everything else will be studied to see how well it held up over 19 launches. Ultimately it will probably be put on display somewhere.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/01/a-commanders-lament-on-the-loss-of-a-historic-spacex-rocket/

Comments

[armiphlage]

I still am shocked that it's more economical to build a booster capable of multiple launches than mass-producing a single-use booster.

My gut feel is that, with modern CNC equipment, the cost of inspecting and refurbishing a booster after each use would exceed the marginal cost of making a new one.

Obviously I'm wrong, but I don't quite understand why.

(bias note: I work in a factory making aerospace electronics; manufacturing complex assemblies is automated, and nearly all the cost is setup cost)

[thewayne]

It is quite a thing that after refurb and inspection that they can pass certification and keep using 'em economically/profitably.

[disneydream06]

Unmanned rescue ships?
How does that even work? :o
Hugs, Jon

[thewayne]

Radio.  The rocket knows approximately where the ship is supposed to be via GPS, when it gets reasonably close the rocket and the ship lock on to each other via radio and the communications link guides the rocket down.  I'm sure the ship has all sorts of weather and sea condition data plus other telemetry that it sends up to the rocket.  I'm also sure it's a lot easier with the newer rockets that have the dynamically balancing landing struts!

[silveradept]

I'm surprised that this particular booster wasn't retrofitted, given that it had already flown many missions and seemed to still be a workhorse for the company. Someone probably made a decision about cost versus benefit, but if you're going to build a reusable rocket, it seems silly to have let it get destroyed because it didn't have the right systems in place to deal with bad seas.

[thewayne]

My guess would be the retrofitting would be quite extensive from both a mechanical/hydraulic and electronics standpoint and it just wasn't feasible.  But that's a guess.  I'm kind of surprised they don't try land landings.  The super heavy is supposed to land in Florida or Texas on land.  I can see from a safety standpoint that landing on water is pretty safe: something goes wrong you're not too worried about people or fire.  But still.

[silveradept]

Yeah. The land landing still probably has to deal with winds, though, so it might have still been lost. It does highlight how often humans keep using a thing until it finally irrevocably fails.