The booster performed the never-less-than-impressive landing trick at the company's Florida Landing Zone 1.
I read contradictory things on this: does that really make the rocket less expensive?
An impressive sequence of launches at the end of August was marred first by ULA's Delta IV Heavy preferring life on the ground just three seconds before lift-off and then SpaceX deciding the weekend weather looked a bit iffy for its next batch of Starlink satellites. The Delta IV Heavy, carrying a spacecraft for the US …
SpaceX’s last Falcon 9 upgrade could finally make reusable rockets cost-effective : It implies it is not.
Israel said European assessments of reusability have concluded that, to reap the full cost benefits, a partially reusable rocket would need to launch 35-40 times per year to maintain a sizable production facility while introducing reused hardware into the manifest. But it comes from competitors, so they may be not totally objective
Um, yes. Throwing away 9 rocket engines after only one use is kind of expensive. The Falcon 9 has been tweaked to require the minimum amount of refurb work as well as to land after launch.
The old space shuttle required a huge amount of work between launches and so much was replaced that it wasn’t a practical proposition. The F9 can be turned around in (from memory) 6 weeks and at a low enough cost that SpaceX offer a discount for using a previously flown model. It’s also cheap enough for SpaceX to loft 10 batches of Starlink satellites themselves (so far), while providing cheap ride shares to their partners at the same time.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020