I think the sailors of old would find it poetic that a ship that transports humans to space was defeated by one of our oldest adversaries, the high seas.
In 2016, if someone told you that the most dangerous part of landing and reusing boosters would be bringing boosters back to port after landing, people would hve laughed at you.
Well, people who know nothing about water transport would have laughed at you. I’m a naval architect (I design ships for a living), and it doesn’t surprise me one bit. The ocean is nearly as dangerous as space but it’s easier to get lost and people tend to underestimate it more.
1058 was the last booster left that still used the old landing legs that lacked auto leveling which likely led to it falling. The newer boosters have gone through rougher seas without issues.
To those who ask why was the booster in rough seas: Because SpaceX keeps pressing the parameters on their Starlink launches, and one of those is weather. A launch needs good weather at the pad, at altitude (no high speed winds), and at the landing zone. Hitting the trifecta 100x a year is difficult, so SpaceX has to keep looking for the limits of where/what/how the F9 can operate.
To be honest, I really want them to regularly launch whenever the hell they want and whenever the stars and planets deem it's a good time, not the weather of the Earth. I really want to see them launch during a storm.
And weather after landing is unlikely to prevent successful payload deployment, so I wouldn't be at all surprised they push that limit harder than the others. And in the end, I'm sure they think the cost-benefit analysis regarding risk of occasionally losing a booster seems to be in the right place.
There comes a time in every boosters life, where the wrinkles really start to highlight how far it has come from where it began. On 1058's long voyage home from yet another perfectly executed bullseye, it surrendered to the desolate end of a perfect life. Journey well 1058.
I guess space flight is now officially safer than shipping? 😀 I'm not that sad about it. If despite frequent reuse a rocket can live so long it eventually gets totaled due to bad weather, that's a rather excellent way of pointing out how far SpaceX has pushed the envelope on re-usability.
This is what NASA *NEEDED* to make the Shuttle a true "minivan to the stars". But they were so boneheaded and thick skull that they decied to say: fuck it. Then they killed 2 crews of some of the most exceptional Americans that to date that have ever been born and advanced the fields of science and spaceflight. That and they pushed too far too fast and got miraculously lucky from Mercury to Apollo fucking around and cowboying with spaceflight the way they were up till Challenger and Columbia.
The design of the shuttle was more Nixon and the USAF's fault than NASA's. The USAF demanded a much higher payload and crossrange than NASA was initially willing to use, which necessitated a lighter, non-reusable booster using SRBs (originally the booster was basically going to be a Saturn V with wings and jet engines that would have allowed a full recovery and reuse), the tiled heatshield that was an extreme failure point (see: Columbia and the significant number of near misses the shuttle program suffered) and the inspections of which really slowed down shuttle turnaround, and the Delta wings which contributed significantly to it's extremely poor subsonic glide characteristics. Also, the USAF's demand of 7-man crews was what caused Supersonic ejection seats to be deleted in the prototype phase, which would have likely saved the crews of Challenger. If NASA had had their way and weren't shouted down by the Nixon Administration and the demands of the USAF, we would have come out with a smaller but significantly more capable and safer craft. I'd suggest looking at the Faget "DC-3" Concept for a look at what could have been.
Not unlike the modern day SLS (Senate Launch System), most of the technical failures of the Space Shuttle (also leading to massive cost overruns) was the fault of our congress, and it goes back in history to the roots of how the US civilian space program (NASA) procurement system works. Let's just say that programs like SLS and the Shuttle, are basically government jobs for votes (and money) programs. Want my vote on this bill to fund NASA? Then some of those parts for XYZ project need to be made in my state/district. *Incidentally would you like to* insure I'll *help out* in the future *by donating to my reelection campaign fund?* NASA is just congress's play thing at this point. Don't do what we want? Then we'll cut your funding, and shut down major projects currently up for funding. SLS was forced upon NASA, BY CONGRESS. At the time, President Obama would only sign that funding bill if there was also some funding for "new space" fixed priced contracts for startup companies like SpaceX, so as to get away from the overpriced "tit for tat" procurement systems & "cost plus" contracts that "old space" companies are still entrenched in. Musk's rocket success has a lot more to do with how he can make rockets cheaper than anyone else, because he [was forced to] vertically integrate it from the start. In an interview I watched his lead rocket designer said that they had serious "sticker shock" when they went to procure a pintle injector from the leading manufacturer (not to mention the 2 week wait for them to even get back to them with that inflated price). Remember, long before he ever landed even one of his boosters, he was already undercutting ULA, Boeing, and other large aerospace giants. His other innovation being to use an iterative design cycle approach to drive innovation at the engineering level (i.e. Don't lock into a static design). It costs a bit more having that extra bit of [engineering staff] overhead, but when good engineers are encouraged to find better ways to do something, they absolutely will. That engineering centric management environment is what companies like Boeing USED TO HAVE in the 60's~70's. It also tends to help lower your overall capital, manufacturing & operational costs over time.
@@thekornwulfthere wasn't enough money, without the Air Force kicking in some dough and the administration supporting there would be no space shuttle at all. Maybe this would have led to further Apollo applications project missions, I suspect they would just use up the remaining S1s on Skylab flights though. After the horrific cost of the Apollo missions, no one, administration or Congress was going to spend the money to do the job properly.
@@lynnlamusga "In an interview I watched his lead rocket designer said that they had serious "sticker shock" when they went to procure a pintle injector from the leading manufacturer" got a link? sounds interesting
6:04 that might not be white desposit, but soot that was washed away by the leftover propellant dripping out unburnt. The stains fade from white to black, probably the washed away soot saturated the droplets and deposited towards the end of the nozzle. The two sided pattern probably comes from the waves leaning the booster from one side and 180 deg to the other, so the shape has nothing to do with alignment of the injectors, judging from the symmetric shape it came from the middle and got alternately washed/dripped onto either side of the throat. Also note how the middle one has fewer an larger stains, probably cause the nozzle is still hotter and most drops evaporate.
Ooh! Yeah, I bet you're right. Especially since if you look closely, you can see what might be concentrations of soot around the ends of the markings in the places they come short of the edge of the bells, consistent with some fluid pushing the sludge downward but stopping and drying before it dripped off. The structure of the markings is also pretty consistent with things I've seen on dirty car windshields and windows after rain or melting snow trickle. It's interesting how much soot these trickles took off, though. Suggests to me that the soot dissolves in non-polar solvents, and so if you even wanted to get one of these reused rockets really clean, spraying it down with, say, isopropyl alcohol would do the trick. Not that SpaceX considers it worth the effort.
The Design needs to take transportation as well in consideration... its not out of the design... BUT... yeah, 15 ft waves its a bit much, the booster didnt fail, it was the barge....
@@brianfhunter They have a new leg design that can self-adjust so the octograbber can secure it properly. But, because this booster is so old, literally the oldest booster in the fleet they haven't upgraded it, yet.
@@807800 - yeah, i read something like this on other comments, and that was my point, transportation is a factor on the design and spaceX did not forgot about it, its just that sometimes nature hits you harder than you expect.
I feel like all it needs is some guy wires. Temporary guy wires, anchored to each corner of the barge. The interesting part is attaching the guys to the booster. I'm imagining a loose belt that is wrapped around/rolled up the face of the booster, and anchored 2/3 to 3/4 the way up, wherever a relatively strong point is.
Its also worth mentioning that the newer boosters have legs that can counterbalance the ocean waves, hence dropping this seacrashing risk significantly.
@@WingTzu343 It was only 3 years old, built new because it was used for a manned flight. They also seem to have had the hydraulic dampeners since the start with them even being featured on the Grasshopper test rig. The recent change seems to have been to make them active hydraulic dampeners rather than passive hydraulic dampeners. But a ruptured hydraulic cylinder or hydraulic line isnt going to make any difference whether it has a pump or not.
My reading of this is that newer boosters can adjust the shock absorbers after landing to level out any differential compression. This would be a one-off operation not an active pitch and roll compensation as you suggest. But making sure the booster stands vertical to the deck will minimize toppling forces due to deck motion and maximize the survivable sea state. The simplest way of achieving that would be to have a way of dropping all the shock absorbers down to the fully compressed state (do photos of recent first flight boosters returning confirm this hunch?) If they consider active stabilization it would make more sense to fit that to the barge rather than the rocket since that is not mass critical. The offshore oil industry has active ballast pumping systems that could be adapted.
I mean, just being able to reuse it once still saves you more money than any other rocket, so losing a few here and there shouldn't be a big loss... as long as you don't lose the payload.
I was told by someone the booster was chained down because it was so old it didn't have the hardware for the attachments. The rest of the fleet has "sea legs" that leans the booster into the roll.
This one was used 19 times successfully before being lost. 1060 is at 17 right now. (trusting Scotts numbers) Space X has thus completed 36 launches with just 2 boosters. most just dump the boosters in the ocean so SpaceX is already up 34 boosters without taking any more boosters into account. They are on track for 97 launches this year, so a loss of almost 1% not a big deal to them. The intentionally expended boosters I am sure accounted for in funding by the customer knowing they will not be recovered.
The point is it could have been preventable. Wether or not that increases the launch costs to the point it is losing money despite not losing the boosters. I imagine its not costing money once something like a crane is added to the barge. You pay once, not every single launch. A crane operator isnt going to send spacex broke.
Sad to see it gone, a true piece of history. If SpaceX were to cut it into sections and put them on Ebay with a certificate of authenticity, they would sell like hot cakes. I am sure many SpaceX fans would love to own a piece of it.
They could just sell 6”x8” or so pieces of the outer skin. No need to include engines. I mean pieces of parts of them would be super cool, but more work. But I do think they are missing an opportunity. These particular engines are probably destined for a complete teardown and testing to see how the parts have held up. Who knows, they might even reuse a few of them.
It would be cool if they did like they did with space shuttle tiles and give them out to public school science departments to inspire the next generation.
The space shuttle and its boosters were reusable, shuttle landed on a runway and the booster landed with parachutes. The only "new" tech here is the fly back booster. NASA actually developed a fly back booster in the 70s but the program was cancelled after it was lost due to a landing leg failing to deploy
It had been such a long time sense I watched a Falcon 9 launch, but this one I watched. I am glad I did. -Rest- Soar eternal in Valhalla B1058 you are legend.(edited to correct for a more appropriate activity in Valhalla)
@@ravener96 I made this comment as I was rushing out the door for my commute home. The same question occurred to me and I had a correction planned, but you are right resting is not a Valhalla thing.
@@ravener96Valhalla is a kind of hall of fame in the afterlife (in the nordic mythology), where brave warriors come and celebrate together. The use of the word is imho suitable.
I think the booster should not only be donated in sections to museums, but auctioned off in behalf of either SpaceX or education. This is real history in the making, who wouldn't want a piece of that?
Farewell 1058. And what farewell it gave. I for one found scott's examination of the internals a wonderful parting gift. One that required its destruction and also gave it value. Touching and informative. Thanks Scott.
There will be other "best" but this was the first of the "best". He resisted pressure and heat waves but the sea waves got him. He did the job: as others have said 18 times better than anything before it.
@@cjay2 Okay, 2 rockets right? One can bring a few satellites to orbit once before splashing down in the Atlantic. The other can bring those same satellites to orbit at least 19 times only needing minor refurbishment between launches. I'd say the latter _would_ be 19 times better idk
Unfortunate to see a booster lost. Especially 1058. Thankfully newer boosters have better hardware and this shouldn't happen again. What I meant by better hardware is that the new Falcon booster s have improved landing legs to mitigate this from happening.
@@dougsinthailand7176I'll be your huckleberry.... It's the cause was landing at sea successfully... Even in rough seas where it still landed successfully..
The biggest difference is the data they collected. For all future landings, they know that under these conditions the booster might fail. Not launching if the sea is this bad, will make failing less likely.
It will happen again, eventually But i dont think its bad Its bad if boosters are lost too often, or, not at all. Perfect scenario is where boosters are lost/expended at low enaugh rate that the flightrate can be maintained, but not too low, so that factory can keep operating.
Extremely likely that those gridfins are in good shape, and can probably be reused. But would also be cool to recover the "worm" logo, that would be a cool museum piece!
@@donjones4719 let's be honest everything everything spacex owns is replaceable blow it up and innovative.... This one just took 19 flights and some rough seas to "blow up" 😂
@@donjones4719 I doubt that spending money to fetch the gridfins out from the ocean (assuming that they've sunk at this point) is cheaper than just making new ones
@@michaelthomas7898 What's the highest mission count for an individual shuttle orbiter? That would be the number to beat, then. Although, maybe the Orbiters really are "payload" rather than boosters; in which case, the original statement stands because the Shuttle boosters were single use.
@Kr0noZ discovery Flew 39 missions but they are hardly comparable considering the shuttles basically got completely stripped and rebuild every flight while the space x boosters are just cleaned and refilled after a quick check that everything is fine
Thanks for covering this - it really is a big deal. That's how I want to go out, perfectly stick my last landing after a wonderful career then get clocked into oblivion by a huge wave, can't ask for much better than that.
Looks like it paid its way. Reminds me of the night I was officer of the watch on the bridge when in the navy when a rogue wave broke over the bow. The waves were running 20 to 30 feet high, already. The rogue was 40-50 foot high. We were a repair ship with cargo lashed down on the deck. Broke one boom, a couple of jeeps broke loose and slid into guard rails but didn't go overboard. We altered course to ride out the storm with less risk of over the bow monsters.
Being in the bridge when a rogue wave breaks over the bow is something I'd like to experience but am grateful I'll never experience. Yup, contradiction. Your crew did a good job lashing down deck cargo if none of it went overboard.
@@donjones4719 The experience was awesome. Didn't have to call the Captain... he was on the bridge in seconds as the whole ship shook violently when it happened. My most exciting naval experience was in a NATO exercise. We were a pretend enemy submarine (I was now a submariner) and we attacked a fleet of many destroyers and three aircraft carriers. We had detected them hundreds of miles away and had time to position us in front of where we thought they would go. Right in front of them all. Captain took a quick periscope bearing, then we dove to 100 feet at FULL SPEED AHEAD... VERY DANGEROUS TO DO. We dove under the front destroyers, we could hear them pass overhead through the hull, up scope, quick bearing on the nearest aircraft carrier, fired all fake front torpedoes (6 of them), fired a flare to tell them ha-ha we just shot you, have a nice day, then went very (classified... more than 500 feet) deep, went to silent mode, and slipped away.
I remember while I was in the Navy asking my CO at the time(we were on a CVN) what the potential future of aircraft carriers could be with SpaceX boosters landing on barges. He was rather taken aback by the question and didn't know much on what could be the future. I'm aware in the current state with crews required on-board it's kind of a no go, but I can see aircraft carriers at least as large as they are now if they were able to be unmanned being able to do at least 2 landings. Stability at sea at that scale would be significantly better.
@@randomnickify to be fair the US did make and continue to run conventionally fueled carriers until 2004 other countries still run conventionally fueled carriers
Even the USN supercarriers are unstable at sea. They use an active ballast pump system shifting something like 6000 gallons per minute from port to starboard to smooth out rolls. And sometimes move all aircraft down to the hangar deck to clear the top deck. Their pitching motion can be rather high as well. If the landings can reach "reliability" it really is time to move them ashore.
@@randomnickifythe deck on a carrier can carry that load, if you ever been on one, you woud know that, but your random fun comments indicate ze contraire. pour l'amour des porteavions soit un peu civile , non?
@@lyfandeth I worked on those systems directly and there was no active usage to smooth out rolling. Just to provide counter weight for aircraft being in different parts of the ship. The only active rolling occurring was during turns or horrific weather. Same with pitch
Those white deposits are from the barge rocking left to right in the waves as the last of the liquid propellant's drips . some liquid must drip for a minute after landing and as it drips it clean off the carbon. They are a lack of carbon not a white deposit. you can see how the cleaning is more apparent higher up in the bell because as the liquid prop runs down it evaporates.
Very , very much agree with you! One should rescue and keep the whole "End" of it and donate it to a museum! Your comment is so lovingly full of (totally justified!!!) sumpathy -- for a machine! And then some people - unrelated to technology - claim that we techno-buffs have no heart!! With warm greetingsd from Germany, Mike
My understanding is that newer boosters have a leveling system, while 1058 was older and did not. So this is somewhat less likely to happen to boosters going forward. Read that in an article over on Space News I think.
I think I'm tired of hearing what SpaceX's detractors say about anything. Let them go build their own rocket company from scratch. Great video and tribute, Scott.
I needed this. I saw a post from some hot-shot computer programmer badmouthing SpaceX’s capabilities simply because Tesla has been having problems recently. I don’t even know where to start with that. Worse still some of the comments to the post went so far as to say we should just cancel commercial spaceflight completely because “wealth distribution” or something. Yeah, just throw Rocketlab, ULA, and countless others under the bus because reasons. Thankfully the post was well over a year old. Hopefully that punk is eating his words. God bless SpaceX and the other commercial space partners!
Being old enough to remember watching the Apollo era launches, I am floored that the Space X stuff does what it does… even if it fails once in a while. We have certainly come a long way 😊
Other launch providers: throw the booster away after every launch SpaceX: loses a booster at sea after 19 launches and landings 'Internet experts': "SpaceX are idiots for landing on a drone at sea!"
I think its worth pointing out Not loosing any boosters at all isnt healthy either and leads to STS issues By loosing some boosters spacex keeps all production lines running, keeping worker profficiency and lower part production costs, which also makes refurbishment costs lower. And while its bit nostalgic to loose this particular booster, hey, 19 flights, theyve got some use out of it. This is also one of the reasons falcon heavy cores are being expended now, it keeps factory running. I do wonder what goes for starship though, since musk kinda seems to have different philosophy there...
This booster doesn't really hurt them because it was supposedly due for retirement after its next flight anyway. A loss after 2 or 3 flights would sting more. They a need a good number of boosters to keep starlink networking growing. I don't think too many Falcon 9s is a concern right now until Starship starts launching a large numer of Starlinks.
Aww dang that is sad! This one should have been saved for a museum for sure. Im sure as a business though its basically a free boosters for starlink to use as the rocket has been paid for in previous missions.
It seems entirely reasonable to take the risk of losing the occasional booster, over having a more complicated system that might involve needing humans to be near the landing... Given how many flights some of these have before retirement, well above the budget number of launches, these boosters have already paid for themselves dozens of times over. There's some suggestion that re-using the Falcon 9 is not actually economical, and that a cheaper booster not capable of re-use would be better than more expensive reusable boosters. I'd love to see an actual breakdown of this by somebody I'd trust to get it right (i.e. Scott) and not an opinionated blowhard (i.e. Thunderf00t). It's possible SpaceX have got it all wrong here; I'm no fanboy. But surely there's a break-even point somewhere, so long as the cost of refurbishment of a more expensive booster is less than the cost of producing a new, cheaper, expendable-only booster?
I too would love to see that breakdown. But just based on the movement of the market since they came on the scene and have now risen to a position of dominance proves the point imho. That said, I’d like to see the hard numbers.
Hard numbers don't exist for anyone outside of SpaceX. And even that likely changes every few months. However, we have heard from 3 of SpaceX's execs on different occasions that the costs per launch of a reusable Falcon 9 is under 30M with everything included. And it does make sense. They aren't a publicly traded company, so launching reusable boosters at a loss or even breakeven wouldn't be worth it as you cannot trick investors into handling you enough money to keep growing that way. Further, Elon Musk knows very well that costs can also be brought down by increasing manufacturing output. So SpaceX would have clearly went that route if reuse wasn't saving them money. They also have enough room in the current market to charge extra if they were losing money.
Well, SpaceX (in the form of Gwynne Shotwell, I think) claimed years ago that re-use pays for itself after the first flight. Obviously there's no proof of that, since those kind of numbers are very much confidential, but there's no particular reason to think she was lying.
@@anthonypelchat Private companies have investors, and they are easier to trick than publically-trading companies, precisely because of the level of transparency needed to be listed on the more regulated public markets. More to the point, SpaceX have investors, and they've gotten quite a bit of funding from them over the years.
@@oasntet They are not easier to trick to the point of getting 10s of billions, which is what would be needed if SpaceX were losing money on each launch. Just because they have received investor money doesn't mean that it makes sense to lie publicly over years to get more, especially when they also make it difficult to invest. And that is just one of the points I mentioned. Even if you could get a lot of investor money by lying, that doesn't justify clearly wasting money when you knowingly don't have to. Given all points mentioned, it is clear that SpaceX is saving a lot of money by reusing the boosters. Even pessimistic "experts" were thinking reuse wouldn't make sense until 10 flights, which SpaceX has doubled at this point.
RIP 1058, I was hoping you'd hit the big 2-0 before the end. Also, the naysayers are forgetting that 1. SpaceX was originally shooting for 10 launches and 2. they've had well over 200 landings and how many boosters have landed only to be knocked over by heavy seas? I can really only think of this one and the F9 Heavy center booster that Scott mentioned.
It seems almost fitting for one of those too have said "pieces".... *_Not_* in anyway as a jab at what transpired, but as to the fact that SpaceX has said they'll be salvaging what they can (namely, engine parts). So perhaps RIPIP: Rest in Peace in Pieces? 🥴 Either way: 🚀🫡 _edit: Now that I think about it, that's kinda nice that they'll (hopefully) be salvaging some stuff, as it'll mean her legacy can continue..._ 😊
It flew more times than Challenger. That really puts things into perspective, when you remember how costly space shuttles (and launches) were. As for the critics, well, look at it this way : this rocket flew 19 times whereas every other rocket made prior to Falcon 9 only flew once and could not be recovered. Sentimental value notwithstanding, it's not really a problem losing a booster after it has served so many times. And to be honest, this is only the first production recoverable rocket, I'm sure that decades from now they'll be so commonplace there will be a whole bunch of dedicated ocean landing platform big enough to carry all sorts of facilities including cranes. In fact there is even one already, SeaLaunch. Served for 15 years, stopped operating, but it proved the concept was viable for launching. Remember, airports didn't always look like what you know today. Planes used to land in grass fields and there were no "gates". The infrastructure grew with the technology.
@@blshouseBut the Space Shuttle Orbiter would actually only be comparable with Dragon. And please don't write again about the "reusability" of the solid propellant boosters of the space shuttle system. It is well known that their recovery and reprocessing was much more complex and actually uneconomical. In addition, the Spacex boosters can do much more, such as switching its engines off and on again on command and landing safely with thus.
hey Scott, can you comment on the impact to launch cadence that losing the landing barge will have? I know they can probably repair the octo-grabber in a few weeks, but still going to have some knock on effects.
Maybe not that bad. I think they're still disrupted at LC-39A by the upcoming Falcon Heavy launch anyway, and that doesn't need barges since the sides will be RTLS and the core expended. So that gives them some time to do maintenance on this barge, while the other one continues to service SLC-40.
As an old, old-school, space nerd, who remembers watching Gemini launches on TV, I actually laughed and clapped when I watched that first Falcon 9 drone ship landing, and the dual landing after the Falcon Heavy launch. Before that, such events only occurred on sci-fi and tokusatsu movies and TV shows.
You know, living on the east coast. I'm surprised that SpaceX hasn't lost more rockets. I don't know how bad it gets on the west coast but it gets brutal on the east coast.
@@michaelmicek Exactly, and they regularly delay missions which would be safe to launch expendably because the sea conditions aren't suitable for recovery.
West coast is easier. Less storms, waves, and ocean currents. That's why OCISLY is in the Pacific now, that barge has weaker control thrusters compared to JRTI and ASOG
RIP B-1058 The remains of this beautiful booster have more than earned a place at the Kennedy Space Center rocket garden, alongside the rockets that put the first Americans in space.
5:21 the leg in the top left of the frame appears to extend a lot further than the other, which would make for an uneven landing as well as the waves moving the barge.
I hope this channel grows and stays around a long time. I'm sick with Covid and am having the worst time sleeping. This is fascinating and relaxing enough to distract me from being cranky and ill. ❤
@ScottManley - It is mathematically inevitable that the most reused boosters will likely be the oldest, and lacking the latest improvements. Since SpaceX are going for shorter turnaround times, with minimal refurbishment, it could be advantageous to loose an occasional old booster. It seems all part of the Musk development philosophy of not over-engineering anything, but instead simplifying things to save weight, complexity and cost.
Congratulations, SpaceX! A great achievement! Back in 2015, when they landed their first rocket, I knew this would change the economics of space. It surely has.
I too was genuinely sad to see this booster meet it's end. Rather than parting it out to museums, I'd love to see the whole hulk put on display somewhere - like the A320 that landed in the Hudson.
Do you know of or have you ever seen Tom Dahl's videos? He's been making the most unbelievably detailed diagrams showing the inner workings of the Viking missions I've ever seen for the past decade. He has less than 200 subscribers and his most watched video is about 5,000 views. The latest one he did today is the most incredibly, meticulously detailed video of a radioisotope thermoelectric generator I've ever seen.
It still blows my mind when I see one of SpaceX's drone ships. The size of the ocean and the booster really hides the true scale of how absolutely massive they truly are. A regulation NFL football field without endzones is 91m long and 49m wide. Of Course I Still Love You is exactly 91m long and 52m wide. That's astonishing. You could damn near play an NFL game on one of them.
I still love Everyday Astronaut's video of the biggest booms in rockets when he talked about SpaceX's failed landing attempts. He mentioned the size of the drone ships and then goes "its the size of what some call a football field. 'MERICA!!" Man I saw that and busted out laughing.
As far as ocean going ships go that's not really large at all. The beam is comparable to a new panamax ship, but the lenght is comparable to some riverboats.
Kind of mind blowing that in eight years, SpaceX has had 256 successful booster landings while no other launch facility has yet to do even one on an orbital launch.
I can remember when SpaceX was having trouble getting a booster to land for the first time. So, getting to the point where one has done it 19 times is incredible. R.I.P. B1058
For a system that was never designed to do more than 10 flights (at least, initially) this one had an absolutely *exceptional* run. SpaceX is _learning_ , whether a flight be a success or an abject failure... and that's _how_ you learn. Push boundaries, push limits, see how far things can go... and then refine from there. Something, honestly, NASA has always been loath to do, simply because it's a *government bureaucracy* with all that entails. Bureaucracies exist to enrich and enshrine _themselves_ ; whatever the actual mission goals are merely an afterthought. Businesses operate on an entirely different set of rules.
It should be noted that NASA funded many SpaceX launches. Also, NASA can do science that a private company wouldn't find profitable, so each has its strengths and weaknesses
It lasted 2 or 3 times longer than it should have. According to a SpaceX employee that is a relative. Notice the higher the booster flight number the more they use for starlink.
I have vague memory of being told that SpaceX projection of lifespan of those boosters is merely 10 flights. If that's correct - this booster paid for himself more than enough. Respect.
I think the sailors of old would find it poetic that a ship that transports humans to space was defeated by one of our oldest adversaries, the high seas.
Like the old saying goes: when in front of a judge or on the high seas one is only in God's hands
first spaceship losing a battle in sea.
In 2016, if someone told you that the most dangerous part of landing and reusing boosters would be bringing boosters back to port after landing, people would hve laughed at you.
This is so true! I love your observation.
I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often. The sea can be unforgiving.
Well, people who know nothing about water transport would have laughed at you. I’m a naval architect (I design ships for a living), and it doesn’t surprise me one bit. The ocean is nearly as dangerous as space but it’s easier to get lost and people tend to underestimate it more.
In 2016, imagine being sad about loosing a booster :D (after a successful mission, not before XD)
@@michaelimbesi2314pretty sure it’s easier to get lost in space. Lamao
1058 was the last booster left that still used the old landing legs that lacked auto leveling which likely led to it falling. The newer boosters have gone through rougher seas without issues.
Thank you for this information. Best technical comment so far, even Scott Manley didn't mentionned this.
@@nihongobenkyoshimasu3190 It's within the reply to their [SpaceX] own post right in the first 10 seconds. Bottom right
To those who ask why was the booster in rough seas: Because SpaceX keeps pressing the parameters on their Starlink launches, and one of those is weather. A launch needs good weather at the pad, at altitude (no high speed winds), and at the landing zone. Hitting the trifecta 100x a year is difficult, so SpaceX has to keep looking for the limits of where/what/how the F9 can operate.
To be honest, I really want them to regularly launch whenever the hell they want and whenever the stars and planets deem it's a good time, not the weather of the Earth. I really want to see them launch during a storm.
@@Ifinishedyoutubeyou know, weather on the moon is pretty consistent.
Could help improve the boosters landing system at the same time
@@IfinishedyoutubeLook up what happened to Apollo 12 in November 1969 when it launched in a storm.
And weather after landing is unlikely to prevent successful payload deployment, so I wouldn't be at all surprised they push that limit harder than the others. And in the end, I'm sure they think the cost-benefit analysis regarding risk of occasionally losing a booster seems to be in the right place.
There comes a time in every boosters life, where the wrinkles really start to highlight how far it has come from where it began. On 1058's long voyage home from yet another perfectly executed bullseye, it surrendered to the desolate end of a perfect life.
Journey well 1058.
Your comment has 19 likes. I just can’t get over it to give it a 20th 🤧
Poetic tribute to a legend
RIP 1058. A legend in its time.
Don't worry, only the top part of the rocket was lost, Space X can still repair it and it will be like new !!!
F
F
@@arpir97F the top part
F
I love how Falcon 9 is so reliable that it's big news when SpaceX doesn't recover the booster
1058 belongs in a museum in the current form! Amazing!
I guess space flight is now officially safer than shipping? 😀 I'm not that sad about it. If despite frequent reuse a rocket can live so long it eventually gets totaled due to bad weather, that's a rather excellent way of pointing out how far SpaceX has pushed the envelope on re-usability.
This is what NASA *NEEDED* to make the Shuttle a true "minivan to the stars". But they were so boneheaded and thick skull that they decied to say: fuck it. Then they killed 2 crews of some of the most exceptional Americans that to date that have ever been born and advanced the fields of science and spaceflight. That and they pushed too far too fast and got miraculously lucky from Mercury to Apollo fucking around and cowboying with spaceflight the way they were up till Challenger and Columbia.
The design of the shuttle was more Nixon and the USAF's fault than NASA's. The USAF demanded a much higher payload and crossrange than NASA was initially willing to use, which necessitated a lighter, non-reusable booster using SRBs (originally the booster was basically going to be a Saturn V with wings and jet engines that would have allowed a full recovery and reuse), the tiled heatshield that was an extreme failure point (see: Columbia and the significant number of near misses the shuttle program suffered) and the inspections of which really slowed down shuttle turnaround, and the Delta wings which contributed significantly to it's extremely poor subsonic glide characteristics. Also, the USAF's demand of 7-man crews was what caused Supersonic ejection seats to be deleted in the prototype phase, which would have likely saved the crews of Challenger.
If NASA had had their way and weren't shouted down by the Nixon Administration and the demands of the USAF, we would have come out with a smaller but significantly more capable and safer craft. I'd suggest looking at the Faget "DC-3" Concept for a look at what could have been.
Not unlike the modern day SLS (Senate Launch System), most of the technical failures of the Space Shuttle (also leading to massive cost overruns) was the fault of our congress, and it goes back in history to the roots of how the US civilian space program (NASA) procurement system works.
Let's just say that programs like SLS and the Shuttle, are basically government jobs for votes (and money) programs. Want my vote on this bill to fund NASA? Then some of those parts for XYZ project need to be made in my state/district. *Incidentally would you like to* insure I'll *help out* in the future *by donating to my reelection campaign fund?*
NASA is just congress's play thing at this point. Don't do what we want? Then we'll cut your funding, and shut down major projects currently up for funding. SLS was forced upon NASA, BY CONGRESS. At the time, President Obama would only sign that funding bill if there was also some funding for "new space" fixed priced contracts for startup companies like SpaceX, so as to get away from the overpriced "tit for tat" procurement systems & "cost plus" contracts that "old space" companies are still entrenched in.
Musk's rocket success has a lot more to do with how he can make rockets cheaper than anyone else, because he [was forced to] vertically integrate it from the start. In an interview I watched his lead rocket designer said that they had serious "sticker shock" when they went to procure a pintle injector from the leading manufacturer (not to mention the 2 week wait for them to even get back to them with that inflated price).
Remember, long before he ever landed even one of his boosters, he was already undercutting ULA, Boeing, and other large aerospace giants. His other innovation being to use an iterative design cycle approach to drive innovation at the engineering level (i.e. Don't lock into a static design). It costs a bit more having that extra bit of [engineering staff] overhead, but when good engineers are encouraged to find better ways to do something, they absolutely will. That engineering centric management environment is what companies like Boeing USED TO HAVE in the 60's~70's. It also tends to help lower your overall capital, manufacturing & operational costs over time.
@tyvernoverlord5363
@@thekornwulfthere wasn't enough money, without the Air Force kicking in some dough and the administration supporting there would be no space shuttle at all.
Maybe this would have led to further Apollo applications project missions, I suspect they would just use up the remaining S1s on Skylab flights though.
After the horrific cost of the Apollo missions, no one, administration or Congress was going to spend the money to do the job properly.
@@lynnlamusga "In an interview I watched his lead rocket designer said that they had serious "sticker shock" when they went to procure a pintle injector from the leading manufacturer"
got a link? sounds interesting
6:04 that might not be white desposit, but soot that was washed away by the leftover propellant dripping out unburnt. The stains fade from white to black, probably the washed away soot saturated the droplets and deposited towards the end of the nozzle.
The two sided pattern probably comes from the waves leaning the booster from one side and 180 deg to the other, so the shape has nothing to do with alignment of the injectors, judging from the symmetric shape it came from the middle and got alternately washed/dripped onto either side of the throat. Also note how the middle one has fewer an larger stains, probably cause the nozzle is still hotter and most drops evaporate.
Ooh! Yeah, I bet you're right.
Especially since if you look closely, you can see what might be concentrations of soot around the ends of the markings in the places they come short of the edge of the bells, consistent with some fluid pushing the sludge downward but stopping and drying before it dripped off. The structure of the markings is also pretty consistent with things I've seen on dirty car windshields and windows after rain or melting snow trickle.
It's interesting how much soot these trickles took off, though. Suggests to me that the soot dissolves in non-polar solvents, and so if you even wanted to get one of these reused rockets really clean, spraying it down with, say, isopropyl alcohol would do the trick. Not that SpaceX considers it worth the effort.
The booster functioned as designed; the recovery barge failed to bring it to port.
Now THAT’S how you engineer a rocket!!
The Design needs to take transportation as well in consideration... its not out of the design...
BUT... yeah, 15 ft waves its a bit much, the booster didnt fail, it was the barge....
@@brianfhunter They have a new leg design that can self-adjust so the octograbber can secure it properly. But, because this booster is so old, literally the oldest booster in the fleet they haven't upgraded it, yet.
@@807800 - yeah, i read something like this on other comments, and that was my point, transportation is a factor on the design and spaceX did not forgot about it, its just that sometimes nature hits you harder than you expect.
I feel like all it needs is some guy wires. Temporary guy wires, anchored to each corner of the barge. The interesting part is attaching the guys to the booster. I'm imagining a loose belt that is wrapped around/rolled up the face of the booster, and anchored 2/3 to 3/4 the way up, wherever a relatively strong point is.
time for the barge to kill itself out of shame…
(this is a reference to the barge’s namesake)
Its also worth mentioning that the newer boosters have legs that can counterbalance the ocean waves, hence dropping this seacrashing risk significantly.
Looks like thats what failed- a hydraulic dampener, possibly due to a heavy landing.
@@watcherzero5256 I believe this booster didn't have the counterbalance legs @januskatsman6769 was talking about because it's so old.
@@WingTzu343 . Correct.
@@WingTzu343 It was only 3 years old, built new because it was used for a manned flight. They also seem to have had the hydraulic dampeners since the start with them even being featured on the Grasshopper test rig. The recent change seems to have been to make them active hydraulic dampeners rather than passive hydraulic dampeners. But a ruptured hydraulic cylinder or hydraulic line isnt going to make any difference whether it has a pump or not.
My reading of this is that newer boosters can adjust the shock absorbers after landing to level out any differential compression. This would be a one-off operation not an active pitch and roll compensation as you suggest. But making sure the booster stands vertical to the deck will minimize toppling forces due to deck motion and maximize the survivable sea state. The simplest way of achieving that would be to have a way of dropping all the shock absorbers down to the fully compressed state (do photos of recent first flight boosters returning confirm this hunch?)
If they consider active stabilization it would make more sense to fit that to the barge rather than the rocket since that is not mass critical. The offshore oil industry has active ballast pumping systems that could be adapted.
F
Thanks Scott for giving her the recognition that she has earned!
this booster did not have the self leveling upgrade either which would have possibly saved it. the other boosters have this feature.
You can always say it never fail a launch or landing.
If you'd have gone to school, you'd have been able to write your comment such that it makes sense, instead of the gibberish you actually wrote.
What, you've never made a mistake@@Jenalgo?
You know you have a successful launcher business when the only time you lose a booster is because it tips over on a transport ship after landing 😂
I mean, just being able to reuse it once still saves you more money than any other rocket, so losing a few here and there shouldn't be a big loss... as long as you don't lose the payload.
I was told by someone the booster was chained down because it was so old it didn't have the hardware for the attachments.
The rest of the fleet has "sea legs" that leans the booster into the roll.
This one was used 19 times successfully before being lost. 1060 is at 17 right now. (trusting Scotts numbers) Space X has thus completed 36 launches with just 2 boosters. most just dump the boosters in the ocean so SpaceX is already up 34 boosters without taking any more boosters into account. They are on track for 97 launches this year, so a loss of almost 1% not a big deal to them. The intentionally expended boosters I am sure accounted for in funding by the customer knowing they will not be recovered.
The point is it could have been preventable.
Wether or not that increases the launch costs to the point it is losing money despite not losing the boosters.
I imagine its not costing money once something like a crane is added to the barge.
You pay once, not every single launch.
A crane operator isnt going to send spacex broke.
Evidence?
Except that reusing the vehicle is ultimately more expensive than burning them every time (and reusable spacecraft have a terrible track record).
Sad to see it gone, a true piece of history. If SpaceX were to cut it into sections and put them on Ebay with a certificate of authenticity, they would sell like hot cakes. I am sure many SpaceX fans would love to own a piece of it.
yes xool but probably ilegal given the whole security rocket engine thing.
They could just sell 6”x8” or so pieces of the outer skin. No need to include engines. I mean pieces of parts of them would be super cool, but more work. But I do think they are missing an opportunity. These particular engines are probably destined for a complete teardown and testing to see how the parts have held up. Who knows, they might even reuse a few of them.
@@evanmorris1178 I heard they do indeed plan to put those engines onto future boosters
suppose China/iran/NK would outbid everyone...
It would be cool if they did like they did with space shuttle tiles and give them out to public school science departments to inspire the next generation.
It blows my mind how quickly we went from "ditch space stuff in the ocean" to reusing these machines multiple times. Amazing stuff.
Quickly? Assume your not including from the start of the space race 😂😂😂
The space shuttle and its boosters were reusable, shuttle landed on a runway and the booster landed with parachutes. The only "new" tech here is the fly back booster. NASA actually developed a fly back booster in the 70s but the program was cancelled after it was lost due to a landing leg failing to deploy
"We" you mean Elon Musk. If not for Elon, "we" or NASA may not have come out with them for another 50-100 years.
Show some respect.
@@TTURocketDocdelta clipper was not a fly back landing booster. It was a concept ship that wasn't even built for space...
@@jonschlottig9584 *SpaceX
Show some respect to the scientists who actually did the work
It had been such a long time sense I watched a Falcon 9 launch, but this one I watched. I am glad I did. -Rest- Soar eternal in Valhalla B1058 you are legend.(edited to correct for a more appropriate activity in Valhalla)
Rest in valhall sounds strange to me. Is valhall a place of rest?
@@ravener96Valhalla is the Viking heaven that vikings go to for dying in battle (in this case the battle against earth's gravity and atmosphere)
@@ravener96 I made this comment as I was rushing out the door for my commute home. The same question occurred to me and I had a correction planned, but you are right resting is not a Valhalla thing.
@@ravener96Valhalla is a kind of hall of fame in the afterlife (in the nordic mythology), where brave warriors come and celebrate together. The use of the word is imho suitable.
We’ll celebrate yes, they feast AFTER fighting the others all day, for fun, since it’s the afterlife, they can’t die again. But they can keep score.
Death: It's time to go.
1058: Was I a good booster?
Death: No.
Death: I'm told you were the best.
I think the booster should not only be donated in sections to museums, but auctioned off in behalf of either SpaceX or education. This is real history in the making, who wouldn't want a piece of that?
Well done this honoring of the booster and it's missions, thank you.
Farewell 1058. And what farewell it gave. I for one found scott's examination of the internals a wonderful parting gift. One that required its destruction and also gave it value. Touching and informative. Thanks Scott.
There will be other "best" but this was the first of the "best".
He resisted pressure and heat waves but the sea waves got him.
He did the job: as others have said 18 times better than anything before it.
Not 'better'. MORE. Grow up.
@@cjay2 Okay, 2 rockets right?
One can bring a few satellites to orbit once before splashing down in the Atlantic.
The other can bring those same satellites to orbit at least 19 times only needing minor refurbishment between launches.
I'd say the latter _would_ be 19 times better idk
5:50 I saw Arabsat 6A in person, got my poster signed and all. What an experience.
Unfortunate to see a booster lost. Especially 1058.
Thankfully newer boosters have better hardware and this shouldn't happen again.
What I meant by better hardware is that the new Falcon booster s have improved landing legs to mitigate this from happening.
Seems to be the effect of trying to land at sea.
@@dougsinthailand7176I'll be your huckleberry.... It's the cause was landing at sea successfully... Even in rough seas where it still landed successfully..
It can always happen again.
The biggest difference is the data they collected. For all future landings, they know that under these conditions the booster might fail. Not launching if the sea is this bad, will make failing less likely.
It will happen again, eventually
But i dont think its bad
Its bad if boosters are lost too often, or, not at all.
Perfect scenario is where boosters are lost/expended at low enaugh rate that the flightrate can be maintained, but not too low, so that factory can keep operating.
Cruel irony to perish that way after an heroic career, who knows how much more it could have achieved had it's life not been cut tragically short.
Short is here a significant understatement. 😊
@@SebSN-y3f 😂😂
Wonder how deep the top of 1058 is? Those grid fins would be worth a few bucks!
Deep enough that the people that can recover it wouldn't be trying to make a few bucks....
Extremely likely that those gridfins are in good shape, and can probably be reused. But would also be cool to recover the "worm" logo, that would be a cool museum piece!
IMHO it's likely they'll try to recover the grid fins. They're made of titanium and so expensive that SpaceX only has a few sets, used in rotation.
@@donjones4719 let's be honest everything everything spacex owns is replaceable blow it up and innovative.... This one just took 19 flights and some rough seas to "blow up" 😂
@@donjones4719 I doubt that spending money to fetch the gridfins out from the ocean (assuming that they've sunk at this point) is cheaper than just making new ones
19 launches. 18 more than before SpaceX.
If you don't count the shuttle.
@@michaelthomas7898 What's the highest mission count for an individual shuttle orbiter?
That would be the number to beat, then.
Although, maybe the Orbiters really are "payload" rather than boosters; in which case, the original statement stands because the Shuttle boosters were single use.
Discovery 39 missions, Challenger was the only one that flew less missions than this booster.
@@Kr0noZ Discovery had 39 flights.
@Kr0noZ discovery
Flew 39 missions but they are hardly comparable considering the shuttles basically got completely stripped and rebuild every flight while the space x boosters are just cleaned and refilled after a quick check that everything is fine
Whichever way you look at it, this is way beyond value for money piece of engineering. Well done with the review 👌🇿🇦
Thanks for covering this - it really is a big deal. That's how I want to go out, perfectly stick my last landing after a wonderful career then get clocked into oblivion by a huge wave, can't ask for much better than that.
Looks like it paid its way. Reminds me of the night I was officer of the watch on the bridge when in the navy when a rogue wave broke over the bow. The waves were running 20 to 30 feet high, already. The rogue was 40-50 foot high. We were a repair ship with cargo lashed down on the deck. Broke one boom, a couple of jeeps broke loose and slid into guard rails but didn't go overboard. We altered course to ride out the storm with less risk of over the bow monsters.
Being in the bridge when a rogue wave breaks over the bow is something I'd like to experience but am grateful I'll never experience. Yup, contradiction. Your crew did a good job lashing down deck cargo if none of it went overboard.
@@donjones4719 The experience was awesome. Didn't have to call the Captain... he was on the bridge in seconds as the whole ship shook violently when it happened. My most exciting naval experience was in a NATO exercise. We were a pretend enemy submarine (I was now a submariner) and we attacked a fleet of many destroyers and three aircraft carriers.
We had detected them hundreds of miles away and had time to position us in front of where we thought they would go. Right in front of them all. Captain took a quick periscope bearing, then we dove to 100 feet at FULL SPEED AHEAD... VERY DANGEROUS TO DO. We dove under the front destroyers, we could hear them pass overhead through the hull, up scope, quick bearing on the nearest aircraft carrier, fired all fake front torpedoes (6 of them), fired a flare to tell them ha-ha we just shot you, have a nice day, then went very (classified... more than 500 feet) deep, went to silent mode, and slipped away.
@@ButchNews Father Neptune couldn't force you under the surface but you decided to go under voluntarily. Best to do it on your own terms, no doubt.
Source: trust me bro
RIP B1058. Gone but not forgotten.
Spacex claims newer boosters have self-leveling legs to help prevent this type of accident.
congrats, you are the 50th person in this comment thread to say something that was mentioned in the video.
I remember while I was in the Navy asking my CO at the time(we were on a CVN) what the potential future of aircraft carriers could be with SpaceX boosters landing on barges. He was rather taken aback by the question and didn't know much on what could be the future. I'm aware in the current state with crews required on-board it's kind of a no go, but I can see aircraft carriers at least as large as they are now if they were able to be unmanned being able to do at least 2 landings. Stability at sea at that scale would be significantly better.
Lol, imagine two nuclear reactors hit by broken rocket. Brilliant idea 😂
@@randomnickify to be fair the US did make and continue to run conventionally fueled carriers until 2004 other countries still run conventionally fueled carriers
Even the USN supercarriers are unstable at sea. They use an active ballast pump system shifting something like 6000 gallons per minute from port to starboard to smooth out rolls. And sometimes move all aircraft down to the hangar deck to clear the top deck. Their pitching motion can be rather high as well.
If the landings can reach "reliability" it really is time to move them ashore.
@@randomnickifythe deck on a carrier can carry that load, if you ever been on one, you woud know that, but your random fun comments indicate ze contraire. pour l'amour des porteavions soit un peu civile , non?
@@lyfandeth I worked on those systems directly and there was no active usage to smooth out rolling. Just to provide counter weight for aircraft being in different parts of the ship. The only active rolling occurring was during turns or horrific weather. Same with pitch
Those white deposits are from the barge rocking left to right in the waves as the last of the liquid propellant's drips . some liquid must drip for a minute after landing and as it drips it clean off the carbon. They are a lack of carbon not a white deposit. you can see how the cleaning is more apparent higher up in the bell because as the liquid prop runs down it evaporates.
Yet again this proves, SpaceX has achieved such reliability that failure is more interesting/news worthy than the routine of launches.
What are you smoking and where can I get some? Failure has _always_ been more newsworthy than routine launches.
Very , very much agree with you! One should rescue and keep the whole "End" of it and donate it to a museum! Your comment is so lovingly full of (totally justified!!!) sumpathy -- for a machine! And then some people - unrelated to technology - claim that we techno-buffs have no heart!! With warm greetingsd from Germany, Mike
I remember your video on CRS-16 which failed RTLS and soft landed in the water just outside the cape. And this is an equally awesome analysis.
I’d buy a piece of it, but a museum would ensure that everyone has the opportunity to appreciate it the historical significance it represents!
My understanding is that newer boosters have a leveling system, while 1058 was older and did not. So this is somewhat less likely to happen to boosters going forward. Read that in an article over on Space News I think.
Well done video Scott, I do hope ONE museum gets it with some dummy engine nozzles to replace the undamaged ones.
Rocket Garden, make way for a new flower!
Is there a video on the refurbishment process the boosters go through between launches?
I would love a video about that as well
Masterful rocket detective work once again, Scott!
I think I'm tired of hearing what SpaceX's detractors say about anything. Let them go build their own rocket company from scratch. Great video and tribute, Scott.
Well said 😊
I needed this. I saw a post from some hot-shot computer programmer badmouthing SpaceX’s capabilities simply because Tesla has been having problems recently. I don’t even know where to start with that. Worse still some of the comments to the post went so far as to say we should just cancel commercial spaceflight completely because “wealth distribution” or something. Yeah, just throw Rocketlab, ULA, and countless others under the bus because reasons.
Thankfully the post was well over a year old. Hopefully that punk is eating his words. God bless SpaceX and the other commercial space partners!
This is a significant step forward in the conquest of space.
Scott is like the Sherlock Holmes of aerospace.
Being old enough to remember watching the Apollo era launches, I am floored that the Space X stuff does what it does… even if it fails once in a while. We have certainly come a long way 😊
RIP booster 1058. It had a good long run and served with distinction.
Other launch providers: throw the booster away after every launch
SpaceX: loses a booster at sea after 19 launches and landings
'Internet experts': "SpaceX are idiots for landing on a drone at sea!"
I think its worth pointing out
Not loosing any boosters at all isnt healthy either and leads to STS issues
By loosing some boosters spacex keeps all production lines running, keeping worker profficiency and lower part production costs, which also makes refurbishment costs lower.
And while its bit nostalgic to loose this particular booster, hey, 19 flights, theyve got some use out of it.
This is also one of the reasons falcon heavy cores are being expended now, it keeps factory running. I do wonder what goes for starship though, since musk kinda seems to have different philosophy there...
This booster doesn't really hurt them because it was supposedly due for retirement after its next flight anyway. A loss after 2 or 3 flights would sting more. They a need a good number of boosters to keep starlink networking growing. I don't think too many Falcon 9s is a concern right now until Starship starts launching a large numer of Starlinks.
Nice idea with the museum donation Scott...
The white pattern on the 3 engine cones looks like condensed fuel that ran down and washed the soot away as everything cooled down.
That would make sense with the spread in 2 distinct directions too if you consider that the ship was rolling on the waves.
Excatly.
19 launches and it was done in by the sea. God speed. You where a good booster.
A remarkable achievement, to be reused so many times.
"Opti-grabber" < anybody get the 'The Jerk' reference there? Absolutely hilarious.
At least it didn't make anyone go cross-eyed.
At 260 ton, this booster launched more than 2 X the upmass of a Saturn V.
Aww dang that is sad! This one should have been saved for a museum for sure. Im sure as a business though its basically a free boosters for starlink to use as the rocket has been paid for in previous missions.
It seems entirely reasonable to take the risk of losing the occasional booster, over having a more complicated system that might involve needing humans to be near the landing... Given how many flights some of these have before retirement, well above the budget number of launches, these boosters have already paid for themselves dozens of times over.
There's some suggestion that re-using the Falcon 9 is not actually economical, and that a cheaper booster not capable of re-use would be better than more expensive reusable boosters. I'd love to see an actual breakdown of this by somebody I'd trust to get it right (i.e. Scott) and not an opinionated blowhard (i.e. Thunderf00t). It's possible SpaceX have got it all wrong here; I'm no fanboy. But surely there's a break-even point somewhere, so long as the cost of refurbishment of a more expensive booster is less than the cost of producing a new, cheaper, expendable-only booster?
I too would love to see that breakdown. But just based on the movement of the market since they came on the scene and have now risen to a position of dominance proves the point imho. That said, I’d like to see the hard numbers.
Hard numbers don't exist for anyone outside of SpaceX. And even that likely changes every few months. However, we have heard from 3 of SpaceX's execs on different occasions that the costs per launch of a reusable Falcon 9 is under 30M with everything included.
And it does make sense. They aren't a publicly traded company, so launching reusable boosters at a loss or even breakeven wouldn't be worth it as you cannot trick investors into handling you enough money to keep growing that way. Further, Elon Musk knows very well that costs can also be brought down by increasing manufacturing output. So SpaceX would have clearly went that route if reuse wasn't saving them money. They also have enough room in the current market to charge extra if they were losing money.
Well, SpaceX (in the form of Gwynne Shotwell, I think) claimed years ago that re-use pays for itself after the first flight. Obviously there's no proof of that, since those kind of numbers are very much confidential, but there's no particular reason to think she was lying.
@@anthonypelchat Private companies have investors, and they are easier to trick than publically-trading companies, precisely because of the level of transparency needed to be listed on the more regulated public markets. More to the point, SpaceX have investors, and they've gotten quite a bit of funding from them over the years.
@@oasntet They are not easier to trick to the point of getting 10s of billions, which is what would be needed if SpaceX were losing money on each launch. Just because they have received investor money doesn't mean that it makes sense to lie publicly over years to get more, especially when they also make it difficult to invest.
And that is just one of the points I mentioned. Even if you could get a lot of investor money by lying, that doesn't justify clearly wasting money when you knowingly don't have to. Given all points mentioned, it is clear that SpaceX is saving a lot of money by reusing the boosters. Even pessimistic "experts" were thinking reuse wouldn't make sense until 10 flights, which SpaceX has doubled at this point.
RIP 1058, I was hoping you'd hit the big 2-0 before the end.
Also, the naysayers are forgetting that 1. SpaceX was originally shooting for 10 launches and 2. they've had well over 200 landings and how many boosters have landed only to be knocked over by heavy seas? I can really only think of this one and the F9 Heavy center booster that Scott mentioned.
1058... the space community salutes your service. Rest in peace.. rest in peace.
It seems almost fitting for one of those too have said "pieces"....
*_Not_* in anyway as a jab at what transpired, but as to the fact that SpaceX has said they'll be salvaging what they can (namely, engine parts).
So perhaps RIPIP: Rest in Peace in Pieces? 🥴
Either way: 🚀🫡
_edit: Now that I think about it, that's kinda nice that they'll (hopefully) be salvaging some stuff, as it'll mean her legacy can continue..._ 😊
It flew more times than Challenger. That really puts things into perspective, when you remember how costly space shuttles (and launches) were. As for the critics, well, look at it this way : this rocket flew 19 times whereas every other rocket made prior to Falcon 9 only flew once and could not be recovered. Sentimental value notwithstanding, it's not really a problem losing a booster after it has served so many times. And to be honest, this is only the first production recoverable rocket, I'm sure that decades from now they'll be so commonplace there will be a whole bunch of dedicated ocean landing platform big enough to carry all sorts of facilities including cranes. In fact there is even one already, SeaLaunch. Served for 15 years, stopped operating, but it proved the concept was viable for launching.
Remember, airports didn't always look like what you know today. Planes used to land in grass fields and there were no "gates". The infrastructure grew with the technology.
Thank you for your service B1058. I’m sure Elon would’ve liked to see it launch twenty (XX) times
Space Shuttle Discovery flew 39 flights. I'm sure SpaceX is really looking to celebrate if and when a booster makes it to 40.
"Was I a good booster?" 😢
@@blshouseBut the Space Shuttle Orbiter would actually only be comparable with Dragon. And please don't write again about the "reusability" of the solid propellant boosters of the space shuttle system. It is well known that their recovery and reprocessing was much more complex and actually uneconomical. In addition, the Spacex boosters can do much more, such as switching its engines off and on again on command and landing safely with thus.
@@WillArtie No! I'm told you were the best...
@@darthgator639 😊
We'll miss you, 1058. You are our everything.
hey Scott, can you comment on the impact to launch cadence that losing the landing barge will have? I know they can probably repair the octo-grabber in a few weeks, but still going to have some knock on effects.
Maybe not that bad. I think they're still disrupted at LC-39A by the upcoming Falcon Heavy launch anyway, and that doesn't need barges since the sides will be RTLS and the core expended. So that gives them some time to do maintenance on this barge, while the other one continues to service SLC-40.
Poor little booster. You gave it your all for many launches. RIP.
You have to believe that SpaceX has cameras on that barge that has what happened in 4k.
Subsequent video coming in a tweet? But... are you sure the cameras would have been rolling? I would think they just record the landing.
Idk, they also have the footage of the other booster sliding around on the deck so maybe?@@newsgetsold
*Harrison Ford voice* It belongs in a museum!
As an old, old-school, space nerd, who remembers watching Gemini launches on TV, I actually laughed and clapped when I watched that first Falcon 9 drone ship landing, and the dual landing after the Falcon Heavy launch. Before that, such events only occurred on sci-fi and tokusatsu movies and TV shows.
Another huge success story for SpaceX! They just keep winning.
Great job so far spacex. Thanks Scott for the video.
You know, living on the east coast. I'm surprised that SpaceX hasn't lost more rockets. I don't know how bad it gets on the west coast but it gets brutal on the east coast.
They do generally wait for good weather
But this time of the year, during winter, it’s hard. Sea is always unpredictable.
@@michaelmicek Exactly, and they regularly delay missions which would be safe to launch expendably because the sea conditions aren't suitable for recovery.
West coast is easier. Less storms, waves, and ocean currents. That's why OCISLY is in the Pacific now, that barge has weaker control thrusters compared to JRTI and ASOG
RIP B-1058
The remains of this beautiful booster have more than earned a place at the Kennedy Space Center rocket garden, alongside the rockets that put the first Americans in space.
5:21 the leg in the top left of the frame appears to extend a lot further than the other, which would make for an uneven landing as well as the waves moving the barge.
Isn't it time to start naming the boosters, rather than just numbering them?! " I am not a number; I am a free rocket!"
I hope this channel grows and stays around a long time. I'm sick with Covid and am having the worst time sleeping. This is fascinating and relaxing enough to distract me from being cranky and ill. ❤
On a ventilator? :0
@ScottManley - It is mathematically inevitable that the most reused boosters will likely be the oldest, and lacking the latest improvements. Since SpaceX are going for shorter turnaround times, with minimal refurbishment, it could be advantageous to loose an occasional old booster. It seems all part of the Musk development philosophy of not over-engineering anything, but instead simplifying things to save weight, complexity and cost.
At least it still landed successfully . . . Again!
Congratulations, SpaceX! A great achievement! Back in 2015, when they landed their first rocket, I knew this would change the economics of space. It surely has.
Yeah, that kind of news will definitely harsh your mellow a tad.
I really like that phrase. That's clever!
Me too! 👍 (I wish I'd coined it.)@@General12th
I too was genuinely sad to see this booster meet it's end. Rather than parting it out to museums, I'd love to see the whole hulk put on display somewhere - like the A320 that landed in the Hudson.
We will miss you 1058 ❤
Thank you Scott.
I think it would be great if they manage to fish out the top part out of the sea and restore the whole rocket for museum.
Let her rest in the ocean
Do you know of or have you ever seen Tom Dahl's videos? He's been making the most unbelievably detailed diagrams showing the inner workings of the Viking missions I've ever seen for the past decade. He has less than 200 subscribers and his most watched video is about 5,000 views. The latest one he did today is the most incredibly, meticulously detailed video of a radioisotope thermoelectric generator I've ever seen.
It still blows my mind when I see one of SpaceX's drone ships. The size of the ocean and the booster really hides the true scale of how absolutely massive they truly are.
A regulation NFL football field without endzones is 91m long and 49m wide. Of Course I Still Love You is exactly 91m long and 52m wide.
That's astonishing. You could damn near play an NFL game on one of them.
A bunch of football players trying to run along a soaked deck rocking back and forth on the waves? Now THAT'S a ticket I'd pay for!
@@General12th Time to sharpen those cleats!
I still love Everyday Astronaut's video of the biggest booms in rockets when he talked about SpaceX's failed landing attempts. He mentioned the size of the drone ships and then goes "its the size of what some call a football field. 'MERICA!!" Man I saw that and busted out laughing.
As far as ocean going ships go that's not really large at all. The beam is comparable to a new panamax ship, but the lenght is comparable to some riverboats.
Kind of mind blowing that in eight years, SpaceX has had 256 successful booster landings while no other launch facility has yet to do even one on an orbital launch.
I can remember when SpaceX was having trouble getting a booster to land for the first time. So, getting to the point where one has done it 19 times is incredible. R.I.P. B1058
That'll buff right out.
For a system that was never designed to do more than 10 flights (at least, initially) this one had an absolutely *exceptional* run. SpaceX is _learning_ , whether a flight be a success or an abject failure... and that's _how_ you learn. Push boundaries, push limits, see how far things can go... and then refine from there. Something, honestly, NASA has always been loath to do, simply because it's a *government bureaucracy* with all that entails. Bureaucracies exist to enrich and enshrine _themselves_ ; whatever the actual mission goals are merely an afterthought. Businesses operate on an entirely different set of rules.
It should be noted that NASA funded many SpaceX launches. Also, NASA can do science that a private company wouldn't find profitable, so each has its strengths and weaknesses
Great autopsy, thanks Scott!
1058 7!
Great video, Scott...👍
kinda hoped that there will be a "didn't read the instructions" joke
Nice work Scott!!
It lasted 2 or 3 times longer than it should have. According to a SpaceX employee that is a relative. Notice the higher the booster flight number the more they use for starlink.
SpaceX really got their money's worth out of the booster, sad to see it lost to high sea conditions.
"and I look forward to that" too 😊
It just goes to show us that wherever you need to navigate, familiar or not, you have to expect difficulties.
I have vague memory of being told that SpaceX projection of lifespan of those boosters is merely 10 flights. If that's correct - this booster paid for himself more than enough. Respect.