How Not to Land an Orbital Rocket Booster
Why Space Exploration Stack Exchange recommends it
Space Stack Exchange users link it as evidence of SpaceX's iterate-and-fail development approach and as a record of how early booster landings went wrong, including tipping over.
Recommended by 2 people across 2 different months, 2017 to 2023.
Why Hacker News recommends it
HN uses it as evidence that SpaceX iterated through visible failures and is open and humorous about them.
Recommended by 4 people across 3 different months, 2018 to 2026.
What it is
SpaceX's own compilation of failed orbital booster landing attempts, set to sound, showing the crashes before landings succeeded.
Cited in 6 Wikipedia articles, including List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters, List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches (2010–2019), Falcon 9 first-stage landing tests.
What people said
Recommends Medox · 2018-02 · Hacker News · on “Watch the SpaceX Falcon Heavy Rocket Launch Today”
Speaking of not being ashamed of failures, I've always liked their compilation of them (with sound it's even better): [this video]
Recommends peterwaller · 2018-02 · Hacker News · on “SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches”
Agree it is strange. I love their "How Not to Land an Orbital Rocket Booster" film. [this video] Watching the countdown net it seemed plausible that they didn't know whether it had successfully landed either.
Recommends Schwern · 2019-08 · Space Exploration Stack Exchange · on “Why doesn't the Falcon-9 first stage use three legs to land?”
I can't speak for why SpaceX made the decision. However, while three legs won't wobble, four legs are less likely to tip over. SpaceX has demonstrated tipping over is a major problem [this video] . Dr. Peterson of The Math Forum explains [LINK] ... There are different kinds of stability! A three-legged stool is guaranteed not to wobble because the ends of its legs always form a plane. But a little wobble is only an inconvenience. More important for practical purposes, [a three-legged] stool is LESS stable than one with more legs in the sense that its center of gravity is further inside its base: the more sides a regular polygon has, the greater its apothem [LINK] (the distance from the center to
Recommends codeulike · 2020-09 · Hacker News · on “SpaceX Launch: Starlink 12 [video]”
Everyone is commenting saying how mundane it has become to see the landings. Hence you might enjoy this official SpaceX Blooper reel from 2017 that shows the numerous spectacular failures that they worked through. Innovation is a type of gamble. People forget that. "SpaceX: How Not to Land an Orbital Rocket Booster" [this video] (and regular reminder that these things are 12-storey high explosive tubes)
Recommends jerf · 2021-02 · Hacker News · on “SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing”
If you happen not to have seen it, "How Not To Land an Orbital Rocket Booster": [this video] from SpaceX.
Recommends SF. · 2021-04 · Space Exploration Stack Exchange · on “Why are Starship landings so difficult when SpaceX has landed so many boosters?”
I think this video [this video] should provide you with some perspective on how the R&D and testing of Falcon 9 went.
Cites user20289 · 2017-09 · Space Exploration Stack Exchange · on “Is there some reason why ORBs don't land in a cylindrical cage?”
Just watched Elon's video on How Not to Land an Orbital Rocket Booster [this video] (ORB), and I just look at that and wonder why they don't build a large metal cylindrical cage on the landing platform so if it falls the (padded) rim of the cage will keep it propped up. The cylindrical cage could even be telescopic and motorized, so there is no fear of accidentally tapping the rim in the landing process, then, once it's in the center, engage the motorized telescopic cylindrical cage to expand up to capture the ORB safely. Another idea, inspired from the net idea here [LINK] , would be instead of a net, just two clotheslines, ----- ----- <--- wires | | | | | | | | <--- poles | | | |, on either sid
Cites vvanders · 2018-02 · Hacker News · on “Air Force Strike Takes Out SpaceX's Floating GovSat Booster”
Take a look at all of the failed landings[1], even after they land on the barge they still go boom(or RUD if you prefer that term) when the structural integrity is lost. [1] [this video]
Cites ncallaway · 2018-02 · Hacker News · on “SpaceX's Falcon Heavy center booster lacked ignition fluid to re-light engines”
It's not like SpaceX didn't break things either: [this video] . The real trick is knowing when it's OK to break things in experimentation and the acquisition of knowledge, and when everything needs to run smoothly.
Cites shirro · 2018-04 · Hacker News · on “New Shepard's 8th test flight [video]”
Possibly booster landings were judged much less reliable than parachute landings when they originated the concept. Nobody had propulsively landed a booster that had been to space until Blue and SpaceX did it at around the same time. Before that things didn't always go so well: [this video] SpaceX were going to land Dragon 2 with rockets and it looks like NASA wasn't interested. Parachutes are still the safe, proven option. With orbital class boosters potentially being landed every couple of weeks and Blue having flown their vehicle multiple times I would guess future vehicle generations will benefit from that experience. SpaceX's BFS is going to combine a second stage and crew/cargo vehicle. If s