Posted on 12/20/2017 1:12:35 PM PST by BenLurkin
In a break from its now-standard practice, SpaceX will not attempt a landing of the first stage of its Falcon 9 rocket on its next launch this week, the company confirmed Dec. 19.
A SpaceX spokesperson said that the company is not planning to land the first stage of the Falcon 9 that is launching a fourth set of 10 Iridium Next satellites Dec. 22 from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The company carried a successful static fire test of the booster at the pad Dec. 17.
SpaceX offered few details about the decision not to land the booster. "These are case-by-case decisions and are based on mission requirements and the needs of our manifest," a company spokesperson said in response to a SpaceNews inquiry.
(Excerpt) Read more at space.com ...
Twould be over land?...........................
If the mission does not leave enough 1st-stage fuel reserves, then a landing is risky. It’s up to them to make the decision to land it or splash it. It’s their booster.
Nothing lasts forever so maybe the takeaway here is that the life-cycle of a SpaceX stage one is two.
Maybe the customer’s satellite weighs so much they couldn’t carry enough fuel to land the first stage
Could also be weather related. If the barge has to park somewhere choppy then there is not much point in risking it.
It is a big batch of 10 satellites too. Going out of Vandenberg means it is probably a polar launch. If I cared I would check for low pressure systems down south of there.
Giving up on the gimmick of re-usable?
“Giving up on the gimmick of re-usable?”
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/12/watch-live-spacex-goes-for-its-17th-launch-of-2017/
“SpaceX has now successfully landed 20 rockets [Updated]
This is also the company’s 13th supply mission to the International Space Station.”
Eric Berger - 12/15/2017, 9:10 AM
Some “Gimmick”!
SpaceX has a priority of getting their customer’s payload into the required orbit(s). This launch has a payload of 10 satellites. Another complication is the West Coast launch which precludes the benefit of having an eastward launch which adds the Earth’s rotational velocity to the rocket induced velocity.
But if they leave it up there, won’t it be a collision hazard?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.