Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    NASA's Europa Clipper Launch

    (www.youtube.com)
    217 points belter | 11 comments | 14 Oct 24 15:28 UTC | HN request time: 0.204s | source | bottom
    1. d_silin ◴[14 Oct 24 17:33 UTC] No.41839767[source]▶
    Damn, I am impressed how nonchalantly the flagship NASA mission was using the reused boosters, dirty from soot.
    replies(4): >>41840506 #>>41841120 #>>41841936 #>>41844223 #
    2. grecy ◴[14 Oct 24 18:40 UTC] No.41840506[source]▶
    NASA prefer them now, as they're "flight proven".

    They're using them to launch astronauts now too.

    3. ballooney ◴[14 Oct 24 19:43 UTC] No.41841120[source]▶
    Nothing nonchalant about it. There was a stringent qualification process.

    The time between boosters first being reused in Falcons and this mission is the same as the time between JFK's 'we choose to go to the moon' speech and the actual moon landings.

    4. ◴[14 Oct 24 21:00 UTC] No.41841936[source]▶
    5. mmooss ◴[15 Oct 24 02:05 UTC] No.41844223[source]▶
    Agreed. And they said that the (second?) stage was the same one that failed to ignite on a prior mission. How does the NASA administrator sleep at night with everyone's careers, the agency's reputation and funding, the future of planetary bioscience, research by so many scientists, all depending on that stage?

    (What's the most valuable payload NASA has lost during launch? Apollo 1 wasn't launching, nor were the space shuttles.)

    replies(3): >>41844293 #>>41844373 #>>41845447 #
    6. oceanplexian ◴[15 Oct 24 02:18 UTC] No.41844293[source]▶
    A used booster is probably more reliable than a new one. I know aircraft engines have a bathtub curve, perhaps reusable rockets work the same way.
    7. darknavi ◴[15 Oct 24 02:32 UTC] No.41844373[source]▶
    Falcon 9 second stages are not re-usable, so not sure what you mean. Maybe they meant that it's the same model?

    As for the first stage boosters, they have a proven reliable record with re-usability.

    replies(1): >>41844712 #
    8. mmooss ◴[15 Oct 24 03:42 UTC] No.41844712{3}[source]▶
    It was someone with expertise and authority, on the NASA broadcast. I wish I remembered better who or where in the broadcast.
    9. daedalus_j ◴[15 Oct 24 06:14 UTC] No.41845447[source]▶
    The second stage failed it's de-orbit disposal burn. This second stage isn't even going to be doing one since it's carrying the payload out beyond earth orbit.

    NASA and the FAA were pretty clear on this actually, they don't see any risk due to that previous failure, falcon 2nd stages haven't had any problems with their primary burn in a long time.

    replies(1): >>41846338 #
    10. grecy ◴[15 Oct 24 08:34 UTC] No.41846338{3}[source]▶
    > The second stage failed it’s de-orbit disposal burn.

    Official word from SoaceX is that the second stage engine failed to shutdown on time, causing it to overshoot its planned landing zone. It ran 500 milliseconds long.

    replies(1): >>41847695 #
    11. daedalus_j ◴[15 Oct 24 12:09 UTC] No.41847695{4}[source]▶
    Yes, but during its de-orbit burn, [1] [2] which is a relighting of the engine once the payload has been released. This will not be an issue for europa clipper as the 2nd stage will not be coming back to earth, so there's no issue with a lack of accuracy on this one.

    I had misremembered: it was the Hera launch the FAA cleared because there was no reentry risk. Europa clipper was expected to get the same treatment, but it seems the FAA and SpaceX were happy with their understanding of what happened with the 2nd stage anomaly and returned Falcon 9 to flight. [3]

    [1] https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1840245345118498987

    [2] https://x.com/jeff_foust/status/1845579767040626798

    [3] https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/1g1kdk3/the_faa_aut...