Author Topic: F9R is really just a "reusability kit" added to F9 v1.1  (Read 49423 times)

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: F9R is really just a "reusability kit" added to F9 v1.1
« Reply #20 on: 05/13/2014 03:43 pm »
Isn't that normal procedure for most launchers?

The main flight computer is usually on the upper stage, yes, but there are other boxes that are located on the 1st stage anyway. Rate gyros I think, especially if the vehicle is susceptible to bending modes, stuff like that.

Atlas V has an avionics pod on the 1st stage, it's one of the protrusions along the booster exterior.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: F9R is really just a "reusability kit" added to F9 v1.1
« Reply #21 on: 05/13/2014 03:45 pm »
The only real difference between F9V1.1 and F9R is the legs.  F9R is V1.1 with legs.
Testing or qualification doesn't change the configuration.  That just opens up the flight envelop.

From a hardware-centric and visible hardware point of view, you are exactly correct. That is the "seen", there is a quite considerable "unseen" too.

See post above for a list of the other technologies that are being added, with most of the design/development work being done in the past year; after F9 v1.1 was design-complete and in final simulation testing at SpaceX.


No, other than software and testing the basic configuration (other than standard tweaking) has been static. 

These is no different than any high performance aircraft.  The full up software is not available on the first flight and the flight envelop is limited.  Both increase as flight experience has been gained.  There are minor vehicle mods that are done as lessons are learned.  But they don't change the configuration.

there is no hardware added for "other technologies that are being added, with most of the design/development work being done in the past year"
« Last Edit: 05/13/2014 03:49 pm by Jim »

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: F9R is really just a "reusability kit" added to F9 v1.1
« Reply #22 on: 05/13/2014 04:56 pm »
F9.1 was a big re-design, but there's got to be another one in the works, for both engines and rocket structure.

I refer, of course, to none other than the re-design that will follow F9.1's first set of re-flights.

Nobody at SpaceX knows what they'll find out after looking at re-flown stages.  They might need to beef things up, or be able to remove structural margin where they were over cautious.  Same with the engines.  If F9.1 stays "as is" through the transition to "normal" reusable flights, it will be hugely impressive. And lucky.

There's also a full re-design of the upper stage due, so all in all, most everything we see today is temporary.

Finally, if SpaceX does have concrete plans for rapid reusability, we need to see a major change in the way payloads and stages are integrated.

I still think the best way to fly is to have the first stage fully autonomous and not slaved to the upper stage - that's an expendable paradigm.  Such a change will simplify the rocket, and simply stage integration. 

I'd also love to see payload-US integrated occur first, and then both being coupled to the first stage.


ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline sublimemarsupial

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
  • Liked: 261
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: F9R is really just a "reusability kit" added to F9 v1.1
« Reply #23 on: 05/13/2014 05:07 pm »
The only real difference between F9V1.1 and F9R is the legs.  F9R is V1.1 with legs.
Testing or qualification doesn't change the configuration.  That just opens up the flight envelop.

For the record, from Aug. 2013:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24711.msg1080377#msg1080377

Quote from: Jim
b.  early 1.1 has more than just legs missing.  Just because it has first stage avionics doesn't mean it is complete.

« Last Edit: 05/13/2014 05:07 pm by sublimemarsupial »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: F9R is really just a "reusability kit" added to F9 v1.1
« Reply #24 on: 05/13/2014 05:40 pm »

1.  I still think the best way to fly is to have the first stage fully autonomous and not slaved to the upper stage - that's an expendable paradigm.  Such a change will simplify the rocket, and simply stage integration. 

2.  I'd also love to see payload-US integrated occur first, and then both being coupled to the first stage.


1.  wrong. it is not an ELV paradigm, it is a smart one.  It lets the upperstage make the all the decisions on meeting the mission requirements versus splitting them between two stages.   The upperstage has the final say in missions success verus stage recovery

2.  Not going to happen for many reasons, safety impacts overrides any perceived benefits.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: F9R is really just a "reusability kit" added to F9 v1.1
« Reply #25 on: 05/13/2014 05:51 pm »

1.  I still think the best way to fly is to have the first stage fully autonomous and not slaved to the upper stage - that's an expendable paradigm.  Such a change will simplify the rocket, and simply stage integration. 

2.  I'd also love to see payload-US integrated occur first, and then both being coupled to the first stage.


1.  wrong. it is not an ELV paradigm, it is a smart one.  It lets the upperstage make the all the decisions on meeting the mission requirements versus splitting them between two stages.   The upperstage has the final say in missions success verus stage recovery

2.  Not going to happen for many reasons, safety impacts overrides any perceived benefits.

Yeah, we had that argument before, not reason to rehash it, and you're still wrong on the rationale...
Whether it will actually happen or not, just like past arguments, how about we give it two years and see?  :)

« Last Edit: 05/13/2014 05:54 pm by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: F9R is really just a "reusability kit" added to F9 v1.1
« Reply #26 on: 05/13/2014 06:09 pm »

Yeah, we had that argument before, not reason to rehash it, and you're still wrong on the rationale...
Whether it will actually happen or not, just like past arguments, how about we give it two years and see?  :)


not even in five. 
safety considerations negates any perceived or actual efficiencies from the combined upperstage/payload.  Lifting the composite required clearing out any facility, which stops all other work

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: F9R is really just a "reusability kit" added to F9 v1.1
« Reply #27 on: 05/13/2014 06:24 pm »

Yeah, we had that argument before, not reason to rehash it, and you're still wrong on the rationale...
Whether it will actually happen or not, just like past arguments, how about we give it two years and see?  :)


not even in five. 
safety considerations negates any perceived or actual efficiencies from the combined upperstage/payload.  Lifting the composite required clearing out any facility, which stops all other work

That's fine, so let's check back one in 2 years, and once again in 5....   Just note how far things have come in the last two, and remember back to things that looked "inconceivable" to you back then...


I'm saying, when you have a rapidly reusable rocket, son-of-the-rocket-currently-known-as-F9.1-or-F9R, it will be after extensive mods to both engine and body, and an extensive overhaul of ops.

Just as an example, remember that post about wanting to automate the whole process?  If the stages are independent, it is that much easier to automate even stacking, and then you no longer have anyone to evacuate.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: F9R is really just a "reusability kit" added to F9 v1.1
« Reply #28 on: 05/13/2014 06:29 pm »
2.  I'd also love to see payload-US integrated occur first, and then both being coupled to the first stage.
2.  Not going to happen for many reasons, safety impacts overrides any perceived benefits.
You typically fill the hypergols/pressurants/etc w/o payload. If you mate w/o filling, then you put the payload at risk.

Payload often worth more than LV.

If you fill then mate payload, you take risk. Payload also may need to be filled/safed.

If the vehicle needs an issue handled, you may need to demate to safe the stages. Or you might fix while still filled because the risk nets out even.

But you long term only work on safed stages/payload. And you mate/demate in the hanger all of them. To do differently means you have to separately register and integrate. The TEL would have to be specially designed for it.

US and payloads are tied together for many reasons. And doing as much horizontally as possible reduces cost / increases speed. You scale with more HIFs. What you get for pairing would be more smaller HIFs with more risk in each of them - have you gained any speed or reduced cost? Can you automate anything better?

But if the longpole happens with the vehicle being vertical, all advantage may be lost cause its stuck on the pad ...

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5412
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3861
Re: F9R is really just a "reusability kit" added to F9 v1.1
« Reply #29 on: 05/13/2014 06:33 pm »
Everything out of SpaceX to date indicates that they plan to keep specialization to a minimum and commonality at a maximum. 

That's the eventual path to re-useability.  I see no reason to speculate on what custom configurations they maybe flying.

v1.1 is very likely the configuration they intend to fly for a great number of flights. 

Except for the US which I think could use a staged combustion engine whether it's RP1 or Methane fueled, but that's another thread.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline Llian Rhydderch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Terran Anglosphere
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 9683
Re: F9R is really just a "reusability kit" added to F9 v1.1
« Reply #30 on: 05/13/2014 07:07 pm »
Isn't that normal procedure for most launchers?

The main flight computer is usually on the upper stage, yes, but there are other boxes that are located on the 1st stage anyway. Rate gyros I think, especially if the vehicle is susceptible to bending modes, stuff like that.

Atlas V has an avionics pod on the 1st stage, it's one of the protrusions along the booster exterior.

SpaceX uses a standard and repeatable avionics box architecture, with each unit consisting of a total of six processors, two in each of three "voting" computers which use a form of Byzantine fault tolerance.  They don't use rad hardened electronics as used in many (most?) of the large USAF/NASA-designed systems but rather use the 3x2 processor triads as a "radiation tolerant" design (and I believe that is there term for it).  The details of all this are certainly more appropriate for another thread.

What is worthwhile knowing for this thread is that they use one of those 3x2-processor triad-architecture boxes for each of many avionics systems compute boxes on both Falcon 9 and on Dragon.  For example, in Falcon 9 v1.0 they used one of these boxes to control each of the Merlin engines, plus another one on the stage that operates at a higher level than any single engine, and would ostensibly do any telemetry, stage control, etc.  Thus, in the F9 v1.0, there were at least ten triad computer boxes in each booster stage, plus two on a second stage, and a large number of them in any Dragon.

I have not seen SpaceX disclose the details of what they've done on F9 v1.1 first stage.  Can the one "supervisory" triad computer box that was on the first stage during F9 v1.0 handle ALL of the real-time data acquisition and control to drive the additional capabilities required in the F9R?  If not, what electronics hardware architecture did SpaceX implement to handle those new requirements?  Given SpaceX propensity to assign various responsibilities to multiple boxes using a distributed processing architecture, why would they not do the same with F9R and add one or more additional boxes to the first stage booster?

If they did add some electronics hardware to the base design for F9 v1.1 and F9R, would they then necessarily populate every box on the expendable flights, the F9 v1.1 flights that aren't doing controlled descent booster flights?  They might, or they might not.  But I've seen nothing that says we know.

So if anyone knows, please inform us, along with what was the source for your information.  ???
Re arguments from authority on NSF:  "no one is exempt from error, and errors of authority are usually the worst kind.  Taking your word for things without question is no different than a bracket design not being tested because the designer was an old hand."
"You would actually save yourself time and effort if you were to use evidence and logic to make your points instead of wrapping yourself in the royal mantle of authority.  The approach only works on sheep, not inquisitive, intelligent people."

Offline Llian Rhydderch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Terran Anglosphere
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 9683
Re: F9R is really just a "reusability kit" added to F9 v1.1
« Reply #31 on: 05/13/2014 07:15 pm »

1.  I still think the best way to fly is to have the first stage fully autonomous and not slaved to the upper stage - that's an expendable paradigm.  Such a change will simplify the rocket, and simply stage integration. 

2.  I'd also love to see payload-US integrated occur first, and then both being coupled to the first stage.


1.  wrong. it is not an ELV paradigm, it is a smart one.  It lets the upperstage make the all the decisions on meeting the mission requirements versus splitting them between two stages.   The upperstage has the final say in missions success verus stage recovery

2.  Not going to happen for many reasons, safety impacts overrides any perceived benefits.

Re no. 1, do you say that because that is the "smart" way expendable launch vehicles have been designed in the past?  Or have you been invited into the bowels of the SpaceX development team, and been privy to their proprietary avionics design for the first stage of the F9 v1.1 and F9R?

I'm guessing the former, but I don't have knowledge about who you work for so maybe you have been involved in the SpaceX design internals.  This is emphatically not something that will be obvious from merely working with the booster stage external interfaces to the electronics.

But as far as many of us geeks on the electronics and software side know, SpaceX has been mum about these details after F9 v1.0.
Re arguments from authority on NSF:  "no one is exempt from error, and errors of authority are usually the worst kind.  Taking your word for things without question is no different than a bracket design not being tested because the designer was an old hand."
"You would actually save yourself time and effort if you were to use evidence and logic to make your points instead of wrapping yourself in the royal mantle of authority.  The approach only works on sheep, not inquisitive, intelligent people."

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: F9R is really just a "reusability kit" added to F9 v1.1
« Reply #32 on: 05/13/2014 07:23 pm »
2.  I'd also love to see payload-US integrated occur first, and then both being coupled to the first stage.
2.  Not going to happen for many reasons, safety impacts overrides any perceived benefits.
You typically fill the hypergols/pressurants/etc w/o payload. If you mate w/o filling, then you put the payload at risk.

Payload often worth more than LV.

Today.

Rapidly reusable paradigm may change that. Today's vehicles in any other transport mode you care to name (ships, trains, planes, trucks) are worth more than the payload the vast majority (99% ??) of the time. There are exceptions but they are rare.  If the payload is water, and the vehicle is a "use 1000 times before it needs an overhaul" vehicle on launch 37, the vehicle is clearly worth lots more than the payload.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: F9R is really just a "reusability kit" added to F9 v1.1
« Reply #33 on: 05/13/2014 07:42 pm »
Besides, other many things change as well.

The first stage flies once a day, with only hours turn-around time.  The second stage obviously can't.  So their life cycles are different, and you have to have 2-3 times as many second stages than you have first stages.  So you can pre-mate them ahead of time anyway.  Save time on the fast cycle, which is first-stage driven, and any payload integration and loading occurs outside the main launch loop.   If there are any issues with the payload, you're not holding up the first stage, it simply picks up a different second-stage/payload pair.

The first stage basically acts like OSC's carrier aircraft.  It gets the second stage to within its launch envelope, says good bye, and flied back to base.  The second stage (which is fully alive before being dropped) figures out which way is up and forward, ignites, and flies to orbit. 

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: F9R is really just a "reusability kit" added to F9 v1.1
« Reply #34 on: 05/13/2014 10:24 pm »
2.  I'd also love to see payload-US integrated occur first, and then both being coupled to the first stage.
2.  Not going to happen for many reasons, safety impacts overrides any perceived benefits.
You typically fill the hypergols/pressurants/etc w/o payload. If you mate w/o filling, then you put the payload at risk.

Payload often worth more than LV.

Today.

Rapidly reusable paradigm may change that.
...
If the payload is water, and the vehicle is a "use 1000 times before it needs an overhaul" vehicle on launch 37, the vehicle is clearly worth lots more than the payload.
Too easy a response. Too useless in the context of the reality of today's economics.

If you launched such a payload right now, whatever "container" that allowed you to do so and make use of the contents would still be more expensive (dev + fixed + other). If you made it reusable, it still would be.

If, on the other hand, you eventually displace with it another more expensive architecture (say a HLV with a prop depot), then in the long run, yes, it might. Please note the dependencies to reach this. Hand waving them away is my issue - this is the hard part of changing launch economics.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: F9R is really just a "reusability kit" added to F9 v1.1
« Reply #35 on: 05/13/2014 10:34 pm »
You typically fill the hypergols/pressurants/etc w/o payload. If you mate w/o filling, then you put the payload at risk.

Payload often worth more than LV.

Today.

Rapidly reusable paradigm may change that.
...
If the payload is water, and the vehicle is a "use 1000 times before it needs an overhaul" vehicle on launch 37, the vehicle is clearly worth lots more than the payload.
Too easy a response. Too useless in the context of the reality of today's economics.

If you launched such a payload right now, whatever "container" that allowed you to do so and make use of the contents would still be more expensive (dev + fixed + other). If you made it reusable, it still would be.

If, on the other hand, you eventually displace with it another more expensive architecture (say a HLV with a prop depot), then in the long run, yes, it might. Please note the dependencies to reach this. Hand waving them away is my issue - this is the hard part of changing launch economics.

No handwaving here. And I never said it was easy. But if you are going to be doing 500K USD per passenger ound trips to mars, launch costs are going to have to come way way down. Every other mode of transport got lower costs via capital investment to the point that the vehicle is worth more than the load. That's all I am saying.

But the larger point is that "we've always done it this way" is the enemy of improvement. Space is hard but it will be harder if we don't think about other ways of doing it.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: F9R is really just a "reusability kit" added to F9 v1.1
« Reply #36 on: 05/13/2014 11:29 pm »
...

No handwaving here. And I never said it was easy. But if you are going to be doing 500K USD per passenger ound trips to mars, launch costs are going to have to come way way down. Every other mode of transport got lower costs via capital investment to the point that the vehicle is worth more than the load. That's all I am saying.

But the larger point is that "we've always done it this way" is the enemy of improvement. Space is hard but it will be harder if we don't think about other ways of doing it.
Still not getting my point across. Will try once more.

I understand you took "hand waving" to be a put down addressed to you. It wasn't. I've been listening to this "hand waving " for 40+ years. Given all the put downs on this site, I can see why you might take it the wrong way.

The issue is more about the complexity of a need that justifies the growth of logistics, not the means to address the need, which is a secondary issue. Focusing on the secondary issue is meaningless, regardless of approach, it doesn't result in the primary issue. Makes things sterile.

In the context of an acute solution to primary,  then "we've always done it this way" is and should be suspect - because likely why it wasn't done before was because of that. So I agree.

This is why the approach of Falcon 9 1.1 first stage makes sense - a ELV that can be flown as an RLV with incremental expense.

The analog to it I'm suggesting is that when you talk about a need like water, you need the whole case for it, like say radiation shielding, such that a business case that at least is revenue neutral is formed. This is much harder but doable.

Musk has grand visions. If you visit Hawthorne, there's a Mars like Earth displayed. There's quite a distance between landing legs and such a fantasy. Inspiration is great, but where you make progress is in the achievable business models. Too much "build it and they'll come" without them means they don't come.

I'm just asking for a little more effort in this regard.  For one reason, even the hint of a business model tells me more about the idea related to it and its feasibility. It means that the suggested idea is less trite, and has more "meat" so to speak.

I ask this of myself as well to better communicate with others.

I also found that the best missions/teams I've worked on, were careful to scope ideas as such reasonably - the only way to add  signal not noise to it. I think you can appreciate that need. Did I get my point across?

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: F9R is really just a "reusability kit" added to F9 v1.1
« Reply #37 on: 05/13/2014 11:47 pm »
Maybe.

But SpaceX is playing a long game. I suspect they are keeping the balance between the next launch and terraformed Mars a bit farther towards fantasy than some might find comfortable, but not so much that they can't make a go of it.

As you say, too far one way and you have grandiose structures that never get utilized to 10% of capacity because the demand never materialised. But too far the other way and you have ossified "don't change ANYTHING, because what we have now works" thinking that can't tolerate incremental improvement without huge committees.

Silly valley companies find the right balance.... they build just enough stuff to keep up with present and near future demand, and happily rip up what doesn't work, but they always build with scalability in mind. 

F1 was a crappy rocket. But SpaceX learned. F9 1.0 was much better, but still crappy. The point of this thread is that F9R isn't the end game but when they designed it they designed reusability in, to the best of their ability with what they knew then. And it seems to be working. It will give them enough revenue, and enough learnings, to make the next iteration even better.

SpaceX is a silly valley company. Musk is a product of silly valley.

I suspect we may be agreeing more than disagreeing.  But I think saying you have to always integrate S1 and then S2 and only then add the payload... isn't correct.  Not in the long game. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but it's open to learnings.
« Last Edit: 05/13/2014 11:49 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 619
  • Likes Given: 2127
Re: F9R is really just a "reusability kit" added to F9 v1.1
« Reply #38 on: 05/14/2014 12:14 am »
Today's vehicles in any other transport mode you care to name (ships, trains, planes, trucks) are worth more than the payload the vast majority (99% ??) of the time.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong there. One modern large containership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maersk_Triple_E_class costs $185 million and has a capacity of 165 million kilograms. If it's fully loaded with a cargo worth more than $1.12 per kilogram its cargo is worth more than the ship itself. I bet the majority of the time this is the case.

Even ships transporting commodities like oil can be worth less than their cargo. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TI_class_supertanker carries 3.1 million barrels of oil, which is worth about $300 million these days. Apparently a typical price for a supertanker that size is about $120 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supertankers), less than half the price of its cargo.

Also almost every passenger vehicle is worth less than its human cargo when using a value of a statistical life of say $10 million.
« Last Edit: 05/14/2014 12:18 am by deltaV »

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: F9R is really just a "reusability kit" added to F9 v1.1
« Reply #39 on: 05/14/2014 12:41 am »
I stand corrected!  I'll have to rethink that analogy.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0