SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - Dragon - CRS-5/SpX-5 -Jan. 10, 2015 - DISCUSSION

[CameronD]

With now four CRS missions in the bag, one might be forgiven for thinking that many consider a successful landing of the first stage to be of greater significance than the mission itself...

Maybe it is?!? 

[Semmel]

Delivering Cargo is great, but doesn't make SpaceX special. Landing the first stage does. It can also impacts the future much more than a successful/failed cargo delivery. 

[Eerie]

Delivering Cargo is great, but doesn't make SpaceX special.

Well, it already made SpaceX somewhat special, first commercial cargo launch and all that. Landing the first stage will make them MORE special.

[PD Engr]

Delivering Cargo is great, but doesn't make SpaceX special.

Well, it already made SpaceX somewhat special, first commercial cargo launch and all that. Landing the first stage will make them MORE special.

SpX-5 will return powered payloads, which is very special.  Unique, for now.

[Antares]

If you don't think success of the primary mission is the most important thing of any thing that leaves from anywhere (pad, airfield, outpost, fort, port, launch rail, driveway, parking lot, garage, rail yard...), you're missing the entire point of doing something.

[Jimmy Murdok]

If you don't think success of the primary mission is the most important thing of any thing that leaves from anywhere (pad, airfield, outpost, fort, port, launch rail, driveway, parking lot, garage, rail yard...), you're missing the entire point of doing something.

Delivering and recovering the stages are independent and linked: if the primary mission is a fail, then the whole mission will be a fail even if they recover the stage. But if the payload is delivered, then all the focus will be in the stage, as this will be a big milestone for SpaceX and a historical moment.
Both options can be "the most important thing" depending on how the mission works.

[CameronD]

If you don't think success of the primary mission is the most important thing of any thing that leaves from anywhere (pad, airfield, outpost, fort, port, launch rail, driveway, parking lot, garage, rail yard...), you're missing the entire point of doing something.

FWIW, I agree 100%... hence my previous post.

[Lar]

If you don't think success of the primary mission is the most important thing of any thing that leaves from anywhere (pad, airfield, outpost, fort, port, launch rail, driveway, parking lot, garage, rail yard...), you're missing the entire point of doing something.

Maybe heretical but I consider safe return of ship and cargo, even if to the wrong port, more important than delivery of cargo to the right port, if at the cost of the ship. Because if everything returns to port safely one can try again. Only in wartime (and in spaceflight) is the payload sometimes more important than the delivery vehicle surviving.

(I get that spaceflight is the way it is. But I also believe that we are not going to have costs in the 10s or 100s of USD per KG to LEO if we throw away the vehicles)

[MarsInMyLifetime]

So much of that discussion seems to be wrapped up in this bit of golfing wisdom: Drive for show, putt for dough. Delivering cargo is the bread and butter, but a little style along the way certainly doesn't hurt.

[oiorionsbelt]

If you don't think success of the primary mission is the most important thing of any thing that leaves from anywhere (pad, airfield, outpost, fort, port, launch rail, driveway, parking lot, garage, rail yard...), you're missing the entire point of doing something.

 If, the SpX5 mission goes 100% as planned, the only thing remembered years from now will be the barge landing.

 Should the primary mission fail on this flight and yet the 1st stage is landed on the barge, taken back to port and inspected it'll be historic. The primary will become the secondary.

[Galactic Penguin SST]

If you don't think success of the primary mission is the most important thing of any thing that leaves from anywhere (pad, airfield, outpost, fort, port, launch rail, driveway, parking lot, garage, rail yard...), you're missing the entire point of doing something.

 If, the SpX5 mission goes 100% as planned, the only thing remembered years from now will be the barge landing.

Should the primary mission fail on this flight and yet the 1st stage is landed on the barge, taken back to port and inspected it'll be historic. The primary will become the secondary.

Good luck trying to convince the rest of the world with that. 

[cambrianera]

If you don't think success of the primary mission is the most important thing of any thing that leaves from anywhere (pad, airfield, outpost, fort, port, launch rail, driveway, parking lot, garage, rail yard...), you're missing the entire point of doing something.

 If, the SpX5 mission goes 100% as planned, the only thing remembered years from now will be the barge landing.

Should the primary mission fail on this flight and yet the 1st stage is landed on the barge, taken back to port and inspected it'll be historic. The primary will become the secondary.

Good luck trying to convince the rest of the world with that. 

The generalist press is already convinced: Orbital never had that coverage for their previous well executed launches.
"Importance" is a word waiting for a bias to be applied, always.

So said, I am with Antares; doing a task steadily and reliably is more "important" than any spectacular stunt.
I side for a flawless fifth CRS mission rather than a sporty barge landing (1) but I think I will have a hard time trying to convince the rest of the world with that.

(1) I would like both....

[Semmel]

If you don't think success of the primary mission is the most important thing of any thing that leaves from anywhere (pad, airfield, outpost, fort, port, launch rail, driveway, parking lot, garage, rail yard...), you're missing the entire point of doing something.

I'm not sure who you address with your statement. If its me, keep in mind, that I did not say anything different. Delivery of the cargo is the most important thing.. for this mission. But a successful return of the first stage is more important in the long run.

[Jet Black]

If you don't think success of the primary mission is the most important thing of any thing that leaves from anywhere (pad, airfield, outpost, fort, port, launch rail, driveway, parking lot, garage, rail yard...), you're missing the entire point of doing something.

 If, the SpX5 mission goes 100% as planned, the only thing remembered years from now will be the barge landing.

 Should the primary mission fail on this flight and yet the 1st stage is landed on the barge, taken back to port and inspected it'll be historic. The primary will become the secondary.

4

The first part is true, but if there are any issues with the main mission it may have some serious consequences; already there are supply limitations to the ISS, and if they lose another supplier, then that could be a massive problem. It may also have an impact on the commercial crew missions and SpaceX's attempts to get military launch contracts.

[Jim]

 Should the primary mission fail on this flight and yet the 1st stage is landed on the barge, taken back to port and inspected it'll be historic. The primary will become the secondary.

Quite the opposite.  They will be criticized for not focusing on the primary mission and it will affect their relations with all customers.

[yg1968]

 Should the primary mission fail on this flight and yet the 1st stage is landed on the barge, taken back to port and inspected it'll be historic. The primary will become the secondary.

Quite the opposite.  They will be criticized for not focusing on the primary mission and it will affect their relations with all customers.

I am sure that SpaceX understands that. SpaceX has been clear that landing the stage takes a backseat to their primary mission. That's one of the reasons that CRS-4 didn't have legs. They didn't want to delay the primary mission.

[CraigLieb]

If SpaceX fails to achieve the primary mission on CRS-5, especially after the most recent events, some will question the whole commercial approach. It could be viewed as a series of connected failures, with blame placed on a lack of deep NASA oversight that allowed previous processes (old space) to be "so reliable".  Maybe a case of short-term memory?

FYI: Where are we discussing the upcoming changes in leadership over the Senate committees and NASA budgets due to the elections?

[yg1968]

FYI: Where are we discussing the upcoming changes in leadership over the Senate committees and NASA budgets due to the elections?

Here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36013.0

[macpacheco]

Some of you are mixing things up. Landing a first stage intact indeed is a breakthrough. But its not the mission. The mission is to deliver the payload as negotiated with the customer, let's remember that Elon stated he's NOT in a hurry to retrieve a first stage, it will happen when it happens, they are not on a schedule.
Of course, when the first stage lands intact it will be news. It will be on CNN, but just because it's news, it doesn't make it more important than getting the primary (and any secondary) mission done.

[Vultur]

If SpaceX fails to achieve the primary mission on CRS-5, especially after the most recent events, some will question the whole commercial approach.

I agree. Let's hope it works well.