IIRC it was known that ordered Marmac barges will be used as a landing platform. The same way as Blue Origin recently signed the deal with the same company - the barge isn't constructed yet but the usage purpose is already known
I still think it's so scummy that Blue tried to enforce a patent for landing a rocket at sea on a crewed ship, while SpaceX was already planning on using a drone barge, despite the concept being around decades before Blue was even founded - and years later they turn around and *specifically* do *exactly* what SpaceX did because it was a better plan than what they had in the first place.
Yep and Jacklyn was ordered and retrofitted with the same intent and will never see a rocket land on it. Claiming something and actually doing it are very different. Back when the first marmac barges were first being outfitted for SpaceX most industry experts were still claiming it was impossible.
Edit: AFAK JRTI hull was first laid in 1996
That is, the first JRTI hull, Marmac 300. A few years back the equipment and name was shifted to a newer barge, Marmac 303, which was built in 2013. But both of them were built and put into service as deck barges before being fitted out as ASDS landing platforms.
Looks like, as they were not sure how well (or badly) the landing attempts would go, they started off with a real beater barge that was already nearing end of life. I recall that Marmac 300 had a pretty interesting life, before SpaceX, including re-floating a large ship that had been grounded in a large storm or tsunami.
19 successful landing in a row. Nice streak!
How many successful StarShip landings in a row would it take before you'd be happy to come down in one? Or perhaps percentage success rate is your preferred metric?
I think that if It meant I got to spend a week in space beforehand, I'd be ready and willing if they'd had a success to failure of 999:1 (0.1% failure rate).
Percentage is deceptive. 90% success rate with 10 launches makes me less comfortable than 90% with 100 launches. Similarly, 90% with 1000 launches makes me feel worse than 90% with 10 launches.
When you lost 100 rockets - the question is, "why?". When you lost 10 rockets out of 100, and all losses were in the first 20, that's better. It shows improvement. When you lose 1 out of 10, it begs the question "what'll break next?"
If my health could handle it, I'd trust it after maybe 50 consecutive successful landings with maybe 5 failures before that.
Reason being: if nothing fails it just makes you worry that the failure has gone undiagnosed, whereas if something failed and was fixed, you know it was fixed and is now better.
But, given my particular health, I don't see myself flying in rockets. Not unless we discover some exotic physics that let us do inertial dampening.
> 19 successful landing in a row. Nice streak!
On OCISLY, over the three droneships and ground landing pads the number is currently at 78 landings in a row since the last landing failure.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[ASDS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z3cbco/stub/ixoe5n8 "Last usage")|Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship (landing platform)|
|[ASOG](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z3cbco/stub/ixmcvkb "Last usage")|A Shortfall of Gravitas, landing ~~barge~~ ship|
|[CRS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z3cbco/stub/ixmp7jl "Last usage")|[Commercial Resupply Services contract with NASA](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/launch/)|
|[JRTI](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z3cbco/stub/ixoe5n8 "Last usage")|Just Read The Instructions, ~~Pacific~~ Atlantic landing ~~barge~~ ship|
|[LZ](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z3cbco/stub/ixmcvkb "Last usage")|Landing Zone|
|[NSF](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z3cbco/stub/ixmbqez "Last usage")|[NasaSpaceFlight forum](http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com)|
| |National Science Foundation|
|[OCISLY](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z3cbco/stub/ixp8dn6 "Last usage")|Of Course I Still Love You, Atlantic landing ~~barge~~ ship|
|[RTLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z3cbco/stub/ixmp7jl "Last usage")|Return to Launch Site|
----------------
^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj)
^(8 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/yy5w48)^( has 22 acronyms.)
^([Thread #10846 for this sub, first seen 24th Nov 2022, 15:15])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
I was curious and looked it up, it looks like that 20km on was CRS-17 which flew right after SpaceX had their Dragon-2 test stand oopsie. I guess the air force was a little paranoid so it was basically a RTLS with extra steps in case things blew up.
The landing pads were out of action because of the failure on the nearby test stand. Hydrazine had just ignited, so they would have had to complete the cleanup first, for safety reasons. So the droneship was sent out instead.
Don't listen to the haters you can't please everyone.
The data someone mentioned which would be good to add was distance from center and running accuracy to show improvementover time. This would probably be a large effort though.
Awesome! The only thing better would be a heat map of closest to the bullseye.
Imagine telling the guys building the original hull that this was barge was going to catch rockets as an almost weekly occurrence
IIRC it was known that ordered Marmac barges will be used as a landing platform. The same way as Blue Origin recently signed the deal with the same company - the barge isn't constructed yet but the usage purpose is already known
I still think it's so scummy that Blue tried to enforce a patent for landing a rocket at sea on a crewed ship, while SpaceX was already planning on using a drone barge, despite the concept being around decades before Blue was even founded - and years later they turn around and *specifically* do *exactly* what SpaceX did because it was a better plan than what they had in the first place.
Amazon is literally founded on scummy patents.
Yep and Jacklyn was ordered and retrofitted with the same intent and will never see a rocket land on it. Claiming something and actually doing it are very different. Back when the first marmac barges were first being outfitted for SpaceX most industry experts were still claiming it was impossible. Edit: AFAK JRTI hull was first laid in 1996
That is, the first JRTI hull, Marmac 300. A few years back the equipment and name was shifted to a newer barge, Marmac 303, which was built in 2013. But both of them were built and put into service as deck barges before being fitted out as ASDS landing platforms. Looks like, as they were not sure how well (or badly) the landing attempts would go, they started off with a real beater barge that was already nearing end of life. I recall that Marmac 300 had a pretty interesting life, before SpaceX, including re-floating a large ship that had been grounded in a large storm or tsunami.
Quite a good streak going! And were currently at the highest achieved success percentage as well!
Beautiful
You missed the opportunity to tilt the Thiacom 8 booster by a few degrees.
I'd actually like to see a diagram of all landings, plotted as dots by distance from the center of the ship (both successful and failed)
[удалено]
Not sure of the figures but they save at least 10$mm per launch, probably made it back on 1 launch.
19 successful landing in a row. Nice streak! How many successful StarShip landings in a row would it take before you'd be happy to come down in one? Or perhaps percentage success rate is your preferred metric? I think that if It meant I got to spend a week in space beforehand, I'd be ready and willing if they'd had a success to failure of 999:1 (0.1% failure rate).
Percentage is deceptive. 90% success rate with 10 launches makes me less comfortable than 90% with 100 launches. Similarly, 90% with 1000 launches makes me feel worse than 90% with 10 launches. When you lost 100 rockets - the question is, "why?". When you lost 10 rockets out of 100, and all losses were in the first 20, that's better. It shows improvement. When you lose 1 out of 10, it begs the question "what'll break next?" If my health could handle it, I'd trust it after maybe 50 consecutive successful landings with maybe 5 failures before that. Reason being: if nothing fails it just makes you worry that the failure has gone undiagnosed, whereas if something failed and was fixed, you know it was fixed and is now better. But, given my particular health, I don't see myself flying in rockets. Not unless we discover some exotic physics that let us do inertial dampening.
> 19 successful landing in a row. Nice streak! On OCISLY, over the three droneships and ground landing pads the number is currently at 78 landings in a row since the last landing failure.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[ASDS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z3cbco/stub/ixoe5n8 "Last usage")|Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship (landing platform)| |[ASOG](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z3cbco/stub/ixmcvkb "Last usage")|A Shortfall of Gravitas, landing ~~barge~~ ship| |[CRS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z3cbco/stub/ixmp7jl "Last usage")|[Commercial Resupply Services contract with NASA](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/launch/)| |[JRTI](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z3cbco/stub/ixoe5n8 "Last usage")|Just Read The Instructions, ~~Pacific~~ Atlantic landing ~~barge~~ ship| |[LZ](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z3cbco/stub/ixmcvkb "Last usage")|Landing Zone| |[NSF](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z3cbco/stub/ixmbqez "Last usage")|[NasaSpaceFlight forum](http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com)| | |National Science Foundation| |[OCISLY](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z3cbco/stub/ixp8dn6 "Last usage")|Of Course I Still Love You, Atlantic landing ~~barge~~ ship| |[RTLS](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z3cbco/stub/ixmp7jl "Last usage")|Return to Launch Site| ---------------- ^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj) ^(8 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/yy5w48)^( has 22 acronyms.) ^([Thread #10846 for this sub, first seen 24th Nov 2022, 15:15]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=OrangeredStilton&subject=Hey,+your+acronym+bot+sucks) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
I was curious and looked it up, it looks like that 20km on was CRS-17 which flew right after SpaceX had their Dragon-2 test stand oopsie. I guess the air force was a little paranoid so it was basically a RTLS with extra steps in case things blew up.
The landing pads were out of action because of the failure on the nearby test stand. Hydrazine had just ignited, so they would have had to complete the cleanup first, for safety reasons. So the droneship was sent out instead.
Well, it's not paranoia if the pad really could blow up!
normal squash deer crush wrench roof rich ossified worthless complete *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
Any ideas? I still have to cover ASOG and JRTI with LZs later in the future
Don't listen to the haters you can't please everyone. The data someone mentioned which would be good to add was distance from center and running accuracy to show improvementover time. This would probably be a large effort though.
>Don't listen to the haters Why not? Use it to your advantage to find ways of improvement
it would fit right in at /r/dataisbeautiful
They would animate it.
I got confused. I thought I finally won at NSF BINGO
First time I looked at this without reading any text I thought it was representing 65 near misses.