They've done it again, stuck the booster landing at sea, within a month later! This time in darkness, during wee hours of morning and from a more difficult, considerably more energy intensive geostationary transfer orbital track. Repeatedly reigniting and throttling three of nine engines cancels its sideways, (tangential to earth) 5,200 mph trajectory and vectors it onto an open ocean landing platform. Higher velocities, apogee and therefore reentry heating on the airframe, are even more punishing with lower estimated odds of success, yet they've managed another and in fairly quick succession.
I understand that cost to build a new Falcon 9 is about $60 million; three booster stages have now returned fully intact and may potentially be refitted and recycled to loft further commercial payloads. Propellant refueling cost is estimated in the range of $200,000 (only 1/3 of one percent). Another notable accomplishment has seen the Falcon 9's payload capacity recently uprated appreciably beyond initial design intent, not just by the customary several percent, but as much as half again to both GTO and Low Earth Orbits. SpaceX Merlin engines are proving even more robust than hoped, capable of higher thrust without significant design changes, but some of this improvement apparently also relates to oxidizer loading density. What I'd learned of materials science and fluid mechanics had conventional fluids fully in a condensed liquid phase, behaving largely as incompressible. Seemingly not so with certain cryogenic liquefied gases; held under even lower super-chilled liquid conditions, one can pack even more LOX at greater volumetric density into a tank within similar pressure limits. Isn't chemistry and molecular physics way cool?.. Way To Go SpaceX!..
SpaceX_Launch.jpg
Falcon_has_Landed.jpg
SpaceX_F9_May6.jpg