Talk:SpaceX CRS-8

Supply vs. assembly

Since this mission is adding a new module, albeit a temporary one, should this be considered an assembly flight rather then a logistics flight? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vegaswikian. This may be one of those classic Einsteinian "frame of reference" problems. From the frame of reference of the ISS, it would appear that the ISS folks, and possibly the editors who frequent the ISS article on Wikipedia, it may be an assembly flight. However, from the frame of reference of the 8th cargo resupply mission that NASA has contracted to SpaceX to resupply the ISS, then it would be a logistics mission. (I'm no expert on the two types of "adjective" missions; I'm just accepting your comment at face value.)

In any case, I suspect there is a happy medium. Assuming there are good sources to back up the two type-of-mission point of view, in this article, we might choose to refer to it as the eighth cargo resupply commencial mission (or, at least, the 8th for SpaceX) that delivered a payload to support an additional (serendipitous) assembly mission, one that was unplanned as of the retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2011. In the meantime, we would expect the ISS article to speak to it in more esoteric ISS terms. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Launch Mid Nov 2015 or Jan 3 2016?

The ref for the Jan 3rd 2016 date seems to indicate launch Nov 15 or 16 is being evaluated. Is there a different source for Jan 3rd? 2 month slip from NET 2 September seems to also indicate November. crandles (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems that SpaceX isn't feeling confident about launching CRS-8. The launch date has slipped from Jan 3, 2016 then to Feb 7, 2016 and now even that has been changed to NET March 21, 2016. After the successful launch of Jason-3 on Jan 17, 2016 the next flight on their manifest is now SES-9, to be followed by CRS-8. Considering their backlog they might have a tough time carrying out 1 launch every fortnight in March and April 2016 unless their entire manifest for 2016 is up in the air (spaceflightnow.com dated 16 Jan 2016)Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC).

Lots of flights have been delayed by 6 month gap for return to flight program (plus v1.1FT upgrades). It hasn't sorted itself out yet. Musk has said well over a dozen flights in 2016 but there are about 29 on the list suggesting a 2016 launch. Amended to NET 20 March 2016 per launch photography. crandles (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Launch schedule history:

The second and third paragraphs of this section in the main article are out of synch and could do with some revision to maintain chronology. I haven't done the needful as I don't want to hurt the last editor's feelings whoever they may be. Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

NASA CRS project Insignia (SpX-8) vs. Space-X Insignia

An image of SpaceX's insignia for their CRS-8 mission is available (e.g. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39537.0) and could be used in place of the NASA CRS-project's SpX-8 insignia which is currently shown on the page. This would bring the SpaceX CRS-8 page in line with the previous missions (CRS-1 through -7) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.244.87.136 (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Rfc: Should we have a separate page for the launch or keep it with the payload?

After this launch succeeded in landing the first stage on the ocean platform, our esteemed colleague @Appable: made a separate page for Falcon 9 Flight 23, overriding the redirect to SpaceX CRS-8. His argument is that this flight is particularly notable and generated a lot of press coverage. That is absolutely true but I fail to see how opening a separate page for the launch is necessary. In my view, after the initial excitement due to the fresh news, such a page would inevitably rehash content about the rocket, the landing test, the SpaceX reusable launch system development program, the Commercial Resupply Services contract with NASA, the launch pad, landing zone and droneship. Oh, and something about LOX subcooling perhaps? Or Elon's other ventures? ;)

This article is short enough to accommodate details about both the payload and the flight. Let's enrich the existing page with links to the relevant topics and perhaps an extra mention of news coverage, but that's plenty enough (and you heard this from a major fan). Besides, there is already a lot of content overlap in the numerous pages dealing with SpaceX, so we should work on structuring them better, e.g. recent work on the reusability R&D page grouped a lot of information that was scattered on various research topics, technical components or individual flight tests. Pinging page creator @Vegaswikian: and regular contributors to SpaceX and spaceflight topics @N2e: @C-randles:@Abul Bakhtiar: @PSR B1937+21: @BatteryIncluded: @Galactic Penguin SST: @Kubanczyk: @Zedshort: @The Anome: to please comment and !vote. — JFG ^talk 10:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep with payload at least at present. crandles (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep with payload keep it simple Zedshort (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

For most of NASA's CRS and CCDev missions a separate article is not needed. PSR B1937+21 (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

My two cents: this is actually a somewhat complex topic, and not really sure where it should be discussed. First off, there is Wikiproject Spaceflight ordinary practice, and there are, no doubt, special cases, which might still be compliant with overall wiki-policy and guidelines.

So, in general within the spaceflight wikiproject in the distant past, the sat article has covered the launch. In past history, the sat was the story and the launch, generally, was not. Things have been gradually changing, both from the launch side (more notable launchers, doing new things (sophisticated flight tests, landings, potential reuse, ...) and from the satellite side (larger flights of small sats, sometimes resulting in no single launch article on the sat(s) at all, even though the launch is highly notable, etc.).

Examples where separate launch articles exist include Falcon 9 Flight 10, Falcon 9 Flight 20, Falcon 9 Flight 22, and perhaps some others. Each of these were created for (somewhat) different reasons. For example, I recall that the Flight 22 article was created when there was no specific article on the satellite itself (SES-9 redirected at the time to an an article about the SES company in general, with only a brief bit on each particular satellite, with high notability and sources about the impending launch. Only later did an editor create a separate sat article for SES-9.

In some cases the launch (recently) has been far more notable than the sat(s), which definitely allows articles to meet WP:GNG pretty clearly.

Moreover, once an article is created, failing any speedy deletion criteria applying, then the way to get an article's existence discussed is the WP:AfD process.

So yes, this likely needs more discussion, perhaps both in general and on the particular new article that you mention has been created (which I've not even yet clicked on). But not sure this Talk page is the place to do it, for the complex set of reasons I've just begun to outline. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, N2e, it all makes sense. For better or for worse, the discussion has started here so we might as well expand it to the general case, lest this gets rehashed for every new mission. For most spaceflights indeed, the focus has been on the payload, the launch event being a section in there and the infobox having information on the liftoff time, rocket, launchpad, etc. All manned flights have their own page, but you can consider that the payload is the crew in those cases. Space Shuttle flights have their own page because they carried diverse tasks beyond just deploying a satellite. In recent history, where a flight can carry dozens of small satellites and when the carrier rocket attracts more attention than the things it carries, such flights may indeed deserve their own page. I think that in most cases this can be resolved by simply choosing the most relevant page title. Examples:

• Dragon C2+, focus is on the payload making history (firs cargo delivery to the ISS by a privately-developed spacecraft), the flight itself is part of this narrative;
• Falcon 9 Flight 20, focus is on the flight making history (return-to-flight after 6 months hiatus, new rocket variant, landing success), payload has a section in there plus a link to the Orbcomm satellite operator but there is no page specifically for the OG-2 constellation; instead we have a redirect from Orbcomm OG-2 flight 2 to the Falcon flight page. Even if there was such a page in the future, it would not replace the flight page but rather explain how Orbcomm is making a splash in maritime cargo tracking and airline WiFi;
• ABS-3A and Eutelsat 115 West B are two satellites launched together; each page has a short section on the launch, which doesn't have a separate page (Falcon 9 Flight 16 redirects to the list of launches). So we could either create a page for the launch and repeat the usual "it's a Falcon 9, the greatest rocket ever built, it launched two satellites to GTO from LC40, it had a bunch of launch delays but was ultimately successful, and SpaceX tried landing it (well, not this one because the less-powerful v1.1 had no margins to return from GTO, but they will probably try to land flight 25 which carries the same twin Boeing 702SP electric-propulsion payloads (now that's notable)) or leave things as is or even merge both satellite pages, because ironically Eutelsat 115 West B talks a lot about ABS-3A and vice versa (which makes sense, as they are quasi twins);
• Falcon 9 Flight 21 is a case where a specific page was created for the flight and the payload, probably along the same arguments which would favor creating a page for flight 23 today. Well, this flight 21 page looks interesting but has no potential to grow. Substantive text about the flight itself consists of a paragraph on RTF considerations and a section on the landing attempt. This is in turn a mix of information readily available at the R&D page and recentist coverage which could very well be summed up and merged into the Jason-3 payload page. As the Jason-3 observatory returns science data over a decade, there will certainly be material to expand coverage, whereas once the rocket has been launched and the booster has broken its leg upon landing, there will hardly ever be anything more to say. I'd merge it in a heartbeat if we get consensus. Coverage of the landing is admittedly quite funny as the article text sources a statement copied verbatim from an Elon tweet by quoting the Washington Post which quotes the same tweet, adding instagram and SpaceX tweets as further "sources", ending up with 6 references to describe the broken leg incident — amusing yes, encyclopedic no)

TL;DR Keep spaceflight articles focused on the most notable things and give them appropriate titles. By this logic, the Falcon 9 maiden flight should be titled accordingly, instead of being listed today as Dragon Spacecraft Qualification Unit. — JFG ^talk 23:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm invited but thanks for the objective summary, JFG. Obviously, you know my opinion, but just wanted to comment that I've restarted the article in draftspace (Draft:Falcon 9 Flight 23) so if anyone wants to contribute then feel free. Appable (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course you are invited! We're all here to improve the encyclopedia together. — JFG ^talk 23:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Appable, could you fix the link to your draft article, the existing link is broken.N2e (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey folks. I've been through a number of these sorts of things over my 15 years editing Wikipedia. Several things are true:

• While this discussion is totally appropriate here on the CRS-8 Talk page, there is nothing that will happen here that will then, magically, become meta-policy for naming space launch articles in general. Not for SpaceX launches; nor for all launches in general. This is simply the wrong forum for that.
• Even if the discussion were centered/invited via the Wikiproject:Spaceflight group—and that project did once have an older project-guideline on such things, and that guideline may have been updated in the past couple of years, since some SpaceX launches have become more notable and more newsworthy,and thus, more encyclopedically notable. I don't have the time to locate that just now.)—that guideline would not automatically take precedence in a WP:AfD discussion, although it would be considered. Overall Wikipedia-wide policies of WP:V, WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:CS would take precedence. In other words, it is quite possible—and happens regularly—where specific article situations are not force-fit into Wikiproject-specific guidelines. For several reasons, but one is that those guidelines were not built by the wikicommunity at large, and another is that circumstances may very well have changed. (which arguably, is happening in the space launch industry in recent years).
• Thr proper place for us to be having this discussion is on a WP:AfD page for the article Appable created, not here. I do not know why Appable or another editor has not reverted the article blanking to this point, but if that were to be done (and I may do it myself when I have more wiki-time available), then the proper wiki-procedure is to have whomever here doesn't think it should stand nominate it for WP:Afd. Wiki policy is not to just revert new articles that meet WP:GNC out of existence. It is to have a full-course AfD discussion, opened up to the wider wiki audience that that process entails. That can be a bit more time consuming, but the community has found it a better and more stable process for deletion or merging of articles. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

To your first point (choice of discussion venue), it may be good some day to have an up-to-date general guideline on spaceflights, however such a guideline should evolve organically from practice with individual cases, hence I started with this one, where I considered urgent action was required to avoid well-meaning editors wasting their efforts growing essentially the same contents in two or more places.

To your second point (spaceflight guidelines) I wasn't referring to policy and I made provisions in my arguments for either the spacecraft or the launch event to be more notable, I'm just saying that in the overwhelming majority of cases, even in recent history, there is little material to justify creating two pages (and when we do there is a lot of overlap between their contents). My proposal is to merge the few cases where we have two pages and choose their title according to notability.

To your third point (AfD process), User:Appable had good intentions but replaced a pre-existing redirect (which was informative to casual readers clicking on the flight number from elsewhere) with a 2-line stub and an invitation to expand it; I didn't think that was justified (essentially because of the quick exhaustion of material to add) so i reverted to the redirect and opened the discussion by explaining my rationale to him/her and to the editor community. This is textbook WP:BRD in action, no need to escalate this to AfD unless we get into an edit war over this (which doesn't look like we should). — JFG ^talk 21:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added significantly more material about the port arrival and I'm starting to see significance-based articles by, for example, Sentinel, so I've gone back to an article. I view this as a new article creation so I don't think bold-revert-discuss applies - I view a new page creation as fundamentally different from an edit - and by using BRD and then not getting full consensus, it's somewhat like a speedy deletion except just based on one editor's thoughts. Appable (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Appable: Thanks for your efforts in expanding the article, however I note that your new version talks mainly about the landing and booster recovery: not a word about the launch itself or the mission's payloads, which is frustrating to readers coming there for details, for example by clicking on the flight number in List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. I still believe that all relevant information can be listed in a single page but I'll refrain from reverting this time. As you are apparently interested in covering the post-landing stage refurbishing operations, may I suggest that you expand the comprehensive pages about SpaceX booster landing tests and their reusability R&D program? Kind regards. — JFG ^talk 07:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I mean, the landing is going to be the most notable thing about the launch. I do plan to include more information about the launch itself in the future; a short section on payload, launch schedule, and rocket itself would be justified, and then links to the main articles. I would argue that including information about booster recovery, while relevant to this particular mission, is not particularly notable on the larger scheme of landing tests. Appable (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey JFG, I agree with you on most of what you say. I like your idea of dealing with individual cases in individual articles, and only later endeavoring to get a more widespread policy or guideline in place. I think I was just responding to the idea that I thought had been expressed that whatever might be decided in this instance, with this article, on this Talk page, would have general applicability without such subsequent discussion. I don't believe that would be the case; and it appears that you may not either.

Agree, on the overwhelming majority of cases, it does not make sense to have separate launch and payload articles. It would appear, empirically and theoretically, that some of the SpaceX new technology being developed, and especially, flight tests that are conducted on an ordinarily expendable part of the rocket after that part has already accomplished/done 100 percent of what it is going to do for the payload and second stage, would be a significant exception to that general guideline, although not in all instances (i.e, not on every launch). Just as a side note to all of this: I have had occasions where clearly notable and much-covered-by-news-media launch vehicle detail has been removed from payload-named articles because editors felt it was off-topic in a payload article; and those editors had a point. WHich would be yet another case where a separate launch article might be warranted.

And you are correct, the original stub article was so de minimus as to be fairly easy to revert, with only a discussion ensuing, and not immediately gaining strong revert of the revert from other editors back to the new article, in favor of the revert. That phase would appear to be behind us now as Appable is no longer putting up such a minimalist stub. N2e (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done As predicted, Falcon 9 Flight 23 could not be substantially expanded beyond the initial information which is repeated here, so I merged the page. — JFG ^talk 07:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that there was a clear consensus for a merge. Moreover, I don't believe a formal WP:AfD was ever done on the Falcon 9 Flight 23 page, so someone can create that article again with a simple revert.

Personally, I lack time to chase it down right now, but I just wanted to note that this seem a WP:BOLD merge, subject to revert by any editor, since it did not use the process of WP:AFD to arrive at the merge. N2e (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Landing vid

So Gizmodo and Wired made a GIF [1][2] out of the SpaceX landing video [3][4]; since this is just format conversion, the copyright would be whatever SpaceX has on it and not Gizmodo's. I suspect this is one of the SpaceX PD media, so would make a good upload. SpaceX's press gallery is PD, and Elon Musk said something of making everything PD, CC0 and CC-by-SA as possible (depending n outlet, since some media sharing sites do not allow PD or CC0 settings for content) -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Static picture is fine for an encyclopedia. Feel free to add the link to the video in the text or in a footnote. — JFG ^talk 15:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

While I would love for SpaceX videos to be CC-zero like the other media, we only know for sure that the media on their website and on their Flickr page are thus released. Hopefully I can get some clarification on this matter. Still images will have to suffice for now. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed infobox picture: BEAM

As lead picture for the article, we should replace the generic Dragon illustration with something specific to this mission. We show enough info on the (admittedly historic) landing, however this page is about the CRS-8 mission which carries a no-less-notable payload: the very first human-rated inflatable space habitat from Bigelow Aerospace to be attached to the ISS for two years... Can somebody find the energy to clear the rights to a picture of the BEAM? Or shall we wait until it gets deployed? That should generate some press coverage with pictures and videos too. — JFG ^talk 15:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we could wait for some pictures taken by astronauts during capture and berthing and add them to infobox. Later, when they install BEAM we should definitely add some of those in the article as well, since it is the primary payload. I hope they will install some cameras in Russian segment , since BEAM inflation will look good from over there, and it's a great opportunity for some time lapse video. :) --Михаило Јовановић (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The primary payload for the CRS-8 mission is the Dragon spacecraft, not BEAM. Also, Михаило Јовановић, even if more cameras were installed on the Russian segment, they would be copyright Roscosmos, not PD-NASA, so we could not use images from them anyway. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Roscosmos copyright is pretty liberal, just requiring attribution: "Full or partial reproduction shall be followed by an appropriate link to Roscosmos web". For example, this gallery has nice views of Dragon. Agree with Михаило Јовановић on looking for real pictures when deployed. — JFG ^talk 02:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

That isn't a copyright statement, just a re-use statement. All Roscosmos material is All Rights Reserved unless specifically released, so it would only be valid under Fair Use, and since we have free alternatives we cannot use them here. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I know they would be Roscosmos property, but I was thinking that Tim, Tim or Jeff could go to Rassvet, or Soyuz, and put some cameras inside them to take pictures and videos. I bet there is at least one window pointing towards BEAM when installed. Unless that kind of action is forbidden on ISS? --Михаило Јовановић (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Михаило Јовановић: I misunderstood then. I thought you were hoping that automated external cameras or Russian cosmonauts might take the pictures. Yes, if Kopra or Williams can take photos from the Russian segment (I know know if that is restricted, but I doubt it), then there's no problem. Peake's photography would be protected by ESA copyright restrictions, though (which is a shame, because he takes fantastic photos!). — Huntster (t @ c) 17:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added pictures to commons and I chose one for infobox. There are a few more so if anyone thinks one of those is better feel free to change it. :) --Михаило Јовановић (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Great pic, thanks! — JFG ^talk 05:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they listened to us. There are a few pictures here taken from Russian segment of the station. I'm sure they will record a video of BEAM inflation. Those solar panels on Zarya are in the way thou... --Михаило Јовановић (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Reduce page protection to make external link edit

Hello, I was attempting to add an external link to this page and could not find an 'Edit' link. This is the first time I've run into this. How do I get the protection reduced to make an edit in the external link section?

Thank you --I-otanasatech (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You can always paste the link here and have someone who can edit through protection add it. Mind you, external links are not supposed to be indiscriminate collections. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. This is the first I've seen of a protected page. The information about the restrictions said I could request a lowering of the protection to post to the page. I've posted my web pages of previous SpaceX launches without issue.

Regarding indiscriminate collections, I hope launch pictures of CRS-8 from the NASA press site at CCAFS has sufficient relevance to be applicable here.

Here's the page: http://nasatech.net/ntCRS-8_PAGE.html

--I-otanasatech (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I like the NASA Tech site, but considering we have a lot of photos at commons:Category:SpaceX CRS-8, it feels a bit redundant. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It was always my intention to add to the body of media content on a relevant article. Since I don't wish to relinquish my copyright by putting it in the public domain, I thought the external link option was an acceptable compromise. But, that said, if my content is redundant or even superfluous to the Wiki page then I'll remove it. I do not want my content to be controversial or problematic in any way. --I-otanasatech (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@I-otanasatech: oh no, I'm not calling it problematic at all, and I have no intention of removing it. I guess what I was saying is that I myself wouldn't have added it given the existing material, but it doesn't bother me that it is included in the article. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

"low-importance" ?

Is this really low-importance to WPSPACEFLIGHT? It seems many news outlets are saying this is a great milestone with the shipboard landing. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It was a routine CRS mission to the ISS. The landing was of secondary importance, so the rating should really be judged based on the primary mission, in my opinion. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the transcendental event is not the launch of CRS-8, but the landing (retrieval)of the SpaceX booster, which has its own article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I would agree, sort of, if it were the first time a rocket had landed, but that was on F9F20, not to mention Blue Origin's efforts over the past six months. But, quite frankly, while the rating systems on Wikipedia used to have value, I just don't see it anymore. — Huntster (t @ c) 16:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

This article, on the CRS-8 mission and payload is of Low importance to the spaceflight wikiproject. Routine cargo mission.

There is another article, on the rocket launch itself (fairly recently created, and discussed elsewhere on this Talk page) —— Falcon 9 Flight 23 — which, being the first successful vertical landing of an orbital rocket first stage on an ocean landing platform, is quite certainly not of "Low" importance. But that should be changed, and or discussed, over on that article's talk page. N2e (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

video?

File:SpaceX CRS-8 Falcon 9 Rocket on Dragon Return to Flight.webm. Can this be useful? Victor Grigas (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

While a nice video, it is currently undergoing a deletion discussion on Commons as it may be considered a copyright violation. We shouldn't include it in the article until such discussion has been resolved. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Reuse

There are noises about possibility of first reuse of stage recovered on this mission. Source: jeff_foust's tweet. I think it deserves mentioning on page, at least after confirmation from official sources like SpaceX (currently they are "no comment"). --Mader Levap (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:SpaceX CRS-1 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:CRS-8 (26239020092).jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for April 8, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-04-08. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

SpaceX CRS-8 was a Commercial Resupply Services mission to the International Space Station that launched on April 8, 2016, at 20:43 UTC. It was the twenty-third flight of a Falcon 9 rocket, the tenth flight of a Dragon cargo spacecraft, and the eighth operational mission contracted to SpaceX by NASA under the Commercial Resupply Services program. After boosting the payload on its orbital trajectory, the rocket's first stage re-entered the denser layers of the atmosphere and landed vertically on the ocean landing platform Of Course I Still Love You nine minutes after liftoff (as pictured in this photograph), thus achieving a long-sought-after milestone in the SpaceX reusable launch system development program.

Photograph credit: SpaceX

Recently featured:

• Crucifixion with the Virgin and St John
• Landscape Arch
• Campanula cervicaria