SpaceX Falcon 9 historic landing thread (1st landing attempt & most recent missions)

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
So yeah, a close goal. on the Nasa TV webcast in a shot of SpaceX Mission Control, I saw body language what looked like a cheer turned into disbelief / frustratation
 
ok - now that my lunch break is over - time to get back to work. (almost like I planned it that way. huh.)
 
Musk tweet:

Looks like Falcon landed fine, but excess lateral velocity caused it to tip over post landing.

CClJ-UsW0AEpNnd.jpg


CClJ-UuW4AAKOog.jpg


Uh, "landed fine" means it would have landed fine....intact. It's not supposed to have any significant horizontal velocity.

The angle shown indicates way too much horizontal velocity. It is sort of like the first try in January all over again, but not as extreme (and apparently on top of the deck near center rather than a leg punching a hole into the side).

But if it was trying land on LAND, an RTLS at LC-13, it could have simply allowed itself to land safely vertically some dozens of meters from the center of the landing pad, not an option for the relatively small landing area of the ASDS barge. Therefore another semi-Kamikaze landing attempt.

But I guess that sort of Kamikaze landing should make the CCAFS General (who has a role in the approval for RTLS landings at LC-13) "happy" with the precision crash. As opposed to a "safe" vertical landing a few dozen meters away into the water if the system was programmed to recognize it could not land safely at "X" and automatically would switch to land safely at "Y" that did not happen to have a barge under it (The latter makes more sense to me than to keep on crashing into the barge when it is impossible to land safely, proof it ocudl lad safely on land where minimal horizontal velocity is WAY more important than landing with a few meters of dead center). Oh well.....

Awaiting more images/video before deciding on whether the barge qualifies for a new nickname…

EDIT - Another Musk Tweet:
All we have right now is low frame rate video (basically pictures). Normal video will be posted when ship returns to port in a few days.
 
Last edited:
Musk tweet:

Looks like Falcon landed fine, but excess lateral velocity caused it to tip over post landing

CClJ-UsW0AEpNnd.jpg


CClJ-UuW4AAKOog.jpg


That would definitely explain the "Yes!!!!!!!!!! NOOOO!!!!..............................." moment
 
They released far-off video (apparently from an aircraft) showing the landing.

So it was vertical almost on target, tried to make a small horizontal adjustment near the end, and over-controlled itself for whatever reason. Far different than what I was thinking from the video frame.

I wonder if the limited landing testing in McGregor ever tested for enough of a "wobble" coming down to test for fuel sloshing or other factors such as may have been at play here. This one looks to me like it could have been a successful landing if it had been on land and NOT tried to do that "land at X" maneuver at the end. Heck, it may have only been "off" by no more than 10 meters before it tried that last maneuver..

Link to video:

https://v.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/7A1A...p4?versionId=1t0RwgC6OwOAcJT4TQOd4zOemeP9waxc
 
Last edited:
They released far-off video (apparently from an aircraft) showing the landing.

So it was vertical almost on target, tried to make a small horizontal adjustment near the end, and over-controlled itself for whatever reason. Far different than what I was thinking from the video frame.

I wonder if the limited landing testing in McGregor ever tested for enough of a "wobble" coming down to test for fuel sloshing or other factors such as may have been at play here. This one looks to me like it could have been a successful landing if it had been on land and NOT tried to do that "land at X" maneuver at the end. Heck, it may have only been "off" by no more than 10 meters before it tried that last maneuver..

Link to video:

https://v.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/7A1A...p4?versionId=1t0RwgC6OwOAcJT4TQOd4zOemeP9waxc

George I don't know how you dig up these videos. Beyond the last min maneuver, it also looks to me like it's coming in a bit hot.
 
They released far-off video (apparently from an aircraft) showing the landing.

So it was vertical almost on target, tried to make a small horizontal adjustment near the end, and over-controlled itself for whatever reason. Far different than what I was thinking from the video frame.

I wonder if the limited landing testing in McGregor ever tested for enough of a "wobble" coming down to test for fuel sloshing or other factors such as may have been at play here. This one looks to me like it could have been a successful landing if it had been on land and NOT tried to do that "land at X" maneuver at the end. Heck, it may have only been "off" by no more than 10 meters before it tried that last maneuver..

Link to video:

https://v.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/7A1A...p4?versionId=1t0RwgC6OwOAcJT4TQOd4zOemeP9waxc


It looks like it's coming in way too fast. The last second maneuver may not have been necessary if it was approaching at a more controlled speed.
 
George I don't know how you dig up these videos.

I cheated and used a super-secret source which by no means would ever be Elon Musks' twitter account. Nope, not at all….

https://twitter.com/elonmusk

Really, he has a vice-grip clamp on news about stuff like this. Ironic that for news updates about SpaceX, the SpaceX website is not the one to go to but a twitter account. But it's his toys so….

BTW - his actual Twitter profile pic from the last few days…."Dr. Evil"…..

NjRa6mP.jpg





Beyond the last min maneuver, it also looks to me like it's coming in a bit hot.

It is always going to look a bit "hot" because it will never hover and will never come down at a constant rate.

It is programed to be slowing down and slowing down under thrust…. but it never reaches a point where the vertical deceleration rate (RATE of deceleration, not velocity) is zero and then just descends at say a constant 2 meters a second for the last 3 seconds like a copter or Lunar Module. They way they are doing it is definitely the most fuel-efficient, albeit with a VERY small margin for error.

For example, it could be descending vertically at 12 m/s 3 sec from landing and 9 m/sec at 2 sec from landing, and 6 m/sec at 1 sec from landing…. and "land" at 3 m/sec.

I do not recall what the "normal" landing velocity is…… and it might not be known (well, not publicly). SpaceX is not NASA, so there is a lot of info we take for granted that NASA provides for such things, that SpaceX does not release (if this was NASA we'd have seen the landing attempt live, SpaceX/Musk does it 1960's cold war Russian style). A lot of people speculate and do frame by frame analysis of videos to try to derive info like that….some useful, a lot not.

Anyway, it might have been abnormally"hot", or pretty much as expected. Do not know. For SURE they never did get in any realistic landing vertical velocity tests at McGregor. The test landing flights never got higher than 1 kilometer, and never descended at anything remotely close to the actual landing velocities the F-9 booster has during the last kilometer (limited by FAA waiver at that location) and last second before landing. The F9R test vehicle (some called it Grasshopper #2) that went out of control and self-destructed during a test flight at McGregor may have been intended to do some "hotter" landings than they had done before. Of course they would only have been able to discover a potential flaw in over-controlling a hot descent ONCE, then no F9R left to do more tests with. But they could have worked up to that and discovered where it became close to being a problem (especially if they allowed the landing software to be smart enough to prioritize a safe landing on the ground not as close to "X" as desired, instead of trying to "hit X" regardless of the consequences). Of course like so much SpaceX stuff.... this is speculation since it may not be an inherent problem, it may be due to some random issue on this flight.

- George Gassaway
 
Last edited:
Oh man, this looks so sweet. Too bad it didn't end as well as it looks like at this moment.

That pic looks WAY better and closer than the video shot from a plane. Either they had a heck of a still camera with telephoto lens and an incredible haze filter on the camera plane, or they had a multicopter take it (but if so, from a lot farther distance than I would expect they'd have a multicopter be for the "money shot").

EDIT - after seeing the video a few more times on a lager screen, I now think this pic was from the camera plane. The video is just so low-res.

And if they did have a multicopter that got better video, they probably would not bother to show another crash. Best to save such a "surprise" camera view (if they have a multicopter for landings) for the first successful landing.

FPTMnyy.jpg
 
Last edited:
(if this was NASA we'd have seen the landing attempt live, SpaceX/Musk does it 1960's cold war Russian style)

Not quite. While it's not live, we still get the story, and footage, hours or days later. Most of the time the Russians held onto less than perfect results for decades. I guess their Twitter accounts back then were all private.
 
I wonder why they don't just place a giant fire proof pillow on the Pad to capture it.
Beneath the pillow they could place a series of massive Electro-magnets to ensure the capture.
At landing there could be a fire suppression system activated that would prevent any post landing fire.
 
Oh man, this looks so sweet. Too bad it didn't end as well as it looks like at this moment.

That pic looks WAY better and closer than the video shot from a plane. Either they had a heck of a still camera with telephoto lens and an incredible haze filter on the camera plane, or they had a multicopter take it (but if so, from a lot farther distance than I would expect they'd have a multicopter be for the "money shot").

FPTMnyy.jpg

WOW...Truly an awesome visual.

Certainly way out of my depth here, but it does seem the variables imposed through the floating X are extreme. Not sure how deep the water is where they are, but I wonder if they could set up something similar to a shallow water offshore drilling rig. Actually have a solid unmoving platform for landing with the safety of open water. Probably a good reason why not, but seems possible to anchor a platform to a shallow sea floor for long enough for proof of concept to asses the risk and potentially move to dry land.
 
OK, looks like they are narrowing in on the cause. A Musk tweet.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/588166157510828033

- George Gassaway
Original twitter sequence:

John Carmack ‏@ID_AA_Carmack (to)
@elonmusk Congratulations! How many engines are lit for landing? Can you differentially throttle for more degrees of control?

Elon Musk @elonmusk (to)
@ID_AA_Carmack Looks like the issue was stiction in the biprop throttle valve, resulting in control system phase lag. Should be easy to fix.

IAA_Carmack is John Carmack from Armadillo Aerospace. That tweet was apparently a little inside info from Elon to someone else he respects who is also working with vertical landing rockets.

Another very recent tweet from SpaceXEngineer:

https://twitter.com/SpaceXEngineer/status/588375834030776320

"Holy cow... We got go-pro footage from the barge... It's unreal! Literally landed and then tipped over, ACS thrusters trying their hardest"
 
So close. That was surely painful to watch live from the control room, as the ACS fights to prevent the rocket from tipping over.

[YOUTUBE]BhMSzC1crr0[/YOUTUBE]


Reinhard
 
Sooooo close!

Here is some Space Funk to lighten the mood after seeing that tip over explosion...

[video=youtube;yypBjVpDJZY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yypBjVpDJZY[/video]
 
So close. That was surely painful to watch live from the control room, as the ACS fights to prevent the rocket from tipping over.

[YOUTUBE]BhMSzC1crr0[/YOUTUBE]


Reinhard

Man that is great footage...now I understand the yeah we did it followed by the darn look on their faces in the control room. Regardless of the final outcome this is an amazing feat of engineering and they should be supremely proud and excited...I am for them.
 
So close. That was surely painful to watch live from the control room, as the ACS fights to prevent the rocket from tipping over.

[YOUTUBE]BhMSzC1crr0[/YOUTUBE]


Reinhard

I can't seem to view it. I'm getting a message that the video is private.
 
Blocked for me too, but............................



I happened to find the video here - https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017259003 - which does work.
Warning - the source website might make some people around here whine and cry.

s6

Thanks for posting. That was an epic rocket crash. I hope they can get this systems to work, but in the meantime, the videos are really awesome.

My Pod Rocket (the Mega Der Red Max kitbash with pods on the fins) has successfully stuck the landing twice. I am willing to work as a consultant for SpaceX. I will work for rides.
 
I wonder why they don't just place a giant fire proof pillow on the Pad to capture it.
Beneath the pillow they could place a series of massive Electro-magnets to ensure the capture.
At landing there could be a fire suppression system activated that would prevent any post landing fire.

Now that's just silly! A huge fireproof pillow! Bah!

What they need is a giant trampoline covered in Velcro.
 
Strange, I am getting the same thing...possibly it was pulled from YouTube maybe at SpceX's request?



I viewed it earlier, no good now, I don't know what the big deal is with them, they are trying to recover it, better than just letting it splash down and sink in the ocean. We should be able to see their progress, live even, we're paying for it.

2 minutes later now, and working
 
Last edited:
Now that's just silly! A huge fireproof pillow! Bah!

What they need is a giant trampoline covered in Velcro.

Now we're thinking; you'd better take this off the web before SpaceX steals your idea and patents it, you could probably sell it to them and make jillions! That's how it works, right?

Nate
 
I viewed it earlier, no good now, I don't know what the big deal is with them, they are trying to recover it, better than just letting it splash down and sink in the ocean. We should be able to see their progress, live even, we're paying for it.

Actually, we're not paying for the boostback part of the flight. We are paying for the delivery to the space station, and that's why that part is live on NASA TV. The boostback and recovery is SpaceX's own research and development project, so they are paying for that part, and they don't have to share any of it. There are a lot of companies that would not share as much as they have.
 
In case there was anyone who was still wondering why the platform is unmanned, the last two or three seconds is all you need to see to figure it out...
 
Back
Top