SpaceX Landing Attempt Video Released

An anonymous reader writes: Last week, SpaceX attempted to land a Falcon 9 rocket on an autonomous ocean platform after successfully launching supplies to the ISS. It didn't work, but Elon Musk said they were close. Now, an amazing video has been recovered from an onboard camera, and it shows just how close it was. You can see the rocket hitting the platform while descending at an angle, then breaking up. Musk said a few days ago that not only do they know what the problem was, but they've already solved it. The rocket's guiding fins require hydraulic fluid to operate. They had enough fluid to operate for 4 minutes, but ran out just prior to landing. Their next launch already carries 50% more hydraulic fluid, so it shouldn't be an issue next time.

Comments

Wait a minute

[Immerman]

It suddenly occurred to me that I've never heard of a hydraulic system "using up" its fluid before. Anyone know anything about how/why the rocket is different?

Re:Wait a minute

[pushing-robot]

Less complexity, less weight (and gets lighter as you use it). No pumps, no power source for pumps, no return lines, just a pressurized tank and a few valves.

Of course, you have to know how much you'll need before the flight, and the longer you'll need it the lesser the savings over a traditional system.

Re:Wait a minute

[kellymcdonald78]

Falcon uses RP-1 as hydraulic fluid so it is likely burned as fuel

Try Again Next Time

[Forgefather]

What gets me most about this is the nonchalant attitude.

"yea we blew up the rocket and the barge, but no biggie. We'll do better next time"

I think that is why nerds get so exited over SpaceX. That attitude of not letting fear of failure dictate future actions.

Re:Try Again Next Time

[EndlessNameless]

The fact what they think went wrong was insufficient hydraulic fluid, and not their engineering process that allowed a major mistake to make it into the design and not be detected during testing, is the *real* problem.

It was detected during testing. Their entire retrievable/reusable concept is being developed and tested right now. Their contractual requirement is to put payload into orbit. The landing mechanism is merely an economic advantage for the company that will keep their costs lower; their contracts certainly don't specify it as a requirement.

Some shops use an iterative design process. It usually comes with being new to the market (and thus lacking the funds for extended pre-operative testing).

Some shops even do iterative design as standard practice when they are well-funded.

They were only required to launch supplies to the ISS. The ability to test and refine their landing mechanism is a bonus for the company. Hell, NASA's other contractor doesn't even have a reusable vehicle.

In conclusion: Do you know what we call a service that fulfills its contractual requirements? A success.

Well Done, SpaceX

[Anonymous Coward]

This was the first Falcon 9v1.1 flight [1] with gridfins and [2] sent to land on a teeny tiny little platform at sea (a MUCH smaller target than an aircraft carrier, while descending from MUCH higher than any carrier pilot and having no wings and only VERY limited fuel and throttle-range for lift and control)

It was an excellent display of competence that puts Boeing and Lockheed-Martin to shame; both mega-corps have been sucking billions from the government nipple for many decades without ever once even TRYING to make such an improvement for which they certainly had the expertise and resources. These giant aerospace companies were born as innovative entrepreneurial entities that invested in technological advances and experiments to advance "the state of the art" in order to win their share of the free market.... but after the deaths of their founders they got hired-gun CEOs and moved to a model of only innovating when they could get the government to give them billions of dollars to do it. With many decades of "cost-plus" contracts (where the government pays "whatever it costs, PLUS some percent as profit") the big bloated defense contractors have had no incentive to innovate (ABSOLUTELY ZERO incentive to reduce costs) and have become lazy. SpaceX and more more like it are needed to drive the big old firms into either returning to efficiency and innovation, or bankruptcy.

Re:Fix slashdot!

[ganjadude]

you see ads?

Re:Curiously familiar

[Loki_1929]

Based on my experience in Kerbal, they're 95% of where they need to be. They've done the really hard stuff (controlled burns to bring the craft down at the right spot, slowing the descent at the right time without running out of fuel, etc) successfully. Properly orienting the rocket should be relatively easy assuming that the systems responsible for that haven't run out of fuel. The fact that the engine was able to get it that close without the fins working speaks volumes for how well the thing is operating.

Even if something else goes wrong the next time or two, they'll have a successful landing shortly. The simple fact that it hit the platform ought to be enough to let them start trying on land after another one or two similar attempts. As failures go, this was extremely successful.

I'll take that kind of progress any day.

[xeno]

Hey, as these things go, this was a very very good failure. Consider that we've just progressed from the old reality's typical "the vehicle will splash down somewhere in this 500-square-mile area of the ocean," to Spacex's new reality of "we accurately flew down to a 0.0018-square-mile platform, and borked the touchdown on this first try."

I'll take that kind of progress any day.

Re:Curiously familiar

[Anonymous Coward]

The 1960's called and want their moon lander back. Hell, boeing did this in the early 90's on earth. Color me unimpressed.

Re:Curiously familiar

[ColaMan]

Firstly, it was considerably easier to do it on the moon. Low orbital speed, 1/6 the gravity, no air resistance on descent, very light lander (as it wasn't pushing 40+tons of second stage to orbit).

Secondly, this stage was doing Mach 8 to 10 at about 80km altitude when it separated from the second stage. They did an extra burn that briefly popped it out of the atmosphere, reversed its course, then did a hypersonic re-entry tail first and (nearly) landed on a 50x60m barge.

Nobody has done that before. Not the guys with the shuttle SRB's, they just fell back to earth (and were strong enough to withstand the tumbling in the atmosphere, being SRBs). Not Boeing with it's dinky little hops of 10,000 feet in a continuously-stable attitude at subsonic speeds. Nobody has gotten this far before with the return of the first stage of a liquid-fuelled booster. Seeing as those things are enormously complex and very expensive, it'd be great to get one back in one piece to use again.