This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

Good Falcon 9 Launch – Will Try Again for Drone Ship Landing

By Marc Boucher
NASA Watch
January 11, 2015
Filed under , , ,
Good Falcon 9 Launch – Will Try Again for Drone Ship Landing

SpaceX Launches Dragon to the ISS – 1st Stage Does Not Land Successfully, SpaceRef
“Today’s launch of the SpaceX Falcon 9 to the International Space Station (ISS) on its fifth commercial resupply (CRS-5) was successful. The Dragon spacecraft is safely in orbit heading towards a Monday rendezvous with the ISS. The SpaceX attempt of landing the first stage on the drone ship was not successful.”
Images of damage to the SpaceX Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship. Click for larger images.

SpaceX Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship

More on the next page.

SpaceX Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship
SpaceX Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship

SpaceRef co-founder, entrepreneur, writer, podcaster, nature lover and deep thinker.

51 responses to “Good Falcon 9 Launch – Will Try Again for Drone Ship Landing”

  1. Terry Stetler says:
    0
    0

    Not sure characterising the landing attempt as a “failure” is entirely accurate. Musk’s Tweet indicates a hard, but relatively accurate, landing. Previously they had a landing radius of 10 km, but now it’s down to 10’s of meters or less. Not bad shootin’, Tex!

    Previously the USAF had denied a landing at the Cape because with the previous radius a miss could take out infrastructure. That case is harder to make today. That and the Environmental Assessment for a SpaceX landing facility at LC-13 has come out and it looks like a go.

    http://www.patrick.af.mil/s

    • richard_schumacher says:
      0
      0

      It could even land in a cornfield and fly itself out again. Try that with a winged craft.

      • Jafafa Hots says:
        0
        0

        Making a lot of popcorn in the process.

      • rktsci says:
        0
        0

        There are good reasons why a landing on a soft surface like a cornfield are not likely. And taking off would be problematic also. You want a hard, dry surface.

  2. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Robert Goddard’s early moon rocket tests were called failures too. Good company 🙂

    Funny the title to this thread keeps changing Marc 🙂

  3. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    I would hope the DOD drops its objection to landing at the Cape now. The Atlantic can be calm, but seas of 5-7 feet are common. I’ve been off the Cape when the waves were 20 feet and occasionally 30. There’s just no way even a barge of that size can be a reliably stable platform for a rocket that is very tall and doesn’t have a very wide footprint. Remember that after it lands there is nothing holding it down. You would never, ever leave a structure of this height unsecured on a ship for even a minute because wind or waves might tip it over. In the Gulf (for the Texas site) where seas are generally lower it might be more practical.

    Interesting that Musk reports the grid fins ran out of hydraulic fluid before landing. Is it an open-loop hydraulic system?

    • david says:
      0
      0

      From their press kit from CASSIOPE mission: “Kerosene from the turbopump also serves as the hydraulic fluid for the thrust vector
      control actuators on each engine, and is then recycled into the low-pressure inlet. This design eliminates the need for a
      separate hydraulic power system, and eliminates the risk of hydraulic fluid depletion. Kerosene is also used for
      regenerative cooling of the thrust chamber and expansion nozzle.”

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Would that mean they just ran out of fuel???

        • Jeff Havens says:
          0
          0

          That could explain the “hard landing” too….

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            Not sure. The fins operate during periods when the engines are not firing, and Musk refers to hydraulic fluid rather than fuel.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            I have the waffle fins have seperate hydrolic system that uses gas and that it is an open system. Therefore most likely the booster made contact with the barge at its proper speed and broke a leg or two. The puddle/dent on the deck is not much.

        • david says:
          0
          0

          I don’t work for them but yes yes, I would say propellant budget margin calculated preflight was short compared to actual. It happens. Aerospace engineer. There are uncertainties, we know hat we know but we don’t know what we don’t know.

        • david says:
          0
          0

          yes, probably

      • John Thomas says:
        0
        0

        “eliminates the risk of hydraulic fluid depletion”.

        Apparently that risk was not eliminated. Rather, it lowers or reduces the risk of hydraulic fluid depletion.

        • JimNobles says:
          0
          0

          I believe the grid fins are on a separate open loop system than the actuator loop. The actuators control the engine gimbal and are not the same thing as the grid fins.

    • Neowolf says:
      0
      0

      I was wondering if Musk could build a SWATH (Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull) landing platform. Such ships use columns to minimize the cross sectional area intersecting the water surface, which reduces coupling of waves to ship motion.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        While underway the SWATH is stable, but the landing occurs with the barge stationary. Musk could use a semisubmersible oil drilling platform but that would be very expensive. My guess is that he is impatient to start recovering the booster back on land.

    • Terry Stetler says:
      0
      0

      Yes, its an open system. Musk tweeted they came up 10% short, so the next flight gets 50% more fluid reserves.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        How is the fluid pressurized? It cannot be from the engine TVC as the engines are not operating during the entire descent and in any case they use fuel rather than hydraulic fluid. What happens after the hydraulic fluid runs through the actuators? Is it dumped overboard?

        My guess is that an event like this would require several months of reviews by NASA before a design change and return to flight. Musk’s ability to make changes rapidly remains impressive.

        • imhoFRED says:
          0
          0

          Also:

          * this is the first time grid fins have flown on a Falcon 9

          * NASA probably would not have taken the risk of modifying a Falcon 9 on an operation mission

        • Terry Stetler says:
          0
          0

          “How is the fluid pressurized?”

          AIUI pressurized gas. Not sure if it’s the helium or nitrogen circuit, but guessing the latter.

  4. Joe Denison says:
    0
    0

    Congratulations to SpaceX on a fantastic launch and good luck next time landing the first stage.

  5. Spacenut says:
    0
    0

    Certainly not a failure, simply another step In Space-X’s steady road towards re-usability, they have clearly stated that the first few attempts may not go to plan (Landing on a sea going platform with a footprint not that much bigger than the landing legs of the F9 is always going to be tricky!) but with each attempt they will iron out more creases until they get it right, it can work, the testing so far have proved that beyond doubt and unlike NASA who would build a one off test article at vast expense Space-X has incorporated the landing technology fully into the F9 meaning that essentially any further landing attempts can be made at almost no expense until they do get it right.

  6. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    I saw a picture that showed a puddle/dent within the target area suggesting that the booster was right on target. Since the fins were not functioning it would seem that it did soft land, only since it was out of plumb, broke a leg and tipped over. I know Elon said it landed hard. Well how fast was it going when it made contact with the barge? Was it a “soft landing” or not?

    Seems to me a booster may have already soft landed on a barge.

    • chuckc192000 says:
      0
      0

      Since SpaceX is often less than transparent, I would have thought some enterprising news organization would have overflown the barge shortly after the crash to survey the damage firsthand. But alas, interest in the space program has waned to the point of crashes not being particularly newsworthy.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        I thought it was dark out? Also you can not simply “fly” into space that the FAA ect have given over to a launch.

        • chuckc192000 says:
          0
          0

          It was just before sunrise, and the flight restrictions would have been dropped within an hour after the landing/crash. Besides, the burning wreckage would have been readily visible in the dark.

      • fuzdis says:
        0
        0

        200 miles off the coast; I don’t know how much it costs to fly an aircraft that far out and back but I’m just not sure it’d pay for itself.

    • Jeff Havens says:
      0
      0

      Hmm.. now to think on it, this was the first time the deployable landing legs actually touched down on something solid — wasn’t it? Can’t count the previous tests, Grasshopper, or technically F9RDev, since it lifts off with the legs already locked down… this could be just an instance of a leg not locking or going past impact tolerance.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        Or it simply was not hovering and came down a little to fast and tilted a bit add in the high wind speeds and the pitching drone ship … I really doubt it was anything else, you wouldn’t need anything else. Musk also stated they ran out of hydrolic fiuld for the stablizing fins. So titled landing seems most likely?

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        With with flapping grid fins she LANDED a little crook! My final bet! 🙂 That one leg snapped like a toothpick!

  7. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

    Once coming down vertical inertia would carry debris to the water. A too long of burn on the boost back would overshoot the landing pad. They would then adjust back with another burn. Hopefully not running out of fuel before they get the ballistic landing point where they want it. It can be assumed everything will go perfect or that an overshoot would land in an open field. I wonder if the authorities will accept that. If they launch at a small angle and the 1st stage falls close enough to fly back to the landing pad. The 2nd stage coasts until the right angle is reached to fire to get the usual 200mi. high point orbit, ready for the 2nd circle burn. Maybe not enough fuel in the 2nd. stage. If not possible I guess an overshoot would not be more likely to land on my house than an airplane crash. So whatever.
    Interesting and hurts credibility that the enviro paper still thinks that SpaceX is now landing the 1st. stage by parachute. A main landing pad and 4 others. No multi landings from Heavy.

  8. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

    The reason for the crash may be they may not have radar altitude. They may be only relying on GPS. Elon says next month, but that is a GTO. The sats are the new all electric and will be 2. They must really get the weight down so they can launch 2 and make a landing.

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      as I understand it, the first stage landing system does include radar, and possibly also lidar. unfortunately, SpaceX has not publicly provided much information. GPS is used for guidance during terminal descent phase.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        I would be surprised if the barge didn’t stream (possibly bi-directional) navigation data for active terminal guidance. It certainly would be straightforward. But, as always, we must wait until Mr. Musk deigns to share with the steaming masses in some tweet.

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          i’m given to understand that a “homing beacon” on the ship is part of Blue Origin’s patent, so what SpaceX did to work around that is put the GPS on the stage itself for terminal guidance.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            The station at the Cape, the chase boat, and the barge all have transceivers operating on 2090mhz.
            The barge also has a second transceiver operating on 2093 mhz. The rocket stages themselves have multiple transmitters at higher frequencies.
            It that 2nd barge radio a backup? Something more? Dunno.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      It was shortage of fluid.
      The next attempt is on Jan 29, which is going to L1.

  9. Yale S says:
    0
    0

    I don’t understand the common (but not universal) headline of the ‘failure”.
    No, while fabulous if it worked 1st time out of the box, but in a “fly it and try it” test regime, you iterate into success – learning how to do it at each step.

  10. richard_schumacher says:
    0
    0

    Did the loss of hydraulic fluid in fact contribute to the crash? If it occurred “right before landing”, as Musk tweeted, surely the fins would have had very little control authority.

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      depends when “just before landing” was. the fins have the most influence when deep into the atmosphere. we’ll need a precise timeline of events and a much more detailed account of what happened to know for sure, but it sounds like the stage went out of control for a time. possibly commands were sent to the fins without them responding. they may even have been stuck in whatever their last position was, and if that happened, the stage’s engine would have been fighting against the fins… while they’re still acting on the stage. it’s possible that the stage had to rely solely on gimballing the engine for error correction, with the fins giving contrary guidance. that alone could account for the inaccurate / hard landing.

  11. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Musk said he pretty much made up the 50/50 stat when pressed to explain it. The way I figure stats, that means near 100% next time lol 🙂 Anyone want to bet me??

  12. Yale S says:
    0
    0

    Musk states that shortage of hydraulic fluid was cause of hard landing:

    On Jan. 10, closely held SpaceX narrowly missed the first-ever bid to recapture a spent rocket, a key step toward reusing launch vehicles. Musk said today he’s more confident the next lift-off, set for Jan. 29, will hit the mark, with a soft vertical touchdown atop an unmanned recovery vessel about the size of a soccer pitch or a U.S. football field.

    “If we had not run short of hydraulic fluid we would have actually landed,” Musk said. “So for the next flight we’ve got 50 percent more hydraulic fluid margins. We’ve got a real decent chance in about three weeks.”

  13. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    UFOs will be seen at Pad 13

    http://spaceksc.blogspot.co