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

Falcon 9 First Stage landing Pictures Released (with Video)

By Marc Boucher
NASA Watch
January 16, 2015
Filed under ,
Falcon 9 First Stage landing Pictures Released (with Video)

Elon Musk Releases Pictures of Falcon 9 “Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly”, SpaceRef Business
“Elon Musk has released several images through Twitter of what he charaterizes as the “rapid unscheduled disassembly” of the Falcon 9 first stage as it approaches the SpaceX Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship. The pictures are spectacular.”

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

91 responses to “Falcon 9 First Stage landing Pictures Released (with Video)”

  1. Yale S says:
    0
    0

    Musk: Before impact, fins lose power and go hardover.
    Interesting. Was that really a “failsafe” position?

    • Spacenut says:
      0
      0

      I thought about that too but my guess is that if it was feasible or of any real use to have them fail into another position this would probably have been done already.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        I would have expected that folding down flat would be the safest. “Hardover” sound like tilted sideways – maybe a low-drag position?

        • Spacenut says:
          0
          0

          Maybe it just happens that is the position they fail in and to try to get them to fail in to a more benign position would be of little use and incur a significant and unacceptable weight penalty.

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            Similarly, designing the grid fins to not only deploy, but to reliably “fold down flat” when they lose hydraulic fluid would introduce the failure mode that they could “fold down flat” when they’re not supposed to. In other words, increasing complexity increases the number of failure modes. KISS (keep it simple stupid).

    • Todd Austin says:
      0
      0

      I would expect so. You would want that to protect the payload going uphill, which is the primary mission of any launch.

  2. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Next flights Booster will be SD ed. Scheduled Disassembly at Hawthrone 🙂

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

      DTARS:

      Good one!

      Next flight with GoreSat will give them lots of fuel reserves given the light weight of the payload. But, it’ll be another first for SpaceX too. This will be their first launch outside the Earth/Moon system. GoreSat is headed for Sol/Earth L1, a million miles closet to the Sun from Earth.

      It’s the entirely wrong direction from Mars, but it’s a start! 🙂

      tinker

  3. Yale S says:
    0
    0

    Since there is a SpaceX thread open, I will add comments by Musk from Jan 5 Reddit. The most important take-away is that the Raptor methane engine is now downsized from 1 2/3 million pounds of thrust to 500K.

    That, coupled with his plan to use a single core rocket, means it will have zillions of engines.
    ======================
    In your recent MIT talk, you mentioned that you didn’t think 2nd stage recovery was possible for the Falcon 9. This is due to low fuel efficiency of kerosene fuel, and the high velocities needed for many payloads (high orbits like Geostationary orbit). However, you also said that full reusability would be possible for the Mars Colonial Transporter launch vehicle.
    What have you learned from flights of Falcon 9 that taught you
    a) that reuse of its second stage won’t be possible and
    b) what you’ll need to do differently with MCT to reuse its second stage.
    — MUSK:
    Actually, we could make the 2nd stage of Falcon reusable and still have significant payload on Falcon Heavy, but I think our engineering resources are better spent moving on to the Mars system.
    MCT will have meaningfully higher specific impulse engines: 380 vs 345 vac Isp. For those unfamiliar, in the rocket world, that is a super gigantic difference for stages of roughly equivalent mass ratio (mass full to mass empty).

    ———————
    What kind of mass ratio do your upper stages have?
    — MUSK:
    With sub-cooled propellant, I think we can get the Falcon 9 upper stage mass ratio (excluding payload) to somewhere between 25 and 30. Another way of saying that is the upper stage would be close to 97% propellant by mass.

    ————————
    talk more about the grid fins that will be flying tomorrow? How do they compare to maneuvering with cold-gas thrusters?
    — MUSK:
    The grid fins are super important for landing with precision. The aerodynamic forces are way too strong for the nitrogen thrusters. In particular, achieving pitch trim is hopeless. Our atmosphere is like molasses at Mach 4!

    ————————-
    Design life of Merlin 1D has been mentioned to be 40 “cycles”. Could you expand on what a “cycle” is? Is it just a start of the engine?
    — MUSK:
    There is no meaningful limit. We would have to replace a few parts that experience thermal stress after 40 cycles, but the rest of the engine would be fine.

    —————————
    SpaceX’s current strategy revolves mostly around old style Rockets, even if they are now approaching complete reusability (Grasshopper rocks). Has SpaceX looked into Hybrid craft like the SABRE program happening in the UK, or look into the possibility of a space elevator (
    — MUSK:
    If you want to get to orbit or beyond, go with pure rockets. It is not like Von Braun and Korolev didn’t know about airplanes and they were really smart dudes.

    —————————–
    How will you secure the first stage of the Falcon 9 to the barge when it lands? Gravity or some mechanism?
    — MUSK:
    Mostly gravity. The center of gravity is pretty low for the booster, as all the engines and residual propellant is at the bottom.
    We are going to weld steel shoes over the landing feet as a precautionary measure.

    —————————–
    Emily Shanklin indicated in late 2013 that the Raptor would be the first of a “family of engines” designed for the exploration and colonization of Mars. Could you elaborate on her wording, i.e. was she simply referring to a vacuum version and standard version, or do you plan on building multiple methane-based engines with significantly different thrust and size specifications?
    — MUSK:
    Default plan is to have a sea level and vacuum version of Raptor, much like Merlin. Since the booster and spaceship will both have multiple engines, we don’t have to have fundamentally different designs.
    This plan might change.

    ————————–
    In order to use the full MCT design (100 passengers), will BFR be one core or 3 cores?
    — MUSK:
    At first, I was thinking we would just scale up Falcon Heavy, but it looks like it probably makes more sense just to have a single monster boost stage.

    —————————
    There has been a lot of speculation over comments about exactly how much mass you are hoping to send to the Martian surface with the MCT. Can you tell us how much cargo you would like to be able to land on Mars with MCT, not including the mass of the MCT itself?
    — MUSK:
    Goal is 100 metric tons of useful payload to the surface of Mars. This obviously requires a very big spaceship and booster system.

    —————————-
    Falcon Heavy. Some have speculated that at stage separation the Falcon Heavy center core is too far downrange and travelling too fast to be feasibly returned to the launch site. Could you go into some detail on whether you plan to use barge landings permanently for this core, expend it depending on the mission, or take the payload loss and boost back to the launch site?
    Mars. Could you please clarify what the Mars Colonial Transporter actually is? Is it a crew module like Dragon, a launch vehicle like Falcon, or a mix of both? Does it have inflatable components? Is MCT just a codename?
    Spacesuits. How does SpaceX plan to address the limitations and contribute to the advancement of current spacesuit technology to best serve humans enroute and on the surface of Mars? You mentioned in 2013 that there’d be an update to SpaceX’s “spacesuit project” soon – how is it coming along?
    — MUSK:
    Yes, the Falcon Heavy center core is seriously hauling a** at stage separation. We can bring it back to the launch site, but the boost back penalty is significant. If we also have to the plane change for geo missions from Cape inclination (28.5 deg) to equatorial, then a downrange platform landing is needed.
    The Mars transport system will be a completely new architecture. Am hoping to present that towards the end of this year. Good thing we didn’t do it sooner, as we have learned a huge amount from Falcon and Dragon.
    Our spacesuit design is finally coming together and will also be unveiled later this year. We are putting a lot of effort into design esthetics, not just utility. It needs to both look like a 21st century spacesuit and work well. Really difficult to achieve both.

    ——————————-
    Has the Raptor engine changed in its target thrust since the last number we have officially heard of 1.55Mlbf SL thrust?
    — MUSK:
    Thrust to weight is optimizing for a surprisingly low thrust level, even when accounting for the added mass of plumbing and structure for many engines. Looks like a little over 230 metric tons (~500 klbf) of thrust per engine, but we will have a lot of them 🙂
    ————————————-

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      This makes me think that single-core has been quietly shelved in favour of something closer to the Atlas-V Phase 3A (five cores in a 2-1-2 formation with four or five engines apiece). A smaller engine might also make it better-performing in its vacuum-optimised upper stage version too.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        His earlier answer above was At first, I was thinking we would just scale up Falcon Heavy, but it looks like it probably makes more sense just to have a single monster boost stage.
        That seems to me to be more like a super-sized version of the Soviet N-1 (failed) Moon rocket.
        Like this, but BIG:

        • Spacenut says:
          0
          0

          My thought is something akin to some of the old Nova rocket concepts for direct ascent moon landings.

        • Ben Russell-Gough says:
          0
          0

          In fairness, N1 might not have failed if there had been funding for the right ground tests. That said, a 20+ engine core would likely have lots of engineering issues. Its only real saving grace is that it would be easier to use boost-back recovery than with multiple smaller cores.

  4. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    ULA chief just tweeted good luck to Spacex on next flight and said he still has people that worked on DCX offering to help!!!!

    Looks like Elon really knows how to make an impact!!!
    http://spacenews.com/images

    • Todd Austin says:
      0
      0

      If Boeing/ULA was really so gung-ho about reusing booster stages, they would have continued the work on DC-X on their own nickel when the SDIO and NASA funding ran out. Imagine what they might have achieved in the intervening 20 years.

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        They get a billion dollars a year from DOD for nothing yet they do nothing. And I’m sure they will try to get uncle sugar to put up big bucks to fight Spacex.

        News flash USAs major Spacex companies make billion dollar deal to buy more Russian Rocket engines for you and me to pay for. What? Russia says these engines can’t be used on military rockets? What cut is head mobster Putin and his thugs getting in this little deal??? We will never know. Did you know that 110 people own 35% of Russia’s wealth. The poor Russian People! 🙁

        • PsiSquared says:
          0
          0

          It’s interesting that you say ULA does nothing. Where did you get your expert inside information? When did you work for ULA? Obviously you must think you know something to make such a definitive statement.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Nope just been waiting 40 years for affordable space flight and they have had the ball in their court.

            Bet we see them pull rabbits out of their hats now that Elons fired a missile at them.

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Perhaps you shouldn’t confuse your emotional needs with facts.

          • Spacenut says:
            0
            0

            I tend to agree that the old space companies have been quite happy resting on their laurels for too many years, they have had no real interest in making big advances unless being paid via cushy cost plus contracts to do so. Unlike Space-x there is no one with dreams and a vision at the top, the only vision is making money, they just do what they are paid to do and as with almost all commercial companies it simply comes down to doing as little as possible while charging as much as possible. Elon Musk wants to colonize Mars, ULA and the like want to make money that is the difference.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            I assume he was talking about reusability. If so, based on ULA CEOs direct statements, they are doing nothing. maybe its just a head fake, maybe not.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          Income equality is a tough issue for sure and a serious subject for deeply-divided American politics to resolve. Keep in mind that it is a world-wide condition (see Piketty); in the USA, the Waltons have 42% of the total wealth (and this is not a simple picture( http://www.politifact.com/w….

          On the issue of ULA, you might not agree with current arrangements (nor do I), but to say they do nothing is over-the-top. I get the use of hyperbole, but keep in mind that they are able to launch milsats on a moments’ notice, among other useful tricks. Is it the cheapest/best use of taxpayer dollars? Not in 2015. But a decade ago, maybe.

          • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
            0
            0

            ‘A moment’s notice’! That’s totally incorrect. The DOD has a program to achieve such but no one is even close. Every launch company has had delays. ULA had a bird sit on the deck for several months due to an engine issue IIRC.
            Cheers

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Well, as I said, it’s easy to view today’s readiness with the glasses of yesterday. I would take issue with ‘totally incorrect’, but do agree that everyone is subject to certain vagaries.

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            in the USA, the Waltons have 42% of the total wealth

            Not quote. The wealth of the Walton family equals the total wealth of the bottom 42% of Americans, not 42% of America’s total wealth. (The bottom 42% of Americans own less than 1% of America’s wealth.)

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Quite correct. Thank you. Still scary though.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Apparently, we Baby Boomers b. 1946-1964 (73 million of us still alive -even after what we did in the 1960’s-70’s!) have 75% of the total wealth of the country. Since we have always got whatever we wanted, expect us to last forever. If we can’t take it with us, we ain’t going!.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Well there goes your credability.

  5. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Looks like a REAL space race to me 🙂

    • Spacenut says:
      0
      0

      Looks like “Real Space” to me. At last in Elon Musk we have someone with a real vision for space exploration who is not constrained by politics and has set real, simple and incremental goals. Unlike almost any other company who’s visions are limited simply as far as the next project Space-X under Elon’s guidance seem to be thinking of both the next project and how this will fit in and enable future projects in Elon’s push towards Mars to be carried out more efficiently and cost effectively. Can not wait to see the full details of his MCT plans!

  6. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    I’ll say it again! Elon, put a live video feed on the Barge/ship this time!!!!!

    Elon made a big mistake which is not putting live video on the last flight. You all disagreed, claiming control control blah!! Did that stop the crash head lines? Noo! What if he had shown it live last time? That video would have gone viral around the world on every news show!! And millions more would realize how close they are to reusable affordable rockets. Had he done this millions more would be interested in this next flight.

    The future is for the bold not the meek!!!

    Live feed this time Mr. Musk!!

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      In the sixties rocket crashes were on the news all the time while we tried to catch up with the Russians in the Space race. It creates Interest!!!

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        I am old enough to remember (50’s-60’s) when most rocket launches failed. Then the big news was when something didn’t blow up! ;-p

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        The Cold War is over and the Soviet Union doesn’t even exist anymore, so the US public isn’t quite as interested in the success or failure of launch vehicles as it used to be. I suppose a big fireball still looks good on TV, but I’m sure SpaceX would rather the media talk about the success of launching Dragon to ISS rather than the “kaboom” of a landing test. Managing public perception is always important to a private company.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Lesson from NASA The LIVE video of Orions flight was an advertizing master piece.

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      not necessary. like all test flights, the engineers should have a chance to go over the data first, before releasing anything.

      the only reason that there was any news about what happened is because Elon Musk tweeted about it. that’s his prerogative.

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Of course its his prerogative. Doug

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          your point is that Musk made a mistake. this is incorrect.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            This year maybe even next flight Spacex WILL have landed a reusable rocket Video or not.

            People say how bold Spacex is to do these tests at all. Instead of endless computer simulations. Why not let us watch? Which generates support.

            To get guys like Cruz to support new space they need to see that people are interested.

            There is a race going on at the track only your not allowed to watch! Don’t worry we’ll let you know in a few weeks what happened.

          • PsiSquared says:
            0
            0

            Whether you get to watch it live or a day or two later makes absolutely zero difference to what happens in the future.

            As it stands it’s obvious to many that the public’s interest in space flight is short lived at best. Further, the number of viewers watching it live is likely less or much less than the number of viewers who see footage later. If–and it’s certainly not a given–viewership means anything, live viewership is only a small part of that.

            Musk made no mistake in not showing the footage live.

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            SpaceX never live-streamed any of the Grasshopper tests. why are you insisting they live-stream these tests?

            they aren’t holding a horse race. this is SpaceX’s proprietary data. they can do with it what they want.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            I agree with you about the hopper test Doug

            This landing in my opinion is a defining point in history. It is the beginning of the reusable space age and while Mr. Musk has every right to release his data when he wants it is a shame that he isn’t letting us everyone be there for this important moment in time.

          • PsiSquared says:
            0
            0

            Yes, because waiting a few days makes such a huge difference. Alas, Musk only has to answer to himself for the landing efforts. To avoid further disappointment, I’d suggest coming to grips with that fact.

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            we are here. we’re watching it now. seeing it live really doesn’t make much of a difference, particularly considering the hour of the launch – i was sleeping when it happened. it made utterly no difference to me.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Doug
            I am 59
            I watched/heard Alan Shepard’s flight live.
            I watched Glens launch live plus follow up video.
            Watched many of the Gemmi reports live.

            Watched the first Steps on the moon live.

            I had hoped to watch the first landings on Mars.

            Do to public space bumblings it is not likely I will ever see us land on Mars or even see us go back to the moon.

            Since its possible to let’s us see this history live I think Mr. Musk should.

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            well, you can harass him on twitter. i’m sure complaining about it here on a space-related blog isn’t doing much good for your cause.

            it’ll be a lot easier to do a live-stream of a landing attempt when they’re doing it on land. you can probably wait ’till then, right?

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Good idea lol
            @dtarsgeorge @elonmusk

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            We are here watching it now

            Who is watching it now space geeks and science blogs

            It didn’t make my local news. It didn’t make the news hour. Had this video been released on the day of the launch or had been live. It would have gone viral. And that would be a good thing not a bad thing. More people would have learned what Spacex/new space is doing. More people would realize that the next flight to ISS is more than a food run. If you want public to get interested you have to show them! Timing makes a difference.

          • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
            0
            0

            Well it made the news here in Western Australia. ISS occassionally does and the first Dragon berthing did as well.
            Cheers

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Made the local news here in SW Florida, as did the launch.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Your in the rocket state I guess. Only the launch made news here that I know of.

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            i really doubt that streaming the crash live would have made it gone viral.

            there’s just not that many people who care about space – related stuff.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            And why don’t they care? Because we have made minimal progress to making space available to them. Why do I like space because I believed we could one day go to space.
            Musk is starting to show people it is possible again.

            The more they know/see what Spacex is really doing, crashes and all the more interest will be generated.

            Musk has releast his video, given his enemies the amo they need to mount an ad campaign against him if they want. It can’t hurt him. Only make Spacex more popular. A few years before I was born Robert Goddard was famous. A house hold name. What made him famous? That he was a great rocket scientist? No. What made him famous was the fact that he blew up the first “moon rocket”

            Show the next barge landing live Elon, can only help your cause!!!!!!

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            i’d argue that the same amount of interest is generated whether the video was released live or a few days later.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Disagree doug. My news was proof PBS hours didn’t show the video but they reported on the launch. Had they had the video that day they would have shown it. Much more impact!!

            How many news reports showed the near landing Doug vs those that reported on the launch??? How many more people would have seen that video and gone did you see that they nearly landed that MF. Dam that was cool!!

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Thanks for your help Doug. We made a great team. Be on time for the next launch. You never know

            Troll for Live History 🙂

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Can’t you just see that total wipeout on NBC Nightly? It would have been, too. A few days’ gave the needed insulation. SpaceX couches that big crash as a win- which it is. Try telling that to our under-educated country.

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            Very good point. most of the initial news reports described it as a failure, and later reports painted it in a much more favorable light (correctly, imo), as being a very, very near success for a first try.

            you don’t want negative reports with an explosion associated with your company’s name all over the nightly news. it’s much more favorable to have this imagery with a story of how close to a success it was.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            I thought you said it would make no difference, now you change, my point more people would see and become interested.

            First you get their attention with the crash makes little difference if its negative or positive attention.

            Then you couch them and blow them away with your success!!!

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            i don’t think seeing the live video would have made anyone more or less interested. i don’t think any more or fewer people would have watched the video live, is what i’m saying. the people who are interested in space travel are already interested. offering live video isn’t going to draw a larger crowd, particularly at 2 am.

            my comment refers to the negative press that was prevalent after the unsuccessful landing attempt (describing it as a “failure,” etc.). attaching the video of an explosion to that negative press would be very bad. you do not want the SpaceX brand painted with imagery of explosions and talk of failures.

            it’s much better that the video came out later, when the press was more positive about how close the landing attempt was to success.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Disagree Doug negative press with video will only make their successes more glorious.

            You see, you are suggesting Spin is better. In the long run TRUTH is better.

            They blew the F out of that rocket. But that what real rocket science is about .

            If you want to make something bright in a painting you put it next to the dark and it seems brighter.
            Same thing with showing your crashes VS your glorious landings.

            Bold in your face honesty is better than safe spin and wins in the end if you have a great product which they do!

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            you’ve never been in business / marketing, have you?

  7. NX_0 says:
    0
    0

    Holy Smokes!
    I watched that over and over and realized my hand was over my mouth.
    That’s the real deal, folks, not CGI.
    That was dynamic. Never saw anything like that with Grasshopper.
    NOW, looking at the pics of the damage to BargeX, I am amazed at how resilient it is.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      My reaction as well. That thing came screaming in from space…hard to over-state how big that step really is.

  8. Mark Madison says:
    0
    0

    Video of landing “https://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpV…“

  9. John Adley says:
    0
    0

    Nice missile!

    Seriously, the landing configuration looks very unstable. Is this designed to show off their missile guidance technology or to land a rocket booster so it can be used again?

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      The guidance fins ran out of fluid so they flipped to a position that tipped the rocket at an angle.

      The launch on Jan 29 has 50% more fluid so it should land properly.

      it should look like this;
      https://www.youtube.com/wat

      • richard_schumacher says:
        0
        0

        The biggest open question is, have they found a fireproof paint for the legs?

        :_>

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Those airfoils are incredibly inventive (aren’t they? or is this an old trick)? And I was thinking about those hokey landing legs while reading Mr. Musk’s comments on space suits, making them functional and cool at the same time.

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          Grid Fins have been around since the 1950s, they were first developed by the Soviets. many missiles and ICBMs (both US and Russian) have used them. notably, the N-1 rocket had them, as does the Soyuz capsule (for aerodynamic stability in an abort).

  10. Jeff Havens says:
    0
    0

    I wish we could get more data about wind conditions and such so that someone could create a animated graphic presentation of how this happened (or ask SpaceX to do it). I’m still trying to wrap my head around how the fins locking “just before impact” could cause this. I’m not a rocket scientist, so I don’t understand how these fins had such governance at lower speeds, and could make the top of the rocket slew so far off vertical. My best guess is it was a combination of the fins and the engine trying to compensate? Also, is it possible if the rocket’s guidance sees a problem like this, that it could increase thrust to actually go back up instead of just slowing down, giving the rocket extra time to correct (think parallel-parking your car, and pulling back out to re-adjust the backing angle)?

    That being said, “RUD” will now be in my vocabulary for the rest of my life. Thank you, Elon!

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      “RUD”- yea. I thought it was some sort of ‘inside rocketry’ term for the cognoscenti. Looks like he made it up.

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        It’s old engineering slang, not something Musk just made up. Google has that exact wording going back 8 years. (And a bunch of variations, “unplanned” is a common variant.)

        [That kind of jokey underplaying has a long history. It’s a parody of “dry” language in engineering test reports even when the outcome was… exciting. “Device ceased operating unexpectedly”. “Outcome was off-nominal”. “Device did not complete test”.]

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          and who says engineers lack a sense of humor!

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            Unfortunately this happens even when engineers aren’t trying to be funny. The following words tend to stick in my mind to this day: “Flight controllers here looking very carefully at the situation. Obviously a major malfunction. We have no downlink.”

            May they rest in peace…

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        The nuclear power industry brought us the serious, without intended humor, “spontaneous energetic disassembly” for an explosion. Orwell must be smiling from his grave.

      • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
        0
        0

        “RUD” has been around in various forms for a long time.

        http://en.wiktionary.org/wi

    • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
      0
      0

      it seems that the fins went “hard over” some 20-30 seconds before the landing burn started. the fins are supposed to be providing terminal guidance all the way down to touchdown, but couldn’t. so the only thing that could correct the guidance error is the main engine, once it’s been lit. i think what we see in the pictures / video is the engine trying very, very hard to compensate for being off target, and coming very close to where it needed to be.

      the Thrust-to-Weight ratio at landing is greater than 1, that is, the rocket is producing more thrust than it weighs. if it goes up again, it can’t come back down. SpaceX is trying to do a “hoverslam” where it touches down for a landing exactly when the descent velocity is neutralized, and they cut the engine exactly then.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Ah. So once the rocket knew it was in trouble, it went for a body slam, is that about right? ‘Can’t land upright, let’s put this sucker down in the trees’, sort of thing?

        The underlying lines of codes are amazing.

        • Jeff2Space says:
          0
          0

          The code seems to have done what it was programmed to do, which is to bring the stage down on the barge. But with the grid fins hard over, I’m sure this is a “corner case” that the software just didn’t handle as elegantly as it would have had the “corner case” been better taken into account.

          Still, hitting the barge will help make their case to the Air Force that they should be granted permission to build a landing pad (or more) somewhere on the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

        • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
          0
          0

          It’s really, really hard to guess what the rocket was doing immediately prior to the landing. for all we know it could have been corkscrewing around, wildly out of control thanks to the grid fins, with the rocket gimballing in an attempt to control itself.

          however, i think it’s much more likely that after the grid fin failure, it was off course, and the rocket was at the angle it was at in a valiant attempt to make it to the targeted landing site.

          as far as i know, the terminal guidance phase is all done by GPS. the ASDS is at a predetermined point, and the stage is using GPS to guide itself to that point. however, when the grid fins ran out of hydraulic fluid, it could not longer steer itself to that location, so was off course. when the engine lit for the landing burn, it tried, very very hard, to get back to that point.

          and as Elon Musk said, close but no cigar.

          • Jeff Havens says:
            0
            0

            Doug, appreciate your input/insight. The only off thing to all that you said was that there, *on face value*, is a big difference between the assumptions made to Elon’s statement of “just before landing” and what you said about “20-30 seconds before the landing burn started”. With all this rocket science, the second-to-second details make a big difference between a landing and a RUD.

            ..and that’s why I’d love to see an animation based on the telemetry. It would be quite a sight to behold. 🙂 All the wishes of luck for the next try!

          • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
            0
            0

            i would think “20-30 seconds before the landing burn started” fits nicely with “just before landing”

            particularly with this tweet in mind: https://twitter.com/elonmus

  11. Antilope7724 says:
    0
    0

    “…And the rockets’ red glare, the Falcon’s bursting in air,
    Gave proof through the night that our barge was still there…”