CptRichardson Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 1 hour ago, PB666 said: She kind of adds an atmosphere to the 'cast. EDIT: Apparently the rocket landed, but the internal damage causes a fire. Rocket base is still upright on the barge. Barge appears to have been unaffected. So it does appear to have been some sort of high g-force acceleration damage. - - - - - - - Well, that's actually exactly what I called. Well, it goopified itself. Should be entertaining to watch the time-lapse of the poor rocket melt down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, CptRichardson said: Well, that's actually exactly what I called. Well, it goopified itself. Should be entertaining to watch the time-lapse of the poor rocket melt down. I suspect there was a blow out of the fuel lines or tanks, that is the unplanned disassembly event. I put the video on 0.25 speed, it looks to me like the landing was up right, but the engines slammed hard into the deck, the gear rebounded on one side for a moment and it settled back into position. Not sure if any engines were dislodged. Heres the vid. Go to about 9 seconds over the next 2 seconds it looks like the structure is rebounding and then settling. Focus on the right side bottomish of the F9 core. Yep as it lands it reaches its lowest apparent position and right most position, as verified by two background reference points, it then bounces up maybe half a meter maybe meter and then it pushes over by maybe couple of feet at the base but not the top. It did not appear to have a left moving momentum at landing, so some sort of thrust was applied to the right, possibly an explosion from the side of the lower part of the rocket. Edited June 16, 2016 by PB666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingman703 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 Don't know how your reading anything off of that, I can barely see the outline of a burning rocket, forget about seeing "rocket bounce". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Wingman703 said: Don't know how your reading anything off of that, I can barely see the outline of a burning rocket, forget about seeing "rocket bounce". Yeah and the heat produces optical distortion. I laid some fixed point on the monitor (not mouse) the back ground points at 9 sec are static, but the bottom left of the rocket does a bit of a hop to the left. I'm trying to judge if it was a horizontal drop or a bounce, it looks like the POV on the left is somewhat distorted at the beginning by scattering caused be the cloud. The positions are basically static right left until about 2 seconds after landing, but then there is a huge cloud the protrudes to the right, and there after the position of the base is more to the left. But I think that my view point is distorted it did not bounce left, the bottom attachment point of the strut is bouncing up and down. Yep, definitely bounced, good bounce. The rocket came back largely erect, feet first, slammed engines into the deck, a flame ball then arises from the left and passes and dissipates to the right, the next view is the rocket somewhat elevated and then it settles down. The top side of the bottom landing strut use that as a reference point for the rocket. Use the light shining on the barges right side as a reference point for the camara angle. So thats why the called it an engine under-performance, they superseded the designed limits of the legs and the engine hit the deck, hard. Edited June 16, 2016 by PB666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asmi Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 On 15/06/2016 at 1:37 PM, Damien_The_Unbeliever said: Added to which, these are often fuel-starved situations. I seriously doubt there was fuel starvation. Because when it happens engines tend to explode due to excess amount of oxidiser, which turns fuel-rich mixture in combustion chamber (which is nominal for Merlins) into oxygen-rich, which so far only RD-1xx and NK-x3 can withstand (and even they can handle it only in very specific conditions). This is why most engines have built-in safety system which shuts it down if fuel flow is insufficient to maintain safe mixture ratio. Rocket engines don't work like your regular internal combustion ones, so analogies do not apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandias_the_Goat Posted June 16, 2016 Share Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) On 6/15/2016 at 11:03 AM, Mad Rocket Scientist said: We must invent new, easily typable words for various types of landing failure. I suggest softfail for when falcon lands softly (-ish) but then falls over. Jason-3, umm, that second failure. With the RCS thruster firing to keep it up after landing. What was that one? Crash-tionary: Boom: Explosion. Crash: Impact Velocity too great. Fall: Lands well but falls over. Kerbal: Both one and two. XD Edited June 16, 2016 by LetsGoToMars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 11 hours ago, Hysterrics said: Was the webcast overall really confusing for anybody else? There were multiple mistakes made by the hosts, it seems. (eg: Calling the landing burn the entry burn) I dunno, I watched the technical webcast because I KNOW WHAT GTO MEANS, TELL ME ABOUT THE DELTA-V REQUIREMENTS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 3 minutes ago, cubinator said: I dunno, I watched the technical webcast because I KNOW WHAT GTO MEANS, TELL ME ABOUT THE DELTA-V REQUIREMENTS! It was all good for except the blackout period. Thier just young peeps, dont expect them to be polished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) So this is a thing. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/743602894226653184/video/1 And that Falcon 9 is hovering. Edited June 17, 2016 by Motokid600 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 3 minutes ago, PB666 said: It was all good for except the blackout period. Thier just young peeps, dont expect them to be polished. I don't, it's just that I like my speeds in m/s instead of km/hr and my thrusts in kN instead of pounds, and I really wish they would tell how much delta-V is left in the current stage once in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 All KSP players know what to call this kind of failure: Out of fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said: All KSP players know what to call this kind of failure: Out of fuel. It went OoF! Which is a pity... Low thrust in an engine, huh? Yeah, running out of gas will tend to do that Edited June 17, 2016 by StrandedonEarth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerBlammo Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Good to have confirmation from Musk that it was propellant depletion! Here is that video in the web player (larger image) https://twitter.com/i/videos/tweet/743602894226653184 Looks to me that it approaches the ship faster but is slower settling down on the deck. It doesn't look like a hard impact from that angle but we are seeing it from a distance. Hopefully they will release additional imagery. For comparison CRS-8 landing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said: It went OoF! Which is a pity... Low thrust in an engine, huh? Yeah, running out of gas will tend to do that Not only that but throwing RP-1 half burned on the deck explaning the darker smoke and the fire ball that moved from left to right. Looking at the engine it appears to have lost thrust about 20-50 ft up and dropped, timing program problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerBlammo Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 36 minutes ago, PB666 said: Not only that but throwing RP-1 half burned on the deck explaning the darker smoke and the fire ball that moved from left to right. Looking at the engine it appears to have lost thrust about 20-50 ft up and dropped, timing program problem? Looks like it. As someone on NSF said "it landed too high". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, KerBlammo said: Looks like it. As someone on NSF said "it landed too high". Because with high T/W you need to "land" in several meters above the surface, then slowly "land again", spending more fuel. Otherwise: any slight inaccuracy — and you're lithobraking with nozzles. One of these two cases we can see. Yet to be clarified: which one. Edited June 17, 2016 by kerbiloid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dino1984 Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) Is it only my opinion or this landing was actually much slower than previous one? It looks like it came in fast and than slow down sooooo much. Maybe it was to slow? I mean maybe it took to long and thats why LOX depleted to early? Edited June 17, 2016 by dino1984 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotoro Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 It certainly looks slower to me...but it may just be the difference of view from previous landings I've seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dino1984 Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 I think they have tried to make it slower as they damaged landing leg last time and they just went to far with slowing it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 It definitely came down a lot slower than CRS 8. The ship slowed down to landing speed really high up then remained constant, but it took so long to descend that it ran out of LOX a few meters up. You can sort of see it go "thunk" right at the end before the smoke cloud engulfs it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) Next NS flight is on Sunday at 14:15 UTC, delayed from Friday. Capsule will have one out of three drogue and main chutes deliberately fail, and will have three more pathfinder experiments onboard (1 2 3). Launch and landing are to be streamed live at http://www.blueorigin.com starting 13:45 UTC. In other news, Bezos had a couple talks over the last few things, and gave out a few tidbits about Blue's operations. They now have about 700 people, and the ticket price for NS flights is to start at SS2 ticket range ($250-300K) and go down. Edited June 18, 2016 by Kryten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptRichardson Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 15 hours ago, Motokid600 said: So this is a thing. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/743602894226653184/video/1 And that Falcon 9 is hovering. Oh, so software error, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 I've been trying to wrap my head around this. Last night during EJ's stream a Space X employee stated that Falcon saw the low thrust on one of the radial engines and shut them both down early to prevent offset thrust forcing the center engine to do the rest of the work and due to gravity loses ran out of fuel a few feet above the ground. What I can't figure out is how that made for a hover. I would think two engines shutting down early would prevent Falcon from slowing down at all and crashing on the deck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozen_Heart Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Think it might have landed if it hadn't sat hovering. Only needed another second or so and it lost it there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hysterrics Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 17 hours ago, cubinator said: I dunno, I watched the technical webcast because I KNOW WHAT GTO MEANS, TELL ME ABOUT THE DELTA-V REQUIREMENTS! Yeah, I do too. But it's exciting to hear the hosts and crowd cheer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts