A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Falcon 9 Landing failure



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 10th 15, 11:47 PM posted to sci.space.station
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default Falcon 9 Landing failure


http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0UP08F20150110
"Close by not cigar".

But I sounds like an easy fix.

"Grid fins worked extremely well from hypersonic velocity to subsonic, but
ran out of hydraulic fluid right before landing," Musk wrote on Twitter.

Next flight will have 50% more fluid.

So getting closer!

  #2  
Old January 11th 15, 10:02 AM posted to sci.space.station
Brian Gaff[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default Falcon 9 Landing failure

Interesting concept, but as has been said, it has to impact on the lift
potential so the less weight the better I'd assume
If they manage this and can reuse components, then it would be interesting
to see how they perform.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Greg (Strider) Moore" wrote in message
...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0UP08F20150110
"Close by not cigar".

But I sounds like an easy fix.

"Grid fins worked extremely well from hypersonic velocity to subsonic, but
ran out of hydraulic fluid right before landing," Musk wrote on Twitter.

Next flight will have 50% more fluid.

So getting closer!



  #3  
Old January 13th 15, 07:58 AM posted to sci.space.station
snidely
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,303
Default Falcon 9 Landing failure

JF Mezei submitted this gripping article, maybe on Monday:
On 15-01-10 17:47, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

"Grid fins worked extremely well from hypersonic velocity to subsonic, but
ran out of hydraulic fluid right before landing," Musk wrote on Twitter.


I looked at the apcex web site, saw nifty pictures and heavy
html/javascript, but no description on how stage 1 lands.

Does anyone know of some web site (or provide explanation here) of the
principles involved in the tube landing upright ?

Does the return involve powered flight for most of the way, including
horizontal flying or is this just a cut the engines, drop down
vertically, and then light engines to land type of deal ?

Are parachutes involved to slow down and give the tube vertical
orientation ? Or is it all done with fuel/aerodynamics ?

"ran out of hydraulic fluids". Wouldn't hydraulics normally be in a
closed loop system where there is no loss ?


URL:http://justatinker.com/Future/
has a graphic (referenced by NBCNEWS.COM)
indicating 3 burns. Durations are not shown.

The tests with Grasshopper and F9R-Dev1 should give an approximation of
the landing burn, though.

/dps

--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl
  #4  
Old January 13th 15, 08:01 AM posted to sci.space.station
snidely
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,303
Default Falcon 9 Landing failure

JF Mezei explained on 1/12/2015 :

Are parachutes involved to slow down and give the tube vertical
orientation ? Or is it all done with fuel/aerodynamics ?


Vertical orientation can be done with the paddle fins and steerable
motors.


"ran out of hydraulic fluids". Wouldn't hydraulics normally be in a
closed loop system where there is no loss ?


Just like the shuttle needed APUs to run the hydraulics, I'd imagine an
energy source was needed to provide the pressure that acutally moves
things. Lacking more detailed information, I'd guess that the energy
source ran out of juice. No Catepillar diesel engine aboard,
apparently.

/dps

--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl
  #5  
Old January 16th 15, 12:08 PM posted to sci.space.station
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Falcon 9 Landing failure

In article , says...

Interesting concept, but as has been said, it has to impact on the lift
potential so the less weight the better I'd assume
If they manage this and can reuse components, then it would be interesting
to see how they perform.


What makes Elon such a great business man, manager, whatever is that he
sees the entire picture. It's not enough to build an electric car, he
build Supercharger stations for them and scattered them across the
country. He's a "big picture" kind of guy, so don't just look at their
reusability efforts solely in the context of Falcon 9.

So with that in mind, don't forget that 2015 should be the year Falcon
Heavy flies. With a Heavy, they should have plenty of performance
margin to spare for the recovery efforts. If they can recover the
boosters and the core first stage from that, they'll be recovering 27
out of 28 engines per launch. That's absolutely huge for a "first
generation" reusability approach.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
  #6  
Old January 16th 15, 12:12 PM posted to sci.space.station
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Falcon 9 Landing failure

In article mn.65657df13518d3be.127094@snitoo,
says...

JF Mezei explained on 1/12/2015 :

Are parachutes involved to slow down and give the tube vertical
orientation ? Or is it all done with fuel/aerodynamics ?


Vertical orientation can be done with the paddle fins and steerable
motors.


"ran out of hydraulic fluids". Wouldn't hydraulics normally be in a
closed loop system where there is no loss ?


Just like the shuttle needed APUs to run the hydraulics, I'd imagine an
energy source was needed to provide the pressure that acutally moves
things. Lacking more detailed information, I'd guess that the energy
source ran out of juice. No Catepillar diesel engine aboard,
apparently.


The energy source is likely the same pressurant tank (nitrogen?) that
pressurized the fuel and oxidizer tanks. That is used to pressurize a
tank of hydraulic fluid that powers the actuators for the grid fins. To
save mass, the system is "open" in the sense that once the fluid passes
through the actuator, it can't be used again. There is speculation (on
the net) as to whether or not the fluid is dumped overboard or caught in
a waste tank.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
  #7  
Old February 6th 15, 07:18 PM posted to sci.space.station
David Spain[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 314
Default Falcon 9 Landing failure

On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 12:23:17 PM UTC-5, JF Mezei wrote:
SpaceX posted a vine of the stage one "close but no cigar" landing attempt

https://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK

I hope a real video on youtube will/is available


Done! (awhile ago)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMAtCQEPLeQ

Dave
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Awesome video of the new Falcon reusable rocket launching and landing [email protected] Policy 23 April 30th 14 01:27 AM
SpaceX video showing Falcon 9 stages and Dragon performing avertical landing David Spain Policy 14 October 15th 11 09:51 PM
SpaceX video showing Falcon 9 stages and Dragon performing avertical landing Space Cadet[_1_] Policy 7 October 6th 11 09:00 PM
Falcon 1: stage separation failure? Damon Hill[_4_] History 12 August 4th 08 03:41 AM
STS-116 Landing Replays /POST-LANDING NEWS CONFERENCE /STS-116 - REITER IN CREW QUARTERS John Space Station 0 December 24th 06 11:51 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.