I just tuned in so didn't see the video of the stage landing attempt. Was there video of the touchdown?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
The only thing seen was vibration of the ASDS, followed by smoke and a landed booster with lots of fire, then a skip to even more fire and lots of black smoke, which was the last image we saw. Later we were told that the booster had been lost. I expect the very last image was a toppled booster. How and why will likely be explained later.
Changing the subject. There was a very cool shot just after MECO and first stage separation. SpaceX placed a camera in the main booster pointed at the second stage. It showed the second stage firing and then boosting away. In just a few seconds the second stage was moving very quickly. That was a new visual and quite awesome.
Last edited:
Maybe it hit too hard and weakened one of the legs too much. I went back and watched and paused the video and could see the stage had landed properly. The smoke is just clear enough that you can see the upright booster and the white and black from where one of the legs was deployed. There is about a quarter second of video which shows the booster standing and stable. A video skip then... You can see lots of fire and it still looks like it's standing there with flames running up the side of the booster. Then lots of black smoke...
Elon twittered that they will post the video when they get it. Maybe later today.
Last edited:
Agreed, I noticed that immediately and thought "there is a new view I have not seen before!" That was pretty cool.
I went back and watched the few seconds showing first stage touchdown several times. I appeared that the stage landed on the deck but there was so much smoke that I couldn't tell how stable it was.
hockeythug
Active Member
The technical feed included both a little more from that camera as well more from the first stage camera after separation when it was floating back down if you want to go back and watch.
Yes, and with already four retrieved boosters crowding the storage hall, it makes good sense that SpaceX tried something more difficult with more risk.
My own experience with tax-payer funded research organisations tells me that NASA would (have to) be too risk adverse to learn something that way.
Already looking forward to the next launch.
glhs272
Unnamed plug faced villian
Congrats to SpaceX for another successful mission. This seems like a good learning experience for SpaceX. If they can perfect the multi-engine landing profile to compensate when thrust from one engine is not sufficient, this just makes powered mars landings safer.
Amid the smoke and flames the first stage can be seen intermittently, standing upright with no discernible lateral movement and with the engines shut down within the outermost ring of the OCISLY deck at T+00:08:42, T+00:08:43, T+00:08:46, T+00:08:47.
So it looks like the touchdown was somewhat controlled and soft.
This is just my speculation: Once at a stand still there was little air movement around the stage, so the flames at the bottom of the stage would cause the outer booster wall and with it the tanks with the remaining fuel to get so hot that they ruptured, after which the fuel ignited causing the RUD. Or maybe the heat just caused a landing leg to collapse.
We will see.
Last edited:
glhs272
Unnamed plug faced villian
From what I heard, the issue is that one of the 3 engines didn't reach full thrust (or not quickly enough), therefore it didn't slow down quickly enough. In other words it hit the deck too fast. Basically a repeat of the SES-9 problem.
I have the same question. I thought this mission was another payload to GTO as SpaceX has done multiple times this year.
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
Much more than that. The payload satellites were limited to 5G, so the second stage actually had to throttle down to limit acceleration to that. Ludicrous mode is a bit over 1G.
Well, each GTO mission is different, not only with respect to payload mass but also the energy of the payload in the GTO (and surely other things too). The GTO is eliptical with one end point touching the geostationary orbit, more energy is better for the payload's final insertion (i.e. for the customer), but more costly in rocket fuel. So SpaceX really has an incentive to spend all but the last drops of rocket fuel on each mission (and not only to reduce the risk of fire at the booster landing). Yesterday's payload was heavier than the previous, but not as heavy as the first GTO mission with a successful booster landing on the drone ship.
For each of these missions SpaceX state that the booster retrieval is experimental, which must mean that they are trying out something new. For example, (although I cannot say why) yesterday's stage 1 entry burn started 10 seconds later than that of the previous launch, that's on the order of 20 km flight at the MECO's speed.
But it is true that it is my own guess that by trying something new they tried something more difficult and risky. I guess I like to imagine that that's how SpaceX was "pushing the envelope".
Last edited:
Regarding better video of the stage landing, I guess now we have to wait for OCISLY to return to port so the onboard video camera files can be accessed and the videos of the landings released?
I know there was a RUD, but I would really like to see better images of what happened, since it looked like the stage touched down upright on the deck.
I know there was a RUD, but I would really like to see better images of what happened, since it looked like the stage touched down upright on the deck.
Here is a satellite image of the ASDS. I don't know about you, but I can see a mostly intact booster laying across the deck. Others looking at this picture see the base of the booster standing and the top half has fractured off and is laying across the deck...
It's not that clear an image but it does add to the discussion.
We'll know more when a video file is uploaded. According to Elon it will happen later today. We all know Elon and timetables... Mr. Optimist.
