SpaceX F9 Dragon CRS SPX 16

[DocM]

Launch nominal, booster landing ended up in the drink however...

 

!!!!

@elonmusk
Grid fin hydraulic pump stalled, so Falcon landed just out to sea. Appears to be undamaged & is transmitting data. Recovery ship dispatched.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

 

 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

5 minutes ago, bguy_1986 said:

Wrong thread.  lol

/sigh...moved. 

 

Thanks!  LOL

[bguy_1986]

5 minutes ago, Jim K said:

/sigh...moved. 

 

Thanks!  LOL

I was looking for this thread trying to find out what happened and seen that notification come in.  I was watching it on a delay!  Surprised it was able to recover and do some sort of water landing.

[Beittil]

 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

1 minute ago, bguy_1986 said:

I was in the wrong thread trying to find out what happened.  Was watching it on a delay!  Surprised it was able to recover and do some sort of water landing.

Same here. From the onboard I thought it would have ended up breaking apart or hit land/water uncontrolled. Very surprised it made a soft landing.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Regarding the hydraulic pump...

 

 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

All the way down (post when the feed was accidently cut)

 

 

[DocM]

 

[Beittil]

Could be a fun experiment to see what a booster with this kind of salt water damages can do still. =D

[Unobscured Vision]

Well now ... I get home and see this ...

 

Glad the mission is fine. Glad the Falcon is fine too (if banged up). In fact, this is a testament to how robust these rockets really are. A fallover usually destroys rockets -- not these!

 

As we know, SpaceX does their best work when learning from failure. This will end up proving to be another lesson learned in order to make everything that follows that much more reliable and robust. That, I think, is what SpaceX needs more than anything right now; especially so far into BFR/Starship dev.

[Beittil]

 

Poor fellah

[DocM]

If they actually recover and reuse this vehicle it's going to ###### off all the right people.

[Unobscured Vision]

It's a safe bet they already know how they'll implement the backup hydraulic system, too.

[Beittil]

Barring some freak accident with the leftover propellants it shouldn't be to hard for them to tow this thing back into port, plop the cap on and lift it right out of the water and onto the cradle at the docks.

 

I am betting some spotters will be on the Jetty and at Exploration Tower all day now!

[Unobscured Vision]

They're going to have to approach carefully. HAZMAT suits, etc. in case of leaking propellant, for example.No chances will be allowed to be taken.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

I'm willing to bet this booster will not fly again.  Lots of stresses (bending/twisting) on the frame + salt water. 

 

It will be cool if it does...but I've got a feeling this will go to the scrap heap or become an outdoor decoration.

 

Those little stabilizer rockets did a terrific job.

[Unobscured Vision]

I think the cost of refurbishment will override the "cool factor", myself; at least for anything official.

 

SpaceX may instead use this one for testing and internal stuff (as stated). To see how far an "abused" Falcon 9 can be pushed before failure.

 

What's more likely is it'll be used for testing the Grid Fin Hydraulic Backup that they install. Then testing incremental upgrades as/if needed to other systems.

 

Then it'll go on-display somewhere.

[DocM]

The center Merlin was gimbaling like crazy too.

[DocM]

 

[Unobscured Vision]

... and this, friends, is why SpaceX is the very best. Their rockets are safety-oriented by default.

[DocM]

Chris G at NSF reports that CRS 16 and Es'hail both had COPV-2

 

That's 2 of the 7 flight requirement for commercial crew.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

 

 

 

[Skiver Veteran]

12 hours ago, Unobscured Vision said:

... and this, friends, is why SpaceX is the very best. Their rockets are safety-oriented by default.

Am I right in saying that it;s default path down is always to land in the water, It then makes the decision closer to the ground as to whether it can safely land or not and then corrects to go to the LZ?

 

I love the openness and honesty of Space X here, they were quick with an answer on the failure, why it failed and how they plan to correct it. They don't try and don't try to hide their failures in any way.

[Beittil]

2 hours ago, Skiver said:

Am I right in saying that it;s default path down is always to land in the water, It then makes the decision closer to the ground as to whether it can safely land or not and then corrects to go to the LZ?

You are indeed right