stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
So it looks like the sea had nothing directly to do with it. Looks like landing was perfect, but the leg gave in.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
After watching the instagram movie it appears the upper leg strut that extends to deploy the leg retracted as the Falcon tipped. Was this telescoping tube the failure point?
Saw this quote:
Saw this quote:
elonmusk Falcon lands on droneship, but the lockout collet doesn't latch on one the four legs, causing it to tip over post landing. Root cause may have been ice buildup due to condensation from heavy fog at liftoff.
Last edited:
According to Elon's tweet, the "lockout collet didn't latch". Sounds to me like whatever locks the leg into the open position did not function properly. I'm sure they are probably pretty frustrated that such a relatively easy thing to do (relative to how hard it was to actually land it) is what caused them to lose the vehicle. They'll learn from this and get it next time. For all we know the latest Falcon 9 might already have a better locking mechanism.
Well, I'm still trying to decipher what the words "lockout collet didn't latch" can mean:
* I know what a collet is on a machine tool: a friction-based collar that, through its outer threads, squeezes tight whatever shaft, etc., is inside the collar when a female threaded agent bears down on those outer threads.
* I would not use the word "latch" to describe the above action; so either there is some other function or Mr Musk was at a loss for another word during a tweet.
* "Lockout": can this be his way of describing the orientation of the landing leg when fully extended? If not, then I'm still confused.
* I know what a collet is on a machine tool: a friction-based collar that, through its outer threads, squeezes tight whatever shaft, etc., is inside the collar when a female threaded agent bears down on those outer threads.
* I would not use the word "latch" to describe the above action; so either there is some other function or Mr Musk was at a loss for another word during a tweet.
* "Lockout": can this be his way of describing the orientation of the landing leg when fully extended? If not, then I'm still confused.
I read somewhere that many Delta Clipper engineers now work at BlueOrigin. That Jeff company. I think the Delta Clipper experimental craft was well ahead of its time. No one had the guts to go on with that concept inside NASA. The successful vertical landings of Falcon 9 and BlueOrigin are an overdue tribute to this work.
(Warning: this is simply me speculating, I have no inside information) I think your understanding of "lockout" in this context is accurate.
In this context, the collet may not be compressed by a threaded outer piece, it may be a friction fit that at maximum pressure slides over a section of decreased radius and effectively "locks" in place. If the inner section was coated with ice the outer piece may have stuck in place prematurely.
In this context, the collet may not be compressed by a threaded outer piece, it may be a friction fit that at maximum pressure slides over a section of decreased radius and effectively "locks" in place. If the inner section was coated with ice the outer piece may have stuck in place prematurely.
DrGuest
Member
[video]https://t.co/DpXsRQWal9[/video]
Wow, They nailed that Center Circle with the landing, amazing!
Wow, They nailed that Center Circle with the landing, amazing!
Well, Mr Musk and his approach toward the meaning of times and dates may not be the only example of, ummm, "differently measured".
Here is Bloomberg on the Falcon 9 landing, verbatim:
SpaceX later tweeted that the booster “landed softly” within 1.3 meters (8.3 feet) of the ship’s center.
Here is Bloomberg on the Falcon 9 landing, verbatim:
SpaceX later tweeted that the booster “landed softly” within 1.3 meters (8.3 feet) of the ship’s center.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Well, it did land softly, but fell over because of one of its legs didn't lock properly.
DrGuest
Member
Btw, Not sure if Bloomberg is accurate, since 1.3 meters = 4.27 feet not 8.3 ft. which equals 2.53 meters.
Yes. Based on the video of the landing that SpaceX released, the stage clearly landed right on target and very "softly", but after the successful touchdown one of the 4 legs slowly collapsed causing the stage to fall over.
A friend and I flew up to see the launch from the air. (For the pilots: We left San Diego (KSEE) about 9am, did a practice ILS landing at Santa Barbara, then proceeded to fly up just east of the Morro Bay 135 radial. The restricted areas were all hot, but there was no TFR. However SBA approach was telling everyone that you couldn't get IFR clearance to Lompoc, and it was low cloud and fog so you couldn't get in VFR. Then they started telling people to remain east of MQO 135 radial. Someone else had a heated discussion with them, SBA approach said they didn't understand it either but had been told to say so. I don't like arguing so I just did what I was told, and we had a pretty nice view. Saw another Bonanza going the opposite direction a couple of hundred feet below. After the launch, did a GPS approach back to SBA to have lunch with a friend. The other Bonanza landed just behind us, it turned out to have a bunch of SpaceX employees on it.)
I think we had a better view than anyone on the ground. It took about 30 seconds from clearing the fog to disappearing above the high cirrus.
I think we had a better view than anyone on the ground. It took about 30 seconds from clearing the fog to disappearing above the high cirrus.
Thanks for your post, very good point. This failure mode would likely have occurred if the stage landing attempt had been on land. Watching the video of the landing I could not see any motion of the drone ship deck compared to the horizon, so it appears that at the time of landing the ship was reasonably stable.
<-----Folks, that WAS my point......
- - - Updated - - -
As one of the first post-landing commentators wrote, Iron Man already had the icing issue solved; he should have been consulted.
More prosaically, the de-icing procedures that aircraft go through ought to be easy to incorporate. Squirting a mess of de-icing fluid into the critical parts in the moments before their deployment should be straightforward enough...unless such could cause a disruption in maintaining the perfect trajectory??????
