What keeps everyone safe when rockets fail? Why did the failed Falcon 9 rocket land in the ocean?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 сен 2024
- SpaceX experienced their first landing failure of a Falcon 9 since 2016! So what went wrong? What kept everyone safe? Is there a big risk of a failed rocket landing on people?
Today we'll mostly be looking at the CRS-16 landing failure and using it as an example as what systems are on board, what programming is used and how the flight termination system works to keep us on the ground safe.
We'll dive into the details of its landing sequence by looking at it's exact trajectory using flightclub.io and I'll be explaining what exactly happened using Kerbal Space Program to simulate the failed grid fins.
Play the mission for yourself here! - steamcommunity...
"What Exactly Caused SpaceX's Falcon 9 Landing Failure" - • What Exactly Caused Sp...
"Biggest Booms of Spaceflight History" - • The Biggest BOOMS in R...
Thanks for the amazing website Declan! flightclub.io, and consider supporting his work through Patreon - / flightclub
Thanks so much to Daz Valdez of K Space Academy for letting me use his amazing footage!!! - • SpaceX CRS-16 Falcon L...
Grid Fin Not-A-Coasters and SCIENCE T-Shirts are available on my new webstore! - shop.everydaya...
All music is original! Check out my album "Maximum Aerodynamic Pressure" anywhere you listen to music (Spotify, iTunes, Google Play, Amazon, etc) or click here for easy links - everydayastrona...
Show your support by becoming a Patreon - / everydayastronaut
This video had two "Moon Walkers" who helped make this possible - Blake Jacobs and Mac Malkawi
Check out my new podcast!!!! - ourludicrousfu...
Thinking about ordering a Tesla? Get free unlimited supercharging!! ts.la/tim19804
Already order a Model 3 and waiting for delivery? You can use my referral code too (talk to your advisor) tim19804 :)
It’s pretty remarkable that we’re living in a time where rockets landing themselves are so non-noteworthy that it takes an accident to make news.
its always good to be "boring"!
@@MertARIKAN That will be next week when some "Boring" news will be happening :)
Elon said that he'd only consider landings to be successful when they're no longer exciting. I think were nearly there.
That was what killed the Apollo program. People are so quick to adopt new things as ordinary, once they drove around on the moon with a dune buggy, only an accident could have held an audience.
that's what people don't realize though. It isn't about an audience. It's about humanity and us furthering our understanding and exploring the universe
Thanks for taking the time to simulate it for us. There are tons of videos explaining it but this so much better. Also It's craxy living in this technology driven time when someone at home can produce 3 full 3d simulations, create a 30 minute video explaining the failure and then publishing it to a free "television" service for anyone to view it a day or so after the event. Amazing.
Well said.
Fully agree, it really speaks of the passion that Tim has for spaceflight, as well as the rest of us for making it possible
Aahah so true! And we saw the event landing of this rocket live on this same free "television". What a time to be alive!
Except internet is not free
@@spacenoodles5570 OP said "free television *service* "
It's pretty amazing how normal it is for these landings to happen, that a failure is actually a huge surprise
Just another thing to learn from and make the system even better than before.
Tian kay 6 months later.. a falcon heavy center core went horizontal after trying to land at sea and smashed into the Atlantic
It must suck to work for Space Ex if you are a rocket. You get fired on the first day of work and, assuming you do everything right, they make you come back to work *AFTER* being fired. I don't blame this guy for landing in the water. My boss fires me, I ain't coming back.
Yeah, talk about clingy
I was soooo impressed with what that machine did. It fell from space, had the fin lock up but still managed just before touchdown to stop its rotation, straighten itself out and if there had been solid ground under it I think it might have landed. Those legs came down and it tried it's best to stay up, even on the water! I felt bad for it. They have got to get an "A" for effort and engineering.
OK. I guess all you guys nit picking my comment work for SpaceX as engineers who are saying it wouldn't have landed. That wasn't my point. Did you see that thing standing straight up in the water?? It was a relatively controlled landing by a crippled vehicle that fell from space! I'm no less impressed. It was an awesome effort by man/woman and machine! Well done.
no, it wouldn't have landed.
@@NobleSteed00 why?
it looks straight
It's still rotating quite a bit though, and I'm not sure if it was completely straight. Just a bit of rotation could be enough for the landing legs to break and cause the rocket to fall and go kaboom.
@@Tchofi I had thought just maybe it could have landed. But great point, a bit of rotation would make the landing "feet" catch, kinda stumble sideways, tip it over. Had never considered this - another factor SpaceX has to be nearly perfect on for a successful landing.
Agreed 100% man. That thing would probably standing up and everyone would have been even more excited about how impressive it was.
Jesus, it's amazing how close your sim was. I love it that you cut through the bs and drove the points home, quick. sub+1
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Same sub from me as well. I've watched a few of his videos but never hit subscribe til now.
it's funny, i always thought this was more of a hobby/side-project for you. So i always took the videos for granted. But then i realized how much work you actually put in to your videos, your website, the livestreams and everything else. And yet you still have time to design merch, answer comments, and you even have time to make music! So I just wanted to say THANK YOU for the hard work, and continuing to inspire and educate people from all around the world. Waching your launch livestreams has become almost a routine by now. I even watched the last one with my entire family. Too bad that the first launch they saw didn't include a perfect landing, but hey it was still interesting. SO THANK YOU FOR EVERYTING!!!
Well said!
VERY cool that you involve your family!
Honestly I'd be pretty happy if some random rocket debris fell in my back yard.
same
Me too
So long as it doesn't hit and kill you I guess.
@@destinal_in_reality That's just a bonus
Well if it's Danny Darko style, I wouldn't be happy
Interesting. This “failure” actually validated the computer control system and how robust it is. See kids, failure isn’t a bad thing.
“Successful failure”
David Britt #successfulfailure
Apollo 13
Failure is when you don't learn anything.
@@jmonsted except no. Failure is when you start learning what's best and what's worst you don't keep doing the worst thing from that failure. Just my opinion, don't need to get buthurt
100th like and you are correct
Thank you for all the great information. Keep up the good work!
I'm gonna be working on the Blue Origins BE-4 manufacturing factory, and it looks absolutely amazing. Mr. Bezos himself even is excited about it, and if you would like id love to show you around once we start construction. I know this isnt related to the water landing, but its just a thing that I feel like you would be interested.
up
Thats awesome I would love that. I just got a job at SpaceX working on the Starlink system. Good luck!
@Texas_Tim95 Considering he didn't even say Jeff this is even funnier haha
Are the companies hiring? Just got a degree in Aerospace Engineering from UF and would love to work at either company!
Jeff who?
Hey, you just broke the first rule of flight club...😳
@Yevhenii Diomidov LOL
Ah, but Is it also the second rule of flight club...🤔 😂
i saw this just as he broke the rule XD
@Felipe Lavratti The first rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club. Fight Club (film), Flight Club (software)
Who made these rules?
Tim, congratulations for reproducing the crash in Kerbal space program! Very impressive!
Just wanna say I appreciate your work Tim! :)
I love pointing out to friends and family just how thin our atmospheric security blanket really is. That google overlay with its tiny boost back loop is just one more thing I can point too lol
I think they do two doglegs. The first is aerodynamic, to keep the ballistic trajectory well away from the landing area and to bleed off speed. They also do a propulsive dog leg so they miss the landing pad (or ship!) if there is a problem with the landing burn.
Yeay, that's exactly what I understood also. Makes much more sense then Tim's explanation since you can't say it's safe all the way down, and also that if the engines don't relight it would hit the LZ
Yup, a good example is FH middle rocket.
Didn't you mean that they DON'T do a dogleg when there is a problem? The doglegs are performed to change the ballistic trajectory to a new target, the LZ (pad/barge), when everything is nominal, right? You're saying it the other way around I think.
Nah, if the landing burn fails it should crash land at the Landing Zone, think about it, around it there's SpaceX support "buildings" (might be a tent), the water lines for after land cooling, a forest, etc. a slab of concrete is the safest place for it to crash land.
DumbSloth87 I watched some more videos and it looks like they generally don't do a propulsive dog leg on land. That would be one crazy lawn dart game if the engine didn't start! LOL
Thanks for the great video Tim! Previously i haven't paid much attention to it but now i understand how the boosters actually land
I'm surprised you didn't mention the center core of the falcon heavy. That was a failure of the engine to turn on and what happens when it hits the water at close to terminal velocity.
That is true. I should’ve mentioned it!
The engine turned on with the Falcon Heavy flight at the very end. It just ran out of lighter fluid to get the engine running :)
@@GlanderBrondurg
The center engine lit, but the subsequent outer pair did not. Because this was critical for deceleration, the deceleration was about 1/3 of what is necessary.
@@avid0g I realize that, but the engines pumps did start to operated and physically worked. The problem was that they ran out of the hypergolic fluid used to get the flame going inside of the nozzles. Called Triethylborane, this produces a sort of blue-green hue when you seen the engines light up before the RP-1 and LOX start to burn. The center core simply ran out of the TEA-TEB needed to get those other engines running.
@@GlanderBrondurg
Yes, I saw Elon Musk's tweet of exactly this, just after the event.
Many possible causes come to mind.
I expect that the amount of stored TEA/TEB was supposed to be the same in all boosters. Near as I can tell, all boosters were expected to have the same quantity of engine ignition events.
Some engine(s) may have completely shut off during "throttle down". That would then require extra engine ignitions in the center core.
Perhaps some sensors used to detect propellant combustion were in error, causing a delay in shutting off the "lighter fluid" until a fall-back protocol confirmed thrust.
Another possibility is that some center core engine(s) had real ignition problems, causing the TEA/TEB to be consumed for a longer time.
In any case, I suspect there was greater-than-expected consumption of TEA/TEB in the center core.
The angular momentum explanation makes lots of sense. Thanks.
This..... This is the content I became a Patreon for! Awesome work Tim
Best video yet! Thank you for doing what you do!
Ah the Russians! Building city right next to launchpads, like their rockets are flawless!
Haha Well they did invent the grid fins as well so.
Skunkwurx and it failed! Boom! Lol!
@@Skunkwurx In reality NOT
@@barmalei9927 What do you mean?
And they don't use flight termination systems
@8:30 bonus points for knowing Titusville. Most people confuse us with Cocoa Beach... ;)
Tim, that was the best video I think you've ever done. You're SO GOOD at explaining stuff and it helps me understand how it all works. Keep doing what you're doing my friend! :)
🙏🙏🙏
Thank you for sharing this with us Tim.
I just wanted to say that your new album is great, I've played it through many times now. It's a good album to work to, and gets people asking what I'm listening to when I have visitors.
Keep up the spectacular work!
That’s awesome!!!! Thanks for listening!!!
RUclips showed me this older video I hadn't seen before. It's so old I don't remember that rocket landing failure. I've seen Tim talk about the dogleg maneuver in more recent videos, how the landing path initially goes into the ocean and such, but this is The Whole Story right here.
The quality and effort you put into these videos is outstanding sir.
A few notes: Yes! Russia doesn’t really use flight termination systems as I mention in that “biggest booms” video!
Also, despite just talking about the Falcon Heavy Center core in my last video, I totally forgot we already have seen an engine (or two or three maybe) fail to light!!! I still would love to hear more info on that!
And here's the Mission in Kerbal so you can play along too! - steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1587695886
Hey tim. In one of the debriefing where elon said that Block 5 is now forzen for certification, he also said that non significant changes are allowed. With the addition for a redundant hydraulic pump i would assume it would go to Nasa for their decision on whether it counts as significant or not as it's addition wouldn't have any affect on the vehicle for the primary mission. Nasa's investment in Spacex shows to willingness to innovate and adapt and i'm sure they don't mind the cast savings either.
Everyday Astronaut Hey Tim is it possible that I could message you on Reddit? I'd love to get into a discussion with you about the Falcon 9/Heavy, a little about how they work, and the future of them (how are they gonna get phased out by the BFR) or things like that related to SpaceX
Could we get the simulation you used so we can load it and play with it ourselves? Sharing this stuff in your YT descriptions would be AWESOME
Things we love about Russa! BTW the gridfins have good controll almost always because the rocket have less inertia in the Z axes too (:
Does anyone know what the flame at 22:39 was?
I live SW from KSC. I’ve been able to watch them go up and come back. It looks like a high rise falling from space. It’s nuts.
I thought the rocket was more Horizontal when 2nd stage started - graphics made it more clear - Thanks
I've watch a lot of landings, but I've never thing about them, in your way. Thanks man!
One thing you are missing is that an explosion high up in the atmosphere will produce lots of shrapnel, but it will have time to get to terminal velocity, which for shrapnel is pretty small. For an explosion that is a few km above the ground, the shrapnel could still be more energetic then the terminal velocity, which could cause a fair bit of harm. Thus, activating the FTS close to the ground is actually more dangerous then just letting it hit the ground. In addition, as you said, it can't move very much, to the point where it could hit anything important.
Good guess on the grid fins being the culprit during the live stream. Thank you for always explaining everything to us!
I only recently discovered your site! Love it!!! I'm now a loyal subscriber. Keep up the awesome work!
I have never seen a badly produced video by you. Keep it up, I love the content.
I learn more from ur videos than I ever do in science class. Keep up the epic job Tim!!!
I love your videos they have truly inspired me to look into a career in aerospace engineering thanks for everything you do 😄
Thanks so much for the reference to the flightclub program! I've been looking for a good model to track paths of rockets for a while now, I know what I'll be doing every launch now!
Thank you for your evergreen content. I watched and liked this when you published it, and again today, and I am still entertained and informed these many months later.
Thumbs up again!
Grüße aus Deutschland und danke für die gute Erklärung :)
Translation: on June 22nd, we will rid the world of the Bolsheviks, and thanks for the great explanation
great video Tim, thank you!
Outstaniding explanation Tim. Great job!
Still amazing, still beautiful after watching the earlier videos!
Awesome content! Thx for those clarifications.
Great video. Thanks. Too bad the Moore mainstream media outlets don’t have anyone who can explain this as well.
20:22 that trail of smoke from the engines look beautiful
You are the best RUclipsd ever! Good content and you really do ‘bring space down to earth.’ You know what you’re talking about.
WOW. What an amazing video! Keep up with the great work!
Dude, this video blown my mind!
Really good video!! Really liking this AAR (After Action Review) style format.
Awesome breakdown of what happened!
The videos of the boosters coasting down before the landing burn are just amazing if you think how LARGE of an object it is falling down.
Now I want grid fin waffles for breakfast tomorrow.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Awsome topics as always, thanks Tim!
Impressive explanation of how SpaceX charts a safe landing of their 1st stage boosters! It seems to me that this is an obvious built-in safety factor... i.e. if anything goes wrong, early, the booster will self destruct, if something goes wrong late, the booster will land harmlessly off shore. I am astounded that SpaceX has this level of fail-safe built into their RTL boosters! ... not to mention the fact that it still knew enough to survive the off-course trajectory, so that they could recover the booster, ... and LEARN!
Todd, excellent video! Thanks for explaining this. You provide us muggles with a level of detail that most of us couldn't obtain. I have a profound level of trust in the space program, to keep us Floridians safe. I had never considered the fact that these boosters could crash over populated areas, but it's nice to know that this has been heavily factored into their equations! The dog-leg maneuver is clearly a built in fail-safe. It is built into the flight plan, as a late maneuver, only when everything is nominal. I never knew this existed. The booster is targeted for the ocean until very late in its landing sequence, then must aggressively target it's landing zone. Thanks for explaining this!
I'd like to see a video regarding the steps taken when a launch is scrubbed. Securing the rocket and payloads, future launch window planning, etc.
Great Video! Loved how you explained everything!
Been following for a while, but here you deserve a huge thumbs up. This video stands out for spot on relevance & timeliness and fantastic approach to getting your points across. Hope it will get you over 200k subs and wish you continued success.
Thanks Tim. Even when things don't work perfectly, I still think that the 'Dan Dare'-style vertical landings are amazing. The comic strip was more than 50 years ahead of its time on that feature.
Great presentation. The only nit I might pick is with your comment that NASA doesn't care about the booster landing. Although it is a commercial endeavor by SpaceX, and it's not necessarily within the scope of NASA's mission, they certainly have skin in the game, as a worst case catastrophic failure could possibly result in damage to KSC property/equipment or (heaven forbid) injury/death of unsuspecting personnel in the vicinity. All it would take is one such event and NASA would likely pull the plug on any further landings at their facilities.
Steve
Another great vid Tim, it was cool to see the booster fill up with water on the camera POV behind the presenters during the live broadcast (I tweeted a pic of it @ you a couple days ago)
That visualisation is AMAZING!
OMG thank you so much for this! I’ve been wanting to visualize the rockets path forever.
Love your videos - Great Job - Learning so much Thanks
This is amazing content! Thanks Tim!
No joke, Tim, I was driving into work today and thought 'I really hope there's a new Everyday Astronaut video, I could really use one'. Wahooooo! Thanks for everything you do broheim! In a virtual world of garbage, pointless channels, you and yours stand as examples of what the internet could and should be all about. High quality, meaningful entertainment that enriches the mind. Your videos are more than view grabs, they're works of art! Mad respect!
Wow thank you so much!!!!! Jeeeez that really really means a lot. A lot of work goes into these videos, so I'm really glad to hear you appreciate them!
I already know what append
But i still watch
Good jobs
Thank you so much!!! That was amazing!! Love it!
This was an Awesome breakdown, Thank You... Respects from Minnesota 😎🤜🏻💥🤛🏻😎
Stopping the roll was done by a combination of several factors.
Coupling of the axis of movement gave the main engine the possibility to cancel some of it (some roll energy was transferred when it tips over, and that's something the main engine can cancel and therefore bleed off energy).
Lower speed gives the grid fins less bite (as you point out they still have an effect, just not as much). This in turn would give the RCS more authority to cancel the roll (although I'm not 100% sure they still had gas left at this point).
The legs coming out would as you say reduce the roll due to conservation of angular momentum, but they also create some air drag that helps slow it. The little roll that was left was then canceled by the legs hitting the water.
I agree the geometry of the first stage changed when the legs were deployed, and it lost a lot of its spin this way but in addition the extended legs also had a far greater- and better leveraged rotational drag. Good video thanks for the time you took for this one.
It’s crazy how small of a distance the first stage travels.
Very informative and great video!
I like your videos much better when you are not trying to be wacky or funny. Good to see you going in that direction. Big fan !
The call out that the AFTS - the *automatic* flight termination system is deactive, however I think the range safety officer had his hand *very* close to the manual FTS button during this failure. He had to make sure in split second that the booster doesn't crash anywhere where it isn't supposed to. After all the 1st stage IS capable of targeting land after the entry burn (so after the AFTS is disabled) all by itself since this is what it does during a normal landing. Theoretically the gridfins could be stuck in a position where it would hit land but not on the pad.
Given the circumstances though, exploding the rocket that close to the ground is likely to cause more damage than keeping the rocket in once piece. Going up, it already has momentum to push all of the parts away from each other and it is going to end up in the middle of the ocean for every piece too. Coming back down, all of that shrapnel will be more or less landing at the same spot and will guarantee a hit of something onto anything in that general radius with a destruction of the vehicle.
the AFTS is safed after the reentry burn because at that point momentum and atmospheric physics calculations say that the rocket could not possibly reach any civilian area. the balistic trajectory is the centre of that area, or cone as tim called it. and the landing zone is near the edge of where the rocket could possibly reach. there for the need for AFTS, like RedPuma90 said, the explosion would more likely be dangerous from flying shrapnel
It could not hit land if it is spinning, no matter where the gridfins are. It would follow a spiral around ballistic as lift rotates round, and lift would rotate as the axis of rotation precesses around the direction of travel. The RCS system is capable of setting up such a spin, even if the gridfins are not spinning it up. We didn't see this here, as it was already spinning, but a "grid fins jammed" mode could be deliberately spun up to avoid any possibility of it hitting land.
Any idea what the burst of flames from the side of the body right after landing was? I assume it was venting the rest of the propellant but I have never seen this on fire after landing normally.
Alex Geib It was venting. I think it was just at an odd angle, which caused the peculiar look.
The flight computer knew it was tipping and did an emergency vent so that it would not explode. From spinning around in the decent there would be kerosene vapor in the gas that was dumped which is what ignited, you can see this as it was an unclean burn due to the black smoke.
Telclivo Oh that makes more sense.
This is also done to ensure that work crews can approach the rocket safely and can recover it easily.
@@telclivo7945 Great explanation!
maybe the main at full gimbal lock was firing along a nitrogen roll thrust vector?
helped by the ice skater arms/landing legs spreading out to slow spin
zero roll rate at touchdown
lucky irvin it may have a way to slow down, although one engine has no simple way to do so and RCS is not that powerful. My hypothesis on how it de-spun without grid fins and with only one gimbaling engine to follow. Please let me know what you think and add to the understanding of this impressive demonstration of physics and GNC.
The final de-spin was yo-yo style once the landing legs increased the moment of inertia. Initially, it must have decelerated mainly due to gyroscopic precession. Since it was rotating off axis, TVC applied force to correct attitude, not the roll. Gyroscopic precession slowed the spin.
This is kind of like a spinning top, all forces and moments act 90 degrees off rotation from where they’re applied. Since the force via TVC is around the X and Z axis, it is translated into a force around the Y axis in a direction opposite to the rotation, slowing the rotation.
This resolution would not have to be hardcoded as it’s solely an artifact of the control loop on the TVC X and Z axis. It can also be verified by tracking derivative of spin rate as the attitude changes. This can be seen as the flames wick up different sides of the rocket.
Very nice step-by-step analysis. Great work!
I wouldn't be surprised if they had a static bias on those grid fins that the pump has to actively cancel in order to maintain no-roll flight. Think a spring between the grid fins that's trying to turn them out of alignment.
In that setup, a loss of the pump would force the booster into a spin stabilized ballistic trajectory no matter what state it was in when the pump failed. From a design perspective, that meets all of the criteria for a solid approach when you add the dog-leg maneuver into the mix. It's able to handle unexpected situations well, it's reliable, and it's light. The simplicity of it is icing on the cake. There's probably something similar in place in case of full-blown flight computer failure.
In KSP, you could simulate that with a bit of trim on roll, although I'm not sure the SAS would know what to do with that. It'd probably need to be a manual landing.
Awesome, Thanks for sharing!
Great video and insight! Keep up the awesome videos 👏🏻👍🏻
Tim, when I buy Kerbal Space Program does it come like yours? Or is yours modified for more realistic simulation?
Joshua Ballew as far as I know he said it was unaltered
So, after the concerned F9 performed it's reentry burn and the computers "noticed" the grid fins weren't working and the dogleg manoeuvre wasn't going well, did the F9 actually try to change it's trajectory to the LZ with RCS and the engine, or did it immediately go to ballistic trajectory mode? Not entirely clear to me yet, because I don't know whether the F9 knows that it will never make it to land without the grid fins and that that is the reason it didn't terminate lol..
Exactly what I want to know
It seems SpaceX hasn’t let on about that yet. My guess is it actually just couldn’t make it and it landed where it was going cause of loss of control
Grid fin aerodynamics is not intuitive. The lower face of a grid fin points in the direction of the desired roll. During the Grasshopper clip, the fins were trying to induce a counter roll, however the vehicle didn't have sufficient velocity for the fins to correct the roll.
I would say there are three things that dissipate the rotation. The RCS thrusters were controlling. The moment of inertia change and also the grid fins angle of attack change due to smaller speed dampens the rotation. It can only rotate to certain roll rate in the certain altitude and at certain speed so I would say that this was the case. I think the grid fins were accelerating the rotation but at landing decelerating the rotation
The last update to the BFR (steel instead of carbon fiber) is all about safety. Carbon fiber is only strong when stretched and not compressed, that means a carbon fiber tanker would need to be pressurized 100% of the time while steel is 100% isotropic
Thank you for the awesome video, really interesting and great explained!!
Scott Manley did the math on the angular momentum due to the legs. Have a look at it, the legs would slow the rotation down but not stop it completely.
Except that in the grasshopper grid fin test, the grids were trying to stop that roll instead of inducing it, look at the direction they rotate again. Going slower = less effect from the fins likely to the point where the CGTs could finally overcome the roll of the fins and arrest the spin.
7:45 the main point is that you don't get shrapnel that is propelled to potentially supersonic speeds when the rocket is hitting the ground - instead it's traveling at the relatively safe terminal velocity such a small piece of debris would have in our atmosphere in free fall.
It's a rapid unscheduled disassembly which has some fire and something.
20:49 Scott Manley did the math, and it turns out that the landing legs deploying wouldn't be the reason for all the rotation to be killed off.
thanks for your work, man. love what you do!
I think not only the legs kill rotation, but the gridfins has no speed and no airflow, witch make them rotate booster. So on the last few seconds stage almost stop and that's make rotation unable in case of aerodynamic. Nice video, buddy. I like it.
Great work Tim!
“We won’t dive super deep in to this one”
Best statement ever?
Really nice explanation here, but I still have a question: what is that puff of flame coming from the side of booster after it started tipping over in the water?
SRFriso94 this is the vehicle venting the extra RP1 so that it doesn't explode and is approachable by work crews.
Also releasing a lot of pressure
I hate calling it ‘failed’ it was an awesome landing. Awesomely awesome full of awesomeness!
Didn't the falcon heavy center core had a failure to light up for landing burn?
Ben Vexler yup. It ran out of TEB, the fluid used to relight the engine.
Yes and it also followed the ballistic trajectory to avoid hitting the drone ship. Tim mentioned there have been oter boosters as well the that failed to relight in his first reply
I would be interested in the practical systems employed for the self-destruct systems. Is it some kind of shaped explosive charge or something?
Usually it is, but some rockets have chosen different methods. Key point is to rip the tank open and maybe ignite the fuel as it mixes with the oxidizer.