News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SpaceX Has Pinpointed the Problem That Caused the Falcon9... by duffyt on Thursday January 15, 2015 @08:42PM (#8896790)
Hydraulic systems are usually closed, can anyone explain why hydraulic fluid is expendable in this case?
Re:SpaceX Has Pinpointed the Problem That Caused the Falcon9... by garindra on Thursday January 15, 2015 @08:50PM (#8896817)
From one of his tweets:

> Hydraulics are usually closed, but that adds mass vs short acting open systems. F9 fins only work for 4 mins. We were ~10% off.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/554023312033341440

Re:SpaceX Has Pinpointed the Problem That Caused the Falcon9... by fit2rule on Friday January 16, 2015 @05:11AM (#8898038)
Is there a chance someone could explain this - how does not being able to move the fins (with hydraulics) translate into a hard landing - were they just off the target landing spot because the fins couldn't be used to fine-tune the descent to within a meter of the target landing zone, and thus they 'missed' the barge by a few meters, or is something else at play?

EDIT: never mind - I've learned that they have a steering function, as well as drag inducing function, and they ran out of hydraulic fluid required to induce more drag, which would thus slow the rocket down. Leaving my comment here in case anyone else is curious.

Re:SpaceX Has Pinpointed the Problem That Caused the Falcon9... by marvin on Friday January 16, 2015 @06:06AM (#8898175)
People on /r/spacex have theorized (with the aid of comments from Musk) that running out of hydraulic fluid caused the grid fins to get stuck in an extreme position, which forced the rocket off course. Cold gas thrusters and gimbaling of the engine tried to correct this, but the end result was that the rocket had insufficient control authority to achieve a controlled landing.
Re:SpaceX Has Pinpointed the Problem That Caused the Falcon9... by StavrosK on Friday January 16, 2015 @06:26AM (#8898224)
How is the rocket going to achieve a controlled landing with no thrust? It seems to me that it would crash into the pad anyway. Or was it that they did have thrust, they were just unable to steer because of the lost pressure?
Re:SpaceX Has Pinpointed the Problem That Caused the Falcon9... by fit2rule on Friday January 16, 2015 @06:44AM (#8898274)
Yes I think you've got it right - they had thrust from the rocket motors, but they ran out of hydraulic fluid required to use the fans to induce more drag, so the rocket came down hard.
Re:SpaceX Has Pinpointed the Problem That Caused the Falcon9... by srdev on Friday January 16, 2015 @03:12PM (#8901359)
It makes more sense if you watch the video: https://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK

Basically, because they lost steering it came in too steep, and ended up falling onto the deck on its side because the engines couldn't compensate for that position.

Re:SpaceX Has Pinpointed the Problem That Caused the Falcon9... by toomuchtodo on Friday January 16, 2015 @01:05PM (#8900443)
Steering was the problem, not a loss of thrust.

If the rocket's trajectory is correct, all that is required is a final hard burn to negate all downward velocity a short distance above the barge deck.

Re:SpaceX Has Pinpointed the Problem That Caused the Falcon9... by jccooper on Friday January 16, 2015 @01:07AM (#8897464)
You can do away with the pump, pipes, and power supply.

Since the main propulsion isn't going, closed hydraulics would have to have an independent power supply. Probably batteries. Instead, they replace all that with some compressed air. They can run out of compressed air, but can also run out of whatever powers the pumps in a closed system.

The hydraulic fluid is probably RP-1 and is probably dumped into the fuel tank, where it's available for later burning. Another 2-for-1.

Re:SpaceX Has Pinpointed the Problem That Caused the Falcon9... by hartror on Thursday January 15, 2015 @08:58PM (#8896842)
Re:SpaceX Has Pinpointed the Problem That Caused the Falcon9... by fogleman on Thursday January 15, 2015 @08:50PM (#8896814)
An open hydraulic system is more lightweight.
Re:SpaceX Has Pinpointed the Problem That Caused the Falcon9... by modeless on Thursday January 15, 2015 @09:22PM (#8896925)
Where do the weight savings come from? Hydraulic fluid is heavy; it seems like you could save quite a bit of weight by carrying less of it if it wasn't expendable. Not that I don't believe it, just curious.
Re:SpaceX Has Pinpointed the Problem That Caused the Falcon9... by rikf on Thursday January 15, 2015 @10:12PM (#8897061)
Seems like they actually use RP-1 (rocket fuel) as the hydraulic fluid so that it is burned as fuel after it has been used. This means that the hydraulic fluid isnt "dead mass"
Re:SpaceX Has Pinpointed the Problem That Caused the Falcon9... by TeMPOraL on Thursday January 15, 2015 @09:35PM (#8896962)
Pumps and pipes. With an open system, you don't need to recompress the fluid and move it back, and from what I read, that hardware weights a lot.
Re:SpaceX Has Pinpointed the Problem That Caused the Falcon9... by toomuchtodo on Thursday January 15, 2015 @10:56PM (#8897189)
Correct! Instead of using compressor(s) and recirculation plumbing, you're using an accumulator [1]. Weight and complexity savings.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_accumulator

Re:SpaceX Has Pinpointed the Problem That Caused the Falcon9... by bdonlan on Thursday January 15, 2015 @09:50PM (#8897013)
Not to mention the power supply - what's going to run the pumps when the engines are shut off?
Re:SpaceX Has Pinpointed the Problem That Caused the Falcon9... by pshc on Thursday January 15, 2015 @09:29PM (#8896947)
I'm guessing you'd need more pistons, pumps, piping, etc. in a closed system. Probably need to repressurize the fluid.