something awsome

the awesome part is that it still managed to land relative smooth without major damages after a system critical failure of a hydraulic pump.

spacex seems to have a great control mechanism for the thruster to compensate such a spin

yeah something seemed to be stuck... bad luck but it didnt end in a disaster. Maybe in time they can make the AI learn countermeasures for most possible issues, like in this one, to use the other stabilizers to try negate the effect of the stuck/broken one.

I guess the better solution is to install a 2nd hydraulic pump as backup

same thing if its a physical factor that makes the wing be stuck, and pump doesnt push it, not sure if making 2 of everything is a good idea either as that leads to double reasons for errors, weight, complications... yeah hard jobs. not for us lol

heavy parts usually dont get stuck in spaceflight

the tiny parts do (e.g. reaction wheels are known to break very frequently due to such small parts failing)

the good part about hydraulics is that you can create backup solutions relative easily

Dont you want to work for SpaceX ? xD

they are not ambicious enough for me.

They have backup systems for all important things. I think the problem is the backup system didn't work.

The official statement from SpaceX was that there was no backup system for that hydraulic system because it wasnt mission critical.

Mission critical are all systems required to bring the cargo up in space.

Getting back to earth is not mission critical, at least not on a falcon9.

Ok. Normally is in military aircrafts one backup system an in civilian aircrafts two backup system. So I thought it is the same.

Ii think due to the fact that is not meant to be used as passenger flight nobody really bothered about that.

Even if a falcon rocket is used to bring people up there.... the first stage of the rocket never will be considered mission critical at its way back to earth. It is not designed to protect anything of true value when returning.

At best its a consideration if it might be worth to add additional backup system in relation to the additional launch costs.

How much does it cost to bring a backup pump into orbit in relation to how likely it is that the main pump fails and how much it would cost to lose or repair that rocket.

The costs per kg on a falcon 9 is about 4600$ (the official aim for the cost ration is much lower but that is only if a stage is in use for at least 10 launcher - which so far never happened).

The cost per launch is down to 50mio$... but lets simply say.... its better if they put a backup pump on it.

Well... the thing is I dont know how heavy such a pump will be.

If its 10kg.... then the costs per launch would increase by 50.000$.

If this is a one in a hundred incident (who knows) SpaceX could save 5mio$ and risk one of these failures in 100 launches. If the damage is not so high and the recovery + repair costs are lower than 5mio$... then... who needs such a pump?

It is really hard to tell which solution is the best. After just one incident and without insight into the true specifications of the hydraulic system and the cost structure its impossible to say whats the better solution.

Right now there is only one real arguement that speaks for a backup system.

The reputation of the company. Its never good for the reputation when a rocket falls out of the sky.

this probably is an easy one....

ermmm... nvm

I saw the above video and I found it interesting. But what awesome it make still in confusion.