No shots of the banana yet post launch. Did it rip away from the strings?
(Up until I typed this I hadn’t considered they might use an artificial banana.)
Laremere 445 days ago [-]
Banana is on screen at T+00:24
dotancohen 445 days ago [-]
With 5.2 million people watching. This flight probably broke the world record for most people watching a single specific banana, ever.
aaron695 444 days ago [-]
[dead]
marviel 445 days ago [-]
unfortunately they had to scrap the booster Catch, due to undisclosed factors.
the_king 445 days ago [-]
I would love to see the dashboard that the team that made the decision was looking at.
I'd be interested to hear speculation by people who know about this as to what they think went wrong. Was it off course? Did the engines not relight in time? Did it not have enough fuel?
Prickle 444 days ago [-]
There was a picture showing a antenna bent at a roughly 30 degree angle, ontop of the launch tower. Not sure if that was the cause though.
ceejayoz 445 days ago [-]
They announced a no-go while it was still boosting towards space, so it won’t be a relight issue.
cubefox 444 days ago [-]
> They announced a no-go while it was still boosting towards space,
False. The booster was already coming back when the landing abort came through.
ceejayoz 444 days ago [-]
Shoot, I re-watched and you're right. Memory's a fickle thing.
> During this phase, automated health checks of critical hardware on the launch and catch tower triggered an abort of the catch attempt.
krunck 444 days ago [-]
Indeed. It had just finished the boostback burn and jettisoned the hot staging ring when the divert was announced. I wonder if after the boostback burn they determined that there was insufficient fuel for a good safely margin when trying a tower catch.
m4rtink 444 days ago [-]
The catch attempt is actually a divert - IIRC both Super Heavy and regular Falcon 9 first stage target empty space by default and only divert for landing once all checks out. :-)
dotancohen 442 days ago [-]
> target empty space by default
Well, water.
I see that you're a glass-half-empty guy ))
zamalek 445 days ago [-]
I wonder whether doing a catch without the catcher (rapid scheduled crash landing) would be feasible. Data is data.
CompuHacker 445 days ago [-]
That is what happened. It performs the maneuvers at a primary target site with no catcher, or terrain, or ground-based feedback; the Gulf; switching to an alternate site; the launch tower; if and only if all factors allow for a real catch.
mulmen 445 days ago [-]
> Data is data.
This is one of those cases where technically correct is not the best kind of correct.
Not all data is useful.
A billion rows of sensor output is data but without a timestamp it’s useless. Maybe you need more or less resolution, or additional dimensions.
m4rtink 444 days ago [-]
If the duty cycle is stable enough, you can reconstruct the timestamps in many cases based on the data. ;-)
mulmen 444 days ago [-]
“If” is doing a lot of work there.
piombisallow 444 days ago [-]
Honestly showing that you can re-target it in flight is extremely impressive too. Like, it still soft-landed in water, it didn't blow up.
verzali 444 days ago [-]
It's not so much a retarget in this case. The water landing is the default path, they have to manually tell it to target the landing pad if it is a go for the catch.
piombisallow 444 days ago [-]
How does that change anything
TaylorAlexander 444 days ago [-]
Hah. I mean it did blow up (the booster), but not due to impact from a failed soft landing. The soft landing succeeded, then it blew up.
mempko 444 days ago [-]
The upper stage was also on fire!
mwambua 445 days ago [-]
The explosion when it landed in the ocean was pretty epic though!
445 days ago [-]
ReptileMan 445 days ago [-]
The way it gently splashed down in the ocean without hiccup - I think this is promising and that they will get to the chopsticks catching a booster is boring and mundane phase soon. Specialists would say why they aborted.
cubefox 444 days ago [-]
Well, it made a big fireball. It's only that the official stream cut away before that. You could still hear the SpaceX crowd cheering as they (apparently) got to see it. The fireball was in any case visible in the NSF stream: https://www.youtube.com/live/6yd_cpPP4fE&t=3h31m35s
Though the upper stage actually didn't explode this time, it only broke apart.
Ancalagon 445 days ago [-]
did they land it on the barge instead?
pieix 445 days ago [-]
No landing legs on Starship or its booster! Tower catch or bust.
Ancalagon 445 days ago [-]
oh duh, thanks
teractiveodular 445 days ago [-]
No, it was a water splashdown. Looked silky smooth though, they likely could have caught it again had they tried.
xnx 445 days ago [-]
Water splashdown did look very smooth. I seemed like they cut the video before it exploded (I assume), but hopefully there's some third-party footage or SpaceX will release it later.
It did a controlled landing on the Gulf of Mexico, exploded, and now it's floating!
Hasn't sunk yet; haven't seen any official comments yet about this novel situation.
oliwary 445 days ago [-]
If I remember correctly last time this happened they shot missiles at a booster from a jet
perihelions 445 days ago [-]
Oh, you're right: this did also happen back in 2018, with a Falcon booster (GovSat-1 launch). I don't think the part about the missiles was accurate though.
no barge for super heavy- the point of the catch is to save weight on the massive legs that would be required. It “soft landed” in the Gulf a few miles off shore, meaning they did a burn and it entered the water not in freefall (though it still looked faster than I expected).
oezi 445 days ago [-]
Water splashdown.
grecy 444 days ago [-]
Elon:
"Successful ocean landing of Starship!
We will do one more ocean landing of the ship. If that goes well, then SpaceX will attempt to catch the ship with the tower."
Does this mean flying over populated land to attempt the catch?
grecy 444 days ago [-]
I believe so, yes. Obviously it will be a different permit, and who knows how long that will take to be granted.
Engine relight and controlled precise landings are obviously per-requisites, which is why they've been doing them.
Zigurd 444 days ago [-]
I'm a project management nerd, so let's take a look at the dependency chain to get to usefulness: to be anything other than an oversized orbital launcher, starship has to be refueled. Refueling depends on meeting payload specs, otherwise you need a too many starships to refuel one upper stage in orbit. Refueling also depends on rapid turnaround, which depends on near-zero damage to launch towers, engines, shields, and tanks. All of these dependencies depend on repeatability, which is why not catching the booster is a significant regression not a huge one, but marginal negative progress.
d883kd8 444 days ago [-]
The booster still looked a bit flamey on the landing burn, I wonder if this is expected
Strange how it is leaning to one side but otherwise looks just fine. I'd have thought that anything with enough force to push it over like that would have caused other more visible damage. Pretty grainy video though.
bandyaboot 445 days ago [-]
Whatever it was, it seems more likely that it was a booster issue than anything relating to the tower given that they were initially go for the catch. It was only during the boostback burn that they scrapped it.
bandyaboot 444 days ago [-]
The spacex website indicates that it was indeed an automated check of the tower that caused the catch to be scrapped.
445 days ago [-]
Rendered at 11:45:09 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjCX5F74zIM
Knight E6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ham_(chimpanzee)
(Up until I typed this I hadn’t considered they might use an artificial banana.)
I'd be interested to hear speculation by people who know about this as to what they think went wrong. Was it off course? Did the engines not relight in time? Did it not have enough fuel?
False. The booster was already coming back when the landing abort came through.
https://www.youtube.com/live/l7cM90N-CDc?feature=shared&t=23...
https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-... does say this now, though:
> During this phase, automated health checks of critical hardware on the launch and catch tower triggered an abort of the catch attempt.
I see that you're a glass-half-empty guy ))
This is one of those cases where technically correct is not the best kind of correct.
Not all data is useful.
A billion rows of sensor output is data but without a timestamp it’s useless. Maybe you need more or less resolution, or additional dimensions.
Though the upper stage actually didn't explode this time, it only broke apart.
Update: Looks like Spaceflight Now has the explosion at https://www.youtube.com/live/dtmvbQDou4I at about 90 minutes in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjDFirLcQDM (Everyday Astronaut)
Landing is at about T+06:42.
https://www.youtube.com/live/DjDFirLcQDM?feature=shared&t=11...
This is a bit before that:
https://www.youtube.com/live/DjDFirLcQDM?feature=shared&t=11...
Hasn't sunk yet; haven't seen any official comments yet about this novel situation.
https://old.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/7w4pag/americaspace... ("Air Force Didn’t Take Out SpaceX’s GovSat Booster, Private Company Did (UPDATED WITH CORRECTION)")
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16332582 (ibid.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16279316 ("SpaceX Rocket Survives Experimental High-Thrust Landing at Sea")
"Successful ocean landing of Starship!
We will do one more ocean landing of the ship. If that goes well, then SpaceX will attempt to catch the ship with the tower."
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1859036912348262787
Engine relight and controlled precise landings are obviously per-requisites, which is why they've been doing them.
[1] https://x.com/CSI_Starbase/status/1858998330401190375