←back to thread

Starship IFT-6 Livestream (liftoff at 4pm CT)

(www.spacex.com)
80 points grecy | 2 comments | 19 Nov 24 21:26 UTC | HN request time: 0.402s | source
Show context
marviel ◴[19 Nov 24 22:06 UTC] No.42188615[source]▶
unfortunately they had to scrap the booster Catch, due to undisclosed factors.
replies(4): >>42188635 #>>42188662 #>>42188677 #>>42188734 #
the_king ◴[19 Nov 24 22:21 UTC] No.42188734[source]▶
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?

replies(3): >>42188785 #>>42189633 #>>42190805 #
ceejayoz ◴[19 Nov 24 22:29 UTC] No.42188785[source]▶
They announced a no-go while it was still boosting towards space, so it won’t be a relight issue.
replies(2): >>42188928 #>>42189695 #
zamalek ◴[19 Nov 24 22:50 UTC] No.42188928[source]▶
I wonder whether doing a catch without the catcher (rapid scheduled crash landing) would be feasible. Data is data.
replies(2): >>42189155 #>>42189159 #
mulmen ◴[19 Nov 24 23:24 UTC] No.42189155[source]▶
> 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.

replies(1): >>42193426 #
1. m4rtink ◴[20 Nov 24 12:42 UTC] No.42193426[source]▶
If the duty cycle is stable enough, you can reconstruct the timestamps in many cases based on the data. ;-)
replies(1): >>42196002 #
2. mulmen ◴[20 Nov 24 17:07 UTC] No.42196002[source]▶
“If” is doing a lot of work there.