←back to thread

80 points grecy | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
marviel ◴[] No.42188615[source]
unfortunately they had to scrap the booster Catch, due to undisclosed factors.
replies(4): >>42188635 #>>42188662 #>>42188677 #>>42188734 #
the_king ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
cubefox ◴[] No.42189695[source]
> 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.

replies(2): >>42190843 #>>42194579 #
krunck ◴[] No.42190843[source]
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.
replies(1): >>42193441 #
1. m4rtink ◴[] No.42193441{3}[source]
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. :-)
replies(1): >>42215112 #
2. dotancohen ◴[] No.42215112[source]

  > target empty space by default
Well, water.

I see that you're a glass-half-empty guy ))