←back to thread

80 points grecy | 1 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 #
1. ceejayoz ◴[] No.42194579{3}[source]
Shoot, I re-watched and you're right. Memory's a fickle thing.

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.