←back to thread

Starship Flight 7

(www.spacex.com)
649 points chinathrow | 9 comments | 16 Jan 25 21:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.002s | source | bottom
Show context
terramex ◴[16 Jan 25 23:04 UTC] No.42732041[source]▶
Looks like second stage broke up over Caribbean, videos of the debris (as seen from ground):

https://x.com/deankolson87/status/1880026759133032662?t=HdHF...

https://x.com/realcamtem/status/1880026604472266800

https://x.com/adavenport354/status/1880026262254809115

Moment of the breakup:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DE52_hVSeQz/

replies(26): >>42732085 #>>42732104 #>>42732113 #>>42732121 #>>42732146 #>>42732149 #>>42732168 #>>42732199 #>>42732232 #>>42732351 #>>42732496 #>>42733020 #>>42733086 #>>42733122 #>>42733260 #>>42733477 #>>42733605 #>>42733683 #>>42733687 #>>42733766 #>>42733802 #>>42734118 #>>42734885 #>>42735676 #>>42736326 #>>42737264 #
Cu3PO42 ◴[16 Jan 25 23:08 UTC] No.42732085[source]▶
What a strangely beautiful sight. While I was excited to see ship land, I'm also happy I get to see videos of this!
replies(7): >>42732457 #>>42732750 #>>42733014 #>>42733394 #>>42734126 #>>42735288 #>>42736513 #
afavour ◴[16 Jan 25 23:50 UTC] No.42732457[source]▶
As long as the debris has no effect wherever it lands, I agree with you
replies(2): >>42732659 #>>42733399 #
verzali ◴[17 Jan 25 00:22 UTC] No.42732659[source]▶
A lot of flights seem to be diverting to avoid it...

https://bsky.app/profile/flightradar24.com/post/3lfvhpgmqqc2...

replies(2): >>42732685 #>>42732706 #
ralfd ◴[17 Jan 25 00:25 UTC] No.42732685[source]▶
Understandable, but an over reaction. Any debris not burning up is falling down after minutes.
replies(1): >>42732733 #
Kye ◴[17 Jan 25 00:32 UTC] No.42732733[source]▶
Would you bet hundreds of lives and millions of dollars on that?
replies(1): >>42732745 #
ricardobeat ◴[17 Jan 25 00:34 UTC] No.42732745[source]▶
Yes. Space debris near orbiting speeds doesn't fall straight down, it's simple physics.

If anything planes much further downrange (thousands of km) should be diverted, not immediately under the re-entry point.

replies(5): >>42732761 #>>42732891 #>>42732938 #>>42744727 #>>42744728 #
1. s1artibartfast ◴[17 Jan 25 01:07 UTC] No.42732938[source]▶
The planes diverting were downrange. Also, I doubt they had much information to go off, and were essentially flying blind about where the debris were unless they had a direct line to NORAD.

Do you have a better explanation why they are doing donuts over the pacific at the time of reentry, then were diverted?

https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/ABX3133

https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N121BZ/history/20250...

https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/NKS172

replies(3): >>42733169 #>>42733178 #>>42733568 #
2. adolph ◴[17 Jan 25 01:44 UTC] No.42733169[source]▶
> donuts over the pacific

Atlantic

replies(1): >>42733205 #
3. ricardobeat ◴[17 Jan 25 01:46 UTC] No.42733178[source]▶
I don't have. Maybe they were indeed diverted because people got scared? Still seems pointless given the distances involved. Most reports are coming from social media / people watching flightradar24, and news media is just picking those up.
replies(1): >>42733242 #
4. s1artibartfast ◴[17 Jan 25 01:49 UTC] No.42733205[source]▶
Doh!
replies(1): >>42733471 #
5. s1artibartfast ◴[17 Jan 25 01:56 UTC] No.42733242[source]▶
There are several, all at the same time, all in the same area, where the debreis was seen.

Why do you think it is pointless?

If I am a pilot and the tower says "debris seen heading east of Bahamas", I probably wont want to keep flying towards that direction.

Yeah, it is probably low risk, but I dont have a super computer or detailed map of the Starship debris field or entry zone.

replies(1): >>42733277 #
6. ◴[17 Jan 25 02:03 UTC] No.42733277{3}[source]▶
7. amcpu ◴[17 Jan 25 02:31 UTC] No.42733471{3}[source]▶
Nuts!
8. asciii ◴[17 Jan 25 02:46 UTC] No.42733568[source]▶
I was on r/flightradar24 and someone was listening on ATC and heard that one of the flights declared emergency due to fuel.

Other planes were also caught up in the chaos but SJU was at capacity apparently

replies(1): >>42744155 #
9. dadadad100 ◴[17 Jan 25 23:03 UTC] No.42744155[source]▶
The ATC is up on YouTube - I heard it on the vatsim channel. ATC would not let pilots transit the designated danger airspace without declaring an emergency. So they did.