←back to thread

Starship Flight 7

(www.spacex.com)
649 points chinathrow | 2 comments | 16 Jan 25 21:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
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{3}[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{4}[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{5}[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{6}[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 #
ceejayoz ◴[17 Jan 25 01:00 UTC] No.42732891{7}[source]▶
It wasn’t at orbital speeds yet.
replies(1): >>42732930 #
ricardobeat ◴[17 Jan 25 01:06 UTC] No.42732930{8}[source]▶
Over 21000km/h when it broke up, compared to ~28k for stuff orbiting in LEO. Should still go quite far.
replies(1): >>42732974 #
ceejayoz ◴[17 Jan 25 01:12 UTC] No.42732974{9}[source]▶
Yes, although drag is gonna be… substantially higher like this as well.
replies(1): >>42736056 #
1. InDubioProRubio ◴[17 Jan 25 10:28 UTC] No.42736056{10}[source]▶
Does melting down not reshape metallic particles into ideal droplett parts ?
replies(1): >>42736447 #
2. ceejayoz ◴[17 Jan 25 11:31 UTC] No.42736447[source]▶
No.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/02/world/africa/kenya-space-...