←back to thread

Starship Flight 7

(www.spacex.com)
649 points chinathrow | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
terramex ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] No.42732457[source]
As long as the debris has no effect wherever it lands, I agree with you
replies(2): >>42732659 #>>42733399 #
verzali ◴[] 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 #
Kye ◴[] No.42732706{4}[source]
Does SpaceX bother with NOTAM for its launches?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOTAM

It seems like the flights should have been planned around it so no diversion would be needed.

replies(4): >>42732874 #>>42732927 #>>42737818 #>>42738301 #
1. sbuttgereit ◴[] No.42737818{5}[source]
My understanding is that there are areas which are noted as being possible debris zones across the flight path, but that aircraft are not specifically told to avoid those areas unless there an actual event to which to respond.

If my understanding is correct, it seems sensible at least in a hand-wavy way: you have a few places where things are more likely to come down either unplanned or planned (immediately around the launch site and at the planned deorbit area), but then you have a wide swath of the world where, in a relatively localized area, you -might- have something come down with some warning that it will (just because the time it takes to get from altitude to where aircraft are). You close the priority areas, but you don't close the less likely areas pro-actively, but only do so reactively, it seems you'd achieve a balance between aircraft safety and air service disruptions.