Thanks for stating the reason why the catch was aborted. You wouldn't believe the amount of clickbait videos on YT from vloggers on the reason for the abort to only then not actually address the reason. Your video literally answers it at the start.
I really like how your videos are "just the facts" with no added stuff (in-video affiliate ads, or dumb jokes...). You are now my only source of SpaceX updates. Thanks! 👍
Launch damage should be a predictable issue and easily dealt with. SpaceX keeps making these unforced errors. It smacks of inexperienced engineers who don't appreciate the issues involved in launching heavy vehicles. Or else they're being overruled by someone above them 🤨 "Iterative design" does not mean half thinking through things, then fixing them after an utterly predictable failure. That's just wasteful.
So happy to subscribe to a channel who gets to the point with real information and no monotonous history lessons, etc first. Wondering what was different about this launch that resulted in the damage to the tower antenna and no damage on flight 5?
@@ExcavationNation I think so. Its part of the highly-accurate guidance. You can't just rely on GPS for that level of precision. They'll probably harden that antenna and then have a spare, deployable one on the tower than can be erected in the event that the primary antenna gets damaged again. You don't want to rely solely on a system that deploys an antenna due to the risk of malfunctions but having that as a backup would really help.
That's such an obvious solution that it's kinda terrifying SpaceX didn't think of it well in advance. The damage done by the Saturn V launches to the pad was pretty spectacular, there's slow motion footage of it freely available on RUclips. Are SpaceX seriously telling us they never bothered to check what a massive rocket exhaust plume might do to an antenna? Also: they stripped a lot of reentry tiles of Starship...I'm guessing that was to offset the fuel in the header tank for the (really underwhelming) relight test. FWIW the relight plume looked very green, which hints that it was rich in hypergolics. So they may not have even demonstrated an ullage burn or establishing an sustained propellant burn from the tank...
@@mrkeogh exactly, so there's something about it that needs to be so close. I'm guessing it's used to automate the catch and needs to be in proximity. Considering the starship itself uses starlink for coms I'd presume. Granted I'm not a rocket pro and have zero knowledge on the topic. I just think that a man that can make a car drive by itself and a rocket land itself wouldn't place an antenna so close if it wasn't needed. But then again, highly intelligent people sometimes overlook the obvious things us norms say "why Dat ther."
It doesn't really matter that the catching was aborted, what really matters is that the abort feature worked as advertised. I'd rather see the booster and ship land in the ocean than slam into the Mechazilla structure.
I guess that all federal agencies have the same 'secret primary mission' that the US Army does: "Don't piss off Congress." I'm serious - when I was selected for a tour as an IG - they literally said that in the training course.
I think its because of the fear of a lawsuit considering that damages could be assessed by Musk. The FAA was really not in a very fun position because they had everyone trying to pull them in every direction all at once. It was one of those situations were nothing they did would satisfy everyone. I think their hard-line stance on SpaceX for a while was really just them forcing the problem to come to a conclusion once lawsuits were threatened and they thus has justification to do what SpaceX wanted at the chagrin of everyone else.
The same tower. The entire purpose of the tower is to catch both and restack and relaunch quickly so you do it on one. Also, only 1 tower is complete and the other will not be done by then.
@@cube2fox The ship would be caught somewhere around 12 hours after launch. The ship needs to be on the right path to intercept the tower and everytime it orbits the Earth, it's path moves a little. But the arms can move a lot. They can move to one side of the Booster so the ship flame doesn't touch the booster. There's a good render of it where the ship gets caught to the right of the booster and placed on top of the booster afterwards
IMO they will use the second tower to catch the booster thus giving them time to repair if needed the first one . Once the star-ship is in orbit they will have all the time they need to assess damage on the launch tower make necessary repairs and even move the booster off of the second tower to catch the ship itself in need be
It's so impressive how they make successes out of failures. They're planning is deep on several layers. I get the impression that they sometimes want a mission to fail just for evaluation purposes. The spokesperson was even mentioning how they would push the systems to the max and might not get the catch.
That antennae probably needs to be exactly where it is located, There are landing systems located at airports to center altitude and glide slope for airplanes and they need to be located where they need to be inline with the runways. They utilize highly directional radio signals that computers on the plane use to align the airplane exactly where it needs to be to land. The same is probably exists and is needed for landing a booster precisely on target. Radio signals need to have taken into account all surfaces that could affect the signals directional properties on the tower and any other nearby structures and antennas as well
@@johncherish7610 Unless it's for GPS, it can be moved. The only time they need to be fixed is if they're being used for navigation like differential GPS. I don't know if they said what kind of coms the tower is for.
I wonder if the problem wasn't significant, but because they have everything on high alert it was an easy divert. They needed to prove that a late flag could still result in a perfect water landing. The next flight will be a last second divert back to the water.
Critical comms requires redundant physical infrastructure in independent locations with physical cable diverse paths. Looks like old best practice is either forgotten, not considered or no funding. $200K? $500k? Mitigates against loss of a $10M? $20M rocket booster.
@@Johnwashere-dt2ov agree its a miniscule amount compare to the bosster price . on the good side that booster it meant to be abandon anyway after this flight so overall its fine i think they learn thier lesson for next time .
@ retired Telecom/electonics/electrical engineer. Spent most part of my career mentoring young Engineers and recommending to business leaders including military and emergency services of the importance and value of redundancy in critical infrastructure. Sitting back having a beer and watching a new generation of Agile engineers/developers/Elon hating on previous generations and proudly inventing “new stuff” that was always there.
They prefer to be efficient if they can, so the first choice is dual use towers, specialized towers means you get only 50% as much work for the same number of towers.
Elon’s team, an effort so grand, A rocket’s flight, a dream so planned. But in the salty sea, will it decay? Extraordinary achievement, come what may! 🚀😯
Hats-Off to everyone involved! Don't care what anyone says, all of this is absolutely spectacular and stunningly impressive! I've worked with complex systems, and there is so many things that have to go right at the exact time. Spacex has really put themselves out there and I'm amazed at the success they've had. On the tower, with it bent, it could have pulled apart coaxial cables carrying the RF to and from the antenna. They probably had a backup, but many times just because you have it doesn't mean you're fully comfortable using it...
I also noticed how the Super Heavy did not pitch away from the tower immediately on launch, unlike last flight. I wonder if that is why the mast bent when it didn't last time?
Yes it seemed that way they didn't need to use full power to hoist the ship into orbit and the ship itself was lighter missing rows of tiles left off to reduce weight of the ship
Wonder if this means they will eventually built an “emergency” tower further away from the launch area, but close enough to redirect if necessary. An alternative that wouldn’t risk your launch infrastructure if the booster crashed, but also save an expensive booster when a concerning problem (but not necessarily a critical failure) happens.
Why would the antenna be right there any way?? Unless it’s absolutely necessary why wouldn’t they have it at the place where all the people are that are operating everything ( forgot what they can that place)
It would be cool if they maybe build an alternative landing area, like a deep pool or some structure into the ocean, that the landing booster still can be used and isn't completely lost. Or maybe have something that swims and some strong rope, so when the booster falls into the ocean, it will stay afloat and can simply be pulled back to shore :D
I think the issue is that when the booster hits water, #1. It falls over and breaks then blows up. so you would have to keep it upright. And #2 (much less important than #1) at least for salt-water (I guess you could build a HUGE pool of desalinated water) it really does damage to parts.
Wouldn't it be better to have a radio tower at some other location rather than right on the launch tower. Unless that tower contained a very high frequency transmitter signal that the booster tracked all the way back home.
Yes these are development boosters and ships they are written off at launch, they are expected to be non refurbish-able Their purpose is to find out the problems in real flight mode and correct it for future design changes needed on the final versions The real worth of this is the data that is sent back to make these improvements is more valuable than the ships used.
The rate of failure about catching booster should be almost zero, otherwise they risk to destroy the tower. There is an abort mode like this one in flight 6, but is something goes wrong near the tower is a huge problem.
The antennae is probably used to send signals to center the rocket on landing, It's location is precise as to where it needs to be to send those signals. It was bent out of alignment and wouldn't function as designed. You wouldn't know this until after boost back anyway when it was activated and returned an error 1 minute after boost back
Amazing how well things work without the government in charge. I'm sure despite the cost, it's being done at half the cost if the government was doing this.
How could they have lost communication with the launch tower computer?? The computer was a Dell, programmed by Microsoft with a WiFi connection by Spectrum! What could possibly go wrong??!!
Losing the rocket a block 1 model is more acceptable right now than damaging the only operational tower putting it out of service until it is repaired and delaying future launches. The second tower will also be operational in the next year and they will press that into service to catch the booster on future flights . This seems the logical thing to do
Spoiler: We still don't know what was wrong at the tower end. Sure, some conditions weren't met, but what were those condidtions, and why weren't they met?
Maybe it was just me but… did anyone else notice that the entire starship had a slight “lean” to it (away from the tower) as it was awaiting the long countdown to launch?…
I think those are some optical illusions, sometimes that can happen. I had a guy tell me it was fake because of some background towers in a picture leaning, but they were just the surrounding little towers on one of the falcon 9 launch towers.
What do you want, bluetooth? Redundant everything is fine and dandy, but unrealistic and even bad design sometimes. Its literally impossible to have full redundancy everywhere of a machine like this. You'd have to have 66 engines, in case the other 33 went out :D Two header tanks, one just in case the other fails. There are lots of things where it just doesnt make sense from a risk analysis perspective to have redundancy. This might be one where they change their risk analysis, but thats how all decisions are made in the end. What do you do with risk, mitigate it, move it, accept it, for instance.
@@DannyBowen25 -- This is the tower communication, not the Rocket. And obviously when that link fails, the result is to throw away how many million $$$$ ?
The big question is “Can Space X and Blue Origin complete their NASA Human Landing System Contracts and safely land NASA astronauts near the lunar South Pole before China’s lands their first crewed mission at the lunar South Pole?”
Yeah. It'll be like with the MIG-25 and the F-15: China will pretend they're further along than they actually are which will cause America to panic and get things done sooner.
If the 'Catch' was abandoned due to lack of Computer Comms, it is time Elon invested in 'Tower Two' in order to be able to perform a catch function and not lose an entire assembly.
They are building it and investing in it as we speak. This has been going on for months now. Why do you think tower 2 is standing next to it already? It isn't being built for launchpad condominiums
Before I view this, let me hazard a guess at the answer: There was an imperfection in communication between StarShip and ground control. There, was that complex enough for you?
I wonder if they're going to put the resonance shell on the tower, both for aesthetics and the similar usage on cellphone towers and other equipment. Probably all of it is going to be Teslafied by 2030 ... Hardest part is keeping squirrels from finding entry points
why doesnt the booster glide down and land sideways (mini rocket guided) rather than vertical, on water?... seems a lot of fuel will be saved and recovery easier, less chance of explosion
We are, watching the equivalent history, of 1969 first manned moon Landing, on an almost every other month basis !!! What a time to alive, and a space nerd... Not necessarily in that order though ...
Thanks for stating the reason why the catch was aborted. You wouldn't believe the amount of clickbait videos on YT from vloggers on the reason for the abort to only then not actually address the reason. Your video literally answers it at the start.
I'm getting better at detecting CLICK BAIT and saving time ignoring them. Finding the reliable sources takes time. I hope SpaceX continues updating.
It was on X, most stuff is on there a lot faster than youtube.
I really like how your videos are "just the facts" with no added stuff (in-video affiliate ads, or dumb jokes...). You are now my only source of SpaceX updates. Thanks! 👍
you know what? This guy here replaces Marcus House, Matt Lowne, and NasaSpaceFlight for my starship news. I'll still visit Lowne for KSP videos.
@@thetobi583same. Everyone else just drags theirs out and adds useless stuff. I wish Matt Lowne made more KSP videos instead of space news..
For me, Marcus House is too good, this guy for me definitely replaces WAI @@thetobi583
I like how he uses his actual voice
😂 is this a reference to "What about it"?
I was pleasantly surprised to learn why within the first minute, thanks for not beating around the bush for 8 minutes!!!
This channel is better than any other space related RUclipsrs, straight to the point information, keep it up!
Yes! I am really starting to get bothered by those channels that add so many extra words to pad the run time of their videos.
Maybe the bent lightning/comms tower on top of the tower was the reason after all
It kinda looks like the edge of the engine plume got a bit closer to it than in the past launches.
"FSD is not yet available for your vehicle" 😅
@@justinatwood8728
I suggest we add more heat shielding
@@justinatwood8728bruh it pitched over so remarkably fast it almost looked like it would hit the tower.
Launch damage should be a predictable issue and easily dealt with.
SpaceX keeps making these unforced errors. It smacks of inexperienced engineers who don't appreciate the issues involved in launching heavy vehicles. Or else they're being overruled by someone above them 🤨
"Iterative design" does not mean half thinking through things, then fixing them after an utterly predictable failure. That's just wasteful.
congratulation on 50.000 subs and thanks for the update
Finally ,a sans fluff coverage. Straight to the point 👉
I like how open and transparent SpaceX is.
Actually, this was a great test and proof of the booster water divert capabilities when needed. Another actual ACHIEVEMENT for SpaceX!!🎉🎉
🤔 Hmm I wanna know what that pipe is thats hangin over the top of the booster !? 0:06 !
gratz on 50k
Subscribed for short no BS info. Nice job.
So happy to subscribe to a channel who gets to the point with real information and no monotonous history lessons, etc first. Wondering what was different about this launch that resulted in the damage to the tower antenna and no damage on flight 5?
My bet is that antenna will eventually be ripped down and a hard line will be run else where.
I feel that would have been done originally, making me wonder if there's other sensors on that antenna requiring it to be so close.?
@@ExcavationNation I think so. Its part of the highly-accurate guidance. You can't just rely on GPS for that level of precision. They'll probably harden that antenna and then have a spare, deployable one on the tower than can be erected in the event that the primary antenna gets damaged again. You don't want to rely solely on a system that deploys an antenna due to the risk of malfunctions but having that as a backup would really help.
Maybe they will just add more lines to hold it in place.
That's such an obvious solution that it's kinda terrifying SpaceX didn't think of it well in advance.
The damage done by the Saturn V launches to the pad was pretty spectacular, there's slow motion footage of it freely available on RUclips. Are SpaceX seriously telling us they never bothered to check what a massive rocket exhaust plume might do to an antenna?
Also: they stripped a lot of reentry tiles of Starship...I'm guessing that was to offset the fuel in the header tank for the (really underwhelming) relight test.
FWIW the relight plume looked very green, which hints that it was rich in hypergolics. So they may not have even demonstrated an ullage burn or establishing an sustained propellant burn from the tank...
@@mrkeogh exactly, so there's something about it that needs to be so close.
I'm guessing it's used to automate the catch and needs to be in proximity. Considering the starship itself uses starlink for coms I'd presume.
Granted I'm not a rocket pro and have zero knowledge on the topic. I just think that a man that can make a car drive by itself and a rocket land itself wouldn't place an antenna so close if it wasn't needed. But then again, highly intelligent people sometimes overlook the obvious things us norms say "why Dat ther."
It doesn't really matter that the catching was aborted, what really matters is that the abort feature worked as advertised. I'd rather see the booster and ship land in the ocean than slam into the Mechazilla structure.
No doubt...
Kind of torn on that one. I mean seeing it slam into the tower would likely be pretty impressive. But yeah probably best not to
@@nic.h Haha!
Great recap and video. Earned my sub! KEEP IT GOING BUCKET BOY!
Weird how FAA has changed their tune recently lol
I guess that all federal agencies have the same 'secret primary mission' that the US Army does: "Don't piss off Congress."
I'm serious - when I was selected for a tour as an IG - they literally said that in the training course.
@@colincampbell767damn
It is a new serif in town called Trump. Not that it will help Musk to be more successful.
the reason is called "Trump" :)
I think its because of the fear of a lawsuit considering that damages could be assessed by Musk. The FAA was really not in a very fun position because they had everyone trying to pull them in every direction all at once. It was one of those situations were nothing they did would satisfy everyone. I think their hard-line stance on SpaceX for a while was really just them forcing the problem to come to a conclusion once lawsuits were threatened and they thus has justification to do what SpaceX wanted at the chagrin of everyone else.
will the booster and the starship land on the same tower or they use both towers?
The same tower. The entire purpose of the tower is to catch both and restack and relaunch quickly so you do it on one. Also, only 1 tower is complete and the other will not be done by then.
Will it catch the booster, put it on the launch mount, then catch the ship?
@@cube2fox The ship would be caught somewhere around 12 hours after launch. The ship needs to be on the right path to intercept the tower and everytime it orbits the Earth, it's path moves a little.
But the arms can move a lot. They can move to one side of the Booster so the ship flame doesn't touch the booster.
There's a good render of it where the ship gets caught to the right of the booster and placed on top of the booster afterwards
At first they’ll probably either remove the booster first or use the other tower. But later on they’ll probably do what @snakevenom4954 says.
IMO they will use the second tower to catch the booster thus giving them time to repair if needed the first one . Once the star-ship is in orbit they will have all the time they need to assess damage on the launch tower make necessary repairs and even move the booster off of the second tower to catch the ship itself in need be
Thank god, a channel that is just the facts and not clickbait or wild speculation.
It's so impressive how they make successes out of failures. They're planning is deep on several layers. I get the impression that they sometimes want a mission to fail just for evaluation purposes. The spokesperson was even mentioning how they would push the systems to the max and might not get the catch.
I don't think you understand what is a success and what is a failure.
It's harder to learn from success than from failure.
Short and sweet -- straight to the point !! I love this, subscribing..
Probably should eventually have some redundancy with the antenna on the other tower as a back up
That antennae probably needs to be exactly where it is located, There are landing systems located at airports to center altitude and glide slope for airplanes and they need to be located where they need to be inline with the runways. They utilize highly directional radio signals that computers on the plane use to align the airplane exactly where it needs to be to land. The same is probably exists and is needed for landing a booster precisely on target. Radio signals need to have taken into account all surfaces that could affect the signals directional properties on the tower and any other nearby structures and antennas as well
@@johncherish7610 Unless it's for GPS, it can be moved. The only time they need to be fixed is if they're being used for navigation like differential GPS. I don't know if they said what kind of coms the tower is for.
I wonder if the problem wasn't significant, but because they have everything on high alert it was an easy divert. They needed to prove that a late flag could still result in a perfect water landing. The next flight will be a last second divert back to the water.
Excellent video! I'm subscribed!
I wish I could subscribe a few hundred thousand more times. You're truly great. _Awesome_ channel, dude.
Maybe setting back the antenna location can mitigate the stress from the launch plume!
Critical comms requires redundant physical infrastructure in independent locations with physical cable diverse paths. Looks like old best practice is either forgotten, not considered or no funding. $200K? $500k? Mitigates against loss of a $10M? $20M rocket booster.
@@Johnwashere-dt2ov agree its a miniscule amount compare to the bosster price . on the good side that booster it meant to be abandon anyway after this flight so overall its fine i think they learn thier lesson for next time .
@ retired Telecom/electonics/electrical engineer. Spent most part of my career mentoring young Engineers and recommending to business leaders including military and emergency services of the importance and value of redundancy in critical infrastructure. Sitting back having a beer and watching a new generation of Agile engineers/developers/Elon hating on previous generations and proudly inventing “new stuff” that was always there.
@@Johnwashere-dt2ovI'm not sure Elon thinks in terms of redundancy, he's more of a delete until you prove you needed it guy.
Maybe that antennae is where it needs to be for landing data being transmitted to the booster
At :34 the area surrounding the launch pad looks beautiful.
I know it’s not cheap but it would seem to make sense to have separate launch and recovery towers.
They prefer to be efficient if they can, so the first choice is dual use towers, specialized towers means you get only 50% as much work for the same number of towers.
Exactly why there is a second one being built don't you think?
It might be a bit dangerous to have a second stage caught by the chopsticks while the booster is directly below on the OLM.
Elon’s team, an effort so grand,
A rocket’s flight, a dream so planned.
But in the salty sea, will it decay?
Extraordinary achievement, come what may! 🚀😯
How is the tower going to catch both the ship and booster? Or do they go to different towers?
That is one option, the other is to leave the ship in orbit until a tower is clear.
Thanks for explanation, there's been a LOT of speculation, some concerning the antennae on the tower.
Excellent and detailed report.
best space news channel on youtube
Hats-Off to everyone involved!
Don't care what anyone says, all of this is absolutely spectacular and stunningly impressive!
I've worked with complex systems, and there is so many things that have to go right at the exact time.
Spacex has really put themselves out there and I'm amazed at the success they've had.
On the tower, with it bent, it could have pulled apart coaxial cables carrying the RF to and from the antenna.
They probably had a backup, but many times just because you have it doesn't mean you're fully comfortable using it...
One tower for launch and another for catching
Thanks for sharing! Nicely done.
I also noticed how the Super Heavy did not pitch away from the tower immediately on launch, unlike last flight. I wonder if that is why the mast bent when it didn't last time?
I thought the liftoff was slow. Are they using less than max throttle?
Yes it seemed that way they didn't need to use full power to hoist the ship into orbit and the ship itself was lighter missing rows of tiles left off to reduce weight of the ship
@ How cool is that? You and I are on our way to orbit at let’s say 60% throttle?
Will there be a backup tower in the future?
I think they want to build a forest of towers that are launching, stacking, catching, and being serviced all at once.
well yes .
yeah.@@IQof2
Thanks for the video
0:35 in this shot the secound tower looks like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Probebely the fishey lense right?
Thank you for being straight to the point.
The booster splashdown is a valuable safety demonstration in itself! 🎉
Wonder if this means they will eventually built an “emergency” tower further away from the launch area, but close enough to redirect if necessary. An alternative that wouldn’t risk your launch infrastructure if the booster crashed, but also save an expensive booster when a concerning problem (but not necessarily a critical failure) happens.
"Booster to Tower, how's it hanging?"
"..."
keep making informative and quick content please!
Great explanation !!
So how long...
How long(FAA)
Before #7 with block#2 item #1
Why would the antenna be right there any way?? Unless it’s absolutely necessary why wouldn’t they have it at the place where all the people are that are operating everything ( forgot what they can that place)
This is the only channel where comments say they subscribed instead of unsubbscribed 😂
Would it make sense to have a large landing barge standing by during launches in the unlikely event a booster has to abort a tower catch again?
To what end? What does a barge do in that case? Nothing.
Like a full tower on a barge!? They dont have landing legs on the booster here.
Fantastic video
It would be cool if they maybe build an alternative landing area, like a deep pool or some structure into the ocean, that the landing booster still can be used and isn't completely lost.
Or maybe have something that swims and some strong rope, so when the booster falls into the ocean, it will stay afloat and can simply be pulled back to shore :D
There is not magical backup that won't involve damaging the booster badly.
I think the issue is that when the booster hits water, #1. It falls over and breaks then blows up. so you would have to keep it upright. And #2 (much less important than #1) at least for salt-water (I guess you could build a HUGE pool of desalinated water) it really does damage to parts.
@@DannyBowen25 good point. Does it explode by itself? i thought they explode it on purpose :D
the tower broke before the booster did!
In the near future, they can have two towers to pick for catch, that will increase the chance dramatically!
There will be several towers.
Thank you, much appreciated
Sounds like the comm tower on top of the launch tower needs to be reinforced.
Newbie here but I'm a fan of your channel!
Wouldn't it be better to have a radio tower at some other location rather than right on the launch tower. Unless that tower contained a very high frequency transmitter signal that the booster tracked all the way back home.
They need a some sort of Waterfall style sound suppresion system on the tower, i feel like this isnt being studied enough
Why do you think it requires more study?
Can someone answer a question for me; can the booster and Starship be refurbished after landing in the ocean, or are they written off?
They're destroyed.
Yes these are development boosters and ships they are written off at launch, they are expected to be non refurbish-able Their purpose is to find out the problems in real flight mode and correct it for future design changes needed on the final versions The real worth of this is the data that is sent back to make these improvements is more valuable than the ships used.
@@johncherish7610
Thanks 😁
@@imaginary_friend7300
Thanks for that.
The rate of failure about catching booster should be almost zero, otherwise they risk to destroy the tower.
There is an abort mode like this one in flight 6, but is something goes wrong near the tower is a huge problem.
If that is the case, it seems to me they would have had com issues prior to the boost back burn.
The antennae is probably used to send signals to center the rocket on landing, It's location is precise as to where it needs to be to send those signals. It was bent out of alignment and wouldn't function as designed. You wouldn't know this until after boost back anyway when it was activated and returned an error 1 minute after boost back
Did Spacex dump the booster like a test
Amazing how well things work without the government in charge. I'm sure despite the cost, it's being done at half the cost if the government was doing this.
Good Information packed vodeo
Such a shame. It’s such a beautiful spacecraft. Sad to see it go to waste after it’s performed flawlessly.
That's the fate of a lot of test articles though.
How could they have lost communication with the launch tower computer?? The computer was a Dell, programmed by Microsoft with a WiFi connection by Spectrum! What could possibly go wrong??!!
Whats the cost of the loss?
Extra data.
Losing the rocket a block 1 model is more acceptable right now than damaging the only operational tower putting it out of service until it is repaired and delaying future launches. The second tower will also be operational in the next year and they will press that into service to catch the booster on future flights . This seems the logical thing to do
Straight to the point …. You got my subscription.
Spoiler: We still don't know what was wrong at the tower end. Sure, some conditions weren't met, but what were those condidtions, and why weren't they met?
Maybe it was just me but… did anyone else notice that the entire starship had a slight “lean” to it (away from the tower) as it was awaiting the long countdown to launch?…
It wasn't leaning.
didnt see it
I think those are some optical illusions, sometimes that can happen. I had a guy tell me it was fake because of some background towers in a picture leaning, but they were just the surrounding little towers on one of the falcon 9 launch towers.
Why is tower control comms via a radio link? And why not redundant? Bet you it will be soon....
Because it's hard to wire coms to a rocket?
What do you want, bluetooth? Redundant everything is fine and dandy, but unrealistic and even bad design sometimes. Its literally impossible to have full redundancy everywhere of a machine like this. You'd have to have 66 engines, in case the other 33 went out :D Two header tanks, one just in case the other fails. There are lots of things where it just doesnt make sense from a risk analysis perspective to have redundancy. This might be one where they change their risk analysis, but thats how all decisions are made in the end. What do you do with risk, mitigate it, move it, accept it, for instance.
@@DannyBowen25 -- This is the tower communication, not the Rocket. And obviously when that link fails, the result is to throw away how many million $$$$ ?
@@leeharrison2722 Is it not how the tower talks to the rocket?
Thank you!
Perhaps the real tower catch was the friends we made along the way...
The big question is “Can Space X and Blue Origin complete their NASA Human Landing System Contracts and safely land NASA astronauts near the lunar South Pole before China’s lands their first crewed mission at the lunar South Pole?”
Yeah. It'll be like with the MIG-25 and the F-15: China will pretend they're further along than they actually are which will cause America to panic and get things done sooner.
You can bet Musk will, and Bezos will hold out for more money from the teet
If the 'Catch' was abandoned due to lack of Computer Comms, it is time Elon invested in 'Tower Two' in order to be able to perform a catch function and not lose an entire assembly.
They are building a 2nd tower... Do you have any idea what's going on?
They are building it and investing in it as we speak. This has been going on for months now. Why do you think tower 2 is standing next to it already? It isn't being built for launchpad condominiums
Before I view this, let me hazard a guess at the answer: There was an imperfection in communication between StarShip and ground control. There, was that complex enough for you?
Surely, all those engines can be reclaimed and remanufactured, right?
Probably not.
Why not have a second tower for the catch?
They are making a 2nd tower, likely though they'd prefer all of them to be dual use if possible.
I wonder if they're going to put the resonance shell on the tower, both for aesthetics and the similar usage on cellphone towers and other equipment. Probably all of it is going to be Teslafied by 2030 ... Hardest part is keeping squirrels from finding entry points
They need more than one catch tower.
why doesnt the booster glide down and land sideways (mini rocket guided) rather than vertical, on water?... seems a lot of fuel will be saved and recovery easier, less chance of explosion
It is not designed to land on water and you can't just glide down without wings and that's dead weight.
Cheaper than scrapping it.
It seems like the worst place to put fragile equipment such as an aerial
Top of a tall structure.. that's kinda the best place.
Abolish EPA
That's a brainless notion.
Wonder what the starship divert will be with humans on board?
Was the booster recovered? I’m sure the Raptor engines got dunked in salt water…which can’t be a good thing?
I hope that this causes another redundant system to be put in. 👍
Direct to the answers THEN elaborates: Inmediate like.
When is flight to radioactive mars planet?
Good job, Spock!
You got a like and a sub! Nice explanation
All I can see is the curvature of our Flat Earth. Sorry it's just me.
Elon is the most gangster person to ever live! 👍🏻🇺🇸
So now 'go-arounds' for 'reusable' rocket.
They rush the launch and the cost is hundred million dollar lost
We are, watching the equivalent history, of 1969 first manned moon Landing, on an almost every other month basis !!! What a time to alive, and a space nerd... Not necessarily in that order though ...
Might wanna look into some redundancy.
It's a spacecraft NOT a ship!
That's a meaningless nit to pick.
@@imaginary_friend7300 No it is not!