The failed booster had reflown 23 times also.. It just set the limit of reuses, considering they were planned for 10 or so reflights. Now they know what to look for to replace or look for after 20 or so reflights
who would've thought 7 years ago, that you can land a rocket 300+ times and that you no longer have a single rocket launch to space, but one that can do it 23 times ...
This is why I wait for the NSF reports. Forget the click bait articles with ignorant speculation. Analytical breakdowns and explanations are so refreshing in today's world. Keep it up crew! 👍✌️💨
Definitely agree, and recently that's been for everything happening in the space industry. Even people I used to trust are leaning into clickbait territory...
Here's a theory: Stacking of tolerances. Whenever you are pushing the margins, there is a remote possibility that all of your margins go the wrong way at the same time. Example: slightly faster landing velocity, slightly underperforming engine, rogue wave raises the deck of the recovery ship an extra meter, landing leg shock absorber fails, crush core manufacturing flaw means the core is too rigid and doesn't crush properly... all just barely inside their individual tolerances, but collectively, it's just too much for the booster to bear.
Yup, when I was being taught precision measurement and drafting they mentioned the same thing. All your measurements have to be from the same point or your tolerances could stack up and while each individual measurement is fine, the one on the end may be off by as many measurements as were taken. So if your tolerance is within 1/64" and you take 8 measurements from different datums, the last one may end up being off by as much as 8/64", or 1/8". Which is HUGE compared to 1/64.
Thanks Ryan and NSF team. It was a great launch stream and was fun to watch. B1062 is with B1058 now. And Space X said 1058 had older legs and the newer boosters had upgraded landing legs. So it always a possibility that the 1062 was a older version also.
This - 23 landings means its probably a older booster so older landing legs would make sense. Also means upgrading the landing legs for the fleet is probably in order, especially with FAA asking questions.
Ryan absolutely nails this Dasplanation (9.875). Thanks for the flight review with comparative videos and a deep dive into how this could have happened. NSF has always put other space news media outlets to shame. NO CLICK BAIT HERE. Just the facts.
The hydraulics snapped, spraying out hydraulics fluid which caught fire and the left over fuel exploded. Nothing major. SpaceX pushes everything to the limit to see what the limits are. Now they know. The Falcon 9 will eventually be retired anyways so... 23 launches for a booster is quite incredible.
It's kinda funny that they have become so successful at reuse that they are now freaked out when they lose a booster, especially when just a few years ago we lost them all and that was by design.
Spacex isn't freaked out, the FAA suddenly decided to ground their entire fleet for a failed landing (which was 100% a recovery issue and doesn't affect other flights according to Spacex)
Totally unrelated but 267 is the engine displacement of a small block V8 from a 1981 Chevrolet Malibu. 😅 I had one back in 2001 in Ottawa while I worked Smartwiring, prewiring fiber/structured wired smart homes with fiber op. in home audio distribution, upstream/downstream coaxial distribution, in home security system installation with in home lighting control thermostat control and other automated features, as well as central vacuum. The company I worked for had most of the new contracts in the Greater Ottawa Valley.
Great analysis Ryan, team. Clearly the failure cascaded somehow to cause a landing leg failure, causing the toppling. I agree the excess fire shows that the nozzle likely did contact the deck, causing a crack in the engine housing somewhere, leading to this failure as well. What caused both of those is the clincher. Degraded engine performance wouldn't be out of the realm of possibilities, though there are other likely candidates as well. Clogged LOX filters, and so on... SpaceX likely already has the candidates on the board and is analyzing all data to see. They may wait until they can physically examine the remains of the booster before making their final determination and report to FAA.
Since it is the 23rd flight, and a flight leading number of flights, it might just be caution to make sure that wear and tear really wasn't the cause. Remember, SpaceX leads the investigation and reports to the FAA.
Thank you Ryan, Adrian, and Alex for going through going the various scenarios for this mishap. Now it's just wait and see what SpaceX determines as the cause.
23 launches is extremely impressive. That's slightly under 22 launches more than the average booster if we remove other Falcon 9 boosters from the statistics.
No one else is doing this! 267 successful launch & landings in a row is frankly amazing. SpaceX will get valuable data from this and make Falcon 9 even more reliable! They will probably just add a few items to the refurb checklist
I love how you guys reach out for comments. Down in the Australia I was waiting for Polaris Dawn but when it was scrubbed I didn't bother watching the 8-6 mission. I do regret making that choice!
I watched it I blame the giant alien hand for pushing the booster down on the Gravitas barge for the booster failure; it is just my theory thou, but it is plausible
@@isaktheswede Spacex will be done investigating and solve the issue in a couple days though and the bureaucrats won't allow them to fly for weeks probably like last time.
He seems to have an agenda for clicks. Sadly some other channels that support SpaceX do the same thing. I like NSF for the balanced and realistic coverage.
It us amazing that they can do this at all. I saw fire after the boost back burn was completed. Looks like a kerosene fuel leak and fire compromised the strut. Look at T + 6:50
@@s4-bf6vp I did not notice it on other landings, that makes sense but it looks much more prominent on this landing, also it looked like soot was being emitted toward the camera,
To me it looked like a possible 4th Option. Rocket landed but engines didn't cutoff as expected. Perhaps causing burn thru of a landing leg due to flame diverted by the deck.
Man it's kinda sad watching the various media strems out there, just how nuts people are going over this booster not making it. Like it wasn't on it's 23rd return...or that it damn near made it except for a relatively ( though ultimately destructive ) failure...yet if you check various media outlets ( professional or otherwise ) you'd think this was the end of SpaceX, that it was a massive failure that's the end of everything, that Elon is gonna have to go hide for the rest of his life, etc....
Even worse, reporting on this "failed landing" like all other rockets also get reused They seem to forget that SpaceX its reusability is fairly unique.
This will be interesting. Could be wear and tear, but who knows? Anyway, 22 successful landings for an orbital class booster is still quite impressive. Thanks for the report, Ryan!
Its pretty clear and I think you agree, a successful launch is the objective, being able to even use the falcon 9 again even once is an engineering amazement. It did very well more than 20 times. Amazing.
Great video. Not enough people online have been talking about the booster’s speed. I noticed it when I first saw the landing, Falcon landing’s are usually very soft and this was noticeably harder. I think that’s more likely than a leg failing.
As someone who has pretty good knowledge of the FAA's history, I'm sure the FAA needs some dental work, something like a a complete tooth removal. And don't say "but safety", look at Boeing.
Thanks nerds, excellent as always. When I watched the live landing it seemed to me it hit the deck faster than usual. Hopefully Spacex will let us know what they found.
Wondering if the atmospheric pressure was lower on the way down reducing the frictional deceleration and calling for more fueled deceleration and running them out of fuel. It wouldn't show up in the telemetry we see since we don't see fuel consumption.
An idea for @SpaceX : During the landing burn, clearly the exhaust flames override thee autodarkening circuits of the camera, so in effect we are blinded visually. To help with this, I know that lasers are used to scan objects to record minute details. Granted, those objects are at rest, but speed is the lasers' forte, and if combined with an adequate computer recording system and very fast scan rate (perhaps increased by more lasers, each scanning a segment of the area) we should be able to get a clear image of what is happening in the "zone of fire". I'm not an engineer or anything, this is just a concept for whoever wants to develop it.
Came to the area on vacation to see Polaris Dawn but when it was delayed I compromised and watched what was supposed to be a routine Starlink launch. Couldn't have been further from routine haha
The landing failure is worthy of SpaceX's study but not worthy of the FAA's hold on launches of Falcon 9. It was an old booster whose failure someday was expected. No harm, no foul. I am quite sure SpaceX wants to know why it happened but does the FAA have to shut down SpaceX every time an old booster gives up the ghost? I think there is some politic-ing going on here and politics should have no place in the FAA.
@@richardlighthill3228 rating is for a design, not individual hardware compenents. SpaceX can say they'll only fly humans on a new booster if they want, but if there is any hint of an issue with a Merlin 1D the FAA are going to step in until it's cleared.
Since it is the 23rd flight, and a flight leading number of flights, it might just be caution to make sure that wear and tear really wasn't the cause. Remember, SpaceX leads the investigation and reports to the FAA. Political conspiracy theories need not apply.
Since it is the 23rd flight, and a flight leading number of flights, it might just be caution to make sure that wear and tear really wasn't the cause. Remember, SpaceX leads the investigation and reports to the FAA.
Since it is the 23rd flight, and a flight leading number of flights, it might just be caution to make sure that wear and tear really wasn't the cause. Remember, SpaceX leads the investigation and reports to the FAA. If the booster is still on ASOG, they can get their hands on the hardware too.
Keep in mind the altitude of the ocean surface is constantly changing. It is also possible the ship was rising on a swell/wave as the rocket had targetted a previous but lower surface altitude. This would result in a premature landing at a much higher velocity.
That was the core... how many flights had that Merlin seen? And other respective parts that may/may-not be recycled/remanufactured. Guess thats up to the after-action team... and is in the records... Right Elon?
Since it is the 23rd flight, and a flight leading number of flights, it might just be caution to make sure that wear and tear really wasn't the cause. Remember, SpaceX leads the investigation and reports to the FAA.
Fun fact: The majority of Falcon 9 launches have taken place after December 16, 2022, when the 183rd Falcon 9 launch occurred. Today, 367 F9 launches have happened in total.
Great report and thorough analysis by Ryan! 23 full cycles on any launch system is unheard of. SpaceX, regardless of how you feel about Elon, has done remarkable work and brought reusable space launch systems to the forefront of space exploration culture.
Challenger had 10 flights, before a booster failure doomed it. Endeavour flew 25 flights. Columbia flew 28 flights before a debris hit doomed it. Atlantis had 33 flights and suffered a debris hit similar to Columbia. But it was over an aluminum mounting plate for an antenna, so the wing did not burn through (STS-27). Discovery had 39 missions.
If you slow the playback speed down to 0.25, you can clearly determine that Ryan is an alien from his voice. And playing it backward shows that he is John Lennon reincarnated.
Want Ryan's Shirt? Get It Here: shop.nasaspaceflight.com/products/launch-entry-landing-unisex-t-shirt
@NASASpaceflight, Dude! What disgusting diction you have! Maybe you should see a speech therapist? It's disgusting to listen to...
I love how the biggest SpaceX news is when they don't reuse a booster.
"Landing on the moon wasn't dramatic enough for them - why should NOT landing on it be?"
I mean a falcon 9 failed to put starlinks into their proper orbit fairly recently too...
@metropolis10 was that a failure of the Falcon 9 or the upper stage?
@@stevesoller4571the upper stage is part of the falcon 9
@@stevesoller4571 OP said "spacex" and I said "falcon9" which a quick google says encompasses both stages as belonging to the falcon9 rocket.
267 launches before a failure of one of the most complex rockets on earth? Yeah I'd say that's a win!
It sure is!
Oh yea!
The failed booster had reflown 23 times also..
It just set the limit of reuses, considering they were planned for 10 or so reflights.
Now they know what to look for to replace or look for after 20 or so reflights
who would've thought 7 years ago, that you can land a rocket 300+ times and that you no longer have a single rocket launch to space, but one that can do it 23 times ...
TO bad the media and news outlets don't see it this way. Its annoying.
I think it is a relief actually. Has been so reliable lately that it is hard to get data points on what to improve. Yesterday they got it.
This
@@cariboulou3572 That
@@cariboulou3572This what
69 likes ... nice
Cope
I remember when 10 flights per booster seemed wildly ambitious.
It fell over because the logo wasn’t painted on the deck
Exactly
Right! It didn't want to land on that deck. 😉😅
rocket decided it belonged to SpaceY now
Tech priests needed to use more incense.
@@ThatSlowTypingGuy SpaceX's supply on nano-myrrh has run out, and Amazon is holding up the fresh delivery. I wonder why...
Thanks for the insight! My legs are old too, it's just a matter of time until I tip over...
I know that feeling ... 🤣🤣🤣
Standby. Things get stupid as we age.
I've already fallen over. But I didn't explode. Might have been some leakage, though.
My legs are also old. I tipped over while doing yard work. The only damage was to my pride.
as long as you don't have flames shooting out of your ass when you tip over, you should be ok.
This is why I wait for the NSF reports. Forget the click bait articles with ignorant speculation. Analytical breakdowns and explanations are so refreshing in today's world. Keep it up crew! 👍✌️💨
Definitely agree, and recently that's been for everything happening in the space industry. Even people I used to trust are leaning into clickbait territory...
Here's a theory: Stacking of tolerances. Whenever you are pushing the margins, there is a remote possibility that all of your margins go the wrong way at the same time. Example: slightly faster landing velocity, slightly underperforming engine, rogue wave raises the deck of the recovery ship an extra meter, landing leg shock absorber fails, crush core manufacturing flaw means the core is too rigid and doesn't crush properly... all just barely inside their individual tolerances, but collectively, it's just too much for the booster to bear.
The Swiss cheese model.
Yup, when I was being taught precision measurement and drafting they mentioned the same thing. All your measurements have to be from the same point or your tolerances could stack up and while each individual measurement is fine, the one on the end may be off by as many measurements as were taken.
So if your tolerance is within 1/64" and you take 8 measurements from different datums, the last one may end up being off by as much as 8/64", or 1/8". Which is HUGE compared to 1/64.
Thanks Ryan and NSF team. It was a great launch stream and was fun to watch. B1062 is with B1058 now. And Space X said 1058 had older legs and the newer boosters had upgraded landing legs. So it always a possibility that the 1062 was a older version also.
This - 23 landings means its probably a older booster so older landing legs would make sense. Also means upgrading the landing legs for the fleet is probably in order, especially with FAA asking questions.
That’s really crazy to think about. Simply refurbishing the landing legs could prolly double the lifespan…
267 clean landings, amazing, 1 failure, MORE DATA!
Yea! ❤
Ryan absolutely nails this Dasplanation (9.875). Thanks for the flight review with comparative videos and a deep dive into how this could have happened. NSF has always put other space news media outlets to shame. NO CLICK BAIT HERE. Just the facts.
Love that Ryan is starting to get some of the bigger topics to cover! Keep up the great work!
Exactly. He's one of my favorite speakers and easy to look at.
Great review of Booster landing failure. Keep rocking Ryan and team NSF. SpaceX Falcon 9 remains unbeatable. Greetings from Brussels, Europe.
The hydraulics snapped, spraying out hydraulics fluid which caught fire and the left over fuel exploded. Nothing major. SpaceX pushes everything to the limit to see what the limits are. Now they know. The Falcon 9 will eventually be retired anyways so... 23 launches for a booster is quite incredible.
It landed at 8km/h which is abnormal bcs usally land at 2km/h
R.I.P., B1062.
Rest in pieces....
It's kinda funny that they have become so successful at reuse that they are now freaked out when they lose a booster, especially when just a few years ago we lost them all and that was by design.
Spacex isn't freaked out, the FAA suddenly decided to ground their entire fleet for a failed landing (which was 100% a recovery issue and doesn't affect other flights according to Spacex)
Awesome video Ryan, very informative! thank you NSF!
Totally unrelated but 267 is the engine displacement of a small block V8 from a 1981 Chevrolet Malibu. 😅 I had one back in 2001 in Ottawa while I worked Smartwiring, prewiring fiber/structured wired smart homes with fiber op. in home audio distribution, upstream/downstream coaxial distribution, in home security system installation with in home lighting control thermostat control and other automated features, as well as central vacuum. The company I worked for had most of the new contracts in the Greater Ottawa Valley.
That is indeed a very small V8. That's about 33cm^3 ("CC") per cylinder.
@@ChristofferETJ it is 267 cubic inches, not cc. Still a pretty small V8, but not THAT small. 😂
@@warpedfusion yep 😂
Random trivia to melt your mind or win any trivia competition 😂
Technically is did land successfully, it just didn't stay upright.
I'm still standing - yeah, yeah, oh...
@@Kurruk007 Thanks Elton
Nice reporting, Ryan
Not bad when you consider they're landing a 21 story building.
And still doing over 600km/hr, 1-km above the desk.
This rare opportunity to observe and study failure opens new doors into design limits, wear patterns, upper limit to reusability.
Tested to failure. SpaceX continues to learn from failure.
Great analysis Ryan, team. Clearly the failure cascaded somehow to cause a landing leg failure, causing the toppling. I agree the excess fire shows that the nozzle likely did contact the deck, causing a crack in the engine housing somewhere, leading to this failure as well. What caused both of those is the clincher. Degraded engine performance wouldn't be out of the realm of possibilities, though there are other likely candidates as well. Clogged LOX filters, and so on... SpaceX likely already has the candidates on the board and is analyzing all data to see. They may wait until they can physically examine the remains of the booster before making their final determination and report to FAA.
It's sad how this failed landing, is still better than what other companies can do.
Really enjoyed Ryan's breakdown/analysis on what might have caused booster 1062 landing failure.
Awesome job NSF
The FAA shouldn't ground F9 for the landing failure.
Yes, they should investigate the failure but the launch leg of the mission was successful
Since it is the 23rd flight, and a flight leading number of flights, it might just be caution to make sure that wear and tear really wasn't the cause. Remember, SpaceX leads the investigation and reports to the FAA.
Brilliant, solid, scientific analysis! 👍😊 Thanks Ryan, Alex, Adrian and rest of NSF team‼️🙏😊
Thank you for the great report and analyses with possible explanations Ryan and NSF! Good Job as always!
Thank you Ryan, Adrian, and Alex for going through going the various scenarios for this mishap. Now it's just wait and see what SpaceX determines as the cause.
23 launches is extremely impressive. That's slightly under 22 launches more than the average booster if we remove other Falcon 9 boosters from the statistics.
Excellent analysis with the limited info we have.
the beauty of Extensive Usage of New ways of doing Launching Space Vehicles, its a Beautiful Symphony of a Nations Capabilities & Progress.
Great analysis and extremely good idea to use such a relaxing outset for the video.
Excellent reporting as usual guys! 👏 Love these videos! Keep em coming please ❤
Thank you Ryan , Thank you NSF 🚀☺️
Great reporting
If they've said it was a recovery issue that rules out any engine problem. It was the leg.. it was always the leg.
Thanks NSF....Love your videos and passion for space travel!
Great job Ryan!!
NSF video launch cadence is also improving!
An outstanding analysis. Thank you all for your hard work and dedication to what you all do.
No one else is doing this! 267 successful launch & landings in a row is frankly amazing. SpaceX will get valuable data from this and make Falcon 9 even more reliable! They will probably just add a few items to the refurb checklist
I love how you guys reach out for comments. Down in the Australia I was waiting for Polaris Dawn but when it was scrubbed I didn't bother watching the 8-6 mission. I do regret making that choice!
Same here mate
I watched it
I blame the giant alien hand for pushing the booster down on the Gravitas barge for the booster failure; it is just my theory thou, but it is plausible
I also almost watched it!
Excellent analysis! Thank you!
Great analysis. Thoroughly enjoyed your thoughts on this event. It will be interesting to see what SpaceX and the FAA do from here.
Excellent breakdown NSF, thank you Ryan and team 🙏🏻
Excellent breakdown!
Thank you for going through this for us.😊 Also, I love that t-shirt! Will be checking the link given to check out merch (Yay🎉)
FAA then grounded this F9 after a landing failure but MISSION SUCCESS? Incredible.
spacex grounded themselves first
@@isaktheswede Spacex will be done investigating and solve the issue in a couple days though and the bureaucrats won't allow them to fly for weeks probably like last time.
It's a process that Space X has agreed to as a condition of their license. It simply has to play out.
@@brianw612 They made them an offer they can't refuse, for sure.
Great detail
17:57, that landing footage though 🔥, cool seeing the three engine landing burn very cool
Thanks. Good stuff.
Great analysis here, thank you!!!
You covered all my thoughts.
I wonder when thunderfoot will release a video claiming this as a reason to call space x a failure.
He seems to have an agenda for clicks. Sadly some other channels that support SpaceX do the same thing. I like NSF for the balanced and realistic coverage.
It us amazing that they can do this at all. I saw fire after the boost back burn was completed. Looks like a kerosene fuel leak and fire compromised the strut. Look at T + 6:50
Did you have a different view than the nsf stream? I didn't see anything at +6:50 besides typical plasma on the gridfins
@@s4-bf6vp I did not notice it on other landings, that makes sense but it looks much more prominent on this landing, also it looked like soot was being emitted toward the camera,
To me it looked like a possible 4th Option.
Rocket landed but engines didn't cutoff as expected. Perhaps causing burn thru of a landing leg due to flame diverted by the deck.
Man it's kinda sad watching the various media strems out there, just how nuts people are going over this booster not making it. Like it wasn't on it's 23rd return...or that it damn near made it except for a relatively ( though ultimately destructive ) failure...yet if you check various media outlets ( professional or otherwise ) you'd think this was the end of SpaceX, that it was a massive failure that's the end of everything, that Elon is gonna have to go hide for the rest of his life, etc....
Even worse, reporting on this "failed landing" like all other rockets also get reused
They seem to forget that SpaceX its reusability is fairly unique.
Oh there's no question that mainstream media, the majority of whom are left-leaning, will take any and every opportunity to throw Elon under the bus.
This will be interesting. Could be wear and tear, but who knows? Anyway, 22 successful landings for an orbital class booster is still quite impressive. Thanks for the report, Ryan!
Its pretty clear and I think you agree, a successful launch is the objective, being able to even use the falcon 9 again even once is an engineering amazement. It did very well more than 20 times. Amazing.
Great video. Not enough people online have been talking about the booster’s speed. I noticed it when I first saw the landing, Falcon landing’s are usually very soft and this was noticeably harder.
I think that’s more likely than a leg failing.
Thanks guys
As someone who has pretty good knowledge of the FAA's history, I'm sure the FAA needs some dental work, something like a a complete tooth removal. And don't say "but safety", look at Boeing.
Thanks nerds, excellent as always. When I watched the live landing it seemed to me it hit the deck faster than usual. Hopefully Spacex will let us know what they found.
Wondering if the atmospheric pressure was lower on the way down reducing the frictional deceleration and calling for more fueled deceleration and running them out of fuel. It wouldn't show up in the telemetry we see since we don't see fuel consumption.
An idea for @SpaceX : During the landing burn, clearly the exhaust flames override thee autodarkening circuits of the camera, so in effect we are blinded visually. To help with this, I know that lasers are used to scan objects to record minute details. Granted, those objects are at rest, but speed is the lasers' forte, and if combined with an adequate computer recording system and very fast scan rate (perhaps increased by more lasers, each scanning a segment of the area) we should be able to get a clear image of what is happening in the "zone of fire".
I'm not an engineer or anything, this is just a concept for whoever wants to develop it.
Came to the area on vacation to see Polaris Dawn but when it was delayed I compromised and watched what was supposed to be a routine Starlink launch. Couldn't have been further from routine haha
So it's your fault! 🤪
It’s WAS pretty routine actually…all the way until the tip lol
@@Administrator_O-5 LOL
@@Administrator_O-5 I jinxed it
A great piece. Thank you.
It didn’t fail to land, it failed to stay upright after it landed.
The landing failure is worthy of SpaceX's study but not worthy of the FAA's hold on launches of Falcon 9. It was an old booster whose failure someday was expected. No harm, no foul. I am quite sure SpaceX wants to know why it happened but does the FAA have to shut down SpaceX every time an old booster gives up the ghost? I think there is some politic-ing going on here and politics should have no place in the FAA.
Until they rule out engine malfunction it's entirely reasonable given the booster is human-rated.
@@tomj819 Do we know that it was, in fact, still human-rated or have they used it since the last human flight only for sats? Just wondering...
@@richardlighthill3228 rating is for a design, not individual hardware compenents. SpaceX can say they'll only fly humans on a new booster if they want, but if there is any hint of an issue with a Merlin 1D the FAA are going to step in until it's cleared.
Since it is the 23rd flight, and a flight leading number of flights, it might just be caution to make sure that wear and tear really wasn't the cause. Remember, SpaceX leads the investigation and reports to the FAA. Political conspiracy theories need not apply.
Exactly. It's not always a government conspiracy@@tomj819
Thank you for the update. I suspect we shall learn what we learn when we learn it. Shocking... I know....
Peaceful Skies
The analysis will make these remarkable boosters even better.
Thank you Ryan and all at NSF we all needed that comprehensive explanation.
Its amazing to see them succeed this much after so many launches, and now they can improve it further with this failure
Landing is optional, so the FAA shouldn’t have anything to say about it!
Since it is the 23rd flight, and a flight leading number of flights, it might just be caution to make sure that wear and tear really wasn't the cause. Remember, SpaceX leads the investigation and reports to the FAA.
Almost 300 flights
ONE accident and already panic.
What about cars? They are still allowed.
Planes and rockets always have been subject to high scrutiny and checks.
Since it is the 23rd flight, and a flight leading number of flights, it might just be caution to make sure that wear and tear really wasn't the cause. Remember, SpaceX leads the investigation and reports to the FAA. If the booster is still on ASOG, they can get their hands on the hardware too.
Keep in mind the altitude of the ocean surface is constantly changing. It is also possible the ship was rising on a swell/wave as the rocket had targetted a previous but lower surface altitude. This would result in a premature landing at a much higher velocity.
The analysis will be interesting
It failed because Ryan slept through it. Have to watch them all now!
LOL
23rd launch of that specific booster damn
Good Job 👍
Yeah, this is very detailed.
The "it scared the birds" comment on the video of a previous launch failure was funny!
23rd time its been used!!! Jeez - that's amazing and no wonder it finally, finally gave out!
It's amazing how many flights B1062 got. I'm excited to see if B1061 can get 24 flights AND land the 24th time.
That was the core... how many flights had that Merlin seen? And other respective parts that may/may-not be recycled/remanufactured.
Guess thats up to the after-action team... and is in the records... Right Elon?
I have to chuckle. I remember the days in the 50s when nearly everything blew up.
Hy Ryan. Thanks ❤
Good plan to identify cause & potentially prevent an RTLS booster anomaly in future.
Blue Origin targets at least 25 landings for the New Glenn lower stage. Quite ambitious!
I mean SpaceX already prove that is perfectly reachable.
Great comments
Stuff happens, not dwelling on it, lets get back to it and continue onward!
I can't wait to see your coverage of the drone ship coming to port with the remains of our deceased booster.
I understand the FAA oversees these flights, but when it comes to a non-critical component of the mission, why is the FAA so quick to ground?
Because it is SpaceX and Elon has pissed off the their political leash holders. It is very clearly an overreaction.
Because what went wrong on landing might have an impact on the launch. Remember, these rockets also carry live atraunauts.
Since it is the 23rd flight, and a flight leading number of flights, it might just be caution to make sure that wear and tear really wasn't the cause. Remember, SpaceX leads the investigation and reports to the FAA.
You might thought that 1 failure risk in 100 flights are low but when you fly 250 times it ads up to severel percent risk.
Fun fact: The majority of Falcon 9 launches have taken place after December 16, 2022, when the 183rd Falcon 9 launch occurred. Today, 367 F9 launches have happened in total.
Rest in Pieces B1062!
Great report and thorough analysis by Ryan! 23 full cycles on any launch system is unheard of. SpaceX, regardless of how you feel about Elon, has done remarkable work and brought reusable space launch systems to the forefront of space exploration culture.
Challenger had 10 flights, before a booster failure doomed it.
Endeavour flew 25 flights.
Columbia flew 28 flights before a debris hit doomed it.
Atlantis had 33 flights and suffered a debris hit similar to Columbia. But it was over an aluminum mounting plate for an antenna, so the wing did not burn through (STS-27).
Discovery had 39 missions.
All those words and it's still down to wait and see. You can only Speculate NSF everyone needs to realize that.
If you slow the playback speed down to 0.25, you can clearly determine that Ryan is an alien from his voice. And playing it backward shows that he is John Lennon reincarnated.