SpaceX Falcon 9 booster 'tipped over' into the ocean during landing

[h_tbob]

I watched Jeff bezos’s tour of blue origin facility with everyday astronaut.

He gave the reasoning for why New Glen has more than three legs (I think 6)

He said that the more legs you have, the smaller each leg has to reach out to give the same probability of tipping over. So there’s a formula to pick the best number of legs given their weight etc.

Interestingly he said they picked their number not just for that but also because it went well with the engine distribution.

[cherioo]

It’s amazing how this is now the news, not when it successfully lands!

[gregoriol]

"This was the booster's 23rd launch." that's the thing I'll remember from the article

[grecy]

Think about who stands to lose the most if Tesla and spacex dominate (answer: old money)

Think about who controls the media (answer: old money and friends of old money)

It is very easy to see why they want everyone to think spacex and Tesla are collapsing

[curiousObject]

This is the second recent glitch in a SpaceX mission. The other, more serious, was the failure of a Starlink Falcon 9 to quite reach a viable orbit because of an oxygen leak on an engine.

These minor blips only stand out in the context of SpaceX’s unprecedented consistency, which surpasses anyone else. But, if they have another snafu soon, maybe it could hint at a slight decline in their normal technical excellence?

Edit : OTOH, this was launch 23 of that booster, as mentioned by @gregoriol, so I for one might see that as a successful test discovery of the reuse limits of the structure. And also, the F9 that didn’t reach orbit probably wouldn’t have threatened the lives of a human crew, although it would have scrubbed their mission.

[quartesixte]

The industry has been poaching a lot of talented technicians away. And the OGs are starting to retire...

[raverbashing]

As much as I think the FAA response might be a bit unfair, I think the issue here is what is promised vs delivered

Even with a disposable booster you want it to follow a certain flight path and be discarded at a given area.

If you promised that it will land and it doesn't, even if it is inconsequential to the rest of the mission, well...

[krisoft]

> you want it to follow a certain flight path

It followed the promised flight path all the way to the drone ship and then tipped over.

I would understand the consternation if it left the keep out zone and landed in an entirely different area of the sea. But it sounds like that was not the case.

> even if it is inconsequential to the rest of the mission, well...

Could you finish your sentence please? The job of the FAA is to keep everyone safe. There is no indication that something unsafe happened here. What happened here is the reason why the recovery people are standing-by outside a declared safe zone and not chilling on the drone ship. (In other words this is the reason why the droneship is a drone ship.)

[Sakos]

I just don't understand the repeated takes that this is unfair. There was a failure, it should be investigated and a fix found. Once SpaceX has done that, they can continue launching rockets. I'm not sure where the problem is. This is what we expect from every plane crash too, or did I imagine the existence and purpose of the NTSB?

The same thing happened with the last explosion and the Falcon 9 was eventually allowed to fly again once it was determined there was no public safety issue: https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/spacexs-falcon-9-cl...

They were even allowed to fly again before SpaceX finished their investigation as soon as the safety question was answered.

This isn't a punishment.

[firesteelrain]

FAA is doing their job. If the investigation turns up nothing then that’s fine. If they find something like SpaceX didn’t follow their quality processes then that’s time to pause before someone gets hurt.