Better to destroy one booster than risk the damage to the launch pad or chopsticks, I suppose. I’ll be curious to hear what the cause of the abort was.
The reduced heatshield on the ship held up impressively well.
Yeah my guess from the very limited information I have is the abort-to-spashdown decision was probably automated, so I’m extremely interested to hear why they aborted the catch. It feels a bit at odds with the ambition to catch a starship soon, but if their code is so conservative about aborted catches, it seems realistic to at least try
I believe the booster can’t return to the pad unless it’s explicitly told to from the ground (so if it loses contact, it will crash safely).
During the stream, they said that the very specific criteria for a recapture attempt were not met. They didn’t say what that criteria was.
They didn’t say what that criteria was
They have since clarified that it was an issue with the tower, not the booster. Although “Tower is go for catch”, was called out during the webcast, it seems like a later check identified an issue which triggered the abort:
Following a nominal ascent and stage separation, the booster successfully transitioned to its boostback burn to begin the return to launch site. During this phase, automated health checks of critical hardware on the launch and catch tower triggered an abort of the catch attempt. The booster then executed a pre-planned divert maneuver, performing a landing burn and soft splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico.
I hope we get to find out what the “automated health checks” were.
A shame we missed the catch, but it’s always cool to see big fiery explosions
Starlink v2 sats in the next flight? The micro g engine relight seemed to go ok, so orbital trajectories should be an option going forward.
