3 ms·
Is this due to the higher incidence angle ? Seemed like the main 'difficulty' factor that was upped in the mission description
by davidguetta 2y ago
Is this due to the higher incidence angle ?
Seemed like the main 'difficulty' factor that was upped in the mission description
- alach11 2y agoYeah Elon described it as a "harder" and "faster" landing. So maybe things were a little outside of the safe parameters, necessitating the change in plans. I wonder if we'll get to find out what that was.
- cwillu 2y agoThat was the upper stage, not the booster.
- LanceJones 2y agoIt was, in fact, the booster ("coming in harder and faster"). The upper stage's orientation was being tested (nose down until final flip) as was the removal of 2,100 heat shield tiles.
- pdabbadabba 2y agoI think these were two different things. It was Starship that reentered (successfully) at a lower angle of attack, but it was the Super Heavy Booster that was supposed to attempt the chopsticks landing.
- cwillu 2y agoI haven't seen anything for sure, but there was a significantly bent antenna on the launch tower that may have been the cause.
- chasd00 2y agoIirc on the way up they announced the tower was go for catch. Divert order was given on the way back down. Really curious to find out what the reason was because it seemed like a picture perfect splash down. No random fires, no (visible) component explosions. Maybe a range issue like a boat or something?
- cwillu 2y agoYep, may not be related, I'm just going off the speculation + a picture from one of everydayastronaut's cameras showing a rather bent looking antenna structure on the top of the tower.