Apparently the booster signaled it didn't have enough fuel to risk it. Either because it consumed more then expected on the way up, or a measurement error potentially.
That's basically what Musk said, yes: that they need to work on both engine performance and performance consistency. He said they'd be cutting off the main engines one second sooner to provide more margin for boost-back.
Amazing that a one-second difference can matter, but those things go through tons of fuel every one of those seconds!
At the last moment the exhaust turned green. That's consistent with the fuel running out, the engines running oxygen rich, and subsequently "engine rich". So I would put my money on actually running out vs a measurement error.
[−]DarmokJalad1701 · 2026-11-14 Sat 21:27 UTC ·
link
Slight underperformance in the engines resulted in the the booster not reaching where it was supposed to be and the GNC systems automatically aborted to the gulf for safety.
Their risk tolerance would probably be greater if both towers were fully operational. But any damage to the only functional tower during booster catch = an automatic abort to the ship catch one day later, and the ship catch is what was really interesting at this point of development.
The previz imagery of their plans for the Louisiana coast showed pairs of towers dotting the coast. At first I thought they were for alternating the cadence of launches, but now I wonder if one is to catch the booster and the other to catch ship.
landing footage shows exactly why they didn't attempt the tower catch - the final braking burn was engine rich (green tint), it didn't blow up, but there was a respectable chance of it just crashing into the tower running on less than fumes
I'm not sure thats the case. the booster hovered for what seemed a lot longer than prior booster landing attempts. Almost like they were purposely running out the fuel.
The goal, as I understand it, is to return the booster with as little fuel as possible at time of catch -- and not run short.
The booster footage indicated to me that its engines turned off, and then the body of the booster imploded, before it touched the ground and then became the expected fireball.
I'm definitely not a rocket scientist, but this series of events leads me to believe that the fuel was absolutely exhausted.
The existing towers can only handle empty ships & boosters. The tower stacks them, then they’re fueled. A catch-only tower would avoid some cladding and the propellant loading lines, but it would still need a deluge system and a QD arm to replace any remaining propellant with inert gas. At that point you might as well pay a little more and get a fully capable tower.
Hmm is this why Elon wants to deregulate his pursuits? Should we just turn a blind eye to this sort of pollution in the same way the Spacex camera cut the shot of the explosion as it occurred?
Let's hope our government will more proactively monitor these launches starting in January 2027 when a new Texas and federal government comes to power.
> What are the impacts to the Texas Gulf when a booster detonates into the ocean?
Trivial compared to what we already did with Deepwater Horizion.
[−]somenameforme · 2026-11-15 Sun 02:32 UTC ·
link
Lol. I'm not sure if you're making an ironic joke, but they actually had to prove this when the previous administration was trying to bury them in bureaucracy. So they had to carry out a scientific study to demonstrate that (1) the ocean is quite large and (2) the odds of anything being at any specific point are quite low.
I'm sure you can dig it up somewhere if you too need a study to confirm such.
Is it weird that a private for-profit company wanting to explode something in public space needs to prove it does what it can to minimize the potential damages? Should everyone be allowed to throw bombs into the ocean? Or just Elon?
[−]literalAardvark · 2026-11-15 Sun 12:29 UTC ·
link
They didn't bomb the ocean. It was empty and just above the water line which means minimal shock in the water, minimal dispersion in the air.
Amazing that a one-second difference can matter, but those things go through tons of fuel every one of those seconds!
source: Scott Manley https://youtube.com/shorts/m2oGDCvDmdE?si=0AlX8sgHDihXCED6
If I understand correctly, the margin was tight enough not to take the risk of damaging the tower.
The booster footage indicated to me that its engines turned off, and then the body of the booster imploded, before it touched the ground and then became the expected fireball.
I'm definitely not a rocket scientist, but this series of events leads me to believe that the fuel was absolutely exhausted.
(In case that distinction is missed, I do mean "implode" as the antonym of "explode".)
This was the Flight Termination System (FTS)
https://youtu.be/uwGBBAv8PBI?si=nhuGpQXreMD9U56o&t=565
booster was low on fuel, plus no mood of risking tower with boom, boosters are cheaper than towers.
Let's hope our government will more proactively monitor these launches starting in January 2027 when a new Texas and federal government comes to power.
Trivial compared to what we already did with Deepwater Horizion.
I'm sure you can dig it up somewhere if you too need a study to confirm such.