Hacker News

Favorites Setup
☰
Comment by inglor_cz | original | SpaceX catches the Starship to end Flight 15
[−]inglor_cz · 2026-11-14 Sat 21:28 UTC · link
"Slightly low on fuel."

If I understand correctly, the margin was tight enough not to take the risk of damaging the tower.

[−]quotemstr · 2026-11-14 Sat 21:32 UTC · link
And if the landing footage is any indication, it sure looks like they would have made the catch anyway if they'd gone for it.
[−]inglor_cz · 2026-11-14 Sat 21:38 UTC · link
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.
[−]dylan604 · 2026-11-14 Sat 22:35 UTC · link
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.
[−]baq · 2026-11-14 Sat 21:45 UTC · link
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
[−]ericcumbee · 2026-11-14 Sat 23:05 UTC · link
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.
[−]ssl-3 · 2026-11-14 Sat 22:10 UTC · link
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.

[−]dylan604 · 2026-11-14 Sat 22:33 UTC · link
Sounds like the final boom was intentional from control
[−]ssl-3 · 2026-11-14 Sat 22:37 UTC · link
Perhaps it was, and if so: It occurred subsequent to the implosion.

(In case that distinction is missed, I do mean "implode" as the antonym of "explode".)

[−]oska · 2026-11-15 Sun 02:27 UTC · link
> and then the body of the booster imploded

This was the Flight Termination System (FTS)

[−]ssl-3 · 2026-11-15 Sun 04:18 UTC · link
It terminates via implosion? That sounds backwards.
[−]oska · 2026-11-15 Sun 09:42 UTC · link
Scott Manley explains why there was an implosion after the FTS was triggered here :

https://youtu.be/uwGBBAv8PBI?si=nhuGpQXreMD9U56o&t=565

[−]chinabot · 2026-11-14 Sat 23:28 UTC · link
They need another cheaper tower just for catching. Much less mass when landing.
[−]ggreer · 2026-11-14 Sat 23:44 UTC · link
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.