teractiveodular 6 months ago

The last one is stage separation, not an explosion. You can clearly see the "exploded" rocket continuing to fly afterwards.

  • olex 6 months ago

    Separation is much closer to the launch pad in Texas, the booster barely makes it downrange at all before turning around. This being filmed from the Bahamas with this much lateral velocity, gotta be the Ship breaking up. Likely the FTS triggered after enough engines failed that it couldn't make orbit / planned trajectory.

  • s1artibartfast 6 months ago

    I dont think so. I think it is the breakup, with a large mass visible. most of the material will continue on until it parabolically renters and burns up in a visible manner

  • Polizeiposaune 6 months ago

    No, if that was taken from the Bahamas, that's an explosion connected to the loss of the 2nd stage.

    Staging happens closer to the Texas coast and I don't believe you'd have line of sight to it from the Bahamas.

    • pixl97 6 months ago

      I'd say it might be after the loss of the craft. It was losing engines for a while then lost telemetry. This would have been a bit later when it started tumbling in the atmosphere on re-entry. Hopefully we'll know for sure in a few days.

  • walrus01 6 months ago

    That's for sure not stage separation, that's an explosion from the FTS rupturing the ship tanks.

    • ericcumbee 6 months ago

      If it was the FTS wouldn't the flight control systems send a message back to the ground saying "things are going sideways here, FTS Activated"

      • anothertroll456 6 months ago

        Maybe it did, or is it public that it didn't? A possible sequence (very typical in rocket failures) is: fire, engine failure(s), loss of control, rupture due to aero forces or FTS activation, explosion due to propellant mixture. Not all of these have to happen, but it's a typical progression. Before the days of AFTS the FTS activation would be pretty delayed.

    • pixl97 6 months ago

      Eh I'm thinking more it was a reentry explosion from pressurized tanks. Engines had failed a while before then.

      • s1artibartfast 6 months ago

        This is over the Bahamas. Re-entry was much further east, near Turks and Caicos Islands.

        Also, if a pressurized tank is reentering, that means the FTS failed to detonate.

  • anothertroll456 6 months ago

    Nope. That's definitely an explosion (source: I'm in the rocket business). However it may not be an explosion of the whole stage. Probably of the engine section.

[removed] 6 months ago
[deleted]
hinkley 6 months ago

It’s crazy how fast that ship is moving and how big the explosion was that it looks like something much, much lower in the air went boom. It was transitting the sky faster than a commercial aircraft does. So it gives an impression more like a private aircraft breaking up at 5-10k feet.

[removed] 6 months ago
[deleted]
oceanadventures 6 months ago

I have a boat and want to pick up floating heat tiles in the ocean, do you think we can find the parts by Puerto Rico?

raincole 6 months ago

Does anyone know where the debris landed? In the ocean? Or just burnt out in the atmosphere?

  • tjpnz 6 months ago

    Wasn't going fast enough to fully burn up. There'll be small pieces of debris scattered over quite a large area.

inglor_cz 6 months ago

Looks like work of the Flight Termination System. Something measurable had to go very wrong.

  • olex 6 months ago

    While the telemetry was still going, you could see Ship engines going out one by one. Earlier when there was video there was what looked like flames visible inside one of the flap hinges, definitely shouldn't be there on ascent. Presumably something failed internally and caused the Ship to shut down before reaching target trajectory, at which point either FTS or the failure itself caused it to blow up, as seen on the Insta reel.

    • enraged_camel 6 months ago

      On the NSF youtube channel they pointed out that at some point the methane indicator started decreasing much faster than the LOX indicator, which points to some sort of leak. It would explain why the engines started to shut down.

  • JumpCrisscross 6 months ago

    > Something measurable had to go very wrong

    Or slightly wrong. An FTS is programmed to be conservative. Particularly on unmanned flights. Doubly particularly on reëntry. Triply so on experiments bits.

    • DeepYogurt 6 months ago

      Depends on the programmers I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      • BuyMyBitcoins 6 months ago

        All of the exception handling was spent on the try/catch of the booster.

      • JumpCrisscross 6 months ago

        > Depends on the programmers I guess

        It depends on the Air Force.

  • enragedcacti 6 months ago

    It wasn't FTS, it just blew up: https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1880033318936199643

    • anothertroll456 6 months ago

      That doesn't negate FTS.

      • enragedcacti 6 months ago

        Imo if SpaceX thought it was possibly FTS they wouldn't say RUD. They still had telemetry for multiple seconds as it pitched wildly and engines failed, if FTS didn't trigger then it probably didn't at all.

        • anothertroll456 6 months ago

          Yeah I thought about that some more and at that altitude and speed the FTS is usually already deactivated.

tsimionescu 6 months ago

Another failure, another few months of figuring out why this isn't working and can't stick to its flight path. They caused chaos for many commercial planes, so they'll definitely need some full reports to the FTA to know what they're doing about this, why the debris is falling over flight paths, and so on.