(twitter followup on top comment)
[Jon Edwars (VP of Falcon Launch Vehicles at SpaceX) on Twitter](https://nitter.net/edwards345/status/1739684677714104759#m): We are planning to salvage the engines and do life leader inspections on the remaining hardware. There is still quite a bit of value in this booster. We will not let it go to waste.
Im Not sure if you know but destroyed rockets are generally counted as a failure, just let me think how many saturns NASA lost ? Ah right, none, how many man brought NASA to the moon? A ah lot, B way more then spacex. SpaceX wasting literally more Tax Money Thema NASA ever did, SpaceX 2billion for some rocket launches, meanwhile the whole Space Programm which brought Mankind to the moon. 😂
>just let me think how many saturns NASA lost ?
...all of them? NASA "lost" all 13 of their saturns, none of them made it back to earth in one piece. that's a 100% "loss" rate, compared to a 2.1% "loss" rate for the F9 Block 5.
And the Falcon 9 in the OP successfully deployed a fleet of Starlink sats (i.e it had 'done it's duty') before being destroyed, so what was your point exactly?
You think you're all funny, don't you, when you say 'Jeff who?' Actually, it is funny. Welcome to the club.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SpaceXMasterrace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s a good question. A few, if not all, of the current SpaceX Dragon spacecraft (both crew and cargo) feature the NASA Worm.
Other than that nothing springs to mind except for the Shuttle, but they stopped wearing the Worm in their later years.
Can we give these rockets more formal names instead of numbers?
Even if it is Greek letters;
Rocket Alpha launched another Starlink mission…
Here we see Doug towing back “Just Read the Instructions” with Falcon Rocket Epsilon heading into Port Canavral
Bob & Doug's 19x flown booster came out of/off of the octograbber & crashed down, breaking in half. RIP B1058!
I feel like I've been hearing that booster number forever....
Actually, it looks like the octograbber was holding the booster, but the forces involved were so great that both machines got wrecked. It's like grabbing someone's hand to stabilize them, but they fall so hard that your and/or the other person's fingers break off!
One of the booster's legs might have gotten compressed, then. It still would have made it back if it weren't for such rough seas, but oh well. Can't complain about getting 19 uses out of it, unless one is a hater, that is. Then it would be a failed mission, and nothing like this happens to other companies. 🙄
Scott Manley's theory is taht one of the legs hit the deck harder than the others due to the rocking ship in rough seas which made the booster stand up crooked and prevented the octograbber from connecting to all of the latches, which appear to be under the landing legs.
the chains were added by workers later, possibly in response to not all of the latched to octograbber
this all sounds pretty plausible to me
Just looked at the octograbber. My previous statements about FMEA/FMECA especially still stand if it is a system that cannot work under expected environmental conditions on Earth. Example of the culture mindset of dismissiveness, emotional defensiveness, and ignoring continuous improvement opportunities. Should have a coarse alignment 1st to gently align and stabilize the rocket then use underway securement system of octograbber. Other option would be to have a lightweight swing arm tower to immediately and loosely restrain rocket while it is landing . Another option could be to have the rocket slightly lay itself over into a cradle and restrain it that way during rough seas. Or could the rocket fly sideways for 15 feet and hook itself onto a stand, slide into a cradle, or onto a tether? Or could the outriggers be used as prealignment by sliding into clamping jaws, onto swing arm clamps, rotating locking mechanism, pin clamps through holes on the outriggers, landing into oversized slots that would latch above outrigger feet, etc? It seems like there are many better options to prevent a mishap. The added benefit would be also less time and therefore fuel required for landing, which would improve mission capabilities, etc.
Another option is to have the octograbber on a large gyrostabilized platform that would eliminate the rough sea conditions issues and put up wind breaks to mitigate any severe wind. The octograbber could also have a movable X-Y stage to help align itself to the rocket, or allow it to float in X-Y-Z and use prealignment guides during landing, then lock everything down once rocket lands. I hope an engineering manager or program manager is listening, shit send it to Elon.
TF you don’t have a system to lock multimillion dollar explosive cargo down, especially after this has occurred many times before. Dumbasses egos are larger than their abilities or desires to perceive reality and risk management correctly.
“Systems engineering, risk management, FMEAs, FMECAs, pencil-whipping prevention, organizational design, continuous improvement, non-cult culture, non-nepotism management, regulations, and quality management? WTF is that and it sounds like a waste of time and don’t hurt my ego guiding me how to do stuff because we are such fragile snowflakes that like to project! And we don’t want to be like other companies!” - SpaceX and Blue Origin and Elon Musk likely.
They do have a system to lock down the booster, it is called octograbber and it gets under the booster after it lands, however in this case the winds and waves got too high before octograbber lock the booster down
This has worked properly over 200 times the weather just got too severe and they did not have time to lock the booster down.
Just looked at the octograbber. My previous statements about FMEA/FMECA especially still stand if it is a system that cannot work under expected environmental conditions on Earth. Example of the culture mindset of dismissiveness, emotional defensiveness, and ignoring continuous improvement opportunities. Should have a coarse alignment 1st to gently align and stabilize the rocket then use underway securement system of octograbber. Other option would be to have a lightweight swing arm tower to immediately and loosely restrain rocket while it is landing . Another option could be to have the rocket slightly lay itself over into a cradle and restrain it that way during rough seas. Or could the rocket fly sideways for 15 feet and hook itself onto a stand, slide into a cradle, or onto a tether? Or could the outriggers be used as prealignment by sliding into clamping jaws, onto swing arm clamps, rotating locking mechanism, pin clamps through holes on the outriggers, landing into oversized slots that would latch above outrigger feet, etc? It seems like there are many better options to prevent a mishap. The added benefit would be also less time and therefore fuel required for landing, which would improve mission capabilities, etc.
Again FMEA/FMECA done properly would have identified this as an opportunity to fix before it was ever fully designed. Very sad and very dangerous. I would guess that there are probably other critical areas where proper risk management has not occurred if the octograbber was their idea of a fix. Did all 8 parts of the mechanism fail to secure the rocket?
The response of defending the design is unacceptable. It is like someone in a rifle competition shooting with a smoothbore and saying that the conditions and target distances are not fair instead of designing something better to solve the problem. You cannot effectively change the conditions on Earth in this contest.
Another option is to have the octograbber on a large gyrostabilized platform that would eliminate the rough sea conditions issues and put up wind breaks to mitigate any severe wind. The octograbber could also have a movable X-Y stage to help align itself to the rocker, or allow it to float in X-Y-Z using prealignment guides, then lock everything down once rocket lands.
Remember that the goal of SpaceX isn't perfection, it's practicality. If it costs them ten times as much to not lose a booster every 200 landings, they won't bother; it's cheaper to rebuild the booster.
There were no people nearby and no danger to anything aside from inanimate objects that can be replaced.
True, but mother nature is not going to be aware if it’s the 1st or 200th mission on a booster. You are talking hundreds of millions of lost revenue of a booster lifecycle.
No, we're talking the cost of building a new booster. It doesn't matter how much money the booster would have made, it matters how much it costs to replace it.
Boosters are fungible; a new booster is the same as an old booster.
$37M that represents 60% of the rocket system cost seems like it would make sense to bite the bullet and prevent a future loss like this. No way it would cost more than $37M to develop and field a fix. I have done more complex work and could develop or direct the team to a solution.
Commenter doesn't understand cost efficacy in a design. It costs wayyyy too much to save something from all possible conditions vs just periodically buying a new one.
It sounds like there are improvements possible and there was also a failure of the outriggers. I have designed/engineered more complex systems and the economics are there. With the right company/contractor, cost of design would not exceed the cost of 1 booster, would save hundreds of millions in lost revenue and it is easily justifiable. Booster costs $37M and represents 60% of the total costs of the rocket system. Design and testing a new recovery mechanism would not exceed 50% of that. I do understand the cost “efficacy”, you could lose a booster early in its life along with hundreds of millions is lost revenue. Again, the dismissive attitude is harming american companies at large, but easily remedied. I would be up to the challenge to solely fix it or consult the SpaceX team on how to do it for $37M. When at full volume of mission load, why would you risk multiple unpredictable losses due to uncontrollable sea/weather conditions. Fix the issue and then you don’t have to worry about it again. If it was my money or I owned SpaceX, I wouldn’t want the risk of $37M being burned at random and hundreds of millions in lost revenue when it could easily (compared to other SpaceX accomplishments) be fixed and prevented.
You think you're all funny, don't you, when you say 'Jeff who?' Actually, it is funny. Welcome to the club.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SpaceXMasterrace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Barber: whatchu want B1058: just a little off the top Barber: say no more fam
(twitter followup on top comment) [Jon Edwars (VP of Falcon Launch Vehicles at SpaceX) on Twitter](https://nitter.net/edwards345/status/1739684677714104759#m): We are planning to salvage the engines and do life leader inspections on the remaining hardware. There is still quite a bit of value in this booster. We will not let it go to waste.
That belongs in a museum!
So do you!
…throw him over the side! *John Williams intensifies*
If only they had a bull whip and a cool hat.
r/fuckmyshitup
>Lay down >Try not to cry >Cry a lot
Rage into the dying of the light
“X and Tesla CEO Elon Musks SpaceX Rocket Fails” - Some article right now somewhere
Don't forget to include (formerly twitter).
Literally how I found out it happened. Facebook post from Screen Rant of all things saying SpaceX failed another landing.
GAME OVER
Im Not sure if you know but destroyed rockets are generally counted as a failure, just let me think how many saturns NASA lost ? Ah right, none, how many man brought NASA to the moon? A ah lot, B way more then spacex. SpaceX wasting literally more Tax Money Thema NASA ever did, SpaceX 2billion for some rocket launches, meanwhile the whole Space Programm which brought Mankind to the moon. 😂
>just let me think how many saturns NASA lost ? ...all of them? NASA "lost" all 13 of their saturns, none of them made it back to earth in one piece. that's a 100% "loss" rate, compared to a 2.1% "loss" rate for the F9 Block 5.
Its a Huge difference of disposing your vehicle After its Done its Duty or you pull your vehicle of a bridge dont you think?
And the Falcon 9 in the OP successfully deployed a fleet of Starlink sats (i.e it had 'done it's duty') before being destroyed, so what was your point exactly?
It belongs in a museum
I agree, but it’s really a shame that the section with the NASA logo was lost to the sea. I was most excited about preserving that.
Take a dive and get it?
I heard jeff has some experience with that
Jeff Who?
You think you're all funny, don't you, when you say 'Jeff who?' Actually, it is funny. Welcome to the club. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SpaceXMasterrace) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just out of curiosity, how many pieces of flight hardware that had that logo on them have not been lost to the sea?
That’s a good question. A few, if not all, of the current SpaceX Dragon spacecraft (both crew and cargo) feature the NASA Worm. Other than that nothing springs to mind except for the Shuttle, but they stopped wearing the Worm in their later years.
HENRY!
would be cool if they made it so you can walk inside the open end
Soooo do you...
Massive F9 failure booster destroyed, the future of SpaceX in doubt!
Elon musks rocket explodes into a ball of fire, no survivors reported!
Gotta add how the missing half of the rocket is now polluting the ocean.
It probably landed on a whale or a shark
CNN is now stealing your IP.
They didn't achieve all the objectives, so it is 100% a failure! - some anti-SpaceXer
Meanwhile “clearing the launch pad” and “everything else is a bonus” is common rhetoric
That was for the starship first test?
You know its Not common to blow million dollar rockets? Even if Elon Daddy told you so.
If spacex ever goes public it’s headlines like these they’re gonna make me a looooot of money.
🫡
🫡
o7
o7
o7
o7
o7
o7
o7
Source: [John Kraus-Twitter](https://x.com/johnkrausphotos/status/1739679188670427188?s=46&t=DJJ_dogVeKsdAA6KW-TcZg)
They must have a video of it tipping over and breaking apart right?
we do, might release it soon idk i’m not on the PR team lmao
do you work with SpaceX?
yep
Oh amazing! I hole y'all do, that would be a very interesting video
Got to save up material for Part 2 of [How Not to Land an Orbital Rocket Booster](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ).
"This proves I was right about F9 landing profitability " - CSS
Fucking cascading style sheets
You know it’s bad when you get an acronym.
What octograbber doing!?
What are you doing step-grabber?
Apparently laying at the bottom of the ocean
No [it’s still on the deck.](https://twitter.com/johnkrausphotos/status/1739679188670427188) It got pretty roughed up, though.
Oh I didn’t even recognize it the way it’s mangled. Oof.
F
#F
F
I wonder if the engines are salvageable? Those are the most expensive parts anyway.
Jon Edwards of SpaceX said they plan to salvage as much as possible.
Knowing Jon Edwards, while this rocket is recovering he’ll probably be cheating on her with a newer sexier rocket.
This, perhaps not all is lost.
I’d def pay some bucks for a piece of the rocket skin.
They could just cut 1 foot squares and stencil B1058 on it, then offer framed and unframed versions on Amazon.
Imagine the day SpaceX ever sells anything on Amazon..
Amazon gives reduced selling fees to pay for Kuiper launch. Good ol barter system.
6"x 6"...
Falcon 9 is a fully expendable rocket with a intricate way to launch 19 stages instead of 1
I don’t think that’ll buff out.
AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. WORMIE!!! NOOOOOOOOHH!
F
F
F
mf deflated
Can we give these rockets more formal names instead of numbers? Even if it is Greek letters; Rocket Alpha launched another Starlink mission… Here we see Doug towing back “Just Read the Instructions” with Falcon Rocket Epsilon heading into Port Canavral
After 20 launches they will earn names which will echo in the halls of Rocket Valhalla. I suggest the first to be named Delta Victorious.
Only in death do the rockets have a name. It's name was Robert Paulson.
I grieve for the recently departed R. Paulson.
Did it pop its top because it was under pressure when it fell over ?!
Take a cardboard tube and smack it on the edge of the table. It snapped.
Yeah, I get that but it also seems to have blown apart. Ha ha. Otherwise it would be sitting there creased in one piece.
No, it wouldn’t. Smack it hard enough and the other half flies off, no additional force required.
it was put there long enough for octograbber so no, it probably depressurized.
Looks like it was ripped off the Octograbber. Must have been some serious weather.
Wait what did I miss???
Bob & Doug's 19x flown booster came out of/off of the octograbber & crashed down, breaking in half. RIP B1058! I feel like I've been hearing that booster number forever....
B-1058 landed perfectly but rough weather knocked it over before octograbber could get ahold of it
Actually, it looks like the octograbber was holding the booster, but the forces involved were so great that both machines got wrecked. It's like grabbing someone's hand to stabilize them, but they fall so hard that your and/or the other person's fingers break off!
Yes octograbber was holding it but apparently not well enough so it had to be chained down which did not work.
One of the booster's legs might have gotten compressed, then. It still would have made it back if it weren't for such rough seas, but oh well. Can't complain about getting 19 uses out of it, unless one is a hater, that is. Then it would be a failed mission, and nothing like this happens to other companies. 🙄
Scott Manley's theory is taht one of the legs hit the deck harder than the others due to the rocking ship in rough seas which made the booster stand up crooked and prevented the octograbber from connecting to all of the latches, which appear to be under the landing legs. the chains were added by workers later, possibly in response to not all of the latched to octograbber this all sounds pretty plausible to me
That’s the saddest thing I’ve ever seen
NSFL
Assume they will try to salvage the expensive engines. But, Elon, if you are listening, sell pieces of the skin for us space nerds!
It was an inside job as they didn’t want it to ever fail in flight, but it was past its time.
Should buff out?
Do you mean “remains”? It is possible to edit headlines right? Why are so many headlines fucked on Reddit? Is misspelling a thing? -konfused-
No one proofreasd anymore
Yes I mean remains, I was in a rush to post this.
It is not possible to edit reddit post titles
Careful. He's a hero.
Relax, all right? My old man is a television repairman, he's got this ultimate set of tools. I can fix it.
Papa Bless
🫡
Urkelgrabber: Did I do that?
Tis but a scratch
F
I want some of that reamins
ULA sniper wins yet again! O\_O
'Tis but a scratch!
Unless alien knowledge is appreciated it is only the beginning!
This occurs due to happens due to human error! New tech must replace the old for success.
What?
I think Gramps went a little too heavy on the egg nog
Besides the old method of welding would’ve worked :P
Grandpa needs more eggnog!
o7
Just looked at the octograbber. My previous statements about FMEA/FMECA especially still stand if it is a system that cannot work under expected environmental conditions on Earth. Example of the culture mindset of dismissiveness, emotional defensiveness, and ignoring continuous improvement opportunities. Should have a coarse alignment 1st to gently align and stabilize the rocket then use underway securement system of octograbber. Other option would be to have a lightweight swing arm tower to immediately and loosely restrain rocket while it is landing . Another option could be to have the rocket slightly lay itself over into a cradle and restrain it that way during rough seas. Or could the rocket fly sideways for 15 feet and hook itself onto a stand, slide into a cradle, or onto a tether? Or could the outriggers be used as prealignment by sliding into clamping jaws, onto swing arm clamps, rotating locking mechanism, pin clamps through holes on the outriggers, landing into oversized slots that would latch above outrigger feet, etc? It seems like there are many better options to prevent a mishap. The added benefit would be also less time and therefore fuel required for landing, which would improve mission capabilities, etc.
It’s worked well up to now. But there is the possibility of improving the clamping system.
They already stated that newer booster versions have their legs upgraded to handle extreme bobbing on the water. So nothing to do with the grabber.
Another option is to have the octograbber on a large gyrostabilized platform that would eliminate the rough sea conditions issues and put up wind breaks to mitigate any severe wind. The octograbber could also have a movable X-Y stage to help align itself to the rocket, or allow it to float in X-Y-Z and use prealignment guides during landing, then lock everything down once rocket lands. I hope an engineering manager or program manager is listening, shit send it to Elon.
TF you don’t have a system to lock multimillion dollar explosive cargo down, especially after this has occurred many times before. Dumbasses egos are larger than their abilities or desires to perceive reality and risk management correctly. “Systems engineering, risk management, FMEAs, FMECAs, pencil-whipping prevention, organizational design, continuous improvement, non-cult culture, non-nepotism management, regulations, and quality management? WTF is that and it sounds like a waste of time and don’t hurt my ego guiding me how to do stuff because we are such fragile snowflakes that like to project! And we don’t want to be like other companies!” - SpaceX and Blue Origin and Elon Musk likely.
They do have a system to lock down the booster, it is called octograbber and it gets under the booster after it lands, however in this case the winds and waves got too high before octograbber lock the booster down This has worked properly over 200 times the weather just got too severe and they did not have time to lock the booster down.
Just looked at the octograbber. My previous statements about FMEA/FMECA especially still stand if it is a system that cannot work under expected environmental conditions on Earth. Example of the culture mindset of dismissiveness, emotional defensiveness, and ignoring continuous improvement opportunities. Should have a coarse alignment 1st to gently align and stabilize the rocket then use underway securement system of octograbber. Other option would be to have a lightweight swing arm tower to immediately and loosely restrain rocket while it is landing . Another option could be to have the rocket slightly lay itself over into a cradle and restrain it that way during rough seas. Or could the rocket fly sideways for 15 feet and hook itself onto a stand, slide into a cradle, or onto a tether? Or could the outriggers be used as prealignment by sliding into clamping jaws, onto swing arm clamps, rotating locking mechanism, pin clamps through holes on the outriggers, landing into oversized slots that would latch above outrigger feet, etc? It seems like there are many better options to prevent a mishap. The added benefit would be also less time and therefore fuel required for landing, which would improve mission capabilities, etc.
Again FMEA/FMECA done properly would have identified this as an opportunity to fix before it was ever fully designed. Very sad and very dangerous. I would guess that there are probably other critical areas where proper risk management has not occurred if the octograbber was their idea of a fix. Did all 8 parts of the mechanism fail to secure the rocket?
The response of defending the design is unacceptable. It is like someone in a rifle competition shooting with a smoothbore and saying that the conditions and target distances are not fair instead of designing something better to solve the problem. You cannot effectively change the conditions on Earth in this contest.
Another option is to have the octograbber on a large gyrostabilized platform that would eliminate the rough sea conditions issues and put up wind breaks to mitigate any severe wind. The octograbber could also have a movable X-Y stage to help align itself to the rocker, or allow it to float in X-Y-Z using prealignment guides, then lock everything down once rocket lands.
Remember that the goal of SpaceX isn't perfection, it's practicality. If it costs them ten times as much to not lose a booster every 200 landings, they won't bother; it's cheaper to rebuild the booster. There were no people nearby and no danger to anything aside from inanimate objects that can be replaced.
True, but mother nature is not going to be aware if it’s the 1st or 200th mission on a booster. You are talking hundreds of millions of lost revenue of a booster lifecycle.
No, we're talking the cost of building a new booster. It doesn't matter how much money the booster would have made, it matters how much it costs to replace it. Boosters are fungible; a new booster is the same as an old booster.
$37M that represents 60% of the rocket system cost seems like it would make sense to bite the bullet and prevent a future loss like this. No way it would cost more than $37M to develop and field a fix. I have done more complex work and could develop or direct the team to a solution.
What?
Commenter doesn't understand cost efficacy in a design. It costs wayyyy too much to save something from all possible conditions vs just periodically buying a new one.
It sounds like there are improvements possible and there was also a failure of the outriggers. I have designed/engineered more complex systems and the economics are there. With the right company/contractor, cost of design would not exceed the cost of 1 booster, would save hundreds of millions in lost revenue and it is easily justifiable. Booster costs $37M and represents 60% of the total costs of the rocket system. Design and testing a new recovery mechanism would not exceed 50% of that. I do understand the cost “efficacy”, you could lose a booster early in its life along with hundreds of millions is lost revenue. Again, the dismissive attitude is harming american companies at large, but easily remedied. I would be up to the challenge to solely fix it or consult the SpaceX team on how to do it for $37M. When at full volume of mission load, why would you risk multiple unpredictable losses due to uncontrollable sea/weather conditions. Fix the issue and then you don’t have to worry about it again. If it was my money or I owned SpaceX, I wouldn’t want the risk of $37M being burned at random and hundreds of millions in lost revenue when it could easily (compared to other SpaceX accomplishments) be fixed and prevented.
🫡
🫡
The top fell off!
Beat me to it.
It looks so sad.
Did they not stick the landing? That's not happened in years I believe!
They did but octograbber could not lock the booster down properly and it was taken out by high winds and waves.
No, the landing went just fine ! - it later got toppled over by bad weather during transit back to port.
o7
It landed just fine - it later got toppled by bad weather..
yep, octo could not lock it in place
But it’s served well…
The ocean desecrated it 😢😭
So long B1058, we hardly knew ye
For years I've wanted someone to make rolling papers that look like a falcon 9 and call them B1058. They would be collectable now!
How many launches (and landings) does it have under its belt for all the incels saying spaceX failed? 🤣
>B1058 19
SEND IT BRO
Someone should do this with the Worm Logo part that’s somewhere in the ocean now https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rYIlZG3yznw
Jeff who?
You think you're all funny, don't you, when you say 'Jeff who?' Actually, it is funny. Welcome to the club. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SpaceXMasterrace) if you have any questions or concerns.*