They're going to finally bring her in tomorrow morning. Divers spent today putting on inflatable bags
>>10195457I was surprised it was floating. I thought it would rupture.
>>10195593It lands at 0 m/s. The interstate which hit the water after toppling with the most force got pretty bent, but other than that there’s not really a reason anything would catastrophically fail
>>10195457Stabilized parts of the footage
Man those things are big. Can’t wait for BFR; it’s like 2x the diameter
>>10195721The boosters without landing legs that tipped over in the water all exploded.
>>10195457so much for self-landing boosters>>10195840i think that was precautionary detonations.
>>10195924>i think that was precautionary detonations.They exploded because the tanks ruptured. The previous booster that soft-landed couldn't be recovered and was destroyed.
>>10195721>lands at 0m/sthe bottom does, then the top lands with some slap velocity
!!!reusable rockets leak dangerous deadly toxic cancer inducing chemicals in the water we drink and the oceans!!!!!!call your local representatives and demand IMMEDIATE BAN on all reusable rockets!!!!!!protect yourself, protect your family, protect the environment!!!!!!BAN REUSABLE ROCKETS!!!
>>10196139Please, don't.There's nothing on this rocket any worse than all the expendable rockets that routinely crash into the ocean, and probably less than most.
>>10196139Ban automobiles first, Jeff.
>>10196164Don't eat the bait
>>10195457R E U S A B I L I T Y I S A M E M E
>>10195457OH SHIT SOMEONE GOT THERE FIRSTwhat would you do with a recovered first stage? sell it? keep it? ransom?
Footage from USLaunchReport https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsyfC2i0mmQSo this is what it looks like when a supersonic booster is tumbling out of control...
>>10196673You could actually see the bow shock the first stage generates.
>>10196642Give it back quick as fuck before they file a gigantic lawsuit
>>10195927It couldn't be recovered in time.SpaceX expected it to blow up and sink, but it didn't. They wanted to tow it back, but the Air Force (or which ever military body in the area) said get it now or we have to destroy it for safety reasons.
>>10196642>>10196685Protip: Thats not a spaceX boosterFake internet points to whoever knows what its really from
>>10196781STS ya idiotI'd like to think that's common knowledge
>>10196773>>10196775>>10196777Doesn't look too bad. I bet they can refurb it without having to replace too much of it.Of course this is my analysis from three photos off the internet.
>>10196772They should have taped a trolling motor to it with a car battery and putted it around until the big shit could get there and haul it in. Then they could tell the military to fuck off.
interstage is cracked>>10196787the issue was the rocket couldn't go through the auto-safing procedure. Wasn't safe to approach
>>10196782No shit, its an SRB to be specific
>>10196792Well, I wouldn't go balls out near it, but I'm sure something could have been done to tow it. I mean they put these things in space and land them on drone ships. I'm sure someone there could come up with something for the future.
>>10196773Did they lose one of the grid fins? It seems like one of the most robust and readily reusable component on the booster.
>>10196549I know it's bait but I just don't want people spouting really stupid shit because others who don't notice the bait start repeating it.
>>10196792>interstage is crackedNot too surprising.I bet they'll use this booster for the inflight launch abort.
>>10197298would be funny if an A-003 abort repeat happened
>>10195995the bottom was also sinking into the water when the top was flipping
>>10197413Yes, that pretty much a good description of internet communities.
>>10197472It is actually a tactic to ruin forums too.
>>10199421dragon was berthed too
that engine bell crumple will buff right out
>>10199854look at all that green, that's copper oxidation if I've ever seen anyhow many grid-fins were recovered?
>>101998603, apparently. they took the "bottom" one off I think to make it not be so sluggish during the towing process
>>10199854Dent puller, putty, and new paint is all it needs.
>>10200032>new paint is all it needs.a drum of rustoleum bbq paint should be ok
>>10199854Manley thinks they have done it accidentally, or even as collateral, when removing the landing leg from that side.I don't think it'll buff out, but it won't cost too much to replace.The more I look at this the more likely I think they'll use it for the inflight abort. They've probably got enough old stock still sitting around it'll become a little mishmash of old and new parts which they'll blow up.Also, that Dodd said that this was the second flight of the new COPV in the second stage, so it's going to be interesting if this counts against or if adding a redundant hydraulic pump resets the launch count for the "frozen" design.
>>10200052I'm sure they can just do additional MTFB/QC testing of their current pumps, and leave the commcrew boosters alone for the sake of staticness
>>10200052>Also, that Dodd said that this was the second flight of the new COPV in the second stage, so it's going to be interesting if this counts against...This has been confirmed by Hans Koenigsman, but he's unsure if it does. A NASA rep was asked if it did and they just said it's complicated.>...or if adding a redundant hydraulic pump resets the launch count for the "frozen" design.Hans doesn't think so, this is logical because the design freeze allows small reliability and performance improvements, which a backup pump would likely fall under.