Blastoff! SpaceX Starlink launch suffers upper stage anomaly - See the 'icy' engine burn
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 08. 2024
- A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket launched 20 Starlink satellites from California's Vandenberg Space Force Base on July 11, 2024. The second stage engine did not complete its burn and more than usual ice build up is seen. Full Story: www.space.com/spacex-starlink...
"SpaceX has made contact with five of the satellites so far and is attempting to have them raise orbit using their ion thrusters," according to the private spaceflight company.
Credit: SpaceX - Věda a technologie
It's a rare occurance when we see a falcon 9 failure. I'm glad it wasn't a booster landing error. Always nice to see those landings flawlessly.
They were celebrating free slurpee day since it was 7/11.
Who wants a Merlin Slurpee?!
Was that a helium leak? Asking for a friend who works for Boeing. What?
LOX... Doubt helium would be liquid at those temperatures.
@@Doom2pro Was sarcasm....helium is gas and that was liquid and think that was fuel leaking and freezing up.
@@c.a.nixiii4650 Helium can be a liquid, just at really low temperatures. And that wasn't fuel leaking, kerosene doesn't freeze into ice, it turns into a waxy substance at low temperatures, it was the LOX leaking.
Probably LOX snow. Errr... Solid OX. SOX.
It's really amazing to see a failure that is this successful. It doesn't immediately RUD. It works *almost* good enough.
Bu kesinlikle sıvı oksijendir. sıvı oksijen uzay ortamında hızla donar. Helyum ve hidrojen sıvı ortamda donmaz. Karosen de uzay ortamında sıvı kalmaya devam eder. Sıvı oksijen tanklarında sızıntı olmuştur.
Stay frosty, SpaceX.
Here’s to hoping the SpaceX team can quickly identify what exactly went wrong and mitigate the issue for future flights. Hopefully it’s a one off as Falcon 9 failures are exceptionally rare these days.
Totally abnormal behavior and anomaly on the second stage at 4:00. An oxygen line breaks or cracks rapidly flooding the inner volume of the mylar thermal protection bag with oxygen ice. Engine exploded on relight an hour after SECO-1 and Starlinks are in a fatal 295 by 138 km orbit. Periapsis was supposed to be 150km higher than that after a 1 second stage 2 burn. Starlinks being reprogrammed to fire their argon Hall effect thrusters at max force to save themselves, but there's just no way. They're going to reenter and burn up within the next few orbits.....
Further calculation: each starlink was supposed to get a 40kilonewton-second impulse from the 1second 2nd stage circularization burn, this will require 3 DAYS to make up for with the 170 millinewton force argon Hall effect thrusters. Not possible.
Did you copy that comment from another video because this video is not even longer than 9 minutes? Or where is 17:40 at?
There is no 17:40
@@Smartercow my mistake - 4:00
Good catch. Indeed you see the bag starting to blow up and starting something to leak and ice building up.
Totally not no(r)minal.
Unfortunately one failure, but had to happen once in all those successes.
It's like filling it up like a balloon, until it bursted.
Space is hard!
SpaceX had a Boeing day.
In space, no-one can hear you vent.
Perfect Machine. Perfect work in the world Perfect team in the world Perfect Mission. Thank you very much 120724.
hombre, perfecto no fue se produjo una falla por lo que puedes observar..
thanks elon for your bs
this is without a doubt, one of the coolest things I've witnessed. I am still in awe.::: Where did the rocket land ???
With 300+ flights I believe under their belt this is a minor setback.. What they're doing is extremely technical and things like this are bound to happen..
Stayin' Frosty 🥶🥶 🔥
Also what the heck is that string thing by the first stage camera when it's in space?
Thats what i was asking.
Maybe SpaceX were testing some new feature. In the video it looks like an O2 leak. The 2nd stage seems to have achieved the target speed. Or, maybe SpaceX think that the Falcon 9 launches were becoming too boring and provided those spaceflocks to keep us all watching the show. 😊
So cool how the booster comes back the opposite direction,
If only Leonardo could see this and a landing up close, he would probably have a heart attack.
Not too bad. Slight lower than planned but the Sat's can maneuver to their intended orbit still.
nope, they are going to deorbit them as they are too low to reach their intended orbit
It's very normal to have some few minor failures
Somebody forgot the insulation someplace?
Very cool. Falcon 9 is taking after its "Starship" cousin!
NASCAR needs more manufacturers
can you see that he is walking around the engine like a mouse or a rat at 4:07 or am I the crazy speed of 10,000 km/h?
Orbital speed achieved, over icing ocurred....
Houston, [did] we have a problem?
What is that second engine that they keep cutting to?
It's the same engine from the other side.
what is that black thing flapping around on stage 1 returning to earth.? Its been there from separation to landing.
Son los reptilianos amigo¡¡¡
Did upper stage make it?
No, falcon 9 2nd stage failed to relight for its proper orbit
Had an RUD. Not sure if they did that on purpose or not. I bet there was a light show from the ground if no clouds!
@@c.a.nixiii4650 I dont think they do RUDs on purpose ever.
@@okankyoto Actually that is the nice way SpaceX says they "self destructed" a vehicle. Not sure in this case but go back and look at the first couple of Starships that started to lose control and they were RUD-ed.
Self Destruct is Commanded, And\ RUD is “unscheduled”, meaning the rocket blew up on its own.
Love it
It was the fog.
Ice buildup
Another rapid unscheduled dissasembly ?😁
😮
It is RARE for SpaceX to have a failure like this.
Can someone explain this in Laymans terms?
rocket broken rocket no work
Usually these failure come from hose or fitting leaks. Since most systems are under high pressure they end up being a high failure point.
Being in out of space, a chemical or element interacting with zero g in an environment it is not used to; Leading to ice.
If anything, this is a great learning opportunity for falcon and space technology. Always keep innovating
@@Cafauraso did they lose their payload?
@@Peacheslaroo Elon said that the team made contact with a few satellites and they’re going to attempt to raise the lowest point in the orbit, but it is unlikely to work
@@Cafaura yes the icicles were not typical and indicate a leak. Unknown yet about the fate of the payload. Interesting stuff to be sure!
The right video appears looped
I thought that too but it’s actually just cameras on each side. Earth on left, then earth on right.
the cameras on the rocket shows the well the Earth is not flat
Nobody with an ounce of intelligence things the earth is flat. The flat earthers are a mixture of mostly trolls with some complete morons thrown in to to give the trolls credibility.
y quien dice que sea plana?
@@jotinmos534 👈🤡
@@jotinmos534 👈🤡🤖
@@jotinmos534 👈🤡
😂👍🏼
Interesting looks like a slight breeze the way the ice is acting.
It's not due to air resistance it's because of the g force due to acceleration
@@alinaqirizvi1441 Rocket exhaust is a slight breeze!
paso por arriba de argentina y no aguanto el frio jajajajjajaj
They must have a Boeing operative on the inside sabotaging.
spacex did it all by their lonesome
Why
Because sh*t happens
Spacex failure. It happens.
Very reliable....faith and prayers😂😅😂...if you want comeback call the soyuz center....😅
Why assume it is a SpaceX failure? We know it works, many successful launches now.
Could have been a sand grain sized meteor or piece of space junk (there is LOTS of that up there now) that punctured the cryo tank.
As the liquid flows out and hits the vacuum of space it flash evaporates, cooling it below the freezing point, so we see that solid icicle thing growing.
Remember the movie "Mission to Mars"?
This is what happened as they approached Mars and caused the disaster in the movie.
Why assume it is not a SpaceX failure? SpaceX are good but they not infallible, the anomaly clearly visible here is likely one of many dozen other anomalies that happen with every launch, some serious most not!.
Why would you even read anything by the washington post???