Resolves YES on a Super Heavy booster being used in a mission intended to fly a Starship to space (>100km altitude) and subsequently landing in one piece in 2024. Fate of the second stage is unimportant, as long as space is its intended destination.
A ground landing, landing on a barge, being caught by the launch tower, or anything else that brings a Super Heavy booster intact to a resting position on something solid and not airborne counts. A soft "landing" in a body of water does not count. A catch by an aircraft does not count until the aircraft lands.
Super Heavy must not explode for at least ten seconds after landing for it to count as having landed in one piece.
The relevant timezone for "in 2024" is local time at the landing site.
See also:
/chrisjbillington/will-spacex-land-a-spaceflown-stars
1,000
3.00I GOT TRICKED AAAAAA
@UlyssesB haven't checked this one, but people should be aware that most YouTube streams that look like this are actually crypto scams.
@Blomfilter
We accept no compromises when it comes to ensuring the safety of the public and our team, and the return will only be attempted if conditions are right.
The reputational damage to statements like the above would be pretty bad and I expect they would face a lot of issues and delays getting licences in future. Would seem likely to be counterproductive for them regardless of size of fines.
“Thousands of distinct vehicle and pad criteria must be met prior to a return and catch attempt of the Super Heavy booster, which will require healthy systems on the booster and tower and a manual command from the mission’s Flight Director. If this command is not sent prior to the completion of the boostback burn, or if automated health checks show unacceptable conditions with Super Heavy or the tower, the booster will default to a trajectory that takes it to a landing burn and soft splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico.“
From SpaceX blog
https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-5
Backlash in those catching arms aren’t looking too great.
Shorter arms will definitely help. I would imagine tighter manufacturing tolerances would also help.
Musk said they have another set of catching arms ready to go. This means they can have more than one catch attempt this year even if arms get damaged.
Also counterpoint to accuracy of F9 landings: at least part of it must be the platform moving around in rough seas. Landings on solid ground for Falcon Heavy boosters seem to be very accurate
USSF-67
Looks about 1 Falcon Radius from center so 9-10m.
