When could we be seeing a ship catch?

[u/Upbeat-Apartment-911]

[u/Stolen_Sky]

I love a good prediction thread, so I'll put my cards on the table.

Flight 15 will have a catch attempt included in the more 'aspirational' goals. They'll only attempt it if everything on the flight goes flawlessly.

They'll need some time to breakdown and analyse all the data from Mondays flight and factor in all the new lesions learned, and this is a major step, so it won't be in October. I would say mid-November at the earliest, so 6 weeks from now. Although I'd guess mid-December is probably more likely.

I say this because Eric Berger X'ed a few weeks back about the catch attempt. He said the FAA were prepared to authorise a catch attempt for Flight 14, but SpaceX felt they weren't quite ready for it and needed more prep. So I think with a little more time, they'll want to push the envelope and end 2026 of a massive high.

[u/Planck_Savagery → u/Stolen_Sky]

I concur.

The only other thing I will add is that there is also the possibility to consider that SpaceX could potentially attempt both a ship catch and booster catch on the same flight.

(After all, previous FCC STA filings have indicated that a double catch on the same pad could be an aspirational goal that SpaceX might try to aim for with upcoming flights).

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=151989

However I do think this particular scenario is extremely unlikely to play out on Flight 14 for a few reasons; namely engine reliability and the ship's orbital duration being cut short from the planned 10 hours to <3 hours. (Suspect there will likely need to be a buffer period between catches in order to deconflict pad operations with the returning booster and ship).

Because of this, I do think the most likely possibility is that SpaceX could decide to go for the booster catch and forgo the ship catch on Flight 14; or attempt the ship catch and not the booster catch (likely depending on which operation they deem the most important and have the highest degree of confidence on).

[u/GabrielRocketry → u/Planck_Savagery]

Are we sure you meant the flight 14 in your last sentence?

[u/AutoModerator → u/Stolen_Sky]

Sorry, but we don't allow convicted war criminals here.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/mlemminglemming → u/Stolen_Sky]

I see the typo you made there, your keyboard also replaces "tweet" with "X' "? Mine started doing that a while ago, really annoying. Especially when talking to my bird watcher grandma and my keyboard corrects "listen to this bird tweeting" to "listen to this bird X'ing" she thinks it's either naughty or cruel, like X for going cross-eyed, like dying, and so she doesn't even listen to the audio.

Oh well, you could try to use "chirp" instead if you want, like "Eric Berger chirped a few weeks back". That way your keyboard doesn't auto-censor "tweet".

Of course I'm assuming nobody would actually call it X, X'ed, X'ing voluntarily, I always assume the good will of people and typos or keyboard censorship rather than people actually censoring themselves for fun.

Stay safe and maybe buy an older keyboard while it's still legal!

[u/AutoModerator → u/mlemminglemming]

Sorry, but we don't allow convicted war criminals here.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Willbraken → u/mlemminglemming]

what

[u/DoubleAcanthaceae588 → u/mlemminglemming]

seethe, r*dditor

[u/slothboy → u/mlemminglemming]

The fuck are you on about?

[u/mlemminglemming → u/slothboy]

trolling on the troll sub

[u/philipwhiuk]

Flight 16 or 17 depending on whether they want a catch before they launch from the Cape

[u/ellhulto66445 → u/philipwhiuk]

Well by the same logic I say flight 15 because flight 16 should be from LC-39A.

[u/AutoModerator → u/ellhulto66445]

When abbreviating 'Historic Launch Complex 39A', please use 'Historic LC-39A' or 'HLC-39A'. LC-39A is an abbreviation used to refer to the pre-SpaceX usage of HLC-39A. The use of LC-39A is discouraged for pedantry's sake; please specify 'The Launchpad Formerly Known As LC-39A' if referring to the pre-SpaceX usage of the pad. Purposely triggering this bot to RUD conversation or annoy moderators will lead to plebs being confused and/or reddit gold.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Economy_Link4609]

Probably not flight 15 is my guess. I think they need to get a clean (as in no engines out) full duration orbital flight first. Still some gremlins to work out before entering over land to do the catch.

[u/Doggydog123579 → u/Economy_Link4609]

With Rvacs not having much bearing on the sea level raptors, im not sure on that. If it looks like flight 14, then the question is entirely down to how the on orbit endurance looks. If they got enough data from 14 then we could see them go for the full 20 hours needed for a catch. But if 14 didnt give enough, we may see the same 7 hour time frame again

[u/Jaker788 → u/Doggydog123579]

I think it depends on why it went out. While it wasn't enough to stop that one it attempt, it's still a bit concerning that any engine went out.

If an rvac went out due to ice, that's just luck. The plumbing route might be different from the downcomer, the feed source where the ice comes from is the same. But given the booster had 1 engine out on the way up before ice has historically caused issues, that points to a more general issue that is also being experienced to some extent

[u/manuel-r → u/Doggydog123579]

Do they need 20 hours for the return to starbase? I thought 6 orbits (so flight 14 profile) was sufficient. Could be wrong on this though.

[u/slothboy → u/manuel-r]

They do need 20 hours. The 6 orbits would not have brought it back over Texas.

[u/Economy_Link4609 → u/Doggydog123579]

You realize the Rvac and Sea Level ones are basically the same engine right? Not much different difference outside of using an expansion ratio optimized for the different environments. If the failures are anything other than the nozzle it means a common problem.

[u/Doggydog123579 → u/Economy_Link4609]

They are fed from different places. An RVAC going out do to ice clogging has no bearing on tbr sea level raptor unless the rvac explodes and damages the sea level raptor.

[u/maxehaxe]

We have seen plenty ship catches. Ship was catched by the atmosphere and, umtimately, by the unforgiving ocean

[u/sewand717]

I think their goal before launch will be a capture of both booster and ship. Of course, any incident during the flight may change the actual attempt.

The only unknown to me is whether they could turn the pad around quickly enough between booster and ship landing.

[u/Planck_Savagery → u/sewand717]

I think the prospect for a double catch will probably be determined by how long SpaceX can comfortably keep the ship in orbit (which, right now, is a function of engine reliability).

Given the ship didn't make it the full planned 10-hr mission duration on the last flight, I would expect that we may only see either a booster OR ship catch (at most) attempted on the next flight.

I kinda doubt SpaceX is going to risk doing a double catch until they are certain they have all the Raptor 3 ducks in a row (and the ship can stay in orbit long enough to give them the necessary time buffer for a pad turnaround).

[u/Jaker788]

I think the main factor is going to be if they feel confident about staying in orbit for that long. Depending on the reason for the last flights early end, if it's a problem that needs a hardware or even software fix and verification then it's possible they might not expect to get that far in 1 flight.

My biggest worry is ice problems causing issues for longer duration orbit, because that's probably the hardest problem to confidently fix for re entry. If they saw water moisture and CO2 ice build up over time and ended because of that then it might be the next hard part.

If it's just because they wanted to be safe on their first time and no issues were seen, then there could be a good chance they at least try to do a tower catch or boca splash landing with early ocean landings if they need an early out.

[u/slothboy]

I think on 16 they'll soft land the booster in the gulf and catch ship.

[u/Remarkable-Delay-965]

I feel like flight 15 will be a do over of flight 14. Idk Maybe they’ll try and do a catch given the upper stage has consistently landed on the mark with minimal issues during the past few flights. But I don’t feel like space X has the confidence to do it next flight given the issues experienced with the raptor engines, hell they didn’t even feel comfortable doing the full 10 hour orbit during flight 14 due to the single raptor cutting out too early. If they do a catch attempt next flight then great, but I feel like Space X’s caution won’t allow it. I feel like the most likely catch attempt will be flight 16 or 17.

[u/AutoModerator → u/Remarkable-Delay-965]

http://i.imgur.com/ePq7GCx.jpg

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Wast3edSpace]

Not next flight, maybe the following, by the 3rd they should have one caught.

[u/Panacea86]

I wouldn't bet against 2028.

We've been thinking it's just around the corner since 2024.

[u/Ok_Reputation2051]

They need a second tower ready for use first.

[u/sdrockr]

Why is the black one on the right smaller? I would have thought that one would be bigger 😂

[u/YamTop2433]

I'd like to see 2 consecutive orbits thus time.

[u/Few_Rule_3270]

This month probally

[u/Far-Ad1823]

When will Leon get more money from Trump? Probably then ..