Video of rare Falcon 9 booster landing failure

Better safe than sorry! The Polaris Dawn mission is on hold after two launch delays. The first issue involved a ground-side helium leak, and last night, unfavorable weather which impacts the return splashdown.
Now we will wait for another launch window.
Plus, for the first time in over three years, SpaceX has a booster landing failure as the booster tipped over on a droneship. But let's celebrate the fact that this particular booster had 23 FLIGHTS! That's 22 more than non-F9 boosters... SpaceX is assessing the data to find out how to improve but I'd hardly call this a failure.
A "failure" after 267 consecutive landings, who else can come close?
Thank you for supporting my channel.
My channel started as a way to keep people up to date on the world of SpaceX's Starlink, the satellite internet service. The channel has grown to include the broader Elon Musk universe.
#SpaceX #starship #elonmusk #starbase
Your support for my channel means a lot. Thanks for watching and if you have any video ideas, shoot me an email, [e-mail].
Find me on instagram, @elianainspace
Order your own 3D printed Starship at:
stardesk.peach...
Want to support Ellie in Space?
Join my Patreon here: www.patreon.co...
Logo creator: www.tonybela.com/

[@zapfanzapfan]

The booster had flown 23 times, it said "I'm getting too old for this shit" and retired 🙂

[@ellieinspace]

Blink 182 What’s my age again? What’s my age againnnn

[@zapfanzapfan]

@@ellieinspace I was thinking of Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon 🙂

[@claremoriarty8755]

bro really have up

[@cboy-ou2hr]

😂😂😂🙏

[@Travlinmo]

@@zapfanzapfanI was definitely there.

[@eccentricgamer4111]

The fact that a SpaceX booster failing to land properly is now considered “rare” speaks volumes as to how far Falcon 9 has come.

[@traceythomas6761]

Rare, according to a headline? Happens more often than a Boeing plane loses a door, despite 40,000 flights day. Which one do you hear about in the news?

[@eccentricgamer4111]

@@traceythomas6761 Really grasping at straws with the Boeing connection. Falcon 9’s first stage crashing used to be a more common occurrence than it is now. In only about ten years, SpaceX has mastered the process of recovering the rocket so well that it now draws more attention when it _doesn’t_ land in one piece than when it does.

[@traceythomas6761]

@@eccentricgamer4111 Not grasping at all. Just pointing out how a failure is described for a media darling versus a corporate whipping horse, despite orders of magnitude difference. I like both companies, but aerospace is actually a difficult enterprise. Just sad to see people so quick to jump on media narratives when picking winners and losers.

[@yeawhateverdudesure]

Bad comparison lol you're talking about an airliner which carries hundreds of people 😂​@@traceythomas6761

[@ross077]

Eventful times for SpaceX. Their launch cadence not only means that minor mishaps will occur from time to time, but that they'll also achieve unprecedented reliability as they learn from them.

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

It already is. No other rocket has ever been launched as much as SpaceX have successfully recovered their Falcon9 booster.

[@ecko5127]

falcon 9 was suppose to handle 13 launches, it did 23 before it broke down. huge success!

[@minigpracing3068]

Exactly, they were testing to failure again and will probably scale back to a lifetime of 20 launches

[@timyoak3692]

Failure isn't a major worry on Starlink launches , of it fails on landing , send it until it does .

[@causewaykayak]

These short newscasts are really valuable. Thanks (from Ireland)

[@ellieinspace]

I wasn’t sure if it was too short Thought I’d experiment Glad it wasn’t off putting

[@causewaykayak]

@@ellieinspace No, not one bit off putting. Have confidence in your professional judgment. A mix of formats can't be a bad thing 👍🏼

[@JoshuaThomas_joshobean]

@@ellieinspace I liked the short format! Quick and to the point.

[@JamesConnolly1994]

It suits perfectly for something like this! (Also from Ireland)

[@StillAliveAndKicking_]

As you suggest, this isn’t a setback or a failure, it’s the best way to discover what the flaws are so they can make them even more reliable. 22 successful landings in series of one booster is crazy.

[@jebediahkerman3946]

A Nasa rocket experiences a failure: "We'll fly again in a few years." A SpaceX rocket experiences a failure: "Hold my beer."

[@John-nc4bl]

Like a government bureaucracy which moves at glacial speed-!

[@DaveBuildsThings]

Even when NASA launches a rocket it's still years away from doing so again. NASA and Boeing should have picked up on the key reason SpaceX is so good at sending rockets to space far cheaper than anyone ever has. Reusability. I wouldn't have thought that this idea was rocket science.

[@-108-]

@@DaveBuildsThings NASA & Boeing were only interested in picking up on politics with the Obammy admin. back when these deals were made.

[@andret4403]

LOL shuttle was reusable. After the shuttle and until Artimis program, NASA wasn't in developing launch vehicles. What NASA launch failure you talking about? You have to go back to March of 93 to find an Atlas booster failure. Delta IV has been reliable as well. There were not enough payloads prior to Falcon to support commercial reusable booster. To SpaceX credit they created much of the payloads.

[@jebediahkerman3946]

@@andret4403 Well shuttle of course, but they were manned, so yeah, expect lengthy delays after fatalities. But SLS isn't manned yet and experienced no catastrophic failure. How long between successful launches? Oh wait, we don't know yet. The point is SpaceX is the gold standard for orbital launches.

[@taztaztaz]

as elon has said in different interviews , if you’re not failing enough you’re not innovating enough..

[@ajvonline]

Why, yes... this is, in fact, rocket science.

[@richardrhodes-gc2ko]

23 Landings?Not TOO BAD.

[@vinyl2664]

You did good you old booster. Thank you for your service.

[@RBAWintrow]

@02:30 The footage the title refers to is the last second and a half of this video.

[@alkimball8920]

I was tuned in to see Polaris Dawn but then got this rare booster touchdown incident instead. Happy to see SpaceX still going after lessons learned. Any word on possible damage to the drone ship?

[@aelfswith]

You can see the failed landing strut moving at touch down in a way that is not normal.

[@Mark-hb5zf]

Spotted that too. Edit: Just watched it again. If you look at the engine flame the instant before touchdown, it appears to be at an angle opposite side of the leg that failed. Maybe the landing wasn't entirely vertical or some rough seas.

[@simonfisher836]

I happened to be watching it live this morning and noticed the same thing. The legs deploy but then seem to partially contract again? I think something is clearly wrong with the engines due to the amount of fire but not sure why it tipped over.

[@jamskinner]

@simonfisher836 Some people have said maybe hydrolic fluid caught fire.

[@Knightfang1]

Looked to me like the strut broke free at touchdown and then possibly punctured the rocket’s fuselage as it tipped over

[@ceogauravjoshi1742]

​@@jamskinner there is no Hydraulic on landing legs but if you consider Hydraulic of TVC then not possible

[@sabretom7594]

Appears the engine failed to shutdown, thrust made the booster very unstable sitting on drone ship.

[@John-nc4bl]

Agree, the leg did not crumple.

[@jamskinner]

Or leg failed producing flammable hydraulic fluid that caught on fire.

[@WSDFirm]

This was the 23rd launch 🚀 of this boasted that fell over on the drone ship.

[@dansorkin6985]

Space is hard. I'm still looking forward to this challenging, exciting Polaris Dawn mission. Thanks for the quick review, Ellie.

[@robertmiranda2444]

The landing was actually an success, the leg failed after touch down. The fact that an booster can land and be reused is amazing in itself.

[@captainbirdseye86]

I love how the main stream media are trying to make it out that SpaceX rockets are not reliable. This booster failed to land on its 23rd landing! That is an insane amount when the other players can not land a rocket at least once. I am sure SpaceX will work out the cause of the failure mode and keep pushing their rockets even further. Maybe keep the less flown boosters for human flight just in case, leave the well flown ones for Starlink.

[@NScherdin]

Actually, it landed just fine. A leg failed, so it tipped over AFTER landing. :)

[@AmbientMorality]

The only mainstream news story I see is CBS, who correctly says that the second stage performed successfully, that there were 267 consecutive successful landings before this, and that it was the 23rd landing for this first stage. This seems like entirely fair reporting.

[@traceythomas6761]

@@captainbirdseye86 It literally says rare in the title.

[@captainbirdseye86]

@@traceythomas6761 Dude, this KZbin video from Ellie in Space is not main stream media

[@user-le4bc8eo1x]

Thank you for your report!!

[@John-nc4bl]

From looking at the booster final stage of landing, it looks like the leg did not crumple causing the tip-over. Rather, it looked like the engine(s) did not shut off in time which caused the tip-over.

[@LolLol-fv9mt]

SpaceX is best

[@chipsrafferty8362]

There seemed to be a whole lot of fuel leaking from that toasted booster,much more than usual.

[@ryanm7263]

Hydraulic line failure, I bet. Line burst on landing leg deploy, hydraulic fuel ignited, affected leg failed to lock, booster went over. It was the 23rd landing for this booster. Wear and tear is my guess.

[@chipsrafferty8362]

@@ryanm7263 makes sense,

[@wally7856]

@@ryanm7263 There are no hydraulic systems used in the legs, they deploy by gravity alone.

[@SebastianWellsTL]

Thanks for the update!

[@ellieinspace]

You bet!

[@MikeG-gf2zl]

Thank you Ellie!

[@lordinquis8r679]

Thanks, Ellie! I just spent two hours planning a possible hotel itinerary for flight 5. I just need a date, +/- five days.

[@H-o-r-s-ei]

Watched this this morning! Crazy stuff!

[@bartobo]

Thanks Elle. Looks to me that the engines didn’t shut down properly.

[@user-yz3uz4ny8j]

Where is the video of the failure landing? As headline suggests

[@edzuris7944]

At the end of the video it seems the booster fell overboard. - Is that what happened?

[@ianstobie]

Yes, at 1:38 Repeated again at 2:30 at end of video.

[@Ro32da72]

Like the short format, and you certainly packed a lot in to it! 🎉 soooooo looking forward to seeing Polaris Dawn fly.

[@AscendingSpace]

As long as I know, the first-stage landing mishap was primarily caused by adverse weather. I believe a mechanical recovery system, like a catching tower for starship, could be implemented on the drone ship to improve landing reliability in challenging conditions. The subsequent fire was likely caused by the spillage of remaining fuel, which ignited due to the heat from the still-hot engine.

[@geanozz8940]

23 successful launches and 22 successful landings from a single booster...doesn't get more re-usable than that...well done Space X !!

[@raygale4198]

SpaceX safe launch/landing performance is still better than Ryan airways.

[@markmark2080]

Thanks Ellie

[@ellieinspace]

You’re welcome 😊

[@Allan_aka_RocKITEman]

Great video, Ellie...👍

[@bearlemley]

Great show thank you very much

[@jakesjacobs5075]

Just a reminder that the SpaceX team is human after all 👌👌

[@SilverSergeant]

The team didn't fail. A landing leg failed.

[@bearlemley]

For the time being ;-)

[@adamtyson1463]

Hey Ellie, love yours and Joe’s work! Thanks for the link to the Mechazilla shirt, I love it. I ordered; it is a pity it was nearly double the cost of the shirt for shipping to Australia! Not your fault I know, but just saying! Still love your work.

[@otpyrcralphpierre1742]

Space has always been hard. Still is! But Elon is ironing out all of the kinks. Thank you my Lovely Friend, Miss Ellie.

[@ronr6450]

"Full self driving"😂😂

[@jonhutto580]

Bet it was either the leg failing to deploy or lock down. How many flights for this booster? Could be just cleaning the leg extension system between launches..

[@External2737]

23rd flight for this booster. Just over 2 months since last launch.

[@rong1924]

Is Eric Berger's comment to imply that SpaceX was trying something new with this Falcon 9 landing to "test hardware limits"? Seems like Elon would have come out with that right away.

[@yumazster]

23rd landing. I understand the very fact of landing number 20+ is a test in itself.

[@AnupomAG]

Technically the landing was successful

[@ameliamorgan2402]

Video title talks about video of booster landing failure, barely shows any video of such event

[@billtruttschel]

What caused the tip over, if you had to speculate?

[@Bryan-Hensley]

Gravity

[@billtruttschel]

@@Bryan-Hensley Right, but was it a problem with a leg? Or perhaps waves? Or landing at an angle? Something else?

[@chrischeshire6528]

Somewhere on the leg a bolt broke. Could have landed with that leg touching first and caused too much stress on a bolt. I am more concerned about the fire after landing.

[@MrMaelstrom07]

As someone said above, perhaps a hydraulic leak for the leg. The leaking fluid could have caught fire.

[@John-nc4bl]

Failure of the engine(s) to not shutdown in time.

[@Tinman_56]

It almost looks like the right side leg didn't deploy completely before the booster touched the deck of ASOG

[@andrewpyrah]

Video is the last 10 seconds of the video if you're looking for it

[@garylcamp]

I worry about the possible failure on the landing. What if the problem is something wore out and gave way. The craft had the must ware of any lander so far. So it might have been the engine or near it and that is where the endpoint fire took out the leg (for example). That fail could also happen on the assent and would be much worse, especially on Crew Dragon.

[@ToyotaKTM]

I would lay down too, if my feet were on fire.

[@Touretti]

The fact that Space X is grounded by the FAA due to this failure is utterly rediculous!

[@ericfielding2540]

Any time there is an anomaly in the whole flight plan, the FAA will require an investigation. It is great that Falcon 9 boosters have been landing successfully for years and that is now part of most flight plans, but that raises the bar for a full flight success. If this booster was old and no longer ready for landing, they could have chosen to expend it. Two Falcon 9 anomalies in two months suggests that SpaceX is not maintaining their standards of reliability.

[@Trump2024-b3r]

If a publicly traded company opts to outsource overseas to reduce expenses, it should begin by outsourcing the CEO position. By saving millions in this manner, the company can maintain the employment of numerous American workers. These employees, in turn, will contribute to the local economy in various ways.

[@halamkajohn]

seems commie

[@ToyotaKTM]

It just wanted to lay down and take a short nap.

[@texaswatch5136]

The strut for the leg is itself a hydraulic cylinder feed from the pad of the leg. Compared to the foreground legs' length, the obviously damaged one was broken about half way and hydraulic fluid was spraying downward. This can be seen as it is flammable at this point and it coincides with the flare up. IMHO.

[@wally7856]

There is no hydraulics' in the legs. They deploy by gravity.

[@Lion_McLionhead]

Going with a hard landing which broke the landing strut & caused a leak. It had a slight lean before the strut broke & they had a string of leaning towers in recent months.

[@rb8049]

Those legs were used way more than they were int need to be reused. Elon pushed the team to find the failure point. They finally did.

[@4runner4ever83]

They should install a magnetic landing pad where they activate it after landing to make sure it does not tip over or at least hold it in place.

[@johnruckman2320]

It tipped over in the direction the flames were going. Structural damage? Fuel shutoff failure?

[@andresouza2314]

I told you that's impossible to refly 10 times.... No, wait

[@dominicm2175]

01:27 booster landing

[@christopherstubbs8130]

I wonder if what we're seeing is simply 20 or so flights being the optimum number for F9. Seems like every booster that has got close to that number has been expended or lost. Still, did anyone seriously think 10 years ago that we'd ever get to a point where Spacex not recovering a booster would be newsworthy?

[@mustang607]

Took a long time to test to failure that booster.

[@htschmerdtz4465]

Forecast; "forecasted" is not a word.

[@davidaustin5622]

Trying is the first step towards failure -- Homer Simpson

[@luisgordillo1695]

Wonder what this is going to do to the Boeing Astronaut rescue. Looks like they're gonna be stuck for ever. 😱😱

[@politenessman3901]

I fail to see why it is an FAA issue, it crunched the landing at sea (but on the targeted pad), where it is of no danger to anyone, and it is never intended that the booster returns a payload. Write it off as expended and move on.

[@controlledburst]

Kinda looked like a leg may have buckled, or maybe the extending actuator?

[@socorro713]

Stuff happens.

[@jimpiaz9537]

Is it possible that a powerful signal was transmitted 1.5 seconds before touchdown, causing a momentary interruption of telemetry ?? Who has access to this frequency ?? This is serious failure number two. After how many failures do we begin to suspect sabotage ?? Who benefits from spacex failures ??

[@peter-hr1gl]

Space Rocketry is HARD (to paraphrase). NOTHING should be considered routine and without failure potential. To have a rocket land on a ship in the middle of the ocean and do it so consistently, but then have ONE failure after touchdown (it still landed ON the ship). I sure hope the FAA doesn't doe ANYTHING regarding delaying or stopping Space X from continuing to launch. This had NO IMPACT (pun intended) on anything the FAA should care about anyway. At best the booster experienced damage and possibly the ship, but nothing within the purview of the FAA. The flight up and down was flawless and even the landing was fine until it wasn't. Looks to me like there was an engine cutoff malfunction of some kind. Sure hope Polaris Dawn takes off when weather permits.

[@wen-hop]

They sure cut the video link in a big hurry.

[@poetgallery]

Oh yeah Ellie. Better late than sorry...

[@Oblivionsurveyor]

Ill be on the beach watching Polaris dawn when it does launch.

[@dmunman]

Landing was successful. The leg breaking had nothing to do with the landing. Some simple leg failure will be addressed easily. It stayed on the barge, so they will be able to learn why it broke.

[@Gijs-t7p]

No eggs in my cetera please, I'm allergic.

[@techtinkerin]

Why cut away from it?

[@KhanfourYouness-mx1du]

Tank you 😁

[@Chyrre]

The booster took a wrong turn and unfortunately instead landed on "A Slow Flip of Gravity"

[@carlschnier4089]

We learn from failure, not success

[@WG-tt6hk]

All the focus is on the failure. Excuse me, but didn't this particular booster have 22 successful landings up to this point? Please point out any other space program with that kind of record. Does it maybe point out that 22 is the max for the current version of Falcon 9? But then again, this is not the current version of Falcon 9. Also , let me point out, in the "space game" you don't learn from the successes , you learn from the failures.

[@allan4787]

I'm trying to contact someone privately. How can I do this. I'm trying to get contact details for SpaceX, ULA etc. Hopefully I can get them to send something to make the day of a young relative who's having his legs broken and reset to allow him to walk properly. Can you help

[@andrewbaerm.d.3984]

Rocket tired. Fall down. Go boom. No big deal. Lots more rockets.

[@lourdessilva6442]

Sem palavras esse documentário conhecimento e vida

[@MudGuardian]

They got this

[@garryclum2927]

SpaceX seems to be getting sloppy lately. Not good with manned missions coming up. Hopefully, this FAA pause will refocus the company.

[@edzuris7944]

Oh oh I wonder how the recent Falcon 9 booster landing failure will effect the SpaceX Polaris mission plans. - Of course the FAA is grounding Falcon 9.

[@user-dw2tm3jm5h]

Take.notes., Boeing

[@edzuris7944]

@@user-dw2tm3jm5h - At this point I doubt Boeing taking notes would help.

[@user-dw2tm3jm5h]

@@edzuris7944 true words . ( too late )

[@mortifinkenbein9559]

Every time a narrator says "Elon" instead of "Musk" or "Elon Musk", you know that the report will be heavily favoring SpaceX or Tesla. 🙄

[@LVCMS]

What was the failure?

[@timdavis3733]

So how many landings has NASA stuck. OH, that's right............NONE!

[@dbpiiFL]

i watched it explode live from my backyard

[@hypersonicmonkeybrains3418]

A wave plus a wind gust.

[@nightsailor1]

It lands the Falcon 9 or it gets the hose again!

[@jamesschenk]

It's an old buster sure it's going to fail but not bad for a reusable rocket

[@spx1416]

that booster still flew 22 times more than anything else other companies have sent to space, so no big deal, move on....don't hear anyone talking about the 22 times it landed without any problems

[@anthonyshepard9606]

: Landing gear failure : 🐢 🤔 🐢 😲

[@danielbrowniel]

The silver lining of failure.. Space X is built on failure.

[@Agent77X]

Added more NVidia at $117.00😊

[@imstevemcqueen]

Wind?

[@xalvium]

“THE SPACE WORLD” 😅

[@scottgriz]

I can't see anyone flying on Starship until there are thousands of successful landings. We can't be having lost crew every 200-300 landings and they can't be a "Secondary Objective". It will be interesting to see how fast spaceX can ramp up launches and landing tests of Starship.

[@jamesengland7461]

Thousands? You're being ridiculous.

[@scottgriz]

@@jamesengland7461 Would you want to be on starship landing if it has a failure rate every couple hundred landings? By comparison airliners have an over 1 in a million accident rate and people are still afraid to fly. Sure test pilots and astronauts take more risk. But I don't like those kinds of odds.

[@otpyrcralphpierre1742]

@@scottgriz Good point. But for the time being, the only people taking these risks are well aware of the dangers.

[@Bryan-Hensley]

​@@scottgrizwrong, airliners go by passenger miles..if one plane with 300 people travels 1000 miles, that plane gets credit for 300,000 miles. If you go by aircraft hours, it's one of the most dangerous vehicles on the planet. Look it up, an airliner pilot is listed as a more deadly job than an 18 wheeler driver. So in other words, traveling in an 18 wheeler is much safer. They twist that safety record to make it look better than what reality is.

[@NScherdin]

Space Shuttle had a safety rating of less than 1:70. 1:200 to 1:300 sounds pretty good compared to that.