And if the landing footage is any indication, it sure looks like they would have made the catch anyway if they'd gone for it.

▲

baq 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

landing footage shows exactly why they didn't attempt the tower catch - the final braking burn was engine rich (green tint), it didn't blow up, but there was a respectable chance of it just crashing into the tower running on less than fumes

	▲	ericcumbee an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not sure thats the case. the booster hovered for what seemed a lot longer than prior booster landing attempts. Almost like they were purposely running out the fuel.

▲

ssl-3 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The goal, as I understand it, is to return the booster with as little fuel as possible at time of catch -- and not run short.

The booster footage indicated to me that its engines turned off, and then the body of the booster imploded, before it touched the ground and then became the expected fireball.

I'm definitely not a rocket scientist, but this series of events leads me to believe that the fuel was absolutely exhausted.

▲

dylan604 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Sounds like the final boom was intentional from control

	▲	ssl-3 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Perhaps it was, and if so: It occurred subsequent to the implosion. (In case that distinction is missed, I do mean "implode" as the antonym of "explode".)

▲

inglor_cz 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Their risk tolerance would probably be greater if both towers were fully operational. But any damage to the only functional tower during booster catch = an automatic abort to the ship catch one day later, and the ship catch is what was really interesting at this point of development.

	▲	dylan604 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The previz imagery of their plans for the Louisiana coast showed pairs of towers dotting the coast. At first I thought they were for alternating the cadence of launches, but now I wonder if one is to catch the booster and the other to catch ship.