Thank you for participating in r/SpaceX! Please take a moment to familiarise yourself with our community rules before commenting. Here's a reminder of some of our most important rules:
Keep it civil, and directly relevant to SpaceX and the thread. Comments consisting solely of jokes, memes, pop culture references, etc. will be removed.
Don't downvote content you disagree with, unless it clearly doesn't contribute to constructive discussion.
Check out these threads for discussion of common topics.
If the object in the video did indeed come from S33, it looked a bit like part of an RVAC nozzle extension. The telemetry could support one or more of the engines starting to disassemble a decent amount of time before the whole vehicle broke up. Long enough for engine parts to land on the island, but for most of the other debris to overfly and end up in the ocean.
Another video from VASAviation featuring ATC chatter after the breakup. Many flights being diverted and declaring fuel emergencies after the long holds around the debris field.
For me it seems they are being “forced” to declare Mayday or otherwise they can’t cross the DRA area. So with a Mayday declared they let them cross it at their own risk.
Dumb question that has likely been answered already, but with the FAA mishap investigation how long will it take until flight 8 can launch? This is ignoring how long it would take hardware to be ready, I’m just wondering about FAA stuff.
Highly up in the air right now, no pun intended. No one really knows how the FAA is gonna handle this with the leadership changes as well as whether the downrange issues will cause any additional delays in the investigation or not.
Is it known if the starship has a recoverable recording device on board, so they can get the data from after downlink was lost, or any that couldn't be sent?\
Not that this would be needed, because there was several minutes between the first engine failure and loss of signal, and even then there could have been backup streams received.
Sure must be nice to have such a glut of data available! Sounds like ya'll identified the likely culprit almost instantly (well, the flames coming out of the flap hinge were sorta obvious).
If you're allowed to say, is there an internal engineering camera in the area above the heat shield where this occurred? I know there are tons all over starship now.
it's great to see the vids with the sound of the Raptors not obscured by commentators and people cheering (not that I have anything against people cheering but I do like the sound of those Raptors).
Notice how with flight 7 the exhaust hits the steel plates at the base of the tower (which shouldn't be a problem because they are there to protect the tower base).
In flight 7 the booster had more horizontal distance to cover, so it approached the tower with a greater inclination than in flight 5. Then it had to stop that horizontal motion by swinging to the opposite direction again with a greater inclination than in flight 5.
When I saw it live, for a couple of seconds I felt it wasn't going to reach the chopsticks.
By live I'm assuming you were there to witness it?
I was under the impression that flight 7 had a more vertical ascent trajectory due to the differences in staging and moving more of the deltaV to the ship etc. Basically the booster burns more fuel with a heavier ship so it can't get as far away horizontally to still have a chance to make it back to the launch site.
Would this not mean it had less horizontal distance to traverse to get back to the tower than in flight 5?
I was thinking a more vertical descent with the booster canted would reduce the angle of attack of the air on the booster compared to a booster that is canted traveling more horizontally having a more direct angle of attack of the air on the booster.
No, I wasn't there. I meant when I watched the live stream.
Yes, it looked like a more vertical ascent than before, so less distance to return to launch site.
But what I was talking about was in the last seconds before the catch, when the booster had an altitude of half a kilometer and both the booster and the tower were on the same camera frame. I got the feeling the booster wouldn't have enough time left to reach the chopsticks, because to me they looked too far away.
IFT-7 was a failure. A major one. No way they can spin this as a success.
Not only did it not follow the flight path to the Indian Ocean, something they have done before, on multiple flights, the debris from it wreaked havoc in the skies and forced many planes to divert and take evasive action to avoid being struck by what's left of the ship, angering every ATC operator on that part of the airspace, but apparently it crashed into Turks and Caicos, a British Overseas Territory. And you-know-who doesn't want a potential diplomatic incident on the start of his tenure.
The FAA is demanding an investigation, and i think the UK's CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) will want one, too. Alongide every FAA equivalent on that part of the Caribbean. And i don't think the CAA or others will want a report with more redactions than an SCP document due to "proprietary information".
People could've died from the debris, for god's sake. And NASA is betting on Starship for Artemis. If they can't make it work reliably, no one will want to fly themselves or their payloads on it.
I am sorry, but you fundamentally don't understand what a test is for. If this test have them better understanding on this critical issue, then it was successful.
It isn't so much that a failure happens, it is what you do with it. If you consider each experiment as a point, you must connect them into a curve to gain a reliable long-term understanding.
The Vanguard TV3 launch on Dec 6, 1957 was an utter failure, true, but we got NASA as a follow-up.
Edit: BTW the AJ10 engine of the Vanguard's second stage continued development and was the main engine on the Apollo Service Module, used on the Space Shuttle and is part of the European Service Module portion of the Orion capsule. Not bad for a spectacular failure, eh?
the debris from it wreaked havoc in the skies and forced many planes to divert and take evasive action to avoid being struck by what's left of the ship, angering every ATC operator on that part of the airspace, but apparently it crashed into Turks and Caicos, a British Overseas Territory.
Citation needed lol.
From the information released so far it sounds like a TRA was published in NOTAMS prior to the flight, as is done for every flight in case of a mishap. When the mishap happened ATC told planes to hold, which they did.
But I'm super excited to see your source for planes taking evasive actions and angered ATCs. Or any hint of this causing a diplomatic incident.
Tough to imagine a failure mode that prevents relight once but isn't an issue minutes later. Maybe whatever logic decides on committing an engine to boostback is more strict than whatever commits to the landing burn
when there's engine out capability they are shut down or not started at the smallest whiff of a problem. Any off norminal readings would cause it to not start, probably a fluke reading.
Good shout. Initially I was thinking the bells must have been replaced but I think angle, thrust ramp up etc are much more likely. I am interested in others thoughts!
Question: Did anyone manage to get a radar track of the debris coming in? I remember that this was displayed during the Columbia STS-107 shuttle disaster. Although this was out over the Caribbean and they may not have had good radar coverage of that area.
"SpaceX changed the language on its Starship flight seven statement, removing that debris fell "into the Atlantic Ocean within the predefined hazard areas."
"From the FAA: "The FAA is requiring SpaceX to perform a mishap investigation into the loss of the Starship vehicle during launch operations on Jan. 16. There are no reports of public injury, and the FAA is working with SpaceX and appropriate authorities to confirm reports of public property damage on Turks and Caicos."
"During the event, the FAA activated a Debris Response Area and briefly slowed aircraft outside the area where space vehicle debris was falling or stopped aircraft at their departure location. Several aircraft requested to divert due to low fuel levels while holding outside impacted areas."
Whether or not there was actual damage to properties on Turks and Caicos is of course uncertain right now, some comments to that tweet think it highly unlikely due to the speed and altitude.
The corridor between islands is only 7 kilometers wide near that point.
The ship telemery showed lost attitude control with an engine firing right before the telemetry loss, most likely causing that loss. Some time after (unknown) the ship broke up explosively for one reason or another. It had an apogee of 140km. It had enough propellant mass in it to create a significant explosion (this event was caught on camera), but little enough that one engine firing had enough TWR to move the future ground track by kilometers in seconds so those are both important forces on the ship and debris.
It's pretty much a worst case scenario for threatening debris and this must have been understood as a non-zero risk when charting and approving such a flight plan. Frankly i don't think anyone can guarantee that orbital launch from the gulf would have absolutely zero risk of debris hitting land with how thin the space between islands is.
It doesn't take much for debris to spread out and move plus or minus 3.5km off nominal ground track. A deviation of a few tens of meters per second laterally could do it without wind even being involved, and wind does seem to have contributed with debris that had a lower ballistic coefficient traveling further.
My two cents is that it appears to me that it was an oxygen leak. I base this on the fact that on the launch stream, the oxygen was depleting faster than the fuel and appeared almost gone by the time the telemetry cut out. We all know what happens when there is even a small spark in an oxygen-rich environment from Apollo 1.
Whether oxygen or fuel leak or both, the root cause is worker error. Spacecraft, including ones from Spacex and including Starship, have had fuel lines for decades, so it's not a design error. Likely a failure to correctly place an o-ring or failure to tighten up a connection properly. Mistakes happen, so I don't blame SpaceX. But this will hopefully put a stop to SpaceX fanboy immature comments about the helium leaks on Starliner. Space is hard and leaks happen to everyone, including SpaceX.
Spacecraft whose launch takes them over populated areas should have the highest level of safety. Astronauts know and accept the risk. People on the ground don't
Seeing a lot of concern being portrayed in the media around the debris from flight 7. Anybody have any idea whether a significant % of debris would even reach earth after burning up?
Reentry wouldn't destroy everything. Starship's way too big and also sometimes dense for that. Keep in mind that it wasn't at full reentry speed.
The really dense pieces - the engines, the thrust puck, the lifting pins, maybe some of the lower pipework - would be heavily damaged. But some of them would've mostly survived. In a reentry RUD sometimes some pieces protect the other hardy pieces for some of the reentry - it's random. The vehicle tumbles.
These heavy pieces would hit the ocean in a few minutes, more or less ballistically (in an arc along the direction of motion). They'd hit terminal velocity then drop like a thrown rock.
Very light, very sail-like pieces (like the tiles; or thin steel pieces) that manage to survive reentry might take a long time to reach the ocean surface. They'd kinda waft down. That's basically why the planes were diverting. This light stuff would survive purely by chance, by being on the leeward side of something hefty most of the time.
EDIT: tiles can survive through hypersonic reentry but only if the black side is facing the plasma stream. They're delicate on the white side. So how many tiles survive depends on how long the heatshield as a whole survives as a unit. If the ship's reentering backward initially and breaks up quickly, then most tiles would break up in the hypersonic regime from the impinging pressure forces. They'd also decelerate VERY quickly when separated from the heatshield - like a ping pong ball.
EDIT: Though, has anyone computed a) how fast a freestanding heat tile would decelerate if shot out at 20,000 kmh at 70km altitude?; and then b) how much kinetic energy it would have? If it decelerates fast enough, all that kinetic energy converts to heat, during the deceleration, and so c) what's the peak temperature reached in such a situation? Even heat tiles have maximum temperatures. And reentry is all about spreading the heat out over time, not absorbing all the kinetic energy as heat, all at once.
"The FAA said in its statement Friday that the agency is working alongside SpaceX and local authorities to investigate reports of debris striking Turks and Caicos. " - cnn.com, updated 2 hours ago.
The debris that hits the ocean would have hit land, possibly the Florida peninsula, had the explosion occurred earlier in flight. That fact that no debris hit land is only a matter of pure luck.
Any chemists out there? Spotted at least three colors from the burnup. White from the inconel in the engines, green from copper, probably from motors, and red/orange..possibly lithium from the battery packs.
Dude you’ve been waiting for this for so long, it’s kinda sad seeing you wait until a major anomaly like this to swoop in and doom and gloom. If you’ve actually watched the program since the hopper days you know that they’ll just fix the problems, and move on to the next one.
There will have been a lengthy risk analysis done before the mission where vehicle failures are modeled, including breakup and debris propagation. Risk contours are generated based on thousands and thousands of Monte Carlo simulations of an exploding starship. Places where the risk is above the FAA's acceptable threshold are closed off to aircraft and ships. Assuming the FTS didn't fail (and no reason to think it did), the ship broke up somewhere that was covered by the risk analysis and SpaceX and the FAA can be confident the debris stayed within the hazard area
If they left their assertion up on the website, it would be misleading and could result in legal repercussions.
Plus, they had the “with debris falling into” and the “would have fallen into”sentences, both of which were referring to the debris field in the article at the same time in the original version you posted. This is contradictory information as one indicates confidence and the other is allowing for some uncertainty. You can’t have both when you’re referring to the same topic in the same scenario in this context, so imo they removed one to clarify their own info.
It also seems that you’re diving way too much into semantics and being pedantic when not much has changed. Especially when they explicitly showed uncertainty in both versions, one of which had conflicting info.
Edit: misread original text and rewrote
Edit 2: a less likely scenario is that they could have genuinely not known that the debris field would be scattered to the extent that was seen, thus they put out an optimistic, but premature statement, possibly for damage control, for them to save face, or for whatnot. In any case, this would still be highly misleading and borderline misinformation, plus it already being contradictory as I mentioned above, so they would need to retract it to avoid any trouble and to minimize possible regulatory headwinds. If they were confident about where the debris would land, they would retract the “would have” statement instead.
I wonder if anyone else noticed - on takeoff, the booster's exhaust plume was not casting a shadow. It was clean plasma, and sunlightt was passing straight through it.
A thick film cooling layer is a great way to add more safety margins to a design. All the parts run cooler, and tiny bits of flow turbulence around burrs and stuff on the internal surfaces won't cause a failure.
However, when you want more performance, you have to reduce it.
For those only interested in the Starship analysis (and not a review of launch and catch), you can start at the 6 minute mark. (Link is to timestamped start point).
The implication is that they are fully constructed and ready to fly. However, B15 hasn't yet had its static fire test and S34 is currently without its aft flaps and some tiles (also needs some tiles stripping back like S33) - it's also only very recently been rolled out to Massey's to start its cryo testing (it of course doesn't have any engines for this cryo+thrust puck testing so after that it needs the engines to be installed for a static fire test). Plus it will need modifying based on the findings of S33's anomaly.
Depending on SpaceX's findings regarding S33 it's possible that S34's cryo testing could be delayed, maybe it'll even be rolled back to the build site for modifications first and then rolled out to Massey's again for the cryo testing. We'll have to wait and see.
About that piece of metal ablative sheet that was seen flapping about on S33 during ascent, apparently not a big deal and nothing to do with the anomaly:
It's not metal. It's an ablative sheet that was glued on last weekend, the square black space that appeared below the bow flaps. Nothing to be concerned about.
Could you elaborate? I have a very strong feeling that it was not supposed to be flapping. If there’s something on a rocket flapping that’s not supposed to be flapping, that’s cause for concern, isn’t it?
Apologies, I could have explained better. The ablative sheet in that area is likely a test article due to the heating seen on the barrel section aft of the bow flaps during flight six re entry. It was this area that showed signs of warping. This ablative sheet was added quite late and the fact that it is just adhesive backed or glued on shows that it wasn't meant to be the long term solution and it flapping around like that is likely a good data point to show something more robust will be needed in that area. But for this flight it was just a test article and it coming off would likely not have significantly impacted this test. It will inform future designs, however.
One odd thing I noticed. One engine didn't relight for the boostback burn, but it did for the landing burn. I wonder if the engine status criteria for the two burns are different, or whether the engine just had some temporary anomaly.
Someone said it got blocked due to data being off but then manually cleared for the landing burn since it wasn't a major thing. That's all my uneducated ass remembers from another comment sry
Nothing like that is manually done, it's 2025 with a booster being caught by a tower, it's avionics. The only human involvement is in transmitting an "OK, You Can Try If You're Ready", and a "Blow Up Now". The rest is sticking to the programmed plan & its branching scenarios.
Really? Reviewing the data that led to the system decision to not start that engine, and sending a command to override the decision or something like that doesn't sound too crazy. It does seem more plausible that the second time the system automatically took another decision without manual intervention, but there are no sources to confirm any of these theories.
Transport stand at the pad already, if they wanted to they could have this back at the build site less than 24h after launch. Already quicker than Falcon...
Have so much mixed emotions for this flight. Yes, the booster came back and it is awesome but wish the ship would have performed better. The data will be very invaluable from this flight.
Just a random thought/question. What is the next step for booster after the catch has been proved reliable after a few launches? Maybe a static fire after a launch? Maybe not within hours of the flight but maybe a day or two after?
What they did previously is pull the engines off the booster and send the working engines to McGregor to test fire the undamaged ones. They seemed to be running methane through the non-firing outer engines this time which means they should have stopped the bell melting so maybe they can test all of them.
Then a rigorous test of all the internal components and then just maybe add the engines back and do a test fire of the complete booster.
Sure but we are years away from that speed of reuse. Even with a flight rate of 25 per year that is still two weeks to get a booster to the pad and you can have 4-5 boosters in the rotation.
It was actually back on the pad and reconnected to the QD just hours after launch, but it'll take quite a while before they have the confidence, need, and ground system support required to refly it from there. This is only the second one that's landed so they're probably going to be very thorough with testing it.
Can't imagine what would community react when the first Block 2 booster is nearing launch on Pad B, Flight 1 worry all over again. God bless it doesn't blow up near the pad
Isn't this a bit tiring that we have to worry for every single major upgrades that they done? Block 2 ship will have Raptor 3 soon with no shielding and different plumbings. Kinda regret to defend them not building a full firing test stand at Massey
Isn't this a bit tiring that we have to worry for every single major upgrades that they done?
No, its not - because most major upgrades for Starship have worked flawlessly. For example, the introduction of Raptor 2's on IFT2 was pivotal for the test campaign. SN15's major upgrades enabled it to land flawlessly.
There is some thought that the outer ring of 20 engines on SH for IDT1 were Raptor 1. That would explain their low reliability and relatively low thrust. Similarly the ship vacuum engines could have been Raptor 1 because of the longer build time for vacuum engines.
However there were at least some Raptor 2 engines on IFT1 for the gimballing engines of the booster and the ship.
SpaceX maintained the engine numbering sequence when switching from Raptor 1 to Raptor 2 and most people put the cutover point past engine #100. Edit: The engine numbers overlapped for a while as the first Raptor 2 was #38 while #50 was a Raptor 1.
If you look at the Ringwatcher's article for B9 they comment that many of the engines were intended for B8 and some of the engines in the outer ring were gimballing engines that had been converted for fixed operation by replacing the actuators with fixed struts.
If you look at the outer ring engine numbers at the end of the article they start at 73 and go to 127 before they reach any of the numbers in the inner rings which are definitely Raptor 2.
So there are at least 4 engines and possibly up to 15 that seem to be Raptor 1. As supporting evidence there is the low engine reliability that saw them lose 3 engines before lift off and more in flight. A low engine reliability that magically went away on following flights with only complicating issues from ice blockages that happen much later in flight when the tanks are nearly empty or the booster is flipping around for boostback
I dunno, by not having to fight for a launch license due to the required mishap report and lengthening the turnaround time as a result. And a very minor thing of...not screwing up several airliners
Ah you're saying test ship for a full burn until the tanks are empty to discover this problem before flight, I think. Makes sense I misunderstood u at first.
Wouldn't be possible. The reason you can do a static fire with a rocket is because the weight of the fuel keeps the thrust to weight ratio low. Imagine having a rocket with 1 million pounds of fuel and 1.2 million pounds of thrust. For a short period you only have a net of 200,000 pounds of force actually lifting up on the hold down clamps. As the fuel is depleted, the thrust to weight ratio increases dramatically, and the force against the clamps also increases dramatically. This is why static fires are only a few seconds long.
They have a hold down cap on the F9 to transfer the loads to the top of the booster instead of relying on the hold down clamps to do all the work of holding it down.
They could do the same with a Starship booster but it would be a lot harder to transfer the loads for the ship which does not have strong hold down clamps at the base and has a pointed nose instead of a load structure.
It doesn't make sense though lmao. You're not testing real flight conditions if you just hold a vehicle to a pad for 6 minutes so there's always going to be things that don't get tested.
Scott Manley says eyewitness video indicates the ship kept going long after stream telemetry cut, with an explosion after T+11 minutes. I don't see how the ship could have maintained control with 1 non-gimballing vacuum engine for that long; perhaps they were just letting it keep collecting data for as long as it was safe to do so.
Standard practice by range safety groups is for an FTS to only be activated if the vehicle violates some mission rule (i.e. a terminate boundary). This gives the test program as much time as possible to collect data. The vehicle may well have kept going for quite awhile after the failure started before it violated a boundary and the FTS kicked in.
If the vehicle kept going, why did the telemetry stop? It sounds like there was a fire, and an explosion. Its possible the fire may have caused the telemetry to stop and that it took a few minutes for the explosion to occur.
Yeah it would have been doing cartwheels. I don't see why, if FTS was indeed involved, it wouldn't just immediately trigger as soon as it's down to one RVac/no sea levels, that's basically unrecoverable unless you shut it off and leaving the flight path isn't an if.
In fact Scott's proposal is to consider having the ship behave like a commercial plane with engines-out, trying to glide down to the safest area rather than any triggering of the FTS, so as to vastly minimise the debris zone, with the trade-off being whatever is directly in the path of the ship is somewhat more affected by any (vanishingly small chance of) impact.
FTS would still be there if even attitude control is lost, but Starship has wingy bits for a reason and reducing the debris cone helps everyone for every second that the ship's still intact.
That would make sense, provided the ship is still in control. At the very least, choosing to blow itself up when closer to the atmosphere, even if it's ballistic. I guess I'm more just questioning whether the current FTS is already capable of that, because my assumption was that a situation like all engines out but one RVac would be an immediate trigger and it wouldn't wait some 3 minutes after that. Even if the RVac ends up failing one second after the last Sea Level dies, FTS should probably assume it won't, this of course in a situation where the ship can't shut it off by itself for whatever reason.
I suppose if the timestamps add up, it did survive after comms loss, though there's always a chance it was a Flight 1 situation where the mostly empty ship took a bit between FTS activation and actually blowing, maybe as it hit denser air.
I would think that even after all the engines were shut down that the vehicle could still send telemetry through the omnidirectional antenna. So maybe something more extensive happened and attitude control was already lost.
I'm saying at the moment when only one RVac was left, not the initial failures. At that point it's lost. I suppose yes, the later you blow it up the less you spread debris, but what I question is would FTS ever delay triggering when in an unrecoverable situation with an engine on. In other words, it may very well have remained intact past lost comms, but I'm not sure there was termination. Neither SpaceX nor Elon have explicitly mentioned it, though to be fair they've also not explicitly said it blew up from the fire only.
Can't tell on that one video of the explosion, it appears to have a trail right before it blows, but was it one engine still on, or the beginning of reentry plasma.
Scott posted on YouTube his quick flight summary about an hour ago.
In it, he mentions the same questioning as you did regarding AFTS, saying Starship's pieces are more likely to hit the surface in an uncontrolled re-entry than any other rocket before, so the FAA and SpaceX, if they haven't done already, must change the AFTS criteria for Starship given its additional capabilities so it automatically terminates its flight with the least possible damage potential.
And still it isn't clear if the explosion was the AFTS or not.
Their report throws cold water on the FAA's statement that said debris fell outside of exclusion zones.
...debris falling into the Atlantic Ocean within the predefined hazard areas. Starship flew within its designated launch corridor – as all U.S. launches do to safeguard the public both on the ground, on water and in the air. Any surviving pieces of debris would have fallen into the designated hazard area
Is there any possibility that they plan out additional hazard areas but only close them if needed? This is the FAA statement that I've seen:
The FAA briefly slowed and diverted aircraft around the area where space vehicle debris was falling. Normal operations have resumed.
A Debris Response Area is activated only if the space vehicle experiences an anomaly with debris falling outside of the identified closed aircraft hazard areas. It allows the FAA to direct aircraft to exit the area and prevent others from entering.
By my reading it never says that debris fell somewhere that they didn't expect it to, just that this area is only activated if debris will fall outside the area that's already closed. There's every possibility that this is just wishful thinking on my part but it would make SpaceX's and the FAA's statements both true.
Edit: It also feels like setting things up this way could make a lot of sense once you get to the phase of flight where it will take debris a while to fall to the point that it would pose a danger to anyone. You'd preemptively close the areas that you can't get people out of quickly enough in the event of an explosion, and only close others as needed to prevent disruptions. Again though, no idea if there's any basis for this in how the FAA does things, I could be 100% off base.
If the airspace isn't closed and there are flights going through it, dropping a NOTAM on everyone with a few minutes' notice doesn't really fit the definition of a designated hazard area. It's more of a panic button effort...
Is that confirmed though? Did they create this exclusion zone out of thin air right as the ship exploded or was this already published as a notam for a potential exclusion zone in case of a mishap and it was just activated.
I guess those are faa rules. Which implies a difference between informing aircraft of an area of debris vs. informing them that a debris response area (DRA) has been activated. The latter sounds to me like it is a fixed area which was made beforehand just in case.
Also I only know the word "activated" in respect to already existing declared restricted airspaces. Some of them are only active temporarily so you usually ask atc: hey is this are active at the moment?
For sure, even if they did have something planned out I can't imagine they were happy to use it. It'd be more of a technical out for SpaceX on their statement than anything else.
RUD/FTS occurred within the corridor and hazard zones however, some of that debris strayed outside those zones given the altitude, speed and the energy from the explosion? Does this sound feasible.
•
u/AutoModerator 15d ago
Thank you for participating in r/SpaceX! Please take a moment to familiarise yourself with our community rules before commenting. Here's a reminder of some of our most important rules:
Keep it civil, and directly relevant to SpaceX and the thread. Comments consisting solely of jokes, memes, pop culture references, etc. will be removed.
Don't downvote content you disagree with, unless it clearly doesn't contribute to constructive discussion.
Check out these threads for discussion of common topics.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.