21–30 of 185 posts
So, I wonder why the side boosters won't be used again? Was that explained. I'm curious, but I barely have internet on this hill.
So, I wonder why the side boosters won't be used again? Was that explained. I'm curious, but I barely have internet on this hill.
I bet it didn't randomly lack fluid due to some stupid miscalculation. It's probably more like: "Due to unforeseen circumstances it needed more fluid than expected. But we adjust our numbers and next time we expect more (in the hopes that it will be enough, which it will probably be)."
So, I wonder why the side boosters won't be used again? Was that explained. I'm curious, but I barely have internet on this hill.
Why did SpaceX spend resources to get them to safe landing then? I presume, they rather maintain their routine and maintain the success of landing the booster. It would probably be expensive to change their standard procedure.
Does any know how many times a booster can be resued? What dictates its lifetime?
So, I wonder why the side boosters won't be used again? Was that explained. I'm curious, but I barely have internet on this hill.
I believe the two boosters were previously flown and were of an older block/generation (block 3 and 4 if memory serves me) where they are focusing on block 5 as the final revision and all future Falcon rockets would be this same standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Block_5
I like hearing that the problem is something as (relatively) trivial to solve as this. I know carrying more fuel with the rocket isn't exactly an easy thing to do, but far easier than finding out there's something fundamentally wrong with the design. SpaceX is amazing and I'm glad they're doing the hard stuff.
Will it work, though? Is the center-core restart happening under the same conditions as the heretofore successful ones? Is it really a matter of adding more lighter fluid? (That's like The Cable Guy's BBQ advice.) How fast is the wind those rocket nozzles are pointed into?
> Those two boosters, which were used in previous launches of SpaceX's workhorse Falcon 9 rocket, will not be reused again, Musk said in a post-launch news conference last week. Why did SpaceX spend resources to get them to safe landing then? I presume, they rather maintain their routine and maintain the success of landing the booster. It would probably be expensive to change their standard procedure. Does any know h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Will it work, though? Is the center-core restart happening under the same conditions as the heretofore successful ones? Is it really a matter of adding more lighter fluid? (That's like The Cable Guy's BBQ advice.) How fast is the wind those rocket nozzles are pointed into?
Supersonic, for a start.