Is that also why the video feed was not working? SpaceX commentators said it was possibly due to vibration.
The rocket plume plays havoc with the data uplink. It happens all the time.
SpaceX's Falcon Heavy center booster lacked ignition fluid to re-light engines
51–60 of 185 posts
Re: SpaceX's Falcon Heavy center booster lacked ignition fluid to re-light engines
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
It says right there in the article that it used up the fuel while attempting to re-lights the engines (without success).
Sure, but that system was in place for all the Falcon 9 relights as well. Presumably there's something different about the FH - minor architectural differences, flight profile, etc. - that caused this previously reliable system to run out.
Core booster reaches higher hypersonic velocities.
Re: SpaceX's Falcon Heavy center booster lacked ignition fluid to re-light engines
#53I 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)."
It says right there in the article that it used up the fuel while attempting to re-lights the engines (without success).
> Musk said Monday that there wasn't enough ignition fluid to light the outer two engines of the booster "after several three engine relights."
I don't see a mention of whether the previous relights succeeded or not. I'm guessing they did succeed, but the center booster had to perform a higher number of relights than a Falcon 9 booster due to its higher speed.
Re: SpaceX's Falcon Heavy center booster lacked ignition fluid to re-light engines
#54> 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…
Titanium grid fins is a big reason they recovered the 2 side boosters. This launch and landing will be used to fine tune their simulation parameters.
The block 5 variant is designed for 10 launches in a row with 24hr turnaround. With service, over 100 launches is the goal.
Re: SpaceX's Falcon Heavy center booster lacked ignition fluid to re-light engines
#55> 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…
Training.
That, and the best equipment to test out is equipment you know you won't need again in the future.
Case in point: It's much cheaper and less disruptive for them to lose this rocket and fix the issue than to lose a future rocket slated for reuse.
Re: SpaceX's Falcon Heavy center booster lacked ignition fluid to re-light engines
#56So, 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.
[deleted]
Re: SpaceX's Falcon Heavy center booster lacked ignition fluid to re-light engines
#57Has anyone seen any updates on how their fairing recovery attempt went? They had the ship done and seemingly ready back in December - https://imgur.com/gallery/MQcEE
Isn't the fairing just a simple pair of metal casings. Why bother to recover it?
They're actually huge expensive carbon fiber things. Think "racing yacht hulls", and cost several millions of dollars each. A significant portion of the cost of the whole vehicle.
Plus they're slow to manufacture, so they can increase tempo if they can get them back intact.
Re: SpaceX's Falcon Heavy center booster lacked ignition fluid to re-light engines
#58> 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…
The current version of the rocket is called "block 5". Those two boosters weren't block 5 boosters. Presumably the reason to spend resources to get them to safe landing was to learn things that will be useful in future launches; for example, those two boosters had enough ignition fluid to land successfully this time, but the main first stage did not.
Precisely. "We can afford to lose these ones on a test flight."
Re: SpaceX's Falcon Heavy center booster lacked ignition fluid to re-light engines
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
It says right there in the article that it used up the fuel while attempting to re-lights the engines (without success).
Sure, but that system was in place for all the Falcon 9 relights as well. Presumably there's something different about the FH - minor architectural differences, flight profile, etc. - that caused this previously reliable system to run out.
The center core has a different structural design than the side boosters, which are stock F9 stages AFAIK.
Re: SpaceX's Falcon Heavy center booster lacked ignition fluid to re-light engines
#60> 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…
The current version of the rocket is called "block 5". Those two boosters weren't block 5 boosters. Presumably the reason to spend resources to get them to safe landing was to learn things that will be useful in future launches; for example, those two boosters had enough ignition fluid to land successfully this time, but the main first stage did not.
That make sense. In that case, wouldn't these boosters be useful in future Falcon Heavy launches? Why can't they be resued?