Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Falcon Heavy Flight #2 - Arabsat 6A - LC-39A

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Bummer! I thought the Octograbber would handle rough seas.
The Verge article on the fall mentioned that the center core was different then your typical Falcon 9 and that the Octograbber wasn't compatible with the grab points on the FH center core.

/edit. Why they didn't get on there and weld down the legs like they used to do is another question, but perhaps the seas were rough right after the landing and they couldn't even get on the ship to do that safely.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: mongo
The Verge piece starts by saying it fell in the drink, so I assume it is completely lost.

Regarding the securing part:
Over the weekend, due to rough sea conditions, SpaceX’s recovery team was unable to secure the center core booster for its return trip to Port Canaveral,” SpaceX said in a statement to The Verge. “As conditions worsened with eight to ten foot swells, the booster began to shift and ultimately was unable to remain upright. While we had hoped to bring the booster back intact, the safety of our team always takes precedence. We do not expect future missions to be impacted
 
There's some good news concerning the center core incident. The booster obviously has sustained some damage, but it apparently landed intact on the deck of OCISLY. The 5 Merlin engines look to be okay.
Based on Elon’s tweet, I’m wondering if the booster fell over but remained on OCISLY, so the upper part of the booster was severely damaged but the engines were untouched because the extended landing legs kept them from touching the ASDS deck?

4866F8F2-484A-4090-B7DE-96A348E28928.jpeg
 
  • Informative
Reactions: e-FTW
Maybe SpaceX should just stop trying to recover the center core. There are some downsides to recovering it:

1. Center core needs more fuel for making a successful reentry than side boosters, as it's coming in a lot faster.
2. Center core still takes a beating with all that heating. Means more refurbishment/fewer reuses.
3. Recovery must take place far at sea, with significantly more cumbersome logistics and greater risk. Takes time to get out that far and return. Greater chance of getting hit by bad weather and losing the core.
4. Delta-V hit by added weight of landing legs, grid fins, etc is greater than for side boosters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
Maybe SpaceX should just stop trying to recover the center core. There are some downsides to recovering it:

1. Center core needs more fuel for making a successful reentry than side boosters, as it's coming in a lot faster.
2. Center core still takes a beating with all that heating. Means more refurbishment/fewer reuses.
3. Recovery must take place far at sea, with significantly more cumbersome logistics and greater risk. Takes time to get out that far and return. Greater chance of getting hit by bad weather and losing the core.
4. Delta-V hit by added weight of landing legs, grid fins, etc is greater than for side boosters.

1. Are you sure about that? The reentry burn may use more fuel, but there is no boost back burn. Landing burn is probably the same.
2. Fewer reuses is far better than none, which is absolute if they don't try.
3. They successfully landed the center core, so even though difficult they've proven that it can be done in the harshest of reentries. That it fell over in high seas, they'll probably come up with a better way of securing it. A new or revised Octo-grabber probably.
4. If the customer needed the delta-V, SpaceX would have expended the center core and the customer would have been charged accordingly.

Every problem they face they learn from and conquer. "Up from the ashes of disaster grow the roses of success."
Let's say for sake of argument that all they get this time is most of the engines and half of the grid fins back in reusable condition. That alone is easily worth the effort from a cost perspective.
 
1. Are you sure about that? The reentry burn may use more fuel, but there is no boost back burn. Landing burn is probably the same.
2. Fewer reuses is far better than none, which is absolute if they don't try.
3. They successfully landed the center core, so even though difficult they've proven that it can be done in the harshest of reentries. That it fell over in high seas, they'll probably come up with a better way of securing it. A new or revised Octo-grabber probably.
4. If the customer needed the delta-V, SpaceX would have expended the center core and the customer would have been charged accordingly.

Every problem they face they learn from and conquer. "Up from the ashes of disaster grow the roses of success."
Let's say for sake of argument that all they get this time is most of the engines and half of the grid fins back in reusable condition. That alone is easily worth the effort from a cost perspective.

They are updating Octo for FH center:
Elon Musk on Twitter


octo.PNG
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brass Guy
Overnight OCISLY arrived at Port Canaveral. The top half (or more?) of the center core above the RP-1 tank is gone. Judging by this twitter photo, looks like techs may have cut off the heavily damaged LOX tank and interstage. One of the four legs appears to have broken off. Towards the right side at least a couple of the engine bells appear to be deformed. Suppose there's a chance the titanium grid fins were salvaged. Less likely if they became submerged after the fall. OCISLY doesn't look to be any worse for wear.
FM engines.jpg