Arabsat-6A Mission

What people said

Cites asgallant · 2019-04 · Space Exploration Stack Exchange · on “Why does Arabsat 6A need a Falcon Heavy to launch”

@geoffc's answer explains why Falcon Heavy over Falcon 9, but the reason for why not any of the other options is likely cost. It's difficult to say with certainty what the launch costs would be, since costs are negotiated per launch, and are affected by a large number of factors (target orbit, payload mass, fuel costs, ridesharing, etc). Estimates put Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy's main competitors Ariane 5 at around \$178M, Atlas 5 at \$109M-179M, and Proton-M at about \$100M 1 . Expendable Falcon 9 and Fully Reusable Falcon Heavy both cost an estimated \$90M, and as @geoffc pointed out, FH has greater GTO capacity than F9, so the launch could use some combination of more favorable orbit and extra

Cites srikor · 2019-04 · Space Exploration Stack Exchange · on “Why is the Falcon Heavy interstage not black?”

The black section of the interstage is improved thermal protection added with the Block 5 version of the Falcon 9, just to increase booster reusability since the second stage engine often charred it a bit. The Falcon Heavy core is constructed very differently to a Falcon 9, however. The interstage features the upper struts connecting the two boosters to the core, which you can see folding inward on separation [this video] , so structurally it needs to accommodate that assembly and also bear the heavy stresses imparted by the boosters themselves. This likely meant there wasn't room for the improved thermal protection in design, and since it's far less critical, it was left out. The main Block 5 fe

Cites JFL · 2019-04 · Space Exploration Stack Exchange · on “What would the damage radius be if a Falcon 9 booster impacted the Earth without a landing burn?”

@JCRM if you watch the ARABSAT-6A MISSION replay at 22:34 [this video] it indicates a speed of 5865 km/h at separation. A little below the 6000, and definitely not 8000, and not the typical case, but still, this show that a Falcon 9 booster can reach such speeds. Of course this is in great part "horizontal" velocity.

Cites Rolando · 2019-08 · Space Exploration Stack Exchange · on “Are there payload lights turning on and off in orbit on SpaceX STP-2?”

For what I observe, these blinks seems to be the reflections of the RCS thrusters nitrogen exhausts of the second stage. Falcon 9 Block 5 uses nitrogen RCS thrusters for attitude control, unlike now-retired Block 2, it used hypergolic thrusters. Nitrogen thrusters, when operating, looks like white poofs of gas, similar to a deodorant spray being used. The fact that the Sun is illuminating from the back of the camera enhance the brightness of the nitrogen exhaust. And finally, you can see any SpaceX first stage landing attempt, between stage separation and reentry burn, the first stage perform a series of these nitrogen-thruster blastings, very short in duration, just as the blinks seen refle

Cites Jörg W Mittag · 2024-04 · Space Exploration Stack Exchange · on “Feasibility of landing all 3 Cores of the Falcon Heavy on Droneships”

Feasibility of landing all 3 Cores of the Falcon Heavy on Droneships That would require three ASDS in the landing zone which SpaceX does not have. Therefore, it is not feasible. All of the Falcon Heavy launches up to now are either expending the Center core and landing the side boosters on land, or expending all of them This is not correct, or at the very least, a very misleading way to state this. There are three Falcon Heavy [LINK] flights where all three boosters were attempted to be recovered, on two, the landing of the center core failed in the last second, on the third, the center core successfully landed: On the very first Falcon Heavy flight, the Falcon Heavy test flight [LINK] , Spa