The company said this would be the boosters final mission “Due to the additional performance needed to launch these payloads to geosynchronous transfer orbit.”
I wonder how the math works out for expending an old core vs launching a fully recovered FH. Additional cost of the FH side boosters and recovery fleet ops, vs the opportunity cost of lost future launch income from that core - future maintenance.
If I recall correctly, they've not had great success with this in the past. The booster either came in too hot or fell off the droneship on the way home. If you try and fail to recover the centre core, you might as well have just expended a single-stick Falcon 9.
6 replies
why it died? 🥺
https://spaceflightnow.com/2026/07/21/live-coverage-spacex-to-launch-novel-geosynchronous-robotic-servicing-satellite-on-decade-long-mission/
Sounds like they're using all of the booster's fuel to launch the payload higher instead of saving some so it can return and land.
I wonder how the math works out for expending an old core vs launching a fully recovered FH. Additional cost of the FH side boosters and recovery fleet ops, vs the opportunity cost of lost future launch income from that core - future maintenance.
If I recall correctly, they've not had great success with this in the past. The booster either came in too hot or fell off the droneship on the way home. If you try and fail to recover the centre core, you might as well have just expended a single-stick Falcon 9.
Sacrificed to the gods of delta-V, sending 4.2 tonnes to GTO.
There goes my hero