[elfchief]

At one point (I don't know if it's still the case) for certain launches the US government laid claim to "100% of the thrust available from a booster" or somesuch, basically not leaving anything left over for landings. I'm not sure it was ever documented why they had this requirement.

What surprised -me- was that all three boosters were brand new, rather than, say, expending a booster that's already flown half a dozen times or such.

[Denvercoder9]

> What surprised -me- was that all three boosters were brand new, rather than, say, expending a booster that's already flown half a dozen times or such.

Using new boosters was probably a contract requirement, but even if it wasn't, the Falcon Heavy center core isn't interchangeable with regular Falcon 9 cores, as it has to be strengthened to handle the additional load the side boosters put on it.

[xeromal]

Just guessing but maybe 100% of thrust available = statistically safer or something like that?

[bombcar]

Or gives them more lee-way for maneuvering or - makes it a tiny bit harder for spies to figure out what orbit they're going to place the satellite before the launch.

Or because someone asked "how high" and got back "as high as you can go".

[snovv_crash]

It could be something with a large fuel tank that can be adjusted in capacity so that it will be 100% of whatever Falcon can offer for the target orbit.