6 ms·

How so? They aren't reusing the rockets...we don't even know if they are in a reusable state.

aeorgnoieang 10y ago
[SpaceX's Musk: We'll reuse today's Falcon 9 rocket within 2 months • The Register](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/09/falcon_9_rocket_reused_in_two_months/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/09/falcon_9_rocket_reus...)
- cryptoz 10y ago
  For the record, it looks like Musk never said "we will do it in two months". He said SpaceX would aim for June and even mentioned likely delays in the same sentence. There's a huge difference, and the headline you linked to was written as clickbait.
- ufmace 10y ago
  More recently: "Aiming for first reflight in Sept/Oct." as of June 7th. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/740296489532948480 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/740296489532948480
- jessriedel 10y ago
  ...more than 2 months ago...
- mrep 10y ago
  That's musk time though so you need to multiply by 2.
- rgbrenner 10y ago
  It's been 2.5 months. Last week, it was pushed back to the fall: http://www.space.com/33145-spacex-to-refly-falcon-9-rocket-fall-2016.html http://www.space.com/33145-spacex-to-refly-falcon-9-rocket-f... It is interesting that it was 2 months.. then after landing a few, it's now 6 months. Makes you wonder how much damage the rocket is sustaining during launch/recovery.
  - walrus01 10y ago
    If I had to guess, their first priority is launching new rockets that generate revenue, with paying customers' payloads on them (as all of the recent Falcon 9 launches have been), rather than a self funded R&D flight. I don't think any paying customer would put anything other than a boilerplate/test article satellite on the very first ever re-use of a first stage.
    - aetherson 10y ago
      People would if the cost was sufficiently defrayed -- this is just a financial instrument problem. That might make the first reuse flight unprofitable for SpaceX, but not as unprofitable as one with no payload.
      - walrus01 10y ago
        The insurance companies which insure commercial telecom satellite launches are EXTREMELY risk averse - I would be surprised if you see a commercial launch in any of the first eight re-uses of first stages. Government/science payload/R&D, yes. LEO or geostationary transfer orbit commercial, no. edit: you might see a commercial flight with a never-flown-before prototype commercial satellite bus (example: like a geostationary bus the size of a boeing 702 with a novel never before tested type of ion propulsion stationkeeping system, or a new battery system, or something else weird).
        aetherson 10y ago
        As I said, a financial instrument problem. If nobody is willing to create the appropriate insurance because of structural inefficiencies in the insurance industry, well, that's reality. But there's no prima facia reason why it should be uninsurable.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - 10y ago
mikeash 10y ago
They say that even the "max damage" stage could fly again: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/734274360588926976 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/734274360588926976

[SpaceX's Musk: We'll reuse today's Falcon 9 rocket within 2 months • The Register](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/09/falcon_9_rocket_reused_in_two_months/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/09/falcon_9_rocket_reus...)

cryptoz 10y ago
For the record, it looks like Musk never said "we will do it in two months". He said SpaceX would aim for June and even mentioned likely delays in the same sentence. There's a huge difference, and the headline you linked to was written as clickbait.
ufmace 10y ago
More recently: "Aiming for first reflight in Sept/Oct." as of June 7th. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/740296489532948480 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/740296489532948480
jessriedel 10y ago
...more than 2 months ago...
mrep 10y ago
That's musk time though so you need to multiply by 2.
rgbrenner 10y ago
It's been 2.5 months. Last week, it was pushed back to the fall: http://www.space.com/33145-spacex-to-refly-falcon-9-rocket-fall-2016.html http://www.space.com/33145-spacex-to-refly-falcon-9-rocket-f... It is interesting that it was 2 months.. then after landing a few, it's now 6 months. Makes you wonder how much damage the rocket is sustaining during launch/recovery.
- walrus01 10y ago
  If I had to guess, their first priority is launching new rockets that generate revenue, with paying customers' payloads on them (as all of the recent Falcon 9 launches have been), rather than a self funded R&D flight. I don't think any paying customer would put anything other than a boilerplate/test article satellite on the very first ever re-use of a first stage.
  - aetherson 10y ago
    People would if the cost was sufficiently defrayed -- this is just a financial instrument problem. That might make the first reuse flight unprofitable for SpaceX, but not as unprofitable as one with no payload.
    - walrus01 10y ago
      The insurance companies which insure commercial telecom satellite launches are EXTREMELY risk averse - I would be surprised if you see a commercial launch in any of the first eight re-uses of first stages. Government/science payload/R&D, yes. LEO or geostationary transfer orbit commercial, no. edit: you might see a commercial flight with a never-flown-before prototype commercial satellite bus (example: like a geostationary bus the size of a boeing 702 with a novel never before tested type of ion propulsion stationkeeping system, or a new battery system, or something else weird).
      - aetherson 10y ago
        As I said, a financial instrument problem. If nobody is willing to create the appropriate insurance because of structural inefficiencies in the insurance industry, well, that's reality. But there's no prima facia reason why it should be uninsurable.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - 10y ago

mikeash 10y ago

They say that even the "max damage" stage could fly again: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/734274360588926976 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/734274360588926976