4 ms·
Interesting choice by SpaceX to use their booster B1062. One would presume that, given the profile of this launch, they will definitely pick the booster that t
by mabbo 5y ago
Interesting choice by SpaceX to use their booster B1062.
One would presume that, given the profile of this launch, they will definitely pick the booster that they have the absolute most confidence in. And so they didn't choose a brand-new-from-the-factory booster. They picked B1062, which has flown twice already.
It's not a real champ like 1051 which has flown 10 times and may have picked up some age-related defects. But it's also not likely to have any serious build flaws, since it's survived launch twice already without any problems.
I imagine this is the same reason they pushed NASA so hard to let them use re-flown boosters for their human launches. A decade ago, it would be an insane thought, but using previously-flown hardware reduces the risk.
- mberning 5y agoIt’s a very interesting approach but makes some sense. When it comes to failures the two big cohorts are “crib deaths” and “old age”. By picking something that flew twice they are able to pick a machine still early in its life cycle but survived adolescence.
- lallysingh 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve It's well understood.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- tomschlick 5y agoYeah its kind of insane that we ever did it any other way. Its akin to buying a car that no human has ever driven outside of a test lab and taking it on a cross country road trip.
- mabbo 5y agoExcept that if the car breaks down, people maybe die.
- WastingMyTime89 5y agoExcept it's not trivial at all to land back a booster and rockets are used far closer to the limit of their physical tolerance than cars. It's not too dissimilar to how F1 engines used to last only one race but are now engineered to last much longer.
- aero-glide2 5y agoAccording to Elon, insurance rates decrease after first launch. So the insurers think the same too.
- spywaregorilla 5y agoIs B1062 a proven design or literally the same physical thing?
- mbrubeck 5y agoThey are reusing the same physical engine.
- duskwuff 5y agoThey're reusing the whole rocket, not just the engine. In many SpaceX launches, you can see the carbon deposits left on the side of the rocket from its previous flights.
- wlesieutre 5y agoBoth are the "Falcon 9 Block 5" version. Earlier in the Falcon 9's history they were constantly iterating on the design, but NASA's certification for human spaceflight required them to make seven flights on the same design. So it's both a proven design, and they're reusing one that has flown before. But not the most heavily reused one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_Block_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_Block_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters#Block_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_b...
- sebazzz 5y agoNote that even within Falcon 9 Block 5 there are changes to make reusability easier and cheaper. The earlier Block 5 are not as easy to reuse as later Block 5. ("Pain in the ass" as mentioned in Elon in the conversation with Tim Dodd[0]) [0]: https://everydayastronaut.com/starbase-tour-and-interview-with-elon-musk/ https://everydayastronaut.com/starbase-tour-and-interview-wi...
- NortySpock 5y agoB1062 is the serial number of a particular booster that SpaceX has in its fleet of boosters. So "the same physical thing", as in "we are flying the plane with this particular tail number"