4 ms·
This specifically illustrates why SpaceX's approach to rocketry is the right way to go. They lost a booster that already had many successful launches and they h
by geuis 3y ago
This specifically illustrates why SpaceX's approach to rocketry is the right way to go. They lost a booster that already had many successful launches and they have 19 more already flight proven and 3 new ones being prepared. (Apologies for that ungainly sentence.)
It's definitely a loss, but not crippling in any way.
- holoduke 3y agoEngines are still intact so it seems. So not a complete loss
- grecy 3y agoJon Edwards (VP of Falcon Launch Vehicles at SpaceX) said: "We are planning to salvage the engines and do life leader inspections on the remaining hardware. There is still quite a bit of value in this booster. We will not let it go to waste." https://twitter.com/edwards345/status/1739684677714104759 https://twitter.com/edwards345/status/1739684677714104759
- mlindner 3y agoIt's literally the "SMART Reuse" (their name not mine) plan of the historical prime launch contractor in the US, United Launch Alliance (joint owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin). They plan to eject the engine section and parachute it down and then recover just the engines.
- yreg 3y agoIt seems that what they aim for is inferior to what SpaceX has already mastered.
- jodleif 3y agoThere is benefits to not having to carry extra fuel, so it’s definitely not clear cut
- dotnet00 3y agoThis was discussed in a twitter spat between Musk and ULA's CEO Tory Bruno a few years ago. Back then the go-to excuse for why other companies weren't pursuing reuse was that it'd take 10 flights to break even in terms of making up for the lost payload capacity. They claimed that since they were only launching like 10 times a year, this would make it so they don't have to produce any boosters for years, screwing things up for the assembly line. Back then SpaceX was still not as firmly established in the industry, so this was them basically claiming to know better than the "new kids". Musk countered by roughly explaining the reductions they have to take (iirc 15% payload lost for the landing fuel and 10% for the extra hardware) and explained that with their costs, they've made up for that by the 3rd launch. Of course since then megaconstellations came about and other geopolitical situations caught all the other big launch providers off guard leaving F9 as basically the only ride available with any spare launch capacity (even with Vulcan and Ariane 6 not too far off, they're fully booked for quite a while). Proving that the benefits outweigh the costs.
- inglor_cz 3y agoLooking at the total volume and weight of payload carried up there by partially reusable Falcon vs. other launchers since reusable Falcon's debut, it certainly seems that customers prefer reusable Falcon.
- sebazzz 3y agoNo, but there are a lot of unknowns. You need to take the most critical pieces of the rocket and subject them to more forces and make them somehow detachable from the tanks.
- whazor 3y agoHistory making rockets are great for museums. I hope they could fix it up and put it on display.
- DoesntMatter22 3y agoIt's a loss for nostalgic purposes but there is really no monetary loss. They used to throw them away each time
- yreg 3y agoThe booster does have a monetary value, they are estimated to cost ~ $50M. Not sure if flights make them less or more valuable. SpaceX likes to use wording with a positive connotation – "flight proven" instead of, say, "refurbished". Of course, the new ones are better, so B1058 was outdated, which should lower its value.
- Voultapher 3y agoI'd say flight proven is appropriate wording. Given the reliability they have demonstrated. As an analogy would you feel more comfortable on a plane's maiden flight or on flight 132?
- nothercastle 3y agoThese boosters are intended for low cycles not 60-100k like planes
- Voultapher 3y agoI don't think that changes my point. Flight 5 seems more likely to succeed than the first in the context of falcon 9.
- dotnet00 3y agoEven then boosters which have already flown are considered more reliable. NASA now prefers flight proven boosters over brand new ones for instance.
- DoesntMatter22 3y agoThe cost is nominal. They have many more of these as they were surprised to find that they last much longer than expected. They were spending 50 million per flight on these. Now they effectively pay 2 million. It's flown 19 times so has already saved about 900 million in costs. And realistically.wqs going to get sunset at some point anyway. Its dirty cheap to replace relatively.