2 ms·
It's a loss for nostalgic purposes but there is really no monetary loss. They used to throw them away each time
by DoesntMatter22 3y ago
It'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 Of course, the new ones are better, so B1058 was outdated, which should lower its value.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.