SpaceX customers' views on reuse

[bulkmail]

Recent Starlink flight on a brand new booster may be a sign that customers now prefer flight proven boosters?

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Recent Starlink flight on a brand new booster may be a sign that customers now prefer flight proven boosters?

Possible, although my gut says more likely it was what was ready at the point SpaceX wanted to launch. Someone can probably disprove me by looking at what else in the fleet should have been available at the same time?!

Or perhaps SpaceX themselves trust flight proven more and so only use new boosters for customers where the customer explicitly requests it?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Are there any customers left that explicitly demand a new booster?

[steveleach]

Recent Starlink flight on a brand new booster may be a sign that customers now prefer flight proven boosters?

SpaceX seem to try to use Starlinks for the riskier flights, as the impact of losing it is less than for customer payloads.

It wouldn't surprise me if flight #1 of a booster is one of the riskier ones, so the first flight of any new booster will be Starlink from now on, unless a customer specifically requests a brand new one.

Once they've proven the new booster with a Starlink launch they'll be willing to put a customer payload on it.

[rpapo]

Recent Starlink flight on a brand new booster may be a sign that customers now prefer flight proven boosters?

SpaceX seem to try to use Starlinks for the riskier flights, as the impact of losing it is less than for customer payloads.

It wouldn't surprise me if flight #1 of a booster is one of the riskier ones, so the first flight of any new booster will be Starlink from now on, unless a customer specifically requests a brand new one.

Once they've proven the new booster with a Starlink launch they'll be willing to put a customer payload on it.

Makes sense.  Nobody buys or leases an airliner that hasn't had a test flight (or two or three).

[FLHerne]

Are there any customers left that explicitly demand a new booster?

The number of Heavy side boosters built recently, for what's still a fairly thin manifest, suggests that at least some USSF-n launches are contracted for new ones? Some of those date back a few years though.

[DanClemmensen]

Are there any customers left that explicitly demand a new booster?

The number of Heavy side boosters built recently, for what's still a fairly thin manifest, suggests that at least some USSF-n launches are contracted for new ones? Some of those date back a few years though.

I assumed that they built them because they thought they needed side boosters soon, based on the FH manifest before those missions started slipping. It's easier (I assumed) to build them as side boosters than it is to convert a used F9 booster. Eventually one or more side boosters will get converted to F9 if the FH manifest continues to slip and if another F9 is needed

[AmigaClone]

Are there any customers left that explicitly demand a new booster?

The number of Heavy side boosters built recently, for what's still a fairly thin manifest, suggests that at least some USSF-n launches are contracted for new ones? Some of those date back a few years though.

At least one or two of the Falcon Heavy have customers that have demanded three new boosters. It appears that several of those launches are predicted to need the core to be expended.

[rpapo]

Not that I wish any bad luck on SpaceX, but I really wonder what would happen if they were to get a failure or two of new boosters without balancing failures of older boosters?  Would those entities that are insisting on brand new equipment have a change of heart?

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Now that 3 boosters have all achieved 13 successful flights and recovery, I知 struggling to see why any customer would now refuse a reused booster with a low number of flights.

For the FH flights I知 not clear the extent to which new side boosters are due to customer request (may be a while ago when flight was ordered?), or SpaceX deciding to build new ones to guarantee side booster availability/avoid the need to convert an F9 booster.

[AmigaClone]

Now that 3 boosters have all achieved 13 successful flights and recovery, I知 struggling to see why any customer would now refuse a reused booster with a low number of flights.

For the FH flights I知 not clear the extent to which new side boosters are due to customer request (may be a while ago when flight was ordered?), or SpaceX deciding to build new ones to guarantee side booster availability/avoid the need to convert an F9 booster.

Looking at the Falcon Heavy manifest, there are between 4 and 6 missions that could be launched within a year.
1 NASA (Psyche), two commercial (Viasat-3 and Jupiter-3) and three classified Space Force (USSF). Psyche and one of the USSF dates might be more than a year from 6 August 2022.

Viasat-3 currently appears scheduled to be using the side boosters from the second and third Falcon Heavy. That will be the third launch for booster B1053 and seventh launch for B1052 which has flown 4 times as a single stick Falcon, most recently on 4 August 2022.

USSF-44 and USSF-52 appear to be using the same pair of side boosters, with the first of those missions using new side boosters (I seem to recall that was part of the contract for those launches). The flight profile for those missions seems to call for the two side boosters to land on droneships while the core is expended.

Psyche's current mission plan seems to call for the side boosters to return to LZ-1 and LZ-2 while the core is expended. This one also seems to be a case where NASA requested new side boosters.

Jupiter-3 and USSF-67 do not appear to have been assigned boosters yet.

Note that none of the four FH launches with assigned boosters appear to be even trying to recover the core.

[DanClemmensen]

For the FH flights I知 not clear the extent to which new side boosters are due to customer request (may be a while ago when flight was ordered?), or SpaceX deciding to build new ones to guarantee side booster availability/avoid the need to convert an F9 booster.

(Note: My speculation/inference based on one comment from Jim)
I originally thought the problem for SpaceX would be the inventory cost of those idle core and side boosters, but Jim pointed out that in many cases this is covered in the launch contract. The customer pays for a launch on a specific date, and when the customer delays a flight due to a payload slip, The customer must essentially pay rent on the idled launch vehicle. If this is the situation for these specific side boosters and cores, then they are sitting there making money for SpaceX. Presumably for a very long scheduled delay like Psyche, they would cancel the contract and initiate a new one.

[TrevorMonty]

Note that none of the four FH launches with assigned boosters appear to be even trying to recover the core.

Most likely because US staging is at too high a velocity to recover booster. That's price you pay for high performance missions and why ULA didn't go for booster recovery with Vulcan. 

[AmigaClone]

Note that none of the four FH launches with assigned boosters appear to be even trying to recover the core.

Most likely because US staging is at too high a velocity to recover booster. That's price you pay for high performance missions and why ULA didn't go for booster recovery with Vulcan. 

That might be the case of 1 of those 4 missions (Psyche). I suspect that SpaceX's current launch cadence and the detail that they are 0 for 3 in recovering the core boosters might have influenced the decision not to attempt a recovery, even if that was possible.

In the case of at least the two USSF missions with boosters allocated, the side boosters will be attempting to land on the two drone ships stationed on the East Coast, and the launch cadence from Vandenberg is such that the drone ship on the West coast is needed there.

I have not seen where SpaceX plans to land the side boosters from Viasat's launch, but it might use the same profile as the two USSF missions, with the side boosters landing on drone ships.

[Barley]

Most likely because US staging is at too high a velocity to recover booster. That's price you pay for high performance missions and why ULA didn't go for booster recovery with Vulcan. 

That might be the case of 1 of those 4 missions (Psyche). I suspect that SpaceX's current launch cadence and the detail that they are 0 for 3 in recovering the core boosters might have influenced the decision not to attempt a recovery, even if that was possible.

In the case of "possible but not attempted" they could try for a "water landing" like the early F9 landing experiments.  Or possibly SpaceX has given up on further development of FH.

[r8ix]

That might be the case of 1 of those 4 missions (Psyche). I suspect that SpaceX's current launch cadence and the detail that they are 0 for 3 in recovering the core boosters might have influenced the decision not to attempt a recovery, even if that was possible.

On ArabSat-6A, at least, the center core was successfully landed, but later lost in rough seas because octagrabber hadn稚 been adapted yet. That has, I believe, been taken care of. However, the side boosters were RTLS, so the core had less energy than a hypothetical 3 drone ship attempt.

[Robotbeat]

Note that none of the four FH launches with assigned boosters appear to be even trying to recover the core.

Most likely because US staging is at too high a velocity to recover booster. That's price you pay for high performance missions and why ULA didn't go for booster recovery with Vulcan.

It could still be recovered, but would potentially need additional consideration for TPS, beyond the TPS they already use for boosters. This is true for ULA, too.

[AmigaClone]

Note that none of the four FH launches with assigned boosters appear to be even trying to recover the core.

Most likely because US staging is at too high a velocity to recover booster. That's price you pay for high performance missions and why ULA didn't go for booster recovery with Vulcan.

It could still be recovered, but would potentially need additional consideration for TPS, beyond the TPS they already use for boosters. This is true for ULA, too.

Actually, for those missions, the need for more TPS (or more likely a longer re-entry burn) might be the least important factor in deciding to not recover those cores.

For at least the USSF launches which will be placing a satellite directly into geostationary orbit, SpaceX would need a third autonomous drone ship off the coast of Florida to consider making the attempt to land the core. While potentially SpaceX could relocate the drone ship on the West coast to Fl, that would likely mean that drone ship would be unavailable for several launches out of Vandenberg.

The Commercial FH mission is also to launch a satellite to geostationary orbit. so it's flight profile might be similar to the two USSF ones.

In the case of Psyche, the propellant that otherwise would be used for the reentry and landing burns might be needed for the primary mission. That potentially could also play a factor in the decision to not attempting to recover the core booster in the other three stages.

[Robotbeat]

Note that none of the four FH launches with assigned boosters appear to be even trying to recover the core.

Most likely because US staging is at too high a velocity to recover booster. That's price you pay for high performance missions and why ULA didn't go for booster recovery with Vulcan.

It could still be recovered, but would potentially need additional consideration for TPS, beyond the TPS they already use for boosters. This is true for ULA, too.

Actually, for those missions, the need for more TPS (or more likely a longer re-entry burn) might be the least important factor in deciding to not recover those cores.

For at least the USSF launches which will be placing a satellite directly into geostationary orbit, SpaceX would need a third autonomous drone ship off the coast of Florida to consider making the attempt to land the core. While potentially SpaceX could relocate the drone ship on the West coast to Fl, that would likely mean that drone ship would be unavailable for several launches out of Vandenberg.

The Commercial FH mission is also to launch a satellite to geostationary orbit. so it's flight profile might be similar to the two USSF ones.

In the case of Psyche, the propellant that otherwise would be used for the reentry and landing burns might be needed for the primary mission. That potentially could also play a factor in the decision to not attempting to recover the core booster in the other three stages.

If Starship didn't exist and they wanted to use FH for Starlink, it might make sense to get a third or fourth West Coast droneship so you could recover the center core, along with an extended fairing and perhaps recovery of the upper stage (since they'd have the margin to do so and still have it be worth it on Falcon Heavy).

Would be fully reusable, but that's a lot of work for just double F9-droneship payload. Might be just marginally lower cost per kg than Falcon 9 and even then only if they managed a high flightrate. (Starship makes a lot of sense...)

[MP99]

Makes sense.  Nobody buys or leases an airliner that hasn't had a test flight (or two or three).

This makes me wonder how often SpaceX replace a component after first flight because it is a little out of family? Or, really, on any of the flights.

Cheers, Martin