100% Success Rate for Reflown Boosters

[steveleach]

People often fail to see the potential of disruptive change beforehand. There's no value in rubbing their faces in it though.

How many times have we seen wildly optimistic predictions that come to nothing?

[edzieba]

Bumping this thread, after another 5 years …, to say still 100% success rate for reflown boosters and now past the 100 mark!

With one caveat: 100% primary mission success rate, but 3 re-used boosters have failed after completing the primary mission, during recovery. Since this is well past the 'experimental landing' phase, I'd call these 'operational failures' but not 'mission failures', for a 3/185 (counting only re-flown missions) operational failure rate or a 98.4% operational success rate. Pretty danged good, and SpaceX hardly seem short of cores to backfill their schedule with.

[DanClemmensen]

Bumping this thread, after another 5 years …, to say still 100% success rate for reflown boosters and now past the 100 mark!

With one caveat: 100% primary mission success rate, but 3 re-used boosters have failed after completing the primary mission, during recovery. Since this is well past the 'experimental landing' phase, I'd call these 'operational failures' but not 'mission failures', for a 3/185 (counting only re-flown missions) operational failure rate or a 98.4% operational success rate. Pretty danged good, and SpaceX hardly seem short of cores to backfill their schedule with.

Yep. This increases SpaceX's internal expected cost per launch by 1.6% of the cost of a booster. But during this same interval, SpaceX has self-certified an increase in the max number of booster flights from ten to twenty, very roughly cutting the booster cost per launch in half. In the real world, there are all sorts of caveats here, of course, especially if older boosters have higher refurbishment costs.

[meekGee]

This thread started in 2017.

It's important to note that when SpaceX finally had a failure, it was *not* because they pushed reusability too far..  It was on an expendable stage..

Had it been on a reusable stage, it would have put flight 1 of that stage at risk, not flight n...  and depending on what the root cause turns out to be, it might have been something that would have been caught earlier, before an actual failure occurred.

[deltaV]

It's important to note that when SpaceX finally had a failure, it was because they pushed reusability too far..

Missing "not" after "was"?

[meekGee]

It's important to note that when SpaceX finally had a failure, it was because they pushed reusability too far..

Missing "not" after "was"?

Thx!  I would ... have found it without you! 

[Nomadd]

It's important to note that when SpaceX finally had a failure, it was because they pushed reusability too far..

Missing "not" after "was"?

Thx!  I would ... have found it without you! 

Blame the radio.

[seb21051]

Sure, easy to blame Marconi, he's not here to defend himself . . .