Author Topic: 100% Success Rate for Reflown Boosters  (Read 52322 times)

Offline steveleach

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2568
  • Liked: 3145
  • Likes Given: 1050
Re: 100% Success Rate for Reflown Boosters
« Reply #100 on: 07/12/2023 12:35 pm »
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?

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6740
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 10296
  • Likes Given: 44
Re: 100% Success Rate for Reflown Boosters
« Reply #101 on: 09/01/2023 12:46 pm »
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.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6575
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 5297
  • Likes Given: 2232
Re: 100% Success Rate for Reflown Boosters
« Reply #102 on: 09/01/2023 07:04 pm »
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.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15068
  • N. California
  • Liked: 15175
  • Likes Given: 1427
Re: 100% Success Rate for Reflown Boosters
« Reply #103 on: 07/14/2024 07:55 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2024 11:35 pm by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2646
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 973
  • Likes Given: 3645
Re: 100% Success Rate for Reflown Boosters
« Reply #104 on: 07/14/2024 08:36 pm »
It's important to note that when SpaceX finally had a failure, it was because they pushed reusability too far..
Missing "not" after "was"?

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15068
  • N. California
  • Liked: 15175
  • Likes Given: 1427
Re: 100% Success Rate for Reflown Boosters
« Reply #105 on: 07/14/2024 10:14 pm »
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!  :)
« Last Edit: 07/14/2024 11:36 pm by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8933
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60853
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: 100% Success Rate for Reflown Boosters
« Reply #106 on: 07/16/2024 10:46 pm »
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.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline seb21051

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 288
  • Michigan, USA
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 505
Re: 100% Success Rate for Reflown Boosters
« Reply #107 on: 07/17/2024 01:15 am »
Sure, easy to blame Marconi, he's not here to defend himself . . .

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0