Author Topic: SpaceX customers' views on reuse  (Read 344873 times)

Offline niwax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1432
  • Germany
    • SpaceX Booster List
  • Liked: 2051
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #720 on: 12/13/2020 09:23 pm »
In my opinion, this is the week that significant reuse became fully accepted and the operational standard. We had a number of significant events over two launches:

- They flew a customer mission on a seventh flight after having never gone beyond a third flight before. This marks a sudden departure from gradual envelope expansion to a regular commercial fleet.
- NASA as one of their pickiest customers not only flew on a fourth flight after never going over two before, they flew after two demanding missions for other customers.
- Both launches were after (multiple) Starlink missions which so far have been seen as low-risk life-leader experiments. Now those boosters are part of the normal rotation.

And next week the NRO will fly on a fifth flight!

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 55155
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 91676
  • Likes Given: 42458
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #721 on: 01/04/2021 08:38 pm »
Quote
Gwynne Shotwell talks about selling flight-proven rockets, Starship
"It was easier to sell 'flight proven' to customers than it was to sell Falcons."

ERIC BERGER - 1/4/2021, 8:45 PM

SpaceX enjoyed its most successful year in 2020. Amidst the pandemic, the company set a record for total number of launches: 26. All met their objectives. The Crew Dragon spacecraft flew humans—Doug Hurley and Bob Behnken—into orbit for the first time. And then it did so again, with the Crew-1 mission in November. SpaceX also made demonstrable progress on its next-generation Starship launch system.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/gwynne-shotwell-talks-about-selling-flight-proven-rockets-starship/


Contains some nice quotes from Gwynne on customers’ views on reuse, including:

Quote
In truth, Shotwell said, it has not been particularly difficult to convince customers to fly on flight-proven rockets. It has been easier to sell customers on the technology than it was selling them on the first Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 rockets.


Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 55155
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 91676
  • Likes Given: 42458
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #722 on: 01/28/2021 02:08 pm »
Progress on first booster reuse for crewed flight:

twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1354800132777267203

Quote
NASA plans to reuse a Falcon 9 first stage for the Crew-2 mission later this spring. I asked for an update from Steve Stich, NASA's program manager for commercial crew, and it sounds like they're working through the review process.

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1354800376978042880

Quote
Stich: "So far, the team has not identified any showstoppers and the Commercial Crew Program Control Board continues to review the components for flight using the standard process."

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 55155
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 91676
  • Likes Given: 42458
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #723 on: 03/02/2021 06:55 am »
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1366446443960160258

Quote
NASA's Steve Stich confirms all remains on track to fly a used first stage for the Crew-2 mission in April. Completed a certification review last Friday.

This is a huge milestone for reusable rockets—NASA putting its most valuable missions on them.

Offline jbenton

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #724 on: 03/02/2021 07:11 am »
Quote
This is a huge milestone for reusable rockets—NASA putting its most valuable missions on them.

They've done that about 135 times before...
« Last Edit: 03/02/2021 07:41 pm by jbenton »

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3291
  • Liked: 4369
  • Likes Given: 5950
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #725 on: 03/02/2021 01:04 pm »
You mean the system they retired because it was unsafe?  That system?

Offline jbenton

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #726 on: 03/02/2021 07:44 pm »
Quote
This is a huge milestone for reusable rockets—NASA putting its most valuable missions on them.

They've done that about 135 times before...
You mean the system they retired because it was unsafe?  That system?

STS was side-launch, a huge target for MMOD, and had no Launch Escape System. Dragon-Falcon is none of those things

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3291
  • Liked: 4369
  • Likes Given: 5950
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #727 on: 03/03/2021 01:42 pm »
You're proving my point for me.  Any comparison to SpaceX's current accomplishment in winning NASA approval now for reuse to Space Shuttle era thinking at NASA is pointless, as the bar is much higher now than it was then.

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2854
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1714
  • Likes Given: 6941
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #728 on: 03/04/2021 08:44 pm »
You mean the system they retired because it was unsafe?  That system?
Yes the system to complete ISS, fix Hubble and send/return 22 crews/147 humans to space, all while down 1/4 of the STS fleet of Orbiter Vehicles.

That 2003 decision to retire STS was hugely politically motivated.
Paul

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3291
  • Liked: 4369
  • Likes Given: 5950
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #729 on: 03/04/2021 08:50 pm »
You mean the system they retired because it was unsafe?  That system?
Yes the system to complete ISS, fix Hubble and send/return 22 crews/147 humans to space, all while down 1/4 of the STS fleet of Orbiter Vehicles.

That 2003 decision to retire STS was hugely politically motivated.
I loved the shuttle, but the system killed more astronauts than all other LVs combined.  By a lot.

Feel free to think of that as "political".  The fact of the matter is that NASA has higher standards of reliability for CC systems, which Shuttle was not able to reach as a core element of its design.  SpaceX reaching those standards with reused booster and capsule should not be handwaved aside because Shuttle existed, which was my original point.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2021 08:51 pm by abaddon »

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2854
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1714
  • Likes Given: 6941
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #730 on: 03/04/2021 10:52 pm »
You mean the system they retired because it was unsafe?  That system?
Yes the system to complete ISS, fix Hubble and send/return 22 crews/147 humans to space, all while down 1/4 of the STS fleet of Orbiter Vehicles.

That 2003 decision to retire STS was hugely politically motivated.
I loved the shuttle, but the system killed more astronauts than all other LVs combined.  By a lot.

Feel free to think of that as "political".  The fact of the matter is that NASA has higher standards of reliability for CC systems, which Shuttle was not able to reach as a core element of its design.  SpaceX reaching those standards with reused booster and capsule should not be handwaved aside because Shuttle existed, which was my original point.
I agree SX's efforts at safety shouldn't be handwaved away, if that's what occurred. Many seemingly forget or are simply ignorant of pre-SX history thussly IMO require correction/discussion.

Shuttle also had the largest crew capacity of 10(or 11?), with a realized crew max of 8.
The actual number killed on shuttle is a bad metric IMO.  If a crewed Starship has a LOCV(loss of crew vehicle) with 15 souls aboard, does it deserve cancellation?  If Soyuz has 4 LOCV events, each with 3 crew, is Soyuz really a safer crewed system than Shuttle?
 I'd still fly an STS-5 through STS-9 mission any day of the week(yes even the 1/9 LOCV missions(STS-1-4) were 1/12 with the ejection seats.

Paul

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9188
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10631
  • Likes Given: 12245
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #731 on: 03/04/2021 11:04 pm »
The actual number killed on shuttle is a bad metric IMO.

How about vehicle loss? 40% of the fleet was lost to various lack of safety oversight by NASA and its contractors.

The Starship landing certainly looks scary, and personally I think it will be a while until SpaceX allows humans to land in it, and only when they get some sort of crew compartment installed that can survive some form of crash.

But the Shuttle was retired for all the right reasons - it was going to require a LOT of rework and upgrades to maintain what was left of the fleet, and even then there was little for it to do after the ISS was complete. Not political at all, and I say that as someone that initially thought it was a bad idea - I came to realize it was the only logical decision.

For Starship there will be great debate when the first humans fly on it, so we can take our handwringing about crew vehicles in the past and start looking to the future...  :D
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2854
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1714
  • Likes Given: 6941
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #732 on: 03/04/2021 11:25 pm »
The actual number killed on shuttle is a bad metric IMO.

How about vehicle loss? 40% of the fleet was lost to various lack of safety oversight by NASA and its contractors.

The Starship landing certainly looks scary, and personally I think it will be a while until SpaceX allows humans to land in it, and only when they get some sort of crew compartment installed that can survive some form of crash.

But the Shuttle was retired for all the right reasons - it was going to require a LOT of rework and upgrades to maintain what was left of the fleet, and even then there was little for it to do after the ISS was complete. Not political at all, and I say that as someone that initially thought it was a bad idea - I came to realize it was the only logical decision.

For Starship there will be great debate when the first humans fly on it, so we can take our handwringing about crew vehicles in the past and start looking to the future...  :D
Sure, 40% of the fleet, or 2 incidents caused by human factors, whatever, anything is better than quantity of souls lost.  Unless there's an agenda.

The 2003 decision announced in early 2004 to retire Shuttle was political.  If it was really about safety (in 2003) we wouldn't have had STS RTF #2 and #3. (STS-114 and STS-121).

You call it handwringing, I call it being factually accurate.
Paul

Offline Athelstane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Liked: 526
  • Likes Given: 1391
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #733 on: 03/04/2021 11:26 pm »
You mean the system they retired because it was unsafe?  That system?
That 2003 decision to retire STS was hugely politically motivated.

That's funny, because I was about to observe that the decision to build the Shuttle in the first place was hugely politically motivated, and the decisions to keep flying it after 1986, and after the escalating series of foam strike problems on the orbiter were also hugely politically motivated.

We could just as easily say that the 2003 decision to keep flying the Shuttle for 7 more years was politicially motivated.

Offline steveleach

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2676
  • Liked: 3225
  • Likes Given: 1084
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #734 on: 03/05/2021 09:49 am »
What was the topic of this thread again? It's been so long now that I can't remember.

Offline ulm_atms

  • Rocket Junky
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 962
  • To boldly go where no government has gone before.
  • Liked: 1625
  • Likes Given: 972
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #735 on: 03/05/2021 01:24 pm »
What was the topic of this thread again? It's been so long now that I can't remember.

Yea, I believe this thread has run it's course personally.  Last few pages really have nothing to do with reuse discussion anyways.

The final conclusion that I get is that the customers are perfectly fine with reuse now in all scenarios (from large expensive sats, to cheap sats, to even people) and there is no longer anything to really discuss on the subject at this point.


Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 55155
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 91676
  • Likes Given: 42458
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #736 on: 03/05/2021 05:51 pm »
Ok, locking this topic (at least for now).

It can be unlocked if there’s anything new and significant, and on topic, to add. Message me if/when you think there is something.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 55155
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 91676
  • Likes Given: 42458
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #737 on: 04/23/2021 09:37 am »
Want to capture status of NASA’s reuse approval for crewed flights

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1385526259455696904

Quote
Was able to confirm with NASA that SpaceX now, essentially, chooses which rockets it will use from its fleet to launch astronauts. SpaceX can propose a new booster, or a first stage that has flown once. Further certification is needed for boosters used more than once.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 55155
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 91676
  • Likes Given: 42458
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #738 on: 06/14/2021 03:45 pm »
The inexorable progression of acceptance of flight proven boosters continues. Now the military are further relaxing constraints for reuse with future NSSL launches:

twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1404463589168197637

Quote
Dr. Lauderdale says SMC has "no other constraints" for SpaceX's use of this Falcon 9 booster after the GPS III SV05 launch, and the military is "certainly open to using" other boosters (i.e., not just ones that launched NSSL missions) for the GPS III SV06 launch.

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1404464177989795845

Quote
The lack of constraints is notable as SMC required SpaceX use the booster that launched GPS III SV04 for this first reuse mission.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 55155
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 91676
  • Likes Given: 42458
Re: SpaceX customers' views on reuse
« Reply #739 on: 05/07/2022 08:44 am »
Interesting SpaceNews article regarding the change in launch site and booster for this mission:

SpaceX moved NROL-85 from the Cape to Vandenberg at no extra cost, in exchange for reusing booster [dated May 6]

Quote from: SpaceNews
The National Reconnaissance Office’s NROL-85 mission launched April 17 by SpaceX was originally scheduled to fly from Cape Canaveral, Florida. But just 12 months before the launch, the NRO informed SpaceX it needed to send its payload to a different orbit so the launch had to be moved to the western range at Vandenberg Space Force Base, California.

“This was a challenge,” NROL-85 mission manager Maj. Jonathan Schirner said this week on the NRO’s “The Dish” podcast.

National security space launch missions are rarely, if ever, moved from coast to coast on such short notice, Schirner said. “It’s the first time we’ve done a range change at the 12 month mark in the NSSL timeframe.”

<snip>

The NRO and SpaceX worked out a deal to move NROL-85 to the West Coast at no extra cost to the government and in exchange the NRO agreed to fly the mission on a reused first stage that had previously flown another NRO mission.

Under the agreement, SpaceX would launch NROL-87 in February at Vandenberg and reuse the boost for NROL-85 in April. Schirner said the deal also was possible because the Space Force’s Space Systems Command was able to examine the recovered booster and approve it for reuse in just two months, a much shorter than usual turnaround.

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1522687474228731904

Quote
NROL-85 manager Maj. Jonathan Schirner:

"When we talk about benefits of a reused booster, we’re talking about taxpayer savings on one end but specifically on this mission, we were able to get a priority of the director of the NRO done while spending zero taxpayer dollars."

Tags:
 

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