Reuse milestones

[Barley]

Sometime* in 2021 SpaceX reached a milestone of more reuse missions than new booster missions.

*Exactly when depends on how you count Falcon 1, Falcon Heavy, and rockets that did not reach orbit.

[cppetrie]

Sometime* in 2021 SpaceX reached a milestone of more reuse missions than new booster missions.

*Exactly when depends on how you count Falcon 1, Falcon Heavy, and rockets that did not reach orbit.

Also this year were humans launching on both a once used (Crew-2) and twice used (Inspiration4) booster and in a once used capsule (Crew-2 and Inspiration4).

[rocketmaniac000]

What Elon Musk and SpaceX have done to this point is nothing short of amazing! They told him it would be impossible to do this and sure enough he did it!

[su27k]

https://www.spacex.com/launches/index.html

On December 21, 2021, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket launched Dragon on the 24th Commercial Resupply Services (CRS-24) mission for NASA from historic Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at Kennedy Space Center in Florida, completing our 31st and final launch of the year. Dragon separated from Falcon 9’s second stage about twelve minutes after liftoff and will autonomously dock to the space station on Wednesday, December 22.

CRS-24 also marked the 100th recovery of an orbital class rocket booster. SpaceX remains the only launch provider in the world capable of propulsive landing and re-flight of orbital class rockets. While most rockets are expended after launch — akin to throwing away an airplane after a cross-country flight — SpaceX is working toward a future in which reusable rockets are the norm. To date, SpaceX has:

* Launched 138 successful missions;
* Landed first stage rocket boosters 100 times; and
* Reflown boosters 78 times, with flight-proven first stages completing 75 percent of SpaceX’s missions since the first re-flight of a Falcon 9 in 2017.

2021 was particularly impressive, during which the SpaceX team:

* Launched 94 percent of all missions on flight-proven Falcon 9 boosters;
* Safely carried eight astronauts to the International Space Station for NASA, in addition to transporting ~28,000 pounds of critical cargo and scientific research to and from the orbiting laboratory;
* Completed the world’s first all-civilian astronaut mission to orbit, which flew farther from planet Earth than any human spaceflight since the Hubble missions;
* Launched humanity’s first planetary defense test to redirect an asteroid, among other important scientific missions; and
* Deployed more than 800 Starlink satellites to low-Earth orbit which are helping to connect over 150,000 customers and counting around the world with high-speed, low-latency internet.

In the year ahead, SpaceX’s launch cadence will continue to increase, as will the number of flight-proven missions, human spaceflights, Falcon Heavy missions, and people connected with internet by Starlink. We’re also targeting the first orbital flight of Starship, and have resumed development of a lunar lander for NASA that will help return humanity to the Moon, on our way to Mars and beyond.

[su27k]

https://twitter.com/cboldenjr/status/1473291703301947392

Kudos to the entire SpaceX Team for an exceptionally successful year by any measure!  - Charlie B.

https://twitter.com/waynehale/status/1473285005698904069

Congratulations to SpaceX on the landing of the 100th Falcon booster!  I admit being a skeptic when it was announced, now know I was wrong.  SpaceX has disrupted the launch industry and set the reuability standard everyone is emulating.  Remarkable achievement!

https://twitter.com/larsblackmore/status/1473256835859812355

The 100th Falcon landing, on the anniversary of landing #1 no less! Huge credit to the teams that took something that worked *most* of the time a few years ago and made it a normal and reliable part of launch.


Next up is 100% reusability, with Starship

[alugobi]

Not so sure that "everyone" is emulating SX.

[cwr]

The stat I like is that:
1) Turksat 5B was launched by the 78th "previously flown F9 booster and FH cores"
2) CRS24 was launched by B1069 and while half a dozen boosters have left Hawthorn
    for MacGregor since 1069, I don't think 1078 has left Hawthorn yet.

So SpaceX has flown more "previously flown boosters"  than "unflown boosters" on launch
missions.

Carl

[AmigaClone]

The stat I like is that:
1) Turksat 5B was launched by the 78th "previously flown F9 booster and FH cores"
2) CRS24 was launched by B1069 and while half a dozen boosters have left Hawthorn
    for MacGregor since 1069, I don't think 1078 has left Hawthorn yet.

So SpaceX has flown more "previously flown boosters"  than "unflown boosters" on launch
missions.

Carl

As of 21 December 2021, SpaceX has flown 133 orbital Falcon 9, 3 Falcon Heavy, and 5 Falcon 1 missions. Below is the number of each type of first stage flown on an orbital mission. The numbers in the 'New' column are those boosters that were launching for the first time, while the numbers in the 'flown' column are for those boosters that already had flown at least once.

Model	New	Flown	Total
Falcon 1	5	0	5
Falcon 9 v1.0	5	0	5
Falcon 9 v1.1	15	0	15
Falcon 9 Full Thrust	24	12	36
Falcon 9 v1.2 Block 5	16	62	78
Falcon 9 Heavy	5	4	9
Totals	70	78	148

* Falcon 9 Full Thrust - Falcon 9 v1.2 up to block 4
Note that Falcon 9 V1.0 boosters were numbered B0001-B0007. There were six boosters built as pathfinders or test articles and never used in an orbital mission. The two boosters that flew short hops in that group, flew a total of 12 times.

B1028, intended to launch the Amos-6 mission, was destroyed prior to launch.

Edited for clarity.

[CuddlyRocket]

... Below is the number of each type of first stage flown on an orbital mission.

Model	Unflown	Flown	Total
Falcon 1	5	0	5

....

That makes it look like there were five Falcon 1 boosters none of which flew. As that was obviously not the case, I'm guessing that by 'unflown' you mean they had not previously flown before?

[niwax]

I'll add this one from almost precisely a year ago:

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!

Since then, they have flown almost exclusively reused missions, with a recovery success rate that other launch providers would kill for as their mission success rate and a fleet that has barely increased since that last post.

[AmigaClone]

... Below is the number of each type of first stage flown on an orbital mission.

Model	Unflown	Flown	Total
Falcon 1	5	0	5

....

That makes it look like there were five Falcon 1 boosters none of which flew. As that was obviously not the case, I'm guessing that by 'unflown' you mean they had not previously flown before?

True. I will be changing the description of the second column to 'New' to try to clarify things a bit.

[Norm38]

Crew4 is launching on a -4 booster, twice the previous mark.  Axiom-1 not announced yet.

But that shows a lot of confidence and respect for flown boosters.  And will allow a lot schedule flexibility.

[DanClemmensen]

Crew4 is launching on a -4 booster, twice the previous mark.  Axiom-1 not announced yet.

But that shows a lot of confidence and respect for flown boosters.  And will allow a lot schedule flexibility.

Inspiration 4 launched on B1062.3.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspiration4

[abaddon]

This probably belongs better in the "customer opinions on reuse" thread, but that's locked.  From the SWOT thread:

Related news: NASA has amended the launch contract for the Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) mission.  It will now fly on a flight-proven Falcon 9 booster rather than a new one.

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1512498083350736897

The money quote:

Even though I was always excited about utilizing flown @SpaceX
 boosters on principle and also the impact on mission cost, I have changed my opinion about them slightly: I now PREFER previously used boosters over totally new ones for most science applications.

This was something that was predicted by many on this site to happen at some point, but it's the first time I can recall seeing someone directly involved in a mission giving this opinion.

[alugobi]

Remember all those posts about how it was really, really, I mean really expensive to turn them around, but that they covered it up and had to conspire to charge their customers more?

Or how some ULA peep actually knew how much it cost and why wouldn't anybody here listen to him?

And other dubious rubbish.  Those were fun.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Visualisation of new versus reused boosters

https://twitter.com/renatakonkoly/status/1512495754749026305

A SpaceX launch with a brand new Falcon 9 booster is SUCH a rare sight these days!

[meekGee]

Remember all those posts about how it was really, really, I mean really expensive to turn them around, but that they covered it up and had to conspire to charge their customers more?

Or how some ULA peep actually knew how much it cost and why wouldn't anybody here listen to him?

And other dubious rubbish.  Those were fun.

The good old days.  "Proven" by "statistics", too.

At least those folks learned from that and are taking a more open minded approach when evaluating future vehicles... (/s)

[wannamoonbase]

Visualisation of new versus reused boosters

https://twitter.com/renatakonkoly/status/1512495754749026305

A SpaceX launch with a brand new Falcon 9 booster is SUCH a rare sight these days!

If the trend is your friend, then I love where this is going.  Extrapolate to 2030 and we should have multiple flights per day, LOL!

Can't wait.

[Nomadd]

 It's not exactly reuse, but the record for successful consecutive launches is the R-7 family at 133. (twice)
 Falcon 9 is at 129. Excuse for a party sometime next month.

[su27k]

So B1060 first launch on June 30, 2020, 12th launch on April 21 2022, completed 11 launches in 660 days, with a 60 day average turnaround time.

Comparing to the Space Shuttle, the fastest orbiter to launch 12 times is Endeavour: May 7, 1992 - Jan 22, 1998, 2086 days, which gives an average turnaround time of 190 days.

Just another data point in case someone's wondering which one is more reusable.

[AmigaClone]

It's not exactly reuse, but the record for successful consecutive launches is the R-7 family at 133. (twice)
 Falcon 9 is at 129. Excuse for a party sometime next month.

I would prefer to count consecutive launches since Amos-6 (121 for Falcon 9). The Falcon 9 Family would also include the 3 Falcon Heavy launches.

Since CRS-7 (the only complete launch failure of the Falcon 9 family) there have been 133 consecutive successful launches.

[TrevorMonty]

So B1060 first launch on June 30, 2020, 12th launch on April 21 2022, completed 11 launches in 660 days, with a 60 day average turnaround time.

Comparing to the Space Shuttle, the fastest orbiter to launch 12 times is Endeavour: May 7, 1992 - Jan 22, 1998, 2086 days, which gives an average turnaround time of 190 days.

Just another data point in case someone's wondering which one is more reusable.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Shuttle went to orbit and had to deal with lot higher reentry velocity.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[rpapo]

So B1060 first launch on June 30, 2020, 12th launch on April 21 2022, completed 11 launches in 660 days, with a 60 day average turnaround time.

Comparing to the Space Shuttle, the fastest orbiter to launch 12 times is Endeavour: May 7, 1992 - Jan 22, 1998, 2086 days, which gives an average turnaround time of 190 days.

Just another data point in case someone's wondering which one is more reusable.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Shuttle went to orbit and had to deal with lot higher reentry velocity.

The proper comparison will be Shuttle to Starship.  Once it has had a few launches under it's stainless steel belt, it should be able to best the Shuttle turnaround time quite handily.  Emphasis on that weasel word, "should."

[DanClemmensen]

So B1060 first launch on June 30, 2020, 12th launch on April 21 2022, completed 11 launches in 660 days, with a 60 day average turnaround time.

Comparing to the Space Shuttle, the fastest orbiter to launch 12 times is Endeavour: May 7, 1992 - Jan 22, 1998, 2086 days, which gives an average turnaround time of 190 days.

Just another data point in case someone's wondering which one is more reusable.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Shuttle went to orbit and had to deal with lot higher reentry velocity.

Then the proper comparison would be F9 booster versus the Shuttle SRBs. How long did it take to recover and refurbish an SRB?

[jimvela]

Then the proper comparison would be F9 booster versus the Shuttle SRBs. How long did it take to recover and refurbish an SRB?

And also the cost of refurbishment between them. 
Shuttle SRBs were recovered (which was a great benefit in that they could be inspected), but re-manufactured rather than just "refubished".
I also thought that the total post-flight processing cost of a shuttle SRB back to a flight-ready SRB was actually a bit more expensive than building a brand new one- but that's not from direct knowledge.

[GWH]

After this morning's successful Crew-4 mission launch aboard a Falcon 9 on it's 4th flight SpaceX has now re-flown a total of 93 core stages.

By comparison Atlas V, the second most commonly flown US vehicle in operation has conducted a total of 92 flights.

The Atlas V was first flown in 2002, where as Falcon 9 made its first flight in 2010, first landing in 2015, and first reflight in 2017.

The expendable Atlas V once the golden standard of US launch reliability has now been surpassed in both total and successful flights by reused boosters.

[Hog]

So B1060 first launch on June 30, 2020, 12th launch on April 21 2022, completed 11 launches in 660 days, with a 60 day average turnaround time.

Comparing to the Space Shuttle, the fastest orbiter to launch 12 times is Endeavour: May 7, 1992 - Jan 22, 1998, 2086 days, which gives an average turnaround time of 190 days.

Just another data point in case someone's wondering which one is more reusable.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Shuttle went to orbit and had to deal with lot higher reentry velocity.

Then the proper comparison would be F9 booster versus the Shuttle SRBs. How long did it take to recover and refurbish an SRB?

Great question. IIRC The original shuttle manifest was sold on 62 flights/year or 1.2 flights/week.  Even post STS-51L the manifest was initially 20 or 24 flights/year.

[JayWee]

So B1060 first launch on June 30, 2020, 12th launch on April 21 2022, completed 11 launches in 660 days, with a 60 day average turnaround time.

Comparing to the Space Shuttle, the fastest orbiter to launch 12 times is Endeavour: May 7, 1992 - Jan 22, 1998, 2086 days, which gives an average turnaround time of 190 days.

Just another data point in case someone's wondering which one is more reusable.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Shuttle went to orbit and had to deal with lot higher reentry velocity.

Then the proper comparison would be F9 booster versus the Shuttle SRBs. How long did it take to recover and refurbish an SRB?

That's really apples to oranges. Liquid vs Solid.
In the limit, for a liquid rocket, all you have to do is refuel and go again. An hour maybe.
Solids refueling is inherently much much slower and closer to re-manufacture.

[abaddon]

Not only that, the Shuttle used segmented solids, and segments were routinely mixed and matched.  It’s really tough to use as a point of comparison for these reasons.

[su27k]

So B1060 first launch on June 30, 2020, 12th launch on April 21 2022, completed 11 launches in 660 days, with a 60 day average turnaround time.

Comparing to the Space Shuttle, the fastest orbiter to launch 12 times is Endeavour: May 7, 1992 - Jan 22, 1998, 2086 days, which gives an average turnaround time of 190 days.

Just another data point in case someone's wondering which one is more reusable.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Shuttle went to orbit and had to deal with lot higher reentry velocity.

They're comparable as reusable launch vehicles, it's ok to compare apples with oranges if your aim is to compare fruits. Heck, we even compare Falcon 9 to expendable launch vehicles, so there's nothing wrong with comparison with Shuttle.

It is true that Shuttle picked a more demanding design, this in turn resulted in its longer turnaround time, I'm not denying this, but this doesn't make the comparison invalid, it's sort of the point. Also there're people online (even in this forum) who keep trying to claim Shuttle is "more reusable" than Falcon 9, so it's important to set the record straight, even though you may think this is self evident.

[DanClemmensen]

So B1060 first launch on June 30, 2020, 12th launch on April 21 2022, completed 11 launches in 660 days, with a 60 day average turnaround time.

Comparing to the Space Shuttle, the fastest orbiter to launch 12 times is Endeavour: May 7, 1992 - Jan 22, 1998, 2086 days, which gives an average turnaround time of 190 days.

Just another data point in case someone's wondering which one is more reusable.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Shuttle went to orbit and had to deal with lot higher reentry velocity.

Then the proper comparison would be F9 booster versus the Shuttle SRBs. How long did it take to recover and refurbish an SRB?

That's really apples to oranges. Liquid vs Solid.
In the limit, for a liquid rocket, all you have to do is refuel and go again. An hour maybe.
Solids refueling is inherently much much slower and closer to re-manufacture.

The Technologies are not comparable at all, as you say. However, the functionality is closely comparable, and you were originally objecting to the non-comparable functionality.  Since STS and F9 have different architectures, I think it is best to compare only at the system level.

[freddo411]

So B1060 first launch on June 30, 2020, 12th launch on April 21 2022, completed 11 launches in 660 days, with a 60 day average turnaround time.

Comparing to the Space Shuttle, the fastest orbiter to launch 12 times is Endeavour: May 7, 1992 - Jan 22, 1998, 2086 days, which gives an average turnaround time of 190 days.

Just another data point in case someone's wondering which one is more reusable.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Shuttle went to orbit and had to deal with lot higher reentry velocity.

It's definitely true that the Orbiters are not a direct comparison to the F9 Stage 1.   However, how many reusable, orbital class rockets are there to compare?   Not more than Shuttle and F9 at the moment.

The Shuttle Orbiters were attempting quite a lot;   Using engines that functioned both at sea level and altitude; that ran for roughly 8 minutes, that survived the rigors of reentry, and that could be reused many times (successfully!) and quickly (not successful).    I think comparing and contrasting this with F9 S1 and it's more modest approach is informative.

I love the shuttle as a definitive example that reusable orbital engines are possible.   Shuttle provides a data point (a ceiling) about reusability cost and cadence.   The shuttle also showed that reusable reentry shields are possible, and again provided a data point about reliability and cost.

F9 S1 provides data points about what's possible in reusability cost and cadence over a different operational envelope.   Comparing the two tell us something about which approach may be more cost effective.   

[spacenut]

So B1060 first launch on June 30, 2020, 12th launch on April 21 2022, completed 11 launches in 660 days, with a 60 day average turnaround time.

Comparing to the Space Shuttle, the fastest orbiter to launch 12 times is Endeavour: May 7, 1992 - Jan 22, 1998, 2086 days, which gives an average turnaround time of 190 days.

Just another data point in case someone's wondering which one is more reusable.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Shuttle went to orbit and had to deal with lot higher reentry velocity.

It's definitely true that the Orbiters are not a direct comparison to the F9 Stage 1.   However, how many reusable, orbital class rockets are there to compare?   Not more than Shuttle and F9 at the moment.

The Shuttle Orbiters were attempting quite a lot;   Using engines that functioned both at sea level and altitude; that ran for roughly 8 minutes, that survived the rigors of reentry, and that could be reused many times (successfully!) and quickly (not successful).    I think comparing and contrasting this with F9 S1 and it's more modest approach is informative.

I love the shuttle as a definitive example that reusable orbital engines are possible.   Shuttle provides a data point (a ceiling) about reusability cost and cadence.   The shuttle also showed that reusable reentry shields are possible, and again provided a data point about reliability and cost.

F9 S1 provides data points about what's possible in reusability cost and cadence over a different operational envelope.   Comparing the two tell us something about which approach may be more cost effective.   

One of the biggest problems with the Shuttle was refurbishment of the solid boosters.  It cost as much to refurbish them as buying new ones.  Hindsight is 20-20, but using liquid boosters that were either fly back or land back like the F9 would, I think in the long run, have been cheaper to operate. 

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1520074703183953927

First 50 Falcon 9 launches: 2,832 days. 7 reused first stages.

Next 50 launches: 971 days, 35 reused first stages.

Last 50 launches: 507 days, 47 reused first stages.

Launch 151: Today, on a stage last used three weeks ago.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/04/spacex-makes-progress-on-cadence-and-reuse-as-it-passes-150-launches/

[Hog]

So B1060 first launch on June 30, 2020, 12th launch on April 21 2022, completed 11 launches in 660 days, with a 60 day average turnaround time.

Comparing to the Space Shuttle, the fastest orbiter to launch 12 times is Endeavour: May 7, 1992 - Jan 22, 1998, 2086 days, which gives an average turnaround time of 190 days.

Just another data point in case someone's wondering which one is more reusable.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Shuttle went to orbit and had to deal with lot higher reentry velocity.

It's definitely true that the Orbiters are not a direct comparison to the F9 Stage 1.   However, how many reusable, orbital class rockets are there to compare?   Not more than Shuttle and F9 at the moment.

The Shuttle Orbiters were attempting quite a lot;   Using engines that functioned both at sea level and altitude; that ran for roughly 8 minutes, that survived the rigors of reentry, and that could be reused many times (successfully!) and quickly (not successful).    I think comparing and contrasting this with F9 S1 and it's more modest approach is informative.

I love the shuttle as a definitive example that reusable orbital engines are possible.   Shuttle provides a data point (a ceiling) about reusability cost and cadence.   The shuttle also showed that reusable reentry shields are possible, and again provided a data point about reliability and cost.

F9 S1 provides data points about what's possible in reusability cost and cadence over a different operational envelope.   Comparing the two tell us something about which approach may be more cost effective.   

One of the biggest problems with the Shuttle was refurbishment of the solid boosters.  It cost as much to refurbish them as buying new ones.  Hindsight is 20-20, but using liquid boosters that were either fly back or land back like the F9 would, I think in the long run, have been cheaper to operate.

STS was spec'd with over 60 flights a year.  Big difference in costs between 4 sets of boosters and 60+ sets per year. 

The crewing of those flyback boosters would have problematic.

[AmigaClone]

Not only that, the Shuttle used segmented solids, and segments were routinely mixed and matched.  It’s really tough to use as a point of comparison for these reasons.

History of the segments of the two boosters used in STS-135
https://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts135/fdf/135srbs.pdf

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Current booster fleet status

twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1525679601397252096

#SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy flightworthy boosters as of May 14, 2022

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1525679608833748992

Statistics of #SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy booster missions as of May 14, 2022

Follow up tweet notes that 1057 should also be marked as decommissioned

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/starshipfairing/status/1534644071284752384

Falcon 9 MECO today at 68km altitude and travelling at over 8330km/h, likely the fastest a reusable Falcon 9 booster has ever flown!

Or 2314 m/s …

[Slarty1080]

Talking of reuse milestones, I suspect that the 11th reuse of a Falcon 9 was a bit of a milestone as it pushed the envelope out beyond the original 10 fights before major refurbishment towards the 20-30 range and proved that whatever refurbishment was needed very doable.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1537844931351531521

Our best landing video to date, thanks to Starlink!

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1537845131147190273

And rocket landings are now triple digits

I think Elon means reflights, not landings (which passed 100 a while ago)

[Norm38]

Three launches within 48 hours. All on reused boosters. No scrubs.
They are dialed in.

[Asteroza]

Three launches within 48 hours. All on reused boosters. No scrubs.
They are dialed in.

They only demonstrated salvo capability, which while an important milestone, can easily be a manifest scheduling artifact.

The more critical metrics are pad cycle time, booster refurb cycle time, and current fleet status/size.

If they can do a tripleheader again in 4 weeks time, then that would be impressive. Doing it in 2 weeks would be amazing.

[Lar]

Three launches within 48 hours. All on reused boosters. No scrubs.
They are dialed in.

They only demonstrated salvo capability, which while an important milestone, can easily be a manifest scheduling artifact.

The more critical metrics are pad cycle time, booster refurb cycle time, and current fleet status/size.

If they can do a tripleheader again in 4 weeks time, then that would be impressive. Doing it in 2 weeks would be amazing.

Pad cycle time and booster refurb time seem to be trending generally downward while fleet status/size seems to be growing much more slowly than the number of flights/year.

If they do a tripleheader in 2 weeks time, someone here will be saying "that's nice but what about 1 week time?"

[alugobi]

If they do a tripleheader in 2 weeks time, someone here will be saying "that's nice but what about 1 week time?"

I can think of just the one who will do that.

[Barley]

Three launches within 48 hours. All on reused boosters. No scrubs.
They are dialed in.

They only demonstrated salvo capability, which while an important milestone, can easily be a manifest scheduling artifact.

The more critical metrics are pad cycle time, booster refurb cycle time, and current fleet status/size.

If they can do a tripleheader again in 4 weeks time, then that would be impressive. Doing it in 2 weeks would be amazing.

So far this year SpaceX is launching once per week.  Two tripleheaders 4 weeks apart would be a decrease in tempo.

I hope this and any other triple header is a scheduling artifact.  IMHO and experience aiming for records is a stunt and at least somewhat disruptive to normal operations (e.g. you can often decrease cycle times for a record attempt by deferring maintenance.)

I hope SpaceX concentrates on important metrics such as $/kg, kg/year and useful satellites launched.  The metrics you site may or may not help them.  I hope any records in them are in passing, rather than publicity stunts.

For example the refurb time has a clear tradeoff with the number of rockets.  If skilled labor is the limiting factor it might be better to refurbish 8/5 rather than 24/7 and accept a larger fleet with longer cycle times for each rocket.

[DanClemmensen]

For example the refurb time has a clear tradeoff with the number of rockets.  If skilled labor is the limiting factor it might be better to refurbish 8/5 rather than 24/7 and accept a larger fleet with longer cycle times for each rocket.

For pad turnaround instead of booster turnaround, are all the personnel SpaceX employees and contractors, or are some of them NASA and USSF?  SpaceX may not be able to reduce pad turnaround much.

[wannamoonbase]

For example the refurb time has a clear tradeoff with the number of rockets.  If skilled labor is the limiting factor it might be better to refurbish 8/5 rather than 24/7 and accept a larger fleet with longer cycle times for each rocket.

For pad turnaround instead of booster turnaround, are all the personnel SpaceX employees and contractors, or are some of them NASA and USSF?  SpaceX may not be able to reduce pad turnaround much.

For example the refurb time has a clear tradeoff with the number of rockets.  If skilled labor is the limiting factor it might be better to refurbish 8/5 rather than 24/7 and accept a larger fleet with longer cycle times for each rocket.

For pad turnaround instead of booster turnaround, are all the personnel SpaceX employees and contractors, or are some of them NASA and USSF?  SpaceX may not be able to reduce pad turnaround much.

The ASDS seem to require an 8-9 day cycle time, 7 seems like a stretch.

Now if there was a RTLS on one side of a cycle we might be able to get a better idea on the best pad turn around time.

[Asteroza]

So far this year SpaceX is launching once per week.  Two tripleheaders 4 weeks apart would be a decrease in tempo.

Note this appears to assume tripleheaders occurring regularly, thus a 4 weeks/3 launches (or 8weeks/6 launches) is indeed less than one per week.

But regular tripleheaders is asking for burnout.

Putting that much strain on mission control is probably not healthy without increasing the personnel count. A secondary limiter is how many pad rat teams they have as well. Assuming only one team for each coast, the east coast team gets worked over at double the rate due to servicing two pads. Plus for any ISS missions, the pad rats need to give the white glove treatment.

Spacing it out to one a week implies a 2 week cycle time for west coast, and technically 4 week cycle per pad on the east coast.

That's working towards ideal scenarios as well, since you also have weather issues and range availability to deal with.

[Norm38]

The point I was making wasn't so much that salvo launch was a good thing generally (though it will likely be needed for tanker launch).
But more that they scheduled three launches in 48 hours and kept the schedule.  No glitches, no scrubs (and non-weather scrubs are becoming very rare).
Agreed that no one wants constant salvos.  But if they are necessary (for tankers), they now know how to do it, and are not blocked by technology.  It's a logistics/personnel problem now.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Summary of F9 / FH booster landings (although I think there were 30, not 29, in 2021?)

https://twitter.com/renatakonkoly/status/1546312305394290689

[AmigaClone]

Summary of F9 / FH booster landings (although I think there were 30, not 29, in 2021?)

In 2021 there were 30 successful landings and one failure.

OCISLY (Marmac 304) - 13 successful, 1 failed attempt.
JRTI (Marmac 303)      - 12 successful, 0 failed attempts.
ASOG (Marmac 302)    -  4 successful, 0 failed attempts.

Landing Zone 1            - 1 successful, 0 failed attempts.

In 2022 so far (16 July 2022) there have been 30 successful landings - no failures.

OCISLY (Marmac 304) -  3 successful, 0 failed attempts.
JRTI (Marmac 303)      -  9 successful, 0 failed attempts.
ASOG (Marmac 302)   - 12 successful, 0 failed attempts.

Landing Zone 1            - 3 successful, 0 failed attempts.
Landing Zone 4            - 3 successful, 0 failed attempts.

[Comga]

Here's a milestone:

(snip) SFN launch article.
Falcon 9 rocket deploys SpaceX’s 3,000th Starlink internet satellite, August 10

The article refers to

The Falcon 9’s single-use upper stage...

It's like before mass produced Teslas, when it was rare that anyone referred to "internal combustion engine" or ICE automobiles or even "gas powered cars", because they basically all were.
Rocket reusability is being normalized.

[Robotbeat]

Here's a milestone:

(snip) SFN launch article.
Falcon 9 rocket deploys SpaceX’s 3,000th Starlink internet satellite, August 10

The article refers to

The Falcon 9’s single-use upper stage...

It's like before mass produced Teslas, when it was rare that anyone referred to "internal combustion engine" or ICE automobiles or even "gas powered cars", because they basically all were.
Rocket reusability is being normalized.

It's even more than that. SpaceX now does about 2/3rds the mass to orbit. It's like being transported 25 years into the most TSLA-investor wet dream future when most cars are electric. And Teslas.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Love this chart. SpaceX just completed 40 missions this year and could reach 60

https://twitter.com/renatakonkoly/status/1566642793006731266

...and the 38th mission with a flight-proven booster 🚀

Edit to add:

https://twitter.com/RenataKonkoly/status/1566620003662794753

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Current F9 booster fleet now B1058 has achieved 14 successful flights and landings

https://twitter.com/spacenosey/status/1569049084991881220

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1573843125365342211

Today was the 69th booster recovery in a row since the last landing failure

nice

twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1573843623753515008

To add to this. Falcon 9 landings are now so routine and reliable, they're getting up to points of reliability that some rockets have but launching.

https://twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1573843679156092934

If SpaceX can keep this trend for another year, they may even have more successful landings in a row than more successful launches in a row by any other rocket 😅

[FutureSpaceTourist]

twitter.com/jennyhphoto/status/1575899587239620609

SpaceX currently has a total of 14 active Falcon 9 boosters in Cape Canaveral & Vandenberg.

• B1049-10
• B1051-13
• B1052-7
• B1058-14
• B1060-13
• B1061-10
• B1062-9
• B1063-6
• B1067-6
• B1069-2
• B1071-4
• B1073-4
• B1076-0
• B1077-0

📷: Me for @SuperclusterHQ

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1575901564304244736

It's hard to wrap my mind around there being five reused SpaceX boosters with double digit launch-and-landings.

5 that have done the work of 60!

[john smith 19]

twitter.com/jennyhphoto/status/1575899587239620609

It's hard to wrap my mind around there being five reused SpaceX boosters with double digit launch-and-landings.

5 that have done the work of 60!

It is an impressive achievement. It'll be interesting to see if they do push on to 15 before year's end or give some of the lower launch stages more play. Certainly a couple of them could get there but then how much effort to check them over prior to any further launches?

[DanClemmensen]

twitter.com/jennyhphoto/status/1575899587239620609

It's hard to wrap my mind around there being five reused SpaceX boosters with double digit launch-and-landings.

5 that have done the work of 60!

It is an impressive achievement. It'll be interesting to see if they do push on to 15 before year's end or give some of the lower launch stages more play. Certainly a couple of them could get there but then how much effort to check them over prior to any further launches?

I thought the idea was to intensively inspect one or perhaps two boosters at "age" 15, maybe even tear them down, to learn what really needs to be inspected.  The knowledge gained will tell them how much inspection is needed for the rest, and almost certainly be a small increment over what they are doing already, so this extra work (two teardowns) won't affect the overall launch cadence.

Remember that 1049 is being held in reserve to be expended on the next expendable launch, so it's not in the normal rotation.

[AC in NC]

I thought the idea was to intensively inspect one or perhaps two boosters at "age" 15, maybe even tear them down, to learn what really needs to be inspected.  The knowledge gained will tell them how much inspection is needed for the rest, and almost certainly be a small increment over what they are doing already, so this extra work (two teardowns) won't affect the overall launch cadence.

Remember that 1049 is being held in reserve to be expended on the next expendable launch, so it's not in the normal rotation.

That was the gist of one tweet IIRC.  However there was a subsequent tweet that implied (at least to me) that they felt comfortable pushing through 15 with perhaps regular refurbishment inspections informing when to do an intensive inspection/tear-down

[AmigaClone]

twitter.com/jennyhphoto/status/1575899587239620609

SpaceX currently has a total of 14 active Falcon 9 boosters in Cape Canaveral & Vandenberg.

• B1049-10
• B1051-13
• B1052-7
• B1058-14
• B1060-13
• B1061-10
• B1062-9
• B1063-6
• B1067-6
• B1069-2
• B1071-4
• B1073-4
• B1076-0
• B1077-0

📷: Me for @SuperclusterHQ

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1575901564304244736

It's hard to wrap my mind around there being five reused SpaceX boosters with double digit launch-and-landings.

5 that have done the work of 60!

Of the list above, I can see one or more of 1051, 1058, and 1060 reaching 15 launches this year, but afterwards having an even more intense inspection and refurbishment period that could mean that they would not launch again this year.

B1052 appears to be scheduled to be converted back to a FH side booster for a November FH launch. It is unknown SpaceX's plans for it even if it is recovered successfully.

Booster 1073 also seems to be scheduled to fly as a FH side booster in January 2023. Again it is unknown if it will return to the F9 rotation afterwards.

There are several pairs of FH side boosters - It might be interesting to see which ones will be placed in the F9 rotation.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Current boost fleet status, with 2 now at 14 flights:

twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1578972085791395840

#SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy flightworthy boosters as of Oct 8, 2022

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1578972096289726464

Statistics of #SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy booster missions as of Oct 8, 2022

[deadman1204]

Fun fact, spaceX has now landed more boosters in 2022 than its launched rockets

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Current booster fleet status with B1051 now expended

twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1591637412782166017

#SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy flightworthy boosters as of Nov 12, 2022

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1591637421271445505

Statistics of #SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy booster missions as of Nov 12, 2022

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1595662190920732672

Infographic of all #OCISLY landings

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Last night’s OneWeb launch:

https://twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1601006365123788801

Today's Falcon 9 booster landing was the 80th consecutive successful landing by a Falcon booster since the last landing failure. Hopefully 5 more remaining this month!

[FutureSpaceTourist]

New record use and landing of a booster

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1604230648033673225

And B1058 completes its 15th landing!
youtube.com/watch?v=rtPwZ4…

[Norm38]

5 that have done the work of 60!

I haven’t been keeping track of the launch count this year, just saw the headline of the 60th launch. First congrats to SpaceX. Second, I think it’s safe to say that if SpaceX had to build 60 boosters this year instead of 5, and 540 engines vs 45, they would not be successful.

If the $45 million per booster cost is still accurate, SpaceX this year turned $225 million in hardware into $2.7 billion in revenue. Minus expenses of course. But these were fever dream numbers only a few short years ago.

Well done everyone.

[freddo411]

By my count, there have been 146 Falcon 9 Booster reflights.

This is more than the 129 Shuttle reflights

Falcon 9 is the most reused rocket.   It has done this in a bit over 7 years, compared to the shuttle 's 30 years.

[meekGee]

By my count, there have been 146 Falcon 9 Booster reflights.

This is more than the 129 Shuttle reflights

Falcon 9 is the most reused rocket.   It has done this in a bit over 7 years, compared to the shuttle 's 30 years.

Fan as I am, still though:
- F9 reuse is first stage, Shuttle was second so not really comparable.
- Per vehicle, there's still some catching up to do, even if it were comparable.

Per $ spent though, I think F9 is doing pretty well

[freddo411]

By my count, there have been 146 Falcon 9 Booster reflights.

This is more than the 129 Shuttle reflights

Falcon 9 is the most reused rocket.   It has done this in a bit over 7 years, compared to the shuttle 's 30 years.

Fan as I am, still though:
- F9 reuse is first stage, Shuttle was second so not really comparable.
- Per vehicle, there's still some catching up to do, even if it were comparable.

Per $ spent though, I think F9 is doing pretty well

Yes, definitely not an apples to apples comparison.

SSME's were ignited at launch, so in that sense, the orbiter represents a first stage to be compared with Falcon 9.

Other than the Shuttle, there isn't any other orbital class rocket that has a record of reusability.  I'll be excited when we have other types to compare to.

[edkyle99]

SSME's were ignited at launch, so in that sense, the orbiter represents a first stage to be compared with Falcon 9.

Orbiter was more like a sustainer stage.  Think Atlas sustainer stage, which ignited its lower thrust, higher ISP sustainer engine on the pad and was boosted by the jettison-able Atlas booster package with its two thrust chambers.  Like Shuttle Orbiter, the Atlas sustainer made it all the way to orbit on some missions.

The STS boosters were also reusable, though not as readily or as economically as the Falcon 9 first stage.

Super Heavy/Starship, if successful, looks a lot like the STS system NASA wanted but could not afford.  Starship in this case will fill the roll of the Shuttle Orbiter.  It even weighs about the same.

 - Ed Kyle

[FutureSpaceTourist]

SpaceX ends 2022 with some great reuse stats:

https://twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1608731930190614530

And my favorite stat: 86th successful landing in a row since the last landing failure

RTLS touchdown at LZ-4. Final SpaceX launch of the year and another successful booster landing. 11th complete launch and landing for Falcon 9 B1061.

160 recoveries for Falcon rockets in total.

SpaceX Webcast:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=V0OQfukN-Ec

[UKobserver]

Booster 1062 flew 8 times in 2022! And multiple boosters made 6 flights each...

[AmigaClone]

Edits made 5 January 2023 to fix a couple of issues.

Booster 1062 flew 8 times in 2022! And multiple boosters made 6 flights each...

List of Falcon 9 first stage boosters which flew in 2022.
Booster    # 2022    # total     Status
B1049          01            11        Expended.
B1051          03            14        Expended.
B1052          05            07        Active           FH Side booster converted to F9 
B1058          06            15        Active.
B1060          05            14        Active           Had six launches in 12 months (1 Dec 2021 to 30 Nov 2022).
B1061          06            11        Active.
B1062          08            11        Active.
B1063          05            08        Active           Had six launches in 12 months (20 Nov 2021 to 19 Nov 2022).
B1064          01            01        Active           Launch as FH Side Booster - new 2022.
B1065          01            01        Active           Launch as FH Side Booster - new 2022.
B1066          01            01        Expended    Launch as FH Center Booster - new 2022.
B1067          05            08        Active           Had six launches in 12 months (18 Dec 2021 to 17 Dec 2022).
B1069          03            04        Active.
B1071          06            06        Active           New 2022.
B1073          05            05        Active           Launch as F9 planned conversion to FH side - new 2022.
B1075          01            01        Active           Launch as F9 planned conversion to FH side - new 2022.
B1076          01            01        Active           Launch as F9 planned conversion to FH side - new 2022.
B1077          01            01        Active           New 2022.

As mentioned above B1062 launched 8 times in 2022.

B1058, B1061 and B1071 all launched six times in 2022. While B1060, B1063, and B1067 only launched 5 times in 2022, they launched 6 times within 365 days.

In addition to those boosters noted as 'Active' above, B1053 is an active FH side booster. B1068, B1070, and B1074 are awaiting their launch as FH Center boosters. B1072 is another FH Side booster also awaiting it's launch.B1972 and B1075 are two FH Side boosters also awaiting their first launch.

[freddo411]

Booster 1062 flew 8 times in 2022! And multiple boosters made 6 flights each...

List of Falcon 9 first stage boosters which flew in 2022.
Booster    # 2022    # total     Status
B1049          01            11        Expended.
B1051          03            14        Expended.
B1052          05            07        Active           FH Side booster converted to F9 
B1058          06            15        Active.
B1060          05            14        Active           Had six launches in 12 months (1 Dec 2021 to 30 Nov 2022).
B1061          06            11        Active.
B1062          08            11        Active.
B1063          05            08        Active           Had six launches in 12 months (20 Nov 2021 to 19 Nov 2022).
B1064          01            01        Active           Launch as FH Side Booster - new 2022.
B1065          01            01        Active           Launch as FH Side Booster - new 2022.
B1066          01            01        Expended    Launch as FH Center Booster - new 2022.
B1067          05            08        Active           Had six launches in 12 months (18 Dec 2021 to 17 Dec 2022).
B1069          03            04        Active.
B1071          06            06        Active           New 2022.
B1073          05            05        Active           Launch as F9 planned conversion to FH side - new 2022.
B1075          01            01        Active           Launch as F9 planned conversion to FH side - new 2022.
B1076          01            01        Active           Launch as F9 planned conversion to FH side - new 2022.

As mentioned above B1062 launched 8 times in 2022.

B1058, B1061 and B1071 all launched six times in 2022. While B1060, B1063, and B1067 only launched 5 times in 2022, they launched 6 times within 365 days.

In addition to those boosters noted as 'Active' above, B1053 is an active FH side booster. B1068, B1070, and B1074 are awaiting their launch as FH Center boosters. B1072 is another FH Side booster also awaiting it's launch.

That's quite the fleet of boosters.   

SpaceX clearly has:
* a regular 2 month refurb cadence (launch to launch)
* a large enough booster fleet,  recovery fleet and pads
* a sufficient second stage production line cadence

These add up to the ability to launch at least once per week on a regular sustained basis

[abaddon]

Don’t forget PLF reuse!

[Hog]

Don’t forget PLF reuse!

PLF=Payload Launch Firing Fairing?

Edit:Missed the "a" thanks abaddon

[abaddon]

Faring, yes.

[Hog]

Faring, yes.

Ha, we Both typo'd.

[Robotbeat]

By my count, there have been 146 Falcon 9 Booster reflights.

This is more than the 129 Shuttle reflights

Falcon 9 is the most reused rocket.   It has done this in a bit over 7 years, compared to the shuttle 's 30 years.

Fan as I am, still though:
- F9 reuse is first stage, Shuttle was second so not really comparable.
- Per vehicle, there's still some catching up to do, even if it were comparable.

Per $ spent though, I think F9 is doing pretty well

The reason they haven’t done as many flights per airframe as Shuttle, though, is partly because they have a huge booster fleet. I think the fact that SpaceX has a huge fleet of F9 boosters because they’re also pretty cheap counts as a win. I don’t see any obvious technical thing preventing each booster from flying just as many times as each orbiter did, except that the fleet of boosters is huge (which again is a point in favor of F9 enabled by the low upfront cost, not against it) and they’re likely going to transition most launches to Starship before reaching 40 launches per booster.

[StarshipTrooper]

That's quite the fleet of boosters.   

SpaceX clearly has:
* a regular 2 month refurb cadence (launch to launch)
* a large enough booster fleet,  recovery fleet and pads
* a sufficient second stage production line cadence

These add up to the ability to launch at least once per week on a regular sustained basis

The stated goal for the upcoming year is 100 launches. So approximately twice a week. I wonder what needs to expand to allow an almost doubling of cadence?

[Robotbeat]

A consistent max launch rate from all 3 launch sites would do it. So more launches from Vandenberg, likely.

[DanClemmensen]

How much additional pad time does each FH launch take? Apparently, LC-39A must be reconfigured from F9 to FH and then reconfigured back to F9. 2022 launches were:
      30  CCSFS, SLC-40
      18  KSC, LC-39A
      13  VSFB, SLC-4E

For example using made-up numbers, if a conversion takes an extra week and the usual pad turnaround is about two weeks, then an FH will count as two F9s for pad occupancy. There are four FH on the 2023 manifest, so they will need to account for the equivalent of roughly 4 additional F9 launched of pad occupancy time.

Of course Elon's "100 launches" probably include 5 SS from Boca Chica.

[Robotbeat]

They could also potentially do 2 Falcon Heavies back to back at the Cape (or close to it, as there’s not necessarily enough room in the HIF for two), which may take less conversion time.

[meekGee]

By my count, there have been 146 Falcon 9 Booster reflights.

This is more than the 129 Shuttle reflights

Falcon 9 is the most reused rocket.   It has done this in a bit over 7 years, compared to the shuttle 's 30 years.

Fan as I am, still though:
- F9 reuse is first stage, Shuttle was second so not really comparable.
- Per vehicle, there's still some catching up to do, even if it were comparable.

Per $ spent though, I think F9 is doing pretty well

The reason they haven’t done as many flights per airframe as Shuttle, though, is partly because they have a huge booster fleet. I think the fact that SpaceX has a huge fleet of F9 boosters because they’re also pretty cheap counts as a win. I don’t see any obvious technical thing preventing each booster from flying just as many times as each orbiter did, except that the fleet of boosters is huge (which again is a point in favor of F9 enabled by the low upfront cost, not against it) and they’re likely going to transition most launches to Starship before reaching 40 launches per booster.

Agreed.  They just haven't yet, and the discussion was about milestones achieved.

And probably F9 will retire without breaking STS records, unless you normalize per $...

Starship will though, by orders of magnitude, well within the decade.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

With the successful re-flights of FH side boosters on USSF-67, here’s are the current booster reuse stats:

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1614867337982754817

Statistics of #SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy booster missions as of Jan 15, 2023

[wannamoonbase]

updated Jan 8
Spaceflight Now
Starlink 2-6
Late January
SLC-4E

Looks like they might just be able to squeeze in 3 Starlink missions at all 3 pads.  If 5-2, 2-6, and 5-3 all launch in January, that would put them on pace for 97 missions

I think the rolling 'On pace for X launches in 2023' is going to be one of the most interesting things to follow this year.

Starship is the big one of course, but 100 F9 flights on it's own would be a revolution.

[DanClemmensen]

updated Jan 8
Spaceflight Now
Starlink 2-6
Late January
SLC-4E

Looks like they might just be able to squeeze in 3 Starlink missions at all 3 pads.  If 5-2, 2-6, and 5-3 all launch in January, that would put them on pace for 97 missions

I think the rolling 'On pace for X launches in 2023' is going to be one of the most interesting things to follow this year.

Starship is the big one of course, but 100 F9 flights on it's own would be a revolution.

I think the actual Elon quote was for "100 launches", not 100 F9 launches. 100 launches may include 5 Starship launches from Boca Chica, and also includes FH launches, which you may or may not call "F9 launches".

Rumor has it that SpaceX only has authorization for 60 launches from Florida (KSC+CCSFS). 100 launches would therefore require 35 from Vandenberg, and this is highly unlikely.   We would expect to see SpaceX request permission for more Florida launches. The Florida range has reported that it expects to support 87 launches this year for all rockets. If SpaceX launches more than 60 of them The other launch companies begin to be squeezed out.

[abaddon]

The Florida range has reported that it expects to support 87 launches this year for all rockets. If SpaceX launches more than 60 of them The other launch companies begin to be squeezed out.

Seems unlikely.  ULA has a big Vulcan manifest but is likely to get one or maybe two launches this year, let's call it two.  They also have four Atlas V launches, plus a bunch of Atlas V Kuiper launches that are unlikely to contribute much if anything this year.  Let's be generous and say they get two Kuiper launches in this year, so call that six Atlas Vs.  Throw in one Delta IV Heavy and you have a reasonable estimate of a maximum of nine launches from ULA this year.  That leaves the Terran 1 maiden flight to bring us to 10, and maybe one extra Terran 1 launch if all goes well so that would take us to 11.  That's a pretty optimistic view, a more conservative view would have zero Kuiper launches this year, one Vulcan launch, one Terran launch, so more in the range of seven total non-SpaceX flights from Florida.

It's likely that SpaceX can't pull off more than 60 launches from Florida for a variety of other reasons, so I think it's unlikely to happen anyway.  If they somehow did, it doesn't seem like other launches would be "squeezed out" as there really aren't much in the way of other launches this year.   In fact, it's much more likely that protracted maiden launch campaigns for Terran 1 and Vulcan (as well as the possibility of Delta IV Heavy being a pad queen as we have seen in the past) squeeze SpaceX down below the 60 launch threshold than the other way around.

[alugobi]

Musk said it, and they're probably not going to hit that number, so you have two reasons for the inevitable gratuitous criticism that's surely to follow at year's end.

[crandles57]

Looks like they might just be able to squeeze in 3 Starlink missions at all 3 pads.  If 5-2, 2-6, and 5-3 all launch in January, that would put them on pace for 97 missions

How did you work out 97?
8*12=96
8/31*365=94

Edit: maybe it was 8/4.3*52?

[DanClemmensen]

The Florida range has reported that it expects to support 87 launches this year for all rockets. If SpaceX launches more than 60 of them The other launch companies begin to be squeezed out.

Seems unlikely.  ULA has a big Vulcan manifest but is likely to get one or maybe two launches this year, let's call it two.  They also have four Atlas V launches, plus a bunch of Atlas V Kuiper launches that are unlikely to contribute much if anything this year.  Let's be generous and say they get two Kuiper launches in this year, so call that six Atlas Vs.  Throw in one Delta IV Heavy and you have a reasonable estimate of a maximum of nine launches from ULA this year.  That leaves the Terran 1 maiden flight to bring us to 10, and maybe one extra Terran 1 launch if all goes well so that would take us to 11.  That's a pretty optimistic view, a more conservative view would have zero Kuiper launches this year, one Vulcan launch, one Terran launch, so more in the range of seven total non-SpaceX flights from Florida.

It's likely that SpaceX can't pull off more than 60 launches from Florida for a variety of other reasons, so I think it's unlikely to happen anyway.  If they somehow did, it doesn't seem like other launches would be "squeezed out" as there really aren't much in the way of other launches this year.   In fact, it's much more likely that protracted maiden launch campaigns for Terran 1 and Vulcan (as well as the possibility of Delta IV Heavy being a pad queen as we have seen in the past) squeeze SpaceX down below the 60 launch threshold than the other way around.

Thanks! By your math, the range would expect 11 non-SpaceX launches, so be can naively compute that they expect 76 SpaceX launches and by inference SpaceX will get permission for those extra 16 launches. Please note that this is based on basically nothing except a single statement from the range officer plus lots of uninformed speculation by me. Now we can throw in some extreme optimism and assume 5 from BC. This would still require 19 from Vandenberg, which still seems aggressive: a launch every 19 days on average.

This all seems like an Elon fantasy, but who knows? 61 launches in 2022 seemed unreachable.

How will we know if/when SpaceX gets permission for the extra 16 Florida launches? If I recall correctly the 60-launch limit was in a document filed with the FAA. If so, I hope a competent NSF denizen will notice and tell us if a new filing occurs.

[crandles57]

Thanks! By your math, the range would expect 11 non-SpaceX launches, so be can naively compute that they expect 76 SpaceX launches and by inference SpaceX will get permission for those extra 16 launches. Please note that this is based on basically nothing except a single statement from the range officer plus lots of uninformed speculation by me. Now we can throw in some extreme optimism and assume 5 from BC. This would still require 19 from Vandenberg, which still seems aggressive: a launch every 19 days on average.

This all seems like an Elon fantasy, but who knows? 61 launches in 2022 seemed unreachable.

How will we know if/when SpaceX gets permission for the extra 16 Florida launches? If I recall correctly the 60-launch limit was in a document filed with the FAA. If so, I hope a competent NSF denizen will notice and tell us if a new filing occurs.

Well the Feb 2020 environmental assessment did its computations with 60 F9 and 10 FH. So if they do 5 FH then it isn't clear whether they are allowed 60 F9 plus 5FH or if they can say F9 is less emissions etc than FH so they can do 65 F9 plus 5FH.
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/environmental/nepa_docs/SpaceX_Falcon_Program_Final_EA_and_FONSI.pdf
So it is maybe only 11 extra and maybe only 6 extra.

I am not certain how closely this is bound into getting their launch licences. Basically I have no idea if it is simple for SpaceX to present an argument basically saying more launches = more satellites and mass launched to orbit = more useful stuff and therefore more benefits to society so if it was worth it before to do lower number, it is still worth it to do more launches and get this accepted so they continue to get their launch licences.

If 70 launches from Florida didn't look like significant emissions that needed further investigation, then the numbers for 80 launches probably don't look like significantly more.

[DanClemmensen]

Thanks! By your math, the range would expect 11 non-SpaceX launches, so be can naively compute that they expect 76 SpaceX launches and by inference SpaceX will get permission for those extra 16 launches. Please note that this is based on basically nothing except a single statement from the range officer plus lots of uninformed speculation by me. Now we can throw in some extreme optimism and assume 5 from BC. This would still require 19 from Vandenberg, which still seems aggressive: a launch every 19 days on average.

This all seems like an Elon fantasy, but who knows? 61 launches in 2022 seemed unreachable.

How will we know if/when SpaceX gets permission for the extra 16 Florida launches? If I recall correctly the 60-launch limit was in a document filed with the FAA. If so, I hope a competent NSF denizen will notice and tell us if a new filing occurs.

Well the Feb 2020 environmental assessment did its computations with 60 F9 and 10 FH. So if they do 5 FH then it isn't clear whether they are allowed 60 F9 plus 5FH or if they can say F9 is less emissions etc than FH so they can do 65 F9 plus 5FH.
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/environmental/nepa_docs/SpaceX_Falcon_Program_Final_EA_and_FONSI.pdf
So it is maybe only 11 extra and maybe only 6 extra.

I am not certain how closely this is bound into getting their launch licences. Basically I have no idea if it is simple for SpaceX to present an argument basically saying more launches = more satellites and mass launched to orbit = more useful stuff and therefore more benefits to society so if it was worth it before to do lower number, it is still worth it to do more launches and get this accepted so they continue to get their launch licences.

If 70 launches from Florida didn't look like significant emissions that needed further investigation, then the numbers for 80 launches probably don't look like significantly more.

SpaceX: "Gee officer, I figured that one FH is equivalent to three F9 boosters, so that's 5 FH plus 75 F9, right?"
EPA: "Tell it to the judge!"

More seriously, It they must re-open the EA, a lot of knee-jerk SpaceX haters get a chance to raise objections.

[crandles57]

SpaceX: "Gee officer, I figured that one FH is equivalent to three F9 boosters, so that's 5 FH plus 75 F9, right?"
EPA: "Tell it to the judge!"

More seriously, It they must re-open the EA, a lot of knee-jerk SpaceX haters get a chance to raise objections.

 
Yeah but ... they haven't launched it, just asked for a launch licence for the 61st F9 launch and if they then get that launch licence then launch is approved and licenced by the government? 

[litton4]

Are they up to 200 F9 launches yet?

or would the 200 figure that has been mentioned recently include FH, so 195? F9 + 5 FH?

[rpapo]

Are they up to 200 F9 launches yet?

or would the 200 figure that has been mentioned recently include FH, so 195? F9 + 5 FH?

FWIW, Wikipedia says the next launch will be #200.  That includes FH, but not F1.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Actually the next F9 launch is the 200th F9 launch excluding FH. But that includes the Dragon IFA test, so need another launch after that for 200 F9 orbital launches (and another after that for 200 successes, given the CRS-7 failure).

To get back on topic, the last 95 booster landing attempts have all been successful (FH flights count as two, as centre cores were deliberately expended). So next month will hopefully see the 100th consecutive successful booster landing.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

A nice snapshot of the F9 booster fleet now and two years ago

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1627244723118145537

2 years difference

[Robotbeat]

Musk said it, and they're probably not going to hit that number, so you have two reasons for the inevitable gratuitous criticism that's surely to follow at year's end.

They said 60 last year and got to 61, more than 99% of what poll voters on this SpaceX-friendly site voted for.

I expected 37.

I don’t think 100 is out of the picture at all. If they need to get additional approvals, then that’s what they’ll do.

[alugobi]

60 and 61 were December 28 and 29. 

They might get 100, if all the stars and payloads line up.  Still, 40 more will be remarkable.  It's not being critical to be wary of this particular prediction. 

Whatever it is, numbers don't really matter; they're the launch leader and their service has settled into a reliable, dependable, capable state of affairs that is the envy of the competition. 

[Robotbeat]

60 and 61 were December 28 and 29. 

They might get 100, if all the stars and payloads line up.  Still, 40 more will be remarkable.  It's not being critical to be wary of this particular prediction. 

Whatever it is, numbers don't really matter; they're the launch leader and their service has settled into a reliable, dependable, capable state of affairs that is the envy of the competition.

So far this year, they're on track for 85 Falcon launches. If they increase their overall launch rate by a small amount, they'll beat 100 this year.

Again, I was wary of 60. Very wary. I was proven very wrong. We're in the exponential part of the growth curve for launch rates, or at least not yet at a plateau. F9 (and Falcon Heavy, which is starting to become a regular thing) has not stopped growing in launch rate. Starship will almost certainly get 2 orbital flight attempts this year, and 5 is not out of the question. (We have B7 complete, B9 with SN25 nearly complete, and B10 nearing completion, with parts for B11 and B12 and B13 and even B14 already spotted... and this assumes no recovery.)

I wouldn't say the odds are like 90% or even necessarily over 50%... But we were basically all dismissive of 60 in 2022, and this would be a smaller relative growth rate than 2021 (32 launches) to 2022 (61).

[niwax]

60 and 61 were December 28 and 29. 

They might get 100, if all the stars and payloads line up.  Still, 40 more will be remarkable.  It's not being critical to be wary of this particular prediction. 

Whatever it is, numbers don't really matter; they're the launch leader and their service has settled into a reliable, dependable, capable state of affairs that is the envy of the competition.

So far this year, they're on track for 85 Falcon launches. If they increase their overall launch rate by a small amount, they'll beat 100 this year.

Again, I was wary of 60. Very wary. I was proven very wrong. We're in the exponential part of the growth curve for launch rates, or at least not yet at a plateau. F9 (and Falcon Heavy, which is starting to become a regular thing) has not stopped growing in launch rate. Starship will almost certainly get 2 orbital flight attempts this year, and 5 is not out of the question. (We have B7 complete, B9 with SN25 nearly complete, and B10 nearing completion, with parts for B11 and B12 and B13 and even B14 already spotted... and this assumes no recovery.)

I wouldn't say the odds are like 90% or even necessarily over 50%... But we were basically all dismissive of 60 in 2022, and this would be a smaller relative growth rate than 2021 (32 launches) to 2022 (61).

There are a lot of interesting breadcrumbs to follow here. For example, the top 5 pad turnarounds are now firmly at 60/year *from the same pad*, and two of those happened in the first 40 days of this year. Regardless of the actual number this year, they will demonstrate an astounding capability. If nothing else, in finding some $4 billion of yearly business on a $800 million rocket, never mind Starlink.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Current booster fleet status

twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1637519830772330496

#SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy flightworthy boosters as of Mar 17, 2023

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1637519835054723075

Statistics of #SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy booster missions as of Mar 17, 2023

[FutureSpaceTourist]

I think 200 successful booster landings constitutes a milestone

https://twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1668375943868547072

I was thinking of doing a tweet with all the landing stats on text format but there's a lot so here's a screenshot of my spreadsheet which is easier

It feels like there were more but only 11 surface landings failed, last one occurred 126 landings ago!

For "surface landing" I refer to those landings that attempted to land the booster on a solid surface for recovery. There were splashdown landings as you can see on the sheet but even then there'd be only two more failures to add, not a lot of failures overall.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Latest SpaceX animation really shows increase in launch cadence enabled by reuse:

twitter.com/spacex/status/1668399552771297285

Rocket reusability enables increased reliability and launch cadence

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1668399691216855042

Flight-proven first stages have launched ~90% of the last 100+ missions since the start of 2022

[spacenut]

How many launches has SpaceX had this year?   I count 40, is that correct? 

[Zed_Noir]

How many launches has SpaceX had this year?

38x Falcon 9, 2x Falcon Heavy and 1x Starship for a total of 41 launch attempts with one launch failure (Starship).

[AmigaClone]

Latest SpaceX animation really shows increase in launch cadence enabled by reuse:

twitter.com/spacex/status/1668399552771297285

Rocket reusability enables increased reliability and launch cadence

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1668399691216855042

Flight-proven first stages have launched ~90% of the last 100+ missions since the start of 2022

Since 1 January 2022, SpaceX has launched a member of the Falcon 9 family 101 times (98 F9, 3 FH). Two of the three FH launches used two flight-proven side boosters. Flight-proven boosters were used on 91 of the F9 flights.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/patrick_colqu/status/1669756172272906256

Covering the latest in the busy world of Spaceflight with @elysiasegal!

📺:

[FutureSpaceTourist]

New booster reuse record achieved:

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1678254802164232195

Falcon 9 B1058 conducts a record 16th mission with landing on SpaceX drone ship Just Read The Instructions.

#ReusabiltyMilestones

 youtube.com/watch?v=KSxh8d…

[edkyle99]

New engines on B1058.16 since its last flight?

 - Ed Kyle

[whitelancer64]

New engines on B1058.16 since its last flight?

 - Ed Kyle

No way to know that unless SpaceX tells us. They likely do engine swaps on a regular basis. We know they rotate parts around to get life leader experience faster.

[JamesH65]

New engines on B1058.16 since its last flight?

 - Ed Kyle

Only when necessary? Clearly reuse even with engine swaps is way cheaper than expendable. So does it matter if they occasionally have to replace one?

[freddo411]

New engines on B1058.16 since its last flight?

 - Ed Kyle

I tweeted a version of this question to Elon.   No answer so far

[freddo411]

Got a ways to go to catch Space Shuttle discovery's 39 flights.

However, only 2 RS-25 engines flew more than 15 times.   One 19 times, and the other 17 times.

SX is most likely closing in on engine reuse records

[steveleach]

Got a ways to go to catch Space Shuttle discovery's 39 flights.

However, only 2 RS-25 engines flew more than 15 times.   One 19 times, and the other 17 times.

SX is most likely closing in on engine reuse records

Are they? Do F9 boosters keep the same engines for their entire lives?

[Yggdrasill]

I would assume engines are continually cycled through different vehicles, as needed. If so, some may have flown more than 20 times. And alternatively, maybe none have exceeded 10 times. It's not really possible to tell without more information.

[freddo411]

Got a ways to go to catch Space Shuttle discovery's 39 flights.

However, only 2 RS-25 engines flew more than 15 times.   One 19 times, and the other 17 times.

SX is most likely closing in on engine reuse records

Are they? Do F9 boosters keep the same engines for their entire lives?

As far as I know, how many and how often F9 engines are swapped in/out is not publicly known.   

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Forgot to post this for the 1st booster to achieve 16 flights (now there are two such boosters!)

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1678281088681009152

Recent 24th #Starlink launch of this year via #SpaceX's #Falcon9 vehicle

#Space

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Now the most used 5 boosters have 75 successful flights between them, an average of 15 each.

#SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy flightworthy boosters as of Aug 3, 2023

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1687190691334512640

Statistics of #SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy booster missions as of Aug 3, 2023

[Barley]

If I can add correctly Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy have now had more successful launches that all versions Ariane. 

Ariane is still ahead on launch attempts.

[meadows.st]

If I can add correctly Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy have now had more successful launches that all versions Ariane. 

Ariane is still ahead on launch attempts.

Not to mention (also if i can add correctly) 148 re-flights to date which, of course, is remarkable by any standards. By comparison, [from ULA's website today...]  "ULA has successfully delivered more than 150 missions to orbit" -  and from Wikipedia today a total of <130 Atlas V (completed and planned) and <50 Delta IV (completed and planned).

I can't wait until this is the norm for all spaceflight operators!

[spacenut]

If I can add correctly Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy have now had more successful launches that all versions Ariane. 

Ariane is still ahead on launch attempts.

Not to mention (also if i can add correctly) 148 re-flights to date which, of course, is remarkable by any standards. By comparison, [from ULA's website today...]  "ULA has successfully delivered more than 150 missions to orbit" -  and from Wikipedia today a total of <130 Atlas V (completed and planned) and <50 Delta IV (completed and planned).

I can't wait until this is the norm for all spaceflight operators!

Atlas V and Delta IV were once and done rockets over about 20 years.  SpaceX is blowing past those two with one rocket type. 

[DanClemmensen]

If I can add correctly Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy have now had more successful launches that all versions Ariane. 

Ariane is still ahead on launch attempts.

Not to mention (also if i can add correctly) 148 re-flights to date which, of course, is remarkable by any standards. By comparison, [from ULA's website today...]  "ULA has successfully delivered more than 150 missions to orbit" -  and from Wikipedia today a total of <130 Atlas V (completed and planned) and <50 Delta IV (completed and planned).

I can't wait until this is the norm for all spaceflight operators!

Atlas V and Delta IV were once and done rockets over about 20 years.  SpaceX is blowing past those two with one rocket type.

ULA Also launched the Delta II until its retirement in 2018.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

SpaceX’s booster recovery record breaking run continues:

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1700348995573334392

Touchdown! And that marks the milestone of 150 successful landings in a row for the Falcon orbital class booster!

[AmigaClone]

SpaceX’s booster recovery record breaking run continues:

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1700348995573334392

Touchdown! And that marks the milestone of 150 successful landings in a row for the Falcon orbital class booster!

225 successful orbital launches in a row for the Falcon 9 launch vehicle. Over twice it's closest competitors (Delta II with 100 and Atlas V with 97 consecutive successful launches.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Now less than 24 hours from planned new reuse record:

https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=sl-6-17
B1060 is flying for the 17th time.

SpaceX is targeting Tuesday, September 19 at 10:47 p.m. ET (02:47 UTC on September 20) for a Falcon 9 launch of 22 Starlink satellites to low-Earth orbit from Space Launch Complex 40 (SLC-40) at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. If needed, four backup opportunities are available between 11:38 p.m. ET (03:38 UTC on September 20) and 1:46 a.m. ET (05:46 UTC on September 20). Five backup opportunities are also currently available on Wednesday, September 20 starting at 10:22 p.m. ET (02:22 UTC on September 21) until 1:21 a.m.ET (05:21 UTC on September 21).

This is the 17th flight for the first stage booster supporting this mission, marking the first Falcon 9 booster to reach this milestone. It previously launched GPS III-3, Turksat 5A, Transporter-2, Intelsat G-33/G-34, Transporter-6, and 11 Starlink missions. Following stage separation, the first stage will land on the A Short Fall of Gravitas, which will be stationed in the Atlantic Ocean.

A live webcast of this mission will begin on X @SpaceX about five minutes prior to liftoff.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

A change in booster but still a record:

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1704345802557014151

New Record! B1058 (SpaceX changed it from 1060) is the first Falcon booster to complete 17 missions! Touchdown on SpaceX drone ship "A Shortfall Of Gravitas"

[Brigantine]

If I haven't missed something, and everything proceeds successfully on schedule...

The next launch "Starlink Group 6-18" in 2 days' time landing on JRTI will mark the first time 6 landings in a calendar month happen on drone ships out of the same port/coast.
[5 in a month occurred in 2021-03, 2022-04, 2023-02, 2023-03, 2023-07, 2023-08 and then again 2 days ago]

The following launch "Starlink Group 7-3" 1½ days later landing on OCISLY will make it a record 8 drone ship landings in a calendar month - irrespective of port/coast.
[7 in a month occurred in March, July and August this year]

March 2021 is the only time so far there have been 4 landings on the same drone ship (OCISLY, east coast), with no sign of it happening again soon.
[EDIT: with "Starlink Group 6-19" now possibly being a record 4th landing on ASOG before the month is out - NET Sep 28]

P.S. your mileage may vary based on time zones, I suspect this is for UTC calendar months. "Starlink Group 6-13" landed on ASOG on Sept 1, though it may have been Aug 31 local time.

[gsa]

[5 in a month occurred in 2021-03, 2022-04, 2023-02, 2023-03, 2023-07, 2023-08 and then again 2 days ago]

What is your source for 5 flights in March '21?

March 2021 is the only time so far there have been 4 landings on the same drone ship (OCISLY, east coast), with no sign of it happening again soon.
[EDIT: with "Starlink Group 6-19" now possibly being a 4th landing on ASOG before the month is out - NET Sep 28]

The 2nd and the 3rd launches (of 4) in March '21 were only 3 days apart. I really haven't checked but I seriously doubt they did land on the same drone ship...

[Brigantine]

You're right. 1058.6 was on JRTI, and 1059.6 (recovery failure) was in February.
Source: Wikipedia "Landing Location"

1048.8, 1051.9 and 1060.6 were on OCISLY
So the record so far for landings on a single drone ship in a calendar month is 3.
(in 2021-03 OCISLY, 2022-04 JRTI, 2022-08 ASOG, 2023-02 ASOG, 2023-03 JRTI, 2023-07 ASOG, 2023-08 JRTI and 3 days ago ASOG)

I have corrected the other post to reflect this

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Yet another big reuse milestone:

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1705794254226718879

On Falcon's 200th reuse of a booster, B1060 becomes the second F9 booster to complete 17 missions.

154 successful landings in a row.

I’m not sure what I’m more surprised by, how quickly SpaceX got to 200 or the fact that all other orbital launch providers are still at zero.

[steveleach]

I’m not sure what I’m more surprised by, how quickly SpaceX got to 200 or the fact that all other orbital launch providers are still at zero.

Low flight rate kept costs high, and high costs kept flight rates low.

SpaceX attacked the problem from both sides, with re-usability driving costs down and Starlink driving flight rates up.  This required both vision and (significant) investment.

After that it didn't take long for the two curves (cost impact on flight rate and flight rate impact on cost) to meet, at which it becomes self-reinforcing, and the investment is returned.

Unfortunately for the rest of the industry, these rewards are only available to SpaceX. To benefit from the demand-side, another launcher would need to use the StarLink demand, driving revenue towards their competitor on the supply-side.

Eventually SpaceX will move the industry beyond satellites and science missions, at which point other high-volume launch markets will open up independent of SpaceX, allowing competitors back in.

[Robotbeat]

There’s no shortage of demand right now. There’s OneWeb and Kuiper plus an explosion of growth in every other kind of satellite, too. Multiple other constellations as well.

Falcon 9 eats them up because the other rockets just aren’t available.

[john smith 19]

I’m not sure what I’m more surprised by, how quickly SpaceX got to 200 or the fact that all other orbital launch providers are still at zero.

But to do so they either have to a)Accept SX's plan and follow it or b)Come up with their own plan.

Common "wisdom" has always been that the (perceived) higher up front development costs could only be afforded by having a large demand up front. Chicken and egg. The fact that SX's work have shown most (all) of the suggestions made in the 60s and 70s for stage recovery were wishful thinking made the process harder.

So far only Stoke has been prepared to do go with another solution.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Meanwhile, back on topic … the latest Starlink launch statistic brings home how frequent F9 reuse is:

As Alex said on the NSF stream, the 11th booster to achieve 10 flights!

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1707940769821335590

Falcon 9’s first stage has landed on the A Shortfall of Gravitas droneship

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Crosspost:

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1720603482980241622

And after the record is broken during launch, the 18th flight of a booster successfully lands! Will it get a 19th launch next!

[FutureSpaceTourist]

18 flights in 3.5 years is quite a record:

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1720821010834846169

Recent 52nd #Starlink launch of this year via #SpaceX's #Falcon9 vehicle

#Space

[Martin_G]

If I have got the numbers right, the O3B mission marked another reuse milestone:

There are 17 active boosters that have flown at least once, with a total of 170 fligths. That means: SpaceX achieved an average of 10 flights per booster.

Booster - flights
1058   18
1060   17
1061   16
1062   16
1063   14
1064   4
1065   4
1067   14
1069   10
1071   12
1073   11
1075   7
1076   9
1077   8
1078   5
1080   4
1081   1

[Zed_Noir]

If I have got the numbers right, the O3B mission marked another reuse milestone:

There are 17 active boosters that have flown at least once, with a total of 170 fligths. That means: SpaceX achieved an average of 10 flights per booster.

Booster - flights
1058   18
1060   17
1061   16
1062   16
1063   14
1064   4
1065   4
1067   14
1069   10
1071   12
1073   11
1075   7
1076   9
1077   8
1078   5
1080   4
1081   1

The Falcon Heavy side boosters 1064 and 1065 should be count as one for the number of flights to orbit. So that is 166 flights with 17 boosters with 9.76 flights  average per booster.

Your 10 flights average will happened after the next 4 Falcon launches. In about 10 days. 

[AmigaClone]

If I have got the numbers right, the O3B mission marked another reuse milestone:

There are 17 active boosters that have flown at least once, with a total of 170 fligths. That means: SpaceX achieved an average of 10 flights per booster.

Booster - flights
1058   18
1060   17
1061   16
1062   16
1063   14
1064   4
1065   4
1067   14
1069   10
1071   12
1073   11
1075   7
1076   9
1077   8
1078   5
1080   4
1081   1

Booster B1081 has flown twice.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Yet another SpaceX reuse milestone:

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1730655367418573270

Falcon 9’s first stage has landed on Landing Zone 4, completing our 250th landing of a Falcon first stage booster

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/johnkrausphotos/status/1730666102546378768

And in just shy of the last three years, 175 consecutive successful landings in a row vs 158 total launches in 17 years

That part is wild. Also, just 3 of the 150+ Falcon launches in the last two years did not include one or two successful landings, and maybe 5% didn't exclusively use flight-proven boosters. The default for every other launch on Earth is a rounding error on SpaceX's manifest.

https://twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1730671715003625964

Made me think... I'm pretty sure that EVERY SINGLE Falcon launched in the last two years has had either a booster or fairing recovered and reused. That's a milestone all on its own tbh

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1737931955306697065

Eight years ago today, SpaceX successfully landed an orbital class rocket for the first time. Since that time, SpaceX has landed Falcon rockets more than 250 times and counting

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1738010716685361374

The Falcon has landed

254 times total
201 times on droneships at sea
53 times on land
180 consecutive times since the last failure

A new era of rocket reusability started eight years ago

📸SpaceX

[catdlr]

SpaceX Escalating Launch Cadence

Dec 19, 2023
Falcon 9 is a reusable, two-stage rocket designed and manufactured by SpaceX for the reliable and safe transport of people and payloads into Earth orbit and beyond. Falcon 9 is the world’s first orbital class reusable rocket. Reusability allows SpaceX to refly the most expensive parts of the rocket, which in turn drives down the cost of space access.

Falcon Heavy is composed of three reusable Falcon 9 nine-engine cores whose 27 Merlin engines together generate more than 5 million pounds of thrust at liftoff, equal to approximately eighteen 747 aircraft. As one of the world’s most powerful operational rockets, Falcon Heavy can lift nearly 64 metric tons (141,000 lbs) to orbit.

Merlin is a family of rocket engines developed by SpaceX for use on its Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles. Merlin engines use a rocket grade kerosene (RP-1) and liquid oxygen as rocket propellants in a gas-generator power cycle. The Merlin engine was originally designed for recovery and reuse.

[ZachF]

It’s pretty crazy now, on the eighth anniversary of the first booster landing that the Falcon 9 *recovery* system is now already more statistically reliable than any other *launch* system ever.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

The milestones just keep coming:

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1738435376807547380

Touchdown! B1058 becomes the first booster with 19 landings and levels up to  B1058-20

Link: youtube.com/live/sEapBYbko…

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Here’s info on a very early milestone for reuse (F9 F6 was 29th September 2013):

True story about this you will likely find interesting.

Right after SpaceX started crashing rockets into barges and hadn’t perfected it yet, I met a young engineer who was part of NASA’s research program for supersonic retropropulsion. He said,… /1

https://twitter.com/drphiltill/status/1742326226541224034

2/ “At NASA, we had a big program planned to study this.

We were going to start with lots of computer simulations.

Then we would put a thruster on a high speed rail car and shoot the plume into the direction of travel.

Then we’d drop rockets off high altitude balloons…

3/ “But then @elonmusk just went and tried it, and it WORKED! So NASA canceled our entire program!”

😂😂😂

The beauty is that SpaceX didn’t even have to land on the barge for this result. Just hitting the barge with the booster proved that supersonic retropropulsion worked.

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1742327423759224998

Actually, they proved it on F9 F6 out of Vandenberg. @lrocket gave me a banger quote about watching that reentry that is in my forthcoming book on the development of Falcon 9 and reuse.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

#SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy flightworthy boosters overview as of Feb 1, 2024

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1753026947695726849

Statistics of #SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy booster missions as of Feb 1, 2024

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Amazing milestone:

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1758245675211301081

200 Successful Consecutive Landings for the orbital class Falcon booster!

Ok, so one couldn’t be secured properly after landing and was toppled in rough seas but still an amazing milestone.

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1758605460075094344/photo/1

#SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy flightworthy boosters overview as of Feb 15, 2024

[meekGee]

Amazing milestone:

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1758245675211301081

200 Successful Consecutive Landings for the orbital class Falcon booster!

Ok, so one couldn’t be secured properly after landing and was toppled in rough seas but still an amazing milestone.

We've seen this happen before and the consensus was that losses incurred after engine shutdown are "lost during handling".

It's like "wheel stop", or switching from landing to taxiing. If an airplane is subsequently damaged by hitting a catering truck near the gate, the landing is still considered successful.

[catdlr]

Amazing milestone:

200 Successful Consecutive Landings for the orbital class Falcon booster!

Ok, so one couldn’t be secured properly after landing and was toppled in rough seas but still an amazing milestone.

We've seen this happen before and the consensus was that losses incurred after engine shutdown are "lost during handling".

It's like "wheel stop", or switching from landing to taxiing. If an airplane is subsequently damaged by hitting a catering truck near the gate, the landing is still considered successful.

As Obi-Wan would say "Another Happy Landing".

[spacenuance]

22nd flight of a Merlin engine (the current flight leader) on B1061 flying Starlink 7-15.

Main engine cutoff and stage separation. One of the nine Merlin engines powering tonight's first stage is our flight leader, powering its 22nd mission to Earth orbit

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1760882381148623202

[freddo411]

22nd flight of a Merlin engine (the current flight leader) on B1061 flying Starlink 7-15.

Main engine cutoff and stage separation. One of the nine Merlin engines powering tonight's first stage is our flight leader, powering its 22nd mission to Earth orbit

... snip ...

This is direct confirmation from SpaceX that at least one Merlin Engine has reflown more times than any one of the venerable Space Shuttle Main Engines (19 flights maximum)

[Star-Dust]

[AmigaClone]

Note that all FH missions to date have included a new center core. The first FH launch in 2019 as well as the FH launch in 2022 also saw the first flight of two side boosters.

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1769094347247485189

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1769094342822474129

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1769094334471692697

flightworthy boosters overview as of Mar 16, 2024

@elonmusk's 144 launches plan as of Mar 16, 2024

#SpaceX's #SuperHeavy boosters overview as of Mar 16, 2024

[FutureSpaceTourist]

260 reflights in exactly 7 years! SpaceX are also on track to do about half that number in 2024 alone.

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1774312160182894998

~3.5 hours later, Falcon 9 launched 23 @Starlink satellites to low-Earth orbit from pad 40, completing our 260th reflight of an orbital class rocket on the seven-year anniversary of first achieving this feat

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1778964006197440519

Falcon 9 lands on the A Shortfall of Gravitas droneship – completing the first 20th launch and landing of a booster!

Since its first mission in November 2020, this single first stage has launched eight astronauts and more than 500 satellites, totaling 261+ metric tons to orbit in under four years

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1778964420246577414

This booster’s previous missions include GPS III Space Vehicle 04, GPS III Space Vehicle 05, Inspiration4, Ax-1, Nilesat 301, OneWeb Launch 17, ARABSAT BADR-8, and now 13 @Starlink missions

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1779766498090766815

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1779766506483577266

[FLHerne]

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1779766498090766815

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1779766506483577266

These are really neat charts.
I wondered what it would look like without all the Heavy-induced gaps; the usage pattern is obviously wildly different with fewer flights and the centre cores being thrown away.

Attached is a version edited to only include Falcon 9 single-stick boosters (B1052 included). I think it shows the pattern more clearly - lots of early mortality until B105x, followed by a solid block that are steadily piling up flights as they age.

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/Alexphysics13/status/1781126375887257982

Alejandro Alcantarilla Romera (Alex)
@Alexphysics13
And the 9th in the first 18 days of April. One launch every two days on average, which is quite mind blowing because that kind of cadence is enough to launch over 180 times over a whole year.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1783158963048948081

300 rockets
2,700 Merlin engines
15,000 metric tons

That's a lot of recycling in less than a decade.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/04/spacex-has-now-landed-more-boosters-than-most-other-rockets-ever-launch/

[TrevorMonty]

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1783158963048948081

300 rockets
2,700 Merlin engines
15,000 metric tons

That's a lot of recycling in less than a decade.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/04/spacex-has-now-landed-more-boosters-than-most-other-rockets-ever-launch/

On payload mass to orbit F9 should be close if not surpassed that Soyzu variant.

[wannamoonbase]

Was anyone else's first thought how many Soyuz boosters are laying around rural Kazakhstan?

F9 is doing amazing things, but if it ever catches up to the total number of Soyuz flights it means that Starship development has gone poorly.

[markbike528cbx]

Was anyone else's first thought how many Soyuz boosters are laying around rural Kazakhstan?

F9 is doing amazing things, but if it ever catches up to the total number of Soyuz flights it means that Starship development has gone poorly.

I've heard that there is a salvage industry that developed from R-6/Soyuz booster "landings".   
The pictures I've seen show them in remarkably good condition.   They are a little squished, but no obvious cracks or blowouts.  So there are likely pretty slim pickings for future tourists.

[cpushack]

With the Galileo mission
200 missions using flight proven fairing
430 Re-used fairings to date

[Barley]

With the Galileo mission
200 missions using flight proven fairing
430 Re-used fairings to date

Could somebody explain what these numbers mean?

Surely they did not fly 430 fairing halves on 200 missions by flying more than two halves on some missions.

[cpushack]

With the Galileo mission
200 missions using flight proven fairing
430 Re-used fairings to date

Could somebody explain what these numbers mean?

Surely they did not fly 430 fairing halves on 200 missions by flying more than two halves on some missions.

Wasn't well defined on the graphic, could be 430 fairing recovered, which would make sense

[catdlr]

With the Galileo mission
200 missions using flight proven fairing
430 Re-used fairings to date

Could somebody explain what these numbers mean?

Surely they did not fly 430 fairing halves on 200 missions by flying more than two halves on some missions.

Wasn't well defined on the graphic, could be 430 fairing recovered, which would make sense

Like tonight's flight the core was expendable but the Farings were recovered.

[cpushack]

Worldview Legion launch (Booster 1061-20) noted that its fairings were on their 16th and 13th flight

As far as I know thats the highest we have hear of so far (likely more though)

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1799261587951546741

Falcon 9 lands for the 300th time

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1799261367414952317

Falcon 9 B1069-16 lands on ASOG on SpaceX's 61st launch of the year and the fourth launch of the month.   

The 243rd successful landing in a row.

[cpushack]

Worldview Legion launch (Booster 1061-20) noted that its fairings were on their 16th and 13th flight

As far as I know thats the highest we have hear of so far (likely more though)

And turn around time for passive halves is less then 2 weeks now.

For a piece of hardware that cost ~$2 million to make and several months, this helps a lot

[cpushack]

Fairing reuse has now hit 20 with the Starlink 10-2 mission

[wannamoonbase]

Worldview Legion launch (Booster 1061-20) noted that its fairings were on their 16th and 13th flight

As far as I know thats the highest we have hear of so far (likely more though)

And turn around time for passive halves is less then 2 weeks now.

For a piece of hardware that cost ~$2 million to make and several months, this helps a lot

Last I think we heard the cost of fairings went from $5M per pair to $6M per pair.  The active half must be more than 50% of the cost, but by how much who knows.

At 20 flights that is $300,000 per fairing pair per flight. 

Yes recovery and refurbishment costs need to be added for each cycle, but it's still a revolutionary cost per fairing per flight.