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.
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.
Quote from: su27k on 04/22/2022 03:16 amSo 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?
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 04/26/2022 09:04 amQuote from: su27k on 04/22/2022 03:16 amSo 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?
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 04/26/2022 02:07 pmQuote from: TrevorMonty on 04/26/2022 09:04 amQuote from: su27k on 04/22/2022 03:16 amSo 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.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 04/26/2022 09:04 amQuote from: su27k on 04/22/2022 03:16 amSo 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.
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.
Quote from: freddo411 on 04/29/2022 02:14 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 04/26/2022 09:04 amQuote from: su27k on 04/22/2022 03:16 amSo 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.
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.
#SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy flightworthy boosters as of May 14, 2022
Statistics of #SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy booster missions as of May 14, 2022
Falcon 9 MECO today at 68km altitude and travelling at over 8330km/h, likely the fastest a reusable Falcon 9 booster has ever flown!
twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1537844931351531521Quote Our best landing video to date, thanks to Starlink!https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1537845131147190273QuoteAnd rocket landings are now triple digits
Our best landing video to date, thanks to Starlink!
And rocket landings are now triple digits