Author Topic: Reuse milestones  (Read 70146 times)

Offline AmigaClone

Re: Reuse milestones
« Reply #20 on: 04/26/2022 02:04 am »
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.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Reuse milestones
« Reply #21 on: 04/26/2022 09:04 am »


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


Offline rpapo

Re: Reuse milestones
« Reply #22 on: 04/26/2022 12:25 pm »


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."
Following the space program since before Apollo 8.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5422
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4260
  • Likes Given: 1731
Re: Reuse milestones
« Reply #23 on: 04/26/2022 02:07 pm »


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?

Offline jimvela

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1662
  • Liked: 898
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Reuse milestones
« Reply #24 on: 04/26/2022 02:13 pm »
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.


Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1741
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1925
  • Likes Given: 1277
Re: Reuse milestones
« Reply #25 on: 04/27/2022 08:34 pm »
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.

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1700
  • Likes Given: 6867
Re: Reuse milestones
« Reply #26 on: 04/28/2022 04:36 pm »


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.

Paul

Offline JayWee

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 991
  • Liked: 982
  • Likes Given: 1819
Re: Reuse milestones
« Reply #27 on: 04/28/2022 05:21 pm »


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.

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3899
  • Likes Given: 5264
Re: Reuse milestones
« Reply #28 on: 04/28/2022 06:08 pm »
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.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9098
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Reuse milestones
« Reply #29 on: 04/28/2022 06:26 pm »


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.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5422
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4260
  • Likes Given: 1731
Re: Reuse milestones
« Reply #30 on: 04/28/2022 09:52 pm »


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.

Offline freddo411

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Liked: 1196
  • Likes Given: 3412
Re: Reuse milestones
« Reply #31 on: 04/29/2022 02:14 am »


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.   

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5180
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: Reuse milestones
« Reply #32 on: 04/29/2022 02:40 am »


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. 

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47936
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81287
  • Likes Given: 36800
Re: Reuse milestones
« Reply #33 on: 04/29/2022 08:28 pm »
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1520074703183953927

Quote
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/

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1700
  • Likes Given: 6867
Re: Reuse milestones
« Reply #34 on: 05/03/2022 08:44 pm »


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.
Paul

Offline AmigaClone

Re: Reuse milestones
« Reply #35 on: 05/06/2022 08:03 am »
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

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47936
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81287
  • Likes Given: 36800
Re: Reuse milestones
« Reply #36 on: 05/15/2022 07:41 am »
Current booster fleet status

twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1525679601397252096

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

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

Quote
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

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47936
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81287
  • Likes Given: 36800
Re: Reuse milestones
« Reply #37 on: 06/10/2022 06:09 am »
https://twitter.com/starshipfairing/status/1534644071284752384

Quote
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 …

Offline Slarty1080

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2740
  • UK
  • Liked: 1871
  • Likes Given: 814
Re: Reuse milestones
« Reply #38 on: 06/11/2022 09:54 am »
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.
My optimistic hope is that it will become cool to really think about things... rather than just doing reactive bullsh*t based on no knowledge (Brian Cox)

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47936
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81287
  • Likes Given: 36800
Re: Reuse milestones
« Reply #39 on: 06/17/2022 05:16 pm »
twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1537844931351531521

Quote
Our best landing video to date, thanks to Starlink!

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

Quote
And rocket landings are now triple digits

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

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1