Limits on F9 reuse and progress towards it

[Perchlorate]

I wonder if this is a sign that they are starting to hit reuse numbers where things get less reliable?

Maybe; IANARS, so I have nothing definitive to offer.

But, it seems to me that it is equally likely, or even more so, that the cause is a random event (unusual wave, random engine issue, etc.) which might have just as well occurred on a .3 as on a .23.

Mainly, I (as others have stated) stand in awe of the 267-flight string of successful landings. 

[catdlr]

I wonder if this is a sign that they are starting to hit reuse numbers where things get less reliable?

Maybe; IANARS, so I have nothing definitive to offer.

But, it seems to me that it is equally likely, or even more so, that the cause is a random event (unusual wave, random engine issue, etc.) which might have just as well occurred on a .3 as on a .23.

Mainly, I (as others have stated) stand in awe of the 267-flight string of successful landings. 

Hey Pete,

Do you think the FAA would consider this incident similar to a commercial jet landing gear failure on landing? They would likely investigate but might not stop any other flights of the same model until a specific part recall required all other jets of that type to be modified. Since these are non-human flights, I can see the FAA permitting them to continue launching while the investigation continues. I'm not sure about the upcoming human flights.  Might be too simplistic.

Great day Pete,
Tony.

[Perchlorate]

I wonder if this is a sign that they are starting to hit reuse numbers where things get less reliable?

Maybe; IANARS, so I have nothing definitive to offer.

But, it seems to me that it is equally likely, or even more so, that the cause is a random event (unusual wave, random engine issue, etc.) which might have just as well occurred on a .3 as on a .23.

Mainly, I (as others have stated) stand in awe of the 267-flight string of successful landings. 

Hey Pete,

Do you think the FAA would consider this incident similar to a commercial jet landing gear failure on landing? They would likely investigate but might not stop any other flights of the same model until a specific part recall required all other jets of that type to be modified. Since these are non-human flights, I can see the FAA permitting them to continue launching while the investigation continues. I'm not sure about the upcoming human flights.  Might be too simplistic.

Great day Pete,
Tony.

Yes, IFF logic and reason prevail...

Best to you as well.

[rocketenthusiast]

I wonder if this is a sign that they are starting to hit reuse numbers where things get less reliable?

Starlink v1.0L18 had a engine failure due to wear on a boot (which back then was a life leader) and since then we have had a ton of sucesses

[Jim Graves]

If you're going to have a failure, it's best to have it on your own mission. Multiple launches and landings are going to put stresses on Falcon 9 that are in the realms of the unknown. Consequently SpaceX are constantly re-writing the text book on re-usability. I'm not too worried about this failure as it was always a probability, rather than a possibility, as the landing count increased. Today's video on the subject was very informative and looked at all the main suspects for the failure, but as Ryan stated, "there could be a lot of stuff we missed." It's certain that B1062-23 came in a little hot and
a landing leg failed, but without the telemetry that SpaceX collects routinely, we are all just guessing at this point.

I'm confident that the FAA Investigation and Report will be swift as SpaceX want to get back to doing what they do best asap.

[catdlr]

I'm confident that the FAA Investigation and Report will be swift as SpaceX want to get back to doing what they do best asap.

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1829647464464568677

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1830330732410986771

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

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

[laszlo]

Has any given any thought to the limiting effect that soot accumulation from repeated flights has on the mass fraction and payload-carrying efficiency?

I'll see myself out.

[Perchlorate]

Has any given any thought to the limiting effect that soot accumulation from repeated flights has on the mass fraction and payload-carrying efficiency?

I'll see myself out.

Actually, I think it's an interesting subject.  I have zero to contribute to the answer(s), but would like to broaden the question.

I suspect the weight of soot added in the first flight is fairly consistent from one booster to the next.  The booster's surface area is about 5,090 square feet.  Density of soot is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2gm/cc, or about 0.42 pounds per cubic foot.  A 1 mil (one thousandth of an inch) silt layer would thus add about 53 pounds; a 10 mil layer would add about 530 pounds, or about one-third the mass of a Starlink v2 satellite.

I have no idea about the actual thickness of the silt film; the above rough calculation is intended only to show that the mass of the silt film could be significant; 30 mils, or about 1/32 of an inch, would roughly equal the mass of one satellite.

Does the silt accumulate through the first few flights, but eventually the rate of accumulation tapers off, as some of it is burnt off in the 30± seconds after entry burn shutdown, when the descent through the ever-thickening atmosphere heats up the booster's skin? This is the time when the grid fins get all sparky.

Certainly, SpaceX knows this in detail.  I wonder if they would share.

[Jim Graves]

The accumulation of soot is something that is always different from one booster to another. When F9 comes back from the edge of space it's moving through our very fluid and dynamic atmosphere. No two flights are exactly the same in terms of atmospheric conditions or soot accumulation. When SpaceX run the numbers they have a best and worst case scenario and can average it out in simulations. They get the measuring devices on the Booster once it's back in the hangar and compare it against their simulations and it gets more accurate with each mission. To be honest, I don't know how much that soot weighs, but it is negligible in the great scheme of things or they would wash each booster thoroughly before its next flight. When the Inspiration4 crew signed B1062, they all said the soot was a very thin layer, much thinner than they thought it would be.

[Perchlorate]

The accumulation of soot is something that is always different from one booster to another. When F9 comes back from the edge of space it's moving through our very fluid and dynamic atmosphere. No two flights are exactly the same in terms of atmospheric conditions or soot accumulation. When SpaceX run the numbers they have a best and worst case scenario and can average it out in simulations. They get the measuring devices on the Booster once it's back in the hangar and compare it against their simulations and it gets more accurate with each mission. To be honest, I don't know how much that soot weighs, but it is negligible in the great scheme of things or they would wash each booster thoroughly before its next flight. When the Inspiration4 crew signed B1062, they all said the soot was a very thin layer, much thinner than they thought it would be.

Thanks, Jim.  Would still love something quantitative from SpaceX.