SpaceX customers' views on reuse

[RedLineTrain]

That said, we aren't yet to the point where reused boosters are preferred.  Maybe we'll have to see Starship in action for a few years before that preference occurs.

[steveleach]

That said, we aren't yet to the point where reused boosters are preferred. 

Why do you say that? I think there's mounting evidence that some (or even many) customers do prefer a booster with history of successful launches.

[cdebuhr]

That said, we aren't yet to the point where reused boosters are preferred. 

Why do you say that? I think there's mounting evidence that some (or even many) customers do prefer a booster with history of successful launches.

"You want me to fly on a non-flight-tested booster?  You're crazy!" ... It's only a matter of time.

[RedLineTrain]

That said, we aren't yet to the point where reused boosters are preferred. 

Why do you say that? I think there's mounting evidence that some (or even many) customers do prefer a booster with history of successful launches.

It can be measured. Recently, the DoD was paid by SpaceX to take reused boosters.

[butters]

That said, we aren't yet to the point where reused boosters are preferred. 

Why do you say that? I think there's mounting evidence that some (or even many) customers do prefer a booster with history of successful launches.

In particular, SpaceX's repeat customers seem to really appreciate the opportunity to fly on the same booster that launched their previous mission. US government customers which are accustomed to having things exactly their way appreciate that even though they're working with a commercial launch provider, they can have their own booster complete with a special paperwork trail. We saw this first with Iridium, then NASA, and soon NSSL. We may see this with future constellation customers. If you make a big enough block buy, you get your own booster to use over and over again for your missions.

[Jansen]

That said, we aren't yet to the point where reused boosters are preferred. 

Why do you say that? I think there's mounting evidence that some (or even many) customers do prefer a booster with history of successful launches.

It can be measured. Recently, the DoD was paid by SpaceX to take reused boosters.

Given a discount, not *paid*.

[steveleach]

That said, we aren't yet to the point where reused boosters are preferred. 

Why do you say that? I think there's mounting evidence that some (or even many) customers do prefer a booster with history of successful launches.

It can be measured. Recently, the DoD was paid by SpaceX to take reused boosters.

It might be more accurate to say that reused boosters are cheaper than ones you have to build from scratch, and DoD chose not to pay the premium for new ones.

From that perspective, the DoD "preferred" reused boosters.

An interesting, though totally hypothetical, question is whether customers would be willing to pay just as much (or even more) for a "flight-proven" booster, or whether the only reason for preferring used is the lower price.

[spacenut]

Used boosters are lowering launch costs.  SpaceX is using Starlink to prove this. 

[Cherokee43v6]

That said, we aren't yet to the point where reused boosters are preferred. 

Why do you say that? I think there's mounting evidence that some (or even many) customers do prefer a booster with history of successful launches.

"You want me to fly on a non-flight-tested booster?  You're crazy!" ... It's only a matter of time.

GPS III, Sentinel 6A, Crew 1

All new build F9s with a production issue effecting their engines.

Also NASA has chosen to accept flight proven boosters for future Crew launches.  Specifically, the booster that was used for Crew 1 is now assigned to Crew 2 as well.

[meekGee]

That said, we aren't yet to the point where reused boosters are preferred. 

Why do you say that? I think there's mounting evidence that some (or even many) customers do prefer a booster with history of successful launches.

"You want me to fly on a non-flight-tested booster?  You're crazy!" ... It's only a matter of time.

GPS III, Sentinel 6A, Crew 1

All new build F9s with a production issue effecting their engines.

Also NASA has chosen to accept flight proven boosters for future Crew launches.  Specifically, the booster that was used for Crew 1 is now assigned to Crew 2 as well.

That last one is a big time since nobody can argue that they're doing it "for the discount".  They can get a new booster and chose not to.

This should really put this debate to bed.

[ChrML]

GPS III, Sentinel 6A, Crew 1

All new build F9s with a production issue effecting their engines.

Also NASA has chosen to accept flight proven boosters for future Crew launches.  Specifically, the booster that was used for Crew 1 is now assigned to Crew 2 as well.

That last one is a big time since nobody can argue that they're doing it "for the discount".  They can get a new booster and chose not to.

This should really put this debate to bed.

Allowing reused booster was traded for extending the crew demo 2 mission without extra costs.

[meekGee]

GPS III, Sentinel 6A, Crew 1

All new build F9s with a production issue effecting their engines.

Also NASA has chosen to accept flight proven boosters for future Crew launches.  Specifically, the booster that was used for Crew 1 is now assigned to Crew 2 as well.

That last one is a big time since nobody can argue that they're doing it "for the discount".  They can get a new booster and chose not to.

This should really put this debate to bed.

Allowing reused booster was traded for extending the crew demo 2 mission without extra costs.

Yes, but nobody can argue that they chose a less reliable booster since they got offered a deal.

It proves that A) reusable booster are deemed at least equally safe and B) are cheaper and on this case SpaceX passed on some of the saving.

We already knew B, but A is new!

[TrevorMonty]

GPS III, Sentinel 6A, Crew 1

All new build F9s with a production issue effecting their engines.

Also NASA has chosen to accept flight proven boosters for future Crew launches.  Specifically, the booster that was used for Crew 1 is now assigned to Crew 2 as well.

That last one is a big time since nobody can argue that they're doing it "for the discount".  They can get a new booster and chose not to.

This should really put this debate to bed.

Allowing reused booster was traded for extending the crew demo 2 mission without extra costs.

Yes, but nobody can argue that they chose a less reliable booster since they got offered a deal.

It proves that A) reusable booster are deemed at least equally safe and B) are cheaper and on this case SpaceX passed on some of the saving.

We already knew B, but A is new!

Some would argue used booster especially one on its 2nd flight is more reliable than new booster. A lot ELVs have failed from assembly errors which should show up in maiden flight of RLV.

[meekGee]

GPS III, Sentinel 6A, Crew 1

All new build F9s with a production issue effecting their engines.

Also NASA has chosen to accept flight proven boosters for future Crew launches.  Specifically, the booster that was used for Crew 1 is now assigned to Crew 2 as well.

That last one is a big time since nobody can argue that they're doing it "for the discount".  They can get a new booster and chose not to.

This should really put this debate to bed.

Allowing reused booster was traded for extending the crew demo 2 mission without extra costs.

Yes, but nobody can argue that they chose a less reliable booster since they got offered a deal.

It proves that A) reusable booster are deemed at least equally safe and B) are cheaper and on this case SpaceX passed on some of the saving.

We already knew B, but A is new!

Some would argue used booster especially one on its 2nd flight is more reliable than new booster. A lot ELVs have failed from assembly errors which should show up in maiden flight of RLV.

It's nice to see that more customers are getting that now.

A bunch of people always argue that used boosters are considered less reliable and point to discounts as "proof" - any number of posts to this effect upthread.

With the selection of a used booster for a manned flight, this argument should finally die.

[niwax]

GPS III, Sentinel 6A, Crew 1

All new build F9s with a production issue effecting their engines.

Also NASA has chosen to accept flight proven boosters for future Crew launches.  Specifically, the booster that was used for Crew 1 is now assigned to Crew 2 as well.

That last one is a big time since nobody can argue that they're doing it "for the discount".  They can get a new booster and chose not to.

This should really put this debate to bed.

Allowing reused booster was traded for extending the crew demo 2 mission without extra costs.

Yes, but nobody can argue that they chose a less reliable booster since they got offered a deal.

It proves that A) reusable booster are deemed at least equally safe and B) are cheaper and on this case SpaceX passed on some of the saving.

We already knew B, but A is new!

Some would argue used booster especially one on its 2nd flight is more reliable than new booster. A lot ELVs have failed from assembly errors which should show up in maiden flight of RLV.

It's nice to see that more customers are getting that now.

A bunch of people always argue that used boosters are considered less reliable and point to discounts as "proof" - any number of posts to this effect upthread.

With the selection of a used booster for a manned flight, this argument should finally die.

Thinking some more about this, both the last Electron and Vega failures where assembly errors that manifested themselves during first launch with near 100% probability. I can't be bothered to run the numbers right now, but preventing first flight failures could have prevented most recent failures, excluding new LVs.

[john smith 19]

Thinking some more about this, both the last Electron and Vega failures where assembly errors that manifested themselves during first launch with near 100% probability. I can't be bothered to run the numbers right now, but preventing first flight failures could have prevented most recent failures, excluding new LVs.

The fact that with ELV's the first flight is also the last flight helped shaped the checklist culture of old space companies (and their attendant costs).

It's interesting to see how customers views have changed since this thread began.

The interesting thing is that the first (and so far only) viable partial LV reuse has been driven solely by the manufacturer. No customer has asked for it and none of the existing major players have done anything serious about following their example.

For people who study market theory these are the signs that this is not a free market, in any shape or form. 

[ugordan]

Thinking some more about this, both the last Electron and Vega failures where assembly errors that manifested themselves during first launch with near 100% probability. I can't be bothered to run the numbers right now, but preventing first flight failures could have prevented most recent failures, excluding new LVs.

Then again, virtually all recent LV failures have been on upper stages, not the first stage (only first stage failures that come to mind in recent years are a Proton failure and a Soyuz crewed launch) so that's kind of a counterpoint to this argument.

[Robotbeat]

Of course, it’s pretty common for first stages to be hot fired or held down before release, so problems can be caught without committing the mission.

That is a non-terrible argument for SSTOs *or* parallel staging ala R7.

But also, since the average number of stages is more than 2, it’s statistically more likely that you’ll have a failure on a stage that isn’t the first

[Jansen]

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1335198069759995905

Another example of NASA delaying a launch due to recovery conditions.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

SXM-7 launch this Friday is most re-used booster on a customer flight and first fairing reuse on a customer flight:

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1336103465831944192

Falcon 9’s first stage previously supported six missions and one of its fairing halves previously flew on the ANASIS-II mission