SpaceX customers' views on reuse

[meekGee]

Do these rather sharp comments by Nelson count?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/nasa-chief-says-everyone-poo-pooed-elon-musks-spacex-when-it-was-pitted-against-boeing-but-its-had-more-successful-launches/ar-AA11LItg?li=BBnb7Kz

They are not specifically on reuse, but it's the 2000 lb gorilla in the room. Can't compare the two track records without noticing the contrast in approach.

[AmigaClone]

Makes sense.  Nobody buys or leases an airliner that hasn't had a test flight (or two or three).

This makes me wonder how often SpaceX replace a component after first flight because it is a little out of family? Or, really, on any of the flights.

Cheers, Martin

I imagine that SpaceX replaces some components after every flight because they are 'a little out of family'.  What happens after a particular component has been replaced depends on the issue and on the component = although I imagine that in many cases the component is examined to see if it can be refurbished for later use or at least disassembled for use in repairing similar components.

I can recall at least a few times that a test prior to liftoff led to some engines being replaced prior to the start of a boosters first mission.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/1578120999253557248

Jean-Luc Froeliger, Intelsat space systems VP, is "very confident" in using a SpaceX fleet-leading booster.

"It’s the same price if you’re the first or the 14th. You pay extra when it’s expendable."

He said Intelsat's next launch in November will use an expendable F9 booster.

So flight proven boosters not yet more expensive than new boosters

To clarify, today's Intelsat launch booster (B1060) will become a joint fleet-leading booster with today's launch

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1784316700604670282

Really hard to overstate the fact that not only are some of Europe's most valuable satellites (Galileo navigation) launching on a Falcon 9 rocket today, but they're doing so on the 20th mission. Unimaginable even two or three years ago.

[cpushack]

As much as Arianespace spent downplaying SpaceX reuse, they almost had to fly F9 Expendable lol

[rpapo]

As much as Arianespace spent downplaying SpaceX reuse, they almost had to fly F9 Expendable lol

What do you mean, "almost"?  They did.

[cpushack]

As much as Arianespace spent downplaying SpaceX reuse, they almost had to fly F9 Expendable lol

What do you mean, almost?  They did.

"almost had to" regardless of needed to or not is what I was meaning.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

From the Media Teleconference today:
 • Crew 9's booster will fly first on a Starlink mission to ensure that the moisture intrusion into its fuel and LOX tank had no effect. The tanks had to be dried out and some components replaced.

NASA are clearly pleased that they’re able to take advantage of a Starlink flight to prove out the Crew-9 booster. A rare known case of positively wanting a flight proven booster. (Given that another brand new booster presumably wouldn’t be available in time.)

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Crosspost:

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1836216253863620777

Just want to point out that it's wild the European Union just launched some of its most valuable satellites, two Galileo spacecraft, on a Falcon 9 rocket making its 22nd flight. Unimaginable even two or three years ago.

Is it possible SpaceX don’t even ask customers any more about the booster to use, unless a customer makes an explicit request?

[AmigaClone]

Crosspost:

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1836216253863620777

Just want to point out that it's wild the European Union just launched some of its most valuable satellites, two Galileo spacecraft, on a Falcon 9 rocket making its 22nd flight. Unimaginable even two or three years ago.

Is it possible SpaceX don’t even ask customers any more about the booster to use, unless a customer makes an explicit request?

I suspect that when SpaceX is negotiating with a customer they might mention that they have not lost a payload due to issues with a booster since they lost a secondary payload on CRS-1. They might also mention that not requiring a newer booster, there would be a chance that their payload could launch sooner than if they requested a booster with under a certain number of flights.

[woods170]

Do these rather sharp comments by Nelson count?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/nasa-chief-says-everyone-poo-pooed-elon-musks-spacex-when-it-was-pitted-against-boeing-but-its-had-more-successful-launches/ar-AA11LItg?li=BBnb7Kz

They are not specifically on reuse, but it's the 2000 lb gorilla in the room. Can't compare the two track records without noticing the contrast in approach.

That story is from Business Insider and it is now behind a paywall.

FST Edit to add: here's original Newsweek article (not paywalled)

https://www.newsweek.com/bill-nelson-nasa-poo-pooed-spacex-elon-musk-artemis-1742085

[markbike528cbx]

So 1061.23 (23d Launch) is acceptable to ESA for Hera (mission to Didymos and Dimorphos)

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57431.msg2630486#msg2630486

Some reusability stats for this launch (Hera):

Booster B1061.23 turnaround time:
56 days 12 hours 50 minutes
(its previous mission was Space Norway ASBM on Aug 12, 2024 UTC).

On a mission at the top end of Falcon 9 capabilities.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57431.msg2630437#msg2630437

Reminds me of "Hot Rod Lincoln"

My speedometer said that I hit top end.
My foot was blue, like lead to the floor.
That's all there is and there ain't no more.

Oh, and this was a Return to Flight (admittedly for the 2nd stage), just to add spice.
Off topic, and yeah. there was a pre-flight weather forecast of 15% GO, and a major hurricane on the way.
Milton 2024, for you future readers

So the answer to the OP's/ topic thread is "meh".