SpaceX customers' views on reuse

[meekGee]

I’ve completed my trawl looking for significant re-use views/events and added the summary to the first post in this thread. Corrections, additions & suggestions welcome.

Lol.  You picked basically the worst of all worlds for how to list the date.  I strenuously recommend the ISO format for dates:  YYYY-MM-DD.

Emphasis mine.
As someone working in the IT industry I strongly endorse this recommendation.

As someone who used to program , I also endorse this format, but I also advocate for zero indexing the days of the month.

So today is 0 December? Sounds good to me.

The months will be designated 0..B of course.

Thus: 2017B0

[octavo]

I’ve completed my trawl looking for significant re-use views/events and added the summary to the first post in this thread. Corrections, additions & suggestions welcome.

Lol.  You picked basically the worst of all worlds for how to list the date.  I strenuously recommend the ISO format for dates:  YYYY-MM-DD.

Emphasis mine.
As someone working in the IT industry I strongly endorse this recommendation.

As someone who used to program , I also endorse this format, but I also advocate for zero indexing the days of the month.

So today is 0 December? Sounds good to me.

The months will be designated 0..B of course.

Thus: 2017B0

0x7E1B0 you mean? If we're going hex, might as well do the year too!

[meekGee]

I’ve completed my trawl looking for significant re-use views/events and added the summary to the first post in this thread. Corrections, additions & suggestions welcome.

Lol.  You picked basically the worst of all worlds for how to list the date.  I strenuously recommend the ISO format for dates:  YYYY-MM-DD.

Emphasis mine.
As someone working in the IT industry I strongly endorse this recommendation.

As someone who used to program , I also endorse this format, but I also advocate for zero indexing the days of the month.

So today is 0 December? Sounds good to me.

The months will be designated 0..B of course.

Thus: 2017B0

0x7E1B0 you mean? If we're going hex, might as well do the year too!

Can't do the year in hex since the whole business of B.C. and A.D. just confuses the hell out of everyone.

[NathanR]

Also recommend YYYY-MM-DD format.

Add:
SES-11 reused stage 1 confirmed 2017-08-04
AMOS-17 reused stage 1 announced 2017-10-18

[AncientU]

Issues:
1) Your call that there is one v1.0 'failure' is a significant judgement call when the primary payload was delivered, and the secondary waved off due to NASA ground rules.  There was a very high likelihood that the second stage would have delivered the secondary to proper orbit (90+ percent IIRC) in spite of the booster engine failure on ascent.  The ground rule failed, not the rocket.  Calling this entire launch a flat failure is inaccurate at best.
2) AMOS was a test procedure failure that destroyed a rocket and payload.  That's very bad, or even very stupid, but even the insurance companies didn't call that one a launch failure (since it obviously wasn't).
Changing these two cases or their weighting significantly changes the bottom line*.

Bottom line is that statics tell a subjective tale, not (necessarily) an objective one. 
Those who believe otherwise are naive.

It is objective for me, because I follow a rule.  The rule is this.  If the launch vehicle does not deliver its payload to the intended orbit, it is a launch vehicle failure.  The Orbcomm payload reentered instead of reaching 350 x 750 km.  The reason doesn't matter (if the Merlin hadn't failed, NASA rules would not have been employed).  I don't include AMOS 6 in my regular list because, as you note, it was not actually launched, but since the payload was destroyed, it makes sense to include it as a "launch campaign failure" during some comparisons.  I did it here because the post to which I was responding included that as a failure.

 - Ed Kyle

I appreciate your tabulations and consistency.  I was responding to your post which violated your own rules that are indeed a good effort at maintaining objectivity.  No matter the reason, it does still come down in many cases to (subjective) judgement calls -- giving V1.0 a 100% failure score when it was anything but -- that have impact in small number statistics. 

[speedevil]

It is objective for me, because I follow a rule.  The rule is this.  If the launch vehicle does not deliver its payload to the intended orbit, it is a launch vehicle failure.  The Orbcomm payload reentered instead of reaching 350 x 750 km.  The reason doesn't matter (if the Merlin hadn't failed, NASA rules would not have been employed).  I don't include AMOS 6 in my regular list because, as you note, it was not actually launched, but since the payload was destroyed, it makes sense to include it as a "launch campaign failure" during some comparisons.  I did it here because the post to which I was responding included that as a failure

By that strict method, surely you would also count all scrubs as launch failures, as they fail to attain the specified orbit.

[AncientU]

It is objective for me, because I follow a rule.  The rule is this.  If the launch vehicle does not deliver its payload to the intended orbit, it is a launch vehicle failure.  The Orbcomm payload reentered instead of reaching 350 x 750 km.  The reason doesn't matter (if the Merlin hadn't failed, NASA rules would not have been employed).  I don't include AMOS 6 in my regular list because, as you note, it was not actually launched, but since the payload was destroyed, it makes sense to include it as a "launch campaign failure" during some comparisons.  I did it here because the post to which I was responding included that as a failure

By that strict method, surely you would also count all scrubs as launch failures, as they fail to attain the specified orbit.

That is a silly interpretation.

On the other hand, a launch that meets Ed's rule...(i.e., drops off its payload short of the intended orbit)

If the launch vehicle does not deliver its payload to the intended orbit, it is a launch vehicle failure.

... but happens to be carrying a payload that has the ability to make up the difference (several examples from 'perfect track record' launchers), this is counted as a 100% success.  Also, when a launcher first stage fails to deliver the second plus payload to 'this rule's intended orbit' (recent Atlas v launch for Orbital that had first stage cut out five seconds early) -- but the second stage has the oomph to deliver the payload in spite of this launch vehicle failure -- it is credited as a 100% success.

The lesson here is that being 'objective' in treating data is always in the eyes of the beholder* to some degree.
IMO, Ed is doing an honest and effective job of attempting to be objective, but that is not truly possible for anyone.
All statistics must be treated skeptically, to be used for what story they can tell and not to be used beyond that.

* That is, subjective.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Thank you for the feedback on the 1st post summary list.

I’ve hopefully addressed the comments raised. I’ve gone with colouring the launches as they are different from and, IMHO, more significant than many of the other entries. I think it’s also interesting to see how other events and announcements relate to launch dates.

[deruch]

Thank you for the feedback on the 1st post summary list.

I’ve hopefully addressed the comments raised. I’ve gone with colouring the launches as they are different from and, IMHO, more significant than many of the other entries. I think it’s also interesting to see how other events and announcements relate to launch dates.

Nice.  That's what I preferred as well.  My only further note would be that I think the purple color is very hard to distinguish from the black of normal text.  In a list with lots of colors it would probably stand out, so in the (near) future when there are lots of customers flying on reused boosters this wouldn't really matter.  But for SES and maybe the first few it might be pretty hard to notice.  Not sure what to use instead though.

[saliva_sweet]

It is objective for me, because I follow a rule.  The rule is this.  If the launch vehicle does not deliver its payload to the intended orbit, it is a launch vehicle failure. 

What about that Soyuz launch in july that flew >70 smallsats in addition to the primary payload. Several of those ended up in wrong orbits. Total failure?

[Eagandale4114]

Iridium released a video with their views on it

[FutureSpaceTourist]

My only further note would be that I think the purple color is very hard to distinguish from the black of normal text.

I went with purple as on my (iPad) screen it’s legible, different enough from black and not too strong that it overpowers the green. I tried several other colours and they seemed rather worse to me. My only other suggestion would be to use red for first re-use and green for subsequent ones.

Does anyone else find purple not distinct enough and/or have alternative suggestions?

[saliva_sweet]

http://spacenews.com/glavkosmos-denies-launch-vehicle-caused-cubesat-failures/

So not a launch vehicle failure based on currently-available information.

 - Ed Kyle

From your own link: "one of Spire’s Lemur satellites was injected into the wrong orbit."

By your own definition - a failed launch. No?

[Norm38]

Since the title of this thread is "customer views", let's hear NASA call that v1.0 flight a 100% failure.

Or, why not just score based on mass and/or payload value?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

OT.

How does this relate to customers's views on reuse?

[FutureSpaceTourist]

I've tidied up the summary list on the first post and now added known future booster reuse flights.

As always please let me know if I've missed any confirmed reuses.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Interesting, NASA and SpaceX started talking about re-use in January and nearly didn't complete in time for CRS-13:

Working with NASA [on re-use] since Jan.  Equivalent risk established.  All groups meeting for several months.

2 weeks before launch was when the decision had to be made.

NASA went off on their own to come up with what they wanted to see for Falcon 9 reuse.  NASA put on constraints.  Only single reflight agreed to. Only a CRS-like mission is where that booster could come from.  Decision was made so finely.   Re-flgiht Readiness Review (RFRR).

NASA was so late making decision because RFRR came in so only allow official decision.

New booster could have effected the launch date.

The first public mention by NASA of potential reuse logged in this thread was in April.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Transcript of the Pre-Launch presser:

https://gist.github.com/theinternetftw/23433626cb5ff08b0c6ad87ae33e9aeb

Expanding on the previous post, quite a bit more detail in the CRS-13 press conference (i’ve edited out non-reuse Qs and As):

Marcia Dunn: Marcia Dunn, Associated Press. For Kirk, if I might. Do you expect your anxiety level to be slightly higher tomorrow, given that this is a reused rocket that you'll be reusing for the first time at NASA?

Kirk Shireman: Every time we launch a rocket, I'm anxious. It's still a dangerous business, so I will be anxious tomorrow. I can tell you a number of things. First off, reusability. The shuttle was reused, we reused the boosters, we reused the main engines. And so the notion of reusability is not new. We did an extensive review, and by we I mean the entire agency. We engaged rocket experts from around the agency, to define, first off, what NASA would like to see in terms of data, and analysis, and testing, and even inspection in between the flights. And then we met with SpaceX and reviewed what they did. And we're very comfortable that the risk posture is not significantly greater than a new booster. The way we look at it, we've retired some risks, some risks are actually less on a re-flown booster, and some risks are actually a little greater, and the net result is about equivalent risk. So we think of it as equivalent risk. Which is not to say zero risk. So we'll be anxious, but I wouldn't say a higher level of anxiety for this reflown booster than a new booster.

James Dean: James Dean, Florida Today. For Kirk Shireman. [...] And regarding reuse, do you also see this as important to the future of spaceflight, reducing costs, the things Jessica mentioned earlier? Or are you really just doing it because SpaceX wants to and you verified that their data looks good?

Kirk Shireman: [...] As for reuse, I think there's no question that reusability, especially reusability without a tremendous amount of hardware replacement, can change the economics of launch, and the reality is that the business of space is dominated by launch costs. Certainly in the human space flight world it's dominated by launch costs. So getting the costs down is important for everyone. It's important for NASA. It's important for the future of human spaceflight. It's important for commerce in space, and so it's certainly a positive thing. So we're very much supportive of this activity. What we need to be careful about is, from a NASA perspective, that we understand the risk. So we get to decide the risk level that we will accept, and we are doing that. SpaceX has been very cooperative with us in answering all of our questions and sharing data with us. We've even had people participate in some of the testing. So I think the effort going on between NASA and SpaceX is excellent with respect to reuse, and we certainly see that as an avenue for reduced costs in the future.

Chris Gebhardt: Chris Gebhardt with NasaSpaceFlight. I'm wondering, for Kirk and maybe Jessica, if you could talk a little bit more about the decision for the flight-proven booster? When was that decision made? It was only confirmed last week, so I'm wondering, was there a contingency plan to use a new core if NASA had decided to not to use the re-flown booster?

Jessica Jensen: So I guess I can start with that one. So we've been working with NASA since January of this year on the process for insuring that a flight-proven booster is of equivalent risk to a new booster. And so like Kirk mentioned, we've been having technical meetings with NASA for each different group. So for example, dynamics on the vehicle, propulsion, avionics, each of those different groups have been meeting with their NASA counterparts for several months. So we've been working at this for many, many months. And as we get closer to the launch date, the way it works, as you know we can have turnaround times of roughly two weeks. So about two weeks before launch is the absolute, drop dead of when a decision needs to be made to not impact the launch date.

Kirk Shireman: I wanted to add to that, if I could. [...]. But in terms of reusability, absolutely, we have. What I described earlier, NASA went off on their own and said hey, if we were going to fly a Falcon 9, reuse a Falcon 9, what would we like to see in terms of analysis, testing, inspection between the flights and so on. And so we did that. We laid it out ourselves, independently. We then met with SpaceX and went through their data and their certification package. We put on some constraints, by the way, I didn't mention earlier. We agreed to a single re-flight, and at this point we've agreed to a single re-flight of a booster that's flown to a benign mission, like ours. Like a CRS-1 flight. So we only agreed to a single re-flight, and a Low Earth Orbit mission for the first launch. The reason the decision was made so finely is, like we said, there's the general certification. And then there's the actual inspection of the booster. And then finally there's a review conducted by SpaceX, a Re-flight Readiness Review. Think of it as a Flight Readiness Review for that particular booster. And so NASA was part of the generic certification. NASA reviewed the inspection plan in between the flights. And we were waiting for that Re-flight Readiness Review to be complete, to go over all the issues, and make sure at that point we were still comfortable with the risk level for this flight. And that's why the actual official decision. The letter, we sent a contract letter to SpaceX here, I think a week and a half ago, two Wednesdays ago, if I'm not mistaken, I can look that up if you need it, but very, very recently. At some point in time, we knew that there would be a change. We told SpaceX that we were heading down this path, but we weren't ready to commit until that final Re-flight Readiness Review was conducted, and that we understood that if we changed position, if we changed paths and used a new booster, it might affect the launch date. SpaceX understood, and we were partnering all along. And so we were waiting for that final decision, that final Re-flight Readiness Review, and then NASA decided and sent the letter.

[GWH]

And another one, Canadian eh:
https://spaceq.ca/radarsat-constellation-mission-to-fly-on-refurbished-spacex-falcon-9-rocket/

[FutureSpaceTourist]

And another one, Canadian eh:
https://spaceq.ca/radarsat-constellation-mission-to-fly-on-refurbished-spacex-falcon-9-rocket/

Great spot, thank you! I’ve updated first post in this thread accordingly.