SpaceX 100 successful flights

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1320131227383365632

100 successful flights

[2megs]

Are they counting Zuma as one of those (meaning 99 payloads deployed) or not (meaning 101 payloads reached their orbits but...) ?

[AndrewRG10]

Are they counting Zuma as one of those (meaning 99 payloads deployed) or not (meaning 101 payloads reached their orbits but...) ?

A successful flight is when the payload separates. They're counting Zuma as a success which makes 100 because an anonymous source who wasn't close to the matter is not good enough evidence that it failed.

[cdebuhr]

Are they counting Zuma as one of those (meaning 99 payloads deployed) or not (meaning 101 payloads reached their orbits but...) ?

A successful flight is when the payload separates. They're counting Zuma as a success which makes 100 because an anonymous source who wasn't close to the matter is not good enough evidence that it failed.

More to the point, it should count as success as (to the best of my recollection) it was determined that all parts of the F9 system performed nominally on that mission.  The fact that a 3rd party payload adapter failed (allegedly) to release the payload isn't really a SpaceX problem.

[edkyle99]

They're counting Zuma as a success, which it was on the Falcon 9 side. 

They're counting CRS-1 as a success even though it fell short of its planned orbit and lost a payload.  They're counting this year's suborbital In Flight Abort test as a success, which it was but it was not an *orbital* success.  I do not count the latter two as orbital launch vehicle successes, so I'm at 98 rather than 100 by that criteria, but the real story is that today was the 75th Falcon 9 v1.2 success.   75 successes in less than five years.  I'm not sure that any previous specific U.S. launch vehicle variant has made that mark.

 - Ed Kyle

[Robotbeat]

Agree about your latter point. Falcon 9 is now a highly reliable AND high cadence AND extremely low cost (per kg IMLEO) launch vehicle. No rocket has ever gotten to that point.

I count 80 consecutive successful launches of F9/FH if we don't count AMOS which wasn't technically a launch attempt.

[DreamyPickle]

Counting CRS-1 as a success makes sense because the primary mission was achieved.

Counting Zuma as a success makes sense because all information points to payload failure.

The only one that shouldn't count is the in-flight abort test because it didn't even get close to a stable orbit. Did they even have a real second stage?

But more launches are upcoming which will make these arguments obsolete. A few years ago their competitors branded themselves as the "reliable option" providing "schedule assurance" as a justification for high prices, this argument has all but evaporated. Most likely in 2021 we will seen Falcon 9 reach a higher launch count that Ariane 5, and with a better reliability record!

Arguments about the financial viability of reuse still hinge on the commercial success of Starlink but the reliability record of reused stages so far is 100%, beating expectations by quite a bit. We've recently seen SpaceX refly old boosters as the new ones were waiting on ground for investigations.

[CJ]

I think this is a great milestone, but, I agree with others here who have differing criteria on some launches.

IMHO, if you can count the in flight abort, you can also count other SpaceX launches like Grasshopper, and the Dragon pad abort test - and Starship hops.

Looks to me (from the first two pics) like they included at least two F1 flights? But, only one of them was successful. I was wrong, 2 were successful. Thanks, Comega, for the correction.

The milestone I'm waiting for, though, is 100 successful flights on F9/FH. (Which are both F9 based). Per Wikipedia and others, there have been 99 F9/FH flights (not counting IFA) one of which was CRS-7, so 98 successes. Not long to go!

And, nostalgia time; I remember all the dismissiveness on the internet just a few years back, about the preposterous notion that SpaceX could achieve a launch cadence of once a month. How times have changed.

[david1971]

The number that surprised me was that the Falcon 9 reflights outnumber the total number of Delta IV launches.

[Comga]

snip

Looks to me (from the first two pics) like they included at least two F1 flights? But, only one of them was successful.

Sandbagarama!

The fourth AND fifth Falcon 1 flights were successful.
CRS-1 was a success.  NASA rules prevented SpaceX from conducting a secondary mission after the success of the primary mission.
The IDA?  Whatever.  Is it in the 100?
I agree with DreamyPickle.  Think how silly this discussion will be by December.
Who will be arguing whether the 100th successful flight happened in October or November?
Let's just toast to 100 great flights. 

[su27k]

And, nostalgia time; I remember all the dismissiveness on the internet just a few years back, about the preposterous notion that SpaceX could achieve a launch cadence of once a month. How times have changed.

And how much it didn't change, there're still plenty of naysayers out there, they just moved their target from F9 to Starship.

[smoliarm]

...
... A few years ago their competitors branded themselves as the "reliable option" providing "schedule assurance" as a justification for high prices, this argument has all but evaporated. Most likely in 2021 we will seen Falcon 9 reach a higher launch count that Ariane 5, and with a better reliability record!

...

>... this argument has all but evaporated
- it did not, because -
*** one hiccup do not cross out the whole launch record history.
*** to reach the same level of schedule assurance SpaceX have to accumulate - comparable history.

>Most likely in 2021 we will seen Falcon 9 reach a higher launch count that Ariane 5
- most likely.

>and with a better reliability record!
- no.
Both Ariane 5 and Falcon 9 had payload lost early in their flight career.
The numbers are equal - two by two.
Both Ariane 5 and Falcon 9 had notable *incidents* where primary payload reached its destination.
The exact numbers here depend on what we agree to call "partial failure" or "partial success", which makes numerical comparison impossible (or impractical in my opinion). The only reasonable point here is "the numbers of notable launch incidents are LOW FOR BOTH ROCKETS".
So, in my view, Falcon 9 achieved (or about to achieve) matching reliability record with Ariane 5.
Which is REALLY a great milestone.
But "better"? - no.

[Nomadd]

 I haven't counted them up in a while, but they must be pretty close to the 1,000th M1D flight. They did shut one down because of a bad sensor reading, but it would have probably been fine if they'd let it go because a shutdown would have cost the mission.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

YouTube version

[Jarnis]

The only one that shouldn't count is the in-flight abort test because it didn't even get close to a stable orbit. Did they even have a real second stage?

It was otherwise a real stage, fully fueled, but with a mass simulator in place of an engine to save some money and not throw away a Vac Merlin for no reason.

There is also a clip of it impacting the ocean and blowing up nicely on impact, so it actually survived the abort intact.

But yes, argument can be made that it should not count as it wasn't an orbital flight.

[ThePonjaX]

I have checked the twitter post, the Instagram post and the youtube video and in all them they put: 100 successful flights.

They never said orbital, so they can be right here to include the 2 we're questioning.

[baldusi]

I haven't counted them up in a while, but they must be pretty close to the 1,000th M1D flight. They did shut one down because of a bad sensor reading, but it would have probably been fine if they'd let it go because a shutdown would have cost the mission.

Well, I count 984 full duration Merlin 1D missions (I'm excluding AMOS and IFA). You had the early shutdown on Satlink-5, and CRS-7 first stage had no problem but technically didn't reached full mission duration. Not any of Merlin's fault, of course. So you could say that 983 missions, if you assume CRS-7 was success for first stage, 974 if not. And if you want to consider IFA a success (it was well short of full mission duration), then add +9.
So you need either 2 or 3 more flights for 1000th successful Merlin 1D full duration missions.

[Robotbeat]

...
... A few years ago their competitors branded themselves as the "reliable option" providing "schedule assurance" as a justification for high prices, this argument has all but evaporated. Most likely in 2021 we will seen Falcon 9 reach a higher launch count that Ariane 5, and with a better reliability record!

...

>... this argument has all but evaporated
- it did not, because -
*** one hiccup do not cross out the whole launch record history.
*** to reach the same level of schedule assurance SpaceX have to accumulate - comparable history.

>Most likely in 2021 we will seen Falcon 9 reach a higher launch count that Ariane 5
- most likely.

>and with a better reliability record!
- no.
Both Ariane 5 and Falcon 9 had payload lost early in their flight career.
The numbers are equal - two by two.
Both Ariane 5 and Falcon 9 had notable *incidents* where primary payload reached its destination.
The exact numbers here depend on what we agree to call "partial failure" or "partial success", which makes numerical comparison impossible (or impractical in my opinion). The only reasonable point here is "the numbers of notable launch incidents are LOW FOR BOTH ROCKETS".
So, in my view, Falcon 9 achieved (or about to achieve) matching reliability record with Ariane 5.
Which is REALLY a great milestone.
But "better"? - no.

What matters is consecutive successes.

Additionally: I think Falcon 9 v1.0 is kind of a separate vehicle from those beyond. (New engines on both stages, roughly twice the thrust, extremely different thrust structure, different upper stage TVC system, the presence of an actual fairing, etc.) Atlas III and V have approximately as many similarities as the original v1.0 and the current Falcon 9. So regardless of whether OR NOT you count those first 5 flights really oughtn't make a difference to the current reliability estimate.

[Comga]

What matters is consecutive successes.

Lighten up!
Do you tell nine year olds that their birthday isn't really important but their tenth will be?
SpaceX counts this as their 100th successful launch and is celebrating.
It's a nice collage and an enjoyable video.
All these other criteria are relevant to other discussions.
Here's to 200 successful launches!

[ClayJar]

Do you tell nine year olds that their birthday isn't really important but their tenth will be?

Of course not, but if you really want me to believe that 8th grade deserves a graduation...

Seriously, though, I think everyone has a point here.  We shouldn't just celebrate 100 successful flights without serious consideration.  I mean, the in-flight abort wasn't orbital, so should we count that?  Do we count Falcon 1, even though it only had 11% of the first-stage engines of a Falcon 9?  Do we count Falcon Heavy in the same batch as Falcon 9?  Do we count a successful flight where the secondary payload was not deployed due to ISS-related constraints? Do we count a successful flight where deployment apparently failed due to a third-party issue?  Do we count the original Falcon 9 Stubby with its tic-tac-toe engine arrangement?

Well, since Major League Baseball is currently in the middle of the World Series, I think the only appropriate response is to follow the traditions of baseball records and celebrate *ALL* the milestones.  It is quipped that everything is a record in baseball, with the significance being inversely related to the length of the description -- "Most home runs" is signficant, "Most home runs in the last five seasons" a bit less, "Most home runs by a right-handed second baseman facing left-handed pitching in National League play after the All-Star break"... well, that's nice.

Now	100 Successful Flights
+1	100 Successful Orbital Flights
+2	100 Successful Falcon 9/Heavy Flights
+3	100 Successful Falcon 9/Heavy Orbital Flights
+5	100 Successful Falcon 9 Flights
+6	100 Successful Falcon 9 Orbital Flights
+7	100 Successful Falcon 9 Orbital Flights, including secondary payloads
+8	100 Successful Falcon 9 Orbital Flights, including secondary payloads and spacecraft deployment
+9	100 Successful Falcon 9 Orbital Flights, including secondary payloads and spacecraft deployment, without engine issues (e.g. cleaning fluid in a sensor dead leg)
+10	100 Successful Octawebbed Falcon 9 Flights
+11	100 Successful Octawebbed Falcon 9 Orbital Flights
. . .	Ad nauseum per aspera

Or, in other words, Congratulations, SpaceX!