Retiring Falcon 9 first stages vs expending?

[Lee Jay]

Total dry mass sent to the vast briny by these launchers:   13,514 tons

And by the "couple orders of magnitude " thing, we'll need a 1.3 million ton scuttled ship.

The thought is correct (that ship wrecks drastically exceed rocket stages by mass) but the statement was still technically incorrect as you said.

[Jim]

I guess at some point the industry is going to want to start thinking about responsible disposal.

SpaceX are starting to explore "reduce" (rideshares) and are leading the way on "reuse". The next step will probably be "recycle", with end-of-life boosters being stripped down to raw materials.

Dumping stages into the ocean will at some point come to be be viewed as environmental vandalism, I suspect.

No different than letting upper stages or spacecraft burn up

I don't agree, Jim.

A suborbital entry will result in the vast majority of the materials hitting the ocean intact.

An orbital entry will cause a lot of the material to be vaporized.

Not the same thing.

Both are still pollution, whether it is air or water.

[chopsticks]

I guess at some point the industry is going to want to start thinking about responsible disposal.

SpaceX are starting to explore "reduce" (rideshares) and are leading the way on "reuse". The next step will probably be "recycle", with end-of-life boosters being stripped down to raw materials.

Dumping stages into the ocean will at some point come to be be viewed as environmental vandalism, I suspect.

No different than letting upper stages or spacecraft burn up

I don't agree, Jim.

A suborbital entry will result in the vast majority of the materials hitting the ocean intact.

An orbital entry will cause a lot of the material to be vaporized.

Not the same thing.

Both are still pollution, whether it is air or water.

I think the argument really is "What kind of pollution is environmentally worse/better"?

[Rebel44]

What is the real consideration for "end of life?" Reusing a booster until it fails in flight seems a no-go, no one wants to lose a payload like that. That doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room to determine end of life. End of design life is easier but makes it hard to determine if booster can fly beyond end of design life. Perhaps exhaustive testing at McGregor of some retired boosters? I don't know quite how the math would fall out using that approach but it does seem that it would be a doable/convincing way to determine what the real reliability curve would look like for old boosters.

Maybe a complete teardown and inspection would be effective but that way still leaves one wondering if the component part specifications were the correct values. Maybe the correct values are easy to determine, but rocket science and easy don't seem to me to belong in the same sentence.

I would expect that SpaceX will still occasionally have missions that require expanding a booster - since boosters vary in age, number of flights, ease of refurbishment, etc. I would expect that a mix of those factors would result in the selection of which boosters will be picked for such missions.

And if SpaceX determines that after X (let's say 30) launches boosters would need a lot of work to continue to fly safely, they might keep them handy and fly them expendable on missions (likely Starlink) whenever they expect bad recovery weather.

[AC in NC]

And if SpaceX determines that after X (let's say 30) launches boosters would need a lot of work to continue to fly safely, they might keep them handy and fly them expendable on missions (likely Starlink) whenever they expect bad recovery weather.

I can't help really wanting them to keep one life-leader they never expend.  Keep really good documentation on what they find after each incremental recovery.  Presuming they weren't being taken into non-economic territory due to refurbishment costs, the empirical results might be a gold mine versus making a decision to expend.

Maybe that's just a fan-boy mentality and it would never be worth the risk of losing a batch of Starlinks but it's how I feel.

[DanClemmensen]

And if SpaceX determines that after X (let's say 30) launches boosters would need a lot of work to continue to fly safely, they might keep them handy and fly them expendable on missions (likely Starlink) whenever they expect bad recovery weather.

I can't help really wanting them to keep one life-leader they never expend.  Keep really good documentation on what they find after each incremental recovery.  Presuming they weren't being taken into non-economic territory due to refurbishment costs, the empirical results might be a gold mine versus making a decision to expend.

Maybe that's just a fan-boy mentality and it would never be worth the risk of losing a batch of Starlinks but it's how I feel.

What is the expected number of remaining F9 launches, and what is the expected aggregate life expectancy of the current fleet? As Starship begins to replace F9 we can expect the F9 launch rate to drop, until only long-term commitments, if any,  remain. So let's speculate like crazy:
(these are booster counts of F9 + FH sides but not FH cores.)
2022: 40 launches. Minor Starship replacement to make up for an increased number of total launches)
2023: 30 launches. More replacement
2024: 20 launches.  Yet more replacement. This is conservative and is mostly expended to get rid of them
2025: 4 launches. 2 cargo dragon, 2 crew dragon, or maybe on NSSL FH. Flown on Falcon due to contracts. All others replaced by Starship)
2026: 2 crew dragon. CRS has move to Starship, NASA has not qualified Starship for crew to ISS. 2, not 1 because NASA is avoiding Starliner due to cost.
2027: 2 crew dragon. As above.
2028: 2 crew dragon As above.
2029 and onward: 0.  NASA has finally qualified Starship for crewed ISS, or SpaceX declined to bid F9/crew Dragon for further flights.

Total remaining launches: 100.

There are roughly ten boosters in the active fleet. They must launch an average of ten more times each. No new boosters are needed.

[RedLineTrain]

In any event, it is shortsighted to focus on the pollution caused by the launch.  The embedded energy in these rockets and satellites is immense and where the vast majority of pollution is caused.

[Michael S]

And if SpaceX determines that after X (let's say 30) launches boosters would need a lot of work to continue to fly safely, they might keep them handy and fly them expendable on missions (likely Starlink) whenever they expect bad recovery weather.

I can't help really wanting them to keep one life-leader they never expend.  Keep really good documentation on what they find after each incremental recovery.  Presuming they weren't being taken into non-economic territory due to refurbishment costs, the empirical results might be a gold mine versus making a decision to expend.

Maybe that's just a fan-boy mentality and it would never be worth the risk of losing a batch of Starlinks but it's how I feel.

What is the expected number of remaining F9 launches, and what is the expected aggregate life expectancy of the current fleet? As Starship begins to replace F9 we can expect the F9 launch rate to drop, until only long-term commitments, if any,  remain. So let's speculate like crazy:
(these are booster counts of F9 + FH sides but not FH cores.)
2022: 40 launches. Minor Starship replacement to make up for an increased number of total launches)
2023: 30 launches. More replacement
2024: 20 launches.  Yet more replacement. This is conservative and is mostly expended to get rid of them
2025: 4 launches. 2 cargo dragon, 2 crew dragon, or maybe on NSSL FH. Flown on Falcon due to contracts. All others replaced by Starship)
2026: 2 crew dragon. CRS has move to Starship, NASA has not qualified Starship for crew to ISS. 2, not 1 because NASA is avoiding Starliner due to cost.
2027: 2 crew dragon. As above.
2028: 2 crew dragon As above.
2029 and onward: 0.  NASA has finally qualified Starship for crewed ISS, or SpaceX declined to bid F9/crew Dragon for further flights.

Total remaining launches: 100.

There are roughly ten boosters in the active fleet. They must launch an average of ten more times each. No new boosters are needed.

I like your optimism regarding Starship replacing Falcon9, but I believe there will be more non-Starlink flights. For example, Despite all the really nifty renders, I’m just not sure how realistic it is having Starship docking at the ISS. Also, without a proven launch abort system(1) NASA will not certify their astronauts and I’m fairly certain that the FAA will not certify either. 

(1) I know I’m sounding a bit negative, but I cannot recall any discussion in an official capacity regarding launch abort with Starship. I know it will happen eventually, but it may still be more than 4 years away.

Edit: had to correctly spell “abort”

[DanClemmensen]

And if SpaceX determines that after X (let's say 30) launches boosters would need a lot of work to continue to fly safely, they might keep them handy and fly them expendable on missions (likely Starlink) whenever they expect bad recovery weather.

I can't help really wanting them to keep one life-leader they never expend.  Keep really good documentation on what they find after each incremental recovery.  Presuming they weren't being taken into non-economic territory due to refurbishment costs, the empirical results might be a gold mine versus making a decision to expend.

Maybe that's just a fan-boy mentality and it would never be worth the risk of losing a batch of Starlinks but it's how I feel.

What is the expected number of remaining F9 launches, and what is the expected aggregate life expectancy of the current fleet? As Starship begins to replace F9 we can expect the F9 launch rate to drop, until only long-term commitments, if any,  remain. So let's speculate like crazy:
(these are booster counts of F9 + FH sides but not FH cores.)
2022: 40 launches. Minor Starship replacement to make up for an increased number of total launches)
2023: 30 launches. More replacement
2024: 20 launches.  Yet more replacement. This is conservative and is mostly expended to get rid of them
2025: 4 launches. 2 cargo dragon, 2 crew dragon, or maybe on NSSL FH. Flown on Falcon due to contracts. All others replaced by Starship)
2026: 2 crew dragon. CRS has move to Starship, NASA has not qualified Starship for crew to ISS. 2, not 1 because NASA is avoiding Starliner due to cost.
2027: 2 crew dragon. As above.
2028: 2 crew dragon As above.
2029 and onward: 0.  NASA has finally qualified Starship for crewed ISS, or SpaceX declined to bid F9/crew Dragon for further flights.

Total remaining launches: 100.

There are roughly ten boosters in the active fleet. They must launch an average of ten more times each. No new boosters are needed.

I like your optimism regarding Starship replacing Falcon9, but I believe there will be more non-Starlink flights. For example, Despite all the really nifty renders, I’m just not sure how realistic it is having Starship docking at the ISS. Also, without a proven launch abort system(1) NASA will not certify their astronauts and I’m fairly certain that the FAA will not certify either. 

(1) I know I’m sounding a bit negative, but I cannot recall any discussion in an official capacity regarding launch about with Starship. I know it will happen eventually, but it may still be more than 4 years away.

I thought I was being extremely conservative on this point. I left all crewed ISS flights on F9 until 2029. I also have 2 crewed flight/yr until 2029, i.e., not shared with any spacecraft.  I did not permit Starship to dock with ISS until 2026.

If NASA thinks Starship is too big to dock with ISS, then some clever engineer will build a trivial transfer module to move cargo between Starship and ISS  after Starship closes to 500 meters of ISS. Much cheaper than expending an F9 second stage.

If NASA refuses to certify Starship for crew, then Artemis is in big trouble (no HLS) and Elon's Mars dreams are also in trouble. However, it has almost no impact on F9 replacement. I do not think SpaceX will bid on a Crew Dragon extension if Crew Dragon is the only F9 customer after 2029.

Your gut feelings on these subjects are just as valid as mine, though.

[Michael S]

If NASA refuses to certify Starship for crew, then Artemis is in big trouble (no HLS) and Elon's Mars dreams are also in trouble.

I was only referring to ‘Earth launch abort’ with Starship, not anything else.

It’s a bit odd when you think about it, but for right now, mid-flight launch abort only works here on Earth.

[Brovane]

because of it's status as the Demo-2 booster with the NASA worm logo

Why?  The propensity to make "historic" every novel thing and to save it somewhere doesn't do anything towards regularizing space science, access, and travel.  Which I think is a long term goal or desire of most of the fans here. 

I believe that the sooner we stop making celebrities out of astronauts, and the sooner we fly more and more and more until we can't remember who did what or which rocket went where anymore, that the closer we'll be to truly becoming a space-faring species. 

Quit bronzing all the baby shoes and get on with launching until it won't go anymore, then get another.

NASA certainly made a big deal out the first Demo-2 mission.  Do you remember all the #LaunchAmerica campaign?

[DanClemmensen]

If NASA refuses to certify Starship for crew, then Artemis is in big trouble (no HLS) and Elon's Mars dreams are also in trouble.

I was only referring to ‘Earth launch abort’ with Starship, not anything else.

It’s a bit odd when you think about it, but for right now, mid-flight launch abort only works here on Earth.

If NASA/FAA cannot agree that the Starship stage is its own LAS (similar to Shuttle) by about 2024, then SpaceX will need to begin design of another way to get crew to LEO where they can join the Mars ships. I'm sure a team of professionals can produce a design for this that works well, but here is a trivial design concept.  The ship will carry some number of escape capsules. Each escape capsule will carry some number of crew, and can launch itself away from the ship on its own LAS thrusters for either a splashdown under parachutes or an abort to orbit. Five capsules with four crew each should be easily achievable but a real aerospace engineer will almost certainly be able to do better.

If this ship is designed for it, those modules can also decouple and rejoin the ship and each module slot on the ship can carry either a crew capsule or a cargo capsule.  Although designed primarily to carry crew up to a Mars ship, it can also carry crew and cargo modules to ISS. Each ISS flight carries one crew module and one cargo module. The "old" modules detach ISS and the "new" modules detach from  the ship.
The modules swap places and the ship comes back home.

I am NOT an aerospace engineer and I do NOT wish to defend this specific concept. I am trying to point out that your objections are not insurmountable in the timeframe of F9 retirement. They might or might not be problems to solve, but they are not showstoppers.

[Surfdaddy]

And if SpaceX determines that after X (let's say 30) launches boosters would need a lot of work to continue to fly safely, they might keep them handy and fly them expendable on missions (likely Starlink) whenever they expect bad recovery weather.

I can't help really wanting them to keep one life-leader they never expend.  Keep really good documentation on what they find after each incremental recovery.  Presuming they weren't being taken into non-economic territory due to refurbishment costs, the empirical results might be a gold mine versus making a decision to expend.

Maybe that's just a fan-boy mentality and it would never be worth the risk of losing a batch of Starlinks but it's how I feel.

What is the expected number of remaining F9 launches, and what is the expected aggregate life expectancy of the current fleet? As Starship begins to replace F9 we can expect the F9 launch rate to drop, until only long-term commitments, if any,  remain. So let's speculate like crazy:
(these are booster counts of F9 + FH sides but not FH cores.)
2022: 40 launches. Minor Starship replacement to make up for an increased number of total launches)
2023: 30 launches. More replacement
2024: 20 launches.  Yet more replacement. This is conservative and is mostly expended to get rid of them
2025: 4 launches. 2 cargo dragon, 2 crew dragon, or maybe on NSSL FH. Flown on Falcon due to contracts. All others replaced by Starship)
2026: 2 crew dragon. CRS has move to Starship, NASA has not qualified Starship for crew to ISS. 2, not 1 because NASA is avoiding Starliner due to cost.
2027: 2 crew dragon. As above.
2028: 2 crew dragon As above.
2029 and onward: 0.  NASA has finally qualified Starship for crewed ISS, or SpaceX declined to bid F9/crew Dragon for further flights.

Total remaining launches: 100.

There are roughly ten boosters in the active fleet. They must launch an average of ten more times each. No new boosters are needed.

My gut feeling is that F9 continues with a far longer lifetime than many are speculating:
1 - Starship likely takes longer than expected
2 - Starship doesn't yet have the reliablity record of F9, will take time
3 - Crewed flight. This includes a lot more Inspiration 4 type missions
4 - It's hard to imagine SpaceX abandoning a capability that is still leagues better than any other provider can currently provide in many ways. At least anytime soon. SpaceX is likely a decade ahead of competitors, but who knows?

[DanClemmensen]

And if SpaceX determines that after X (let's say 30) launches boosters would need a lot of work to continue to fly safely, they might keep them handy and fly them expendable on missions (likely Starlink) whenever they expect bad recovery weather.

I can't help really wanting them to keep one life-leader they never expend.  Keep really good documentation on what they find after each incremental recovery.  Presuming they weren't being taken into non-economic territory due to refurbishment costs, the empirical results might be a gold mine versus making a decision to expend.

Maybe that's just a fan-boy mentality and it would never be worth the risk of losing a batch of Starlinks but it's how I feel.

What is the expected number of remaining F9 launches, and what is the expected aggregate life expectancy of the current fleet? As Starship begins to replace F9 we can expect the F9 launch rate to drop, until only long-term commitments, if any,  remain. So let's speculate like crazy:
(these are booster counts of F9 + FH sides but not FH cores.)
2022: 40 launches. Minor Starship replacement to make up for an increased number of total launches)
2023: 30 launches. More replacement
2024: 20 launches.  Yet more replacement. This is conservative and is mostly expended to get rid of them
2025: 4 launches. 2 cargo dragon, 2 crew dragon, or maybe on NSSL FH. Flown on Falcon due to contracts. All others replaced by Starship)
2026: 2 crew dragon. CRS has move to Starship, NASA has not qualified Starship for crew to ISS. 2, not 1 because NASA is avoiding Starliner due to cost.
2027: 2 crew dragon. As above.
2028: 2 crew dragon As above.
2029 and onward: 0.  NASA has finally qualified Starship for crewed ISS, or SpaceX declined to bid F9/crew Dragon for further flights.

Total remaining launches: 100.

There are roughly ten boosters in the active fleet. They must launch an average of ten more times each. No new boosters are needed.

My gut feeling is that F9 continues with a far longer lifetime than many are speculating:
1 - Starship likely takes longer than expected

Maybe. That's why I started in 2023 instead of 2022.

2 - Starship doesn't yet have the reliability record of F9, will take time

Maybe. That's why my replacement ramp-up takes several years.

3 - Crewed flight. This includes a lot more Inspiration 4 type missions

Possibly.  I factored this into the ramp-up. Those missions remain on F9 through 2024. If Starship cannot get NASA/FAA approval for DearMoon and equivalent by 2025, then add some F9 flights. How many?

4 - It's hard to imagine SpaceX abandoning a capability that is still leagues better than any other provider can currently provide in many ways. At least anytime soon. SpaceX is likely a decade ahead of competitors, but who knows?

Why is this hard to imagine? SpaceX believes that they will make a larger profit by replacing an F9 launch with a Starship launch, for any F9 launch, and as the F9 launch rate goes down the F9 fixed operations go up.

Hey, I'm just one guy. Your opinions are as good as mine.

[alugobi]

because of it's status as the Demo-2 booster with the NASA worm logo

Why?  The propensity to make "historic" every novel thing and to save it somewhere doesn't do anything towards regularizing space science, access, and travel.  Which I think is a long term goal or desire of most of the fans here. 

I believe that the sooner we stop making celebrities out of astronauts, and the sooner we fly more and more and more until we can't remember who did what or which rocket went where anymore, that the closer we'll be to truly becoming a space-faring species. 

Quit bronzing all the baby shoes and get on with launching until it won't go anymore, then get another.

NASA certainly made a big deal out the first Demo-2 mission.  Do you remember all the #LaunchAmerica campaign?

Yes, and it was over-the-top rah-rah stupid.  The very thing that I advocate must stop. 

They still do it.  You'd think that they feel that they'll lose their budget or that their launch provider will quit them if they don't over-talk, over-dramatize, over-flag wave each one of their missions. 

Instead of maturing their accomplishments into the realm of the routine, worthy of celebration for the very achievements that they are, a function of unparalleled institutional memory and expertise, they continue to try to sell them like fast talking car salespersons.  The next great thing!  Even more terrific than before!  Don't miss it!  Order now, operators are standing by!

[AC in NC]

I can't help really wanting them to keep one life-leader they never expend.  Keep really good documentation on what they find after each incremental recovery.  Presuming they weren't being taken into non-economic territory due to refurbishment costs, the empirical results might be a gold mine versus making a decision to expend.

Maybe that's just a fan-boy mentality and it would never be worth the risk of losing a batch of Starlinks but it's how I feel.

What is the expected number of remaining F9 launches, and what is the expected aggregate life expectancy of the current fleet?

Excellent point I was myopically overlooking.  What an embarrassment of riches that the 1st ever reusable orbital class booster likely will never have its capability determined because SpaceX obsoleted it with a cheaper monster.

[Jim]

Yes, and it was over-the-top rah-rah stupid.  The very thing that I advocate must stop. 

WRONG.  After an absence of an American crew launcher for more than 10 years, it was a milestone worth celebrating.  Additionally, it was the first commercial crew vehicle which was another milestone that could stand on its own.ib

Things that don't need celebrating are Starlink launches, booster landings, CRS missions, etc

[Jim]

Total remaining launches: 100.

There are roughly ten boosters in the active fleet. They must launch an average of ten more times each. No new boosters are needed.

Both are wrong. 

there are more than 60 launches scheduled in the next three year

ten boosters is not enough for 100 missions.  You are forgetting about Heavy missions and expended missions.

[Jim]

If NASA refuses to certify Starship for crew, then Artemis is in big trouble (no HLS) and Elon's Mars dreams are also in trouble. However, it has almost no impact on F9 replacement. I do not think SpaceX will bid on a Crew Dragon extension if Crew Dragon is the only F9 customer after 2029.

No, Starship doesn't have to be certified for launch to be used on HLS..  Musk's Mars dreams are independent of NASA certification.   

[DanClemmensen]

Total remaining launches: 100.

There are roughly ten boosters in the active fleet. They must launch an average of ten more times each. No new boosters are needed.

Both are wrong. 

there are more than 60 launches scheduled in the next three year

ten boosters is not enough for 100 missions.  You are forgetting about Heavy missions and expended missions.

JIm, I may very well be wrong. However, My timeline showed 40+20+30 = 90 F9's in the next three years, not just 60. I did not neglect the FH or the expendables. The FH sides (2 per FH launch) are counted in that count of 90, which is a booster count, not a launch count. The expendables are counted in the average remaining launches per booster. They will need an average of 10 additional flights each. The fleet seems to have a current average flight count of about 6, so with none expended the average would need to go to 16, or if you expend half of them on the first remaining flight the average would need to go to about 25. Note also that SpaceX has not actually quit building F9 boosters as far as I know. They will need to continue to build FH cores.