Reusing Boosters: Launch, Land, and Re-Launch

[Grendal]

Definitely agree that Starlink payloads are the only ones that will fly on the more umm... mature boosters. If they get to 5 and up, it is on Starlink missions.

I'll answer this here since it is more relevant on this thread.

Too true. I think buyers are comfortable with the first, second, or third launch of a booster. Four or more is pushing it until there is lots of examples of those having no issues. The reality is that there have been zero issues with a payload reaching its intended orbit. So their fears are unjustified until proven otherwise. The other fact is that there are enough boosters available for now to cover any and all commercial launches needed. SpaceX has six more new boosters coming from all the crew launches. Probably a few more from military launches where new is also insisted upon. That will cover about 50 more launches at least.

 

[Cosmacelf]

I'll answer this here since it is more relevant on this thread.

Too true. I think buyers are comfortable with the first, second, or third launch of a booster. Four or more is pushing it until there is lots of examples of those having no issues. The reality is that there have been zero issues with a payload reaching its intended orbit. So their fears are unjustified until proven otherwise. The other fact is that there are enough boosters available for now to cover any and all commercial launches needed. SpaceX has six more new boosters coming from all the crew launches. Probably a few more from military launches where new is also insisted upon. That will cover about 50 more launches at least.

Yes, leave it to the government to insist on paying the highest price option, whether they need it or not.

 

[adiggs]

Yes, leave it to the government to insist on paying the highest price option, whether they need it or not.

And I'm thinking this makes SpaceX look pretty brilliant. Government buys the new booster - use it to launch 1 or 2 other commercial payloads, and then use it up launching SpaceX's own payloads for ~cost of fuel (I know it's more, but it's a lot less than also paying for a whole rocket).

With enough repetition and success, I figure that 4-5 launch limit in some peoples minds will expand to 7 or 8 launches. Any bets on whether Block 5 will eventually stretch beyond the 10 launch design target (say 15 or 20 launches)?

 

[Grendal]

And I'm thinking this makes SpaceX look pretty brilliant. Government buys the new booster - use it to launch 1 or 2 other commercial payloads, and then use it up launching SpaceX's own payloads for ~cost of fuel (I know it's more, but it's a lot less than also paying for a whole rocket).

With enough repetition and success, I figure that 4-5 launch limit in some peoples minds will expand to 7 or 8 launches. Any bets on whether Block 5 will eventually stretch beyond the 10 launch design target (say 15 or 20 launches)?

I certainly hope to be around long enough to see it happen.

 

[e-FTW]

I certainly hope to be around long enough to see it happen.

I hope to be around long enough to see them reach 100 total per booster, which is what was said a while ago as the ultimate lifespan with refurbishment at every 10 launches...
Even I find that notion funny.

In the end, as with many of the ambitious targets set by Elon, even 10 may not happen before Falcon 9 is superseded by something better/more economical: in this case Starship. But all is not lost: considering the many potential points of failure, the insane goal is probably what makes getting to 10 even possible.

1. Design for 100, get to 10 (or 5 frankly)
2. Destroy the competition on the way
3. Profit

 

[dpodoll]

Okay. Now SpaceX has three of these. Elon said at the news conference after the CRS-8 landing that they would re-launch one of these in June. Hopefully we'll see some activity happening with these in the near future. The first step is a multi-burn static test fire to test the engines.

We also know that the first one (Orbcomm) is going to be going to Hawthorne and parked outside the factory. SpaceX is just waiting on permits and an okay from the city and the FAA.

View attachment 176853 View attachment 176854

Maybe they are building a heavy for display at Hawthorne

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I hope to be around long enough to see them reach 100 total per booster, which is what was said a while ago as the ultimate lifespan with refurbishment at every 10 launches...
Even I find that notion funny.

In the end, as with many of the ambitious targets set by Elon, even 10 may not happen before Falcon 9 is superseded by something better/more economical: in this case Starship. But all is not lost: considering the many potential points of failure, the insane goal is probably what makes getting to 10 even possible.

1. Design for 100, get to 10 (or 5 frankly)
2. Destroy the competition on the way
3. Profit

I think the next old booster will end up close to the 10. SpaceX has an excellent pattern of making mistakes once.

 

[bxr140]

And I'm thinking this makes SpaceX look pretty brilliant. Government buys the new booster - use it to launch 1 or 2 other commercial payloads, and then use it up launching SpaceX's own payloads for ~cost of fuel (I know it's more, but it's a lot less than also paying for a whole rocket).

Yup. And for better or worse, IMHO F9 reuse on the initial Starlink deployment is going to be one of the biggest hurdles for Starship development to overcome. For an initial constellation of ~thousands its actually hard for me to to imagine Starship playing a major role vs reused F9's. Since Starlink needs to make money and Starship is really about Mars (and not Starlink) AND the gazillion-sat Starlink constellation is questionable so the demand may not be there for a bunch of Starships (which is necessary to drive down its recurring cost), its not too difficult to see a future for Starship that's not quite as agressive as intimated. As a complementary if not curious pheonmenon, the industry isn't really talking about Starship the way they are with NG. Certainly different strokes for different companies, but NG's manifest is starting to get built out whereas any discussions with SpaceX are pretty much all about F9 (not even FH).

With enough repetition and success, I figure that 4-5 launch limit in some peoples minds will expand to 7 or 8 launches. Any bets on whether Block 5 will eventually stretch beyond the 10 launch design target (say 15 or 20 launches)?

I wouldn't bet against it, that's for sure. SpaceX is always evolving; they're almost certainly going to come up with some refurb plan that targets wear items on a timeline informed by empirical evidence. As I've suggested before here [IMHO] F9 is going to be the workhorse for many years to come. Further success for the F9 program will come from continued reduction in recurring cost, and that will come in large part from stretching useful life of the hardware. And that reduction in recurring cost is going to further raise the bar that Starship must overcome...

 

[adiggs]

And that reduction in recurring cost is going to further raise the bar that Starship must overcome...

What a gloriously high bar F9 is setting, for SpaceX or anybody else to clear.

 

[MichaelP90DL]

Maybe they are building a heavy for display at Hawthorne

That would be cool!

 

[mongo]

Yup. And for better or worse, IMHO F9 reuse on the initial Starlink deployment is going to be one of the biggest hurdles for Starship development to overcome. For an initial constellation of ~thousands its actually hard for me to to imagine Starship playing a major role vs reused F9's. Since Starlink needs to make money and Starship is really about Mars (and not Starlink) AND the gazillion-sat Starlink constellation is questionable so the demand may not be there for a bunch of Starships (which is necessary to drive down its recurring cost), its not too difficult to see a future for Starship that's not quite as agressive as intimated.

Ya lost me. If you are assuming Starlink isn't going to grow to the advertised size, that reduces the overall launches, but cutting cost per launch is always a good thing. Even if you use a fully paid off F9 first stage, you still have the cost of the second stage, Helium, fairing or fairing recovery, and booster recovery. With Starship+SH, you have no added costs(assuming equivalent fuel, restacking and range costs). Starship can put up at least double the number of sats per launch (based on F9 vs SS fairing internal clear diameter). This is an important metric when dealing with neighbors and launch intervals. Starship/SH also helps in this regard with launch site diversity since it doesn't need the same ground support nor transporters.

Mars is going to require a lot of Starships, so they, and the manufacturing infrastructure, will exist regardless. Starlink launches can be part of new ship validation.

$900k in fuel, $2 million launch cost estimate for Starship: SpaceX's Starship May Fly for Just $2 Million Per Mission, Elon Musk Says | Space
Goal of $5 million to build a Starship: SpaceX's Factory Can Build A Starship Rocket Every 72 Hours | Digital Trends

Raptor cost is tracking to well under $1M for V1.0. Goal is <$250k for V2.0 is a 250 ton thrust-optimized engine, ie <$1000/ton

Elon Musk on Twitter

 

[Grendal]

Maybe they are building a heavy for display at Hawthorne

I really doubt it. They do have the two side boosters (not Block 5) from the original FH launch sitting around though.

 

[bxr140]

Ya lost me.

You didn't. We're simply in different places on the same spectrum of plausibility.

Specifically:

$900k in fuel, $2 million launch cost estimate for Starship: SpaceX's Starship May Fly for Just $2 Million Per Mission, Elon Musk Says | Space
Goal of $5 million to build a Starship: SpaceX's Factory Can Build A Starship Rocket Every 72 Hours | Digital Trends
Elon Musk on Twitter

I think we can all agree those are standard ElonCo reach-for-the-stars-but-never-gonna-happen-and-at-some-point-we'll-pull-them-back numbers that create one bookend of the aforementioned spectrum of plausibility.

The real question is: How close can Starship realistically come with non-recurring and recurring cost to those targets? I won't belabor the points I've made elsewhere in more topical threads, but I will reiterate that improving the re-use capability of F9 represents one of the biggest competitions to Starship.

 

[ecarfan]

At this point we know what Elon’s aspirational cost goals for Starship are. We know what the current launch costs are for the F9 but don’t yet know how many times the boosters are reusable with “minimal refurbishment” nor do we know what the actual reuse costs will be long term. So a lot of unknowns for both vehicles. Too early to know what a cost comparison between the two vehicles will look like a few years from now when Starships are hopefully flying regularly.

 

[e-FTW]

An interesting re-use twist for the next Falcon Heavy launch (from this week’s Ars Technica email launch report):

Falcon Heavy will attempt dual droneship landing. The next Falcon Heavy mission, due to fly no earlier than late 2020, will send a 3.7 metric ton satellite and an unknown number of secondary spacecraft directly to geostationary orbit, Teslarati reports. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted an energy intensive direct-to-GEO launch.

Let's hope they're not synchronized swimmers ... For this mission the Falcon Heavy rocket will employ an expendable core stage, and two side boosters that will attempt simultaneous sea-based landings on separate drone ships. The U.S. Space Force launch will be the Falcon Heavy's first "high-priority national security mission" for the military. Should be fun to watch.

 

[MichaelP90DL]

An interesting re-use twist for the next Falcon Heavy launch (from this week’s Ars Technica email launch report):

Whoa!

 

[ecarfan]

I wonder how far apart the two ASDS’s will be positioned? I hope they are almost as close as the two LZ’s at the Cape and that SpaceX will somehow position a camera with a view of both so in one image we can see both boosters landing. But I suspect they will be farther apart and that there won’t be another vessel nearby to film both landings simultaneously.

I do hate to think about the center core being wasted and trashing up the ocean.

 

[Grendal]

I wonder how far apart the two ASDS’s will be positioned? I hope they are almost as close as the two LZ’s at the Cape and that SpaceX will somehow position a camera with a view of both so in one image we can see both boosters landing. But I suspect they will be farther apart and that there won’t be another vessel nearby to film both landings simultaneously.

I do hate to think about the center core being wasted and trashing up the ocean.

It would be awesome if SpaceX borrows the camera plane from NASA they used on CRS-8. That is what is needed to get the footage you're wanting.

 

[mongo]

I do hate to think about the center core being wasted and trashing up the ocean.

Sure, but historically, the center core has never made it back to port intact (for various reasons).

 

[ecarfan]

Sure, but historically, the center core has never made it back to port intact (for various reasons).

Right, but they still tried to recover it, correct?