SpaceX cost to do even small modifications to the F9R stage is
presumably much higher now that there are large government customers who
have to approve changes. This heavily incentivizes the company to focus
most of its development bandwidth on Starship/Super Heavy, where the
lack of any such picky customer still allows them to move fast and cheap.
On 3/23/2020 10:30 AM, Carl Tedesco wrote:
Logically, if the F9 has a “weak-link” limiting it to about 5 flights, wouldn’t SpaceX throw engineering resources at fixing that weak-link and finding the next weak-link? If this is true, I do not think it can be considered a limit yet to F9’s reuseability. My 2-cents.
Carl Tedesco
*From:* arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> *On Behalf Of *Robert Steinke
*Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2020 7:51 AM
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* [AR] Falcon 9 lifetime of 5 flights?
From hobbyspace.com <http://hobbyspace.com> about the latest Falcon 9 launch:
" A first stage engine shut down prematurely (just before staging) but had no effect on the mission as the other 8 engines made up the difference. The booster also failed to make a successful landing on a sea platform. This was the fifth flight of this booster."
That was after a previous launch attempt aborted due to slightly high power.
Wonderful demonstration of engine-out fault tolerance, but it does look like the rocket is showing some wear and tear after 5 flights. What does this do to their economics if stages need an overhaul/have an increased chance of loss of vehicle after only 5 flights?