[HN Gopher] A historic Falcon 9 made a little more history
___________________________________________________________________
A historic Falcon 9 made a little more history
Author : TMWNN
Score : 27 points
Date : 2023-11-24 06:08 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| TMWNN wrote:
| I added the date clarification to the original title.
|
| The article discusses SpaceX launching the same Falcon 9 rocket,
| serial number B1058, for the 18th time. Its first use was to send
| Crew Dragon Demo-2 to the ISS in May 2020; it was the first
| manned launch from US soil since the shuttle's retirement in
| 2011.
|
| The 18th launch broke a tie with another SpaceX booster with 17
| launches. SpaceX currently limits itself to 20 uses per booster
| for Starlink launches but may raise the limit. Its customers,
| according to the article, always get boosters with fewer uses
| than that.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| I hope they continue to push some boosters until failures start
| happening. There isn't really another way to improve the
| longevity of a booster without learning the long term failure
| modes.
| TMWNN wrote:
| Yes, that's the likely scenario: Keep reusing boosters for
| Starlink launches until they fail. If it turns out that they
| can be reused 30, 40, 50, 100 times, all the better.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Are they still building Falcon 9s? I thought they had
| directed all manufacturing capacity to Starship. If so, they
| need this fleet to last as long as possible to continue to
| generate revenue for Starship development until it is flight
| proven, at which point the Falcon fleet becomes disposable
| (Heavy missions only?).
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| I wonder how Rocket of/Ship of Theseus this is. I wonder how many
| different rocket engines have been on it. I wonder how much of
| those engines have been replaced.
|
| This is a huge accomplishment. That we can wonder about more
| detailer aspects of what needs to be replaced is a marvel.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| Theseus or not reusability accomplishes more efficiency and in
| turn more profitability and less waste.
| constantly wrote:
| I think it's "An Historic" not "A."
| gliptic wrote:
| No, "historic" doesn't start with a vowel sound.
| generalizations wrote:
| I believe 'h' is an odd exception to such rules.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| It could also be because the H is almost silent in some
| English accents.
| gliptic wrote:
| It's not. In some dialects H would be silent, and you can
| certainly write "an historic" because of that in informal
| writing, but it's discouraged in style guides that sites
| like this would use.
| constantly wrote:
| This is incorrect information. It's actually quite
| controversial and most learned people point to "an."
| Either way, one shouldn't talk factually as if the issue
| is settled. Particularly if you're citing style guides,
| like you are in this response, rather than informal
| usage.
| tuatoru wrote:
| It's a dialect issue. Learned people in different regions
| disagree.
|
| Me, I voice my 'h's, so "a historic" is correct in my
| locale.
| gliptic wrote:
| When style guides recommend you to use "a historic" in
| formal writing, why should I not talk factually about
| what they recommend. You were the first to complain about
| the usage in this article.
| theropost wrote:
| Formally, the word historic begins with a consonant sound and
| so the form a historic is preferred in formal writing. However,
| many people prefer the form an historic in informal writing and
| speech for personal reasons.
| constantly wrote:
| This makes sense! It's like lede vs lead. It's really lede,
| but common usage has made lead acceptable. At least this is a
| better explanation and intuition than the poster below who
| simply asserts one thing based on the first letter without
| beginning to understand any context.
| perlgeek wrote:
| It's kinda wild that just a few years ago, NASA preferred to
| launch humans on brand-new rockets, rather than on ones that have
| flown multiple times and shown their capabilities.
|
| It'll be interesting to see how the bathtub curve will look like
| for reused rockets, once we have more data on them.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Are individual rockets and subs considered safer after each
| trip? I thought it was the opposite since they endure so much
| stress, and one has to do expensive inspections and scans to
| ensure they're still flight/dive worthy.
| lukew3 wrote:
| I think that's why there is a bathtub curve. New rockets are
| more risky because they could have manufacturing flaws and
| old ones may be worn to the point they fail. The middle is
| the safest because they have been thoroughly tested but not
| worn. We seek to find how many times is the limit.
| asadotzler wrote:
| Would you rather fly on an airplain's maiden flight or its
| second flight. For me, the wear is far less a concern than a
| quality control failure at manufacture. I want flight proven
| but I also don't want the flight leader in the fleet. There's
| a sweet spot between, "they're still working out bugs from
| the factory" and "the core, non-replaceable systems are
| starting to wear out." My guess is that's around 20 or so
| flights for an F9 booster, maybe a bit more.
| asadotzler wrote:
| My guess is we'll find F9 boosters good for between 20 and 25
| launches before refurb becomes expensive enough that it's
| better to weld up some new tanks and build another batch of
| Merlins. There will be a pretty big range I think. We already
| see they've got favorites that are far outpacing the rest of
| the fleet presumably because they're easier to refurb and
| refly. So, I think some will retire around 15 flights, and some
| around 30, with the low 20s being the top of the bell curve.
| tuatoru wrote:
| In a few decades' time we are going to realise how remarkable the
| Falcon 9 (block V) really was.
| fnord77 wrote:
| they talked about it being covered in soot but didn't show a pic
|
| https://i.stack.imgur.com/1Gsl2.jpg
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-24 23:00 UTC)