With last week's polar orbit Starlink launch from Vandenberg, it marked
the second time a Falcon 9 was re-used 10 times.

Has SpaceX given any indication on whether it plans to raise its
reusabliity targets and if so, how many cores does it want to test to 10
launches before it starts to increase it?

Is there a poimt where if you are able to exceed a number of launches,
you can basically re-use it like a commercial aircraft vs having a
finite lifetime? are we talking 15 ? 50% 100 flights before a core no
longer has a finite lifetime (albeit with maintenace requirements as
with jet engines).

Is it more likely that SpaceX might just replace engines and re-use the
"fuselage" forever, or does that get stressed and have limits on how
often it can be refueled and emptied?

JF Mezei explained :
> With last week's polar orbit Starlink launch from Vandenberg, it marked
> the second time a Falcon 9 was re-used 10 times.
>
> Has SpaceX given any indication on whether it plans to raise its
> reusabliity targets and if so, how many cores does it want to test to 10
> launches before it starts to increase it?

3 months later, B1051 has completed its 11th flight.

/dps

--
Rule #0: Don't be on fire.
In case of fire, exit the building before tweeting about it.
(Sighting reported by Adam F)

On 2021-12-31 08:00, Snidely wrote:

> 3 months later, B1051 has completed its 11th flight.

Yep. and 2021 was probably the year where Falcon9 launches have truly
become "commodity" with succesful landing being the new "normal".
(Pretty amazing how reliable the landing has become).

But is there any information on whether the amoujt of work neede dto
turn arounf a landed stage 1 i lower, as expected, or harder than
expected? Much variability between launches? does the refurb work get
costlier with each re-use? (significant enough that after a number of
launces, it is chepaer to use new engines or even new stage ?

JF Mezei submitted this gripping article, maybe on Friday:
> On 2021-12-31 08:00, Snidely wrote:
>
>> 3 months later, B1051 has completed its 11th flight.
>
> Yep. and 2021 was probably the year where Falcon9 launches have truly
> become "commodity" with succesful landing being the new "normal".
> (Pretty amazing how reliable the landing has become).
>
> But is there any information on whether the amoujt of work neede dto
> turn arounf a landed stage 1 i lower, as expected, or harder than
> expected? Much variability between launches? does the refurb work get
> costlier with each re-use? (significant enough that after a number of
> launces, it is chepaer to use new engines or even new stage ?

There's the turn-around time between flights, which has been getting
shorter overall. B1069 will probably take longer, though.

/dps

--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013