SpaceX has spent several weeks refurbishing, testing, and preparing Booster 14 for its next flight, which is planned to be on Starship’s next flight, Flight 9. The company also announced that 29 out of the 33 engines on the booster are flight-proven,

I wonder if this decision is a mistake. Seems like ship development is on the critical path, and booster development is very much not.

If the estimated increase in risk from the reusing Super Heavy for the first time is substantial, it might be better to delay that until some more progress has been made with Starship.

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Do you think there is a substantial increase in risk? They haven't had any booster issues that affected the ship since Booster 7 on Flight 1, and they've already done a successful static fire on B14. No one bats an eye at Falcon 9 reuse anymore, though that is obviously a much more mature vehicle.

You make a good point about ship development being on the critical path though. If an issue with B14 prevents them from testing S35, it will certainly be a mistake in hindsight.

Do you think the cost of booster production could be a factor in their decision?

[–] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I still remember the press conference before the first F9 booster reuse. The customer CEO(?) was saying that his team was comfortable, and I think even that the insurance company was comfortable too. So I was fairly confident it would work.

In this case, there's no customer or insurance company giving any high level push-back on any concerns.

One possibility I wonder about is that Musk and/or other senior SpaceX ppl might be wanting to 'double down' on how this is a bold & risk-taking programme, for psychological reasons, in defiance of all the naysayers after the Flights 7 & 8 situation. And thus ignoring the 'critical path' argument, and the fact that the only good risks to take are calculated risks.

Do you think the cost of booster production could be a factor in their decision?

Unsure about this topic in general. My guess is that the raw materials and COTS components are relatively cheap, and that most of the costs are labour. So one uncertainty lies in whether the people would be employed at Starbase regardless of whether they had to build an extra booster or not. And just in general, when we hear dollar figures bandied around, what proportion of those are the true 'marginal'(?) cost.

But ultimately I think yes, now you mention it, cost would've been a significant factor in the decision.

Along with maybe production rate? Maybe they can easily shift existing people & factory space from boosters, to ships. And so the full 'critical path' argument needs to take into account how booster reuse could potentially increase the ship production rate.

load more comments (6 replies)