orbital maintence tools? a threat?

[Dan123456]

I think you miss my point on SpaceX’s boosters. The question is are they really the same booster that first launched? Or do they just replace every single part after each launch and slap the same number on it and just call it the same booster?

I do not know the answer to that. I would like to believe that they can reuse them with minor repairs, but due to Musks track record of massive overstating capabilities / straight up lying, I can not trust anything that his companies say. Especially in regards to marketing.

There is quite a bit of reason to believe they are reusable.  For starters the externals aren't repainted and show the evidence of prior use.  But sure, that could be a smoke screen for complete replacement of the internals.  But doing a complete replacement of the internals in 21 days buggers my imagination and should give you a little pause.  Most important, NASA and the military customers who are buying many of the launches are watching very closely and they seem to agree.  And over time have changed their policy from requiring a new booster for their flights to accepting what are now called "flight proven" boosters.   I also find the fact that they are able to price launches at 50-75% of what other vendors can provide evidence.  Either they have found a way to manufacture these things far more cheaply than others, or they are re-using with relatively low refurbishment costs.  None of this may meet your standard for re-usable.  If you require that the only thing that happens upon a booster return is to stand it up, fuel it and light the fire, I doubt that it meets that standard.  But if you can re-launch $50 million dollar booster with a few million dollars of inspection and repair I think it counts.   It is also my guess that the inspection and repair costs have been dropping as they have learned and made adjustments based on the prior flights.  That database is rapidly growing, and will soon be larger than for any other space vehicle.

Caution with respect to Musk's statements is wisdom.  Assuming that everything his companies do is a lie is not.  Tesla cars aren't as good as Musk claims.  But they are generally serviceable vehicles with more on road mileage than all other vendors combined.  The Tesla powerwall is expensive but works.  Starlink works.

Find a way to hold Musk accountable for the falsehoods without throwing out the successes.

You make some good points and you are correct. I was being a bit hyperbolic in saying that they maybe they could replace every part after every flight.

My point is that Musk could be massively overstating the reusability. While it may not be every part after every launch, they could require major repairs each time (similar, although different, to the space shuttles boosters).

As they have only achieved the 21 day turn around once, it could have very well been a publicity stunt with large teams working multiple shifts 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to repair and replace a significant proportions of the ship. If you have all the replacements parts sitting next to you, and teams of people working around the clock, you can replace a lot of parts in ~500 hours.

As for customers using flight proven boosters rather than new, that could be more due to the terms in the contract rather than their faith in the booster. If SpaceX has a clause offering insurance covering damages of their cargo, government agencies would pretty much be forced to take that option as financial legislation (at least here in Aus - so I would assume the US would be similar) says they must take the best value for money option. Even if it isn’t the “best” option.

Again, I am not saying SpaceX’s boosters aren’t reusable or that they are bad, just that I don’t know how reusable they actually are thanks to Musk’s proven track record of spouting complete BS.

[wraper]

Most important, NASA and the military customers who are buying many of the launches are watching very closely and they seem to agree.  And over time have changed their policy from requiring a new booster for their flights to accepting what are now called "flight proven" boosters.

Surprisingly B1073 and B1075 F9 boosters launched Starlink as their first payload rather than some government or commercial stuff. Brand new B1082 should soon launch Starlink too.

[bw2341]

Again, I am not saying SpaceX’s boosters aren’t reusable or that they are bad, just that I don’t know how reusable they actually are thanks to Musk’s proven track record of spouting complete BS.

There's no need to speculate on how SpaceX does it. Here's a detailed article from Aviation Week:

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/space/spacex-building-airline-type-flight-ops-launch

[nonlinearschool]

Thanks BW2341 !!!

never thought this much. re-usability may be one of the few things Mush did that was good. and the battery tech contribution...

[RJSV]

   I've read through all so far, and thought about the technical points.
   Nobody mentioned, the power of having good morale, on a big project;  I was actually stunned to view the first 'launch booster return', thinking that "...things are really moving and exciting lately!...".
   It's kind of a paradyme shift, freedom from the whole set of hassles when trying to refurbish safely.  Plus, we still have the pre-existing way of doing things, using parachute sea landings and all the methods and designs.
   Technology amatuers watching a landing get to be 'inspired', that electronic control systems can really perform, in big real-time projects.
So you get a confidence-inspiring visual, and...maybe some planners are checking what it would take, to include human passengers in some novel type of re-entry to runway function.
Like a cheap emergency evacuation system.

   More options, and inspiring landings ...to the extent that they look like fake landings, (by playing video backwards).

[Kim Christensen]

   More options, and inspiring landings ...to the extent that they look like fake landings, (by playing video backwards).

The landing legs are not deployed on launch... Also, the payload and upper stage which are present on launch, are not attached to the booster upon landing. So zero chance that the video is simply reversed.
Plus, the booster lands at a different location from the launch site.

[coppice]

I think you miss my point on SpaceX’s boosters. The question is are they really the same booster that first launched? Or do they just replace every single part after each launch and slap the same number on it and just call it the same booster?

I like the way SpaceX save money and emphasise the look of reuse by the simple step of never cleaning the boosters between missions, so they gradually fade to black (well, dark grey by the 19th mission, where the recent booster was lost to sea-sickbness).

[coppice]

   More options, and inspiring landings ...to the extent that they look like fake landings, (by playing video backwards).

The landing legs are not deployed on launch... Also, the payload and upper stage which are present on launch, are not attached to the booster upon landing. So zero chance that the video is simply reversed.
Plus, the booster lands at a different location from the launch site.

I know its real, but the fakest seeming thing about those landings is how close to the ground they are when you hear the sonic boom. I know the sound takes a while to arrive, but damn those things are still dropping fast quite close to the ground.

[Kim Christensen]

I know the sound takes a while to arrive, but damn those things are still dropping fast quite close to the ground.

Firing the the engines at the last possible moment is the most efficient method, not to mention being more impressive as well. 

[HalFET]

Nah. Because tech in 5 years, gets old. We talking about space age tech. Spy images and stuff. So it's pointless to sustain it, really. In 5 years your new satellite is old, in 10 years it is obsolete. Space trash really.

Most space hardware is extremely conservative and still designed/manufactured using components that were common in the late 80s/early 90s. So the hardware in question is already obsolete from a commercial point of view before you even begin breadboarding. You'll often even find discrete solutions that you wouldn't even consider using on earth due to harsh environment requirements that might seem non-obvious. So if we leave SpaceX out of consideration for a while, the obsolescence cycle looks somewhat different when comparing it to consumer hardware.

On the other hand, most designs are also quite modular, so as long as the cabling harness and no structural components are damaged, I'd consider a satellite very salvageable. Especially if you could upgrade it with newer hardware that's slightly more power efficient, that might very well compensate for the reduced efficiency of the solar panels and batteries. A lot of missions are also "simply" a bunch of modules tied to a standard platform of sorts, so if you'd make those connections easier to swap out you could quite literally do something like take an old earth observation instrument off the satellite and install a new one and get your launch weight down to a fraction of the cost of launching a new satellite. So there's a potential market for it, and it makes sense, the question is if the economics and technical feasibility make sense.