|
|
|
|
|
by krisoft
700 days ago
|
|
I agree with the reasons you list. Would like to add one more which is somewhat specific to spacex. They are reusing the first stage, but can't reuse the second stage. Which provides complications in two ways: Every second stage they fire is a brand new one. There are no "flight-proven" second stages. (of course the design is flight proven, but the actual piece of hardware itself is not.) The other one is since the second stages are not recovered it is much harder to do an after-flight engineering analysis on them. With the first stage SpaceX have most of them back after the flight. That means they can check that all is looking as they expect it. If something with the design is "marginal" in a way they haven't designed them to be marginal they can adjust the design to improve it. With a second stage you can not do that. Of course this is the default state of every other rocket ever flown. But in spacex's case I would expect the first stage just a tiny bit more reliable than the second stage because of this. (Just a tiny bit, since there is a lot of commonality between the stages) |
|
This raises and interesting question - do you think SpaceX will attempt to recover a Falcon 9 second stage with Starship at some point?
It would be a great technology demonstrator for Starship, and finally gets them a F9 second stage to inspect. Win win.