# Space X Falcon 9 landings on a barge. What is the straight dope **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 25, 2017, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-x-falcon-9-landings-on-a-barge-what-is-the-straight-dope/794654 "2017-08-25T14:49:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2017, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-x-falcon-9-landings-on-a-barge-what-is-the-straight-dope/794654/21 "2017-08-25T22:02:11Z")
> [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > Not necessarily. Most products follow a “bathtub curve”, where failures happen either very late (as stuff starts to degrade) or very early (where defects that slipped through quality control manifest). It may well be that the most reliable flights are several reuses in. Right. There’s a reason SpaceX euphemistically refers to their used boosters as “flight-tested.” 🙂 There’s not enough data yet to know if Falcon 9 boosters will follow the bathtub model, but if they do, it will represent a huge opportunity for further cost savings in doing launches. ---
**Author:** ![rbroome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/838e76/32.png) [@rbroome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rbroome)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-x-falcon-9-landings-on-a-barge-what-is-the-straight-dope/794654/22 "2017-08-26T00:58:36Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I blame chemtrails. or inadequate tinfoil hats-its a Chinese conspiracy! ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-x-falcon-9-landings-on-a-barge-what-is-the-straight-dope/794654/23 "2017-08-26T02:33:18Z")
Currently there have been more launch failures on new boosters than used. Not that this is actually a meaningful number, but as time goes on it may well prove so. New boosters are subject to problems due to design changes and manufacturing process changes in addition to random bad luck affecting a component. A flown booster is quite possibly going to be the preferred option eventually, and they will have to offer a discount when a new one is used. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-x-falcon-9-landings-on-a-barge-what-is-the-straight-dope/794654/24 "2017-08-26T04:48:36Z")
> [@Francis\_Vaughan](#): > > Currently there have been more launch failures on new boosters than used. Not that this is actually a meaningful number, but as time goes on it may well prove so. New boosters are subject to problems due to design changes and manufacturing process changes in addition to random bad luck affecting a component. A flown booster is quite possibly going to be the preferred option eventually, and they will have to offer a discount when a new one is used. Hope so. Clearly the stress of a rocket launch causes some type of internal stress damage to the components, though. You can’t perform an infinite number of flights, and each additional flight without replacing those components (and it wouldn’t be economical to replace many of them, in the same way it is not economical to replace an aircraft’s wings after every flight) increases the chance of failure. But yes, on the first flight, there’s a chance of a manufacturing error or design change or a manufacturing process change or a different parts supplier causing the rocket to be essentially doomed, and it doesn’t make it. So you would expect an initial elevated risk, then flight #2 might be lower risk, and then each flight after #2 has a slight increase in failure chance. ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-x-falcon-9-landings-on-a-barge-what-is-the-straight-dope/794654/25 "2017-08-26T08:30:37Z")
> [@gnoitall](#): > > Well, there’s your problem. \ > > Why do otherwise sensible people do this to themselves? a desire to feel smart, as though I’ve “seen through the wool you’re trying to pull over my eyes.” ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-x-falcon-9-landings-on-a-barge-what-is-the-straight-dope/794654/26 "2017-08-26T14:41:36Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > Right. There’s a reason SpaceX euphemistically refers to their used boosters as “flight-tested.” 🙂 > > There’s not enough data yet to know if Falcon 9 boosters will follow the bathtub model, but if they do, it will represent a huge opportunity for further cost savings in doing launches. Certified Pre-Flown. Just like used cars. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-x-falcon-9-landings-on-a-barge-what-is-the-straight-dope/794654/27 "2017-08-26T15:55:43Z")
It occurs to me that something the average passenger on a jet plane is not going to be comfortable hearing is along the lines of: “Good morning and welcome to Air FoorBar’s flight from JFK to LHR. The plane you are about to travel in is brand new and was assembled by Boeing right here at JFK, and this will be its first ever flight.” So you are about to travel to the ISS, or further, which booster do you pick? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2017, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-x-falcon-9-landings-on-a-barge-what-is-the-straight-dope/794654/28 "2017-08-26T22:31:46Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > There’s not enough data yet to know if Falcon 9 boosters will follow the bathtub model Arguably, _everything_ follows the bathtub model, basically by definition. However, it may well be that the “infant mortality” spike is reduced to almost nothing by sufficiently robust quality control, and that the increase at the tail is so high (do due rapid levels of degradation in such an extreme environment) that is basically dominates the curve. Even so, it does generally look like rockets follow the model in obvious fashion. When they fail, it’s frequently very early in flight–[because a gyro was installed upside-down](http://www.russianspaceweb.com/proton_glonass49.html#culprit), or [there was a latent defect in the turbomachinery](http://spacenews.com/nasa-orbital-differ-on-root-cause-of-antares-launch-failure/), or [a corroded nut caused a fuel leak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_1#First_flight), or the like. [Sometimes they fail](http://spacenews.com/spacex-narrows-down-cause-of-falcon-9-pad-explosion/) before [they even launch](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrrcAVOV4s). Whether the remainder of the flight steadily increases in risk depends on the design. The latest Falcon 9 variant is (they say) designed to have essentially no wear items; it can go many flights before needing significant refurbishment. We’ll see how that turns out, but they’ve already made good progress with their iterative design philosophy, and the Merlin engines appear to be very robust at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Alex\_from\_CB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/278dde/32.png) [@Alex\_from\_CB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_from_CB)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-x-falcon-9-landings-on-a-barge-what-is-the-straight-dope/794654/29 "2017-08-28T21:06:37Z")
I saw the launch and return of the February 2017 SpaceX rocket. Was on top of the pavilion at Jetty Park in the town of Cape Canaveral. Quite cloudy but able to see the 2 burns as the rocket returned and of course the sonic booms. My wife saw a much better view of the launch and return of the SpaceX 2 weeks ago on the beach 8 blocks from where I’m currently sitting. Cocoa Beach. I’m _Alex from CB_. CB = Cocoa Beach. The town next to Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center. There’s a Falcon 9 scheduled to launch and return here next Thursday, Sept 7th. Awaiting the announcement of the time of launch (launch window) to plan where we’ll view from. Would request from this person, Nansbread1 to please supply all the evidence you have that led to making the statement… " There have been\*\* many discussions\*\* on whether the Space X reusable rocket technology is real or fake." “Many discussions” Really? ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2017, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-x-falcon-9-landings-on-a-barge-what-is-the-straight-dope/794654/30 "2017-08-28T21:19:59Z")
> [@Alex\_from\_CB](#): > > “Many discussions” Really? Sure. Just read the Flat Earther comments on Youtube below any SpaceX video. Bunch of raving idiots and trolls, granted, but they do love to discuss. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/space-x-falcon-9-landings-on-a-barge-what-is-the-straight-dope/794654.md?page=1)