News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on SpaceX is now building a Raptor engine a day, NASA says. Parent comment

Re:SpaceX is now building a Raptor engine a day, NASA says by hinkley on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @02:33PM (#33440767)
“Fully reusable” is still a little wiggly. Cars are fully reusable and they still get replaced after 150k miles. Are we going to begrudge someone calling it reusable if they have a MTBF of 10 flights? Or at least, as long as partial failure results in a successful mission but a decommissioned engine or unibody?

You’d use your whole manufacturing capacity then to do 90 missions a year.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:SpaceX is now building a Raptor engine a day, NASA says by zlsa on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @03:24PM (#33441556)
There's not a huge number of datapoints yet, but there are several Falcon 9 boosters that have flown >10 times (including two that have flown 14 times.) I'm quite confident in Super Heavy at least handily exceeding 10 flights MTBF.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:SpaceX is now building a Raptor engine a day, NASA says by hinkley on Wednesday November 02, 2022 @10:05PM (#33445938)
MTBF is mean time. So “a few over 14” isn’t anomalous if the mean is ~10. In fact it’s a bit low.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:SpaceX is now building a Raptor engine a day, NASA says by mlindner on Sunday November 06, 2022 @10:39PM (#33500844)
"Fully reusable" in all uses I've seen of with respect to aerospace it seems pretty fixed to me. We don't talk about "fully reusable" cars because there isn't an example of a non-reusable car. The "fully" part doesn't refer to how many times it lasts, just that the vehicle is reusable in whole instead of in part. "Wholly reusable" might have been a more semantically correct term, but "fully reusable" is what has stuck.
[ Parent | on HN ]