Ein Falcon 9-Booster wird fünf Jahre alt – und hat gerade einen bemerkenswerten Wiederverwendungsrekord aufgestellt | Wir halten die Falcon-9-Rakete für selbstverständlich. Aber das sollten wir wahrscheinlich nicht tun.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/06/a-falcon-9-booster-turns-five-years-old-and-just-set-a-remarkable-reuse-record/
11 Kommentare
>A little more than five years ago, a shiny white Falcon 9 rocket made its debut flight, boosting a Cargo Dragon spacecraft to the International Space Station. Over the next year, it would launch a pair of astronaut missions and a handful of commercial spacecraft.
>But since then, this first stage booster, designated B 1067, has mostly flown Starlink missions. It has launched them one after another, always returning safely to a drone ship before undergoing refurbishment and flying again. Sometimes it has flown twice in a single month.
>On Monday morning, B 1067 once again took to the skies, launching 29 Starlink Internet satellites into low-Earth orbit from Florida. Upon landing on the A Shortfall of Gravitas drone ship in the Atlantic Ocean, the vehicle completed its 35th mission overall, retaining its title as fleet leader for SpaceX.
>Is 40 the goal, or will it be extended again?
>The successful launch brings SpaceX closer to its most recently stated goal of qualifying its Falcon 9 first stage vehicles to support 40 missions each. Since that goal was outlined more than two years ago and the company has continued flying its experienced boosters safely across dozens of missions, SpaceX may be intending to push past 40 missions.
>We take the Falcon 9 rocket for granted. It now launches so often—a few times a week—that its flights are a complete non-event. Even a milestone like a 35th launch and landing, bringing it closer to space shuttle Discovery‘s record of 39 spaceflights across nearly four decades, seems hardly worth mentioning.
Stuff like reusing a single *falcon 9* booster nearly 40 times gives me a lot of confidence for Starship, or at the very least superheavy. I would not Be surprised if they could manage 150+ reuses for superheavy, considering that it’s made of a material that can handle a lot more thermal stress, doesn’t require any landing leg resets, and uses a virtually soot free propellant.
I’m curious how much components they already replaced. I can imagine that the wear and tear is significant on the structural parts of those rockets.
How much is completely reused between flights? I know very little about the logistics — is this a ship of Theseus situation where they keep replacing parts or are they really mostly reflown as-is?
Kind of sounds like a bad parent brag.
„My five year old just set a record, what has your lazy kid done?“
LOL
The only other rockets that are five years old are in Rocket Gardens.
I’ve seen this booster fly. First launch I ever saw.
Who says we take it for granted???
Who’s we, headline? Is it the author taking this for granted? The editor?
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|——-|———|—|
|[LZ](/r/Space/comments/1u0d9cg/stub/oqhj8zy „Last usage“)|Landing Zone|
|[SSME](/r/Space/comments/1u0d9cg/stub/oqijqzw „Last usage“)|[Space Shuttle Main Engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine)|
|Jargon|Definition|
|——-|———|—|
|[Starlink](/r/Space/comments/1u0d9cg/stub/oqj348i „Last usage“)|SpaceX’s world-wide satellite broadband constellation|
|[cryogenic](/r/Space/comments/1u0d9cg/stub/oqil1l1 „Last usage“)|Very low temperature fluid; materials that would be gaseous at room temperature/pressure|
| |(In re: rocket fuel) Often synonymous with hydrolox|
|hydrolox|Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen fuel, liquid oxygen oxidizer|
Decronym is now also available on Lemmy! Requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
—————-
^(4 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/1tzsh6b)^( has 5 acronyms.)
^([Thread #12490 for this sub, first seen 8th Jun 2026, 20:22])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
How much total tonnage to orbit does this mean? That’s petty amazing!
I’m wondering about space station designs and I s there something more modular that could go up in just many small pieces that could be connected together more like a giant geodesic dome than a bunch of small cylinders connected together?