Yay, the poll has finally arrived!
I voted for 4. The reason? Spacex has never launched faster than 1 rocket per quarter so far. Spacex has also only slowly ramped up its launch rate from 2 in 2012 to 3 in 2013, so 4 in 2014 sounds reasonable.
I voted for 5 last year. I'll vote for 5 this year.Me too!
unless something drastic happens
Yeah but I'm a dreamer. ;)unless something drastic happens
So far they've found something drastic every year. :)
I feel cheated. :)
How can one show true optimism when the poll doesn't even allow for what is on the SpaceX manifest.
This is from the SpaceX website.
So I'm going with 15 launches, like their manifest shows.
2013 THAICOM (THAILAND) CAPE CANAVERAL FALCON 9
2014 ORBCOMM CAPE CANAVERAL FALCON 9
2014 NASA RESUPPLY TO ISS – FLIGHT 3 CAPE CANAVERAL DRAGON & FALCON 9
2014 ORBCOMM CAPE CANAVERAL FALCON 9
2014 FALCON HEAVY DEMO FLIGHT VANDENBERG FALCON HEAVY
2014 ASIASAT CAPE CANAVERAL FALCON 9
2014 ASIASAT CAPE CANAVERAL FALCON 9
2014 NASA RESUPPLY TO ISS – FLIGHT 4 CAPE CANAVERAL DRAGON & FALCON 9
2014 NASA RESUPPLY TO ISS – FLIGHT 5 CAPE CANAVERAL DRAGON & FALCON 9
2014 NASA RESUPPLY TO ISS – FLIGHT 6 CAPE CANAVERAL DRAGON & FALCON 9
2014 SPACE SYSTEMS/LORAL CAPE CANAVERAL FALCON 9
2014 THALES ALENIA SPACE (TURKMENISTAN) CAPE CANAVERAL FALCON 9
2014 DSCOVR (USAF) CAPE CANAVERAL FALCON 9
2014 CONAE (ARGENTINA) VANDENBERG FALCON 9
2014 ASIA BROADCAST SATELLITE/SATMEX CAPE CANAVERAL FALCON 9
It was a little tongue in cheek Gramps. :) (but we'd all be over the moon, so to speak, if it happened.)
Thaicom 6 is a given.
CRS3 might get pushed back a bit.
Orbcomm #1 will probably launch in 2014.
Turkmensat -- SpaceX isn't going to let this one default to Ariane V.
Asiasat 8 and Thaicom 7 -- unless something drastic happens, I don't see any reason these would get pushed to 2015
CRS4 will definitely happen in 2014, CRS5 probably late in the year, and I think CRS6 will move to 2015.
They have to still do the pad abort and the in flight abort in 2014 as well.
Sure, but who cares what definition is picked, as long as it's specified beforehand (and he DID specify beforehand).
Well, obviously, I care.
Let's make the "12" option be "12 or more" and the "1" option be "1 or less" so all options are covered.
For instance, tigerade is also wrong to exclude the launch abort test from the list of launches, but he clearly lists that as a rule in his post rather than using an unspoken assumption. So what he's really polling is not "number of SpaceX launches in 2014", but rather "number of SpaceX launches in 2014 excluding the launch abort test".
Also SpaceX already has the largest production capacity of rockets in the worldrsc energia?
I voted 7. I don't think a much higher rate is out of the question but I'm sitting with 7 as a reasonable ramp-up from 2013-14. Also, the past two years this poll has rolled I've shot high, shooting low and being pleasantly surprised this time wouldn't be the worst thing ever. ;D
Voted 6. SpaceX has been incredibly lucky so far, but something is, one way or the other, going to go wrong.It can't just be pure luck that they haven't had a major failure since Falcon 1 flight 3. It's got to be lots and lots of ground-testing and also flight-testing future capabilities when they have the performance margin to give it a shot on missions that don't strictly require it. Obviously, they haven't had significantly bad luck, either, but you don't get that many successful launches by relying mostly on luck, you just don't.
F9 production, is run by the person who used to run production of Mini for BMW.
And Elon Musk's 'other business' Tesla mass produces over 500 aluminum vehicles/month... So Elon knows production...
At least 10 flights in 2014
I expect that Elon Musk and SpaceX will be limited by production capacity, not pad/vehicle launch operations/turnaround time.
And Elon Musk's 'other business' Tesla mass produces over 500 aluminum vehicles/month... So Elon knows production...
At least 10 flights in 2014
I'm not sure I agree. While ultimately there's no hard limit anywhere, here (they can always add more shifts or factory space), I haven't seen evidence that they can build 'em as fast as they claim. Then again, production probably hasn't been their bottleneck for quite a while, so they probably see no reason to produce them that fast, yet.I expect that Elon Musk and SpaceX will be limited by production capacity, not pad/vehicle launch operations/turnaround time.
And Elon Musk's 'other business' Tesla mass produces over 500 aluminum vehicles/month... So Elon knows production...
At least 10 flights in 2014
If this were a production question, I might agree. But that doesn't include vehicle and spacecraft integration, getting a range spot, weather, problems with the vehicle or space craft, engine and stage testing, and the rest of the process, which includes stuff relating to ISS when it comes to Dragon flights. Just running F9s off the assembly line isn't the limiting factor in my opinion.
If this were a production question, I might agree. But that doesn't include vehicle and spacecraft integration, getting a range spot, weather, problems with the vehicle or space craft, engine and stage testing, and the rest of the process, which includes stuff relating to ISS when it comes to Dragon flights. Just running F9s off the assembly line isn't the limiting factor in my opinion.Exactly. Getting a specialized large air cargo or shipping company top operations lead would be beneficial, at this point. Or someone who worked at Plesetsk 30 years ago.
If the core manufacturing rate is really 12/year now, rising to 18/year mid 2014 and 24/year by end 2014Is there a source for this?
If the core manufacturing rate is really 12/year now, rising to 18/year mid 2014 and 24/year by end 2014Is there a source for this?
I am betting that SpaceX will succeed in partial reusability, so I voted for 20±5 launches for the 2014.Complete fantasy. It is even worse than taking manifest at face value (not noticing "hardware arrival on site").
I voted 12+. I'm assuming this includes any flights that get to orbit, even if there's just one or two cubesats (or even nothing) on board.
I believe at some point they will do a re-usability long run test.
With just a tiny payload, it might be possible to do SSTO, specially if the we're running at 85% turns out to be real.
Give it a 50-50 chance my prediction will happen. I might fail miserably.
I voted 12+. I'm assuming this includes any flights that get to orbit, even if there's just one or two cubesats (or even nothing) on board.Why the heck would they want to do SSTO? Sure, they probably could make it'd work (Merlin 1D and the first stage are very lightweight), but the payload would suck and it'd definitely be expendable. Has Elon ever said anything about SSTO to make you think SpaceX would attempt a stunt, would even WANT to do such a stunt?
I believe at some point they will do a re-usability long run test.
With just a tiny payload, it might be possible to do SSTO, specially if the we're running at 85% turns out to be real.
Give it a 50-50 chance my prediction will happen. I might fail miserably.
I voted 12+. I'm assuming this includes any flights that get to orbit, even if there's just one or two cubesats (or even nothing) on board.Why the heck would they want to do SSTO? Sure, they probably could make it'd work (Merlin 1D and the first stage are very lightweight), but the payload would suck and it'd definitely be expendable. Has Elon ever said anything about SSTO to make you think SpaceX would attempt a stunt, would even WANT to do such a stunt?
I believe at some point they will do a re-usability long run test.
With just a tiny payload, it might be possible to do SSTO, specially if the we're running at 85% turns out to be real.
Give it a 50-50 chance my prediction will happen. I might fail miserably.
I voted 12+. I'm assuming this includes any flights that get to orbit, even if there's just one or two cubesats (or even nothing) on board.
I believe at some point they will do a re-usability long run test.
With just a tiny payload, it might be possible to do SSTO, specially if the we're running at 85% turns out to be real.
Give it a 50-50 chance my prediction will happen. I might fail miserably.
perhaps 4 this year, if they can get one more off before the year is over.
I am amazed at the number of people that are voting for 8 an even more launches. At this time, the best SpaceX has been able to do is 3 launches in a year, perhaps 4 this year, if they can get one more off before the year is over. I am going to play it a little safer an have voted for 7 launches, although, I would be very happy to see those who voted 8 or more win.I voted 8 and you can see my reasoning. But looking at 2013, SpaceX changed to a brand new vehicle design basically and consequently had the long mid year hiatus. That shouldn't happen in 2014.
Go SpaceX
With just a tiny payload, it might be possible to do SSTO, specially if the we're running at 85% turns out to be real.You are predicting things that don't even appear on SpaceX own wildly optimistic manifest, and have never been mentioned in their planned path to re-usability. I don't know how you get 50:50 odds for that, but I'll go with one:eleventy bajillion against ;)
Give it a 50-50 chance my prediction will happen.
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 2 2012 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral (flew in 2013)
ORBCOMM - Multiple Flights 2012-2014 Multiple
Cape Canaveral MDA Corp. (Canada) 2013 Falcon 9 Vandenberg
Falcon Heavy Demo Flight 2013 Falcon Heavy Vandenberg
SES (Europe) 2013 Falcon 9 Cape Canaveral
Thaicom (Thailand) 2013 Falcon 9 Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 3 2013 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 4 2013 F9/Dragon Cape Canaveral
NSPO (Taiwan) 2013 Falcon 9 Vandenberg
March 1 - Dragon CRS2, CUSat 1&2 - Falcon 9 v1.0 - Canaveral SLC-40or 50%.
April - Cassiope, POPACS (x6) (TBD) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Vandenberg SLC-4E
June - SES-8 - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40 (or Ariane 5ECA)
August - Orbcomm 2G (x8) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40 (or 2014)
September 30 - Dragon CRS3, CUNYSAT 1, Hermes 2, LMRSat, TechCube 1, All-Star-THEIA, FIREBIRD 1, FIREBIRD 2, Ho‘oponopono 2 - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
2nd half - Thaicom 6 - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40 (or 2014)
With just a tiny payload, it might be possible to do SSTO, specially if the we're running at 85% turns out to be real.You are predicting things that don't even appear on SpaceX own wildly optimistic manifest, and have never been mentioned in their planned path to re-usability. I don't know how you get 50:50 odds for that, but I'll go with one:eleventy bajillion against ;)
Give it a 50-50 chance my prediction will happen.
I voted 12+. I'm assuming this includes any flights that get to orbit, even if there's just one or two cubesats (or even nothing) on board.Why the heck would they want to do SSTO? Sure, they probably could make it'd work (Merlin 1D and the first stage are very lightweight), but the payload would suck and it'd definitely be expendable. Has Elon ever said anything about SSTO to make you think SpaceX would attempt a stunt, would even WANT to do such a stunt?
I believe at some point they will do a re-usability long run test.
With just a tiny payload, it might be possible to do SSTO, specially if the we're running at 85% turns out to be real.
Give it a 50-50 chance my prediction will happen. I might fail miserably.
Reuse the first stage until it breaks. Don't need to waste the 2nd stage, nor figure out 2nd stage reuse until they mastered 1st stage reuse.
You are predicting things that don't even appear on SpaceX own wildly optimistic manifest, and have never been mentioned in their planned path to re-usability. I don't know how you get 50:50 odds for that, but I'll go with one:eleventy bajillion against ;)I like your thinking. However, you have to remember there is nothing that cannot be solved in space by optimistic application of superdraco thrusters to the problem.
They only have one launch pad for 2014 since Falcon Heavy will be tying up Vandenberg.
We haven't seen any Falcon Heavy metal at all, yet. What makes you think they'll be able to launch it by the end of the year? They have never really launched anything quite like Falcon Heavy before. It's enormous.They only have one launch pad for 2014 since Falcon Heavy will be tying up Vandenberg.
FH won't hold up VAFB all year. The pieces will spend a significant time at McGregor to be tested individually and together - once they finally arrive at VAFB I would expect a launch within 3 months. A regular F9 launch could squeeze in before that, if the schedule is shuffled, and one could even be launched after FH - if FH launches in November or earlier.
so yes, pad flow is an issue, but not as much as you are making it to be.
So far, what's the closest together that two SpaceX vehicles have launched at the Cape? So far, it is nearly 4 months!
They may be able to pull off this next launch just a month after SES8, but it hasn't been done, yet. And I doubt they can keep that kind of launch rate going without burning out the crew. And don't forget the two abort tests at the pad!!
I'm a SpaceX cheerleader, but I'm trying to get an accurate read, here!
I expect that Elon Musk and SpaceX will be limited by production capacity, not pad/vehicle launch operations/turnaround time.If this were a production question, I might agree. But that doesn't include vehicle and spacecraft integration, getting a range spot, weather, problems with the vehicle or space craft, engine and stage testing, and the rest of the process, which includes stuff relating to ISS when it comes to Dragon flights. Just running F9s off the assembly line isn't the limiting factor in my opinion.
And Elon Musk's 'other business' Tesla mass produces over 500 aluminum vehicles/month... [correction: 600 aluminium vehicles per week] So Elon knows production...
At least 10 flights in 2014
There is also another point. If SpaceX cannot have 12+ launches into orbit, there is absolutely zero probability that SpaceX can launch people to Mars in 2020's. If this is the case, we may well forget all speculation considering MCT vehicles or Falcon X series.
There is also another point. If SpaceX cannot have 12+ launches into orbit, there is absolutely zero probability that SpaceX can launch people to Mars in 2020's. If this is the case, we may well forget all speculation considering MCT vehicles or Falcon X series.This is the thread for 2014. Capabilities will be different in the coming years.
Probably three of their launches are Dragon launches this year. SpaceX gets over $100 million ($125m?) per Dragon launch, so everything beyond about 5 launches is well above $400m in revenue. Plus, don't forget the revenue from commercial crew and the abort tests. They certainly don't depend on just regular Falcon 9 launches.There is also another point. If SpaceX cannot have 12+ launches into orbit, there is absolutely zero probability that SpaceX can launch people to Mars in 2020's. If this is the case, we may well forget all speculation considering MCT vehicles or Falcon X series.This is the thread for 2014. Capabilities will be different in the coming years.
That is untrue and I strongly disagree. SpaceX must establish their position already in 2014 so that they have strong enough revenue stream for building the future.
addition: As SpaceX has around 4000 employees, it needs revenue stream at least 400 million for 2014. This means that SpaceX must launch quite a few commercial launches in order to stay in business and move forward. This also supports the idea for 12+ launches for the year 2014.
Probably three of their launches are Dragon launches this year. SpaceX gets over $100 million ($125m?) per Dragon launch, so everything beyond about 5 launches is well above $400m in revenue. Plus, don't forget the revenue from commercial crew and the abort tests. They certainly don't depend on just regular Falcon 9 launches.There is also another point. If SpaceX cannot have 12+ launches into orbit, there is absolutely zero probability that SpaceX can launch people to Mars in 2020's. If this is the case, we may well forget all speculation considering MCT vehicles or Falcon X series.This is the thread for 2014. Capabilities will be different in the coming years.
That is untrue and I strongly disagree. SpaceX must establish their position already in 2014 so that they have strong enough revenue stream for building the future.
addition: As SpaceX has around 4000 employees, it needs revenue stream at least 400 million for 2014. This means that SpaceX must launch quite a few commercial launches in order to stay in business and move forward. This also supports the idea for 12+ launches for the year 2014.
3) biggest bottleneck. Realistically, they have one (1) launch pad. Brand new, used only once and that with a great many teething issues. Based on a launch facility that is mostly out of their control, for scheduling purposes.
Until Vanderburg is freed up, I cannot see more than 10, likely 8 launch attempts from florida.
4) They are learning. They are good at sorting stuff out. But the small trips and stumbles are causing delays at each and every turn. Spacex may build a fine rocket, but they do NOT yet have the art of launching down solid.
There is also another point. If SpaceX cannot have 12+ launches into orbit, there is absolutely zero probability that SpaceX can launch people to Mars in 2020's. If this is the case, we may well forget all speculation considering MCT vehicles or Falcon X series.This is the thread for 2014. Capabilities will be different in the coming years.
That is untrue and I strongly disagree. SpaceX must establish their position already in 2014 so that they have strong enough revenue stream for building the future.
addition: As SpaceX has around 4000 employees, it needs revenue stream at least 400 million for 2014. This means that SpaceX must launch quite a few commercial launches in order to stay in business and move forward. This also supports the idea for 12+ launches for the year 2014.
I expect that Elon Musk and SpaceX will be limited by production capacity, not pad/vehicle launch operations/turnaround time.If this were a production question, I might agree. But that doesn't include vehicle and spacecraft integration, getting a range spot, weather, problems with the vehicle or space craft, engine and stage testing, and the rest of the process, which includes stuff relating to ISS when it comes to Dragon flights. Just running F9s off the assembly line isn't the limiting factor in my opinion.
And Elon Musk's 'other business' Tesla mass produces over 500 aluminum vehicles/month... [correction: 600 aluminium vehicles per week] So Elon knows production...
At least 10 flights in 2014
I disagree with this. The whole point of the existence of SpaceX is to make it such, that running Falcon Niners from assembly line is the limiting factor. We see if this is the reality already in 2014 but from 2015 onwards, the production of cores should be the limiting factor. Especially this is the case when SpaceX's own commercial launch pad is up and running.
I expect that Elon Musk and SpaceX will be limited by production capacity, not pad/vehicle launch operations/turnaround time.If this were a production question, I might agree. But that doesn't include vehicle and spacecraft integration, getting a range spot, weather, problems with the vehicle or space craft, engine and stage testing, and the rest of the process, which includes stuff relating to ISS when it comes to Dragon flights. Just running F9s off the assembly line isn't the limiting factor in my opinion.
And Elon Musk's 'other business' Tesla mass produces over 500 aluminum vehicles/month... [correction: 600 aluminium vehicles per week] So Elon knows production...
At least 10 flights in 2014
I disagree with this. The whole point of the existence of SpaceX is to make it such, that running Falcon Niners from assembly line is the limiting factor. We see if this is the reality already in 2014 but from 2015 onwards, the production of cores should be the limiting factor. Especially this is the case when SpaceX's own commercial launch pad is up and running.
But it currently is. SpaceX says that they can produce a core a month and that through 2014 they will be producing more ; their lowest scheduled turnaround time is about a month. The bottleneck is at the pad.
Obviously it would be financially beneficial for SpaceX if they could do 12+ launches in 2014, but that is irrelevant to this thread. The poll is not about an ideal scenario where everything works perfectly, it's about real life where schedules always shift to the right and unseen problems arise, limiting the amount of launches that they can perform.
1. Actually our only reliable method to estimate how many launches there will be in 2014, is to try to make guesswork what are SpaceX's ambitions for the growth. It was pointed out, that SpaceX is surviving financially with Nasa flights alone.
2. Therefore If SpaceX wants to have 18 launches for 2014, then there will be 18 launches, but I may have doubts if this is really what SpaceX wants, because Nasa is providing abundant financing for SpaceX.
I expect that Elon Musk and SpaceX will be limited by production capacity, not pad/vehicle launch operations/turnaround time.If this were a production question, I might agree. But that doesn't include vehicle and spacecraft integration, getting a range spot, weather, problems with the vehicle or space craft, engine and stage testing, and the rest of the process, which includes stuff relating to ISS when it comes to Dragon flights. Just running F9s off the assembly line isn't the limiting factor in my opinion.
And Elon Musk's 'other business' Tesla mass produces over 500 aluminum vehicles/month... [correction: 600 aluminium vehicles per week] So Elon knows production...
At least 10 flights in 2014
I disagree with this. The whole point of the existence of SpaceX is to make it such, that running Falcon Niners from assembly line is the limiting factor. We see if this is the reality already in 2014 but from 2015 onwards, the production of cores should be the limiting factor. Especially this is the case when SpaceX's own commercial launch pad is up and running.
Therefore If SpaceX wants to have 18 launches for 2014, then there will be 18 launches.
It doesn't work like that.If they were launching blocks of concrete to orbit, it almost would ( given range availability ). However they probably dont want to, if they intend to stay in business, and a lot of people here dont understand that.
Schedules can shift also to other direction. As I predicted, several launches will happen in 2014 that were scheduled for 2015 or are not yet scheduled for SpaceX.Schedules can shift that way, but they rarely do, and when they do, it tends to be by much smaller amounts. SpaceX has shown now signs of bucking this trend to date...
Pretty confident FH will launch in 2013.
What is the history with payloads causing slippages? Everybody is talking as if SpaceX has a bunch of payloads sitting in a warehouse ready to fly.CASSIOPE definitely waited for the LV, not the other way around. My impression is that SES-8 and Thaicom 6 did too, although not for nearly as long.
Somehow I don't think that's the case. Are the manifested payloads even built yet? Well at least the Dragon ones cannot be ready to fly yet, for sure.Comsats frequently get delivered in a timely manner to other launch providers, although of course payload related delays do happen.
1. they currently have 2 pads. So that makes the 12 + option not insanity...
2. I'm much more skeptical that they will get everything launched this year that is on their manifest, which stand at 15 launches.
In the last four months, SpaceX almost did three, I think 9 is a given for 2014 but this figure is low since they had some initial teething problems during the first launches, so I am sure they will do even better. I vote 12+.
In fact I had taken that in account. I just think that SpaceX will run into a one or two major snags this year. Ramping up production and launch rate without stumbling over something is rather rare in the launch business. I don't expect anything catastrophic but a few major incidents requiring mitigation and a slowing-down of things.In the last four months, SpaceX almost did three, I think 9 is a given for 2014 but this figure is low since they had some initial teething problems during the first launches, so I am sure they will do even better. I vote 12+.
That's actually a really good point. I'm not sure if any of the people who are saying five to seven are taking into account the half-year gap between 1.0 and 1.1.
In fact I had taken that in account. I just think that SpaceX will run into a one or two major snags this year. Ramping up production and launch rate without stumbling over something is rather rare in the launch business. I don't expect anything catastrophic but a few major incidents requiring mitigation and a slowing-down of things.In the last four months, SpaceX almost did three, I think 9 is a given for 2014 but this figure is low since they had some initial teething problems during the first launches, so I am sure they will do even better. I vote 12+.
That's actually a really good point. I'm not sure if any of the people who are saying five to seven are taking into account the half-year gap between 1.0 and 1.1.
What does hyperloop have to do with Spacex?
If Elon decides to do the hyperloop thing, it has a lot of synergy with SpaceX resources (advanced metalurgy, advanced computer simulation, testing resources).
What does hyperloop have to do with Spacex?Some SpaceX engineers, and the statement from Elon about potentially testing a prototype at SpaceX's Texas facility. IIRC. And the email address [email protected] for suggestions.
What does hyperloop have to do with Spacex?
What does hyperloop have to do with Spacex?
I went with 8, but I'm expecting 7. I simply like to bias my votes :p
My reasoning was that both the Pad Abort and the MaxQ Abort will count at least as a full campaign.
No real F9 hardware for the pad abort, but a totally new rocket stage: the Dragon launch abort system. More thrust than a Falcon 1, and nearly as many engines as a Falcon 9 with a hypergolic fuel.I went with 8, but I'm expecting 7. I simply like to bias my votes :p
My reasoning was that both the Pad Abort and the MaxQ Abort will count at least as a full campaign.
No, the pad abort involves no actual F9 hardware. It will launch from a special trunk base/mount, as far as I understand.
Bonic is assuming that the flight rate decreases over time. I don't know. We'll see in 2015. My vote will come after Thaicom. A bit of a cop-out, but I really want to see if they are successful. This rocket still seems to be under development. Thaicom seems more like a third test flight than a second operational flight. I'll be happy when they stop slipping and scrubbing.
before then they are still in training mode... I know that sounds a bit harsh, but I say it out of belief that they can do it... just going to take time...
before then they are still in training mode... I know that sounds a bit harsh, but I say it out of belief that they can do it... just going to take time...
Agreed. I think the deciding factor for the number of launches in 2014 will be whether they get down to business and work the tempo problems, or they go off on some new upgrade adventure. Personally, I think that adventure will happen and it'll be called "Falcon Heavy".. or commercial crew.
addition: As SpaceX has around 4000 employees, it needs revenue stream at least 400 million for 2014. This means that SpaceX must launch quite a few commercial launches in order to stay in business and move forward. This also supports the idea for 12+ launches for the year 2014.
addition: As SpaceX has around 4000 employees, it needs revenue stream at least 400 million for 2014. This means that SpaceX must launch quite a few commercial launches in order to stay in business and move forward. This also supports the idea for 12+ launches for the year 2014.Not an issue. Just two CRS launches plus MaxQ dragon test and escape abort tests gets 80% of that. So even large delays would still make payroll.
I would like to see SpaceX wean itself somewhat off of government support. There is no problem with them taking NASA money for NASA work like CRS and CCCap but I think it would be bad for the company's collective culture in the long-term if it remains dependent on such sources of funding.IIRC approx 60% of their launch business is non-govt. Business is business. Different contracts simply require different approaches. I don't think govt business really presents any 'problems' for SpaceX.
I would like to see SpaceX wean itself somewhat off of government support. There is no problem with them taking NASA money for NASA work like CRS and CCCap but I think it would be bad for the company's collective culture in the long-term if it remains dependent on such sources of funding.
Business is business. Different contracts simply require different approaches.Doing business with government, depending on the industry, requires substantially different approaches in many aspects of your business. And then when you enter military business, it gets even trickier.
I detect a bias against odd numbers. It's kind of funny that we all have carefully reasoned explanations for our votes, but still somehow there are over twice as many votes for even numbers as odd numbers.
I detect a bias against odd numbers. It's kind of funny that we all have carefully reasoned explanations for our votes, but still somehow there are over twice as many votes for even numbers as odd numbers.
I detect a bias against odd numbers. It's kind of funny that we all have carefully reasoned explanations for our votes, but still somehow there are over twice as many votes for even numbers as odd numbers.
Indeed. I have thought the same.
I was thinking about voting six or eight, then in the end I thougth: "why do I feel it has to be one of those?" and voted seven instead. But six and eight were oddly attracting.
I detect a bias against odd numbers. It's kind of funny that we all have carefully reasoned explanations for our votes, but still somehow there are over twice as many votes for even numbers as odd numbers.
Indeed. I have thought the same.
I was thinking about voting six or eight, then in the end I thougth: "why do I feel it has to be one of those?" and voted seven instead. But six and eight were oddly attracting.
I voted 3 for 2013. I'll guess 5 for 2014.
- Ed Kyle
Hey folks! First time poster here. Just want to express my excitement for the coming year. So, I got out my fuzzy dice and rolled me a nine.... not just any nine.... a Falcon nine! *snicker*Welcome to the forum!
+1!before then they are still in training mode... I know that sounds a bit harsh, but I say it out of belief that they can do it... just going to take time...
Agreed. I think the deciding factor for the number of launches in 2014 will be whether they get down to business and work the tempo problems, or they go off on some new upgrade adventure. Personally, I think that adventure will happen and it'll be called "Falcon Heavy".. or commercial crew.
I think they upgrade everything on their adventures including the elements they need to improve the flight rate. Elon Musk said before that you need to improve rocketry every single year. So far, it seems like the ambitions for 2014-15 are so great that, if achieved, SpaceX would simultaneously cross almost every single technical barrier the industry has achieved thus far and break some pretty new ground. I don't want to sound wild-eyed or overstate things, but it's nearly true. Multiple re-starts, RTLS, commercial crew, and super-heavy lift. People here always hold back and qualify statements like that with obligatory "if they are able to" or "if they don't fail." I don't feel the need to right now.
I suppose my point is that given the choice between a very efficient and long status quo built on years of experience and an every evolving bleeding edge, I'd choose the latter. I guess I'm just in love with that kind of thing. So whether SpaceX achieves a once a month rate really speaks a lot less to me than if they build the rocket that can potentially achieve once a day. The minute they stop striving for that goal and lose their ideals of pushing the edge of what can be done, I really wont care what their flight rate is.
So I don't really know what their flight rate will be or how many slips scrubs or full explosions will rock their launch pad. I just hope they don't waste a few years trying to get really good at doing the last thing they did.
+1!before then they are still in training mode... I know that sounds a bit harsh, but I say it out of belief that they can do it... just going to take time...
Agreed. I think the deciding factor for the number of launches in 2014 will be whether they get down to business and work the tempo problems, or they go off on some new upgrade adventure. Personally, I think that adventure will happen and it'll be called "Falcon Heavy".. or commercial crew.
I think they upgrade everything on their adventures including the elements they need to improve the flight rate. Elon Musk said before that you need to improve rocketry every single year. So far, it seems like the ambitions for 2014-15 are so great that, if achieved, SpaceX would simultaneously cross almost every single technical barrier the industry has achieved thus far and break some pretty new ground. I don't want to sound wild-eyed or overstate things, but it's nearly true. Multiple re-starts, RTLS, commercial crew, and super-heavy lift. People here always hold back and qualify statements like that with obligatory "if they are able to" or "if they don't fail." I don't feel the need to right now.
I suppose my point is that given the choice between a very efficient and long status quo built on years of experience and an every evolving bleeding edge, I'd choose the latter. I guess I'm just in love with that kind of thing. So whether SpaceX achieves a once a month rate really speaks a lot less to me than if they build the rocket that can potentially achieve once a day. The minute they stop striving for that goal and lose their ideals of pushing the edge of what can be done, I really wont care what their flight rate is.
So I don't really know what their flight rate will be or how many slips scrubs or full explosions will rock their launch pad. I just hope they don't waste a few years trying to get really good at doing the last thing they did.
I could not agree more. :)
I lowballed SpaceX in 2013 and they've proven they can launch without much prep time.
I think they can launch 3 in 4 months so that means 9-10. I'll go with 9.
With the Thaicom-6 mission looking good for its January 3 launch date, plenty of time will be available to turnaround SLC-40 for the CRS-3 mission, which is currently tracking a February 11 launch date.
Chris and William suggest no new slip:QuoteWith the Thaicom-6 mission looking good for its January 3 launch date, plenty of time will be available to turnaround SLC-40 for the CRS-3 mission, which is currently tracking a February 11 launch date.
Not so fast, my friends... imagine what happens if SpaceX achieves core return in February with CRS-3.... so much changes... more if, as I expect and Elon has promised, reuse is rapid..I believe at some point they will do a re-usability long run test.Ha! I will happily send you a ham sandwich if SpaceX flies a single stage vehicle to orbit in 2014.
With just a tiny payload, it might be possible to do SSTO
SpaceX could launch a Falcon Heavy demo flight with crossfeed... with no second stage... orbit the center core including sufficient fuel to de-orbit the core for reentry, return the sides AND the de-orbited legged center core for reuse....
would that count as a SSTO?
SpaceX could launch tons to LEO with full reuse..with a cost of only fuel and operations... unlimited by production of engines or cores... could they re-launch the same FH, all 3 cores, in late 2014?
Why not?
Not so fast, my friends... imagine what happens if SpaceX achieves core return in February with CRS-3.... ....
What would be the payload for a crossfeed FH with center core reuse and no second stage? ...
Happy new year, fellow NSFers.... next year promises to be quite a ride.
Interesting that after someone mentions that few people chose an odd number of flights, that number of people who are choosing an odd number seems to have increased dramatically.
Interesting that after someone mentions that few people chose an odd number of flights, that number of people who are choosing an odd number seems to have increased dramatically.
Yes there has, and people have been skewing their votes to the center of the distribution.
People! This is no about being cool. It is your guess.
Interesting that after someone mentions that few people chose an odd number of flights, that number of people who are choosing an odd number seems to have increased dramatically.
If only it was always this easy in statistics :) . I voted 8 early on, based on the list of planned launches, the fact that it's a nice round number, and, well, nothing else really.
Personally, I think the poll should close before the next launch attempt. Waiting to see if it succeeds or fails strikes me as little more than cheating, to be honest.
Personally, I think the poll should close before the next launch attempt. Waiting to see if it succeeds or fails strikes me as little more than cheating, to be honest.
The shape of the 2013 launch poll compared to the 2014 poll is a pretty clear indicator that the company has crossed a significant threshold.
Personally, I think the poll should close before the next launch attempt. Waiting to see if it succeeds or fails strikes me as little more than cheating, to be honest.
Cheating is when someone has an unfair advantage. No cheating here, just decision-making.
Okay, you are right that cheating is too strong a word. But it is clear that those people who wait until after the upcoming launch's success or failure will have a huge advantage over those who entered their votes before that time. If it succeeds, that gives a good indication that a high launch rate is likely, but if it fails, the expected number of launches would be significantly lower.Description of poll clearly indicates author expected it. "With Thaicom pushed to Jan 2014, everyone gets a freebie launch". Case closed.
I strongly recommend that this poll be cut off before the launch.I strongly recommend everyone voting after Thaicom launch (or before closing of poll).
I see that two people picked 1, and frankly, I don't understand their reasoning.It is just oppposite extreme of SpaceX fan-bois - SpaceX haters with
It is just oppposite extreme of SpaceX fan-bois - SpaceX haters withwishful thinkingexpectations that Thaicom F9 will do Kerbal and subsequent return to flight campaign will last more than year. In other words, pretty much only thing that could allow business as usual for usual suspects. Of course, in reality even that would only delay inevitable.
I must say it is only slightly more realistic than expectations of 12+ launches.
Entirely expected as the vote count increases... You have seen a normal distribution curve, right? (aka 'bell curve') It may not have anything to do with "being cool".Interesting that after someone mentions that few people chose an odd number of flights, that number of people who are choosing an odd number seems to have increased dramatically.
Yes there has, and people have been skewing their votes to the center of the distribution.
People! This is no about being cool. It is your guess.
Too late. You should've spoken up earlier.Personally, I think the poll should close before the next launch attempt. Waiting to see if it succeeds or fails strikes me as little more than cheating, to be honest.
Cheating is when someone has an unfair advantage. No cheating here, just decision-making.
Okay, you are right that cheating is too strong a word. But it is clear that those people who wait until after the upcoming launch's success or failure will have a huge advantage over those who entered their votes before that time. If it succeeds, that gives a good indication that a high launch rate is likely, but if it fails, the expected number of launches would be significantly lower. I strongly recommend that this poll be cut off before the launch.
So I have to ask - will the additional aerodynamic forces on the booster preclude a trip to orbit after the Dragon has separated? Since it's not a conical shape - I can see additional drag from this configuration - but is that drag enough to destabilize the booster after Dragon separation?
...Main engine shutdown during abort - this is the thing which precludes trip to orbit :)
So I have to ask - will the additional aerodynamic forces on the booster preclude a trip to orbit after the Dragon has separated?
Since it's not a conical shape - I can see additional drag from this configuration - but is that drag enough to destabilize the booster after Dragon separation?Most likely, this "drag" is strong enough to tear apart the buster immediately after Dragon separation
And, if it can go to orbit - could be a way to get some student cubesats into orbit :)I'm afraid no.
...Main engine shutdown during abort - this is the thing which precludes trip to orbit :)
So I have to ask - will the additional aerodynamic forces on the booster preclude a trip to orbit after the Dragon has separated?
Most of the engines on the first stage are not restartable.
...Main engine shutdown during abort - this is the thing which precludes trip to orbit :)
So I have to ask - will the additional aerodynamic forces on the booster preclude a trip to orbit after the Dragon has separated?
Most of the engines on the first stage are not restartable.
I was under the impression that all M-1Ds were identical, unlike previous versions. Is that incorrect?
No you're right. It's obvious from their countdown process that they are re-startable. We've seen it done.
No you're right. It's obvious from their countdown process that they are re-startable. We've seen it done.
But not all can restart inflight.
It was mighty nice of SpaceX to give us spacexstats.com just in time for all of us here to kibbitz. :)
Wildly enthusiastic for: 12Finally, someone who understands that the poll isn't about what you /want/ to happen but what you think /will/ happen!
hoping for:10
voted for: 6
Expect Delays Delays Delays Delays Delays... today perfect example.
The cost of a failure is too damaging to SpaceX reputation. They might even grow their business by demonstrating extra care so they don't lose a rocket (and somebody's expensive payload). This becomes particularly true when there are people up there.
It was mighty nice of SpaceX to give us spacexstats.com just in time for all of us here to kibbitz. :)
That's a fan site, not SpaceX.
It was mighty nice of SpaceX to give us spacexstats.com just in time for all of us here to kibbitz. :)
That's a fan site, not SpaceX.
It was mighty nice of SpaceX to give us spacexstats.com just in time for all of us here to kibbitz. :)
That's a fan site, not SpaceX.
It presently shows a countdown to the Thaicom 6 launch. 10 minutes to go!
I find it encouraging that 90% of 343 votes (so far) have assumed 6 or more [please don't move]orbital SpaceX flights this year[/ [lplease don't move].That might be the most annoying post ever. Now that I know how to do it, I will be sure to not. ::)
Well, those who voted '1' are at least now safe from being accused of optimism! ;DYou know, it is basically impossible there will be only one launch this year... ;) Even biggest pessimists* counted more launches (four) than in 2013.
Do we count slips carried over to the new year as a scheduled launch? We need a judges's ruling (Chris?) :DSlips does not matter, just actual launch date.
I'm optimistic. 5I think that you are sarcastic, not optimistic.
One thing is at least clear... With this launch, SpaceX has demonstrated their ability to launch two rockets from the same launch pad within ~30 days (32 actually).
I voted voted for 8 even though I don't think they will successfully launch that many times.It's 8 from 8 now so no reason to suspect it can't continue. I think you'll win your 'gamble'. :)
I'm optimistic. 5I think that you are sarcastic, not optimistic.
9 or 10 probably correct for optimistic case.
No, they don't make a 200 million USD deficit. You are confusing price with cost. The price for an F9 launch may be 50 million, but the cost to SpaceX is a lot less, same goes for FH. 20 million might still cover the cost of the F9 launch for SpaceX, but not make a profit.
Or, in $ terms, these three launches make $200M deficit in revenue. Is it possible for SpaceX to pull such deficit? – I don’t know, I’m not an expert, but for me it’s enough to doubt "10 flights in 2014" like 11 or 12.
No, they don't make a 200 million USD deficit. You are confusing price with cost. The price for an F9 launch may be 50 million, but the cost to SpaceX is a lot less, same goes for FH. 20 million might still cover the cost of the F9 launch for SpaceX, but not make a profit.
Or, in $ terms, these three launches make $200M deficit in revenue. Is it possible for SpaceX to pull such deficit? – I don’t know, I’m not an expert, but for me it’s enough to doubt "10 flights in 2014" like 11 or 12.
No, I don't think I confused them - I said "deficit in revenue"Whatever that is supposed to mean.
Considering how much went wrong with the Thaicom launch ("almost nothing" is also a quantity!),I was starting to consider 5 launches before Thaicom was successful. I am becoming more confident in 6, but we'll see what the next week and a half bring.
I expect some people will be looking to expect more launches this year that previously predicted...
Robo,Well, mostly because I think that 1 launch every 2 months per launch site is a difficult-enough goal. And from what I can tell, they aren't likely to have another launch at Vandenberg this year. Falcon Heavy (in actual hardware form) has not been seen yet and is supposed to be before the Conae launch there, and I believe the payload for Conae is not yet ready (someone correct me!).
When I figured out my number, I tried to figure out the failure modes and then tried to evaluate how likely each one was. Can I ask what you think would prevent SpaceX from doing 7 launches. Was it their production and testing rate? Do you assume it to be in sufficient until you see more cores?
1 month between launches per pad is probably close to the limit, and I think 1.5-2 months is a more feasible average eventually.
You hear how hectic the workers seemed to do 2 launches with ~5 weeks between them. I think 8 weeks is more realistic long-term, plus you have the pad-abort and the more complex Dragon launches.
They /hoped/ to manage a 3-week turnaround time. And I think it's possibly they may do it in the future. But it will take a while to get there, not overnight.1 month between launches per pad is probably close to the limit, and I think 1.5-2 months is a more feasible average eventually.
You hear how hectic the workers seemed to do 2 launches with ~5 weeks between them. I think 8 weeks is more realistic long-term, plus you have the pad-abort and the more complex Dragon launches.
Maybe, but Thaicom 6 was originally set to launch on Christmas day, 22 days after the SES-8 launch. The ultimate launch date was pushed back a couple of weeks, but SpaceX must have thought that they could manage a three-week turnaround time.
They /hoped/ to manage a 3-week turnaround time. And I think it's possibly they may do it in the future. But it will take a while to get there, not overnight.
...(which won't really be a huge problem long-term, since they probably will have 4 pads available by 2016... giving them at least a 24 flight per year possible launch rate... though I won't be surprised if they end up shutting down a site).
as far as the Cape goes, I suspect manned launches and FH from 39A, cargo and comsats from SLC 40...(which won't really be a huge problem long-term, since they probably will have 4 pads available by 2016... giving them at least a 24 flight per year possible launch rate... though I won't be surprised if they end up shutting down a site).
Well, I assume the 4 sites will be Canaveral LC39a, LC40, Vandenberg, and Brownsville. They need at least one pad at each location, so the only one that could be shutting down would be Canaveral LC40. I am not clear on why they need LC39, is it for Falcon Heavy or future Raptor based rocket? Would seem that the only reason to shut down LC40 would be if they decided to discontinue F9, unlikely for several years.
Along those lines of thinking, is the current TE at SLC 40 able to be moved to 39A? It appears as though it's built to accommodate FH but now that they have 39A perhaps they'll just launch F9 from SLC 40.
I believe SpaceX plans to modify SLC-40's TE for FH, either that or they'll launch out of LC-39A.
They /hoped/ to manage a 3-week turnaround time. And I think it's possibly they may do it in the future. But it will take a while to get there, not overnight.
The next scheduled launch for SpaceX is slated for 22 February, with a Falcon 9 v1.1 deploying the next Dragon spacecraft on a Commercial Resupply Services mission to the ISS.
SpaceX aims to follow this with a mission to orbit eight Orbcomm satellites in March and a pair of GTO launches for AsiaSat of China in April and May, before another Dragon mission in early June. Further Dragon launches are planned for September and December.
SpaceX is also believed to be planning a launch with nine Orbcomm satellites before the end of the year, and a mission to deploy an undisclosed payload for Space Systems/Loral. All of these launches are expected to take place from Cape Canaveral.
They /hoped/ to manage a 3-week turnaround time. And I think it's possibly they may do it in the future. But it will take a while to get there, not overnight.
Robobeat. I was just wondering what the reasoning was to satisfy my curiosity. You referred to 2011 and an interval between Dragon flights. You also said you haven't seen cores and that you don't believe they can sustain a launch rate yet. Additionally, you added an extra month of delays to each flight in their manifest. You seem like the kind of guy who always comes in under budget and early.
You've actually predicted a complete regression and breakdown at SpaceX in which they get worse over time. I guess I was wondering if anyone could describe the mechanism that would cause a huge slowdown in their launch rate besides skepticism. For example, do you have evidence that they aren't producing cores at one a month or faster? Do you know why they would double the period between launches going forward? Do you know of any outstanding technical issues that would take a month or more of delays to fix each launch?
Restart took them a while and Dragon may take a while to upgrade, but the launch vehicle has demonstrated GTO requiring close to maximum performance twice without any major issues right? The envelopes get less interesting and less demanding from here right? So what's the problem?
I believe SpaceX plans to modify SLC-40's TE for FH, either that or they'll launch out of LC-39A.
Yeah, it seems like the low votes are mostly trying to fit SpaceX to some other company's data points. I don't think n is high enough to fit the future to the past when it comes to the F9's launch systems. Given this, I think the only way to constrain a prediction for 2014 would be to identify and identifiable tangible barriers for them based on the available information specific to them and to 2014. I suppose the answer is that no one can identify a verifiable reason why they can't launch 6 or 8 without referring to an unrelated entity or an unrelated period of history.
Low votes are counting in the very real possibility that during the next 12 months, something goes badly wrong and such an event can easily stop launches for months as the issue is investigated and fixed.
Low votes are counting in the very real possibility that during the next 12 months, something goes badly wrong and such an event can easily stop launches for months as the issue is investigated and fixed.
Or just that the payloads aren't ready.
Does anyone else believe as I do that SpaceX launch bookings will go up dramatically toward the end of the year? (last half)
Does anyone else believe as I do that SpaceX launch bookings will go up dramatically toward the end of the year? (last half)
I'm sure they will get more bookings over 2014 but those bookings are for future flights 2-3 years from now.
Not sure if any sat waiting for a ride to orbit on one of the competing rockets could make this late switch to SpaceX and still make a 2014 launch if it turns out the number of ready-to-go payloads becomes the limiting factor. Almost certainly not.
2015 on the other hand might see additions if SpaceX (and potential customers) realistically think they can launch them all.
I don't foresee any change in the manifest for 2014 unless there is a satellite that has been sitting around for a long time (Cassoipe comes to mind) waiting for a ride. I don't know of any. Even then it might be hard to fit it into the schedule although October/November looks a little slack.
I don't foresee any change in the manifest for 2014 unless there is a satellite that has been sitting around for a long time (Cassoipe comes to mind) waiting for a ride. I don't know of any. Even then it might be hard to fit it into the schedule although October/November looks a little slack.
SpaceX has 15 rocket launches in their manifest for 2014. It is hard to see how you did come into conclusion that Oct/Nov looks a little slack.
(I voted for 20 launches for 2014, because I assumed that there will come additional launches outside Manifest or that are scheduled for 2015.)
...because I assumed that there will come additional launches outside Manifest...It does not work this way, it takes 2-3 years to build and test a comsat, and some hundreds of M$, too.
...SpaceX has 15 rocket launches in their manifest for 2014...So what? In Dec 2012 SpaceX had 8 launches manifested for 2013. They did 3 launches.
It is hard to see...Try harder :)
It does not work this way, it takes 2-3 years to build and test a comsat, and some hundreds of M$, too.
It does not work this way, it takes 2-3 years to build and test a comsat, and some hundreds of M$, too.
There is interesting off-topic: comsats are mostly expensive and slow to build, because launch costs are high and there is no possibility for redundancy due to weight limits. And certainly there is no opportunity to replacement satellite if something fails. If SpaceX succeeds with their goal on bringing launch costs down, there is no point to spend hundreds of millions on building and designing a comsat.
It would be interesting to see, what satellites that are scheduled for 2015 are ready in 2014 or they can be made ready in 2014. I would guess that there is at least four 2015 satellites that can be launched in 2014. Also SpaceX may do some test flights considering reusability of upper stage.
I think that SpaceX must ramp up fast their launch rates, because 50 million per launch is unsustainable at low launch rates. Although, Nasa projects are today more important source of revenue for SpaceX than commercial launches.
Low votes are counting in the very real possibility that during the next 12 months, something goes badly wrong at least once and such an event can easily stop launches for months
The last two sats are listed as due in 1Q 2015 on the sites of their manufacturers, they are not going to fly in 2014...
No. Comsats are expensive and slow to build because ... they are expensive and slow to build.It does not work this way, it takes 2-3 years to build and test a comsat, and some hundreds of M$, too.
...
comsats are mostly expensive and slow to build, because launch costs are high and there is no possibility for redundancy due to weight limits...
...Sounds like a bet for me :)
I would guess that there is at least four 2015 satellites that can be launched in 2014.
...
(I voted for 20 launches for 2014, because I assumed that there will come additional launches outside Manifest or that are scheduled for 2015.)Pure fantasy. Read from my lips: IT. WILL. NOT. HAPPEN. No miracles exists and Musk is not Second Coming of rocketry, tyvm. Your assumption is wrong.
And you - you send me a bottle of Finlandia Vodka - for any payload from their current list - which did not get launched by the end of the year (marked by UTC or EST. or even PST, I'm not picky)This will be a few very easy bottles of Finlandia Vodka. Crafty.
The last two sats are listed as due in 1Q 2015 on the sites of their manufacturers, they are not going to fly in 2014...
Are you sure this isn't referring to 1Q of FY15, which is 1 Oct - 31 Dec 14?
(http://www.threedollarbillcinema.org/06/logos/StoliBeReal_logo_color.jpg)
Falcon 9 is waiting for payloads?
I thought the payloads have been waiting on Falcon 9 for years now.
In the short term surely the payloads not being ready is of no concern?
Yes. With SAOCOM the delay is actually longer - Sept.2015 (http://database.eohandbook.com/database/agencysummary.aspx?agencyID=24).And Invap is doing both Arsat-2 AND SAOCOM-1A. Since both are expected to launch on September 2015, and I don't think they can do two launch capaigns together, I would even take that date with a grain of salt.
Yes. With SAOCOM the delay is actually longer - Sept.2015 (http://database.eohandbook.com/database/agencysummary.aspx?agencyID=24).And Invap is doing both Arsat-2 AND SAOCOM-1A. Since both are expected to launch on September 2015, and I don't think they can do two launch capaigns together, I would even take that date with a grain of salt.
(I voted for 20 launches for 2014, because I assumed that there will come additional launches outside Manifest or that are scheduled for 2015.)Pure fantasy. Read from my lips: IT. WILL. NOT. HAPPEN.
(I voted for 20 launches for 2014, because I assumed that there will come additional launches outside Manifest or that are scheduled for 2015.)Pure fantasy. Read from my lips: IT. WILL. NOT. HAPPEN.
20 launches assumed, that SpaceX has already achieved rapid reusability with Falcon 9 v.1.1 rocket.
20 launches assumed, that SpaceX has already achieved rapid reusability with Falcon 9 v.1.1 rocket.This does not have anything to do with reusability, and everything to do with payloads, or more precisely tendency of slips in schedules to happen only in one direction - to right.
And BTW I think first launch of F9 with already used first stage will happen at earliest in 2016, not 14. First few recovered stages obviously will not be reused, just analyzed to last screw. After that these stages will end up as SpaceX lawn decoration or something. In fact, I expect first launch like that to break record of users at once on this very forum.
The last one landed this year can fly next year again, why not? It's optimistic but not excessively so.Let's look at the Dragon case. First recovery will be disassembled and analyzed ad infinitum. After that, it will be reassembled and displayed on some corporate location until they need the tax break of donating it to some museum.
And BTW I think first launch of F9 with already used first stage will happen at earliest in 2016, not 14. First few recovered stages obviously will not be reused, just analyzed to last screw. After that these stages will end up as SpaceX lawn decoration or something. In fact, I expect first launch like that to break record of users at once on this very forum.
And BTW I think first launch of F9 with already used first stage will happen at earliest in 2016, not 14. First few recovered stages obviously will not be reused, just analyzed to last screw. After that these stages will end up as SpaceX lawn decoration or something. In fact, I expect first launch like that to break record of users at once on this very forum.
What you're describing sounds like destructive analysis of the recovered stage. Please note that if this were done, it would not prove that the stage could have been reused. In other words, I'd expect at least a test flight of one of the "first few recovered stages" to prove that it is, indeed, reusable. In fact, I'd almost expect such a test flight to happen as soon as possible, otherwise some may start suspecting it is more "refurbish-able" (a.k.a. space shuttle) than "reusable" (DC-X).
The in-flight abort might be their first good opportunity to do that. Could be why they've gone a bit vague on when it will happen.
The in-flight abort might be their first good opportunity to do that. Could be why they've gone a bit vague on when it will happen.
(I voted for 20 launches for 2014, because I assumed that there will come additional launches outside Manifest or that are scheduled for 2015.)Pure fantasy. Read from my lips: IT. WILL. NOT. HAPPEN.
20 launches assumed, that SpaceX has already achieved rapid reusability with Falcon 9 v.1.1 rocket.
"In terms when we actually re-fly the stage, it's going to depend on what condition the stage is in and obviously getting customers comfortable with that. So it's difficult to say when would actually re-fly it. If things go super well then we would be able to re-fly a Falcon 9 stage before the end of next year and that's our aspiration."
And BTW I think first launch of F9 with already used first stage will happen at earliest in 2016, not 14. First few recovered stages obviously will not be reused, just analyzed to last screw. After that these stages will end up as SpaceX lawn decoration or something. In fact, I expect first launch like that to break record of users at once on this very forum.
What you're describing sounds like destructive analysis of the recovered stage. Please note that if this were done, it would not prove that the stage could have been reused. In other words, I'd expect at least a test flight of one of the "first few recovered stages" to prove that it is, indeed, reusable. In fact, I'd almost expect such a test flight to happen as soon as possible, otherwise some may start suspecting it is more "refurbish-able" (a.k.a. space shuttle) than "reusable" (DC-X).
The in-flight abort might be their first good opportunity to do that. Could be why they've gone a bit vague on when it will happen.
And BTW I think first launch of F9 with already used first stage will happen at earliest in 2016, not 14. First few recovered stages obviously will not be reused, just analyzed to last screw. After that these stages will end up as SpaceX lawn decoration or something. In fact, I expect first launch like that to break record of users at once on this very forum.
What you're describing sounds like destructive analysis of the recovered stage. Please note that if this were done, it would not prove that the stage could have been reused. In other words, I'd expect at least a test flight of one of the "first few recovered stages" to prove that it is, indeed, reusable. In fact, I'd almost expect such a test flight to happen as soon as possible, otherwise some may start suspecting it is more "refurbish-able" (a.k.a. space shuttle) than "reusable" (DC-X).
The in-flight abort might be their first good opportunity to do that. Could be why they've gone a bit vague on when it will happen.
I doubt the first stage will be in any condition to do anything after the abort. Remember in an abort the first stage engines are shut off then the capsule will launch itself away from the first stage. I'd be willing to bet the first stage will be tumbling wildly if not severely damaged when the capsule leaves.
The in-flight abort might be their first good opportunity to do that. Could be why they've gone a bit vague on when it will happen.
I doubt the first stage will be in any condition to do anything after the abort. Remember in an abort the first stage engines are shut off then the capsule will launch itself away from the first stage. I'd be willing to bet the first stage will be tumbling wildly if not severely damaged when the capsule leaves.
I think they mean use of a second hand first stage for the test
That is even somewhat pessimist... the optimists say that next launch (CRS-3) will land a stage on dry land. Personally I think they will need at least 2 additional "practice runs" first, before an used stage is sitting on land, intact.
What you're describing sounds like destructive analysis of the recovered stage. Please note that if this were done, it would not prove that the stage could have been reused. In other words, I'd expect at least a test flight of one of the "first few recovered stages" to prove that it is, indeed, reusable.Of course, I expect at least one test flight too (like when introducing new rocket). But analysis will be very helpful to check predictions vs reality, level of wear, what is/isn't damaged, what is needed to be changed/fixed etc.
The in-flight abort might be their first good opportunity to do that. [test of used stage]Even assuming we recovered stages in sufficient quantity to have spare one after all analysis before abort test (extremely doubtful), still NOPE. Too much rides on this abort test to introduce big possible point of failure. Same for "yay lets use recovered stages for FH" nonsense (tip: side boosters for FH are different than standard F9 stage - in other words you can reuse only FH stages for next FH).
So, things going super-well means reuse before the end of the year.Things never ever go "super well", tyvm. Stage landing in one piece on land in 2014 would be great and historic achievment. It is enough for this year.
Heck, who knows, they may already have sat deals in the books that have clauses that allow reused stages (with perhaps price reduction attached)?While it is possible, I would be very surprised if any one of them would agree to be first guinea pig. In other words, they would have in clause condition "at least x successful launches with already used stage". That means test flight, as was said on beginning of this post.
I suggest a cost-effective approach in the event of a surprise early 1st-stage landing is:And BTW I think first launch of F9 with already used first stage will happen at earliest in 2016, not 14. First few recovered stages obviously will not be reused, just analyzed to last screw. After that these stages will end up as SpaceX lawn decoration or something. In fact, I expect first launch like that to break record of users at once on this very forum.
What you're describing sounds like destructive analysis of the recovered stage. Please note that if this were done, it would not prove that the stage could have been reused. In other words, I'd expect at least a test flight of one of the "first few recovered stages" to prove that it is, indeed, reusable. In fact, I'd almost expect such a test flight to happen as soon as possible, otherwise some may start suspecting it is more "refurbish-able" (a.k.a. space shuttle) than "reusable" (DC-X).
That is even somewhat pessimist... the optimists say that next launch (CRS-3) will land a stage on dry land. Personally I think they will need at least 2 additional "practice runs" first, before an used stage is sitting on land, intact.
I'd be a lot more inclined to believe that CRS-3 would demonstrated returning the first stage to dry land if they were farther into their Grasshopper/Grasshopper-2 flight testing program. Honestly, I think they'll be doing awesome if they pull off a first stage RTLS by the end of 2014. I think that would be amazing and revolutionary enough for me.
~Jon
That is even somewhat pessimist... the optimists say that next launch (CRS-3) will land a stage on dry land. Personally I think they will need at least 2 additional "practice runs" first, before an used stage is sitting on land, intact.
I'd be a lot more inclined to believe that CRS-3 would demonstrated returning the first stage to dry land if they were farther into their Grasshopper/Grasshopper-2 flight testing program. Honestly, I think they'll be doing awesome if they pull off a first stage RTLS by the end of 2014. I think that would be amazing and revolutionary enough for me.
~Jon
Would they need to file a flight plan for the stage/vehicle to RTLS? i.e would it be public before the event?
So they might put legs on it even if they're intending to do a water splashdown.
So they might put legs on it even if they're intending to do a water splashdown.
That's what Elon said, yeah.
Remotely more on-topic: they do have three CRS flights scheduled for 2014, and I wouldn't be surprised if they started making recovery attempts on non-CRS flights too, so subtract one from whatever you voted, for an estimates of how many recovery attempts they'll be making in 2014!
So, things going super-well means reuse before the end of the year.Things never ever go "super well", tyvm. Stage landing in one piece on land in 2014 would be great and historic achievment. It is enough for this year.
So, things going super-well means reuse before the end of the year.Things never ever go "super well", tyvm. Stage landing in one piece on land in 2014 would be great and historic achievment. It is enough for this year.
Precisely. My point was that rockinghorse's 20 launches vote (which he said depends on rapid reusability happening in 2014) was unrealistic because even in SpaceX's own best case scenario that won't happen this year.
...
Most of the projected boost in the Cape’s launch business is due to Space Exploration Technologies Corp., which is ramping up its commercial satellite launching services. SpaceX, which launched the Thaicom-6 commercial satellite from the facility Jan. 6., has reservations for an additional 9 launches, with an option for an 10th, according to the Air Force.
...
An interesting article:trying to alter the poll huh? :-[ :-\
SpaceX Drives Sharp Increase in Projected Launches at Cape
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/39110spacex-drives-sharp-increase-in-projected-launches-at-cape (http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/39110spacex-drives-sharp-increase-in-projected-launches-at-cape)Quote...
Most of the projected boost in the Cape’s launch business is due to Space Exploration Technologies Corp., which is ramping up its commercial satellite launching services. SpaceX, which launched the Thaicom-6 commercial satellite from the facility Jan. 6., has reservations for an additional 9 launches, with an option for an 10th, according to the Air Force.
...
So that does place an upper limit on the possible CCAFS launches this year from SpaceX's perspective - 11. (if no slips & if the 10th additional option is used)
This probably includes the Max-Q abort test, but I'm not sure if it includes that pad abort test.
Again, they will likely slip some of these, but it is interesting to see what their plans are from the range perspective.
In a move reminiscent of Arthur Dent's calculation of his prehistoric cave site:
I looked at the wayback machine to see SpaceX's manifest for 2013 as of late 2012: 7.
Today's manifest for 2014: 14.
Three actual launches in 2013, but I'll arbitrarily call it 3.5 cuz it was so close and so it makes the math easy:
Prediction for '14 = 14 * ( 3.5 /7 ) = 7.
(Yes, I'm ignoring h/w at the pad vs. launch date, and not really counting Thaicomm properly. In fact I'm ignoring all common sense, logic or reasoned thought, but hey my method is _quantitative_ :-) )
In a move reminiscent of Arthur Dent's calculation of his prehistoric cave site:
I looked at the wayback machine to see SpaceX's manifest for 2013 as of late 2012: 7.
Today's manifest for 2014: 14.
Three actual launches in 2013, but I'll arbitrarily call it 3.5 cuz it was so close and so it makes the math easy:
Prediction for '14 = 14 * ( 3.5 /7 ) = 7.
(Yes, I'm ignoring h/w at the pad vs. launch date, and not really counting Thaicomm properly. In fact I'm ignoring all common sense, logic or reasoned thought, but hey my method is _quantitative_ :-) )
>>I'm ignoring all common sense...
Well, if some quantitative approach turns out to be working, then they discover common sense hidden inside that approach - very soon :) And the logic - just as well...
I suggest alternative (and independent) quantitative approach:
Last year NSF poll on # SpaceX flights had 274 voters;
This time the poll grew to 476 voters, by closing time it's going to be close to 500.
Using your estimate for last year's #,
Prediction for '14 = 3.5 * 500 / 274 = 6.4 flights
which is in reasonable agreement with your result :)
As to common sense behind my formula, let's see if anybody disagree with this:
**Public attention is directly proportional to the scale of event**
;)
8 has been way out in front for a long time, but 7 is starting to creep up.
8 has been way out in front for a long time, but 7 is starting to creep up.
8 has been way out in front for a long time, but 7 is starting to creep up.
"Engineering is done with numbers. Everything else is opinion."
That's not really true. Just wait a few days for my numeric evaluation.
Hint: The "center of mass" has been around 7 & 3/4 since day two of the poll, and it hasn't really moved since.
People have started voting preferentially for odd numbers, after they heard that people were preferentially voting for even numbers. It hasn't changed the consensus.
8 has been way out in front for a long time, but 7 is starting to creep up.
"Engineering is done with numbers. Everything else is opinion."
Your statement is not really true. Just wait a few days for my numeric evaluation.
Hint: The "center of mass" has been around 7 & 3/4 since day two of the poll, and it hasn't really moved since.
People have started voting preferentially for odd numbers, after they heard that people were preferentially voting for even numbers. It hasn't changed the consensus.
8 has been way out in front for a long time, but 7 is starting to creep up.
"Engineering is done with numbers. Everything else is opinion."
Your statement is not really true. Just wait a few days for my numeric evaluation.
Hint: The "center of mass" has been around 7 & 3/4 since day two of the poll, and it hasn't really moved since.
People have started voting preferentially for odd numbers, after they heard that people were preferentially voting for even numbers. It hasn't changed the consensus.
Does this mean the 8th launch can successfully deliver 3 sats to orbit and fail with the 4th sat? ;-)
Based on the fact that SpaceX asked Florida range for 9 with option for 10th, I'd say those are the bets that say "nothing go wrong". You can probably also add +1 to that for Falcon Heavy from Vandenberg. So 10-11 in 2014.
7-8 would mean slips from what they clearly are aiming for internally. My call from this; the voters of this poll are a conservative bunch, yet based on past performance there is some logic to that. Space is hard and slips happen even when nothing goes badly wrong - I'd guess in many cases slips happen because something needs to be fixed so one can be sure nothing goes badly wrong.
(2014 will need to be extended)
Thanks for the analysis! What weight are you giving the 12+ votes? just 12, or something a bit higher?
>>The "center of mass" has been around 7 & 3/4 since day two of the poll
To be exact, it was 7.90 ± 0.05 since Dec 23.
Thanks for the analysis! What weight are you giving the 12+ votes? just 12, or something a bit higher?
>>The "center of mass" has been around 7 & 3/4 since day two of the poll
To be exact, it was 7.90 ± 0.05 since Dec 23.
(2014 will need to be extended)
Hadn't you heard? Musk has announced that 2014 will run until April 2015. :D
8 has been way out in front for a long time, but 7 is starting to creep up.
"Engineering is done with numbers. Everything else is opinion."
That's not really true. Just wait a few days for my numeric evaluation.
Hint: The "center of mass" has been around 7 & 3/4 since day two of the poll, and it hasn't really moved since.
People have started voting preferentially for odd numbers, after they heard that people were preferentially voting for even numbers. It hasn't changed the consensus.
No, this is not what I see:
Early voters (Dec 20 - Dec 31) had some 100+ excess of even votes;
Late voters (Jan 1 - present) have equal numbers for even & odd votes.
>>The "center of mass" has been around 7 & 3/4 since day two of the poll
To be exact, it was 7.90 ± 0.05 since Dec 23.
DittoThanks for the analysis! What weight are you giving the 12+ votes? just 12, or something a bit higher?
>>The "center of mass" has been around 7 & 3/4 since day two of the poll
To be exact, it was 7.90 ± 0.05 since Dec 23.
Yes, just 12.
In other words, I'm ignoring the "+" part ;)
(snip)
(2014 will need to be extended)
Hadn't you heard? Musk has announced that 2014 will run until April 2015. :D
Yes, but it's for Tesla only.
He can't pull same thing off for SpaceX, because of government customers.
:(
Here is the raw data on this poll in dynamics, as voting unfolded.
I thought, before I give my reduction/interpretation, I give the raw data to anybody who wants to play with numbers :)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Avr69XzaQZvMdHVHRFRaX2FpWGNWVXBNbVd4WnV5NlE&usp=sharing
The date of the Thaicom launch is noted by the distinct symbol. That launch was followed by a burst of voting. However the mean and variance values were unaffected.Hindsight is 20/20 - if the launch had failed, they could have had the chance to vote a lower number, and more chance to have a winning vote. It didn't fail, so they voted normally.
It is not clear why people waited to vote. There was no significant evolution of opinion.
The date of the Thaicom launch is noted by the distinct symbol. That launch was followed by a burst of voting. However the mean and variance values were unaffected.Hindsight is 20/20 - if the launch had failed, they could have had the chance to vote a lower number, and more chance to have a winning vote. It didn't fail, so they voted normally.
It is not clear why people waited to vote. There was no significant evolution of opinion.
I don't see how this is not clear ;)
The date of the Thaicom launch is noted by the distinct symbol. That launch was followed by a burst of voting. However the mean and variance values were unaffected.Hindsight is 20/20 - if the launch had failed, they could have had the chance to vote a lower number, and more chance to have a winning vote. It didn't fail, so they voted normally.
It is not clear why people waited to vote. There was no significant evolution of opinion.
I don't see how this is not clear ;)
"Winning vote"? This is a poll, not a lottery ... *please* tell me you knew that already. :o
Sorry, should have been "correct" or "accurate". English is not my first language. Hope my point makes sense though.Your point is clear but disputed.
Within two days of starting the poll, the consensus was around 7.8 launches with a standard deviation of 2.0, and it stayed there.You say standard deviation here, but the graph says variance. I guess variance is correct, looking at the bell curves?
Within two days of starting the poll, the consensus was around 7.8 launches with a standard deviation of 2.0, and it stayed there.You say standard deviation here, but the graph says variance. I guess variance is correct, looking at the bell curves?
Within two days of starting the poll, the consensus was around 7.8 launches with a standard deviation of 2.0, and it stayed there.
...
There was no significant evolution of opinion...
people started voting with the pack, as evidenced by the slight reduction in variance. They also preferentially voted odd, as seen by the reduction in the odd-even difference.
Rule #1 – if the poll is big enough, analyze partsUsing your data, I voted right at the cutoff of early/late voting. Looking back at the thread I think that the more I read the posts of others, the more serious I thought the poll was. That being said, perhaps the later voters were merely taking more time to examine data before leaping into the fray. I know I took it seriously. It took me the better part of an hour to chase down my fuzzy dice!
I'm surprised people spent so much time analysing the thread before voting.For some people, being right is more important than having fun. :o
Looks like a slip to March 01 for spx-3.. i.e. Feb count will be zero
No chance of anyone cutting in front, I guess...
NASA @NASA 30m
Managers have selected Sunday, March 16 as the launch date for the 3rd @SpaceX cargo resupply mission to #ISS. Launch time is ~4:41am ET.
QuoteNASA @NASA 30m
Managers have selected Sunday, March 16 as the launch date for the 3rd @SpaceX cargo resupply mission to #ISS. Launch time is ~4:41am ET.
The second SpaceX launch will be in the third month of this year.
QuoteNASA @NASA 30m
Managers have selected Sunday, March 16 as the launch date for the 3rd @SpaceX cargo resupply mission to #ISS. Launch time is ~4:41am ET.
The second SpaceX launch will be in the third month of this year.
Now to see if the rest for the first half of the year, are pushed to the right one month... My guess is they will...
QuoteNASA @NASA 30m
Managers have selected Sunday, March 16 as the launch date for the 3rd @SpaceX cargo resupply mission to #ISS. Launch time is ~4:41am ET.
The second SpaceX launch will be in the third month of this year.
Now to see if the rest for the first half of the year, are pushed to the right one month... My guess is they will...
This launch might have been but the internal SpaceX production schedule wouldn't have been impacted so future launches may proceed according to schedule. That's an assumption of course as I have no actual data to support it but in defence, why would it?
Cheers.
are the not SLA's on the follow on flights.. i.e. fly by X or loose the deal..
I think that it's worth noting that the slip of SpX-CRS-3 is mostly due to customer issues rather than problems at SpaceX's end. It's difficult to draw wider conclusions from this.
So with the NASA CRS flight out the way that would leave 7 in 8 1/2 months.
It doesn't matter if SpaceX can technically do 12 flights this year, they won't launch without a payload.
I think that it's worth noting that the slip of SpX-CRS-3 is mostly due to customer issues rather than problems at SpaceX's end. It's difficult to draw wider conclusions from this.
I think that it's worth noting that the slip of SpX-CRS-3 is mostly due to customer issues rather than problems at SpaceX's end. It's difficult to draw wider conclusions from this.
Is there a source for this ?? Why would the delay be on NASA's end when the VV schedule was already set for them to launch on March 1 ?
I get 9 1/2 months remaining after a mid March launch but I may have calculated wrong.Fair points. That is 9 1/2 months. That's about a month and 5 days between flights on most peoples estimate.
Customer slips are going to play a proportionally increasing amount of havoc with the schedule (compared to internally generated delays) as SpaceX increases their own repeatability and reduces cycle times.
So I think it's going to become increasingly important for SpaceX to figure out how to reorder the lineup when customer slips happen. It would be nice if they were in a position to do Orbcomm first but they are not. Maybe by the end of this year they will be in a position, with improved flow, to juggle things when customer driven slips happen.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/spacex-dragons-crs-3-launch-march-16/I think that it's worth noting that the slip of SpX-CRS-3 is mostly due to customer issues rather than problems at SpaceX's end. It's difficult to draw wider conclusions from this.
Is there a source for this ?? Why would the delay be on NASA's end when the VV schedule was already set for them to launch on March 1 ?
I thought it was public, but at least the true cause is on L2. It is not NASA causing the delay.
I think that it's worth noting that the slip of SpX-CRS-3 is mostly due to customer issues rather than problems at SpaceX's end. It's difficult to draw wider conclusions from this.
Is there a source for this ?? Why would the delay be on NASA's end when the VV schedule was already set for them to launch on March 1 ?
I thought it was public, but at least the true cause is on L2. It is not NASA causing the delay.
I'm pretty much a raving SpaceX amazing people, but I voted for six orbital flights this year, and am still feeling pretty good about that number. I actually believe that they'd be fully capable of twelve flights this year, IF they were in straightforward operations mode and there were:Welcome to the site.
That would make you a realistic Spacex amazing people. :)
* No delays due to payload issues
* No delays due to range issues
* No delays due to the Dragon abort tests, which are very nearly orbital campaigns in themselves
* No delays to accommodate the desire to start recovering stages (if not yet reusing them)
* No delays to accommodate the desire to get the Falcon Heavy hot-fired and on the pad (if not yet launched)
...however since I expect all of those those things to happen, six feels like a very realistic number.
It's amazing that there are people who consciously *want SpaceX to fail*...Err... I doubt the 1 votes were serious, but expecting them to fail is not at all the same as wanting them to fail.
It's interesting to me that 1-4 combined has less votes that 12+, with no one at all picking 2 or 3. I don't think a bad failure grounding SpaceX for the rest of the year after 2-3 flights is likely, but it's a lot more plausible than >12.Good point. We've talked about delays but not actual outright failure, IE a flight termination or an actual stage explosion in flight.
It's interesting to me that 1-4 combined has less votes that 12+, with no one at all picking 2 or 3. I don't think a bad failure grounding SpaceX for the rest of the year after 2-3 flights is likely, but it's a lot more plausible than >12.Good point. We've talked about delays but not actual outright failure, IE a flight termination or an actual stage explosion in flight.
That would really change the game. :( :(
It's amazing that there are people who consciously *want SpaceX to fail*...Err... I doubt the 1 votes were serious, but expecting them to fail is not at all the same as wanting them to fail.
It's interesting to me that 1-4 combined has less votes that 12+, with no one at all picking 2 or 3. I don't think a bad failure grounding SpaceX for the rest of the year after 2-3 flights is likely, but it's a lot more plausible than >12.
What I wonder is why delays to Dragon/CRS-3 should prevent work from proceeding on the next sat launch.
If it does that means they are lacking in facilities and personnel.
What I wonder is why delays to Dragon/CRS-3 should prevent work from proceeding on the next sat launch.
If it does that means they are lacking in facilities and personnel.
I think the spacex launch prep building at the cape is only big enough to process one launcher at a time.
The construction cost and time for that type of building is relatively cheap ( at least compared to the huge heavy steel and concrete facilities the russians are building for their new launch site). Since spacex hasn't yet taken the relatively easy option of widening their building, (or building a second one), it could be deduced that the real bottleneck in flow is further back along the line.
They are building a second, larger test stand in texas, but that hasn't been used yet as far as we know, and recent aerial photos don't show much new infrastructure on it. So, the bottleneck is probably not at the hot-fire stage testing phase.
(they do have a new shed in Texas just wide enough for a FH though)
That would imply that they just can't get them out the door in hawthorne at a rate of more than one every 2 or 3 months, despite claims a year ago that they had capacity to produce one core a month. (and a dragon every 3 months)
Certainly we have never seen photos of more than 3 or 4 cores simultaneously (crammed up at one end of the plant).
Since I have seen mentioned on here that Spacex has bought/leased additional buildings near hawthorne, production space should not be the bottleneck (they could move software/dragon/mission control to other buildings)
Slow production flow may due to any number of reasons - perhaps holding off production starts until F9.1 design was proven good, internal quality issues needing scrap/rework or perhaps not enough trained staff to fully run the production.
SpaceX have recently accelerated hiring (or at least advertising for staff), so perhaps that will speed up production!
With CRS missions, you are practically guaranteed to have some slippage due to ISS issues or VV scheduling etc. If they had the integration space, the cores and the staff, they could have rescheduled a commercial mission in front of CRS. They probably can't just swap rockets, since the QA paperwork for the physical rocket is probably tied to each customer's mission. (They did make stage payments on it after all!)
When we see activity on the fit-out and use of the new stand in texas, and new integration buildings under construction at the cape to allow parallel launch campaigns, then I will believe that SpaceX will soon (within 6 months) be able to hit a higher sustained launch rate than one every 2 months.
Until then, expect a fair bit of slippage to the right.
(And FH will definitely be delayed until they have enough slack to produce the 3 cores needed)
SpaceX has had failures in the past and has survived them. Still, they better not have too many more...4 seems very pessimistic. They nearly did that last year. Even 6 is on the down side. There's still 9 months of the year left after the CRS 3 launch. What makes you think they're going to require so much time between launches?
4 flights seems like a serious possibility. I don't discount it. That's still more than last year. I still think 6 is the most likely, though. We shall see.
They ALREADY have serious issues with their workflow. Just growing pains, but it takes more than one year to get them ironed out. It took ULA quite a while to get Atlas V's flight rate up to 10 per year or so.
And yeah, I didn't vote 4. I voted 6. I'm just saying that 4 isn't out of the question.
SpaceX is ramping up. I have no doubt they'll be seriously challenging or even exceeding ULA's flightrate of 10-12/year by 2015 or 2016 (while also making life miserable for Ariane/Airbus once Falcon Heavy is introduced and F9 v1.1 has dozens of launches in its history). But it doesn't happen overnight. What has happened in the last 6 months or so, though, is that SpaceX's competitors have stopped laughing at them, or at least they're now laughing nervously...
SpaceX has had failures in the past and has survived them. Still, they better not have too many more...4 seems very pessimistic. They nearly did that last year. Even 6 is on the down side. There's still 9 months of the year left after the CRS 3 launch. What makes you think they're going to require so much time between launches?
4 flights seems like a serious possibility. I don't discount it. That's still more than last year. I still think 6 is the most likely, though. We shall see.
My WAG is if they can't get their rate up to at least 8 (6 weeks per launch figure after the CRS) this year then they have serious issues somewhere in their workflow.
...based on what??SpaceX has had failures in the past and has survived them. Still, they better not have too many more...4 seems very pessimistic. They nearly did that last year. Even 6 is on the down side. There's still 9 months of the year left after the CRS 3 launch. What makes you think they're going to require so much time between launches?
4 flights seems like a serious possibility. I don't discount it. That's still more than last year. I still think 6 is the most likely, though. We shall see.
My WAG is if they can't get their rate up to at least 8 (6 weeks per launch figure after the CRS) this year then they have serious issues somewhere in their workflow.
the issue continues to be a management issue.
Looks like it was based on a WAG :)...based on what??SpaceX has had failures in the past and has survived them. Still, they better not have too many more...4 seems very pessimistic. They nearly did that last year. Even 6 is on the down side. There's still 9 months of the year left after the CRS 3 launch. What makes you think they're going to require so much time between launches?
4 flights seems like a serious possibility. I don't discount it. That's still more than last year. I still think 6 is the most likely, though. We shall see.
My WAG is if they can't get their rate up to at least 8 (6 weeks per launch figure after the CRS) this year then they have serious issues somewhere in their workflow.
the issue continues to be a management issue.
According to pbds twitter here has just been a new SES-flight with Falcon 9 added with flight date early 2015.
Doesn't this imply they are quite confident they can fly their manifest this year?
If the have RTLS working (with enough routine), at least they wont have to worry about transporting the stages across the country, which might help with improving the schedule a little bit.
Musk's statement about RTLS is that it is a NET late 2014 option. SInce this is the case RTLS is not a player in 2014 launch scheduling issues.Quite naturally, I was not talking about 2014. We will be happy to see an RTLS at all this year and certainly not "with enough routine".
"Rapid Reuse".would be a game changer. To think it may happen in 2015 is exciting.
Actually, hauling stages around the country is kind of a pain. They may opt to do whatever intensive initial checks and refurbishment at the launch site.Apart from the politics, it still baffles me why launch vehicles are not built close to the launch facility oustide any danger zone...
Apart from the politics, it still baffles me why launch vehicles are not built close to the launch facility oustide any danger zone...
Actually, hauling stages around the country is kind of a pain. They may opt to do whatever intensive initial checks and refurbishment at the launch site.
Kodiak, for polar orbits, has about a quarter of what launches from the Cape. Transportation is fine for smaller ELV’s but large stages like Saturn or SLS are limited to what can be physically transported compromising the design. Anyways... were going OT... :)Apart from the politics, it still baffles me why launch vehicles are not built close to the launch facility oustide any danger zone...
There is more than one launch facility for Atlas, Delta and Falcon. So unless you want a manufacturing site at each launch facility, you're going to be hauling launch vehicles around the country.
I still think SpaceX can't afford to launch 6 rockets this year.
They will just end up building warehouses to store rockets that they can't be bothered launching and that doesn't sound right to me.
I still think SpaceX can't afford to launch 6 rockets this year.
They will just end up building warehouses to store rockets that they can't be bothered launching and that doesn't sound right to me.
I still think SpaceX can't afford to launch 6 rockets this year.
They will just end up building warehouses to store rockets that they can't be bothered launching and that doesn't sound right to me.
Peter B. de Selding @pbdes
Orbcomm CEO: Our SpaceX launch, of 1st six 2nd-gen sats, sched for April 30, after SpaceX NASA CRS. 11 remaining sats set for SpaceX in Nov.
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/440798093290655744 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/440798093290655744)
As discussed by Galactic Penguin in SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - Orbcomm OG2- TBD - DISCUSSION THREAD (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33089.30):Peter B. de Selding @pbdes
Orbcomm CEO: Our SpaceX launch, of 1st six 2nd-gen sats, sched for April 30, after SpaceX NASA CRS. 11 remaining sats set for SpaceX in Nov.
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/440798093290655744 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/440798093290655744)
So after the March 16th launch of CRS3, the next launch is the 4-30 launch of Orbcomm.
That makes 3 launches in the first four months of 2014 (Jan, Feb, Mar and Apr).
Crunch the numbers as you wish.
As discussed by Galactic Penguin in SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - Orbcomm OG2- TBD - DISCUSSION THREAD (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33089.30):Peter B. de Selding @pbdes
Orbcomm CEO: Our SpaceX launch, of 1st six 2nd-gen sats, sched for April 30, after SpaceX NASA CRS. 11 remaining sats set for SpaceX in Nov.
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/440798093290655744 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/440798093290655744)
So after the March 16th launch of CRS3, the next launch is the 4-30 launch of Orbcomm.
That makes 3 launches in the first four months of 2014 (Jan, Feb, Mar and Apr).
Crunch the numbers as you wish.
That makes 1 launch in the first 2.5 months, putting 'em on track for four launches this year. Which is what I voted for.
TW
As discussed by Galactic Penguin in SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - Orbcomm OG2- TBD - DISCUSSION THREAD (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33089.30):Peter B. de Selding @pbdes
Orbcomm CEO: Our SpaceX launch, of 1st six 2nd-gen sats, sched for April 30, after SpaceX NASA CRS. 11 remaining sats set for SpaceX in Nov.
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/440798093290655744 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/440798093290655744)
So after the March 16th launch of CRS3, the next launch is the 4-30 launch of Orbcomm.
That makes 3 launches in the first four months of 2014 (Jan, Feb, Mar and Apr).
Crunch the numbers as you wish.
That makes 1 launch in the first 2.5 months, putting 'em on track for four launches this year. Which is what I voted for.
TW
But if the April launch goes off to plan, that average would lead to nine launches.
As discussed by Galactic Penguin in SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - Orbcomm OG2- TBD - DISCUSSION THREAD (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33089.30):Peter B. de Selding @pbdes
Orbcomm CEO: Our SpaceX launch, of 1st six 2nd-gen sats, sched for April 30, after SpaceX NASA CRS. 11 remaining sats set for SpaceX in Nov.
So after the March 16th launch of CRS3, the next launch is the 4-30 launch of Orbcomm.
That makes 3 launches in the first four months of 2014 (Jan, Feb, Mar and Apr).
Crunch the numbers as you wish.
That makes 1 launch in the first 2.5 months, putting 'em on track for four launches this year. Which is what I voted for.
TW
But if the April launch goes off to plan, that average would lead to nine launches.
Only if the following one goes of in the first week of May, as did the first one in the first four months of the year.
Oh, Puhleez! :P
To Mark Twain's list of "Liars, Damned Liars, and Statistics" we should append "Excel". ;D
Can we just let the year play out?
That makes 1 launch in the first 2.5 months, putting 'em on track for four launches this year. Which is what I voted for.
The most accurate predictions do come after the fact. However, they are also the most useless predictions.
The most accurate predictions do come after the fact. However, they are also the most useless predictions.
Every prediction in this poll is useless as far as SpaceX or their clients are concerned.
it is still theroetically possible to hit 8, but it depends on a few "if's"
IF they launch CRS4 on the target date of June 8th
IF they launch one of the Asia Sat in late July early August to leave room for preps for September 12 launch of CRS 5
IF they hit those targets, then an Early November Obcom launch would fit in with a possible launch change for CRS6 from December 5th to mid December.
Now I am reminded of Dirty Harry's question, did you count the shots (Launches), how lucky do you feel ;-)
Gramps
it is still theroetically possible to hit 8, but it depends on a few "if's"
IF they launch CRS4 on the target date of June 8th
IF they launch one of the Asia Sat in late July early August to leave room for preps for September 12 launch of CRS 5
IF they hit those targets, then an Early November Obcom launch would fit in with a possible launch change for CRS6 from December 5th to mid December.
Now I am reminded of Dirty Harry's question, did you count the shots (Launches), how lucky do you feel ;-)
Gramps
You are joking right? There's still 9 months of the year available after March. Do'ya reckon SpaceX is simply going to sit on their laurals and let the time slide by without launching. 5 launches in 9 months, approx 7 weeks per launch. Needless to say, I voted for 8 :)
Ha! Nice. Did you ever make a graph showing how well the actual flights matched up with the line you made for Shuttle?Oh, Puhleez! :P
To Mark Twain's list of "Liars, Damned Liars, and Statistics" we should append "Excel". ;D
This worked out pretty well last time, predicting the final STS flight to within about a month from 2 years out:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16790.5QuoteCan we just let the year play out?
The most accurate predictions do come after the fact. However, they are also the most useless predictions.
After the success of its first two Falcon 9 launches to GTO in December and January, SpaceX now has 15 launches on its manifest, four of which are expected to slip into 2015, including the debut of the company’s Falcon Heavy, which Musk said could take place early next year.It then lists the manifest, presumably the last four in the following quote are the ones "expected to slip:"
Following the January launch of Thaicom 6 for Bangkok-based fleet operator Thaicom, SpaceX plans to conduct four cargo resupply runs for NASA in 2014, the first of which is slated for March 16. Two launches for New Jersey-based fleet operator Orbcomm are also planned, along with two GTO missions for AsiaSat of Hong Kong, a GTO launch for the government of Turkmenistan and an Argentinian Earth observation satellite to be launched from SpaceX’s new pad at Vandenberg AFB, Calif. The manifest also includes a U.S. Air Force launch of NOAA's Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) mission and a dual-launch of Boeing's first two all-electric 702SP satellites built for Asia Broadcast Satellite (ABS) of Hong Kong and Satmex of Mexico.So the upper limit is now 11. I'm not saying they will launch 11, it's just interesting to see where current "best case" expectations stand. Full disclosure: I voted 9 and I think 9 is optimistic.
In a Feb. 14 earnings call, Satmex owner Eutelsat listed its future launches, indicating the first all-electric Satmex launch -- Satmex-7 -- will take place in the first quarter of 2015.
You are joking right? There's still 9 months of the year available after March. Do'ya reckon SpaceX is simply going to sit on their laurals and let the time slide by without launching.Of course it is possible. Do you checked dates of previous launches and how long gaps were? Surely you know when each and every F9 launch happened? You remember that one gap over year long? Sheesh...
Yeh to that!it is still theroetically possible to hit 8, but it depends on a few "if's"
IF they launch CRS4 on the target date of June 8th
IF they launch one of the Asia Sat in late July early August to leave room for preps for September 12 launch of CRS 5
IF they hit those targets, then an Early November Obcom launch would fit in with a possible launch change for CRS6 from December 5th to mid December.
Now I am reminded of Dirty Harry's question, did you count the shots (Launches), how lucky do you feel ;-)
Gramps
You are joking right? There's still 9 months of the year available after March. Do'ya reckon SpaceX is simply going to sit on their laurals and let the time slide by without launching. 5 launches in 9 months, approx 7 weeks per launch. Needless to say, I voted for 8 :)
well I did say it was possible... it's just the way that they have stacked up the manifests "firm" dates that is making it hard to say it is very likely... I hope that they do... even though I took the pessimistic view and voted for 6...
btw, I hope they don't sit on their laurals, in fact I am counting on them not to... I want to see the BFR/MCT Launched... ;D
You are joking right? There's still 9 months of the year available after March. Do'ya reckon SpaceX is simply going to sit on their laurals and let the time slide by without launching.Of course it is possible. Do you checked dates of previous launches and how long gaps were? Surely you know when each and every F9 launch happened? You remember that one gap over year long? Sheesh...
Beat me to it.You are joking right? There's still 9 months of the year available after March. Do'ya reckon SpaceX is simply going to sit on their laurals and let the time slide by without launching.Of course it is possible. Do you checked dates of previous launches and how long gaps were? Surely you know when each and every F9 launch happened? You remember that one gap over year long? Sheesh...
That gap was while they were building a new rocket. They aren't doing that now.
That gap was while they were building a new rocket. They aren't doing that now.And of course it is only one possible reason for such gap. ::) Anyone can always find excuses after fact.
That gap was while they were building a new rocket. They aren't doing that now.And of course it is only one possible reason for such gap. ::) Anyone can always find excuses after fact.
::) Anyone can always find excuses after fact.
Ha! Nice. Did you ever make a graph showing how well the actual flights matched up with the line you made for Shuttle?Oh, Puhleez! :P
To Mark Twain's list of "Liars, Damned Liars, and Statistics" we should append "Excel". ;D
This worked out pretty well last time, predicting the final STS flight to within about a month from 2 years out:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16790.5QuoteCan we just let the year play out?
The most accurate predictions do come after the fact. However, they are also the most useless predictions.
I did not, but the end point is pretty close.
::) Anyone can always find excuses after fact.
What the heck is that supposed to mean? The transition to the new vehicle was announced in advance.
Yes I remember the debate. Many disputed the fact that it was a 'new' vehicle, your's truly included, while Jim, for one, insisted that it essentially was. Guess who was right? :)
Anyone can always find excuses after fact.
What the heck is that supposed to mean? The transition to the new vehicle was announced in advance.
Are you trolling?Nope, I am serious.
The gap between F9 flights two and three were driven by Dragon development.
Does anybody recall why SpaceX did not launch a different payload during that time, seeing as they had proven that their rocket worked?
Just want to add, that this looks so much like a weather forecast... everything before April 30th is pretty much short range, and pretty firm... after that, it is in flux and anything could happen, and it probably will ;DThe SpaceX facilities at Cape Canaveral are pretty fragile. No? If a hurricane or strong Tropical Storm hits the area their hanger could take some serious damage that could put off the schedule too.
Don't plan the haying around this ;(
Just want to add, that this looks so much like a weather forecast... everything before April 30th is pretty much short range, and pretty firm... after that, it is in flux and anything could happen, and it probably will ;DThe SpaceX facilities at Cape Canaveral are pretty fragile. No? If a hurricane or strong Tropical Storm hits the area their hanger could take some serious damage that could put off the schedule too.
Don't plan the haying around this ;(
CRS-3: Mach 16
Orbcomm: April 30
Why is this "big" gap? Orbcomm is more complicated than SES/Thaicom was?
Maybe something between? Dragon pad abort test? Or is it irrealisitic?
It's a good sign when a six-week gap is thought of as "big".
Maybe the "long gap" it is because of integrating multiple satellites for Orbcomm? Or does Orbcomm deliver them stacked?
Maybe the "long gap" it is because of integrating multiple satellites for Orbcomm? Or does Orbcomm deliver them stacked?
Or because of the next iteration with the landing legs...?
CRS-3: Mach 16
Orbcomm: April 30
Why is this "big" gap? Orbcomm is more complicated than SES/Thaicom was?
Maybe something between? Dragon pad abort test? Or is it irrealisitic?
April 30 seems like a probable 'mean' date, it is no longer NET, it may be sooner.NETApril 30 - Orbcomm G2 (x6)(x8)- Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40 (or mid-April)
Maysummer - AsiaSat 6 (Thaicom 7) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
CRS-3: Mach 16
Orbcomm: April 30
Why is this "big" gap? Orbcomm is more complicated than SES/Thaicom was?
Maybe something between? Dragon pad abort test? Or is it irrealisitic?
They are supposed to be churning the stages out at a rate of one per month, but perhaps they are actually counting upper and lower stages separately - since they are only rolling falcons out at about once every 2 months!
At that rate, if they were to aim for a FH launch (or even a 'hardware on launch site') this year, taking 3+1 cores/stages out of the F9 production flow for FH would mean they would only have enough falcon 9.1's for 4 or 5 launches, which would cover the cargo flights for Nasa, but not much else.
Is there any evidence that SpaceX can produce cores at a rate of more than one per ~60 days, or is there some hard-cap in the production flow, and if so, what is that restriction, and how and when will they be able to overcome that?
I'd say they are not producing the cores as fast as you want, because there are still non-trivial design changes, like adding legs and probably some other changes we don't know about. Once the design is stabilized the production rate will be increased.
Why nobody's counting F9R-1 (i.e. Grashopper 2) as a core? It was delivered between CRS-3 and Orbcomm.
I'd say they are not producing the cores as fast as you want, because there are still non-trivial design changes, like adding legs and probably some other changes we don't know about. Once the design is stabilized the production rate will be increased.
Why nobody's counting F9R-1 (i.e. Grashopper 2) as a core? It was delivered between CRS-3 and Orbcomm.
Probably, because it is a test bed & non orbital. Look at the tread title.
Why nobody's counting F9R-1 (i.e. Grashopper 2) as a core? It was delivered between CRS-3 and Orbcomm.
Probably, because it is a test bed & non orbital. Look at the tread title.
Read the context. We're talking about the factory's rate of production. F9R counts as the core between CRS-3 and Orbcomm. That's 3 cores in 3 months, not 2 on 3.Why nobody's counting F9R-1 (i.e. Grashopper 2) as a core? It was delivered between CRS-3 and Orbcomm.
Probably, because it is a test bed & non orbital. Look at the tread title.
Shotwell said just months ago that they plan to have 18 cores/year by mid 2014 and 24 cores/year by the end of the year. Is this discussion based purely on disbelieving her or is there some new information?
If you believe other posts on these threads http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30821.390. Then the F9R tank was actually the falcon 9 1.1 structural qualification test tank that was returned to Hawthorn to be fitted with an octoweb, engines, etc.
Shotwell said just months ago that they plan to have 18 cores/year by mid 2014 and 24 cores/year by the end of the year. Is this discussion based purely on disbelieving her or is there some new information?
No, this discussion is based purely on believing (1) the backlog of payloads (2) the stated launch schedule, and (3) the launch rate that we've seen so far. I personally don't think the rate of core production is the bottleneck; it's range availability, IMHO.
We shall see.
TW
Shotwell said just months ago that they plan to have 18 cores/year by mid 2014 and 24 cores/year by the end of the year. Is this discussion based purely on disbelieving her or is there some new information?
No, this discussion is based purely on believing (1) the backlog of payloads (2) the stated launch schedule, and (3) the launch rate that we've seen so far. I personally don't think the rate of core production is the bottleneck; it's range availability, IMHO.
We shall see.
TW
There seems to be a lot of speculation as to whether they even intend to build a core a month. Going by Shotwell's statements they do and they always planned for there to be a long gap between Thaicom and CRS-3. Furthermore, they also planned to ramp up their launch rate after CRS-3 and ramp up production.
This alone answers a great deal of the questions brought up here. Their bottleneck was upgrades to Dragon.
Shotwell said just months ago that they plan to have 18 cores/year by mid 2014 and 24 cores/year by the end of the year. Is this discussion based purely on disbelieving her or is there some new information?
No, this discussion is based purely on believing (1) the backlog of payloads (2) the stated launch schedule, and (3) the launch rate that we've seen so far. I personally don't think the rate of core production is the bottleneck; it's range availability, IMHO.
We shall see.
TW
There seems to be a lot of speculation as to whether they even intend to build a core a month. Going by Shotwell's statements they do and they always planned for there to be a long gap between Thaicom and CRS-3. Furthermore, they also planned to ramp up their launch rate after CRS-3 and ramp up production.
This alone answers a great deal of the questions brought up here. Their bottleneck was upgrades to Dragon.
Is Shotmell's 18 cores per year leaving the workshop or 18 cores per year arriving at the launch site?
I estimate it 18 cores per year arriving at the launch site would be achievable, for a SpaceX that has mastered re-usability in two years. It also sounds like over optimistic PR at the present.
As stated above, I think with re-usability 18 cores per year from the workshop is more than enough, even with the greater number of customers having access to space because of any eventual lower launch costs.
This alone answers a great deal of the questions brought up here. Their bottleneck was upgrades to Dragon.
They are supposed to be churning the stages out at a rate of one per month, but perhaps they are actually counting upper and lower stages separately - since they are only rolling falcons out at about once every 2 months!
At that rate, if they were to aim for a FH launch (or even a 'hardware on launch site') this year, taking 3+1 cores/stages out of the F9 production flow for FH would mean they would only have enough falcon 9.1's for 4 or 5 launches, which would cover the cargo flights for Nasa, but not much else.
Is there any evidence that SpaceX can produce cores at a rate of more than one per ~60 days, or is there some hard-cap in the production flow, and if so, what is that restriction, and how and when will they be able to overcome that?
I think you nailed it... its not ramping up as predicted.. at this rate FH will be a no show, no wonder its delayed another year.
What constitutes a 'core'?
What constitutes a 'core'?
What constitutes a 'core'?
Falcon 9 has 2 cores, first and second stage. FH has 4.
What constitutes a 'core'?
Falcon 9 has 2 cores, first and second stage. FH has 4.
What constitutes a 'core'?
Falcon 9 has 2 cores, first and second stage. FH has 4.
When the AF talks about cores for EELV, they're not counting upper stages. "Core" has historically meant just the booster. SpaceX is free to do what they want, but if they're going to count every stage as a core, why not just call them "stages"?
Nope. I'm pretty sure they mean first stages. Because in fact they refer to cores. And that's the first stage. The core stage has nine times the propulsion work, like seven times the tank and all the rest of things.
Btw, they quote 40 cores for 10 F9 plus 10 FH per year. If they also meant uper stages that would be 60 stages per year.
Nope. I'm pretty sure they mean first stages. Because in fact they refer to cores. And that's the first stage. The core stage has nine times the propulsion work, like seven times the tank and all the rest of things.
Btw, they quote 40 cores for 10 F9 plus 10 FH per year. If they also meant uper stages that would be 60 stages per year.
They are supposed to be churning the stages out at a rate of one per month, but perhaps they are actually counting upper and lower stages separately - since they are only rolling falcons out at about once every 2 months!
At that rate, if they were to aim for a FH launch (or even a 'hardware on launch site') this year, taking 3+1 cores/stages out of the F9 production flow for FH would mean they would only have enough falcon 9.1's for 4 or 5 launches, which would cover the cargo flights for Nasa, but not much else.
Is there any evidence that SpaceX can produce cores at a rate of more than one per ~60 days, or is there some hard-cap in the production flow, and if so, what is that restriction, and how and when will they be able to overcome that?
I think you nailed it... its not ramping up as predicted.. at this rate FH will be a no show, no wonder its delayed another year.
You cannot rate the real capacity of the core production based on the rate of cores rolling out.
No informations about the production system (f.e where the bottle necks are), about the actual size of the internal buffers, about reworks, etc. --> no prediction possible
@pbdes: SpaceX's Matsumori: We're aiming for 9 more Falcon 9 launches this year, starting with Sunday's CRS mission for Nasa.
Confirmation of 10 launches now planned in 2014, https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/443478353773744128 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/443478353773744128)
Nice. Now my vote of 9 launches looks less like a wild fantasy and more like a voice of moderation. :D
Confirmation of 10 launches now planned in 2014, https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/443478353773744128 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/443478353773744128)Quote@pbdes: SpaceX's Matsumori: We're aiming for 9 more Falcon 9 launches this year, starting with Sunday's CRS mission for Nasa.
The few photos we have seen of the 'end of the falcon production line' in the hawthorn factory usually show 3 falcon first stages, (sometimes a fourth going through the paint shop also).
Since a 1st stage leaves the factory every 2 months or so, that possibly means that those "3" stages are in 'final assembly' for up to six months, (not including the initial rolling and welding of the tanks panels and stringers into the 'tubes')
Or are the stringers and ribs assembled inside the tanks after the barrels are welded together, which might be a slow, awkward process, explaining the 6 months?
In any case, as interesting as the spacex manufacturing photos are, I would love to see a flow more like the Covair/Atlas production setup from the 50's/60's, where according to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65_Atlas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65_Atlas)) , they manufactured 350 rockets in about 6 years, which is more than one a week.....
(yes, I know it was a smaller rocket, and it used pressure stabilized stainless steel tankage, but it still was an impressive operation...)
Atlas production photos, ~late 1950's:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/8126130760/in/photostream/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/8126130760/in/photostream/)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/5018472213/in/photostream/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/5018472213/in/photostream/)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/5018472257/in/photostream/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/5018472257/in/photostream/)
Confirmation of 10 launches now planned in 2014, https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/443478353773744128 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/443478353773744128)Quote@pbdes: SpaceX's Matsumori: We're aiming for 9 more Falcon 9 launches this year, starting with Sunday's CRS mission for Nasa.
Poll's closed so you're stuck with your choice. FWIW I voted 8 as well (chickened out of voting 10 when it came to the post button :) ) and now think that I'll be disappointed - in a good way.Confirmation of 10 launches now planned in 2014, https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/443478353773744128 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/443478353773744128)Quote@pbdes: SpaceX's Matsumori: We're aiming for 9 more Falcon 9 launches this year, starting with Sunday's CRS mission for Nasa.
I'm sticking with 8 total. Weather and range issues are liable to cause some pushback, even without rocket glitches
Hope I'm wrong, though -- as an underestimate, that is.
Peter B. de Selding @pbdes 17h
SpaceX's Matsumori: We're aiming for 9 more Falcon 9 launches this year, starting with Sunday's CRS mission for Nasa.
The interesting part is that it appears to be a payload (Dragon) or integration issue. And there lays the lesson on the difficulty of doing this again and again.
The factory and LV processing is a necessary condition. But payloads and integration are the main source of delays for world class companies like ULA or Arianespace.
Nod.
And this argues that to keep high launch rates it is necessary to shuffle... have multiple payloads in work and be able to reorder as needed. That requires multiple processing facilities or at least a facility with the space for several payload integration operations at once.
How common are the workers within the processing scheme?
Question about the rocket and payload preparation workforce and serial processing. How common are the workers within the processing scheme? In particular are they different individuals/teams coming in for each feature or do the individuals have many roles.
I was asking from the point of view of somebody who once did System Integration and Test when digital cellular was invented. We had many test bed with different releases and varying hardware and software. Teams and individuals were more feature than testbed specific so would float between test systems rather then go idle when serial issues appeared. This kept productivity high.
So if the people are not the same... its only a facility cost to have more than one product's assembly in progress. If that's the case it might pay to have more than one rocket being integrated at once with the only serial dependence being while one rocket was actually on the launchpad.
How much of this delay could be mitigated with a second PF and strongback at the same pad? Delays are almost a given, but to have one delay cascade the entire manifest increases costs for all involved. What are the key issues with developing additional PFs for the same pad vs. developing additional pads.
Nod.
And this argues that to keep high launch rates it is necessary to shuffle... have multiple payloads in work and be able to reorder as needed. That requires multiple processing facilities or at least a facility with the space for several payload integration operations at once.
Not always possible, at some point, the LV (upperstage) becomes specific to a payload. They aren't interchangeable.
And spacecraft contractors aren't going to sent a spacecraft down early to process it and wait for an opening. That puts risk to the spacecraft and increases cost by having manpower deployed to stay with the spacecraft.
Also, there is equipment for the spacecraft that has be installed at the hangar and then the pad.
Also, the analytic integration is done serially. Spacex doesnt have the people to have that many payloads in the same point of the integration cycle.
Nod.
And this argues that to keep high launch rates it is necessary to shuffle... have multiple payloads in work and be able to reorder as needed. That requires multiple processing facilities or at least a facility with the space for several payload integration operations at once.
Not always possible, at some point, the LV (upperstage) becomes specific to a payload. They aren't interchangeable.
And spacecraft contractors aren't going to sent a spacecraft down early to process it and wait for an opening. That puts risk to the spacecraft and increases cost by having manpower deployed to stay with the spacecraft.
Also, there is equipment for the spacecraft that has be installed at the hangar and then the pad.
Also, the analytic integration is done serially. Spacex doesnt have the people to have that many payloads in the same point of the integration cycle.
Not disagreeing with any of the above, and this veers off topic but all of this has to change if launch rates in the hundreds or thousands are ever going to come to pass. Yes, analogies with other transport modes are flawed because Space is Hard, but this "8 truckloads and a standing army" per payload scenario is not the case for other modes, except for very specialized payloads.
A container is a container. If your container doesn't make the cutoff, the ship sails without it and you go on the next ship. Or the next wellcar if you were taking rail, or the next stake trailer if you were taking road.
Someday. Not today not this year but someday, this all has to change to be more like other modes. Or else space will always be hard.
Jcc, concur. Whatever their plans, they are clearly not in a mass-production mode. The fact that it is still "news" when a core travels to Mcgregor tells it.I think it's only news to us.
Jcc, concur. Whatever their plans, they are clearly not in a mass-production mode. The fact that it is still "news" when a core travels to Mcgregor tells it.
Jcc, concur. Whatever their plans, they are clearly not in a mass-production mode. The fact that it is still "news" when a core travels to Mcgregor tells it.
If SpaceX believes that reuse is going to happen sooner rather than later (and legs on CRS-3 would seem to support that belief), I doubt you will ever see SpaceX push for mass-production of 1st stage cores.
I looked at the SpaceX factory on Google maps -- it's really not that big. I have never read anything about SpaceX increasing the size of their current factory (outside of potentially building future (larger) rockets in Boca Chica). Compare SpaceX's factory to Tesla's factory. Now that is a company looking at mass production...
Absolutely bored to tears by the progress of everything.
Absolutely bored to tears by the progress of everything.
Real life is like that.. maybe ya need to take up a second hobby? Learn to knit? Get a part time job?
Jcc, concur. Whatever their plans, they are clearly not in a mass-production mode. The fact that it is still "news" when a core travels to Mcgregor tells it.
If SpaceX believes that reuse is going to happen sooner rather than later (and legs on CRS-3 would seem to support that belief), I doubt you will ever see SpaceX push for mass-production of 1st stage cores.
I looked at the SpaceX factory on Google maps -- it's really not that big. I have never read anything about SpaceX increasing the size of their current factory (outside of potentially building future (larger) rockets in Boca Chica). Compare SpaceX's factory to Tesla's factory. Now that is a company looking at mass production...
They say the factory is already sized for 40 cores/year, though.
"Within a year we need get it from what it is right now, which is about a rocket core every four weeks, to a rocket core every two weeks," Musk says.
By the end of 2015, says SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell, the company plans to ratchet up production to 40 cores per year.
Here is what Musk & Shotwell say about core production in the latest issue of Aviation Week & Space:Quote"Within a year we need get it from what it is right now, which is about a rocket core every four weeks, to a rocket core every two weeks," Musk says.
By the end of 2015, says SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell, the company plans to ratchet up production to 40 cores per year.
If testing were the bottleneck, then the new FH test stand will help, in addition to the old one. Is the FH test stand operational yet?
Here is what Musk & Shotwell say about core production in the latest issue of Aviation Week & Space:Quote"Within a year we need get it from what it is right now, which is about a rocket core every four weeks, to a rocket core every two weeks," Musk says.
By the end of 2015, says SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell, the company plans to ratchet up production to 40 cores per year.
I am pretty sure that it takes more than 4 weeks to build a core, so they need to have several in production at the same time to have 1 every 4 weeks. Maybe they have a few that are almost done, and will keep to the 1 a month average, but the only metric we have are the "louder than normal" tests at McGregor, and that is happening less frequently, not enough to make 12 launches this year, maybe only 6.
If testing were the bottleneck, then the new FH test stand will help, in addition to the old one. Is the FH test stand operational yet?
Here is what Musk & Shotwell say about core production in the latest issue of Aviation Week & Space:Quote"Within a year we need get it from what it is right now, which is about a rocket core every four weeks, to a rocket core every two weeks," Musk says.
By the end of 2015, says SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell, the company plans to ratchet up production to 40 cores per year.
I am pretty sure that it takes more than 4 weeks to build a core, so they need to have several in production at the same time to have 1 every 4 weeks. Maybe they have a few that are almost done, and will keep to the 1 a month average, but the only metric we have are the "louder than normal" tests at McGregor, and that is happening less frequently, not enough to make 12 launches this year, maybe only 6.
If testing were the bottleneck, then the new FH test stand will help, in addition to the old one. Is the FH test stand operational yet?
So you know more about core production rates that Elon or Gwynne? Pray tell how in light of the direct quotes above?
Falcon Heavy (3), F9R-dev1, in-flight abort vehicle, 6 orbital flights this year. That's a total of 11 cores that will be introduced this year. That's consistent with roughly a 4 week per core rate.
They also have paying customers waiting for Falcon Heavy. A Falcon Heavy demo would allow them to start to compete for much higher revenue launches, including DoD launches (or at least get the ball rolling).
I also don't believe that factory output is really the only limit, here. There is probably a considerable limit in testing and launch prep and payload integration.
::)They also have paying customers waiting for Falcon Heavy. A Falcon Heavy demo would allow them to start to compete for much higher revenue launches, including DoD launches (or at least get the ball rolling).
I also don't believe that factory output is really the only limit, here. There is probably a considerable limit in testing and launch prep and payload integration.
They also have two pads with nothing being launched ::)
"A rocket leaves the factory every four weeks" is not the same as "it takes four weeks to build one rocket" ::)
"A rocket leaves the factory every four weeks" is not the same as "it takes four weeks to build one rocket" ::)
Speculation: work products move, or assembly crews move every 4 weeks to next work package
Every 4 weeks, a new stage finishes assembly and a new one starts final assembly.
Whole process can take 16 Weeks for final assembly sub-assembly
Stations not shown which extend total time to years.
The move rate gates how often a stage is ready.
In a typical factory, 5 % of time is spent actual advancing production. The rest of time is some form of waste
Waiting on parts, motion, transportation, rework/defects. Getting this move rate down to 2 weeks is a substantial goal.
Nod.
And this argues that to keep high launch rates it is necessary to shuffle... have multiple payloads in work and be able to reorder as needed. That requires multiple processing facilities or at least a facility with the space for several payload integration operations at once.
Not always possible, at some point, the LV (upperstage) becomes specific to a payload. They aren't interchangeable.
And spacecraft contractors aren't going to sent a spacecraft down early to process it and wait for an opening. That puts risk to the spacecraft and increases cost by having manpower deployed to stay with the spacecraft.
Also, there is equipment for the spacecraft that has be installed at the hangar and then the pad.
Also, the analytic integration is done serially. Spacex doesnt have the people to have that many payloads in the same point of the integration cycle.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33571.msg1171966#msg1171966
Delta II and Atlas II had dual pads for all of the 90's and most of the 00's. A delay on one pad didn't mean the next one could step up.
...
I think, SpaceX have chosen this other way: no production for stock, stop the line.
My conclusion: the problem is the launch rate and not the production rate. They have to focus on it.
“We need to find three additional cores that we could produce, send them through testing and then fly without disrupting our launch manifest,” Musk said in a Feb. 20 interview. “I'm hopeful we'll have Falcon Heavy cores produced approximately around the end of the year. But just to get through test and qualification, I think it's probably going to be sometime early next year when we launch.”
Semantics ::) There's essentially no difference if you need to use them pretty much immediately which is where SpaceX currently is in order to meet their manifest for the year.Here is what Musk & Shotwell say about core production in the latest issue of Aviation Week & Space:Quote"Within a year we need get it from what it is right now, which is about a rocket core every four weeks, to a rocket core every two weeks," Musk says.
By the end of 2015, says SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell, the company plans to ratchet up production to 40 cores per year.
I am pretty sure that it takes more than 4 weeks to build a core, so they need to have several in production at the same time to have 1 every 4 weeks. Maybe they have a few that are almost done, and will keep to the 1 a month average, but the only metric we have are the "louder than normal" tests at McGregor, and that is happening less frequently, not enough to make 12 launches this year, maybe only 6.
If testing were the bottleneck, then the new FH test stand will help, in addition to the old one. Is the FH test stand operational yet?
So you know more about core production rates that Elon or Gwynne? Pray tell how in light of the direct quotes above?
"A rocket leaves the factory every four weeks" is not the same as "it takes four weeks to build one rocket" ::)
...
I think, SpaceX have chosen this other way: no production for stock, stop the line.
My conclusion: the problem is the launch rate and not the production rate. They have to focus on it.
According to Elon Musk, SpaceX is not producing cores as quickly as they need to meet their launch manifest. From nextbigfuture.com March 05, 2014 (http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/03/spacex-falcon-heavy-launch-delayed-to.html):Quote“We need to find three additional cores that we could produce, send them through testing and then fly without disrupting our launch manifest,” Musk said in a Feb. 20 interview. “I'm hopeful we'll have Falcon Heavy cores produced approximately around the end of the year. But just to get through test and qualification, I think it's probably going to be sometime early next year when we launch.”
They may have a launch rate problem as well, but I don't think that is what's limiting core production.
Semantics ::) There's essentially no difference if you need to use them pretty much immediately which is where SpaceX currently is in order to meet their manifest for the year.Here is what Musk & Shotwell say about core production in the latest issue of Aviation Week & Space:Quote"Within a year we need get it from what it is right now, which is about a rocket core every four weeks, to a rocket core every two weeks," Musk says.
By the end of 2015, says SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell, the company plans to ratchet up production to 40 cores per year.
I am pretty sure that it takes more than 4 weeks to build a core, so they need to have several in production at the same time to have 1 every 4 weeks. Maybe they have a few that are almost done, and will keep to the 1 a month average, but the only metric we have are the "louder than normal" tests at McGregor, and that is happening less frequently, not enough to make 12 launches this year, maybe only 6.
If testing were the bottleneck, then the new FH test stand will help, in addition to the old one. Is the FH test stand operational yet?
So you know more about core production rates that Elon or Gwynne? Pray tell how in light of the direct quotes above?
"A rocket leaves the factory every four weeks" is not the same as "it takes four weeks to build one rocket" ::)
Nod.
And this argues that to keep high launch rates it is necessary to shuffle... have multiple payloads in work and be able to reorder as needed. That requires multiple processing facilities or at least a facility with the space for several payload integration operations at once.
Not always possible, at some point, the LV (upperstage) becomes specific to a payload. They aren't interchangeable.
And spacecraft contractors aren't going to sent a spacecraft down early to process it and wait for an opening. That puts risk to the spacecraft and increases cost by having manpower deployed to stay with the spacecraft.
Also, there is equipment for the spacecraft that has be installed at the hangar and then the pad.
Also, the analytic integration is done serially. Spacex doesnt have the people to have that many payloads in the same point of the integration cycle.
Not disagreeing with any of the above, and this veers off topic but all of this has to change if launch rates in the hundreds or thousands are ever going to come to pass. Yes, analogies with other transport modes are flawed because Space is Hard, but this "8 truckloads and a standing army" per payload scenario is not the case for other modes, except for very specialized payloads.
A container is a container. If your container doesn't make the cutoff, the ship sails without it and you go on the next ship. Or the next wellcar if you were taking rail, or the next stake trailer if you were taking road.
Someday. Not today not this year but someday, this all has to change to be more like other modes. Or else space will always be hard.
Good point, Lar.
Space logistics, and the ground logistics to support some notional high-launch rate of SpaceX rockets, would be a good topic for a new thread sometime.
Or else space will always be hard.
A container is a container.
A container is a container.
They aren't containers. They are instruments or vehicles in themselves.
"A rocket leaves the factory every four weeks" is not the same as "it takes four weeks to build one rocket" ::)Semantics ::) There's essentially no difference if you need to use them pretty much immediately which is where SpaceX currently is in order to meet their manifest for the year.
Semantics ::) There's essentially no difference if you need to use them pretty much immediately which is where SpaceX currently is in order to meet their manifest for the year.Here is what Musk & Shotwell say about core production in the latest issue of Aviation Week & Space:Quote"Within a year we need get it from what it is right now, which is about a rocket core every four weeks, to a rocket core every two weeks," Musk says.
By the end of 2015, says SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell, the company plans to ratchet up production to 40 cores per year.
I am pretty sure that it takes more than 4 weeks to build a core, so they need to have several in production at the same time to have 1 every 4 weeks. Maybe they have a few that are almost done, and will keep to the 1 a month average, but the only metric we have are the "louder than normal" tests at McGregor, and that is happening less frequently, not enough to make 12 launches this year, maybe only 6.
If testing were the bottleneck, then the new FH test stand will help, in addition to the old one. Is the FH test stand operational yet?
So you know more about core production rates that Elon or Gwynne? Pray tell how in light of the direct quotes above?
"A rocket leaves the factory every four weeks" is not the same as "it takes four weeks to build one rocket" ::)
JCC didn't say anything that contradicted Elon or Gwynne. Rockets can leave the factory every four weeks while having spent much longer than four weeks being built, if more than one is in production at a time, as any counter of beans should know, so no, it's not semantics. JCC didn't say anything like what you said he said.
::)
Or else space will always be hard.
Your fear is more likely true than not
A container is a container.
They aren't containers. They are instruments or vehicles in themselves.
Other differences between mass market automobiles and satellites / payloads are the number of units produced, quality requirements and the little issue that you can't simply recall a satellite if you figure out after launch that there is a problem with a part or manufacturing.
Zoe
The other problem is that the Hub / Spoke delivery system doesn't really apply to space.yet.
"A rocket leaves the factory every four weeks" is not the same as "it takes four weeks to build one rocket" ::)Semantics ::) There's essentially no difference if you need to use them pretty much immediately which is where SpaceX currently is in order to meet their manifest for the year.
I once visited an automobile factory. One car left that factory every minute after spending about 8 hours on the assembly line. That means that there were about 8 hours * 60 minutes/hour = 480 cars "in the pipeline" at any one time.
So anyone, how long does a rocket stay on the production line? How many in 'production' at any one time?
Today spacecraft payloads are a lot more like brand new aircraft than they are like pickup trucks. One problem cascades. Everything stops while it gets fixed. Every vehicle, even if built on a common bus, is custom...Today.
...
I think, SpaceX have chosen this other way: no production for stock, stop the line.
My conclusion: the problem is the launch rate and not the production rate. They have to focus on it.
According to Elon Musk, SpaceX is not producing cores as quickly as they need to meet their launch manifest. From nextbigfuture.com March 05, 2014 (http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/03/spacex-falcon-heavy-launch-delayed-to.html):Quote“We need to find three additional cores that we could produce, send them through testing and then fly without disrupting our launch manifest,” Musk said in a Feb. 20 interview. “I'm hopeful we'll have Falcon Heavy cores produced approximately around the end of the year. But just to get through test and qualification, I think it's probably going to be sometime early next year when we launch.”
They may have a launch rate problem as well, but I don't think that is what's limiting core production.
But they're still talking about flying 11 times this year, which means they're still expecting to produce ~14 cores by the end of the year. Plus, they should have more partially finished cores in final assembly then than they did at the start of this year due to the ramp up. If they can find the time to produce three extra cores while still launching almost once a month on average for the year*, I'm inclined to say they're producing cores slightly faster than they can launch them.
*this hinges on them having no significant launch slips, which is unlikely at best, but a launch slip causing a backup at the factory reinforces my point .
launches slipped --> production blocked
This sounds consistent with the idea of roughly 1 core per shift per month:
They'll be utilizing roughly 11-12 cores this year (with Falcon Heavy at least at the test site, plus F9R-dev1 and in-flight abort core and 6 orbital flights with another one waiting at the launch site). They are now hiring for second shift, which would be needed to hit 2 cores per month by the end of the year. They want to hit 40 cores per year eventually with that size of a factory, which would require about three or four shifts, which is basically the upper limit (you run out of time in a week!).
launches slipped --> production blocked
This is the only part of the first chain that doesn't make sense to me. How would a slipped launch block production? Is there literally no buffer space to store a core while waiting for a launch to proceed?
I can understand if they don't want to leave it in the parking lot, but I can't imagine there is no extra capacity at the McGregor site, for instance.
Gwynne Shotwell stated in the show today that they are presently at 1 core per month ramping up to two cores a month by the end of the year. She sees no problems flying the manifest as recently stated.
Gwynne Shotwell stated in the show today that they are presently at 1 core per month ramping up to two cores a month by the end of the year. She sees no problems flying the manifest as recently stated.
sorry I just can't understand the numbers ::)
Read back what was said last year. Pick your poison a month last year. I pick Nov. 2013
5 "New" complete cores should be available for launch
Subtract the core for the Jan 2014 launch (core completed) carry over from 2013
Subtract the core for CRS-3.
Taking those numbers into account a warehouse some where should be full of completed F9 "cores"
Should be way, way higher than 5 cores.
Indeed, I was merely mentioning how they could get 400% the output of their current factory without increasing its footprint (except perhaps for storage).This sounds consistent with the idea of roughly 1 core per shift per month:
They'll be utilizing roughly 11-12 cores this year (with Falcon Heavy at least at the test site, plus F9R-dev1 and in-flight abort core and 6 orbital flights with another one waiting at the launch site). They are now hiring for second shift, which would be needed to hit 2 cores per month by the end of the year. They want to hit 40 cores per year eventually with that size of a factory, which would require about three or four shifts, which is basically the upper limit (you run out of time in a week!).
I am not sure they need so many more people to increase output. Optimizing workflow can achieve a lot.
I remember seeing a documentary about a new Airbus. It was said that the output would increase by several times over the next few years - without increasing the workforce. The responsible manager said he does not know how to achieve that yet but experience with previous models shows it will happen.
Gwynne Shotwell stated in the show today that they are presently at 1 core per month ramping up to two cores a month by the end of the year. She sees no problems flying the manifest as recently stated.
sorry I just can't understand the numbers ::)
Read back what was said last year. Pick your poison a month last year. I pick Nov. 2013
5 "New" complete cores should be available for launch
Subtract the core for the Jan 2014 launch (core completed) carry over from 2013
Subtract the core for CRS-3.
Taking those numbers into account a warehouse some where should be full of completed F9 "cores"
Should be way, way higher than 5 cores.
Or she is speaking about capability of the production (verified is some cases) and not about real output.
Likewise, if the rate were one a month by January, it clearly was not that rate during Q3 and Q4 last year, so cores are still in short supply.
Likewise, if the rate were one a month by January, it clearly was not that rate during Q3 and Q4 last year, so cores are still in short supply.
I'm not following this. You're saying it's not possible to be at the same production rate for three quarters? Is this a law of physics?
There may or may not be a stockpile. The logic of there being a short supply of cores makes an inference based on an assumption that's based on another assumption. It also assumes that someone is lying. Proof please.
There may or may not be a stockpile. The logic of there being a short supply of cores makes an inference based on an assumption that's based on another assumption. It also assumes that someone is lying. Proof please.
None of those things need to be true for production to have been lower than 1/month until recently, at 1/month now, and aiming for 2/month by the end of the year. Your last two posts on this thread have invented conflict where there is none.
There may or may not be a stockpile. The logic of there being a short supply of cores makes an inference based on an assumption that's based on another assumption. It also assumes that someone is lying. Proof please.
None of those things need to be true for production to have been lower than 1/month until recently, at 1/month now, and aiming for 2/month by the end of the year. Your last two posts on this thread have invented conflict where there is none.
No. the poster I responded to concluded that cores are in short supply because if production was at 1/month in January, then it was clearly less than that in Q4. SpaceX has claimed once a month since Q3. You can't just randomly conclude something for which there is no evidence and then use that conclusion to declare a shortage. All of this is possible, but none of it is 'clear' unless someone can show any evidence for production rates lower than their stated rate in Q4 and evidence that it was so much lower that they are facing a shortage.
Space is hard, scratch another 1 1/2 months off the numbers with todays news.
QuoteSpace is hard, scratch another 1 1/2 months off the numbers with todays news.
Is this wrt the Soyuz delay? I just read an article at Space.com saying that this will not impact the SpaceX schedule. We can only hope ::)
Space is hard, scratch another 1 1/2 months off the numbers with todays news.Delays caused by factors outside of SpaceX's control such as the recent radar fire at CCAFS are likely to cause subsequent SpaceX launches to be delayed so maybe no more than 6 SpaceX orbital launches this year.
:-X
There may or may not be a stockpile. The logic of there being a short supply of cores makes an inference based on an assumption that's based on another assumption. It also assumes that someone is lying. Proof please.
None of those things need to be true for production to have been lower than 1/month until recently, at 1/month now, and aiming for 2/month by the end of the year. Your last two posts on this thread have invented conflict where there is none.
No. the poster I responded to concluded that cores are in short supply because if production was at 1/month in January, then it was clearly less than that in Q4. SpaceX has claimed once a month since Q3. You can't just randomly conclude something for which there is no evidence and then use that conclusion to declare a shortage. All of this is possible, but none of it is 'clear' unless someone can show any evidence for production rates lower than their stated rate in Q4 and evidence that it was so much lower that they are facing a shortage.
Where was it stated that they've completed one a month since Q3 last year? I missed that.
"Right now, we're at about a vehicle per month production rate. We'll be at 18 per year in the next couple of quarters, and by the end of next year we'll be at a rate of 24 a year, or two a month."
No definitive delay duration at this time but some seems likely.Space is hard, scratch another 1 1/2 months off the numbers with todays news.
:-X
Is the flight delayed 6 weeks? Or are you just concern trolling as usual?
No definitive delay duration at this time but some seems likely.Space is hard, scratch another 1 1/2 months off the numbers with todays news.
:-X
Is the flight delayed 6 weeks? Or are you just concern trolling as usual?
As regards the output rate of the production pipeline, I'm wondering if the first stage for the flight following CRS-3 has arrived yet at the Cape? On February 9, 2014 a reliable source indicated, "The Falcon 9's first and second stages, along with the Dragon spacecraft, are now at Cape Canaveral for launch processing." (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/009/140209date)
It is now 1.5 months after that date. Is SpaceX delivering cores to the launch site at a rate slower than 8 per year?
As regards the output rate of the production pipeline, I'm wondering if the first stage for the flight following CRS-3 has arrived yet at the Cape? On February 9, 2014 a reliable source indicated, "The Falcon 9's first and second stages, along with the Dragon spacecraft, are now at Cape Canaveral for launch processing." (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/009/140209date)
It is now 1.5 months after that date. Is SpaceX delivering cores to the launch site at a rate slower than 8 per year?
I still think it is going to be 7. Those ISS schedules can move to the right very easily. So many variables. if they do get to 10 they would have launched more often than Atlas V which is the US leader at 8 last year and probably 9 this year
They probably could fit the FH cores in now without missing a beat at the Cape. Those cores go to Vandy where there is plenty of room, but via McGregor, where they might get in the way of progress on the manifest launch sequence.As regards the output rate of the production pipeline, I'm wondering if the first stage for the flight following CRS-3 has arrived yet at the Cape? On February 9, 2014 a reliable source indicated, "The Falcon 9's first and second stages, along with the Dragon spacecraft, are now at Cape Canaveral for launch processing." (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/009/140209date)
It is now 1.5 months after that date. Is SpaceX delivering cores to the launch site at a rate slower than 8 per year?
On the positive side this could be a major blessing for SpaceX. The delay in launching CRS-3 gives production time for 1.5 to 2 more cores if the company has room to store them.
If the cape is down too long, could SpaceX launch some of their commercial payloads from Vandenburg, in a fully expendable mode (no legs etc) and do some sort of "dog-leg" to put them in a proper orbit?
I think SpaceX can store one or two cores at McGregor, though possibly more.
I think SpaceX can store one or two cores at McGregor, though possibly more.
How long would it take to create a short term storage facility? Enough to keep the rain off! Or do these places need to be kept climate controlled?
I think SpaceX can store one or two cores at McGregor, though possibly more.
How long would it take to create a short term storage facility? Enough to keep the rain off! Or do these places need to be kept climate controlled?
Except they seem to be operating a deliberate policy of "just in time" shipping from Hawthorn.
Speculation as to why might be interesting.
JIT = cost savings in most manufacturing
...Given Musk's explicit quote (http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/03/spacex-falcon-heavy-launch-delayed-to.html):
Except they seem to be operating a deliberate policy of "just in time" shipping from Hawthorn.
Speculation as to why might be interesting.
“We need to find three additional cores that we could produce, send them through testing and then fly without disrupting our launch manifest,” Musk said in a Feb. 20 interview. “I'm hopeful we'll have Falcon Heavy cores produced approximately around the end of the year. But just to get through test and qualification, I think it's probably going to be sometime early next year when we launch.”I do not think they are engaging in JIT. It makes no sense to idle your production line for FH because F9s are delayed. The FH has it's own test stand in McGregor and will fly out of Vandenberg, how are F9 delays at KSC relevant?
Quote"Right now, we're at about a vehicle per month production rate. We'll be at 18 per year in the next couple of quarters, and by the end of next year we'll be at a rate of 24 a year, or two a month."
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25210742 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25210742)
This was December 3rd. I can find earlier. Need some free time.
Relevant to that figure, it looks like SpaceX is going to bite the bullet and do the work to be able to do the in-flight abort test from Vandenberg instead of the Cape: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/451069770368954368
Relevant to that figure, it looks like SpaceX is going to bite the bullet and do the work to be able to do the in-flight abort test from Vandenberg instead of the Cape: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/451069770368954368
Check the date :)... but if so, why would they? reduce critical path stuff I guess.
Jeff Foust quotes Shotwell as maintaining 9 more launches scheduled for this year, despite CRS-3 delay.I would bet serious amount of money against it. Despite what some folks here think, Musk is no miracle maker.
Relevant to that figure, it looks like SpaceX is going to bite the bullet and do the work to be able to do the in-flight abort test from Vandenberg instead of the Cape: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/451069770368954368
Jeff Foust quotes Shotwell as maintaining 9 more launches scheduled for this year, despite CRS-3 delay.I would bet serious amount of money against it. Despite what some folks here think, Musk is no miracle maker.
Relevant to that figure, it looks like SpaceX is going to bite the bullet and do the work to be able to do the in-flight abort test from Vandenberg instead of the Cape: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/451069770368954368
Relevant to that figure, it looks like SpaceX is going to bite the bullet and do the work to be able to do the in-flight abort test from Vandenberg instead of the Cape: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/451069770368954368
One wonders why don't they move pad abort to Vandenberg too, if they're going to bite the bullet, might as well bite all the way.
There's a fair degree of being in the right place at the right time and a certain element of 'the gods are on his side'. :)SpaceX is known for many things, but being fast is not one of them. At this point, 9 flights are as realistic as 20 peddled by some nuts here not that long ago. ::)
A lot of other info from jeff_foust on twitter, but nobody wants to discuss them because of the date, guess it's not a good idea to have a panel discussion on April 1st, oh well.I have an idea (too late, I know). SpaceX could at 1st April reveal what they are actually planning and work on (this whole "If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!").
Jeff Foust quotes Shotwell as maintaining 9 more launches scheduled for this year, despite CRS-3 delay.I would bet serious amount of money against it. Despite what some folks here think, Musk is no miracle maker.
What? You don't think so? I do given the number of times he seems to have escaped disaster only to rise from the ashes so to speak. But perhaps it's just good engineering and business nouce. No, it isn't. There's a fair degree of being in the right place at the right time and a certain element of 'the gods are on his side'. :)
You don't have to be better or faster or smarter. You just have to keep going when everyone else has given up.
One wonders why don't they move pad abort to Vandenberg too, if they're going to bite the bullet, might as well bite all the way.
Both the pad abort and the in-flight abort involve Dragon. A Dragon will have to be handled at VAFB for the in-flight abort test.
One wonders why don't they move pad abort to Vandenberg too, if they're going to bite the bullet, might as well bite all the way.
Because VAFB can't handle a Dragon?
A Dragon will have to be handled at VAFB for the in-flight abort test.
You don't have to be better or faster or smarter. You just have to keep going when everyone else has given up.
I don't think his people will like knowing that they will be working 60-70 hours per week for the rest of the year
You don't have to be better or faster or smarter. You just have to keep going when everyone else has given up.
I don't think his people will like knowing that they will be working 60-70 hours per week for the rest of the year
What happens next year?
Sure sounds like they worked up a figure of the extra effort and expense of doing a one-off Dragon integration from VAFB
A Dragon will have to be handled at VAFB for the in-flight abort test.
I don't recall that happening from VAFB
Relevant to that figure, it looks like SpaceX is going to bite the bullet and do the work to be able to do the in-flight abort test from Vandenberg instead of the Cape: https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/451069770368954368
Could they have a second set for the crewed version?Sure sounds like they worked up a figure of the extra effort and expense of doing a one-off Dragon integration from VAFB
Handling fixtures, lift frames, access GSE, prop loading equipment, EGSE, etc
Could they have a second set for the crewed version?Sure sounds like they worked up a figure of the extra effort and expense of doing a one-off Dragon integration from VAFB
Handling fixtures, lift frames, access GSE, prop loading equipment, EGSE, etc
You don't have to be better or faster or smarter. You just have to keep going when everyone else has given up.
I don't think his people will like knowing that they will be working 60-70 hours per week for the rest of the year
What happens next year?
More of the same, except with new faces.
Stock options sounds fine, but then the company has to be on the stock market, no?No, actually. They just did another round of private financing which allows employees to cash out if they want to without the company going public. (They can only do this so many times before they either need to consolidate shares to fewer shareholders or essentially get reporting requirements similar to public companies.)
You don't have to be better or faster or smarter. You just have to keep going when everyone else has given up.
I don't think his people will like knowing that they will be working 60-70 hours per week for the rest of the year
Both the pad abort and the in-flight abort involve Dragon. A Dragon will have to be handled at VAFB for the in-flight abort test.
One wonders why don't they move pad abort to Vandenberg too, if they're going to bite the bullet, might as well bite all the way.
Because VAFB can't handle a Dragon?
Jeff Foust quotes Shotwell as maintaining 9 more launches scheduled for this year, despite CRS-3 delay. Thats exactly one a month from here on out. Also quotes 15-17 for next year, quite a ramp up.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/451035641644478465
Just read that the next launch attempt is April 14th at 4:58 pm. I'm assuming that is eastern time. Anyways, that bodes well for booster viewing! Really looking forward to seeing the SpaceX ball rolling again. ;D
Yes, April 14th. All the best to SpaceX of course I hope they get all their launches on schedule but I can't see it happening and my guess of 7 this year is looking ambitious. These delays may be in or out of their control but nevertheless, we didn't see contamination coming nor fires in range assets. It's the nature of the beast. So, it's looking like almost the middle of the April for only the second attempt this year. Who knows, the attempt on the 14th could still be delayed, you can't rule out weather either.
... my guess of 7 this year is looking ambitious.
... SpaceX on Monday will attempt to loft its third ISS resupply mission under a $1.6 billion NASA contract, and possibly follow that with a commercial satellite launch before the end of the month.[bold mine]
There's no question that SpaceX pushes their workforce harder than other companies. That doesn't mean they'll fail. Doesn't mean every company could or should operate in the same way.
Every successful small business owner I know operates at about the same pace. SpaceX just is going to have to find all those sort of driven people in the aerospace world.
If you want work/life balance, don't work at SpaceX. Work at Virgin Galactic or something.
There's no question that SpaceX pushes their workforce harder than other companies. That doesn't mean they'll fail. Doesn't mean every company could or should operate in the same way.
Every successful small business owner I know operates at about the same pace. SpaceX just is going to have to find all those sort of driven people in the aerospace world.
If you want work/life balance, don't work at SpaceX. Work at Virgin Galactic or something.
I don't know anybody that works at Space. But I have worked in an environment that requires long hours. Generally, only the younger or less experienced people work long hours. The more experienced people don't have to work all the time because they are more efficient. They still have to be available all the time. But they are allowed to have a family life. They go home at normal hours and often work from home (usually after putting their kids to bed).
In any event, my prediction of one flight per month is not going to happen. Even if everybody at SpaceX works on weekends...
We are going off topic here again, but my experience is just the opposite.
The more experienced people actually get more work dumped on them, because the company knows it will get done properly. It's really not about being more efficient. We are just more heavy loaded than the new employees.
... my guess of 7 this year is looking ambitious.
Yours and mine both! :-[
... my guess of 7 this year is looking ambitious.
Yours and mine both! :-[
To be fair, the delays the last few months are primarily coming from the range
Better? Ha! I already estimate they will launch 4, at most 5 times this year (my original prediction: seven :'( ). Assuming they finally fly in April, this will be two launches in four months. Theoretically it gives hope for 6 launches in 2014, but Reality will not have any of it, I betha.
To be fair, the delays the last few months are primarily coming from the range
You've got to be kidding.
To be fair, the delays the last few months are primarily coming from the range
You've got to be kidding.
Not kidding, but ready and willing to be corrected. Proceed McDuff...
TW
To be fair, the delays the last few months are primarily coming from the range
You've got to be kidding.
Not kidding, but ready and willing to be corrected. Proceed McDuff...
TW
Sticking to my estimate of five at this point. I think six is still achievable though.Same for me. When I picked five back in late December, the Thaicom mission was already slipping into 2014 and seeing all the guesses of 8 or more made me hesitate on only guessing 5. But I considered that a lot of people were making their guesses based on the optimistic statements that were coming from upper level management. Now, overly optimistic statements come from pretty much any company's CEOs and presidents in any industry. The statements are usually best case scenarios and motivation for their workforce and investors. So I take those comments with a grain of salt.
Given that at least two more SpX CRS missions are planned for this year, beyond CRS-3, and that those will undoubtly be associated with their own delays.... I'll say my guess of at most 6 SpaceX orbital launches this year is looking better all the time. 8)
Given that at least two more SpX CRS missions are planned for this year, beyond CRS-3, and that those will undoubtly be associated with their own delays.... I'll say my guess of at most 6 SpaceX orbital launches this year is looking better all the time. 8)
2 CRS? Thought I saw the schedule cut to 1 more CRS in Dec. That would make it closer to 5 per your thinking.
A screen grab of the March 27 FPIP (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29401.msg1183105#msg1183105) shows SpX-4, -5, and -6 still being planned for 2014
A screen grab of the March 27 FPIP (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29401.msg1183105#msg1183105) shows SpX-4, -5, and -6 still being planned for 2014
acc. to the iss schedule (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32006.msg1175528#msg1175528 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32006.msg1175528#msg1175528))
spx-4 is aug 8, spx-5 is nov 26 and spx-6 is already in 2015
My line of reasoning for coming up with the estimate of only six flights - back when the poll was running - was as follows:Given that at least two more SpX CRS missions are planned for this year, beyond CRS-3, and that those will undoubtly be associated with their own delays.... I'll say my guess of at most 6 SpaceX orbital launches this year is looking better all the time. 8)
2 CRS? Thought I saw the schedule cut to 1 more CRS in Dec. That would make it closer to 5 per your thinking.
Logged on today not expecting a launch.
This time I was right ???
And people, it's not over until it's over. Voting closed a long time ago. We can all calculate the fraction of the year that has elapsed. Victory laps can wait until next January.
Logged on today not expecting a launch.
This time I was right ???
Logged on today not expecting a launch.
This time I was right ???
I wasn't expecting a launch today, either. ;)
You could do this every day and be right over 350 times this year! :P
I get really bored with the whole situation.No one forces you to track SpaceX progress or lack of it.
I get really bored with the whole situation.No one forces you to track SpaceX progress or lack of it.
I get really bored with the whole situation.No one forces you to track SpaceX progress or lack of it.
Space is hard - also from an armchair... ;)
Logged on today not expecting a launch.
This time I was right ???
I wasn't expecting a launch today, either. ;)
You could do this every day and be right over 350 times this year! :P
I've been checking in every time there is a new date given. I haven't been keeping up with every slip as they're announced.
I know there have been genuine issues but this all makes SpaceX look very sloppy.
Seems to me like every time they finally do launch we have a giant buzz in the space community and everybody is happy that progress is being made then SpaceX go back to sitting on their hands and (can't speak for others) I get really bored with the whole situation.
I've been checking in every time there is a new date given. I haven't been keeping up with every slip as they're announced.
I know there have been genuine issues but this all makes SpaceX look very sloppy.
Seems to me like every time they finally do launch we have a giant buzz in the space community and everybody is happy that progress is being made then SpaceX go back to sitting on their hands and (can't speak for others) I get really bored with the whole situation.
No it doesn't make them look sloppy. It makes them look careful about their customer's payload and getting things as right as possible before launch. They had a backup valve but they have a policy of not launching with known issues.
Your bordem or otherwise fortunately has no bearing on when they launch ;)
One of the members of the Rogers inquiry was the celebrated physicist Richard Feynman, who judged the cavalier attitude of NASA and Thiokol as representing “a kind of Russian roulette … [the shuttle] flies [with O-ring erosion] and nothing happens. Then it is suggested, therefore, that the risk is no longer so high for the next flights. We can lower our standards a little bit because we got away with it last time. You got away with it, but it shouldn’t be done over and over again like that.” Mike Mullane scornfully called it the “normalization of deviance.”
... then SpaceX go back to sitting on their hands ...Padrat or any other SpaceXers want to comment?
I've been checking in every time there is a new date given. I haven't been keeping up with every slip as they're announced.
I know there have been genuine issues but this all makes SpaceX look very sloppy.
Seems to me like every time they finally do launch we have a giant buzz in the space community and everybody is happy that progress is being made then SpaceX go back to sitting on their hands and (can't speak for others) I get really bored with the whole situation.
No it doesn't make them look sloppy. It makes them look careful about their customer's payload and getting things as right as possible before launch. They had a backup valve but they have a policy of not launching with known issues.
Your bordem or otherwise fortunately has no bearing on when they launch ;)
In addition:
AmericaSpace had a long articel for month's about Columbia disaster.
There were also mentioned the problem: launch with known issues (much bigger issues...)QuoteOne of the members of the Rogers inquiry was the celebrated physicist Richard Feynman, who judged the cavalier attitude of NASA and Thiokol as representing “a kind of Russian roulette … [the shuttle] flies [with O-ring erosion] and nothing happens. Then it is suggested, therefore, that the risk is no longer so high for the next flights. We can lower our standards a little bit because we got away with it last time. You got away with it, but it shouldn’t be done over and over again like that.” Mike Mullane scornfully called it the “normalization of deviance.”
The whole articel is worth to read.
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=48451 (http://www.americaspace.com/?p=48451)
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=48453 (http://www.americaspace.com/?p=48453)
I've been checking in every time there is a new date given. I haven't been keeping up with every slip as they're announced.
I know there have been genuine issues but this all makes SpaceX look very sloppy.
Seems to me like every time they finally do launch we have a giant buzz in the space community and everybody is happy that progress is being made then SpaceX go back to sitting on their hands and (can't speak for others) I get really bored with the whole situation.
No it doesn't make them look sloppy. It makes them look careful about their customer's payload and getting things as right as possible before launch. They had a backup valve but they have a policy of not launching with known issues.
Your bordem or otherwise fortunately has no bearing on when they launch ;)
In addition:
AmericaSpace had a long articel for month's about Columbia disaster.
There were also mentioned the problem: launch with known issues (much bigger issues...)QuoteOne of the members of the Rogers inquiry was the celebrated physicist Richard Feynman, who judged the cavalier attitude of NASA and Thiokol as representing “a kind of Russian roulette … [the shuttle] flies [with O-ring erosion] and nothing happens. Then it is suggested, therefore, that the risk is no longer so high for the next flights. We can lower our standards a little bit because we got away with it last time. You got away with it, but it shouldn’t be done over and over again like that.” Mike Mullane scornfully called it the “normalization of deviance.”
The whole articel is worth to read.
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=48451
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=48453
Quibble. That was Challenger, not Columbia. Although there are disturbing parallels between the two.
you feel history of mistakes is being repeated ?
you feel history of mistakes is being repeated ?
No, SpaceX seems to be on the right way, they want really be the most reliable launch provider.
you feel history of mistakes is being repeated ?
No, SpaceX seems to be on the right way, they want really be the most reliable launch provider.
They are definitely striving for reliability. They just aren't achieving it yet.
They test each engine individually.
Then they test each engine and the stage as a completed unit before it ships to the launch pad.
Then, at the launch pad, they perform a WDR, and often a Hot Fire as part of the launch prep.
They are definitely exercising the system, but somehow gremlins are sneaking in regardless of their test procedures.
For instance, despite all of the testing, I can remember at 2 or 3 flights where there was an issue with an engine that needed to be addressed at the pad. Despite all of the glee about the tech who crawled into the inner stage with tin snips and trimmed the engine nozzle on the first F9 flight, why was that necessary in the first place ? Why did the engine ship with the wrong length engine nozzle ?
It looks like there is stuff getting caught at the pad that should be getting caught much earlier in the design / build process. If they want to up the launch tempo, they need to figure out why these quality issues aren't getting caught in Hawthorne and McGregor. You can't depend on the guys at the pad to detect and fix all the issues.
For instance, despite all of the testing, I can remember at 2 or 3 flights where there was an issue with an engine that needed to be addressed at the pad. Despite all of the glee about the tech who crawled into the inner stage with tin snips and trimmed the engine nozzle on the first F9 flight, why was that necessary in the first place ? Why did the engine ship with the wrong length engine nozzle ?
For instance, despite all of the testing, I can remember at 2 or 3 flights where there was an issue with an engine that needed to be addressed at the pad. Despite all of the glee about the tech who crawled into the inner stage with tin snips and trimmed the engine nozzle on the first F9 flight, why was that necessary in the first place ? Why did the engine ship with the wrong length engine nozzle ?
It didn't ship with the wrong length nozzle.
You might want to do a bit more research. There was damage to the nozzle and the decision was taken to trim back the damaged part and take the performance hit.
It was a crack Steve, I don't recall seeing any published cause that I'm aware of. Perhaps someone on here knows/remembers?
For instance, despite all of the testing, I can remember at 2 or 3 flights where there was an issue with an engine that needed to be addressed at the pad. Despite all of the glee about the tech who crawled into the inner stage with tin snips and trimmed the engine nozzle on the first F9 flight, why was that necessary in the first place ? Why did the engine ship with the wrong length engine nozzle ?
It didn't ship with the wrong length nozzle.
You might want to do a bit more research. There was damage to the nozzle and the decision was taken to trim back the damaged part and take the performance hit.
You're right. I remembered wrong.
But was it damaged in shipment, or during assembly at the Cape ?
A common theme in every quality system is that the farther down the production chain a problem gets, the more expensive it is to fix.
Except for the F9 test stand, they should be able to test and work on almost everything else in parallel, with work happening on multiple cores at the same time.
Eight launches (ten minus two already done) in eight months? COME ON. This has chances of snowman in Hell. ::)
Eight launches (ten minus two already done) in eight months? COME ON. This has chances of snowman in Hell. ::)
Eight launches (ten minus two already done) in eight months? COME ON. This has chances of snowman in Hell. ::)
Keep in mind that they launched the Thaicom and SES flights just over a month apart, with Christmas and New Year's in between, and that they're talking about launching the first Orbcomm flight in a month. As the good Space Brit said, we'll see.
Musk in postlaunch presser (from live broadcast): "We will do ten, close to ten, launches this year".
Will need to verify on the replay.
Anyone else hear that?
edit: I guess sublimemarsupial heard something like that
Maybe he's just cheering for his personal vote of 10.Musk in postlaunch presser (from live broadcast): "We will do ten, close to ten, launches this year".
Will need to verify on the replay.
Anyone else hear that?
edit: I guess sublimemarsupial heard something like that
Let's assume he is rounding up.
Why assume anything?Musk in postlaunch presser (from live broadcast): "We will do ten, close to ten, launches this year".Let's assume he is rounding up.
...
Keep in mind that they launched the Thaicom and SES flights just over a month apart,Soooo? They would have to pull it off eight times in row... and no slips AT ALL. Not gonna happen. ::)
Keep in mind that they launched the Thaicom and SES flights just over a month apart,Soooo? They would have to pull it off eight times in row... and no slips AT ALL. Not gonna happen. ::)
During the CRS-3 post flight presser, Elon said they should still be able to do 10 flights this year total, and that the question is not pad capability but core production, and specifically the production of one specific "injector casting", but they think they have the issues with that resolved.
During the CRS-3 post flight presser, Elon said they should still be able to do 10 flights this year total, and that the question is not pad capability but core production, and specifically the production of one specific "injector casting", but they think they have the issues with that resolved.
Would the injector casting be part of the Merlin engines? If so, they need at least 10 per vehicle, but I thought they had been stockpiling Merlins.
Is it something they are 3D printing? If so, are they running into quality issues?
All questions no answers, except confirmation that having production set up to produce a core a month is not the same as actually producing a core a month.
How many of the flights are totally within SpaceX control?Not to mention the occasional commercial satellite delay, a problem that has sometimes afflicted Arianespace.
With care, they can likely avoid delays caused by leaky valves and greasy sewing machines, but competing ISS traffic and broken ISS hardware is out of their hands.
How many of the flights are totally within SpaceX control?Not to mention the occasional commercial satellite delay, a problem that has sometimes afflicted Arianespace.
With care, they can likely avoid delays caused by leaky valves and greasy sewing machines, but competing ISS traffic and broken ISS hardware is out of their hands.
- Ed Kyle
During the CRS-3 post flight presser, Elon said they should still be able to do 10 flights this year total, and that the question is not pad capability but core production, and specifically the production of one specific "injector casting", but they think they have the issues with that resolved.
During the CRS-3 post flight presser, Elon said they should still be able to do 10 flights this year total, and that the question is not pad capability but core production, and specifically the production of one specific "injector casting", but they think they have the issues with that resolved.
Elon needs to have a chat with is VP and get on the same page :o
Read above (or maybe that text got trashed),she said core production was so high
During the CRS-3 post flight presser, Elon said they should still be able to do 10 flights this year total, and that the question is not pad capability but core production, and specifically the production of one specific "injector casting", but they think they have the issues with that resolved.
Elon needs to have a chat with is VP and get on the same page :o
Read above (or maybe that text got trashed),she said core production was so high
core are great, just a small issue with powerplants
Musk in postlaunch presser (from live broadcast): "We will do ten, close to ten, launches this year".
Will need to verify on the replay.
Anyone else hear that?
edit: I guess sublimemarsupial heard something like that
Let's assume he is rounding up.
Maybe he's just cheering for his personal vote of 10.
Elon did not say core. He said vehicle production. He also said it came down to "one particular part, which is an injector casting." It's hard to fly a rocket without all the parts required to build it. :oDuring the CRS-3 post flight presser, Elon said they should still be able to do 10 flights this year total, and that the question is not pad capability but core production, and specifically the production of one specific "injector casting", but they think they have the issues with that resolved.
Elon needs to have a chat with is VP and get on the same page :o
Read above (or maybe that text got trashed),she said core production was so high
During the CRS-3 post flight presser, Elon said they should still be able to do 10 flights this year total, and that the question is not pad capability but core production, and specifically the production of one specific "injector casting", but they think they have the issues with that resolved.
Would the injector casting be part of the Merlin engines? If so, they need at least 10 per vehicle, but I thought they had been stockpiling Merlins.
Is it something they are 3D printing? If so, are they running into quality issues?
All questions no answers, except confirmation that having production set up to produce a core a month is not the same as actually producing a core a month.
Someone said the injector casting was for the pintle. The pintle is part of the Merlin engine (regulates fuel flow). Injector casting is not 3D printing. Most difficulties in production of a part comes down to quality issues or cost issues. Since they have decided on the method of production "injection molding" then it must be a quality issue.
How many of the flights are totally within SpaceX control?Not to mention the occasional commercial satellite delay, a problem that has sometimes afflicted Arianespace.
With care, they can likely avoid delays caused by leaky valves and greasy sewing machines, but competing ISS traffic and broken ISS hardware is out of their hands.
- Ed Kyle
....which is why I'm still in awe about how Arianespace managed to keep launching 10+ times a year during the Ariane 4 days (10 A4+1 A5 in 1996/98, 11 A4+1 A5 in 1997...), or McD/Boeing keep launching Delta IIs by almost a dozen per year. Heck, even getting to the launch rate of Lockheed (Martin)'s Atlas-Centaur in the 1990s would be awesome.....
(I'm already discounting the Russians because they work with launches in vastly different manners)
one is GoreSat,
He's the man with the money so 10 launches looks like the number and I've been pesimistic at 7.Protip: throwing money at problem does not solve it automagically.
Only time will tell.You do not have to wait. Past performance says they will fall short of target.
Or I guess we could assume he's evil and lying and stuff. I know which one fits my world view.
I will turn it around. If he will NOT achieve this "ten launches" target for 2014, will you agree that he is "evil and lying and stuff"?Or I guess we could assume he's evil and lying and stuff. I know which one fits my world view.
I will turn it around. If he will NOT achieve this "ten launches" target for 2014, will you agree that he is "evil and lying and stuff"?Or I guess we could assume he's evil and lying and stuff. I know which one fits my world view.
Maybe that will make you realize fallacy committed in this citation above.
Nope... I would assume that he gave "a perhaps aspirational, but nevertheless educated guess" which turned out to be wrong. (the part Steve cut away and you didn't restore or didn't see)I will turn it around. If he will NOT achieve this "ten launches" target for 2014, will you agree that he is "evil and lying and stuff"?Or I guess we could assume he's evil and lying and stuff. I know which one fits my world view.
Maybe that will make you realize fallacy committed in this citation above.No fallacy on my end, you've posed a false dichotomy, because you cut away " giving a perhaps aspirational, but nevertheless educated guess." from what I said (as did Steve... no idea why)
Nope... I would assume that he gave "a perhaps aspirational, but nevertheless educated guess" which turned out to be wrong. (the part Steve cut away and you didn't restore or didn't see)Whatever.
He's the man with the money so 10 launches looks like the number and I've been pesimistic at 7.Protip: throwing money at problem does not solve it automagically.Only time will tell.You do not have to wait. Past performance says they will fall short of target.
In past year they claimed at one point as much as eight. Reality: three. Talk is cheap. ::)
Carryovers count.
Carryovers count. If you drop carryovers from one end of the year, you have to be willing to add them to the other end of the year -- you'll have to credit an extra launch to 2013, and any launches that get pushed into 2015 would still be credited to 2014.
You can't have uncredited launches drifting about like rogue planets...
SpaceX is a work in progress. They are currently aiming for 1 launch per month or better. They have demonstrated 2 launches in 33 days once already.
Now they think they can do the next 8 in a row.
SpaceX has always had a pretty major problem with over-promising.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/01/musk-ambition-spacex-aim-for-fully-reusable-falcon-9/
"By flight six we think it’s highly likely we’ll recover the first stage, and when we get it back we’ll see what survived through re-entry, and what got fried, and carry on with the process."
Note the date - January 2009. He was talking about version 1.0, and he was talking about that occurring in about 2010. Still hasn't happened.
I prefer the term 'spin". Truth of the matter CRS-3 is the first launch of 2014 and that's sad performance. Remember the launch in Jan was mostly a carryover from Dec. of 2013.
Let's see how well CRS-4 and CRS-5 go before we pop the cork on success.
A bit unfair if you consider ULA is Boeing and Lockheed Martin as a joint venture
One company that inherited three seasoned LVs and I assume (which is dangerous) a large number of personnel experienced in building and flying those LVs. Not a bad thing, but a different thing.A bit unfair if you consider ULA is Boeing and Lockheed Martin as a joint venture
No, it is a separate company, no different than Spacex
...The problem was a cracked nozzle extension. If I remember correctly, it was because a nitrogen purge was fluttering the (nearly soda can thin) nozzle extension that caused the crack.
For instance, despite all of the testing, I can remember at 2 or 3 flights where there was an issue with an engine that needed to be addressed at the pad. Despite all of the glee about the tech who crawled into the inner stage with tin snips and trimmed the engine nozzle on the first F9 flight, why was that necessary in the first place ? Why did the engine ship with the wrong length engine nozzle ?
...
With latest slip, it's looking more and more bleak for SpaceX to achieve not only pie-in-sky target of 10, but even groupthink result here (eight). I voted originally 7, and now I am between 6 and 5. Leaning to 5.
And this is embarassing, considering they apparently want in long term to have single digit days or even x-hours turnaround. They can forget about it as long as they have these problems cropping up. It not first or second, but n-th time when they have pad-related problem. I almost wonder if it (launch pad) is where they cut corners too much in quest of lowering costs.
Please stay realistic and give them some credit. They recycled the pad in recorded time. With a launch date well before anyone's expectation. I guess all were expecting an initial launch date of May 22nd orso. Gremlins on the pad (or Murphy) prevented them to launch this time. Gremlins they pretty certain will tame soon enough.
Don't punish them for attempting a launch so quick after crs3. It was a good attempt with again much lessons learned and plenty of experienced gained with all the countless things that did go as planned.
People tend to forget the importance of the latter. ;)
Getting 6 orbital launches this year (my vote) while also preparing Falcon Heavy and getting a launch abort test or two done for Dragon Crew (with the fancy abort thrusters) and all the crazy progress they've had with F9R is NOT what I would call embarrassing.Maybe you should wait until they actually do it before saying it? ::)
SpaceX fans need to learn patience.It is not about patience or lack of it. It is about bombastic SpaceX claims versus mundane reality.
Since when has "Hope to get 10 launches in this year" been bombastic? Bombastic is "Goddamn YES, we will launch 10 flights this YEAR YEAH! And we will recover a couple of stages. YEAH!". Which I am pretty sure I never heard.Cripes, I thought delays only happened to SpaceX ::)
As far as I can tell, although they haven't got as much done this year so far as they may have hoped, they have still got lots more done than anyone else, using less money.
In other news...
Looks like the next Delta launch is going to be delayed, so better get the pitchforks ready.
Since when has "Hope to get 10 launches in this year" been bombastic? Bombastic is "Goddamn YES, we will launch 10 flights this YEAR YEAH! And we will recover a couple of stages. YEAH!". Which I am pretty sure I never heard.And so is one of the next Ariane flights (V218). The world is coming to an end... ;)
As far as I can tell, although they haven't got as much done this year so far as they may have hoped, they have still got lots more done than anyone else, using less money.
In other news...
Looks like the next Delta launch is going to be delayed, so better get the pitchforks ready.
In other news...
Looks like the next Delta launch is going to be delayed, so better get the pitchforks ready.
And it sounds like SLS is also slipping. From Tweet from Jeff Foust....
"Bob Cabana on first SLS launch, targeted late '17: "Is it going to slip into (calendar yr) ‘18? Probably. We’ll see how it all works out."
Conclusion? Space launches get delayed. A lot. Don't read more in to delays than is actually there.
In other news...
Looks like the next Delta launch is going to be delayed, so better get the pitchforks ready.
What was your source? What was the reason for the slip? No slip announced so far, except potentially due to the weather, and it's a little extreme to suggest that people blame SpaceX for weather delays.And it sounds like SLS is also slipping. From Tweet from Jeff Foust....
"Bob Cabana on first SLS launch, targeted late '17: "Is it going to slip into (calendar yr) ‘18? Probably. We’ll see how it all works out."
Conclusion? Space launches get delayed. A lot. Don't read more in to delays than is actually there.
First flight of a non-existent vehicle isn't a relevant comparison.
Space launches do get delayed. But its hard to read too much into delays caused by vehicle issues.
I did take the time, and there's nothing I saw in Jeff Foust's tweets that mentioned a delay - only a weather forecast.In other news...
Looks like the next Delta launch is going to be delayed, so better get the pitchforks ready.
What was your source? What was the reason for the slip? No slip announced so far, except potentially due to the weather, and it's a little extreme to suggest that people blame SpaceX for weather delays.And it sounds like SLS is also slipping. From Tweet from Jeff Foust....
"Bob Cabana on first SLS launch, targeted late '17: "Is it going to slip into (calendar yr) ‘18? Probably. We’ll see how it all works out."
Conclusion? Space launches get delayed. A lot. Don't read more in to delays than is actually there.
First flight of a non-existent vehicle isn't a relevant comparison.
Space launches do get delayed. But its hard to read too much into delays caused by vehicle issues.
Source for Delta delay was again a Jeff Foust tweet. Don't have time to refer back, he tweets a lot...
First flight of a non-existent vehicle isn't relevent? What about rockets with only a few flights? Is that? There have been 5 F9 1.1 flights (1.1. was effectively a new rocket over 1.0). Five. All successful. Since Sept. 2013. That's only 9 months. It's still a very very new rocket, and to read anything major in to pad delays after only 5 flights and 9 months is statistically faulty.
There have been 1700 Soyuz series flights as a comparison...
So how many Delta delays have there been, due to vehicle issues? How many in the first 5 flights? (I don't know the answer).
I'm not trying to rationalise one against the other. Just put across the point that there are almost always delays on rockets flights, due to weather, vehicle problems, range issues, payload issues. And to castigate SpaceX for delays, for whatever reason, after only 5 flights is not statistically relevant.
And what constitutes a 'bad' delay? SpaceX had to postpone the recent launch due to a vehicle problems. It's quite possible that the problem was fixed the next day (or may not, I don't know) and the vehicle was ready to launch. But the delay is now propagated and increased by various other non-vehicle related issues. So although the technical issue was shortlived, the delay is much longer. So is that vehicle issue a 'bad' delay? If the range issues were not there, the rocket may have been able to launch the next day....is that a 'bad' delay? The point being, the cause is the same, but the effect completely different.
So how many Delta delays have there been, due to vehicle issues? How many in the first 5 flights? (I don't know the answer).
I'm not trying to rationalise one against the other. Just put across the point that there are almost always delays on rockets flights, due to weather, vehicle problems, range issues, payload issues. And to castigate SpaceX for delays, for whatever reason, after only 5 flights is not statistically relevant.
And what constitutes a 'bad' delay? SpaceX had to postpone the recent launch due to a vehicle problems. It's quite possible that the problem was fixed the next day (or may not, I don't know) and the vehicle was ready to launch. But the delay is now propagated and increased by various other non-vehicle related issues. So although the technical issue was shortlived, the delay is much longer. So is that vehicle issue a 'bad' delay? If the range issues were not there, the rocket may have been able to launch the next day....is that a 'bad' delay? The point being, the cause is the same, but the effect completely different.
I was commenting on your original posts looking at the current Delta delay (there was none) and SLS delay to say that delays were common. If you had brought up the original Delta IV program delays, that might have been relevant.
Based on the information in the OG-2 Updates thread (even before today's info), it's very unlikely that SpaceX would have been ready to launch the next day. There was no indication that they couldn't get the Range - the Delta launch wouldn't have blocked the Range until Tuesday, giving SpaceX a number of other opportunities had they been ready. You make statements that "the technical issue was short-lived" and "is now propagated and increased by various other non-vehicle related issues" that sound factual, but aren't. The most likely scenario is that SpaceX had to enter the tank to make the necessary repair, and (per the updates thread) has now sent a failed component back to CA for testing. Yes, that's a "bad" delay. And yes, it's subjective.
I'm not supporting those who castigate SpaceX for these delays. But using data that either isn't true or not relevant doesn't provide a valid counter argument.
What? Please read my posts again. Firstly, I said the delta launch might be delayed (for weather reasons) - in fact it wasn't. Good. Secondly, I didn't say the SpaceX pad problem was trivial, I said it *possibly* was trivial, and that if it were, they might have been able to launch the next day if the range and window was available. I believe they said at the point of the original delay, or just after, that due to range reasons they wouldn't be able to fly until the 28th (?). so it seem they would not have been able to launch the next day. As it turns out the pad problem wasn't trivial, but that does not negate my point. The point being that delays propagate was clearly not aimed at this specific launch, but at launches in general. If you get a problem that takes a day to sort out, that almost always results in a more than one day delay to the launch.
As for delays and why they are generally a good thing when applied to rocket launches, here is probably a very good example...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27444664
Elon Musk was just quoted as saying he still expects 10 flights this year. That's one a month from here on. He's the man with the money so 10 launches looks like the number and I've been pesimistic at 7.
If true that will beat the scheduled 9 launches for Atlas V (3 launched with 6 to go) for the most US launches this year. Only time will tell.
ULA has just completed launching four rockets, all successfully, in 7 weeks.
Just sayin'...
ULA has just completed launching four rockets, all successfully, in 7 weeks.Yes, but they have not launched a payload to the ISS.
Just sayin'...
Six.
I thought I was being wildly optimistic at 6, and I still do.
OK. We've again shifted to the right in the manifest. If they do launch on June 20 or 21, then that's 3 launches in 6 months and with no change in flight rate they can therefore achieve 6 this year. So yet again, 7 looks good. I may feel different about it tomorrow. ;)
As long as they increase their flight rate from last year by two or three, that is still a significant improvement. It might not be the explosive increase we were hoping for, but progress is progress.
It doesn't really matter whether the delays are caused by SpaceX or not, it still affects the flight rate. Obvious point, I guess.
It doesn't really matter whether the delays are caused by SpaceX or not, it still affects the flight rate. Obvious point, I guess.
Based on this, I would access any predictions for the next 6 months as hoping for Unicorns... Not that the exercise is useless in a theoretical way... just dangerous to place a bet on... operations will be carried forward based on the events & circumstances of the day, whatever they may be.... Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be) Doris Day ;-)
Gramps
..... if back in January we had known that flight 2 wouldn't happen until Jun, if then (knock on wood), the vote totals would have looked pretty different.
..... if back in January we had known that flight 2 wouldn't happen until Jun, if then (knock on wood), the vote totals would have looked pretty different.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." - Niels Bohr (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brainyquote.com%2Fquotes%2Fquotes%2Fn%2Fnielsbohr130288.html&ei=yrmgU7zTHoucyASWzIHoCg&usg=AFQjCNEx-NIvHjP8jPhqahieYa1ppYcOFw&bvm=bv.68911936,d.aWw)
That was the point of the poll. Here we are 46% of the way through the year and people are still debating between 4 and 9 launches. So go ahead, people. Tell us what you know about the rest of the year. ;)
It doesn't really matter whether the delays are caused by SpaceX or not, it still affects the flight rate. Obvious point, I guess.I would say that the more stuff that's down to SpaceX the better- those are things that are under their control and therefore, hopefully, getting better over time.
Wildly enthusiastic for: 12
hoping for:10
voted for: 6
Expect Delays Delays Delays Delays Delays... today perfect example.
The cost of a failure is too damaging to SpaceX reputation. They might even grow their business by demonstrating extra care so they don't lose a rocket (and somebody's expensive payload). This becomes particularly true when there are people up there.
Thread title says orbital flight so abort- and pad tests don't count per definition.Wildly enthusiastic for: 12
hoping for:10
voted for: 6
Expect Delays Delays Delays Delays Delays... today perfect example.
The cost of a failure is too damaging to SpaceX reputation. They might even grow their business by demonstrating extra care so they don't lose a rocket (and somebody's expensive payload). This becomes particularly true when there are people up there.
On record as voting for 6 as my 2014 total, so 4 more, please 4 more. NOT counting the pad test(s).
would be pleased if they exceed this.
A lot depends on the Thaicom launch, so I will wait until early January to vote.
Right now, I am leaning towards 4, but if there is a quick Thaicom launch, I would vote for 5.
We are past the 1/2 year mark....lets have some fun ;D
how many more launches for 2014 can SpaceX do toward the yearly number?
We are past the 1/2 year mark....lets have some fun ;D
how many more launches for 2014 can SpaceX do toward the yearly number?
I think a more telling question to ask would be, "How many more times this year will SpaceX take an F9 off the pad and roll it back to the hangar?" :'(
Some perspective... I don't favour any launcher, I hope each satellite launch is successful no matter who or where it is launching. People's livelihood rests with their jobs and they focus on one launch at a time. This launch provider is new to the table with a relatively new launcher. An expectation of an outcome won't have much of an impact on an outcome. If SpaceX find another fault and take another 3 months to launch then so be it. God forbid they get "go fever" and lose a vehicle and payload. Regardless of the claims of the owner, if I don't approach any manifest with some trepidation then I am likely to be disappointed.
In October 2012 the Delta IV experienced a fault and ULA were very cautious, not launching another Delta IV for 7½ months. After a few more launches, they delayed again for the same issue rather than proceed due to anyone getting annoyed at the launch rate. No doubt this would have been agreed to by the payload owner (although likely, this is my guess as I can't prove it)
More perspective, the Delta IV has launched over 25 times, but so far this year it has launched twice - just as many times as Falcon 9. Ariane 5 is the same. Proton launched twice as many times and lost a rocket and payload. Antares has launched once. Atlas V has launched 4 times. Each has another launch planned in the near future.
Start worrying when you see failures and caution being thrown to the wind and finally when you see customers moving to other vendors. Otherwise, be patient and thankful that the US providers haven't lost a vehicle or payload of late. As they iron out problems and gain more experience and time with the Falcon 9, the flight rate will improve and they will spend money where necessary to assure that (perhaps more pads and processing facilities too).
I wish every one of them success
More perspective, the Delta IV has launched over 25 times, but so far this year it has launched twice - just as many times as Falcon 9. Ariane 5 is the same. Proton launched twice as many times and lost a rocket and payload. Antares has launched once. Atlas V has launched 4 times.I generally agree with your sentiment, but there is a significant difference: The providers of Ariane 5 and Delta IV never claimed they were going to launch those vehicles 12+ times this year.
I wish every one of them successAs do I.
...
Well the Soyuz has already been launched 11 times this year with another 2 more coming up by the end of July, but I'm sure it's in a different league (as of right now ;)).....
...
Well the Soyuz has already been launched 11 times this year with another 2 more coming up by the end of July, but I'm sure it's in a different league (as of right now ;)).....
The Soyuz got 4 launch pads with vehicle integration facility at 3 different sites to get the high number of flights that had gone up.
In a few of years SpaceX should have 4 pads operational. Might they be launching close to 30 orbital flights a year? 8) Of course presuming no hiccups in either the Falcon Heavy development or pad construction.
...
Well the Soyuz has already been launched 11 times this year with another 2 more coming up by the end of July, but I'm sure it's in a different league (as of right now ;)).....
The Soyuz got 4 launch pads with vehicle integration facility at 3 different sites to get the high number of flights that had gone up.
In a few of years SpaceX should have 4 pads operational. Might they be launching close to 30 orbital flights a year? 8) Of course presuming no hiccups in either the Falcon Heavy development or pad construction.
Orbital has one pad for Antares and they have launched twice to the ISS this year, with plans for a 3rd launch in Oct.
SPX-4 is scheduled for mid Sept. 2nd launch of dragon to the ISS this year.
SpaceX get your act together your bringing up the rear in Commercial to ISS ;D
The Soyuz got 4 launch pads with vehicle integration facility at 3 different sites to get the high number of flights that had gone up.Soyuz is nowhere near it's peak launch rate though. Throughout the 70s and 80s the R7 family sustained an average of a launch per week from two sites with a total of ~5 (?) active pads, while maintaining very good reliability.
With today's success, and in the spirit of this thread**, I'm confident that Space-X will hit my vote of 9 flights this year. Clearly they can ramp up to one launch every three weeks for the rest of the year!
..
** spirit of the thread = uncontrollable fan boi optimism after a launch or when a date is announced... And when things are delayed, doom/gloom and pessimism.
Seriously, I knew when I voted 9 that it would be a huge stretch. I was kind of counting on 7, but decided to be a fan boi and voted 9. I know "Space is Hard" but there still might be a chance for 6 or even 7. I gave up on 9 a long time ago.
Q Why do people find this so important?
A My personal opinion is that
New company, new rocket, new technology, new pads.
Why do people find this so important?
Why does this matter?
Because SpaceX needs the money. While they may get funding for tech development, ultimately, it's the bread and butter launches that will generate the revenue [...]
But is a sequence of launches for about 20 millions each generating enough revenue?
I vote 8 for optimist assuming 7 would be the number. Now 6 looks like difficult.I don't see how 6 looks difficult. They did 3 in 6.5 months that included the range being down and having a particularly persnickety rocket (or two.) Another 3 in 5.5 months may not be guaranteed, but it seems pretty likely to me.
THIS THREAD IS FOR UPDATES ONLY. ALL NON UPDATES WILL BE REMOVED.
L2 Information notes: Falcon 9 / ASIASAT-8 Launch August 4, 0125E-0325E. (Range Approved)
...
How many integration cells are in the SPIF?
two and a holding cell
If they can get the two next Asiasats launched in next two months, then the CRS-4 should definitely be doable by end of the year.
...??? I thought all remaining Delta-II flights are launching from VAFB. SLC-17B is no longer operational.
Yes, the next 2 launches are commercial in the full sense. So, CRS-4 will introduce the greater risk of "schedule shuffle" with a number of other launch vehicle planned launches from the cape -
5 Atlas V, 2 Delta IV including the possibility of EFT1 & 1 Delta II. The CRS is subject to a lot of ISS variables that could affect its launch date. Any delays in the ATV and others could have a flow on affect. The Progress and TMA launches also mess with the schedule. If you blank out all the days they can launch just from these issues, it really does thin out the opportunities for CRS4 to launch
...
??? I thought all remaining Delta-II flights are launching from VAFB. SLC-17B is no longer operational.
So how many do they have so far? Seems like I've watched about a dozen count downs.
launches in a calendar year
Why do people find this so important?
New company, new rocket, new technology, new pads.
They will fly as many as they can. It's all too new to be worrying about flight rates.
how soon we forget. It does seem like a lot more campaigns... :(
Very informative. Alaunches in a calendar yearGot me thinking calendar years are somewhat arbitrary. Attached a plot showing (I hope!) trailing twelve month launch totals. Please double-check the data; GIGO.
For those of you that think SpaceX can't hit a target you need to separate out those delays by the rocket and GSE and those caused by Range, weather and payload. Those will always be there and SpaceX can't do much about those.
Got me thinking calendar years are somewhat arbitrary. Attached a plot showing (I hope!) trailing twelve month launch totals. Please double-check the data; GIGO.Very informative. Apicturegraph is worth a thousand NSF forum posts ...
Can I put in a request? Any chance you could project the curves into the future using the assumption that the next scheduled F9 flights for 2014 launch on time?
(Salo's US launch schedule: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.795)
For those of you that think SpaceX can't hit a target you need to separate out those delays by the rocket and GSE and those caused by Range, weather and payload. Those will always be there and SpaceX can't do much about those.
I wish they would take them into account in their published manifest, though.
Surely you are not suggesting they predict weather, range and payload issues when publishing a manifest. I think you are putting far too much weight on it. It's not a German train schedule.
But the fact that both they are found and that the vehicle is robust enough to those bit breaking is a good sign. Better to have a resilient system with bugs than a brittle system with fewer bugs but greater consequences.Surely you are not suggesting they predict weather, range and payload issues when publishing a manifest. I think you are putting far too much weight on it. It's not a German train schedule.
IMO, it is Falcon-9's reliability that's the main driver of launch delays right now. Too many bits breaking during the countdown that aren't spotted during testing at McGreggor.
Technical problems are to be expected as every production LV is a test vehicle. Unlike cars rockets don't have luxury of dozens of test prototypes and 1000s of test drives to iron out problems.
SpaceX launches come in spurts of 3 or so with sometimes long gaps in between. I wouldn't be surprised if they get 6 launches this year, still. Maybe even 7. But I'd be surprised if they got fewer than 5 this year.
It's always funny to see the variations of enthusiasm here... Right before a launch that's been delayed, people are super pessimistic and vote like SpaceX will never launch again. After the successful launch, people act as if SpaceX is this irresistible force and they'll fly 12 more flights this year, including a test flight of the MCT...
A lot depends on the Thaicom launch, so I will wait until early January to vote.
Right now, I am leaning towards 4, but if there is a quick Thaicom launch, I would vote for 5.
I was being wildly optimistic earlier this year!
I voted 4 but even that is in question now. They don't seem to be able yet to launch often and reliably as most hoped.
Giovanni
I voted 4 but even that is in question now. They don't seem to be able yet to launch often and reliably as most hoped.
Giovanni
Now, less than a month later, people are talking 9 again!
With the relatively infrequent launches it seems that working on a past-year rather than calendar year you get a smoother 'curve'. So on Aug-14, for the past year they have launched 6 times for example. This seems to make it fairer if a launch happens on 1 Jan rather than 31 Dec. It skews the numbers for one month only but in Feb it doesn't matter if that launch occured in Dec or Jan because you remeasure every month/launch rather than once a year. So for 11/12 months that Dec v Jan doesn't have an effect. Sounds inversely related to sale reps getting their sales and quotas for the current year by stealing from the future year. Whatever doesn't launch this year for spaceX means more potentials to fill the calendar next year. |
mikelepage, I agree with your statement in general but I think that you are missing something vital. That is reusability.
2015 they might get 16 flights depending on pad availability etc. They should have retrieved several of the cores and maybe relaunched one ore two.
But beyond that it very difficult to predict. They should be getting the tempo of reusability, so cores should not be a factor. They should have 3-4 pads so pads should not be a limiting factor, I think by this time it more depends on the market and what SpaceX resources are available...
High value payloads will be willing to pay for the most statistically reliable flights, which won't always be brand new rockets. The reused cores with the most flights will always be high risk, but the risk of lightly used cores will drop quickly as any wear/fatigue problems are encountered, characterized, and remedied.mikelepage, I agree with your statement in general but I think that you are missing something vital. That is reusability.
2015 they might get 16 flights depending on pad availability etc. They should have retrieved several of the cores and maybe relaunched one ore two.
But beyond that it very difficult to predict. They should be getting the tempo of reusability, so cores should not be a factor. They should have 3-4 pads so pads should not be a limiting factor, I think by this time it more depends on the market and what SpaceX resources are available...
I agree that reusability will have an impact on cost for sure, and I think they'll probably be fairly quick to pass those savings onto the customers, but my feeling is that for at least the first few years it will not have that much of an impact on flight rate. Remember that it's only the 1st stage getting reused at first, so perhaps they'll be able to integrate the payload to the 2nd stage in advance and then integrate the payload-2nd stage combo to the first stage in a building near the pad then reuse straight away, but chances are they'll ship the first few (to-be-reused) first stages back to Texas or wherever they will be assessed and retested. The logistics of handling all those reused cores is not going to be easy either. All of a sudden you need "garage space" for the rockets you're not using today.
Kinda wonder what their pricing structure is going to be to make sure they do get reused. Chances are the military/GPS satellites/communications companies will always be willing to pay for a brand new rocket, but it would be cool if they initially set a pricing structure where a brand new rocket starts at $50 million, but each new reuse of these F9s gets a price reduction by 50% up to 5 uses, whereupon it settles at $3 million a launch or so. At that price you would see a lot of universities and smaller companies using the Dragonlab modules for experiments/promo work, or just tourist companies doing the "orbital" sub-orbital tourism model (where say a group of people from anywhere in the world are traveling and make their way to the launch site, where they launch and a day or two in orbit in a Dragon v2 (so much better an experience than the mere minutes VG will provide, they could even spend longer if there was a module on the right inclination) and then with a single burn travel back to their home destination which can be pretty much any airport in the world).
I came up with this view: [...]
(Picture attached with a chronological timescale)
BTW, in August this year, I count 6 launches over the last year but you only have 5. Do you exclude the latest launch?
Are we going to see a flurry of posts on this thread every time SpaceX launches? Guess so.
Cheers.
If the next two launches launch on time, SpaceX will have done 8 launches in 12 months...
High value payloads will be willing to pay for the most statistically reliable flights, which won't always be brand new rockets. The reused cores with the most flights will always be high risk, but the risk of lightly used cores will drop quickly as any wear/fatigue problems are encountered, characterized, and remedied.
I can intuitively see what you're saying, but surely by definition a rocket has to be flown as a brand new rocket before it can be reused, so won't the brand new stages always be (by definition) more statistically reliable? (because there is more n first-flights?) I'm guessing there is some sort of statistical function which can be used to group (for instance) flights 2-5 of any given rocket together, and show that they (cumulatively) have less issues getting off the ground than brand new rockets. In that case, will it eventually get to the point that a rocket building company like SpaceX has to "prefly" its own rockets before they can sell the successive flights?
It's perhaps not as crazy as it sounds. Boeing makes check flights of every new airplane they build, after all, and IIRC most car companies do a minor test drive of cars coming off the production line. At the point where any core off the line can do what F9R Dev1 does, maybe it really does make sense for SpaceX to do a "check flight" of each new core to enter service--not necessarily an orbital flight, but the same kind of near-replication of the first stage ascent/return profile that F9R is supposed to do at NM. They already do two separate static fires (core at McGregor, LV at pad), so it seems of that concept of testing as much as you can on a new core before you fly is there. If the cost-per-"hop" is low enough, such as if they actually do get to "gas-and-go" operations, it could make sense.In that case, will it eventually get to the point that a rocket building company like SpaceX has to "prefly" its own rockets before they can sell the successive flights?
I would not go that far. Just say don't fly crew on the first flight and give a discount to cover for a slightly higher insurance premium for your payload. Even first flights should be reasonably safe. Same for flight 20 to 40. Quite safe but maybe not crewed and a slightly higher insurance premium.
High value payloads will be willing to pay for the most statistically reliable flights, which won't always be brand new rockets. The reused cores with the most flights will always be high risk, but the risk of lightly used cores will drop quickly as any wear/fatigue problems are encountered, characterized, and remedied.
I can intuitively see what you're saying, but surely by definition a rocket has to be flown as a brand new rocket before it can be reused, so won't the brand new stages always be (by definition) more statistically reliable?
It's perhaps not as crazy as it sounds. Boeing makes check flights of every new airplane they build, after all, and IIRC most car companies do a minor test drive of cars coming off the production line. At the point where any core off the line can do what F9R Dev1 does, maybe it really does make sense for SpaceX to do a "check flight" of each new core to enter service--not necessarily an orbital flight, but the same kind of near-replication of the first stage ascent/return profile that F9R is supposed to do at NM. They already do two separate static fires (core at McGregor, LV at pad), so it seems of that concept of testing as much as you can on a new core before you fly is there. If the cost-per-"hop" is low enough, such as if they actually do get to "gas-and-go" operations, it could make sense.In that case, will it eventually get to the point that a rocket building company like SpaceX has to "prefly" its own rockets before they can sell the successive flights?
I would not go that far. Just say don't fly crew on the first flight and give a discount to cover for a slightly higher insurance premium for your payload. Even first flights should be reasonably safe. Same for flight 20 to 40. Quite safe but maybe not crewed and a slightly higher insurance premium.
I can intuitively see what you're saying, but surely by definition a rocket has to be flown as a brand new rocket before it can be reused, so won't the brand new stages always be (by definition) more statistically reliable? (because there is more n first-flights?)
I'm guessing there is some sort of statistical function which can be used to group (for instance) flights 2-5 of any given rocket together, and show that they (cumulatively) have less issues getting off the ground than brand new rockets. In that case, will it eventually get to the point that a rocket building company like SpaceX has to "prefly" its own rockets before they can sell the successive flights?
High value payloads will be willing to pay for the most statistically reliable flights, which won't always be brand new rockets. The reused cores with the most flights will always be high risk, but the risk of lightly used cores will drop quickly as any wear/fatigue problems are encountered, characterized, and remedied.
I can intuitively see what you're saying, but surely by definition a rocket has to be flown as a brand new rocket before it can be reused, so won't the brand new stages always be (by definition) more statistically reliable? (because there is more n first-flights?) I'm guessing there is some sort of statistical function which can be used to group (for instance) flights 2-5 of any given rocket together, and show that they (cumulatively) have less issues getting off the ground than brand new rockets. In that case, will it eventually get to the point that a rocket building company like SpaceX has to "prefly" its own rockets before they can sell the successive flights?
Six seems a given barring very serious mishaps and delays. Seven should happen too if all goes well, and they might quite feasibly get in the eight.
(I'd give them 3 (to 4) more launches, IF the payloads were ready)
I voted five. I hope I'm terribly terribly wrong.
In the last 365 days SpaceX has launched seven Falcon 9 orbital missions! (Yay! I voted 7. ;) )This graph should be live and sticky at the top of the missions section
But (somewhat pessimistically) assuming Asiasat 6 is the only launch this month, at month's end that number will have fallen to six. I attach an updated chart incorporating that pessimistic assumption.
In the last 365 days SpaceX has launched seven Falcon 9 orbital missions! (Yay! I voted 7. ;) )This graph should be live and sticky at the top of the missions section
But (somewhat pessimistically) assuming Asiasat 6 is the only launch this month, at month's end that number will have fallen to six. I attach an updated chart incorporating that pessimistic assumption.
Are we certain Pad Abort will occupy the pad itself? It was recently confirmed that Dragon will abort from a stand and not a rocket stage. I'm curious as to where they place that stand.
Are we certain Pad Abort will occupy the pad itself? It was recently confirmed that Dragon will abort from a stand and not a rocket stage. I'm curious as to where they place that stand.
Has there been any official news of Turkmensat moving to October yet from either SpaceX, the Eastern Range or the customer?
At the end of September, to the space agency specialists’ opinion, the device intended for creation of national space communication system, will be assembled and prepared for exploitation at the orbit.
Now that AsiaSat-6 has launched, SpaceX has now accomplished 7 flights in the last 12 months. And they might even get an 8th in before the 1 year anniversary of the first F9 v1.1 flight.
A couple of months back, I seem to recall that an argument in a thread where some posters were... upset... that SpaceX was causing delays for NASA and their customers with the irresponsible switch from v1.0 to v1.1. But let's look at the flight history:
Falcon 9 v1.0 - 5 flights in 2 yrs and 9 months.
Falcon 9 v1.1 - 7 flights in 12 months.
I hate to tell "I told you so"... No, scratch that. This time I like you say "I told you so". :)
I voted 12 or more... Obviously I was way to optimist, and I won't vote 30+ for next year.
I was merely six months early on expected launch cadence.
Even if CRS4 takes a 8 day delay, it will still show 4 consecutive launches with an average 4 week between launch interval, only expected to be broken by the DragonV2 pad abort test and perhaps not having enough payloads ready to launch...
There's still good chances of another 3 launches this year (CRS4, CRS5 plus one GEO bird).
And for 2014, the question is if an average 3 weeks between launches for 2015 will be possible this soon, considering having enough payloads ready to go, perhaps SpaceX could land a few last minute cancellations away from ILS or Ariane ?
But 14 launches in 2015 minimum, and probably will exceed that, considering LC39A and Vanderberg being used at least 4 times combined.
I voted 10. ::)
I wouldn't bet on 30 launches (every 12 days) in 2015, but clearly SpaceX is moving forward. I think the only comparable instance would be Ariane 5's 25 day pad turnaround in 2008. So, anything less than 25 days is a significant milestone.
This instance of a a quick launch pad turnaround would prove SpaceX's capability in some areas of their process, while it is obvious that improvements in other areas are needed before this would be repeatable. By honing in on the processes that hold them back, I expect we should see great improvements in the near future.
Call me optimistic or a kool-aid drinker, but this seems to me like a sober analysis of the situation, and I did it without casting aspersions on the sanity or intelligence of others.
Nooo, I voted 12 or more less than 15 days after the 2014 pool opened... My post was a follow up on my choice, which was crazy back then, but now I'm computing that if SpaceX could launch even once every 5 weeks since early this year, they could be over 12 this year. So they have shown they are already capable of a launch every 4 weeks, and a launch every 3 weeks regular cadence might not be too far off...I voted 12 or more... Obviously I was way to optimist, and I won't vote 30+ for next year.So you are STILL voting on the 2014 poll and want to start voting EARLY on the 2015 poll.
I was merely six months early on expected launch cadence.
Even if CRS4 takes a 8 day delay, it will still show 4 consecutive launches with an average 4 week between launch interval, only expected to be broken by the DragonV2 pad abort test and perhaps not having enough payloads ready to launch...
There's still good chances of another 3 launches this year (CRS4, CRS5 plus one GEO bird).
And for 2014, the question is if an average 3 weeks between launches for 2015 will be possible this soon, considering having enough payloads ready to go, perhaps SpaceX could land a few last minute cancellations away from ILS or Ariane ?
But 14 launches in 2015 minimum, and probably will exceed that, considering LC39A and Vanderberg being used at least 4 times combined.
We has our chances for this year and will have our opportunities in good time for next year, which will be informed by how this year finishes out.
Patience, Grasshopper!
they could be over 12 this year. So they have shown they are already capable of a launch every 4 weeks, and a launch every 3 weeks regular cadence might not be too far off... Got it ?No one cares about theoretical limits, only how much they actually launched.
OK, we've just witnessed the sixth successful SpaceX orbital launch for 2014. Possibly there may be a seventh.Depending on how soon SpaceX can get LC-39A ready. Maybe 3rd or 4th quarter of 2015.
But perspective and congratulations are called for. SpaceX now has a year which it can boast 1/2 dozen successful orbital launches; averaging one every two months. Not bad!!! SpaceX is now in the league that has been the preserve of defunct or still active sat launching businesses like McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed Martin, etc....A launch attempt for the first (Saturn-class) FH booster sometime in 2015 now becomes a real possibility.
But perspective and congratulations are called for. SpaceX now has a year which it can boast 1/2 dozen successful orbital launches; averaging one every two months. Not bad!!!
More than that, actually. SpaceX has now accomplished *8* launches in the last 12 months. All of them being F9v1.1. (The first v1.1 flight was sept 29, 2013)
More than that, actually. SpaceX has now accomplished *8* launches in the last 12 months. All of them being F9v1.1. (The first v1.1 flight was sept 29, 2013)
I know I'm being pedantic, but that's eight flights in the last 365 days. There isn't (yet) a string of twelve consecutive calendar months -- you know, the ones with names like "January" -- in which there have been eight launches. You can't count both September of 2013 and September of 2014; that would be thirteen consecutive months.
At least, that's how I count it! ;)
It's starting to smell like 20+ launches for 2015 !
It's starting to smell like 20+ launches for 2015 !
Well, we'll see. I'm probably going to vote '12' in next year's poll.
Hans said during the pre launch presser they are capable of a 2 week turnaround by doing part of the preparation work off pad.
And in the post flight presser Hans said he thinks they could manage a one week turnaround...
Edit: See 05:29 in http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9087:spacex-crs-4dragon-post-launch-news-conference&catid=1:latest (http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9087:spacex-crs-4dragon-post-launch-news-conference&catid=1:latest)
It's starting to smell like 20+ launches for 2015 !Aaaand already unrealistic expectations. I told ya there will be folks thinking two-week turnaround is SOP now. ::)
I'm not interested in how much they theoretically can launch in some unspecified future. I am interested in how much they can ACTUALLY launch in given year.Hans said during the pre launch presser they are capable of a 2 week turnaround by doing part of the preparation work off pad.And in the post flight presser Hans said he thinks they could manage a one week turnaround...
This thread is definitely showing that SpaceX is outperforming expectations from the beginning of the year. I don't think many people would have bet on the possibility of two launches within two weeks on the same pad in 2014.Outperforming some expectations, yes, for sure!
Outperforming some expectations, yes, for sure!
But look at where the polls are - we haven't had 8 flights yet; even if SpaceX gets there, they'll still have failed lots of expectations of voters here! ;)
They have now 6 launches and 7-8 are possible, so the majority may still win. ;)
But look at this!
2013: 3 flights
2014: 6-8 flights
2015: 12-16 flights ?
Is this exponential growth for at least 2 years? Is SpaceX's launch rate growing faster than Moore's law? ;)
Well, I admit I have problems believing in 24-32 launches in 2016, but what do I know?
I'm not interested in how much they theoretically can launch in some unspecified future. I am interested in how much they can ACTUALLY launch in given year.
So what do you actually mean by ACTUAL number?That theoretical maximum output (like these 7 days per launch) is meaningless when trying to estimate actual number of launches that will happen in given year.
They have now 6 launches and 7-8 are possible, so the majority may still win. ;)
But look at this!
2013: 3 flights
2014: 6-8 flights
2015: 12-16 flights ?
Is this exponential growth for at least 2 years? Is SpaceX's launch rate growing faster than Moore's law? ;)
Well, I admit I have problems believing in 24-32 launches in 2016, but what do I know?
They have now 6 launches and 7-8 are possible, so the majority may still win. ;)
But look at this!
2013: 3 flights
2014: 6-8 flights
2015: 12-16 flights ?
Is this exponential growth for at least 2 years? Is SpaceX's launch rate growing faster than Moore's law? ;)
Well, I admit I have problems believing in 24-32 launches in 2016, but what do I know?
How are eight possible now? So far as I'm aware, there's now only SpaceX CRS-5 left in December. What other orbital payloads are currently available for flight?
Cheers.
No. It's hyperbolic speculation. ;)They have now 6 launches and 7-8 are possible, so the majority may still win. ;)Exponential speculation, anyway. It could be, might be, some kind of growth after we actually get the data.
But look at this!
2013: 3 flights
2014: 6-8 flights
2015: 12-16 flights ?
Is this exponential growth for at least 2 years? Is SpaceX's launch rate growing faster than Moore's law?
Well, I admit I have problems believing in 24-32 launches in 2016, but what do I know?
(snip)
They have now 6 launches and 7-8 are possible, so the majority may still win. ;)
But look at this!
2013: 3 flights
2014: 6-8 flights
2015: 12-16 flights ?
Is this exponential growth for at least 2 years? Is SpaceX's launch rate growing faster than Moore's law? ;)
Well, I admit I have problems believing in 24-32 launches in 2016, but what do I know?
How are eight possible now? So far as I'm aware, there's now only SpaceX CRS-5 left in December. What other orbital payloads are currently available for flight?
Cheers.
It was mentioned in the post-flight press conference that they expected to do two more flights this year - CRS-5 and a commercial mission (Orbcomm? Turkmenistan?) - And also the Dragon v2 pad abort.
So what do you actually mean by ACTUAL number?That theoretical maximum output (like these 7 days per launch) is meaningless when trying to estimate actual number of launches that will happen in given year.
They have now 6 launches and 7-8 are possible, so the majority may still win. ;)
But look at this!
2013: 3 flights
2014: 6-8 flights
2015: 12-16 flights ?
Is this exponential growth for at least 2 years? Is SpaceX's launch rate growing faster than Moore's law? ;)
Well, I admit I have problems believing in 24-32 launches in 2016, but what do I know?
How are eight possible now? So far as I'm aware, there's now only SpaceX CRS-5 left in December. What other orbital payloads are currently available for flight?
Cheers.
It was mentioned in the post-flight press conference that they expected to do two more flights this year - CRS-5 and a commercial mission (Orbcomm? Turkmenistan?) - And also the Dragon v2 pad abort.
Hmm, perhaps it was from a tweet somewhere. Trying to find it, but it seemed to be sourced from a press Q&A at that press conference (or following it).
So back on topic, here is SpaceX's current manifest:
Stephen Clark @StephenClark1
SpaceX: We plan two more Falcon 9 launches this year (another Dragon CRS flight and a commercial launch). Plus pad abort test from the Cape.
There seem to be 3 more flights in the 4th Quarter 2014:
- Orbcomm (11 sats) 2, about which SpaceX stated that it will be the first reusable booster landing of solid surface;
- CRS5, SpaceX will try second landing on solid surface;
- Turkmensat 1
There seem to be 3 more flights in the 4th Quarter 2014:
- Orbcomm (11 sats) 2, about which SpaceX stated that it will be the first reusable booster landing of solid surface;
- CRS5, SpaceX will try second landing on solid surface;
- Turkmensat 1
-Orbcomm OG2- mission 2 has been delayed until 2015. According to Orbcomm, this was done at their request in order to provide more time for on orbit testing and checkout of the recently launched 1st portion of the constellation. This remains the most up to date information about that launch even though neither Orbcomm's nor SpaceX's website reflect the fact.
-Orbcomm OG2- mission 2 has been delayed until 2015. According to Orbcomm, this was done at their request in order to provide more time for on orbit testing and checkout of the recently launched 1st portion of the constellation. This remains the most up to date information about that launch even though neither Orbcomm's nor SpaceX's website reflect the fact.This WAS true. However the first batch of OG2 satellites have been in full commercial operation (for about 2 weeks), and concurrently with those sats being brough to full operation there was this chat that Orbcomm no longer needed to wait for further testing.
http://spacexstats.com/upcoming.php
Sorry. I really need to re-ask this. Does anyone have a quote or source that specifically states that Orbcomm requested a delay in the flight to allow for more testing?
The July 14 launch was of six of the 18 second-generation satellites. The remaining 11 are scheduled for launch in the coming months on a single SpaceX Falcon 9.
The launch had been scheduled for late this year, but Eisenberg said it may slip to early 2015. Hawthorne, California-based SpaceX is faced with a crowded manifest in 2014 and is already several months behind the schedule originally announced. The question has been how many satellites manifested for 2014 would be moved into 2015.
During the conference call, Eisenberg did not evoke a SpaceX launch bottleneck. Instead, he suggested it was Orbcomm that would prefer not to rush into a second launch before the first satellites are thoroughly tested. “Before I give you an exact date, let’s get these guys in service and make sure they’re performing as expected,” he said.
Before I give you an exact date, let’s get these guys in service and make sure they’re performing as expected
http://www.satbeams.com/satellites?id=2619How? I wonder.
Turkmensat 1, launch date: 30-Mar-2015 (Estimated)
So this is the quote then?QuoteBefore I give you an exact date, let’s get these guys in service and make sure they’re performing as expected
Is there another quote? This doesn't exactly translate into a request for any date, much less for a 2015 date. The careful wording and context sounds a little like a company giving generous PR cover to their launch provider in case of a slip.
Insurance underwriters have said that before approving a second launch, they want to be sure that the first satellites, using a new skeletal structure developed by Sierra Nevada Corp. of Sparks, Nevada, and a payload built by Boeing subsidiary Argon ST of Fairfax, Virginia, are performing well.
It was this tweet that suggested it, but it predated Orbcomm's website post by a few days:
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/497694722337411072
We're not sure. It could be a Q4[2014] event or it could be a Q1[2015] event, it's kind of right there on the cusp. If you look at these OG2 satellites, what we've done so far is we've tested out the bus, and some of the features on the payload. Notably the connectivity with the earth stations cause you need it for talking to the satellites. Next phase is testing the payloads that talk to the communicators. The good news is that it's the exact same technology. So we assume it's going well. Before giving an exact date let's get these guys in service and ensure they're performing as expected.
Thank you. That clears up my confusion about the Orbcomm flight. I would guess that SpaceX is waiting on a payload to finish out 2014, not vice versa. At least that makes sense considering their demonstration of launch cadence.Which is the norm for well performing launch contractors.
http://spacexstats.com/upcoming.php
That is not an official SpaceX schedule, it's just somebody's guess at what the schedule will be.
Thank you. That clears up my confusion about the Orbcomm flight. I would guess that SpaceX is waiting on a payload to finish out 2014, not vice versa. At least that makes sense considering their demonstration of launch cadence.And, I would add, it is a good point SpaceX just made with the view to coming selection process under CRS2.
Signed up to make this comment. I'm the developer of said site, some of you may also recognize me as a moderator of another well-known spaceflight forum regarding SpaceX that I shall not mention. ;)
Signed up to make this comment. I'm the developer of said site, some of you may also recognize me as a moderator of another well-known spaceflight forum regarding SpaceX that I shall not mention. ;)
You should update stats like turnaround time and other things. ;)
Feb 4 - CES 6
Signed up to make this comment. I'm the developer of said site, some of you may also recognize me as a moderator of another well-known spaceflight forum regarding SpaceX that I shall not mention. ;)
You should update stats like turnaround time and other things. ;)
We're likely getting off topic here, so I'll keep it short.
All the stats are automatically updated once a launch switches from 'Upcoming' to 'Complete'. Currently I have CRS-4 marked as 'In Progress', so the stats won't update just yet :).
Signed up to make this comment. I'm the developer of said site, some of you may also recognize me as a moderator of another well-known spaceflight forum regarding SpaceX that I shall not mention. ;)
You should update stats like turnaround time and other things. ;)
We're likely getting off topic here, so I'll keep it short.
All the stats are automatically updated once a launch switches from 'Upcoming' to 'Complete'. Currently I have CRS-4 marked as 'In Progress', so the stats won't update just yet :).
If the stats are launches, CRS-4 launch is complete.
Wildly enthusiastic for: 12
hoping for:10
voted for: 6
Expect Delays Delays Delays Delays Delays... today perfect example.
The cost of a failure is too damaging to SpaceX reputation. They might even grow their business by demonstrating extra care so they don't lose a rocket (and somebody's expensive payload). This becomes particularly true when there are people up there.
On record as voting for 6 as my 2014 total, so 4 more, please 4 more. NOT counting the pad test(s).
would be pleased if they exceed this.
From SFN:From SFN:
Dec 1 - CRS 5
Late Dec - Orbcomm
Jan 13 - DSCOVR
Feb 4 - CES 6
That's an impressive little stretch. Looks like they maybe getting thier legs!
Somewhere in there we should see a barge or land landing.
Forget about nine. SpaceX itself said they will launch at most twice more.
"The 100th Merlin 1D is slated to fly on a Falcon 9 in early 2015."
I'm not celebrating what appears to be my correct vote of 7 yet... not until it has already launched.Well I voted 3 flights last year (I was right), 6 this year (am either right or very close), and probably will vote 12 flights for next year. :) My complete guess at 2016 is 15-20 flights, but we shall see.
Bigger question will be 2015 and 2016... That's going to be a tough nut to crack.
SpaceX is going to be really, really busy. They're going to need to streamline the crap out of McGregor to get all these flights through by 2016, especially with Falcon Heavy and all. Nothing that can't be done, of course. But 15-20 flights is basically going to put the Falcon family of rockets as the most-launched rockets in the world. If they do 12 flights next year, it will put them on par with Atlas V as far as flight rate.
Atlas V is slated for 12 launches in 2015. That's what I was basing it off of. Anyway, SpaceX is still going to be kicking butt.SpaceX is going to be really, really busy. They're going to need to streamline the crap out of McGregor to get all these flights through by 2016, especially with Falcon Heavy and all. Nothing that can't be done, of course. But 15-20 flights is basically going to put the Falcon family of rockets as the most-launched rockets in the world. If they do 12 flights next year, it will put them on par with Atlas V as far as flight rate.
Falcon already is on par with the Atlas V flight rate. Atlas 5 has launched 7 times this year while Falcon 9 has launched 6. Launching 12 times a year would exceed the Atlas 5 launch rate and be on par with the combined Delta/Atlas flight rate.
Atlas V is slated for 12 launches in 2015. That's what I was basing it off of. Anyway, SpaceX is still going to be kicking butt.SpaceX is going to be really, really busy. They're going to need to streamline the crap out of McGregor to get all these flights through by 2016, especially with Falcon Heavy and all. Nothing that can't be done, of course. But 15-20 flights is basically going to put the Falcon family of rockets as the most-launched rockets in the world. If they do 12 flights next year, it will put them on par with Atlas V as far as flight rate.
Falcon already is on par with the Atlas V flight rate. Atlas 5 has launched 7 times this year while Falcon 9 has launched 6. Launching 12 times a year would exceed the Atlas 5 launch rate and be on par with the combined Delta/Atlas flight rate.
Bigger question will be 2015 and 2016... That's going to be a tough nut to crack.
(Elon Musk): Dozen launches in next 12 months. 80-90 percent likely one of those flights will land and refly. So we're close.
Bigger question will be 2015 and 2016... That's going to be a tough nut to crack.
Maybe, maybe not...(Elon Musk): Dozen launches in next 12 months. 80-90 percent likely one of those flights will land and refly. So we're close.
They've demonstrated they can launch one per month on one pad, and that dozen includes Vandenburg. If they've got the payloads lined up, and it sounds like they do, then they've got a good shot. Customers will start getting very comfortable as they hit their stride.
I'm not celebrating what appears to be my correct vote of 7 yet... not until it has already launched.Well I voted 3 flights last year (I was right), 6 this year (am either right or very close), and probably will vote 12 flights for next year. :) My complete guess at 2016 is 15-20 flights, but we shall see.
Bigger question will be 2015 and 2016... That's going to be a tough nut to crack.
SpaceX is going to be really, really busy. They're going to need to streamline the crap out of McGregor to get all these flights through by 2016, especially with Falcon Heavy and all. Nothing that can't be done, of course. But 15-20 flights is basically going to put the Falcon family of rockets as the most-launched rockets in the world. If they do 12 flights next year, it will put them on par with Atlas V as far as flight rate.
Reusing F9 first stages may help a lot, since they can just acceptance fire the whole first stage (and perhaps do that at the launch site) without necessarily doing each engine separately. But it won't be until 2016 or 2017 or so that reuse is good enough to actually save them any time.
From 2 per year to 3 per year upto 7 per year. Can you use the word "routine" now?Not really. Spaceflight will be routine when you will simply not expect going Kerbal as anything having serious chance. Currently every damn launch is nerve-wrecking affair full of scrubs, aborts and sighs of relief when another rocket flies and actually works.
From 2 per year to 3 per year upto 7 per year. Can you use the word "routine" now?Not really. Spaceflight will be routine when you will simply not expect going Kerbal as anything having serious chance. Currently every damn launch is nerve-wrecking affair full of scrubs, aborts and sighs of relief when another rocket flies and actually works.
I hope Elon has a plan what to do when, inevitably, one of Falcons fails. I hope SpaceX won't stand down for a dozen months of so.
I hope Elon has a plan what to do when, inevitably, one of Falcons fails. I hope SpaceX won't stand down for a dozen months of so.The plan is not to fail. A launch failure is evidence that plan failed.
I hope Elon has a plan what to do when, inevitably, one of Falcons fails. I hope SpaceX won't stand down for a dozen months of so.The plan is not to fail.
Except there is no hoping. Rockets are way too complex to depend on any hope. And a failed launch causes way too much direct and indirect loss that it must be avoided (even if it costs a lot of money to avoid it). Time will tell. But I believe F9Rs will have a hundred launches without a single primary payload loss.I hope Elon has a plan what to do when, inevitably, one of Falcons fails. I hope SpaceX won't stand down for a dozen months of so.The plan is not to fail.
This would be a bad plan, too arrogant. You should hope for the best, but be ready for the worst.
I hope Elon has a plan what to do when, inevitably, one of Falcons fails. I hope SpaceX won't stand down for a dozen months of so.
Uhh.. F9R-Dev1 did, and they did stand down for a week or two. If a production vehicle fails, I expect they'll take as much time as they need to find the root cause and correct it.
Correct. Every single time they took the time to identify the failure and it's root-causes. They subsequently took time to fix them and fly again. If and when a next failure strikes (heaven forbid) I expect it will be handled in the same manner.I hope Elon has a plan what to do when, inevitably, one of Falcons fails. I hope SpaceX won't stand down for a dozen months of so.
Uhh.. F9R-Dev1 did, and they did stand down for a week or two. If a production vehicle fails, I expect they'll take as much time as they need to find the root cause and correct it.
And don't forget Falcon 1. Three of them did fail. SpaceX has handled failure.
How nervous you are during a launch has ZERO/ZIP/NADA connection to the actual real probability of success.I guess according to you, no one from launch crew is nervous during launch.
But I believe F9Rs will have a hundred launches without a single primary payload loss.Your faith is noted. Do you know that SpaceX already had full and partial failures? Your "failure is not option" stance is unrealistic. Failure WILL happen again, sooner or latter.
How nervous you are during a launch has ZERO/ZIP/NADA connection to the actual real probability of success.I guess according to you, no one from launch crew is nervous during launch.
My point is the confusion (yours?) between the cause and effect of being YOU being nervous for a launch and the probability of a successful launch.I don't even know where you got idea that I think my feelings have any influence on launch. In original post, I was speaking in general terms.
First: fix your quotes. See your original post.I expect it will be handled in the same manner.It may not "be handled in the same manner", if, for instance, Antares root cause is russian engine.
My point is the confusion (yours?) between the cause and effect of being YOU being nervous for a launch and the probability of a successful launch.I don't even know where you got idea that I think my feelings have any influence on launch. In original post, I was speaking in general terms.
Another coffee-spilled-all-over-the-keyboard moment!My point is the confusion (yours?) between the cause and effect of being YOU being nervous for a launch and the probability of a successful launch.I don't even know where you got idea that I think my feelings have any influence on launch. In original post, I was speaking in general terms.
But they do!
Dave Barry's Complete Guide to Guys (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8Kgjid4-u0) provides a very detailed and accurate analysis of the effect of concern rays emanating from the brains of enthusiasts.
I think the original author meant that SpaceX would handle any failure in the same manner as they handled the F1 failures, F9 partial failure and Dev-1 failure. Getting to the root cause, fix it and move on.QuoteI expect it will be handled in the same manner.It may not "be handled in the same manner", if, for instance, Antares root cause is russian engine.
How nervous you are during a launch has ZERO/ZIP/NADA connection to the actual real probability of success.I guess according to you, no one from launch crew is nervous during launch.But I believe F9Rs will have a hundred launches without a single primary payload loss.Your faith is noted. Do you know that SpaceX already had full and partial failures? Your "failure is not option" stance is unrealistic. Failure WILL happen again, sooner or latter.
I guess it is time to start considering the 2015 thread.
I think it would be a good time to start it after CRS-5 has gone up, unless it is badly delayed.
I hope it is not badly delayed, would be nice to hit seven this year, as i voted.
I guess it is time to start considering the 2015 thread.I concur! 2015 poll could be started right now. Guessing in the 2015 is not that fun.
I think it would be a good time to start it after CRS-5 has gone up, unless it is badly delayed.
I hope it is not badly delayed, would be nice to hit seven this year, as i voted.
I guess it is time to start considering the 2015 thread.I concur! 2015 poll could be started right now. Guessing in the 2015 is not that fun.
I think it would be a good time to start it after CRS-5 has gone up, unless it is badly delayed.
I hope it is not badly delayed, would be nice to hit seven this year, as i voted.
I concur! 2015 poll could be started right now. Guessing in the 2015 is not that fun.
There is no point to start it until CRS 5 launches.
I concur! 2015 poll could be started right now. Guessing in the 2015 is not that fun.
There is no point to start it until CRS 5 launches.
I am not sure I agree. Why do you think that? Starting it now makes handicapping harder but that's a feature, not a bug :)
I concur! 2015 poll could be started right now. Guessing in the 2015 is not that fun.
There is no point to start it until CRS 5 launches.
I am not sure I agree. Why do you think that? Starting it now makes handicapping harder but that's a feature, not a bug :)
It should be rather obvious, since we don't know yet if CRS-5 will launch in 2014 or 2015. But hey, do whatever you want. Why not start it in November or October, to enhance your "feature"?
I'm willing to do it. Since the last two years started around 2/3 of the way through december (12/20 and 12/23) that's my thinking for when it would start, with closure about the same time (about january 15, give or take)
PM me with flames if necessary...
and, tigerade, thanks muchly for doing the last two years.
I'm willing to do it. Since the last two years started around 2/3 of the way through december (12/20 and 12/23) that's my thinking for when it would start, with closure about the same time (about january 15, give or take)
PM me with flames if necessary...
and, tigerade, thanks muchly for doing the last two years.
I'd rather have unitary voting, but consider the vote a -1...+1 range.I'm willing to do it. Since the last two years started around 2/3 of the way through december (12/20 and 12/23) that's my thinking for when it would start, with closure about the same time (about january 15, give or take)
PM me with flames if necessary...
and, tigerade, thanks muchly for doing the last two years.
My suggestion is to have the voting in terms of pairs. ( 0 or 1, 2 or 3, 4 or 5, etc.) especially since the manifest can be read as including up to twenty launches in 2015.
And I concurr with the heartfelt thanks to tigerade! It's been fun.
For the 2015 poll I propose the following 8 options:
0 or 1
2 or 3
4, 5, or 6
7, 8, or 9
10, 11, 12, or 13
14, 15, 16, or 17
18, 19, 20, 21, or 22
23 or more
Suggest grouping the bottom choices together:I suggest slight improvement to this: use maximum precision the voting system allows.
<8 (this year's performance at a minimum)
8-10
11-12
13-15
15-16
17-19
20+
Successful launch = launches that deliver vehicles/deliveries that complete at least one orbit, not cores.
which also precludes D2 launch abort.
Suggest grouping the bottom choices together:I suggest slight improvement to this: use maximum precision the voting system allows.
<8 (this year's performance at a minimum)
8-10
11-12
13-15
15-16
17-19
20+
Successful launch = launches that deliver vehicles/deliveries that complete at least one orbit, not cores.
which also precludes D2 launch abort.
If 12 options are possible, they may probably be:
<8
8-10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19-21
>21
This has some bias (the options are symmetric around "expected" average)... But we trade bias against precision, so looks good for me.
I suggest 5 separate polls:In a bid to increase recursion , how about we guess how many polls will be in 2015? or should we poll about that question?
How many F9 and F9R flights in 2015
How many FH flights in 2015
How many recovered cores in 2015 (nothing that does not stand upright for at least 60 seconds after landing counts as recovered)
How many reflown cores in 2015
How many D2's flown (suborbital or orbital) in 2015
As long as there's leeway in the numbers, why use them at all?
Options:
None
One
A couple
A few
Some
A fair number
A lot
A whole bunch of them
Infinity!
I suggest 5 separate polls:In a bid to increase recursion , how about we guess how many polls will be in 2015? or should we poll about that question?
How many F9 and F9R flights in 2015
How many FH flights in 2015
How many recovered cores in 2015 (nothing that does not stand upright for at least 60 seconds after landing counts as recovered)
How many reflown cores in 2015
How many D2's flown (suborbital or orbital) in 2015
From your list they didn't launch the 2nd Orbcomm G2, Turkmensat and Space Systems/Loral payloads because they are NOT available, not because they were unable to. And they moved Falcon Heavy to Pad 39A.
Is there any way to get more poll options? It'd be nice to get a smooth distribution to play around with for statistical analysis. I don't like truncating the tails of the distribution too short just because "most" people aren't going to vote for them.
Proponent: 6 10 25 25 25 15 5
<Optional rationale for my likelihood distribution>
If I recall well, we are at 7 SpaceX flights now with a nr 8 coming soon, right?Six with #7 coming.
it looks like Nsf collective intelligence work decently, after all! :)
People muttering about January launch for CRS 5, which leaves us at 6 for the year. It might be short of what we were hoping for, but it's better than six and a failure, for sure.It is bang on what I "guessed"at last winter.. I would have been happy to be proved wrong, with 7, or even 9.. but it doesn't seem to be in the cards...
(And it's still one more than I predicted...)
Jeff Foust quotes Shotwell as maintaining 9 more launches scheduled for this year, despite CRS-3 delay. Thats exactly one a month from here on out. Also quotes 15-17 for next year, quite a ramp up.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/451035641644478465
I think I'm 3 for 3 (years) on predictions.Awesome. Please stop being such a pessimist! ;)
I think I'm 3 for 3 (years) on predictions.Awesome. Please stop being such a pessimist! ;)
I've said it before several times. SpaceX's problem is over-promising
That's a fact. Seriously; both Elon and Gwynne could do with a healthy reality check.That would be boring. I want to hear their back to back predictions on which year is that they plan to break the world launch rate record.
I've said it before several times. SpaceX's problem is over-promising
That's a fact. Seriously; both Elon and Gwynne could do with a healthy reality check.
Is it? Do they? Are they actually over-PROMISING? Or are they saying 'we hope to' rather than promising. Not sure I ever heard either of them say "We promise to.." instead of "We plan to..." or "We want to..." or "We hope to...". There is a very clear difference.
I'd wait to have an official NET before calling this one done. Until it is not official it might be still in flux.
I've said it before several times. SpaceX's problem is over-promising
Now, where is that 2015 prediction thread? :)
Welp! I voted six and I got it right. The thing is that I'm genuinely surprised that I got it right, given the high launch cadence they hinted that they were able to do at about mid-year. It just shows: All it takes is for a few unanticipated events (a competitor's launch failure and a few late payloads) and your plans are shot into mincemeat!These unknown events are still kind of predictable en masse, though. Problems WILL happen, statistically, so slips will happen. I also voted 6 and got it right (again). :)
If I'm reading Salo's thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1301960#msg1301960) right (and I may not be), SpaceX is planning 17 launches for 2015?Pass the Kool-Aid...err eggnog... In keeping with the season... ;D
1. CRS-5
2. DISCOVR
3. CRS-6
4. Jason 3
5. Orbcomm G2
6. CRS-7
7. SES-9
8. FH demo flight
9. AMOS 6
10. CRS-8
11. SAOCOM-1A
12. JCSat-14
13. Eutelsat 117
14. Iridium Next 1
15. Iridium Next 2
16. CRS-9
17. FORMOSAT 5
Did I get that right?
If I'm reading Salo's thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1301960#msg1301960) right (and I may not be), SpaceX is planning 17 launches for 2015?
1. CRS-5
2. DISCOVR
3. CRS-6
4. Jason 3
5. Orbcomm G2
6. CRS-7
7. SES-9
8. FH demo flight
9. AMOS 6
10. CRS-8
11. SAOCOM-1A
12. JCSat-14
13. Eutelsat 117
14. Iridium Next 1
15. Iridium Next 2
16. CRS-9
17. FORMOSAT 5
Did I get that right?
Is it? Do they? Are they actually over-PROMISING? Or are they saying 'we hope to' rather than promising. Not sure I ever heard either of them say "We promise to.." instead of "We plan to..." or "We want to..." or "We hope to...". There is a very clear difference.
On the other side, may be that at some time in the future, when people will wake up and will actually see that passing from the ISS to a Mars colonization is something ridiculously difficult, the technology developed so far will be diverted toward something at least more likely to happen.
39 is not activated yet.
And you have left out the most important resource - employees. I don't believe they have enough qualified/
experienced personnel yet to work that many campaigns - that is their Alleles Heel.
Welp! I voted six and I got it right. The thing is that I'm genuinely surprised that I got it right, given the high launch cadence they hinted that they were able to do at about mid-year. It just shows: All it takes is for a few unanticipated events (a competitor's launch failure and a few late payloads) and your plans are shot into mincemeat!These unknown events are still kind of predictable en masse, though. Problems WILL happen, statistically, so slips will happen. I also voted 6 and got it right (again). :)
My prediction for 2015: nothing will be launching from LC-39A, to orbit, in 2015. It will be 2016 at the earliest. SpaceX will run into some nasty surprises with regards to LC-39A.If I'm reading Salo's thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1301960#msg1301960) right (and I may not be), SpaceX is planning 17 launches for 2015?
1. CRS-5
2. DISCOVR
3. CRS-6
4. Jason 3
5. Orbcomm G2
6. CRS-7
7. SES-9
8. FH demo flight
9. AMOS 6
10. CRS-8
11. SAOCOM-1A
12. JCSat-14
13. Eutelsat 117
14. Iridium Next 1
15. Iridium Next 2
16. CRS-9
17. FORMOSAT 5
Did I get that right?
It's worth noting that at least one of those launches will be from LC-39A and at least three from SLC-4E. It's also possible that, after LC-39A is on-line, all CRS and CCT flights will move there.
Wildly enthusiastic for: 12
hoping for:10
voted for: 6
Expect Delays Delays Delays Delays Delays... today perfect example.
The cost of a failure is too damaging to SpaceX reputation. They might even grow their business by demonstrating extra care so they don't lose a rocket (and somebody's expensive payload). This becomes particularly true when there are people up there.
Is there a way to publish the screen names of the correct guessers?
I actually hate the fact I got it right. Would have preferred to have guessed way too low.
Is there a way to publish the screen names of the correct guessers?
I actually hate the fact I got it right. Would have preferred to have guessed way too low.
Is there a way to publish the screen names of the correct guessers?
I actually hate the fact I got it right. Would have preferred to have guessed way too low.
I got it right
Is there a way to publish the screen names of the correct guessers?
I actually hate the fact I got it right. Would have preferred to have guessed way too low.
I got it right
Really who cares? 4 flights or 12 flights this is, by far, the most exciting company in spaceflight today.
Those who voted for 12 may only be off by one......year.
Is there a way to publish the screen names of the correct guessers?
I actually hate the fact I got it right. Would have preferred to have guessed way too low.
I got it right
This is my simple SpaceX number launches equation estimator...
Lsx=2(X)-1
Where X is equal to number of launches in the previous year.
Elon would probably answer you with that smirk... "One must at least try"... ;DThis is my simple SpaceX number launches equation estimator...
Lsx=2(X)-1
Where X is equal to number of launches in the previous year.
So you're saying by 2040 they'll be launching a rocket every second? :)
Can the usual folks create the new poll now?
Thanks for the great work... It's been fun to follow!! :)Can the usual folks create the new poll now?
That'll be Lar's task now. I have passed the torch on to him.
This is my simple SpaceX number launches equation estimator...
Lsx=2(X)-1
Where X is equal to number of launches in the previous year.
My estimator is even simpler: CEIL( 1.5x ). That's why I predicted 6 for this year, and why I'm predicting 9 for next year. And 14 for 2016, 21 for 2017, etc.That would put them past Chinese either 2017 or 18 and break the standing world record by 2020. They tied to Ariane this year.
I think I'm 3 for 3 (years) on predictions.
This is my simple SpaceX number launches equation estimator...
Lsx=2(X)-1
Where X is equal to number of launches in the previous year.
My estimator is even simpler: CEIL( 1.5x ).
This is my simple SpaceX number launches equation estimator...
Lsx=2(X)-1
Where X is equal to number of launches in the previous year.
So you're saying by 2040 they'll be launching a rocket every second? :)
I voted six maybe seven which seems like a cop out now because it could have gone either way.
I am going to vote for 6 they might push 7 and that would be great but I would happy with them doubling their annual launch rate.
I am going to vote for 6 they might push 7 and that would be great but I would happy with them doubling their annual launch rate.
I was the 23rd post of this thread and I guess I voted 6 so I was right unfortunately.
Is there any way to get more poll options? It'd be nice to get a smooth distribution to play around with for statistical analysis. I don't like truncating the tails of the distribution too short just because "most" people aren't going to vote for them.
How about a poll in which each response is a distribution of likelihoods....
Can the usual folks create the new poll now?
That'll be Lar's task now. I have passed the torch on to him.
I spotted 8 other polls this year. It may be time to dust them off as well and start picking nits over the finer details. A few items like EELV cert should still be open until EOY. Perhaps a new thread '2014 Poll results' should be started with the first post containing a link to each of the polls. Having a matrix of all of the poll results would allow users to keep their own scorecard.
Number of SpaceX orbital flights in 2014
POLL: SpaceX Accomplishments – DRAGON
POLL: SpaceX Accomplishments - F9 FIRST STAGE
POLL: SpaceX Accomplishments - F9 SECOND STAGE
POLL: SpaceX Accomplishments - FALCON HEAVY
POLL: SpaceX Accomplishments - GRASSHOPPER
POLL: SpaceX Accomplishments – MISCELLANEOUS
Deployment of landing legs for Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage (including poll)
POLL: What will the eventual fate of the CRS-3 first stage be?
There has been a lot of discussion about what options to give. So I expect that whatever I go with will be .. .wrong. :)
Looks like they'll have 6 flights this year (which also means I got it right two years in a row unless they squeeze CRS-4 in),
Is there a way to publish the screen names of the correct guessers?
I actually hate the fact I got it right. Would have preferred to have guessed way too low.
I got it right
congrats Jim ;)
funny didn't think you would bother to vote :-X