Author Topic: POLL: Number of SpaceX orbital flights in 2016 (Read 54739 times)

Avron · « **Reply #40 on:** 12/20/2015 04:27 PM »

10 that's a good number - hope they prove me wrong and do more

skybum · « **Reply #41 on:** 12/22/2015 02:22 AM »

11 from me. I get the impression that a lot of the payloads on their manifest are not in fact ready to fly, and that SpaceX would start getting payload-constrained at around 13 or 14 flights. I don't think they'll reach that point, however, because they'll have their hands full flying the Heavy and the Dragon 2. I also think they'll re-fly some cores in 2016, but only for sub-orbital tests. Orbital re-flights won't happen until 2017 or maybe even 2018.

That said, I'm really bullish on them. The confidence with which they just flew OG-2 has got to send a signal to customers that they'd better get their payloads ready, and launch site operators that they'd better be prepared for more activity at the pads. 2016 will be a decent year. 2017 will be better, and 2018, by today's standards, will be insane.

[edit: 4am grammar]

mheney · « **Reply #42 on:** 12/22/2015 02:24 AM »

13 - because it's lucky.

arachnitect · « **Reply #43 on:** 12/22/2015 03:34 AM »

hop · « **Reply #44 on:** 12/22/2015 04:20 AM »

Voted 11, because SpaceX clearly turned it up to 11 today

Based on the pre CRS-7 tempo, that may be a bit pessimistic, but I expect there will be some hiccups that keep them from maintaining that for a full year. Anywhere from 7 (if there is another major failure) to 14 wouldn't surprise me too much.

I predict 2016 will finally be the year FH launches, though probably closer to the end than the start. As to the odds it will succeed... I wouldn't bet a lot either way.

Mader Levap · « **Reply #45 on:** 12/22/2015 11:34 AM »

Nine launches. Assumptions: no failures (duh), no FH in 2016.

ChefPat · « **Reply #46 on:** 12/22/2015 01:23 PM »

I voted 10 because space is hard. Real hard & I don't think SpaceX will hit the big numbers until they've had Boca Chica on line for a couple years. When they're launching from LC40, Vandenberg, Boca Chica & LC39A then we'll see some big launch numbers rolling along.

ehb · « **Reply #47 on:** 12/22/2015 02:49 PM »

Voted for an even dozen...

Biggest concern is that now they are getting stages back (yeah!), engineering review of the stages will discover things that need to upgraded/modified/redesigned and will subsequently cost additional downtime.

majormajor42 · « **Reply #48 on:** 12/22/2015 02:53 PM »

somewhere in my twitter feed last night I think I saw someone quote Elon Musk saying in the post landing press telecon that they aim to have 12 launches in 2016. Anybody else catch this? While there may be less, doesn't that kinda put a cap on the most launches in 2016 at 12?

saliva_sweet · « **Reply #49 on:** 12/22/2015 03:13 PM »

Voted 6 for next year. Last year I picked 4 and I'm staying conservative. Can't rule out another failure at this time.

MikeAtkinson · « **Reply #50 on:** 12/22/2015 03:13 PM »

I will vote for 23.

Three pads should allow a pace of better than one every three weeks. I don't see any significant bottlenecks, core availability should be good, payloads are available, F9 FT looks solid.

Amazed at how pessimistic most guesses here have been, without the failure there would have been >11 launches this year, 50% increase would bring that up to >17.

jongoff · « **Reply #51 on:** 12/22/2015 06:22 PM »

I voted for 9 last year, and 10 this year. I think that had they not had the launch failure last year, that they would've beat my 9 estimate handily, even with any potential delays related to introducing the F9v1.2 that may have been masked by the RTF. I only increased my estimate to 10 to be on the conservative side--they just had their first launch of F9v1.2, which while totally successful, is still the first flight on a substantially new vehicle. Between that and Falcon Heavy their odds of having another failure this year are higher than I would've guessed their odds were last year. So I'm being conservative on my number.

[Edit: I also picked 10 because that would equal or beat the Atlas V flight rate for the year, which is a pretty big milestone for them if they can do it.]

I *hope* though that they get at least 12 off, because then they can start getting caught up on their backlog.

I also hope that at least one of their flights this year is on a reused first stage. That would be awesome.

~Jon

cdleonard · « **Reply #52 on:** 12/22/2015 06:48 PM »

Quote from: jongoff on 12/22/2015 06:22 PM

I think that had they not had the launch failure last year, that they would've beat my 9 estimate handily, even with any potential delays related to introducing the F9v1.2 that may have been masked by the RTF.

Is this really what happened? Would SpaceX have encountered a similar gap without the CRS-7 failure?

At no point was there any indication that something was wrong with the 1st stage. So as far as we know they could have continues production of at least 1st stages while the investigation was going on. This means that they might have a whole bunch of stages in storage somewhere just waiting to get launched.

I guessed 13 but the real number might be more than that.

jongoff · « **Reply #53 on:** 12/22/2015 07:57 PM »

Quote from: cdleonard on 12/22/2015 06:48 PM

Quote from: jongoff on 12/22/2015 06:22 PM
I think that had they not had the launch failure last year, that they would've beat my 9 estimate handily, even with any potential delays related to introducing the F9v1.2 that may have been masked by the RTF.

Is this really what happened? Would SpaceX have encountered a similar gap without the CRS-7 failure?

At no point was there any indication that something was wrong with the 1st stage. So as far as we know they could have continues production of at least 1st stages while the investigation was going on. This means that they might have a whole bunch of stages in storage somewhere just waiting to get launched.

I guessed 13 but the real number might be more than that.

I didn't say that they would've had a similar gap had there not been the CRS-7 failure. I did say that there might have been some delays related to rollout of the F9v1.2 had they not had an extra six months to get things right while they were working through the RTF, but that I said I still thought they would've gotten at least 9 flights in if the CRS-7 failure hadn't happened.

~Jon

CraigLieb · « **Reply #54 on:** 12/22/2015 08:20 PM »

Quote from: majormajor42 on 12/22/2015 02:53 PM

somewhere in my twitter feed last night I think I saw someone quote Elon Musk saying in the post landing press telecon that they aim to have 12 launches in 2016. Anybody else catch this? While there may be less, doesn't that kinda put a cap on the most launches in 2016 at 12?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39100.msg1463180#msg1463180
quoting Space.com with excerpts from the teleconference last night.

"well over 12 flights next year..."

Space Junkie · « **Reply #55 on:** 12/22/2015 08:43 PM »

I voted for 12.

No good reason. I haven't been following recent developments.

Twelve just feels right to me. It's the lowest number that would not be a disappointment. Maybe I just like the one-per-month average.

shm6666 · « **Reply #56 on:** 12/22/2015 09:23 PM »

Time to make a prediction… With Orbcomm safely away SpaceX will start to role. My vote is 8 launches for 2016. I would like to see a Falcon Heavy for 2016. I hope that SpaceX will play it safe and not rush things.

Paul451 · « **Reply #57 on:** 12/23/2015 04:23 AM »

Quote from: jongoff on 12/22/2015 06:22 PM

even with any potential delays related to introducing the F9v1.2 that may have been masked by the RTF.

Why would there be a delay? I didn't see a significant delay in the transition between V1.0 and V1.1. Nor in the lead up to the first recovery attempts. Wouldn't they just continue to launch V1.1 cores until they felt the first FT-core was ready?

Typically upgrades were in the next-plus-one or next-plus-two launch, depending on where in the production line the upgrade was inserted, rather than delaying a launch to allow upgrades to the very next core. RTF was fundamentally different because they a) had to definitively find the cause and b) they had to go back and modify already manufactured cores.

skybum · « **Reply #58 on:** 12/23/2015 01:09 PM »

Quote from: Paul451 on 12/23/2015 04:23 AM

Why would there be a delay? I didn't see a significant delay in the transition between V1.0 and V1.1.

The last V1.0 flew on March 1st, 2013; the first V1.1 flew on September 29th, 2013. That's almost seven months.

Paul451 · « **Reply #59 on:** 12/23/2015 01:38 PM »

Quote from: skybum on 12/23/2015 01:09 PM

Quote from: Paul451 on 12/23/2015 04:23 AM
Why would there be a delay? I didn't see a significant delay in the transition between V1.0 and V1.1.
The last V1.0 flew on March 1st, 2013; the first V1.1 flew on September 29th, 2013. That's almost seven months.

But it was five months between the previous two flights. They only picked up the pace after the V1.1 upgrade.

edit:
Approximate gap between flights, with notable events after the gap.

_{^{First F9 V1.0}}
------------- _{^{First COTS demo}}
-------------------------------------- _{^{Second COTS demo.}}
---------- _{^{First CRS}}
----------
--------------- _{^{First F9 v1.1}}
----- _{^{First GTO}}
--
------- _{^{First with legs}}
----
----
--
-
-------- _{^{First ASDS landing attempt & miss}}
-- _{^{First BEO launch}}
-
--- _{^{Second ASDS attempt & hit}}
--
---- _^CRS-7
------------- _{^{V1.2/FT/RTF/etc & successful land landing.}}
-- _{^{Jan 2016 est.}}
- _{^{Jan 2016 est.}}
- _{^{Feb 2016 est.}}
--- _{^{Mar 2016 est.}}

Poll

How many SpaceX flights do you anticipate in 2016

Author Topic: POLL: Number of SpaceX orbital flights in 2016 (Read 54739 times)