NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 5

[Coastal Ron]

There are reports that Elon Musk was on the call between Trump and the Ukrainian President. This follows reports that Musk has been having direct discussions with Putin.

Not relevant directly to space (and I'm certainly not suggesting that people debate Ukraine-policy on this site!) but it does suggest that Musk has purchased significant influence with Trump, to the point of have a direct role in foreign policy and military policy. Space policy is a minor side-discussion by comparison.

I am not sure that is what it means. This isn't the first time that Musk talks to Zelensky as it relates to Starlink. Ukraine relies a lot on Starlink, so it was relevant for Musk to talk to him again on this topic. It also contradicts the narrative that Musk is pro-Putin and anti-Ukraine which is the non-sense that keeps being repeated by some in the main street media.

It contradicts nothing, because for all we know Musk was blowing off Zelensky, and cozying up to Putin. Or vice versa.

In other words, without knowing what was said we have no evidence to characterize the conversations, other than to say they happened.

Like I said previously, we'll have to wait for what Trump and Musk actually do to understand what any of this means, for Ukraine, for Artemis, and everything else. Which means waiting until Trump is sworn in as President.

[thespacecow]

There are reports that Elon Musk was on the call between Trump and the Ukrainian President. This follows reports that Musk has been having direct discussions with Putin.

Not relevant directly to space (and I'm certainly not suggesting that people debate Ukraine-policy on this site!) but it does suggest that Musk has purchased significant influence with Trump, to the point of have a direct role in foreign policy and military policy. Space policy is a minor side-discussion by comparison.

I am not sure that is what it means. This isn't the first time that Musk talks to Zelensky as it relates to Starlink. Ukraine relies a lot on Starlink, so it was relevant for Musk to talk to him again on this topic. It also contradicts the narrative that Musk is pro-Putin and anti-Ukraine which is the non-sense that keeps being repeated by some in the main street media.

It contradicts nothing, because for all we know Musk was blowing off Zelensky, and cozying up to Putin. Or vice versa.

In other words, without knowing what was said we have no evidence to characterize the conversations, other than to say they happened.

Well according to Axios, what was said is this:

Musk also weighed in during the call to say he will continue supporting Ukraine through his Starlink satellites, the sources said.

They also reported that

Three sources briefed on the call all told Axios that Zelensky felt the call went well and that it did not increase his anxiety about Trump's victory. One source said it "didn't leave Zelensky with a feeling of despair."

So yes, it does contradict the narrative that Musk is pro-Putin and anti-Ukraine. Also, all the so called "evidence" that Musk is pro-Putin and anti-Ukraine are easily refuted, but I'm not going to do it here since we're off topic as it is.

[VSECOTSPE]

Berger’s take:

The biggest question is what to do with the Artemis program to return humans to the Moon. Ars wrote extensively about some of the challenges with this program a little more than a month ago, and Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg News, wrote a scathing assessment of Artemis recently under the headline "NASA's $100 billion Moon mission is going nowhere."

It is unlikely that outright cancellation of Artemis is on the table—after all, the first Trump administration created Artemis six years ago. However, Musk is clearly focused on sending humans to Mars, and the Moon-first approach of Artemis was championed by former Vice President Mike Pence, who is long gone. Trump loves grand gestures, and Musk has told Trump it will be possible to send humans to Mars before the end of his term. (That would be 2028, and it's almost impossible to see this happening for a lot of reasons.) The Artemis architecture was developed around a "Moon-then-Mars" philosophy—as in, NASA will send humans to the Moon now, with Mars missions pushed into a nebulous future. Whatever Artemis becomes, it is likely to at least put Mars on equal footing to the Moon.

Notably, Musk despises NASA's Space Launch System rocket, a central element of Artemis. He sees the rocket as the epitome of government bloat. And it's not hard to understand why. The Space Launch System is completely expendable and costs about 10 to 100 times as much to launch as his own massive Starship rocket.

The key function the SLS rocket and the Orion spacecraft currently provide in Artemis is transporting astronauts from Earth to lunar orbit and back. There are ways to address this. Trump could refocus Artemis on using Starship to get humans to Mars. Alternatively, he could direct NASA to kludge together some combination of Orion, Dragon, and Falcon rockets to get astronauts to the Moon. He might also direct NASA to use the SLS for now but cancel further upgrades to it and a lunar space station called Gateway.

"The real question is how far is a NASA landing team and beachhead team are willing to go in destabilizing the program of record," one policy source told Ars. "I can’t see Trump and Vance being less willing to shake up NASA than they are other public policy zones."

What does seem clear is that, for the first time in 15 years, canceling the Space Launch System rocket or dramatically reducing its influence is on the table. This will be an acid test for Musk and Trump's rhetoric on government efficiency, since the base of support for Artemis is in the deep-red South: states like Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida.

Will they really cut jobs there in the name of efficiency?

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/11/space-policy-is-about-to-get-pretty-wild-yall/

I’d like to know on what information Berger bases his statement “Musk despise NASA’s Space Launch System”.

Article also has sections on right-sizing NASA infrastructure, regulatory reform, and MSR gets a mention.  But little on milspace.

[Coastal Ron]

...
So yes, it does contradict the narrative that Musk is pro-Putin and anti-Ukraine.

Way OT, which is why I've cut this down to this:

Nothing about that reporting talks about how to characterize the purported calls to Putin¹, and I'll point out that a business like Starlink can benefit from both sides of a war (just pointing out a possibility, not a reality). In other words, you can't look at this as a math equation that balances out, with "pro-" on one side and "anti-" on the other.

And a general observation that may have nothing to do with this, but it is a harsh reality in human history that war is something that allows businesses to flourish while people suffer.

¹ Though unlikely Musk would be making unfriendly calls, right?

[catdlr]

Cross Post to Philip Sloss weekly report on various topics on SLS:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57014.msg2640107#msg2640107

[OTV Booster]

As a mental exercise how much would it cost to build and launch a StarShip ready James Webb using comparable or better electronics, sensors and mirrors but heavier and more robust mechanicals?

At the risk of going off-topic, SS or other cheap heavy launch probably doesn’t change much with regard to the costs of modern, large space observatories.  At the wavelength-level of precision these modern observatories need, lightweight mirror mass is driven as much or more by the need to avoid deforming the mirrors during manufacture in Earth’s gravity, rather than by launch mass constraints.  In the case of JWST, the cost of the instruments and electronics were driven by near-absolute zero thermal requirements, not launch constraints.  When an observatory’s budget is measured in the billions, even going from a $200 million launch vehicle to a $20 million launch vehicle doesn’t really change the observatory’s economics.

Launch folks or folks who have only worked the software end of spacecraft (like Casey Handmer in a recent blogpost) like to project a revolution in space-based research observatories because the payload mass, payload volume, and launch cost of something like SS is supposed make these observatories so much simpler.  But these observatories are complex and costly because they’re cutting-edge scientific instruments designed to do groundbreaking work at the bleeding edge of research.  It’s like saying that a next-generation supercollider’s complexity and cost is driven by the size of the semi-trucks used to deliver its components.  No, a next-gen supercollider is complex and costly because it’s a research instrument that has never been built before.

Or a robust 40t planetary probe? Hell, the data bandwidth will be the limiting factor. Hmmm, a new job for the StarLink team.

LVs would probably not be the principle constraint to a future of multi-ten ton planetary missions.  We’d likely run into problems first with university instrument teams that could actually use that much mass, adequately sized test facilities (therm/vac, vibe, etc.) for spacecraft that large, power systems that could support that much mass, EDL systems that could deliver that kind of mass to the surface, etc.

NASA had the National Research Council look at this back in the Ares V days.  And the bottom line is that the only sorta affordable science missions that could use that kind of capability were ones that had an enormous amount of dumb propellant mass to get out of the ecliptic or to reach the outer edges of the solar system in a professional lifetime.

I’d also argue that there are certain heliophysics and astrophysics mission concepts that propose using constellations or swarms of many, mass-produced, small spacecraft, not terribly dissimilar from StarLink.  I actually worked on one for a bit.  Those might also benefit from cheap, heavy launch.

But cheap, heavy launch is unlikely to change the nature of most space observatory and planetary probe missions.

FWIW...

Except for one misunderstanding I accept what you say but still have questions.


I spoke explicitly of probes, not landers. Yes, I do see EDL as a tough nut.


Query: the Webbs origami had to have had a mass budget that imposed endless difficulties. Would not a larger mass budget make this less difficult/expensive?


I still can't help but feel that mass constraints add a layer of difficulty which always translates into expense and potentially add delays which impose their own expenses. Designing electronics to minimize power consumption is another place where mass can help. Doubling the PV area wouldn't be as much of a problem. Extra redundancy wherever possible can't hurt. More maneuvering propellant, cryo fluids, a Hubble with four extra CMB's... In our discussions in these forums we constantly run into issues where a bit more mass appears to solve problems.


Having some background as an engineering instrumentation tech (and amateur astronomer) I am sensitive to the costs of cutting edge instrumentation but I have absolutely no feel (or experience) to judge how much the different subsystems of a probe impact cost.


There's a nagging voice in the back of my mind that suspects the National Research Council study was looking at first order effects and didn't delve into knock on effects very deeply. And maybe a dearth of imagination. No real knowledge here, just curiosity.


This is wandering well off topic. I'd welcome a PM that would extend my education.

[JIS]

I agree with clongton about a large in space spacecraft.  Large and robust to last for decades.  I think it should have a habitation ring to provide artificial gravity for long deep space travel.  Then use a fully fueled Starship for landing and returning to orbit of the large spacecraft.  This large spacecraft should be nuclear powered whether pulsed as being studied now or nuclear electric ion propulsion.  This could explore to Mars and beyond to the asteroid belt and to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.  It could carry enough equipment to establish a colony.  Heck, it might even have multiple Starships docked for transporting equipment, supplies, and people to a colony. 

This type of spacecraft could be built using Starship, in LEO, instead of a space station.  It might take 10 years or more, but in the long run it could be used longer than Starships.

Don't think this happens anytime soon because
1. nuclear propulsion is not currently available
2. HLS systems for the Moon are currently in development and funded. Those should service the Moon base and will be serviced by propellant depots moving around in cislunar space. If needed, that infrastructure can be expanded for Mars.
3. SpaceX already has plausible plan for Mars
4. The only other Mars project is NASA sample return. Let's wait what coming out of it but I'm skeptical it would be suitable for crewed mission.

[JIS]

Berger’s take:

......
The key function the SLS rocket and the Orion spacecraft currently provide in Artemis is transporting astronauts from Earth to lunar orbit and back. There are ways to address this.
......

This is actually the key point.
SLS/Orion function is to transport the crew from Earth to NRHO and back.
HLS function is to transport the cargo from Earth to Lunar Surface and crew from NRHO to lunar surface and back.
In my opinion HLS is much more capable system and it will be easy to expand it to include SLS/Orion functionality. When this happens, the future of SLS/Orion is done.

This could happen for example by launching the crew to LEO by Dragon, docking with HLS, crew transfer to HLS and going to the Moon. HLS can refuel or resupply at the Gateway if needed. After all the refueling capability at the Gateway will be already developed as part of Artemis baseline missions. Even Starship HLS will have to be capable to refuel at the Gateway as it is planned to be reusable. So obviously propellants depot (for both SpaceX and BO HLS) will have the capability to leave LEO and go to NRHO (and also elsewhere in the solar system). 

[yg1968]

...
So yes, it does contradict the narrative that Musk is pro-Putin and anti-Ukraine.

Way OT, which is why I've cut this down to this:

Nothing about that reporting talks about how to characterize the purported calls to Putin¹, and I'll point out that a business like Starlink can benefit from both sides of a war (just pointing out a possibility, not a reality). In other words, you can't look at this as a math equation that balances out, with "pro-" on one side and "anti-" on the other.

And a general observation that may have nothing to do with this, but it is a harsh reality in human history that war is something that allows businesses to flourish while people suffer.

¹ Though unlikely Musk would be making unfriendly calls, right?

The WSJ said that Musk and Putin spoke recently but this hasn't been confirmed. But both Musk and Russia have said that Musk and Putin spoke about space-related issues years ago (before Starlink). Musk talks to a lot of the World leaders and he even spoke to the pope but that doesn't make him pro-every leader that he speaks to.

[TheRadicalModerate]

...
So yes, it does contradict the narrative that Musk is pro-Putin and anti-Ukraine.

Way OT, which is why I've cut this down to this:

Nothing about that reporting talks about how to characterize the purported calls to Putin¹, and I'll point out that a business like Starlink can benefit from both sides of a war (just pointing out a possibility, not a reality). In other words, you can't look at this as a math equation that balances out, with "pro-" on one side and "anti-" on the other.

And a general observation that may have nothing to do with this, but it is a harsh reality in human history that war is something that allows businesses to flourish while people suffer.

¹ Though unlikely Musk would be making unfriendly calls, right?

The WSJ said that Musk and Putin spoke recently but this hasn't been confirmed. But both Musk and Russia have said that Musk and Putin spoke about space-related issues years ago (before Starlink). Musk talks to a lot of the World leaders and he even spoke to the pope but that doesn't make him pro-every leader that he speaks to.

Coastal Ron is right:  It's way OT, especially for an Artemis thread.

[JIS]

ppl tend to be concerned about Starship HLS progress, so let's have a look what SpaceX needs to have in place to do Artemis unmanned HLS test mission by 2025.

1. SpaceX needs at least one fully reusable booster for each launch pad. So far they demonstrated flight envelope, landing and recovery. Reusability is a slight concern but should be possible to tinker out over next year. Still they probably need more boosters to achieve significant flight rate.   

2. 4x reusable tankers are needed to provide fuel for Artemis type missions. So far ascend, descend and landing was demonstrated. I think that recovery is very likely to be achieved within next few launches. Reusability of heat shield needs to be demonstrated. On orbit operation and refueling is planned to be demonstrated by mid of 2025.

3. 1x propellants depot at LEO. Fabrication and development is probably not a big concern if the on orbit operation and refueling can be demonstrated.   

4. 1x test flight uncrewed HLS (repeated if not 100% sucess). There is a lot of Dragon experience and NASA experience going into crew cabin, docking and airlock. I don't think that there should be any showstopper there. HLS will need to incorporate all lesson learned from next few starship flight testing on orbit operation and refueling. The key unknown will be Lunar landing, lunar operation and lunar ascend. Although NASA can provide a lot of useful guidance, it is very new for SpaceX. New RCS, landing engines and Raptor lunar surface restart needs to be developed and tested. It is possible that one HLS test flight will not be enough...

5. Launch facilities. Musk claims 2 launch pads will be ready by end of 2024 and further two pads in Florida some time in 2025. Musk also claims SpaceX can do 25 Starship flights next year (2 launch pads doing one launch per month?). How many starship flights are required for first unmanned HLS lunar test landing by 2025? 7 tanker launches to provide about 700t propellants in the depot (only half full tanks are needed for HLS test flight), 1 uncrewed HLS, 1 depot, propellants test (2 starships) repeated several times, several more ITS required to develop full reusability, some starlink flights. I think that as little as 17 flights can be enough before the first unmanned HLS lunar landing. Is it doable by 2025? Seems to be little too ambitious and certainly not demonstrated by now.

6. Starfactory was claimed by Musk will be fully operational by end of 2024 and he claims the factory should have capability of 100 starship per year. If we assume SpaceX needs at least 17 flights next year and booster turnaround is 4 months they need at least 5 reusable boosters. Reusability of starship upper stage is either not possible (HLS, depot) or hard to achieve for early test flights. Therefore I would assume to ignore reusability in 2025. So 5 boosters and 17 starship need to be manufactured next year. So far the manufacturing rate is only about one ship in several months which is not fast enough. But this can be explained transitioning to Block 2 starship and Starfactory not finished. SpaceX really needs to ramp up production and Starship launches.

[DanClemmensen]

4. 1x test flight uncrewed HLS (repeated if not 100% sucess). There is a lot of Dragon experience and NASA experience going into crew cabin, docking and airlock. I don't think that there should be any showstopper there. HLS will need to incorporate all lesson learned from next few starship flight testing on orbit operation and refueling. The key unknown will be Lunar landing, lunar operation and lunar ascend. Although NASA can provide a lot of useful guidance, it is very new for SpaceX. New RCS, landing engines and Raptor lunar surface restart needs to be developed and tested. It is possible that one HLS test flight will not be enough...

Your analysis is reasonable but the contract does not require demonstration of IDSS docking for the HLS uncrewed demo. It does require docking for prop transfer, but you covered that earlier and we have no indication that propellant transfer includes an IDSS docking. Dragon 2 has used the IDSS docks during 25 missions, several of which docked more than once. Starliner has docked twice. Orion has docked zero times, and its first attempt is planned to be on Artemis III. Like you, I really hope they find a way to demonstrate IDSS docking on the uncrewed demo. We do not even know which of the two will be the maneuvering partner when/if HLS and Orion dock.

The contract requires the demo to land on the Moon. It does not require the demo to launch from the lunar surface. Your analysis of the mission is also reasonable and I think they will do it, but they do not have to. I think the idea that the first ascent attempt will occur with crew aboard is insane.

[OTV Booster]

ppl tend to be concerned about Starship HLS progress, so let's have a look what SpaceX needs to have in place to do Artemis unmanned HLS test mission by 2025.

1. SpaceX needs at least one fully reusable booster for each launch pad. So far they demonstrated flight envelope, landing and recovery. Reusability is a slight concern but should be possible to tinker out over next year. Still they probably need more boosters to achieve significant flight rate.   

2. 4x reusable tankers are needed to provide fuel for Artemis type missions. So far ascend, descend and landing was demonstrated. I think that recovery is very likely to be achieved within next few launches. Reusability of heat shield needs to be demonstrated. On orbit operation and refueling is planned to be demonstrated by mid of 2025.

3. 1x propellants depot at LEO. Fabrication and development is probably not a big concern if the on orbit operation and refueling can be demonstrated.   

4. 1x test flight uncrewed HLS (repeated if not 100% sucess). There is a lot of Dragon experience and NASA experience going into crew cabin, docking and airlock. I don't think that there should be any showstopper there. HLS will need to incorporate all lesson learned from next few starship flight testing on orbit operation and refueling. The key unknown will be Lunar landing, lunar operation and lunar ascend. Although NASA can provide a lot of useful guidance, it is very new for SpaceX. New RCS, landing engines and Raptor lunar surface restart needs to be developed and tested. It is possible that one HLS test flight will not be enough...

5. Launch facilities. Musk claims 2 launch pads will be ready by end of 2024 and further two pads in Florida some time in 2025. Musk also claims SpaceX can do 25 Starship flights next year (2 launch pads doing one launch per month?). How many starship flights are required for first unmanned HLS lunar test landing by 2025? 7 tanker launches to provide about 700t propellants in the depot (only half full tanks are needed for HLS test flight), 1 uncrewed HLS, 1 depot, propellants test (2 starships) repeated several times, several more ITS required to develop full reusability, some starlink flights. I think that as little as 17 flights can be enough before the first unmanned HLS lunar landing. Is it doable by 2025? Seems to be little too ambitious and certainly not demonstrated by now.

6. Starfactory was claimed by Musk will be fully operational by end of 2024 and he claims the factory should have capability of 100 starship per year. If we assume SpaceX needs at least 17 flights next year and booster turnaround is 4 months they need at least 5 reusable boosters. Reusability of starship upper stage is either not possible (HLS, depot) or hard to achieve for early test flights. Therefore I would assume to ignore reusability in 2025. So 5 boosters and 17 starship need to be manufactured next year. So far the manufacturing rate is only about one ship in several months which is not fast enough. But this can be explained transitioning to Block 2 starship and Starfactory not finished. SpaceX really needs to ramp up production and Starship launches.

Right now it seems that launch rate is impacted by both licensing and new modifications. They've generally launch every other build so that mods can be incorporated but we are seeing successive builds being launched lately. Flight four showed the heatshield to be inadequate leading to a heatshield redo for flight five where a build wasn't skipped, and for flight six the main point is a relight. No mods needed so they're using the next in line.

There will be some teething pains on SS V2 so we might see a couple of builds skipped for new mods but at some point, hopefully NLT the third V2 launch, they'll use all of them.

The booster looks mature enough that they'll most likely use em as they build em. Reuse should show up in 2025 allowing the minimum four to accumulate and/or allowing assets to redirect to SS production.

The table and tower are looking mature and not needing much refurb between launches. The second tower might have some teething pains but should be with the program fairly quickly.

Of course mishap investigations can still slow things down. Baring this, ISTM that the launch rate will increase in 2025. Maybe 6-10 launches? Thing do look like they're coming together for a faster tempo.


Edit to add: I doubt SX will be anywhere near 25 launches next year but it shouldn't be ruled out for 2026. It'll be a happy thing if they can get through 2025 without a mishap investigation. Stranger things have happened.


I'm not holding my breath waiting for a demo next year. Come on Elon. Surprise me. 

[yg1968]

The contract requires the demo to land on the Moon. It does not require the demo to launch from the lunar surface.

The contract was changed, testing ascent from the lunar surface is now required but the uncrewed Starship doesn't have to ascend very far (this was announced after the uncrewed mission was delayed to 2025).

“One of the requirements that NASA has prior to putting astronauts on the Starship is that they (SpaceX) have to demonstrate an uncrewed demo with a landing and then being able to leave the surface of the Moon,” Chojancki said. “We’re not asking for a full return, but they’re going to get off of the surface, demonstrate that they can start the engine.”

https://spaceflightnow.com/2024/11/01/starship-booster-catch-brings-nasa-spacex-closer-to-artemis-3-moon-landing/

[TheRadicalModerate]

“One of the requirements that NASA has prior to putting astronauts on the Starship is that they (SpaceX) have to demonstrate an uncrewed demo with a landing and then being able to leave the surface of the Moon,” Chojancki said. “We’re not asking for a full return, but they’re going to get off of the surface, demonstrate that they can start the engine.”

https://spaceflightnow.com/2024/11/01/starship-booster-catch-brings-nasa-spacex-closer-to-artemis-3-moon-landing/

It should be noted that the partial ascent saves a buttload of propellant.  Assuming that the HLS Starship is a v2 variant, it requires 640t of prop to do a 200m/s ascent, vs. 1410t of prop (the amount of boiling prop that v2 can hold) to get all the way back to NRHO.  Both numbers assume a SWAG 150kg/day boiloff in NRHO for 100 days and 1.5% extra delta-v for FPR.

[JIS]

Of course mishap investigations can still slow things down. Baring this, ISTM that the launch rate will increase in 2025. Maybe 6-10 launches? Thing do look like they're coming together for a faster tempo.


Edit to add: I doubt SX will be anywhere near 25 launches next year but it shouldn't be ruled out for 2026. It'll be a happy thing if they can get through 2025 without a mishap investigation. Stranger things have happened.


I'm not holding my breath waiting for a demo next year. Come on Elon. Surprise me. 

Aren't you unreasonably skeptical with 6-10 launches in 2025? Most likely they will do 4 launches in 2024 even with following headwind:
1. Democrats in FAA, high profile failures in early ITS flights.
2. Not fully functional starfactory
3. Single launchpad with steep learning curve
4. Switching from SS block 1 to block 2
5. No recovered hardware

For 2025:
1. FAA seems to got the memo to speed up. A lot of risks retired with accurate landings.
2. Starfactory is pretty much finished, up and running.
3. Two launch pads. Maybe Florida will also join during 2025?
4. SS Block 2 ramping up already.
5. 4xboosters in production now with one recovered. Will reuse happen in 2025?

SpaceX seems to be targeting 1month turnaround already. 10 launches in 2025 is a very safe bet.

[clongton]

Aren't you unreasonably skeptical with 6-10 launches in 2025? Most likely they will do 4 launches in 2024 even with following headwind:
1. Democrats in FAA, ... <snip>

The political affiliation of FAA employees is irrelevant.

[OTV Booster]

Aren't you unreasonably skeptical with 6-10 launches in 2025? Most likely they will do 4 launches in 2024 even with following headwind:
1. Democrats in FAA, ... <snip>

The political affiliation of FAA employees is irrelevant.

For the rank and file civil servants, absolutely true. For the presidentially appointed, and approved by Congress top management, not true at all. Trump appointees (within all agencies) will hear the same formal mission music but will dance different. Happens with every change of administration.

[OTV Booster]

Of course mishap investigations can still slow things down. Baring this, ISTM that the launch rate will increase in 2025. Maybe 6-10 launches? Thing do look like they're coming together for a faster tempo.


Edit to add: I doubt SX will be anywhere near 25 launches next year but it shouldn't be ruled out for 2026. It'll be a happy thing if they can get through 2025 without a mishap investigation. Stranger things have happened.


I'm not holding my breath waiting for a demo next year. Come on Elon. Surprise me. 

Aren't you unreasonably skeptical with 6-10 launches in 2025? Most likely they will do 4 launches in 2024 even with following headwind:
1. Democrats in FAA, high profile failures in early ITS flights.
2. Not fully functional starfactory
3. Single launchpad with steep learning curve
4. Switching from SS block 1 to block 2
5. No recovered hardware

For 2025:
1. FAA seems to got the memo to speed up. A lot of risks retired with accurate landings.
2. Starfactory is pretty much finished, up and running.
3. Two launch pads. Maybe Florida will also join during 2025?
4. SS Block 2 ramping up already.
5. 4xboosters in production now with one recovered. Will reuse happen in 2025?

SpaceX seems to be targeting 1month turnaround already. 10 launches in 2025 is a very safe bet.

Mostly good points but a couple don't work for me.


Star Factory will be up and running real soon but that does not guarantee running smoothly. Every new production line has kinks to work out, even if it's duplicating an already established flow. Increasing output has its own impedance. I think it'll work out but also recognize that excrement occurs.


SS will be shifting to V2. We can hope for a smooth transition.


Even with political grease a real mishap will slow things down. If SS gets permission to EDL over population for a catch (not guaranteed) everything had better work right. Not much reasonable wiggle room on this. Fumbling a booster catch, a serious oopsy during orbital refueling that blasts shrapnel all over LEO or spewing big chunks back to earth... they say space is hard for a reason.


Six launches is too lowball, 10 reasonable. I'd  love to see a dozen successful launches next year. My bookie is betting against.

[Coastal Ron]

Star Factory will be up and running real soon but that does not guarantee running smoothly. Every new production line has kinks to work out, even if it's duplicating an already established flow. Increasing output has its own impedance. I think it'll work out but also recognize that excrement occurs.

"Success" oriented schedules can only tolerate small issues. For instance, if they find that the flaps on Ship V2 don't work as planned, that would slow things down considerably. Heck, even if everything works as planned, that might mean that they are being too conservative.

The big question will be how all concerned will react when/if a flight that everyone thought should go well, doesn't.

Even with political grease a real mishap will slow things down. If SS gets permission to EDL over population for a catch (not guaranteed) everything had better work right. Not much reasonable wiggle room on this.

Yeah, overflight of populated areas will cause a LOT of people to be watching and offering opinions about safety.

But we can't know until they try, and they have to try in order to learn. Luckily they have the money to persevere, which is more important that political capital at this point...