What's next for SpaceX?

[jstrotha0975]

Even for some time before the mk1 RUD progress slowed to a crawl at Boca Chica, TX and Cocoa, FL build sites. Now it's at a stand still with exception of both launch sites still under construction, LC-39A at Kennedy and new construction happening at BC launch site. Elon tweeted about moving onto mk3. It seems like mk2 will get scrapped along with what's left of mk1. So really what is next for SpaceX? How will they proceed from here? Will it be business as usual or a set back for them? If so, how long of a set back? What are your opinions?

[TripleSeven]

Even for some time before the mk1 RUD progress slowed to a crawl at Boca Chica, TX and Cocoa, FL build sites. Now it's at a stand still with exception of both launch sites still under construction, LC-39A at Kennedy and new construction happening at BC launch site. Elon tweeted about moving onto mk3. It seems like mk2 will get scrapped along with what's left of mk1. So really what is next for SpaceX? How will they proceed from here? Will it be business as usual or a set back for them? If so, how long of a set back? What are your opinions?

they were lucky they didnt kill anyone with this or the Dragon crew explosion...but this is twice now

one has to hope they sit down, and do what Virgin did...rethink where they are going and how.  hire some good safety people, assume that they need some help and then move on and tackle the future.

in my view...they are on the "edge"  Elon must know this...having seen his vehicle that was going to do great things blow up, Dragon 2 go boom and well the window on his super truck not work

he can fix this...but he has to be the one who does this

[Lar]

they were lucky they didnt kill anyone with this or the Dragon crew explosion...but this is twice now

Sheer hyperbole. There is no reason to beleive anyone was actually in any danger at any time in either case.  You should stop that kind of nonsense here.

[Owlon]

These were both the sorts of tests that you run with the expectation of possible RUD. Nobody was injured because they performed the tests in a safe and controlled environment, not because they got lucky. Nothing has just randomly blown up from lax safety procedures or improper storage or something. As has been said before, SpaceX's development is hardware-rich: they build things, push them until they break, and iterate. Granted, that's not what happened with Dragon, but that one was still a developmental test that followed safe testing procedures.

[50_Caliber]

Even for some time before the mk1 RUD progress slowed to a crawl at Boca Chica, TX and Cocoa, FL build sites. Now it's at a stand still with exception of both launch sites still under construction, LC-39A at Kennedy and new construction happening at BC launch site. Elon tweeted about moving onto mk3. It seems like mk2 will get scrapped along with what's left of mk1. So really what is next for SpaceX? How will they proceed from here? Will it be business as usual or a set back for them? If so, how long of a set back? What are your opinions?

They're going to focus on MK3, maybe even shift some of the workers at Cocoa over to Boca Chica. MK3 will be assembled faster than MK1, the first ring of the MK3 is already in the tent, they aren't going to delay anything.

[Vettedrmr]

so ...you have no problem with the parachute on the CST 100 as you note "Nobody was injured because they performed the tests in a safe and controlled environment" and had astronauts been aboard...they would be fine...the safety systems worked, nothing was blown up? 

and its time to launch...right?

You continue with hyperbole.  You state that "they were lucky they didn't kill somebody", then when someone points out that physical security is always in place for these types of tests, you state it was just "random chance working in their favor", like no one pays any attention to the security rules in place.  Now you claim that "you have no problem with the parachute...".

All 3 test failures you referred to are being dealt with.  The Mk. 1 failure is a setback, and SpaceX will learn what they can out of it, and move on.  Boeing will learn what they can from the chute system failure, satisfy NASA, and move on.  SpaceX has done the same with the DM-1 explosion, and a LOT of people have learned some fundamental knowledge about hypergolic fluids and titanium.

Have a good one,
Mike

[su27k]

Shouldn't this thread be renamed to "What's next for Starship?" and moved to Starship section? SpaceX is not all about Starship...

[Vettedrmr]

I think SpaceX is going to solidify their F9 work.  Everyone was looking at the darling Starship/SH work, but let's be honest: it's in its infancy.  I never thought a MK1 flight was in the works for 2019, and not early in 2020 either.  So, F9 will come back into the fore of the press, commercial crew will *hopefully* get US launch seats back into space again fairly soon, and of course there's Starlink.

During all this MK 2 and 3 will continue development, albeit I expect more quietly.  People will think development has ground to a standstill, but in all honesty it just won't be as visible.

Well, that's my shot at it.

Have a good one,
Mike

[akm]

Well up next, a very exciting IFA, and many many start link flights.  MK 3 will continue and many new threads will be re started to track the progress. If they reach orbit in 2020 that will be fantastic, if in 2021 it will still be good progress.  It was only a few years ago that talk of 20 missions a year was crazy talk.  Now its kinda of boring, way to go, that 's success

[edkyle99]

they were lucky they didnt kill anyone with this or the Dragon crew explosion...but this is twice now

Surely you know these were controlled tests at test sites evacuated of personnel? 

During Apollo, NASA lost a crew in a horrible spacecraft fire, suffered Service Module propulsion system failures in ground tests, and had three complete Saturn V stages destroyed in ground accidents - two of them overpressure deals similar to the Mk1 situation (one injured 5 NAA technicians) and the other a flat out explosion caused by a failed high pressure helium tank weld during a test firing.  Should NASA have cancelled the Moon landing program? 

These were setbacks for SpaceX, but history shows that setbacks like these happen in such programs.  SpaceX has recovered from the Dragon 2 test failure, completing a successful test recently.  It has the options to either recover from the Mk1 failure with a better Starship, or shut the whole program down and focus on Falcon/Dragon.  I believe that Super Heavy/Starship hinges more on the progress of Raptor than on the tank structure. 

 - Ed Kyle

[M.E.T.]

This whole thing reminds me of an old movie showing Edison blowing up one light bulb after another until he found one that finally worked.

In a way - just aided by vastly greater computing power and predictive modelling ability - SpaceX is following a similar approach in developing their perfect rocket.

The doom and gloom is quite unjustified. I expect them to learn from this and just keep at it.

[woods170]

they were lucky they didnt kill anyone with this or the Dragon crew explosion...but this is twice now

Surely you know these were controlled tests at test sites evacuated of personnel? 

During Apollo, NASA lost a crew in a horrible spacecraft fire, suffered Service Module propulsion system failures in ground tests, and had three complete Saturn V stages destroyed in ground accidents - two of them overpressure deals similar to the Mk1 situation (one injured 5 NAA technicians) and the other a flat out explosion caused by a failed high pressure helium tank weld during a test firing.  Should NASA have cancelled the Moon landing program? 

These were setbacks for SpaceX, but history shows that setbacks like these happen in such programs.  SpaceX has recovered from the Dragon 2 test failure, completing a successful test recently.  It has the options to either recover from the Mk1 failure with a better Starship, or shut the whole program down and focus on Falcon/Dragon.  I believe that Super Heavy/Starship hinges more on the progress of Raptor than on the tank structure. 

 - Ed Kyle

Good analysis here by Ed.

To add: SpaceX destroyed multiple early Merlins during development. They wrecked at least one full Falcon 1 tankset during testing. The first 3 Falcon 1 launches were LOV/LOM. None of these setbacks prevented SpaceX from eventually successfully launching Falcon 1 AND simultaneously developing the much bigger Falcon 9 v1.0. CRS-7 and AMOS-6 didn't stop SpaceX either. Neither did the loss of F9R-Dev1 prevent SpaceX from successfully implementing booster return and landing.

Mk1 blowing its top is a setback, but it won't stop SpaceX from continueing work on Starship.

I consider TripleSeven's remark about "they got luck nobody got killed" to be questionable. He should know that both tests were controlled and the areas fully evacuated prior to and during the tests.

[happyflower]

The failures that SpaceX goes through, far from worrying to the public are actually quiet exhilarating. The opportunity for a civilian like myself to see engineering being done by smart people followed by either success or failure is amazing to watch.

Honestly I love SpaceX video showing all their landing "Failures". Those failures are total victories for converting the population into supporting your endeavors. When you embrace your failures you only fail forward.

Whatever comes up next for SpaceX I hope that they continue to engage the public and build their starships in the open.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Review of SpaceX’s year by Eric Berger and look forward to what’s next:

SpaceX to cap transitional year with launch, poised for big things in 2020
Fairing reuse, Starlink trains, and Starship testing marked big moments in 2019.

ERIC BERGER - 12/16/2019, 1:15 PM

By some measures, SpaceX has had a relatively sedate 2019. After all, the company has launched a mere dozen rockets so far this year, in comparison to a record-setting 2018, with 22 overall missions. It should add one more flight to that tally on Monday, with the launch of a large, 6.8-ton communications satellite from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (see details below).

However, the lower launch cadence masks a year in which SpaceX has made considerable technical progress toward some of its biggest goals—an optimized Falcon 9, satellite Internet, and total launch reusability.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/12/spacex-to-cap-transitional-year-with-launch-poised-for-big-things-in-2020/

I think 2020 is shaping up to be a fantastic year for SpaceX

[freddo411]

Question:

If the launch cadence in 2020 is close to once a week would this not put a strain on the Eastern Range and their lengthy setup processes? 

Might we see SX launch twice in one day, once from each of their pads?    Would two launches like this essentially help increase the possible launches supported by the range?

[jstrotha0975]

Question:

If the launch cadence in 2020 is close to once a week would this not put a strain on the Eastern Range and their lengthy setup processes? 

Might we see SX launch twice in one day, once from each of their pads?    Would two launches like this essentially help increase the possible launches supported by the range?

By 2017, the Eastern Range had upgraded their legacy operational processes and equipment to be able to support a much faster cadence of rocket launches for SpaceX AFTS-controlled rocket launches, but they did not use the capability when an opportunity arose to increase range launch cadence in October 2018. The first planned use of the more rapid cadence was in August 2019.[16] As of 2019, the range said that it could "support up to 48 launches per year from Florida" with an "eventual goal [to] get to a capability to launch two different rockets within 24 hours."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Range

[freddo411]

Question:

If the launch cadence in 2020 is close to once a week would this not put a strain on the Eastern Range and their lengthy setup processes? 

Might we see SX launch twice in one day, once from each of their pads?    Would two launches like this essentially help increase the possible launches supported by the range?

By 2017, the Eastern Range had upgraded their legacy operational processes and equipment to be able to support a much faster cadence of rocket launches for SpaceX AFTS-controlled rocket launches, but they did not use the capability when an opportunity arose to increase range launch cadence in October 2018. The first planned use of the more rapid cadence was in August 2019.[16] As of 2019, the range said that it could "support up to 48 launches per year from Florida" with an "eventual goal [to] get to a capability to launch two different rockets within 24 hours."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Range

I would find it very exciting to see SX fly two missions in 24 hours out of the cape.   It would break some new ground.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

This may be a transcendent year for SpaceX
Company may attempt 50% more launches than any previous year.

by Eric Berger - Jan 2, 2020 1:22pm GMT

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/this-may-be-a-transcendent-year-for-spacex/

[Eric Hedman]

I guess this is one thing indirectly next for SpaceX:

http://news.trust.org/item/20200116050425-quq38

[Rocket Science]

A great ISS Demo flight mission!