Quote from: meekGee on 07/27/2022 02:48 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 07/27/2022 02:36 pmQuote from: freddo411 on 07/27/2022 02:25 pmQuote from: deadman1204 on 07/27/2022 02:02 pmWhy is anyone even talking about 1000 flights/uses. Its the height of stupidity, that number is probably around the total number of orbital launches the US has ever done.Orbital rocket flight rate looks to be on an exponential growth curve. At least it does now that commercial rocket flights are the dominant driver.SX F9 already has more flights than any other commercial rocket. Communication constellations are providing the demand…why wouldn’t we expect the future to have thousands of flights?The current demand spurt is driven by Starlink. Possibly there will be one or two other constellations, but eventually the number of LEO comms satellites will saturate the market and/or will be regulated to stop the space junk chaos. At that point, actual build-out will cease and be replaced by a one-for-one upgrade strategy, replacing satellites with bigger newer satellites. I don't "see "thousands" of launches needed for this. Some new demand will need to evolve. If launch cost is radically lowered, maybe something like asteroid mining will become cost-effective.It never saturates due to continuous replacement.That's what I said. Continuous replacement is a steady state that will not require the same cadence that was needed to build the constellation(s).Pick some arbitrary numbers to get a rough-order-of-magnitude estimate: 10,000 satellites, two year replacement cycle, 50 satellites per launch. That's 100 launches per year. You can do that with a single reusable launcher, and that launcher will take ten years to hit 1000 reuses.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 07/27/2022 02:36 pmQuote from: freddo411 on 07/27/2022 02:25 pmQuote from: deadman1204 on 07/27/2022 02:02 pmWhy is anyone even talking about 1000 flights/uses. Its the height of stupidity, that number is probably around the total number of orbital launches the US has ever done.Orbital rocket flight rate looks to be on an exponential growth curve. At least it does now that commercial rocket flights are the dominant driver.SX F9 already has more flights than any other commercial rocket. Communication constellations are providing the demand…why wouldn’t we expect the future to have thousands of flights?The current demand spurt is driven by Starlink. Possibly there will be one or two other constellations, but eventually the number of LEO comms satellites will saturate the market and/or will be regulated to stop the space junk chaos. At that point, actual build-out will cease and be replaced by a one-for-one upgrade strategy, replacing satellites with bigger newer satellites. I don't "see "thousands" of launches needed for this. Some new demand will need to evolve. If launch cost is radically lowered, maybe something like asteroid mining will become cost-effective.It never saturates due to continuous replacement.
Quote from: freddo411 on 07/27/2022 02:25 pmQuote from: deadman1204 on 07/27/2022 02:02 pmWhy is anyone even talking about 1000 flights/uses. Its the height of stupidity, that number is probably around the total number of orbital launches the US has ever done.Orbital rocket flight rate looks to be on an exponential growth curve. At least it does now that commercial rocket flights are the dominant driver.SX F9 already has more flights than any other commercial rocket. Communication constellations are providing the demand…why wouldn’t we expect the future to have thousands of flights?The current demand spurt is driven by Starlink. Possibly there will be one or two other constellations, but eventually the number of LEO comms satellites will saturate the market and/or will be regulated to stop the space junk chaos. At that point, actual build-out will cease and be replaced by a one-for-one upgrade strategy, replacing satellites with bigger newer satellites. I don't "see "thousands" of launches needed for this. Some new demand will need to evolve. If launch cost is radically lowered, maybe something like asteroid mining will become cost-effective.
Quote from: deadman1204 on 07/27/2022 02:02 pmWhy is anyone even talking about 1000 flights/uses. Its the height of stupidity, that number is probably around the total number of orbital launches the US has ever done.Orbital rocket flight rate looks to be on an exponential growth curve. At least it does now that commercial rocket flights are the dominant driver.SX F9 already has more flights than any other commercial rocket. Communication constellations are providing the demand…why wouldn’t we expect the future to have thousands of flights?
Why is anyone even talking about 1000 flights/uses. Its the height of stupidity, that number is probably around the total number of orbital launches the US has ever done.
Quote from: deadman1204 on 07/27/2022 02:02 pmWhy is anyone even talking about 1000 flights/uses. Its the height of stupidity, that number is probably around the total number of orbital launches the US has ever done.If you announced 10 years ago that you want to build a satellite megaconstellation of 30,000 1.25ton satellites, you'd be laughed out too and considered totally crazy. Yet, here we are.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 07/27/2022 02:36 pmThe current demand spurt is driven by Starlink. Possibly there will be one or two other constellations, but eventually the number of LEO comms satellites will saturate the market and/or will be regulated to stop the space junk chaos. At that point, actual build-out will cease and be replaced by a one-for-one upgrade strategy, replacing satellites with bigger newer satellites. I don't "see "thousands" of launches needed for this. Some new demand will need to evolve. If launch cost is radically lowered, maybe something like asteroid mining will become cost-effective.”space junk chaos” is a troll. And besides, proper regulation would actually INCREASE the feasible megaconstellation size by making orbits safe enough to have higher satellite numerical density, and additional launches to clean up space debris could further increase launch demand.Telecommunications is far more valuable than, say, platinum group metal mining will ever be.
The current demand spurt is driven by Starlink. Possibly there will be one or two other constellations, but eventually the number of LEO comms satellites will saturate the market and/or will be regulated to stop the space junk chaos. At that point, actual build-out will cease and be replaced by a one-for-one upgrade strategy, replacing satellites with bigger newer satellites. I don't "see "thousands" of launches needed for this. Some new demand will need to evolve. If launch cost is radically lowered, maybe something like asteroid mining will become cost-effective.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 07/27/2022 03:05 pmQuote from: meekGee on 07/27/2022 02:48 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 07/27/2022 02:36 pmQuote from: freddo411 on 07/27/2022 02:25 pmQuote from: deadman1204 on 07/27/2022 02:02 pmWhy is anyone even talking about 1000 flights/uses. Its the height of stupidity, that number is probably around the total number of orbital launches the US has ever done.Orbital rocket flight rate looks to be on an exponential growth curve. At least it does now that commercial rocket flights are the dominant driver.SX F9 already has more flights than any other commercial rocket. Communication constellations are providing the demand…why wouldn’t we expect the future to have thousands of flights?The current demand spurt is driven by Starlink. Possibly there will be one or two other constellations, but eventually the number of LEO comms satellites will saturate the market and/or will be regulated to stop the space junk chaos. At that point, actual build-out will cease and be replaced by a one-for-one upgrade strategy, replacing satellites with bigger newer satellites. I don't "see "thousands" of launches needed for this. Some new demand will need to evolve. If launch cost is radically lowered, maybe something like asteroid mining will become cost-effective.It never saturates due to continuous replacement.That's what I said. Continuous replacement is a steady state that will not require the same cadence that was needed to build the constellation(s).Pick some arbitrary numbers to get a rough-order-of-magnitude estimate: 10,000 satellites, two year replacement cycle, 50 satellites per launch. That's 100 launches per year. You can do that with a single reusable launcher, and that launcher will take ten years to hit 1000 reuses.If it takes 4 years to launch the constellation and the sats live 4 years than there's no difference in the rates, right?
Quote from: deadman1204 on 07/27/2022 02:02 pmWhy is anyone even talking about 1000 flights/uses. Its the height of stupidity, that number is probably around the total number of orbital launches the US has ever done.Because Elon has a vision and he has spoken of this number. Sure, it's crazy, but Elon's crazy visions have actually come true in the past, so maybe this one will too. He has spoken of 1000 restarts for a Raptor, and he has spoken of "thousands" of ships in the Mars fleets, I don't think this would be thousands of reuses for any individual Starship. Logistically, the SH will get the most reuses, because one SH boosts many SS.
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 07/27/2022 02:38 pmQuote from: deadman1204 on 07/27/2022 02:02 pmWhy is anyone even talking about 1000 flights/uses. Its the height of stupidity, that number is probably around the total number of orbital launches the US has ever done.The USA exceeded 1,000 total launches to orbit sometime around the year 2000. The USSR / Russia is near 3,000 total launches to orbit. The total for everyone else exceeded 1,000 fairly recently. The current global total for successful launches to orbit is approximately 5,500. The global average is approximately 80 launches per year, although there has been considerable variation. Everything I'm saying is approximate because I couldn't find any total numbers more recent than 2019, just charts.Global launch rate has increased dramatically in the last few years, now exceeding the Cold War peak, in part due to Falcon 9 reuse (but also a lot due to China, a new superpower adding superpower-like launch rates to the total).2004 542005 552006 672007 682008 692009 782010 742011 842012 782013 812014 922015 862016 852017 902018 1142019 1022020 1142021 144(From Ed Kyle’s awesome website which shut down a few months ago 😭)Last year beat the 1967 record for orbital launch attempts (was 139 in 1967).I suspect it’ll be even higher this year. And with Kuiper and OneWeb and Starlink and Artemis, 2023 and 2024 should be higher still.
Quote from: deadman1204 on 07/27/2022 02:02 pmWhy is anyone even talking about 1000 flights/uses. Its the height of stupidity, that number is probably around the total number of orbital launches the US has ever done.The USA exceeded 1,000 total launches to orbit sometime around the year 2000. The USSR / Russia is near 3,000 total launches to orbit. The total for everyone else exceeded 1,000 fairly recently. The current global total for successful launches to orbit is approximately 5,500. The global average is approximately 80 launches per year, although there has been considerable variation. Everything I'm saying is approximate because I couldn't find any total numbers more recent than 2019, just charts.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/27/2022 03:09 pmQuote from: whitelancer64 on 07/27/2022 02:38 pmQuote from: deadman1204 on 07/27/2022 02:02 pmWhy is anyone even talking about 1000 flights/uses. Its the height of stupidity, that number is probably around the total number of orbital launches the US has ever done.The USA exceeded 1,000 total launches to orbit sometime around the year 2000. The USSR / Russia is near 3,000 total launches to orbit. The total for everyone else exceeded 1,000 fairly recently. The current global total for successful launches to orbit is approximately 5,500. The global average is approximately 80 launches per year, although there has been considerable variation. Everything I'm saying is approximate because I couldn't find any total numbers more recent than 2019, just charts.Global launch rate has increased dramatically in the last few years, now exceeding the Cold War peak, in part due to Falcon 9 reuse (but also a lot due to China, a new superpower adding superpower-like launch rates to the total).2004 542005 552006 672007 682008 692009 782010 742011 842012 782013 812014 922015 862016 852017 902018 1142019 1022020 1142021 144(From Ed Kyle’s awesome website which shut down a few months ago 😭)Last year beat the 1967 record for orbital launch attempts (was 139 in 1967).I suspect it’ll be even higher this year. And with Kuiper and OneWeb and Starlink and Artemis, 2023 and 2024 should be higher still.A crude exponential fit to this data shows ~2065 as the year with 1000 flights
Quote from: meekGee on 07/27/2022 03:33 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 07/27/2022 03:05 pmQuote from: meekGee on 07/27/2022 02:48 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 07/27/2022 02:36 pmQuote from: freddo411 on 07/27/2022 02:25 pmQuote from: deadman1204 on 07/27/2022 02:02 pmWhy is anyone even talking about 1000 flights/uses. Its the height of stupidity, that number is probably around the total number of orbital launches the US has ever done.Orbital rocket flight rate looks to be on an exponential growth curve. At least it does now that commercial rocket flights are the dominant driver.SX F9 already has more flights than any other commercial rocket. Communication constellations are providing the demand…why wouldn’t we expect the future to have thousands of flights?The current demand spurt is driven by Starlink. Possibly there will be one or two other constellations, but eventually the number of LEO comms satellites will saturate the market and/or will be regulated to stop the space junk chaos. At that point, actual build-out will cease and be replaced by a one-for-one upgrade strategy, replacing satellites with bigger newer satellites. I don't "see "thousands" of launches needed for this. Some new demand will need to evolve. If launch cost is radically lowered, maybe something like asteroid mining will become cost-effective.It never saturates due to continuous replacement.That's what I said. Continuous replacement is a steady state that will not require the same cadence that was needed to build the constellation(s).Pick some arbitrary numbers to get a rough-order-of-magnitude estimate: 10,000 satellites, two year replacement cycle, 50 satellites per launch. That's 100 launches per year. You can do that with a single reusable launcher, and that launcher will take ten years to hit 1000 reuses.If it takes 4 years to launch the constellation and the sats live 4 years than there's no difference in the rates, right?Sure, but what I think we usually see is an increase in tempo from the beginning of the build-out to the end of the build-out, so the steady-state rate drops back to the average of the build-out rate. The ramp-up during build-out cannot be extrapolated. Maybe I'm wrong and there is not a ramp during build-out.
Quote from: freddo411 on 07/27/2022 05:00 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/27/2022 03:09 pm2016 852017 902018 1142019 1022020 1142021 144A crude exponential fit to this data shows ~2065 as the year with 1000 flightsThe word "exponential" is thrown around with the same carelessness as "orders of magnitude".Also, any process driving current growth is only a few years old.In short - don't try to fit an exponent to historical trends.Instead, look at the constellation plans, assume at least Starlink is going to happen, and you already have an incredible increase in both number of launches and even more so in tonnage to orbit.Whether Vulcan will see any of it in the long run is an open question. I personally doubt it. SMART or so SMART, this will be based on economics.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/27/2022 03:09 pm2016 852017 902018 1142019 1022020 1142021 144A crude exponential fit to this data shows ~2065 as the year with 1000 flights
2016 852017 902018 1142019 1022020 1142021 144
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 07/27/2022 02:25 pmQuote from: deadman1204 on 07/27/2022 02:02 pmWhy is anyone even talking about 1000 flights/uses. Its the height of stupidity, that number is probably around the total number of orbital launches the US has ever done.Because Elon has a vision and he has spoken of this number. Sure, it's crazy, but Elon's crazy visions have actually come true in the past, so maybe this one will too. He has spoken of 1000 restarts for a Raptor, and he has spoken of "thousands" of ships in the Mars fleets, I don't think this would be thousands of reuses for any individual Starship. Logistically, the SH will get the most reuses, because one SH boosts many SS.This is the reuse business case for ULA. Like 2/3 of this board is for spaceX dreams, but not this spot.
People who dismiss the idea out of hand or call it stupid deserve to lose in this market. Too bad, DanClemmensen, that you're repeating the same misreading that deadman is doing.
Quote from: JayWee on 07/27/2022 03:01 pmQuote from: deadman1204 on 07/27/2022 02:02 pmWhy is anyone even talking about 1000 flights/uses. Its the height of stupidity, that number is probably around the total number of orbital launches the US has ever done.If you announced 10 years ago that you want to build a satellite megaconstellation of 30,000 1.25ton satellites, you'd be laughed out too and considered totally crazy. Yet, here we are.Never heard of Teledesic, Iridium and Globalstar ? it all started in June 1990 with Motorola. 32 years ago. Learn your history... Dear Gosh, that thread is really a nest of SpaceX delusions, topped with aggressiveness at anybody who dare to disagree with "Saint Elon" visions.