Total Members Voted: 302
Voting closed: 01/19/2018 12:22 pm
...Of course, the Soviets had decade-long stretches where they would average better than a Soyuz a week (Proton maxed out at 14 in 2000)....
Quote from: david1971 on 12/16/2017 12:45 am...Of course, the Soviets had decade-long stretches where they would average better than a Soyuz a week (Proton maxed out at 14 in 2000)....Soyuz only had one such stretch, from 1975 to 1985. But they did launch at least 23 successfully every year from 1964 to 1993.
I am quite surprised at the early results. The lowest number is... shocking. (you'll have to vote to see what it is).. suggests high confidence in SpaceX ability.
Wonderful, I clicked 12. I thought this was asking about reused core flights...
Quote from: Lar on 12/13/2017 07:32 amI am quite surprised at the early results. The lowest number is... shocking. (you'll have to vote to see what it is).. suggests high confidence in SpaceX ability.Lar, unless they have a major failure in 2018, the 2019 poll is going to look strange unless you have a "less than 12 launches" range as option 1. I mean, the Amos-6 issue was addressed in 3 months, and they've now proven they can launch 12 times in 9 months. Averaging less than one launch a month in 2019 would be a failure by SpaceX standards.
Also, it may be scant comfort but you are not alone with that pick!
I fear a launch failure will happen for a block 5 core.
I think FH is notably riskier but of course has low manifest impact if it fails.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/17/2017 07:08 pmI think FH is notably riskier but of course has low manifest impact if it fails.The big impact will be for Commercial Crew if FH destroys the pad. Probably at least a 6 month delay, if not longer.