Reuse milestones

[Barley]

Sometime* in 2021 SpaceX reached a milestone of more reuse missions than new booster missions.

*Exactly when depends on how you count Falcon 1, Falcon Heavy, and rockets that did not reach orbit.

[cppetrie]

Sometime* in 2021 SpaceX reached a milestone of more reuse missions than new booster missions.

*Exactly when depends on how you count Falcon 1, Falcon Heavy, and rockets that did not reach orbit.

Also this year were humans launching on both a once used (Crew-2) and twice used (Inspiration4) booster and in a once used capsule (Crew-2 and Inspiration4).

[rocketmaniac000]

What Elon Musk and SpaceX have done to this point is nothing short of amazing! They told him it would be impossible to do this and sure enough he did it!

[su27k]

https://www.spacex.com/launches/index.html

On December 21, 2021, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket launched Dragon on the 24th Commercial Resupply Services (CRS-24) mission for NASA from historic Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at Kennedy Space Center in Florida, completing our 31st and final launch of the year. Dragon separated from Falcon 9’s second stage about twelve minutes after liftoff and will autonomously dock to the space station on Wednesday, December 22.

CRS-24 also marked the 100th recovery of an orbital class rocket booster. SpaceX remains the only launch provider in the world capable of propulsive landing and re-flight of orbital class rockets. While most rockets are expended after launch — akin to throwing away an airplane after a cross-country flight — SpaceX is working toward a future in which reusable rockets are the norm. To date, SpaceX has:

* Launched 138 successful missions;
* Landed first stage rocket boosters 100 times; and
* Reflown boosters 78 times, with flight-proven first stages completing 75 percent of SpaceX’s missions since the first re-flight of a Falcon 9 in 2017.

2021 was particularly impressive, during which the SpaceX team:

* Launched 94 percent of all missions on flight-proven Falcon 9 boosters;
* Safely carried eight astronauts to the International Space Station for NASA, in addition to transporting ~28,000 pounds of critical cargo and scientific research to and from the orbiting laboratory;
* Completed the world’s first all-civilian astronaut mission to orbit, which flew farther from planet Earth than any human spaceflight since the Hubble missions;
* Launched humanity’s first planetary defense test to redirect an asteroid, among other important scientific missions; and
* Deployed more than 800 Starlink satellites to low-Earth orbit which are helping to connect over 150,000 customers and counting around the world with high-speed, low-latency internet.

In the year ahead, SpaceX’s launch cadence will continue to increase, as will the number of flight-proven missions, human spaceflights, Falcon Heavy missions, and people connected with internet by Starlink. We’re also targeting the first orbital flight of Starship, and have resumed development of a lunar lander for NASA that will help return humanity to the Moon, on our way to Mars and beyond.

[su27k]

https://twitter.com/cboldenjr/status/1473291703301947392

Kudos to the entire SpaceX Team for an exceptionally successful year by any measure!  - Charlie B.

https://twitter.com/waynehale/status/1473285005698904069

Congratulations to SpaceX on the landing of the 100th Falcon booster!  I admit being a skeptic when it was announced, now know I was wrong.  SpaceX has disrupted the launch industry and set the reuability standard everyone is emulating.  Remarkable achievement!

https://twitter.com/larsblackmore/status/1473256835859812355

The 100th Falcon landing, on the anniversary of landing #1 no less! Huge credit to the teams that took something that worked *most* of the time a few years ago and made it a normal and reliable part of launch.


Next up is 100% reusability, with Starship

[alugobi]

Not so sure that "everyone" is emulating SX.

[cwr]

The stat I like is that:
1) Turksat 5B was launched by the 78th "previously flown F9 booster and FH cores"
2) CRS24 was launched by B1069 and while half a dozen boosters have left Hawthorn
    for MacGregor since 1069, I don't think 1078 has left Hawthorn yet.

So SpaceX has flown more "previously flown boosters"  than "unflown boosters" on launch
missions.

Carl

[AmigaClone]

The stat I like is that:
1) Turksat 5B was launched by the 78th "previously flown F9 booster and FH cores"
2) CRS24 was launched by B1069 and while half a dozen boosters have left Hawthorn
    for MacGregor since 1069, I don't think 1078 has left Hawthorn yet.

So SpaceX has flown more "previously flown boosters"  than "unflown boosters" on launch
missions.

Carl

As of 21 December 2021, SpaceX has flown 133 orbital Falcon 9, 3 Falcon Heavy, and 5 Falcon 1 missions. Below is the number of each type of first stage flown on an orbital mission. The numbers in the 'New' column are those boosters that were launching for the first time, while the numbers in the 'flown' column are for those boosters that already had flown at least once.

Model	New	Flown	Total
Falcon 1	5	0	5
Falcon 9 v1.0	5	0	5
Falcon 9 v1.1	15	0	15
Falcon 9 Full Thrust	24	12	36
Falcon 9 v1.2 Block 5	16	62	78
Falcon 9 Heavy	5	4	9
Totals	70	78	148

* Falcon 9 Full Thrust - Falcon 9 v1.2 up to block 4
Note that Falcon 9 V1.0 boosters were numbered B0001-B0007. There were six boosters built as pathfinders or test articles and never used in an orbital mission. The two boosters that flew short hops in that group, flew a total of 12 times.

B1028, intended to launch the Amos-6 mission, was destroyed prior to launch.

Edited for clarity.

[CuddlyRocket]

... Below is the number of each type of first stage flown on an orbital mission.

Model	Unflown	Flown	Total
Falcon 1	5	0	5

....

That makes it look like there were five Falcon 1 boosters none of which flew. As that was obviously not the case, I'm guessing that by 'unflown' you mean they had not previously flown before?

[niwax]

I'll add this one from almost precisely a year ago:

In my opinion, this is the week that significant reuse became fully accepted and the operational standard. We had a number of significant events over two launches:

- They flew a customer mission on a seventh flight after having never gone beyond a third flight before. This marks a sudden departure from gradual envelope expansion to a regular commercial fleet.
- NASA as one of their pickiest customers not only flew on a fourth flight after never going over two before, they flew after two demanding missions for other customers.
- Both launches were after (multiple) Starlink missions which so far have been seen as low-risk life-leader experiments. Now those boosters are part of the normal rotation.

And next week the NRO will fly on a fifth flight!

Since then, they have flown almost exclusively reused missions, with a recovery success rate that other launch providers would kill for as their mission success rate and a fleet that has barely increased since that last post.

[AmigaClone]

... Below is the number of each type of first stage flown on an orbital mission.

Model	Unflown	Flown	Total
Falcon 1	5	0	5

....

That makes it look like there were five Falcon 1 boosters none of which flew. As that was obviously not the case, I'm guessing that by 'unflown' you mean they had not previously flown before?

True. I will be changing the description of the second column to 'New' to try to clarify things a bit.

[Norm38]

Crew4 is launching on a -4 booster, twice the previous mark.  Axiom-1 not announced yet.

But that shows a lot of confidence and respect for flown boosters.  And will allow a lot schedule flexibility.

[DanClemmensen]

Crew4 is launching on a -4 booster, twice the previous mark.  Axiom-1 not announced yet.

But that shows a lot of confidence and respect for flown boosters.  And will allow a lot schedule flexibility.

Inspiration 4 launched on B1062.3.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspiration4

[abaddon]

This probably belongs better in the "customer opinions on reuse" thread, but that's locked.  From the SWOT thread:

Related news: NASA has amended the launch contract for the Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) mission.  It will now fly on a flight-proven Falcon 9 booster rather than a new one.

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1512498083350736897

The money quote:

Even though I was always excited about utilizing flown @SpaceX
 boosters on principle and also the impact on mission cost, I have changed my opinion about them slightly: I now PREFER previously used boosters over totally new ones for most science applications.

This was something that was predicted by many on this site to happen at some point, but it's the first time I can recall seeing someone directly involved in a mission giving this opinion.

[alugobi]

Remember all those posts about how it was really, really, I mean really expensive to turn them around, but that they covered it up and had to conspire to charge their customers more?

Or how some ULA peep actually knew how much it cost and why wouldn't anybody here listen to him?

And other dubious rubbish.  Those were fun.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Visualisation of new versus reused boosters

https://twitter.com/renatakonkoly/status/1512495754749026305

A SpaceX launch with a brand new Falcon 9 booster is SUCH a rare sight these days!

[meekGee]

Remember all those posts about how it was really, really, I mean really expensive to turn them around, but that they covered it up and had to conspire to charge their customers more?

Or how some ULA peep actually knew how much it cost and why wouldn't anybody here listen to him?

And other dubious rubbish.  Those were fun.

The good old days.  "Proven" by "statistics", too.

At least those folks learned from that and are taking a more open minded approach when evaluating future vehicles... (/s)

[wannamoonbase]

Visualisation of new versus reused boosters

https://twitter.com/renatakonkoly/status/1512495754749026305

A SpaceX launch with a brand new Falcon 9 booster is SUCH a rare sight these days!

If the trend is your friend, then I love where this is going.  Extrapolate to 2030 and we should have multiple flights per day, LOL!

Can't wait.

[Nomadd]

 It's not exactly reuse, but the record for successful consecutive launches is the R-7 family at 133. (twice)
 Falcon 9 is at 129. Excuse for a party sometime next month.

[su27k]

So B1060 first launch on June 30, 2020, 12th launch on April 21 2022, completed 11 launches in 660 days, with a 60 day average turnaround time.

Comparing to the Space Shuttle, the fastest orbiter to launch 12 times is Endeavour: May 7, 1992 - Jan 22, 1998, 2086 days, which gives an average turnaround time of 190 days.

Just another data point in case someone's wondering which one is more reusable.

[AmigaClone]

It's not exactly reuse, but the record for successful consecutive launches is the R-7 family at 133. (twice)
 Falcon 9 is at 129. Excuse for a party sometime next month.

I would prefer to count consecutive launches since Amos-6 (121 for Falcon 9). The Falcon 9 Family would also include the 3 Falcon Heavy launches.

Since CRS-7 (the only complete launch failure of the Falcon 9 family) there have been 133 consecutive successful launches.

[TrevorMonty]

So B1060 first launch on June 30, 2020, 12th launch on April 21 2022, completed 11 launches in 660 days, with a 60 day average turnaround time.

Comparing to the Space Shuttle, the fastest orbiter to launch 12 times is Endeavour: May 7, 1992 - Jan 22, 1998, 2086 days, which gives an average turnaround time of 190 days.

Just another data point in case someone's wondering which one is more reusable.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Shuttle went to orbit and had to deal with lot higher reentry velocity.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[rpapo]

So B1060 first launch on June 30, 2020, 12th launch on April 21 2022, completed 11 launches in 660 days, with a 60 day average turnaround time.

Comparing to the Space Shuttle, the fastest orbiter to launch 12 times is Endeavour: May 7, 1992 - Jan 22, 1998, 2086 days, which gives an average turnaround time of 190 days.

Just another data point in case someone's wondering which one is more reusable.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Shuttle went to orbit and had to deal with lot higher reentry velocity.

The proper comparison will be Shuttle to Starship.  Once it has had a few launches under it's stainless steel belt, it should be able to best the Shuttle turnaround time quite handily.  Emphasis on that weasel word, "should."

[DanClemmensen]

So B1060 first launch on June 30, 2020, 12th launch on April 21 2022, completed 11 launches in 660 days, with a 60 day average turnaround time.

Comparing to the Space Shuttle, the fastest orbiter to launch 12 times is Endeavour: May 7, 1992 - Jan 22, 1998, 2086 days, which gives an average turnaround time of 190 days.

Just another data point in case someone's wondering which one is more reusable.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Shuttle went to orbit and had to deal with lot higher reentry velocity.

Then the proper comparison would be F9 booster versus the Shuttle SRBs. How long did it take to recover and refurbish an SRB?

[jimvela]

Then the proper comparison would be F9 booster versus the Shuttle SRBs. How long did it take to recover and refurbish an SRB?

And also the cost of refurbishment between them. 
Shuttle SRBs were recovered (which was a great benefit in that they could be inspected), but re-manufactured rather than just "refubished".
I also thought that the total post-flight processing cost of a shuttle SRB back to a flight-ready SRB was actually a bit more expensive than building a brand new one- but that's not from direct knowledge.

[GWH]

After this morning's successful Crew-4 mission launch aboard a Falcon 9 on it's 4th flight SpaceX has now re-flown a total of 93 core stages.

By comparison Atlas V, the second most commonly flown US vehicle in operation has conducted a total of 92 flights.

The Atlas V was first flown in 2002, where as Falcon 9 made its first flight in 2010, first landing in 2015, and first reflight in 2017.

The expendable Atlas V once the golden standard of US launch reliability has now been surpassed in both total and successful flights by reused boosters.

[Hog]

So B1060 first launch on June 30, 2020, 12th launch on April 21 2022, completed 11 launches in 660 days, with a 60 day average turnaround time.

Comparing to the Space Shuttle, the fastest orbiter to launch 12 times is Endeavour: May 7, 1992 - Jan 22, 1998, 2086 days, which gives an average turnaround time of 190 days.

Just another data point in case someone's wondering which one is more reusable.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Shuttle went to orbit and had to deal with lot higher reentry velocity.

Then the proper comparison would be F9 booster versus the Shuttle SRBs. How long did it take to recover and refurbish an SRB?

Great question. IIRC The original shuttle manifest was sold on 62 flights/year or 1.2 flights/week.  Even post STS-51L the manifest was initially 20 or 24 flights/year.

[JayWee]

So B1060 first launch on June 30, 2020, 12th launch on April 21 2022, completed 11 launches in 660 days, with a 60 day average turnaround time.

Comparing to the Space Shuttle, the fastest orbiter to launch 12 times is Endeavour: May 7, 1992 - Jan 22, 1998, 2086 days, which gives an average turnaround time of 190 days.

Just another data point in case someone's wondering which one is more reusable.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Shuttle went to orbit and had to deal with lot higher reentry velocity.

Then the proper comparison would be F9 booster versus the Shuttle SRBs. How long did it take to recover and refurbish an SRB?

That's really apples to oranges. Liquid vs Solid.
In the limit, for a liquid rocket, all you have to do is refuel and go again. An hour maybe.
Solids refueling is inherently much much slower and closer to re-manufacture.

[abaddon]

Not only that, the Shuttle used segmented solids, and segments were routinely mixed and matched.  It’s really tough to use as a point of comparison for these reasons.

[su27k]

So B1060 first launch on June 30, 2020, 12th launch on April 21 2022, completed 11 launches in 660 days, with a 60 day average turnaround time.

Comparing to the Space Shuttle, the fastest orbiter to launch 12 times is Endeavour: May 7, 1992 - Jan 22, 1998, 2086 days, which gives an average turnaround time of 190 days.

Just another data point in case someone's wondering which one is more reusable.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Shuttle went to orbit and had to deal with lot higher reentry velocity.

They're comparable as reusable launch vehicles, it's ok to compare apples with oranges if your aim is to compare fruits. Heck, we even compare Falcon 9 to expendable launch vehicles, so there's nothing wrong with comparison with Shuttle.

It is true that Shuttle picked a more demanding design, this in turn resulted in its longer turnaround time, I'm not denying this, but this doesn't make the comparison invalid, it's sort of the point. Also there're people online (even in this forum) who keep trying to claim Shuttle is "more reusable" than Falcon 9, so it's important to set the record straight, even though you may think this is self evident.

[DanClemmensen]

So B1060 first launch on June 30, 2020, 12th launch on April 21 2022, completed 11 launches in 660 days, with a 60 day average turnaround time.

Comparing to the Space Shuttle, the fastest orbiter to launch 12 times is Endeavour: May 7, 1992 - Jan 22, 1998, 2086 days, which gives an average turnaround time of 190 days.

Just another data point in case someone's wondering which one is more reusable.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Shuttle went to orbit and had to deal with lot higher reentry velocity.

Then the proper comparison would be F9 booster versus the Shuttle SRBs. How long did it take to recover and refurbish an SRB?

That's really apples to oranges. Liquid vs Solid.
In the limit, for a liquid rocket, all you have to do is refuel and go again. An hour maybe.
Solids refueling is inherently much much slower and closer to re-manufacture.

The Technologies are not comparable at all, as you say. However, the functionality is closely comparable, and you were originally objecting to the non-comparable functionality.  Since STS and F9 have different architectures, I think it is best to compare only at the system level.

[freddo411]

So B1060 first launch on June 30, 2020, 12th launch on April 21 2022, completed 11 launches in 660 days, with a 60 day average turnaround time.

Comparing to the Space Shuttle, the fastest orbiter to launch 12 times is Endeavour: May 7, 1992 - Jan 22, 1998, 2086 days, which gives an average turnaround time of 190 days.

Just another data point in case someone's wondering which one is more reusable.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Shuttle went to orbit and had to deal with lot higher reentry velocity.

It's definitely true that the Orbiters are not a direct comparison to the F9 Stage 1.   However, how many reusable, orbital class rockets are there to compare?   Not more than Shuttle and F9 at the moment.

The Shuttle Orbiters were attempting quite a lot;   Using engines that functioned both at sea level and altitude; that ran for roughly 8 minutes, that survived the rigors of reentry, and that could be reused many times (successfully!) and quickly (not successful).    I think comparing and contrasting this with F9 S1 and it's more modest approach is informative.

I love the shuttle as a definitive example that reusable orbital engines are possible.   Shuttle provides a data point (a ceiling) about reusability cost and cadence.   The shuttle also showed that reusable reentry shields are possible, and again provided a data point about reliability and cost.

F9 S1 provides data points about what's possible in reusability cost and cadence over a different operational envelope.   Comparing the two tell us something about which approach may be more cost effective.   

[spacenut]

So B1060 first launch on June 30, 2020, 12th launch on April 21 2022, completed 11 launches in 660 days, with a 60 day average turnaround time.

Comparing to the Space Shuttle, the fastest orbiter to launch 12 times is Endeavour: May 7, 1992 - Jan 22, 1998, 2086 days, which gives an average turnaround time of 190 days.

Just another data point in case someone's wondering which one is more reusable.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Shuttle went to orbit and had to deal with lot higher reentry velocity.

It's definitely true that the Orbiters are not a direct comparison to the F9 Stage 1.   However, how many reusable, orbital class rockets are there to compare?   Not more than Shuttle and F9 at the moment.

The Shuttle Orbiters were attempting quite a lot;   Using engines that functioned both at sea level and altitude; that ran for roughly 8 minutes, that survived the rigors of reentry, and that could be reused many times (successfully!) and quickly (not successful).    I think comparing and contrasting this with F9 S1 and it's more modest approach is informative.

I love the shuttle as a definitive example that reusable orbital engines are possible.   Shuttle provides a data point (a ceiling) about reusability cost and cadence.   The shuttle also showed that reusable reentry shields are possible, and again provided a data point about reliability and cost.

F9 S1 provides data points about what's possible in reusability cost and cadence over a different operational envelope.   Comparing the two tell us something about which approach may be more cost effective.   

One of the biggest problems with the Shuttle was refurbishment of the solid boosters.  It cost as much to refurbish them as buying new ones.  Hindsight is 20-20, but using liquid boosters that were either fly back or land back like the F9 would, I think in the long run, have been cheaper to operate. 

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1520074703183953927

First 50 Falcon 9 launches: 2,832 days. 7 reused first stages.

Next 50 launches: 971 days, 35 reused first stages.

Last 50 launches: 507 days, 47 reused first stages.

Launch 151: Today, on a stage last used three weeks ago.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/04/spacex-makes-progress-on-cadence-and-reuse-as-it-passes-150-launches/

[Hog]

So B1060 first launch on June 30, 2020, 12th launch on April 21 2022, completed 11 launches in 660 days, with a 60 day average turnaround time.

Comparing to the Space Shuttle, the fastest orbiter to launch 12 times is Endeavour: May 7, 1992 - Jan 22, 1998, 2086 days, which gives an average turnaround time of 190 days.

Just another data point in case someone's wondering which one is more reusable.

You are comparing apples with oranges. Shuttle went to orbit and had to deal with lot higher reentry velocity.

It's definitely true that the Orbiters are not a direct comparison to the F9 Stage 1.   However, how many reusable, orbital class rockets are there to compare?   Not more than Shuttle and F9 at the moment.

The Shuttle Orbiters were attempting quite a lot;   Using engines that functioned both at sea level and altitude; that ran for roughly 8 minutes, that survived the rigors of reentry, and that could be reused many times (successfully!) and quickly (not successful).    I think comparing and contrasting this with F9 S1 and it's more modest approach is informative.

I love the shuttle as a definitive example that reusable orbital engines are possible.   Shuttle provides a data point (a ceiling) about reusability cost and cadence.   The shuttle also showed that reusable reentry shields are possible, and again provided a data point about reliability and cost.

F9 S1 provides data points about what's possible in reusability cost and cadence over a different operational envelope.   Comparing the two tell us something about which approach may be more cost effective.   

One of the biggest problems with the Shuttle was refurbishment of the solid boosters.  It cost as much to refurbish them as buying new ones.  Hindsight is 20-20, but using liquid boosters that were either fly back or land back like the F9 would, I think in the long run, have been cheaper to operate.

STS was spec'd with over 60 flights a year.  Big difference in costs between 4 sets of boosters and 60+ sets per year. 

The crewing of those flyback boosters would have problematic.

[AmigaClone]

Not only that, the Shuttle used segmented solids, and segments were routinely mixed and matched.  It’s really tough to use as a point of comparison for these reasons.

History of the segments of the two boosters used in STS-135
https://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts135/fdf/135srbs.pdf

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Current booster fleet status

twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1525679601397252096

#SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy flightworthy boosters as of May 14, 2022

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1525679608833748992

Statistics of #SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy booster missions as of May 14, 2022

Follow up tweet notes that 1057 should also be marked as decommissioned

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/starshipfairing/status/1534644071284752384

Falcon 9 MECO today at 68km altitude and travelling at over 8330km/h, likely the fastest a reusable Falcon 9 booster has ever flown!

Or 2314 m/s …

[Slarty1080]

Talking of reuse milestones, I suspect that the 11th reuse of a Falcon 9 was a bit of a milestone as it pushed the envelope out beyond the original 10 fights before major refurbishment towards the 20-30 range and proved that whatever refurbishment was needed very doable.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1537844931351531521

Our best landing video to date, thanks to Starlink!

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1537845131147190273

And rocket landings are now triple digits

I think Elon means reflights, not landings (which passed 100 a while ago)

[Norm38]

Three launches within 48 hours. All on reused boosters. No scrubs.
They are dialed in.

[Asteroza]

Three launches within 48 hours. All on reused boosters. No scrubs.
They are dialed in.

They only demonstrated salvo capability, which while an important milestone, can easily be a manifest scheduling artifact.

The more critical metrics are pad cycle time, booster refurb cycle time, and current fleet status/size.

If they can do a tripleheader again in 4 weeks time, then that would be impressive. Doing it in 2 weeks would be amazing.

[Lar]

Three launches within 48 hours. All on reused boosters. No scrubs.
They are dialed in.

They only demonstrated salvo capability, which while an important milestone, can easily be a manifest scheduling artifact.

The more critical metrics are pad cycle time, booster refurb cycle time, and current fleet status/size.

If they can do a tripleheader again in 4 weeks time, then that would be impressive. Doing it in 2 weeks would be amazing.

Pad cycle time and booster refurb time seem to be trending generally downward while fleet status/size seems to be growing much more slowly than the number of flights/year.

If they do a tripleheader in 2 weeks time, someone here will be saying "that's nice but what about 1 week time?"

[alugobi]

If they do a tripleheader in 2 weeks time, someone here will be saying "that's nice but what about 1 week time?"

I can think of just the one who will do that.

[Barley]

Three launches within 48 hours. All on reused boosters. No scrubs.
They are dialed in.

They only demonstrated salvo capability, which while an important milestone, can easily be a manifest scheduling artifact.

The more critical metrics are pad cycle time, booster refurb cycle time, and current fleet status/size.

If they can do a tripleheader again in 4 weeks time, then that would be impressive. Doing it in 2 weeks would be amazing.

So far this year SpaceX is launching once per week.  Two tripleheaders 4 weeks apart would be a decrease in tempo.

I hope this and any other triple header is a scheduling artifact.  IMHO and experience aiming for records is a stunt and at least somewhat disruptive to normal operations (e.g. you can often decrease cycle times for a record attempt by deferring maintenance.)

I hope SpaceX concentrates on important metrics such as $/kg, kg/year and useful satellites launched.  The metrics you site may or may not help them.  I hope any records in them are in passing, rather than publicity stunts.

For example the refurb time has a clear tradeoff with the number of rockets.  If skilled labor is the limiting factor it might be better to refurbish 8/5 rather than 24/7 and accept a larger fleet with longer cycle times for each rocket.

[DanClemmensen]

For example the refurb time has a clear tradeoff with the number of rockets.  If skilled labor is the limiting factor it might be better to refurbish 8/5 rather than 24/7 and accept a larger fleet with longer cycle times for each rocket.

For pad turnaround instead of booster turnaround, are all the personnel SpaceX employees and contractors, or are some of them NASA and USSF?  SpaceX may not be able to reduce pad turnaround much.

[wannamoonbase]

For example the refurb time has a clear tradeoff with the number of rockets.  If skilled labor is the limiting factor it might be better to refurbish 8/5 rather than 24/7 and accept a larger fleet with longer cycle times for each rocket.

For pad turnaround instead of booster turnaround, are all the personnel SpaceX employees and contractors, or are some of them NASA and USSF?  SpaceX may not be able to reduce pad turnaround much.

For example the refurb time has a clear tradeoff with the number of rockets.  If skilled labor is the limiting factor it might be better to refurbish 8/5 rather than 24/7 and accept a larger fleet with longer cycle times for each rocket.

For pad turnaround instead of booster turnaround, are all the personnel SpaceX employees and contractors, or are some of them NASA and USSF?  SpaceX may not be able to reduce pad turnaround much.

The ASDS seem to require an 8-9 day cycle time, 7 seems like a stretch.

Now if there was a RTLS on one side of a cycle we might be able to get a better idea on the best pad turn around time.

[Asteroza]

So far this year SpaceX is launching once per week.  Two tripleheaders 4 weeks apart would be a decrease in tempo.

Note this appears to assume tripleheaders occurring regularly, thus a 4 weeks/3 launches (or 8weeks/6 launches) is indeed less than one per week.

But regular tripleheaders is asking for burnout.

Putting that much strain on mission control is probably not healthy without increasing the personnel count. A secondary limiter is how many pad rat teams they have as well. Assuming only one team for each coast, the east coast team gets worked over at double the rate due to servicing two pads. Plus for any ISS missions, the pad rats need to give the white glove treatment.

Spacing it out to one a week implies a 2 week cycle time for west coast, and technically 4 week cycle per pad on the east coast.

That's working towards ideal scenarios as well, since you also have weather issues and range availability to deal with.

[Norm38]

The point I was making wasn't so much that salvo launch was a good thing generally (though it will likely be needed for tanker launch).
But more that they scheduled three launches in 48 hours and kept the schedule.  No glitches, no scrubs (and non-weather scrubs are becoming very rare).
Agreed that no one wants constant salvos.  But if they are necessary (for tankers), they now know how to do it, and are not blocked by technology.  It's a logistics/personnel problem now.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Summary of F9 / FH booster landings (although I think there were 30, not 29, in 2021?)

https://twitter.com/renatakonkoly/status/1546312305394290689

[AmigaClone]

Summary of F9 / FH booster landings (although I think there were 30, not 29, in 2021?)

In 2021 there were 30 successful landings and one failure.

OCISLY (Marmac 304) - 13 successful, 1 failed attempt.
JRTI (Marmac 303)      - 12 successful, 0 failed attempts.
ASOG (Marmac 302)    -  4 successful, 0 failed attempts.

Landing Zone 1            - 1 successful, 0 failed attempts.

In 2022 so far (16 July 2022) there have been 30 successful landings - no failures.

OCISLY (Marmac 304) -  3 successful, 0 failed attempts.
JRTI (Marmac 303)      -  9 successful, 0 failed attempts.
ASOG (Marmac 302)   - 12 successful, 0 failed attempts.

Landing Zone 1            - 3 successful, 0 failed attempts.
Landing Zone 4            - 3 successful, 0 failed attempts.

[Comga]

Here's a milestone:

(snip) SFN launch article.
Falcon 9 rocket deploys SpaceX’s 3,000th Starlink internet satellite, August 10

The article refers to

The Falcon 9’s single-use upper stage...

It's like before mass produced Teslas, when it was rare that anyone referred to "internal combustion engine" or ICE automobiles or even "gas powered cars", because they basically all were.
Rocket reusability is being normalized.

[Robotbeat]

Here's a milestone:

(snip) SFN launch article.
Falcon 9 rocket deploys SpaceX’s 3,000th Starlink internet satellite, August 10

The article refers to

The Falcon 9’s single-use upper stage...

It's like before mass produced Teslas, when it was rare that anyone referred to "internal combustion engine" or ICE automobiles or even "gas powered cars", because they basically all were.
Rocket reusability is being normalized.

It's even more than that. SpaceX now does about 2/3rds the mass to orbit. It's like being transported 25 years into the most TSLA-investor wet dream future when most cars are electric. And Teslas.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Love this chart. SpaceX just completed 40 missions this year and could reach 60

https://twitter.com/renatakonkoly/status/1566642793006731266

...and the 38th mission with a flight-proven booster 🚀

Edit to add:

https://twitter.com/RenataKonkoly/status/1566620003662794753

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Current F9 booster fleet now B1058 has achieved 14 successful flights and landings

https://twitter.com/spacenosey/status/1569049084991881220

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1573843125365342211

Today was the 69th booster recovery in a row since the last landing failure

nice

twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1573843623753515008

To add to this. Falcon 9 landings are now so routine and reliable, they're getting up to points of reliability that some rockets have but launching.

https://twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1573843679156092934

If SpaceX can keep this trend for another year, they may even have more successful landings in a row than more successful launches in a row by any other rocket 😅

[FutureSpaceTourist]

twitter.com/jennyhphoto/status/1575899587239620609

SpaceX currently has a total of 14 active Falcon 9 boosters in Cape Canaveral & Vandenberg.

• B1049-10
• B1051-13
• B1052-7
• B1058-14
• B1060-13
• B1061-10
• B1062-9
• B1063-6
• B1067-6
• B1069-2
• B1071-4
• B1073-4
• B1076-0
• B1077-0

📷: Me for @SuperclusterHQ

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1575901564304244736

It's hard to wrap my mind around there being five reused SpaceX boosters with double digit launch-and-landings.

5 that have done the work of 60!

[john smith 19]

twitter.com/jennyhphoto/status/1575899587239620609

It's hard to wrap my mind around there being five reused SpaceX boosters with double digit launch-and-landings.

5 that have done the work of 60!

It is an impressive achievement. It'll be interesting to see if they do push on to 15 before year's end or give some of the lower launch stages more play. Certainly a couple of them could get there but then how much effort to check them over prior to any further launches?

[DanClemmensen]

twitter.com/jennyhphoto/status/1575899587239620609

It's hard to wrap my mind around there being five reused SpaceX boosters with double digit launch-and-landings.

5 that have done the work of 60!

It is an impressive achievement. It'll be interesting to see if they do push on to 15 before year's end or give some of the lower launch stages more play. Certainly a couple of them could get there but then how much effort to check them over prior to any further launches?

I thought the idea was to intensively inspect one or perhaps two boosters at "age" 15, maybe even tear them down, to learn what really needs to be inspected.  The knowledge gained will tell them how much inspection is needed for the rest, and almost certainly be a small increment over what they are doing already, so this extra work (two teardowns) won't affect the overall launch cadence.

Remember that 1049 is being held in reserve to be expended on the next expendable launch, so it's not in the normal rotation.

[AC in NC]

I thought the idea was to intensively inspect one or perhaps two boosters at "age" 15, maybe even tear them down, to learn what really needs to be inspected.  The knowledge gained will tell them how much inspection is needed for the rest, and almost certainly be a small increment over what they are doing already, so this extra work (two teardowns) won't affect the overall launch cadence.

Remember that 1049 is being held in reserve to be expended on the next expendable launch, so it's not in the normal rotation.

That was the gist of one tweet IIRC.  However there was a subsequent tweet that implied (at least to me) that they felt comfortable pushing through 15 with perhaps regular refurbishment inspections informing when to do an intensive inspection/tear-down

[AmigaClone]

twitter.com/jennyhphoto/status/1575899587239620609

SpaceX currently has a total of 14 active Falcon 9 boosters in Cape Canaveral & Vandenberg.

• B1049-10
• B1051-13
• B1052-7
• B1058-14
• B1060-13
• B1061-10
• B1062-9
• B1063-6
• B1067-6
• B1069-2
• B1071-4
• B1073-4
• B1076-0
• B1077-0

📷: Me for @SuperclusterHQ

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1575901564304244736

It's hard to wrap my mind around there being five reused SpaceX boosters with double digit launch-and-landings.

5 that have done the work of 60!

Of the list above, I can see one or more of 1051, 1058, and 1060 reaching 15 launches this year, but afterwards having an even more intense inspection and refurbishment period that could mean that they would not launch again this year.

B1052 appears to be scheduled to be converted back to a FH side booster for a November FH launch. It is unknown SpaceX's plans for it even if it is recovered successfully.

Booster 1073 also seems to be scheduled to fly as a FH side booster in January 2023. Again it is unknown if it will return to the F9 rotation afterwards.

There are several pairs of FH side boosters - It might be interesting to see which ones will be placed in the F9 rotation.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Current boost fleet status, with 2 now at 14 flights:

twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1578972085791395840

#SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy flightworthy boosters as of Oct 8, 2022

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1578972096289726464

Statistics of #SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy booster missions as of Oct 8, 2022

[deadman1204]

Fun fact, spaceX has now landed more boosters in 2022 than its launched rockets

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Current booster fleet status with B1051 now expended

twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1591637412782166017

#SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy flightworthy boosters as of Nov 12, 2022

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1591637421271445505

Statistics of #SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy booster missions as of Nov 12, 2022

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1595662190920732672

Infographic of all #OCISLY landings

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Last night’s OneWeb launch:

https://twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1601006365123788801

Today's Falcon 9 booster landing was the 80th consecutive successful landing by a Falcon booster since the last landing failure. Hopefully 5 more remaining this month!

[FutureSpaceTourist]

New record use and landing of a booster

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1604230648033673225

And B1058 completes its 15th landing!
youtube.com/watch?v=rtPwZ4…

[Norm38]

5 that have done the work of 60!

I haven’t been keeping track of the launch count this year, just saw the headline of the 60th launch. First congrats to SpaceX. Second, I think it’s safe to say that if SpaceX had to build 60 boosters this year instead of 5, and 540 engines vs 45, they would not be successful.

If the $45 million per booster cost is still accurate, SpaceX this year turned $225 million in hardware into $2.7 billion in revenue. Minus expenses of course. But these were fever dream numbers only a few short years ago.

Well done everyone.

[freddo411]

By my count, there have been 146 Falcon 9 Booster reflights.

This is more than the 129 Shuttle reflights

Falcon 9 is the most reused rocket.   It has done this in a bit over 7 years, compared to the shuttle 's 30 years.

[meekGee]

By my count, there have been 146 Falcon 9 Booster reflights.

This is more than the 129 Shuttle reflights

Falcon 9 is the most reused rocket.   It has done this in a bit over 7 years, compared to the shuttle 's 30 years.

Fan as I am, still though:
- F9 reuse is first stage, Shuttle was second so not really comparable.
- Per vehicle, there's still some catching up to do, even if it were comparable.

Per $ spent though, I think F9 is doing pretty well

[freddo411]

By my count, there have been 146 Falcon 9 Booster reflights.

This is more than the 129 Shuttle reflights

Falcon 9 is the most reused rocket.   It has done this in a bit over 7 years, compared to the shuttle 's 30 years.

Fan as I am, still though:
- F9 reuse is first stage, Shuttle was second so not really comparable.
- Per vehicle, there's still some catching up to do, even if it were comparable.

Per $ spent though, I think F9 is doing pretty well

Yes, definitely not an apples to apples comparison.

SSME's were ignited at launch, so in that sense, the orbiter represents a first stage to be compared with Falcon 9.

Other than the Shuttle, there isn't any other orbital class rocket that has a record of reusability.  I'll be excited when we have other types to compare to.

[edkyle99]

SSME's were ignited at launch, so in that sense, the orbiter represents a first stage to be compared with Falcon 9.

Orbiter was more like a sustainer stage.  Think Atlas sustainer stage, which ignited its lower thrust, higher ISP sustainer engine on the pad and was boosted by the jettison-able Atlas booster package with its two thrust chambers.  Like Shuttle Orbiter, the Atlas sustainer made it all the way to orbit on some missions.

The STS boosters were also reusable, though not as readily or as economically as the Falcon 9 first stage.

Super Heavy/Starship, if successful, looks a lot like the STS system NASA wanted but could not afford.  Starship in this case will fill the roll of the Shuttle Orbiter.  It even weighs about the same.

 - Ed Kyle

[FutureSpaceTourist]

SpaceX ends 2022 with some great reuse stats:

https://twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1608731930190614530

And my favorite stat: 86th successful landing in a row since the last landing failure

RTLS touchdown at LZ-4. Final SpaceX launch of the year and another successful booster landing. 11th complete launch and landing for Falcon 9 B1061.

160 recoveries for Falcon rockets in total.

SpaceX Webcast:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=V0OQfukN-Ec

[UKobserver]

Booster 1062 flew 8 times in 2022! And multiple boosters made 6 flights each...

[AmigaClone]

Edits made 5 January 2023 to fix a couple of issues.

Booster 1062 flew 8 times in 2022! And multiple boosters made 6 flights each...

List of Falcon 9 first stage boosters which flew in 2022.
Booster    # 2022    # total     Status
B1049          01            11        Expended.
B1051          03            14        Expended.
B1052          05            07        Active           FH Side booster converted to F9 
B1058          06            15        Active.
B1060          05            14        Active           Had six launches in 12 months (1 Dec 2021 to 30 Nov 2022).
B1061          06            11        Active.
B1062          08            11        Active.
B1063          05            08        Active           Had six launches in 12 months (20 Nov 2021 to 19 Nov 2022).
B1064          01            01        Active           Launch as FH Side Booster - new 2022.
B1065          01            01        Active           Launch as FH Side Booster - new 2022.
B1066          01            01        Expended    Launch as FH Center Booster - new 2022.
B1067          05            08        Active           Had six launches in 12 months (18 Dec 2021 to 17 Dec 2022).
B1069          03            04        Active.
B1071          06            06        Active           New 2022.
B1073          05            05        Active           Launch as F9 planned conversion to FH side - new 2022.
B1075          01            01        Active           Launch as F9 planned conversion to FH side - new 2022.
B1076          01            01        Active           Launch as F9 planned conversion to FH side - new 2022.
B1077          01            01        Active           New 2022.

As mentioned above B1062 launched 8 times in 2022.

B1058, B1061 and B1071 all launched six times in 2022. While B1060, B1063, and B1067 only launched 5 times in 2022, they launched 6 times within 365 days.

In addition to those boosters noted as 'Active' above, B1053 is an active FH side booster. B1068, B1070, and B1074 are awaiting their launch as FH Center boosters. B1072 is another FH Side booster also awaiting it's launch.B1972 and B1075 are two FH Side boosters also awaiting their first launch.

[freddo411]

Booster 1062 flew 8 times in 2022! And multiple boosters made 6 flights each...

List of Falcon 9 first stage boosters which flew in 2022.
Booster    # 2022    # total     Status
B1049          01            11        Expended.
B1051          03            14        Expended.
B1052          05            07        Active           FH Side booster converted to F9 
B1058          06            15        Active.
B1060          05            14        Active           Had six launches in 12 months (1 Dec 2021 to 30 Nov 2022).
B1061          06            11        Active.
B1062          08            11        Active.
B1063          05            08        Active           Had six launches in 12 months (20 Nov 2021 to 19 Nov 2022).
B1064          01            01        Active           Launch as FH Side Booster - new 2022.
B1065          01            01        Active           Launch as FH Side Booster - new 2022.
B1066          01            01        Expended    Launch as FH Center Booster - new 2022.
B1067          05            08        Active           Had six launches in 12 months (18 Dec 2021 to 17 Dec 2022).
B1069          03            04        Active.
B1071          06            06        Active           New 2022.
B1073          05            05        Active           Launch as F9 planned conversion to FH side - new 2022.
B1075          01            01        Active           Launch as F9 planned conversion to FH side - new 2022.
B1076          01            01        Active           Launch as F9 planned conversion to FH side - new 2022.

As mentioned above B1062 launched 8 times in 2022.

B1058, B1061 and B1071 all launched six times in 2022. While B1060, B1063, and B1067 only launched 5 times in 2022, they launched 6 times within 365 days.

In addition to those boosters noted as 'Active' above, B1053 is an active FH side booster. B1068, B1070, and B1074 are awaiting their launch as FH Center boosters. B1072 is another FH Side booster also awaiting it's launch.

That's quite the fleet of boosters.   

SpaceX clearly has:
* a regular 2 month refurb cadence (launch to launch)
* a large enough booster fleet,  recovery fleet and pads
* a sufficient second stage production line cadence

These add up to the ability to launch at least once per week on a regular sustained basis

[abaddon]

Don’t forget PLF reuse!

[Hog]

Don’t forget PLF reuse!

PLF=Payload Launch Firing Fairing?

Edit:Missed the "a" thanks abaddon

[abaddon]

Faring, yes.

[Hog]

Faring, yes.

Ha, we Both typo'd.

[Robotbeat]

By my count, there have been 146 Falcon 9 Booster reflights.

This is more than the 129 Shuttle reflights

Falcon 9 is the most reused rocket.   It has done this in a bit over 7 years, compared to the shuttle 's 30 years.

Fan as I am, still though:
- F9 reuse is first stage, Shuttle was second so not really comparable.
- Per vehicle, there's still some catching up to do, even if it were comparable.

Per $ spent though, I think F9 is doing pretty well

The reason they haven’t done as many flights per airframe as Shuttle, though, is partly because they have a huge booster fleet. I think the fact that SpaceX has a huge fleet of F9 boosters because they’re also pretty cheap counts as a win. I don’t see any obvious technical thing preventing each booster from flying just as many times as each orbiter did, except that the fleet of boosters is huge (which again is a point in favor of F9 enabled by the low upfront cost, not against it) and they’re likely going to transition most launches to Starship before reaching 40 launches per booster.

[StarshipTrooper]

That's quite the fleet of boosters.   

SpaceX clearly has:
* a regular 2 month refurb cadence (launch to launch)
* a large enough booster fleet,  recovery fleet and pads
* a sufficient second stage production line cadence

These add up to the ability to launch at least once per week on a regular sustained basis

The stated goal for the upcoming year is 100 launches. So approximately twice a week. I wonder what needs to expand to allow an almost doubling of cadence?

[Robotbeat]

A consistent max launch rate from all 3 launch sites would do it. So more launches from Vandenberg, likely.

[DanClemmensen]

How much additional pad time does each FH launch take? Apparently, LC-39A must be reconfigured from F9 to FH and then reconfigured back to F9. 2022 launches were:
      30  CCSFS, SLC-40
      18  KSC, LC-39A
      13  VSFB, SLC-4E

For example using made-up numbers, if a conversion takes an extra week and the usual pad turnaround is about two weeks, then an FH will count as two F9s for pad occupancy. There are four FH on the 2023 manifest, so they will need to account for the equivalent of roughly 4 additional F9 launched of pad occupancy time.

Of course Elon's "100 launches" probably include 5 SS from Boca Chica.

[Robotbeat]

They could also potentially do 2 Falcon Heavies back to back at the Cape (or close to it, as there’s not necessarily enough room in the HIF for two), which may take less conversion time.

[meekGee]

By my count, there have been 146 Falcon 9 Booster reflights.

This is more than the 129 Shuttle reflights

Falcon 9 is the most reused rocket.   It has done this in a bit over 7 years, compared to the shuttle 's 30 years.

Fan as I am, still though:
- F9 reuse is first stage, Shuttle was second so not really comparable.
- Per vehicle, there's still some catching up to do, even if it were comparable.

Per $ spent though, I think F9 is doing pretty well

The reason they haven’t done as many flights per airframe as Shuttle, though, is partly because they have a huge booster fleet. I think the fact that SpaceX has a huge fleet of F9 boosters because they’re also pretty cheap counts as a win. I don’t see any obvious technical thing preventing each booster from flying just as many times as each orbiter did, except that the fleet of boosters is huge (which again is a point in favor of F9 enabled by the low upfront cost, not against it) and they’re likely going to transition most launches to Starship before reaching 40 launches per booster.

Agreed.  They just haven't yet, and the discussion was about milestones achieved.

And probably F9 will retire without breaking STS records, unless you normalize per $...

Starship will though, by orders of magnitude, well within the decade.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

With the successful re-flights of FH side boosters on USSF-67, here’s are the current booster reuse stats:

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1614867337982754817

Statistics of #SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy booster missions as of Jan 15, 2023

[wannamoonbase]

updated Jan 8
Spaceflight Now
Starlink 2-6
Late January
SLC-4E

Looks like they might just be able to squeeze in 3 Starlink missions at all 3 pads.  If 5-2, 2-6, and 5-3 all launch in January, that would put them on pace for 97 missions

I think the rolling 'On pace for X launches in 2023' is going to be one of the most interesting things to follow this year.

Starship is the big one of course, but 100 F9 flights on it's own would be a revolution.

[DanClemmensen]

updated Jan 8
Spaceflight Now
Starlink 2-6
Late January
SLC-4E

Looks like they might just be able to squeeze in 3 Starlink missions at all 3 pads.  If 5-2, 2-6, and 5-3 all launch in January, that would put them on pace for 97 missions

I think the rolling 'On pace for X launches in 2023' is going to be one of the most interesting things to follow this year.

Starship is the big one of course, but 100 F9 flights on it's own would be a revolution.

I think the actual Elon quote was for "100 launches", not 100 F9 launches. 100 launches may include 5 Starship launches from Boca Chica, and also includes FH launches, which you may or may not call "F9 launches".

Rumor has it that SpaceX only has authorization for 60 launches from Florida (KSC+CCSFS). 100 launches would therefore require 35 from Vandenberg, and this is highly unlikely.   We would expect to see SpaceX request permission for more Florida launches. The Florida range has reported that it expects to support 87 launches this year for all rockets. If SpaceX launches more than 60 of them The other launch companies begin to be squeezed out.

[abaddon]

The Florida range has reported that it expects to support 87 launches this year for all rockets. If SpaceX launches more than 60 of them The other launch companies begin to be squeezed out.

Seems unlikely.  ULA has a big Vulcan manifest but is likely to get one or maybe two launches this year, let's call it two.  They also have four Atlas V launches, plus a bunch of Atlas V Kuiper launches that are unlikely to contribute much if anything this year.  Let's be generous and say they get two Kuiper launches in this year, so call that six Atlas Vs.  Throw in one Delta IV Heavy and you have a reasonable estimate of a maximum of nine launches from ULA this year.  That leaves the Terran 1 maiden flight to bring us to 10, and maybe one extra Terran 1 launch if all goes well so that would take us to 11.  That's a pretty optimistic view, a more conservative view would have zero Kuiper launches this year, one Vulcan launch, one Terran launch, so more in the range of seven total non-SpaceX flights from Florida.

It's likely that SpaceX can't pull off more than 60 launches from Florida for a variety of other reasons, so I think it's unlikely to happen anyway.  If they somehow did, it doesn't seem like other launches would be "squeezed out" as there really aren't much in the way of other launches this year.   In fact, it's much more likely that protracted maiden launch campaigns for Terran 1 and Vulcan (as well as the possibility of Delta IV Heavy being a pad queen as we have seen in the past) squeeze SpaceX down below the 60 launch threshold than the other way around.

[alugobi]

Musk said it, and they're probably not going to hit that number, so you have two reasons for the inevitable gratuitous criticism that's surely to follow at year's end.

[crandles57]

Looks like they might just be able to squeeze in 3 Starlink missions at all 3 pads.  If 5-2, 2-6, and 5-3 all launch in January, that would put them on pace for 97 missions

How did you work out 97?
8*12=96
8/31*365=94

Edit: maybe it was 8/4.3*52?

[DanClemmensen]

The Florida range has reported that it expects to support 87 launches this year for all rockets. If SpaceX launches more than 60 of them The other launch companies begin to be squeezed out.

Seems unlikely.  ULA has a big Vulcan manifest but is likely to get one or maybe two launches this year, let's call it two.  They also have four Atlas V launches, plus a bunch of Atlas V Kuiper launches that are unlikely to contribute much if anything this year.  Let's be generous and say they get two Kuiper launches in this year, so call that six Atlas Vs.  Throw in one Delta IV Heavy and you have a reasonable estimate of a maximum of nine launches from ULA this year.  That leaves the Terran 1 maiden flight to bring us to 10, and maybe one extra Terran 1 launch if all goes well so that would take us to 11.  That's a pretty optimistic view, a more conservative view would have zero Kuiper launches this year, one Vulcan launch, one Terran launch, so more in the range of seven total non-SpaceX flights from Florida.

It's likely that SpaceX can't pull off more than 60 launches from Florida for a variety of other reasons, so I think it's unlikely to happen anyway.  If they somehow did, it doesn't seem like other launches would be "squeezed out" as there really aren't much in the way of other launches this year.   In fact, it's much more likely that protracted maiden launch campaigns for Terran 1 and Vulcan (as well as the possibility of Delta IV Heavy being a pad queen as we have seen in the past) squeeze SpaceX down below the 60 launch threshold than the other way around.

Thanks! By your math, the range would expect 11 non-SpaceX launches, so be can naively compute that they expect 76 SpaceX launches and by inference SpaceX will get permission for those extra 16 launches. Please note that this is based on basically nothing except a single statement from the range officer plus lots of uninformed speculation by me. Now we can throw in some extreme optimism and assume 5 from BC. This would still require 19 from Vandenberg, which still seems aggressive: a launch every 19 days on average.

This all seems like an Elon fantasy, but who knows? 61 launches in 2022 seemed unreachable.

How will we know if/when SpaceX gets permission for the extra 16 Florida launches? If I recall correctly the 60-launch limit was in a document filed with the FAA. If so, I hope a competent NSF denizen will notice and tell us if a new filing occurs.

[crandles57]

Thanks! By your math, the range would expect 11 non-SpaceX launches, so be can naively compute that they expect 76 SpaceX launches and by inference SpaceX will get permission for those extra 16 launches. Please note that this is based on basically nothing except a single statement from the range officer plus lots of uninformed speculation by me. Now we can throw in some extreme optimism and assume 5 from BC. This would still require 19 from Vandenberg, which still seems aggressive: a launch every 19 days on average.

This all seems like an Elon fantasy, but who knows? 61 launches in 2022 seemed unreachable.

How will we know if/when SpaceX gets permission for the extra 16 Florida launches? If I recall correctly the 60-launch limit was in a document filed with the FAA. If so, I hope a competent NSF denizen will notice and tell us if a new filing occurs.

Well the Feb 2020 environmental assessment did its computations with 60 F9 and 10 FH. So if they do 5 FH then it isn't clear whether they are allowed 60 F9 plus 5FH or if they can say F9 is less emissions etc than FH so they can do 65 F9 plus 5FH.
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/environmental/nepa_docs/SpaceX_Falcon_Program_Final_EA_and_FONSI.pdf
So it is maybe only 11 extra and maybe only 6 extra.

I am not certain how closely this is bound into getting their launch licences. Basically I have no idea if it is simple for SpaceX to present an argument basically saying more launches = more satellites and mass launched to orbit = more useful stuff and therefore more benefits to society so if it was worth it before to do lower number, it is still worth it to do more launches and get this accepted so they continue to get their launch licences.

If 70 launches from Florida didn't look like significant emissions that needed further investigation, then the numbers for 80 launches probably don't look like significantly more.

[DanClemmensen]

Thanks! By your math, the range would expect 11 non-SpaceX launches, so be can naively compute that they expect 76 SpaceX launches and by inference SpaceX will get permission for those extra 16 launches. Please note that this is based on basically nothing except a single statement from the range officer plus lots of uninformed speculation by me. Now we can throw in some extreme optimism and assume 5 from BC. This would still require 19 from Vandenberg, which still seems aggressive: a launch every 19 days on average.

This all seems like an Elon fantasy, but who knows? 61 launches in 2022 seemed unreachable.

How will we know if/when SpaceX gets permission for the extra 16 Florida launches? If I recall correctly the 60-launch limit was in a document filed with the FAA. If so, I hope a competent NSF denizen will notice and tell us if a new filing occurs.

Well the Feb 2020 environmental assessment did its computations with 60 F9 and 10 FH. So if they do 5 FH then it isn't clear whether they are allowed 60 F9 plus 5FH or if they can say F9 is less emissions etc than FH so they can do 65 F9 plus 5FH.
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/environmental/nepa_docs/SpaceX_Falcon_Program_Final_EA_and_FONSI.pdf
So it is maybe only 11 extra and maybe only 6 extra.

I am not certain how closely this is bound into getting their launch licences. Basically I have no idea if it is simple for SpaceX to present an argument basically saying more launches = more satellites and mass launched to orbit = more useful stuff and therefore more benefits to society so if it was worth it before to do lower number, it is still worth it to do more launches and get this accepted so they continue to get their launch licences.

If 70 launches from Florida didn't look like significant emissions that needed further investigation, then the numbers for 80 launches probably don't look like significantly more.

SpaceX: "Gee officer, I figured that one FH is equivalent to three F9 boosters, so that's 5 FH plus 75 F9, right?"
EPA: "Tell it to the judge!"

More seriously, It they must re-open the EA, a lot of knee-jerk SpaceX haters get a chance to raise objections.

[crandles57]

SpaceX: "Gee officer, I figured that one FH is equivalent to three F9 boosters, so that's 5 FH plus 75 F9, right?"
EPA: "Tell it to the judge!"

More seriously, It they must re-open the EA, a lot of knee-jerk SpaceX haters get a chance to raise objections.

 
Yeah but ... they haven't launched it, just asked for a launch licence for the 61st F9 launch and if they then get that launch licence then launch is approved and licenced by the government? 

[litton4]

Are they up to 200 F9 launches yet?

or would the 200 figure that has been mentioned recently include FH, so 195? F9 + 5 FH?

[rpapo]

Are they up to 200 F9 launches yet?

or would the 200 figure that has been mentioned recently include FH, so 195? F9 + 5 FH?

FWIW, Wikipedia says the next launch will be #200.  That includes FH, but not F1.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Actually the next F9 launch is the 200th F9 launch excluding FH. But that includes the Dragon IFA test, so need another launch after that for 200 F9 orbital launches (and another after that for 200 successes, given the CRS-7 failure).

To get back on topic, the last 95 booster landing attempts have all been successful (FH flights count as two, as centre cores were deliberately expended). So next month will hopefully see the 100th consecutive successful booster landing.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

A nice snapshot of the F9 booster fleet now and two years ago

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1627244723118145537

2 years difference

[Robotbeat]

Musk said it, and they're probably not going to hit that number, so you have two reasons for the inevitable gratuitous criticism that's surely to follow at year's end.

They said 60 last year and got to 61, more than 99% of what poll voters on this SpaceX-friendly site voted for.

I expected 37.

I don’t think 100 is out of the picture at all. If they need to get additional approvals, then that’s what they’ll do.

[alugobi]

60 and 61 were December 28 and 29. 

They might get 100, if all the stars and payloads line up.  Still, 40 more will be remarkable.  It's not being critical to be wary of this particular prediction. 

Whatever it is, numbers don't really matter; they're the launch leader and their service has settled into a reliable, dependable, capable state of affairs that is the envy of the competition. 

[Robotbeat]

60 and 61 were December 28 and 29. 

They might get 100, if all the stars and payloads line up.  Still, 40 more will be remarkable.  It's not being critical to be wary of this particular prediction. 

Whatever it is, numbers don't really matter; they're the launch leader and their service has settled into a reliable, dependable, capable state of affairs that is the envy of the competition.

So far this year, they're on track for 85 Falcon launches. If they increase their overall launch rate by a small amount, they'll beat 100 this year.

Again, I was wary of 60. Very wary. I was proven very wrong. We're in the exponential part of the growth curve for launch rates, or at least not yet at a plateau. F9 (and Falcon Heavy, which is starting to become a regular thing) has not stopped growing in launch rate. Starship will almost certainly get 2 orbital flight attempts this year, and 5 is not out of the question. (We have B7 complete, B9 with SN25 nearly complete, and B10 nearing completion, with parts for B11 and B12 and B13 and even B14 already spotted... and this assumes no recovery.)

I wouldn't say the odds are like 90% or even necessarily over 50%... But we were basically all dismissive of 60 in 2022, and this would be a smaller relative growth rate than 2021 (32 launches) to 2022 (61).

[niwax]

60 and 61 were December 28 and 29. 

They might get 100, if all the stars and payloads line up.  Still, 40 more will be remarkable.  It's not being critical to be wary of this particular prediction. 

Whatever it is, numbers don't really matter; they're the launch leader and their service has settled into a reliable, dependable, capable state of affairs that is the envy of the competition.

So far this year, they're on track for 85 Falcon launches. If they increase their overall launch rate by a small amount, they'll beat 100 this year.

Again, I was wary of 60. Very wary. I was proven very wrong. We're in the exponential part of the growth curve for launch rates, or at least not yet at a plateau. F9 (and Falcon Heavy, which is starting to become a regular thing) has not stopped growing in launch rate. Starship will almost certainly get 2 orbital flight attempts this year, and 5 is not out of the question. (We have B7 complete, B9 with SN25 nearly complete, and B10 nearing completion, with parts for B11 and B12 and B13 and even B14 already spotted... and this assumes no recovery.)

I wouldn't say the odds are like 90% or even necessarily over 50%... But we were basically all dismissive of 60 in 2022, and this would be a smaller relative growth rate than 2021 (32 launches) to 2022 (61).

There are a lot of interesting breadcrumbs to follow here. For example, the top 5 pad turnarounds are now firmly at 60/year *from the same pad*, and two of those happened in the first 40 days of this year. Regardless of the actual number this year, they will demonstrate an astounding capability. If nothing else, in finding some $4 billion of yearly business on a $800 million rocket, never mind Starlink.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Current booster fleet status

twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1637519830772330496

#SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy flightworthy boosters as of Mar 17, 2023

https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1637519835054723075

Statistics of #SpaceX's #Falcon9 & #FalconHeavy booster missions as of Mar 17, 2023