An exponential increase is the most natural and obvious one. SpaceX can’t obviously flip a switch and change every single bottleneck of flightrate. It’s ludicrous to think so. Exponential increase is from making a whole bunch of incremental improvements that occur roughly stochastically over the year.And of COURSE a linear function fits a curve if you look at a very short portion of the curve, that’s literally true for basically every smooth (and non-pathological) function!If linear fits so well, then (if you mean linear increase) tell me what year SpaceX had a negative launch rate? Or (as I assume you mean linear cumulative launches) did they have a 100 year launch rate last year, too?To make linear work requires just a bunch of overfitting and piecewise assumptions. It’s a crap model and actually over-complicated, requiring a bunch more assumptions.(A logistical or sigmoidal function I could take more seriously, ie that it would plateau soon… but exponential is just the most simple model.)

In our latest, author and contributor @dwbwriter sits down for an exclusive interview with @SpaceX VP of Falcon Launch Vehicles, Jon Edwards.The past, present, and future of Falcon 9:

Edwards is certain SpaceX can beat their record turnaround time for re-launching a Falcon 9. @elonmusk is pushing for a bigger goal:“Why do we have any refurbishment at all? We shouldn't need any refurbishment. You should just land it and fly it again—fix it so it does that.”

Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/01/2023 02:36 pmAn exponential increase is the most natural and obvious one. SpaceX can’t obviously flip a switch and change every single bottleneck of flightrate. It’s ludicrous to think so. Exponential increase is from making a whole bunch of incremental improvements that occur roughly stochastically over the year.And of COURSE a linear function fits a curve if you look at a very short portion of the curve, that’s literally true for basically every smooth (and non-pathological) function!If linear fits so well, then (if you mean linear increase) tell me what year SpaceX had a negative launch rate? Or (as I assume you mean linear cumulative launches) did they have a 100 year launch rate last year, too?To make linear work requires just a bunch of overfitting and piecewise assumptions. It’s a crap model and actually over-complicated, requiring a bunch more assumptions.(A logistical or sigmoidal function I could take more seriously, ie that it would plateau soon… but exponential is just the most simple model.)Thanks for agreeing with the bolded.Now, defining what "short" is in this case can obviously be up for debate, but you will also agree it should be short enough that trying to linearly fit segments with such lengths yields a much better R (or χ² if you will) than any other function. That's the case for yearly segments, as demonstrated with any moving window average - which is the data xyv is plotting. If you are just interested in overall multi-year cadence (with some saturation cutoff as you imply by the sigmoid), I agree some kind of exponential may be more representative in spite of periods like 2021. But not for yearly periods. No need to get all nasty with "crap" linear regressions.Regarding the italicized statement: a negative slope doesn't imply a negative launch rate as long as it isn't too steep and the initial rate isn't close to zero to begin with. It really isn't hard unless you try to make it so.But you keep ignoring xyv's and Comga's plots. What do you get fitting year-on-year exponentials to that data? You have the numbers... EDIT: Actually never mind, I have done it myself with the 2022 data and standard Excel fitter. Guess I don't really need to report the R value. I don't think we have Comga's data, but I would bet the goodness of fit would be a toss between linear and exponential for that 3-year period too.

You start the exponential curve earlier, not arbitrarily at Jan 1st, FFS. I’ll do it when I get home.It’s like y’all have never done proper curve fitting before.

Every smooth(-ish) function looks linear if you zoom in far enough. That doesn’t make it a good model of how you’d expect growth to work over time. Continuous compounding improvements given you an exponential curve, and that also fits better with SPaceX’s long term launch rate trend.Getting to 100 launches per year while the previous year had 61 launches implies a big improvement in capability for SpaceX. Is it realistic to expect that to happen overnight on January 1st, 2023? Obviously not. It’ll take a series of improvements over time. Launch rate will be lower in the first half of the year than the second probably. That was true for 2022 as well.

Are you going to provide those exponential fits or not?

But an illustration of flight rate improvement over time while you wait: https://twitter.com/EricWollberg/status/1630992258861334546?s=20

At the end of this year they could be hitting a 100 flight per year Candence and still only flight 80-90 flights for the year.I still think they need another ASDS, given weather and payload delays, as well as maintenance required, a 100 flight calendar year requires a near perfect year with their current equipment. Possible, but will really push the limits.