SpaceX Beer Bet Tracker

[dcporter]

Public notice served, and a place to tally SpaceX's long-term progress towards reusability and market growth.

It all started here:

That is nonsense. 
And get ready to be disappointed.  The dead end method is likely the only viable method.   If the GSE can't support routine and rapid launches, don't expect the reused flight hardware to be any different.

I feel like there's a friendly case-of-beer-in-ten-years bet that I want to make here.

Jim always serves up a nice counterpoint to the rampant optimism around these boards, but I like to make predictions stick. So I've bet him a 24-case of beer against a bottle of vodka that SpaceX will fly 48 or more missions – an average of 4 per month – on reused rockets in 2024. Expendable rockets don't count, and neither do first-time-flying ones.

If they don't execute that, then they've likely fallen well short of Elon's goals and our hopes. Jim, public shake? (Edit: Shook.)

I'll bump this thread every year until 2024 and then we'll tally that year and see. So, everybody go join L2 so Chris can keep the site running for the next decade!



Lar and Hernalt have agreed to one of their own:

Lar. Cleaned it up. Hopefully no language, all math. I go with FH means 3 cores. Any ONE core delay can delay two additional. How does this look? For all years prior to 2025:
X * 1 core* (F9 + derivatives + variants) + Y * 1 core* (F9R + derivatives + variants) + Z * 3 core * (FH + derivatives + variants) < 24 / year.

Done. If at any time that formula exceeds 24, you owe me a bottle of 15 year or older single malt, you can pick the particular malt and vintage. If for all years prior to 2025 it never does, I owe you the same,  except that I can pick[1]

1 - this is to prevent the selection of some exceedingly pricey ones that I just can't afford.. for example this one
http://www.thewhiskyexchange.com/P-16442.aspx is 350 pounds! Too rich for me.

Shaken upon.


Lar has bet that Dragon will leave LEO with people in it before Orion does so. mheney has accepted that bet in a most gentlemanly manner. The handshake was laden with symbolism. (Lar is willing to take that bet from four other people, by the way, if there are any takers.)


Robotbeat and Peter.Colin have (a heavily local) one regarding pyrotechnics on FH's first launch:

How likely is the chance of failure if you make this statement?
I would bet money it fails

www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-bz-ap-spacex-falcon-heavy-fail-risk-20170719-story.html

Okay, I'll take that bet. Easy peasy. $10, in the form of a beverage of the winner's choice, must be redeemed in person.

Good! if the first Falcon Heavy doesn't explode (when the engines are burning) you get a $10 beverage at my place (Belgium)  and vice versa.

Robotbeat and I spun one up on Twitter at 6-to-12 odds that SpaceX will shut down F9 booster production by EOY 2018. (Not counting 2nd stages obviously, and not counting FH cores.)

Start: https://twitter.com/Robotbeat/status/898357597945954304
Odds: https://twitter.com/davecporter/status/898398397337526272
Caveat: https://twitter.com/Robotbeat/status/898398638958723072
Handshake: https://twitter.com/davecporter/status/898399581574012928


Roy_H and Lars have a long-odds one, on whether a Falcon Heavy with a Raptor upper stage will fly before 2020:

First time I've read this amusing thread. I would like to create a bet myself. But first conditions. I bet on my end a dinner & drink(s) out to a bar/restaurant of your choice where we go together and I pay $50 of your tab. You see I want to pay my bet in person and if I loose I get to spend an evening talking with a fellow space enthusiast. Also assuming there are more than 3 takers that the bet is limited to 3 and I get to choose who I take the bets up with. Payment will not be immediate as I will have to schedule a vacation to your area. If I win I will still go to that restaurant with you only you pay up to $50 for my bill.

On to the bet. I believe SpaceX will build and fly at least one Raptor powered second stage on a Falcon Heavy before Jan 1, 2020. I expect lots of takers, I know this is definitely a long shot.

You should clarify whether any Raptor-powered orbital vehicle mounted on top of the Falcon's first stage counts.

Just to make sure that if that hypothetical vehicle is not a classical "second stage" but rather an integrated vehicle, the outcome of the bet is unambiguous.

I hadn't thought of that. If you are talking about an integrated second stage and orbital vehicle then yes it would count. I've been told (mostly by Jim) that supplying methane for second stage at 39A is not possible. Trying to get clarification on why has no response, I assume it has to do with TEL possibly no room for extra pipes. I look at the TEL and I think, my god this is huge! and can't imagine insufficient space.

If a FH launched with a conventional RP-1 second stage but the payload was something methalox powered and Raptor engined, would that count as a win ( built and flew at least one Raptor second stage) or a loss (it technically isn't a second stage, unlike an integrated vehicle) under the revised terms of this bet? If it's a loss, I'd take on one of these 3 bets, as I don't see SpaceX doing a real Raptor S2 for F9 or FH, ever.  If it's a win, pass, as I could see them doing this for test purposes.

Well, it seems I have at least one taker. Yes I mean a true methalox fueled Raptor upper stage, not just a payload with a raptor test engine.

[wannamoonbase]

Are you betting on just the first stage or both stages and Dragon?

Reusing boosters seems reasonable, not sure the second stage will get there.

10 years is a long time, and over that length of time you are betting more that there is a market large enough for 48 missions than you are on whether SpaceX can reuse a first stage.

[Jim]

[Lar]

That looks like a shake to me!

Which one are you, Jim? That fella on the right looks like the sort of gator I'd rather not meet at night!

[PahTo]

LOL!  Lessee--who's Godzilla in this pic/bet?

[kirghizstan]

bad bet, there is no way F9R is flying that much if at all in 10 years.  they are moving on to bigger better things.  you might as well buy Jim his 24 beers now

[Lar]

bad bet, there is no way F9R is flying that much if at all in 10 years.  they are moving on to bigger better things.  you might as well buy Jim his 24 beers now

I'm definitely willing to bet that F9R or a derivation/variant (that is, current core size, not a BFR core, Kerolox fueled using a Merlin 1D or descendant, not Raptor) is still flying missions 10 years from now... maybe not as many as 24 a year, but some.  Are you willing to take the other side of that, that is, no missions at all? PM me and we can work out bet details and I'll modify this post to reflect them.

Actually I am willing to take that bet with anyone, not just kirghizstan, for a case of beer or a bottle of single malt or vodka or bourbon, winners choice. Up to 5 takers... your side of the bet is that nothing F9 based is flying in 2024... you win if SpaceX goes out of business, or if they move on completely.

[dror]

Are you betting on just the first stage or both stages and Dragon?

Reusing boosters seems reasonable, not sure the second stage will get there.

And what about Falcon Heavy?
Will it count as one (one mission), two ( boosters) or as three (cores)?

[Robert Thompson]

{I'll bet a single malt that a F9, or its derivation/variant, or F9R first stage, or its derivation/variant, will not have a manifest or flight rate of 24 in the year 2024, nor will it have achieved or exceeded 24 in the years prior to 2024. FH = 3* F9 or 3*F9R. I pay first taker in the first year that count (F9 + F9R + FH/3) = 24.}

[Mongo62]

I notice that the bet just says "reused rockets". Nothing about Falcon 9R or even kerolox engines. So reused methalox rockets would be included. In ten years, these might have taken over the market, or at least be in advanced development (keeping in mind that other businesses with reusable rockets might have emerged by then too).

[mheney]

[Jim]

bad bet, there is no way F9R is flying that much if at all in 10 years.  they are moving on to bigger better things.  you might as well buy Jim his 24 beers now

Titan IV 1989-2005
Delta II 1989-2015
Atlas II  1991-2004
Delta IV 2003 - 202?
Atlas V  2002 - 202?

Spacex has to fund their bigger & better things.  They can't start building and operating the followons without an revenue stream

[Hyperion5]

bad bet, there is no way F9R is flying that much if at all in 10 years.  they are moving on to bigger better things.  you might as well buy Jim his 24 beers now

Titan IV 1989-2005
Delta II 1989-2015
Atlas II  1991-2004
Delta IV 2003 - 202?
Atlas V  2002 - 202?

Spacex has to fund their bigger & better things.  They can't start building and operating the followons without an revenue stream

The Falcon 9 family dying out is not an inevitability anyways.  There is a good chance it'll keep evolving much like the R7 rocket family has since it started flying back in 1957.  That family is nearing 60 years old now, and near as I can tell it should easily reach 70.  Why go to the expense of "bigger and better" when you can merely improve what you already have?  It's worked for the Russians. 

[Robotbeat]

I think I have a beer bet for Jim for 2015 that SpaceX would fly more than ULA, but I can't remember the details. Jim has a better than even chance of winning the bet.

[Lar]

{I'll bet a single malt that a F9, or its derivation/variant, or F9R first stage, or its derivation/variant, will not have a manifest or flight rate of 24 in the year 2024, nor will it have achieved or exceeded 24 in the years prior to 2024. FH = 3* F9 or 3*F9R. I pay first taker in the first year that count (F9 + F9R + FH/3) = 24.}

Shouldn't that formula multiply FH by 3 to account for 3 cores used? With that correction I'd take the bet. (that at some point prior to 2024 end of year, the number of cores flown will be 24 or more)

[mme]

It just struck me this is win-win for Jim. He either gets booze, or an endless supply of rocket launches.

[Robert Thompson]

Yup. The sum of F9 (single core) + F9R (single core) + [(FH = 3 cores) / 3] will not reach 24 in or before 2024. So 1 FH + 21 cores or 2 FH + 18 cores or 3 FH + 15 cores, etc, = 750 mL 15+ year single malt scotch. I believe that is civilized.

[Lar]

Yup. The sum of F9 (single core) + F9R (single core) + [(FH = 3 cores) / 3] will not reach 24 in or before 2024. So 1 FH + 21 cores or 2 FH + 18 cores or 3 FH + 15 cores, etc, = 750 mL 15+ year single malt scotch. I believe that is civilized.

I am keen to take the bet but I still think your formula is wrong.  Suppose[1] in 2021 they launch 9 FHs and NOTHING else  ... then your formula is 0 F9 + 0 F9R + (9 FH / 3) = 3 and I lose.  I think the answer should be that they launched 27 cores and I win. (9 FH * 3 ) = 27

1 - hypothetically. We know they aren't going to do this but I want easy math....

[Jim]

One FH is one mission.  Number of cores is irrelevant

[Lar]

One FH is one mission.  Number of cores is irrelevant

I'm betting about cores in my offers (yours may be structured differnently) But it sounds like while you would not multiply by three, you at least would not divide by three.

[Lee Jay]

SpaceX can't predict their launch tempo 1 hour in advance and you're predicting it 10 years in advance?m

[Lar]

SpaceX can't predict their launch tempo 1 hour in advance and you're predicting it 10 years in advance?m

Sounds like you should be putting some beer on the line then, easy money.

[Darkseraph]

I'm sure in the post-apocalyptic future of 2024, alcohol is a super valuable currency for all things and this bet will make someone rich (relatively)

[Lee Jay]

SpaceX can't predict their launch tempo 1 hour in advance and you're predicting it 10 years in advance?m

Sounds like you should be putting some beer on the line then, easy money.

I've also never figured out why people bet (or offer to repay debts with) alcohol.

[meekGee]

SpaceX can't predict their launch tempo 1 hour in advance and you're predicting it 10 years in advance?m

That's obviously a lot easier.

I can't tell you how many hairs will fall off my head tomorrow, but I have a fair idea where things will stand in 10 years.

All these current delays are completely irrelevant in the 10 year view.

[Lar]

SpaceX can't predict their launch tempo 1 hour in advance and you're predicting it 10 years in advance?m

Sounds like you should be putting some beer on the line then, easy money.

I've also never figured out why people bet (or offer to repay debts with) alcohol.

Because it's fun. And maybe perceived as manly? I dunno... (although it is a sausage fest in here)

I'll bet you LEGO instead if you like

[wannamoonbase]

SpaceX can't predict their launch tempo 1 hour in advance and you're predicting it 10 years in advance?m

Sounds like you should be putting some beer on the line then, easy money.

I've also never figured out why people bet (or offer to repay debts with) alcohol.

Or why they fly cheese in cargo spacecraft.

[Lee Jay]

SpaceX can't predict their launch tempo 1 hour in advance and you're predicting it 10 years in advance?m

Sounds like you should be putting some beer on the line then, easy money.

I've also never figured out why people bet (or offer to repay debts with) alcohol.

Because it's fun. And maybe perceived as manly? I dunno... (although it is a sausage fest in here)

I'll bet you LEGO instead if you like

Around 1 in 3 adults in the US don't drink alcohol at all.  I'm one of them and I don't gamble either.

[Robotbeat]

It settles arguments without endless debate.

[go4mars]

Around 1 in 3 adults in the US don't drink alcohol at all.

Probably even higher in Utah.  While the elderly and prisoners skew that statistic, I'm not sure I qualify as a gambler either.  My space-themed T-shirt bet is a win for me no matter the outcome.  I get to use someone as a billboard for a pro-space message of some kind if I lose.  If I win, I get a new space-themed T-shirt.  Is that really gambling?

[dcporter]

Around 1 in 3 adults in the US don't drink alcohol at all.

Probably even higher in Utah.  While the elderly and prisoners skew that statistic, I'm not sure I qualify as a gambler either.  My space-themed T-shirt bet is a win for me no matter the outcome.  I get to use someone as a billboard for a pro-space message of some kind if I lose.  If I win, I get a new space-themed T-shirt.  Is that really gambling?

Similar. I've learned enough from Jim round these parts to feel good about sending him a bottle of the happy-juice if things don't go my way.

[Lar]

My space-themed T-shirt bet is a win for me no matter the outcome.  I get to use someone as a billboard for a pro-space message of some kind if I lose.  If I win, I get a new space-themed T-shirt.  Is that really gambling?

No, it's more like taking candy from a baby...  (and Lee Jay, no offense intended)

Similar. I've learned enough from Jim round these parts to feel good about sending him a bottle of the happy-juice if things don't go my way.

I suspect many of us would feel that way.

[llanitedave]

Around 1 in 3 adults in the US don't drink alcohol at all.  I'm one of them and I don't gamble either.

I bet you do!   

[guidanceisgo]

bad bet, there is no way F9R is flying that much if at all in 10 years.  they are moving on to bigger better things.  you might as well buy Jim his 24 beers now

Titan IV 1989-2005
Delta II 1989-2015
Atlas II  1991-2004
Delta IV 2003 - 202?
Atlas V  2002 - 202?

Spacex has to fund their bigger & better things.  They can't start building and operating the followons without an revenue stream

Good point ,  maybe the bet should be, does SpaceX exist in 10 years. 

[mme]

bad bet, there is no way F9R is flying that much if at all in 10 years.  they are moving on to bigger better things.  you might as well buy Jim his 24 beers now

Titan IV 1989-2005
Delta II 1989-2015
Atlas II  1991-2004
Delta IV 2003 - 202?
Atlas V  2002 - 202?

Spacex has to fund their bigger & better things.  They can't start building and operating the followons without an revenue stream

Good point ,  maybe the bet should be, does SpaceX exist in 10 years.

Pick your poison because that sounds like free potato vodka to me. What's the old expression, "talk is cheap, vodka is delicious?" Something like that...

Edit: Pesky colloquial contractions look possessive.

[Robert Thompson]

Lar. Cleaned it up. Hopefully no language, all math. I go with FH means 3 cores. Any ONE core delay can delay two additional. How does this look? For all years prior to 2025:
X * 1 core* (F9 + derivatives + variants) + Y * 1 core* (F9R + derivatives + variants) + Z * 3 core * (FH + derivatives + variants) < 24 / year.

[woods170]

bad bet, there is no way F9R is flying that much if at all in 10 years.  they are moving on to bigger better things.  you might as well buy Jim his 24 beers now

Titan IV 1989-2005
Delta II 1989-2015
Atlas II  1991-2004
Delta IV 2003 - 202?
Atlas V  2002 - 202?

Spacex has to fund their bigger & better things.  They can't start building and operating the followons without an revenue stream

Good point ,  maybe the bet should be, does SpaceX exist in 10 years. 

No no no! The waaaaay more interesting bet should be: does ULA still exist 10 years from now. 
(But I guess that is OT for a SpaceX thread...)

[pippin]

Around 1 in 3 adults in the US don't drink alcohol at all.  I'm one of them and I don't gamble either.

But isn't it irrelevant in which currency others want to settle the bet anyway if you don't bet at all?
Or did I misunderstand something?

One apparent reason for the alcohol, btw, is that a lot of bets are being made after drinking quite a bit of the stuff so it's kind of consistent.

[majormajor42]

I proposed a bet a while back in the Master Prediction Thread:

Manned Space Flight itself doesn't need to be saved. It should be thriving soon:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/04/before-this-decade-is-out-there-will-be.html
I'll add that I'm willing to bet that before this decade is out, we will have doubled the total number of people that have gone to space compared to the first five decades (about 500). And then perhaps at least another 1000 in the 2020's and so on... (powers of 2?).

I think a significant growth in space access, due mostly to lower costs, will accomplish most of the things that Harman says are needed to resolve in the first two paragraphs such as helping the economy and so on.

But to add to what Harman is saying, I would also like to see ISRU somewhere on the list of billets as being something that should be pursued and demonstrated before this decade is out. Perhaps "Water is life and while we can recycle it, we are still bonded to Earth as its source. But it is out there, where we intend to go. I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man or machine on a body such as the Moon and harvest a cup of water for a human to drink or process into fuel for their spacecraft."

Major,

The article you quote is kool-aid.  First of all it says "should be" then it says ending shuttle is "not relevant".  That couldn't be more wrong.  While the loss of much experience is an entirely separate subject, the fact that ISS is placed in jeopardy because of getting rid of shuttle before anything is operational and "commercial success" is totally hinged to a vibrant ISS is completely ignored. 

As to the reason for this thread, I have never heard of their coalition or them.  I won't be holding my breath.

So is it a bet? 500 new people above the Kármán Line in this decade. Winner is the one that buys the drink, a can of Kool-Aid, for the loser to drink.

reposting this. not necessarily directed to one individual. Anyone can take me up on it. The 2010s will include 500 people getting into space. Obviously I'm expecting good things in the next few years. Since Alan Shepard is considered our first Astronaut I'm using the Kármán Line so sub-orbital above 62mi will be included. Since I didn't count multiple trips in my estimate of 500 people in the first 5 decades of HSF, multiples trips only count as one individual during this decade. This is about increasing access to space. It does less for humanity if the same people keep returning over and over. The clock started on Jan 1st 2010 and ends Dec 31st 2019.

_{I am less confident, at this point, of my other prediction of some sort of ISRU being done this decade, like my signature states. It looks like the GLXP contestants are the only ones pursing something like that, so I'm not sure I would want to wager ISRU by 2020 yet.}

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronauts_by_first_flight 510 individuals flew into space before 1/1/2010. 28 new people have flown up since then. That's a pace of 6 new people per year.

I'm also curious of the alternative bet...number of human trips into space. How many total before 2010, counting Alan Shepard twice for example, and how many this decade. The Kelly brothers, for example have some before and some after 2010. And going forward, the sub orbital providers, if they get rolling, are likely to have pilots that make multiple trips.  Anyway, besides slowly going through that wiki page list of humans that have made the trip, that lists their first flight only, I'll have to tally up their pre and post 2010 multiple flights one by one. Maybe someone knows of an alternative list out there that might help me?

Not sure if OV-106 (wherever he is) is still interested in this. I would hold up my end certainly. Question is do I still feel confident that we could get about 80 new people per year up over the Karman line before 2020? Beyond the roughly 6 per year already scheduled to go to ISS? No amount of ccdev optimism can make a difference here and Bigelow won't help make a significant difference either. Even a couple commercial capsule flights to a private station with a dozen people by 2020 would be great. No, it really all pins on VG and XCOR. I have no idea what even their most optimistic schedules would be at this point. Still hoping though.


Edit:  Oh, just to stay on topic to bets pertaining to SpaceX only, that Master Prediction thread has a couple.

[Jim]

No no no! The waaaaay more interesting bet should be: does ULA still exist 10 years from now. 
(But I guess that is OT for a SpaceX thread...)

I would take that in a modified form, will Atlas or Delta still be around (it doesn't matter what is  the name of the company that operates them)

[Ludus]

No no no! The waaaaay more interesting bet should be: does ULA still exist 10 years from now. 
(But I guess that is OT for a SpaceX thread...)

I would take that in a modified form, will Atlas or Delta still be around (it doesn't matter what is  the name of the company that operates them)

That may be a simpler form of the same bet. If Atlas or Delta are still around in 10 years, rapid reusability has failed in some pretty fundamental way. No need to pick an arbitrary launch rate.

[majormajor42]

I predict that SpaceX will recover a 1st stage by Jan 2016, and will reuse a first stage at less expense than a new one by June 2018. 

My wager if you'll take it; an interesting space-related T-shirt will come to you in the mail if I'm wrong.  If I'm right, you send me an interesting space-related T-shirt.  First 15 nay-sayers only.  Must reply by Dec 2012.

I will take you up on that. I worked for a little while on Shuttle SRB, and I've seen what that recovery process looks like first hand. Namely, it is brutal. SpaceX is wanting to recover from a higher, faster starting point, and with a much weaker structure (SRBs were thick, HSLA steel). I have no doubt that it can be done, but I think it will take them longer to recover. I will add the condition that the first stage much be recovered largely intact by January 2016. Is that an acceptable condition?

Reviving this thread, given recent events. Have to say that I'm getting nervous about my end of this bet these days. You're still on here, right, go4mars? I may owe you a shirt in the near future.

Still here.

I think it is interesting that in 2011, even the idea of recovering a first stage by 2016 seemed less likely. And now, in 2014, you can say if there was a big deserted island where the last two Falcon's soft landed, they would have done it by now. The recovered video is decent evidence of that. So, will they be able to connect the dots, succeed at boost back and be allowed anywhere near the East Coast? If so, it can/will be done. It is in the hands of the FAA I suppose at this point. Check that...it is still in SpaceX's court to demonstrate to themselves that they have confidence to not kill anybody. Do they? Then they can ask permission and go down some certification punchlist to be allowed to do it. Next year I suppose if what I'm reading about the remaining flights this year not being candidates for recovery.

I wonder if in 2011, Jim thought they would be this far along in the area of recovering and soft landing without parachutes? It is possible that his criticism all along has been along the lines of what it is now, the turn around and processing of rockets for launch (reusability or not).

[Lee Jay]

Around 1 in 3 adults in the US don't drink alcohol at all.  I'm one of them and I don't gamble either.

I bet you do!   

Do what?

[Lar]

Lar. Cleaned it up. Hopefully no language, all math. I go with FH means 3 cores. Any ONE core delay can delay two additional. How does this look? For all years prior to 2025:
X * 1 core* (F9 + derivatives + variants) + Y * 1 core* (F9R + derivatives + variants) + Z * 3 core * (FH + derivatives + variants) < 24 / year.

Done. If at any time that formula exceeds 24, you owe me a bottle of 15 year or older single malt, you can pick the particular malt and vintage. If for all years prior to 2025 it never does, I owe you the same,  except that I can pick[1]

1 - this is to prevent the selection of some exceedingly pricey ones that I just can't afford.. for example this one
http://www.thewhiskyexchange.com/P-16442.aspx is 350 pounds! Too rich for me.

[dcporter]

Lar and Hernault, I added that to the first post for easy reference. Gif-shake on it and I'll link that too.

[Lar]

I'm not sure who needs to shake but here's my end...  (made one in MLCad using LDRAW models... I'm the guy in blue)

[strangequark]

Probably even higher in Utah.  While the elderly and prisoners skew that statistic, I'm not sure I qualify as a gambler either.  My space-themed T-shirt bet is a win for me no matter the outcome.  I get to use someone as a billboard for a pro-space message of some kind if I lose.  If I win, I get a new space-themed T-shirt.  Is that really gambling?

Yeah, kind of how I felt about our bet. Which I'm becoming increasingly nervous about. They were still talking about water recovery back then.

[Robert Thompson]

Good

[CuddlyRocket]

Around 1 in 3 adults in the US don't drink alcohol at all.  I'm one of them and I don't gamble either.

I bet you do!   

Do what?

He probably means gambling. It's extremely difficult to go through life without gambling on future outcomes.

[dcporter]

Around 1 in 3 adults in the US don't drink alcohol at all.  I'm one of them and I don't gamble either.

I bet you do!   

Do what?

He probably means gambling. It's extremely difficult to go through life without gambling on future outcomes.

My read was that he was trying to sucker Lee Jay into a bet.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/kQFKtI6gn9Y

[meekGee]

The only relevant metric is number of launches.  We already know that core production is not the limiting factor, and once you factor in reusability, it's only core turn-around that matters, and that can be done in parallel.

What matter is the overall turn-around time, and the need for this number of launches.

This means recycling the first stage cores (assuming FH), and attaching a (previously recycled) second stage and payload.

Can this be done in a week, and will there be enough payloads.

Technically - I am sure they can turn around the rocket in a day.  And it doesn't really matter, since they will have multiple pads and multiple vehicles.

From the glimpses we got about SpaceX's plans for F9/H  (most in L2), then yes, they'll need that many launches by 2024.

So it boils down to how their master schedule will unfold.  SpaceX has traditionally been late delivering on its near-term goals, but the goals, when they are set, are much in advance of what most people expect.

Overall, they're 20 minutes late for being there an hour early, so to speak.

So of all the bet varieties above, I'd take the bet that says they'll fly weekly by 2024. Easily.

[Space OurSoul]

Just to stir the pot, I'll add some further suggestions for bets:

-Will a SpaceX second stage soft-land anywhere (including ocean) before a Reaction Engines SABRE produces thrust in flight?
-Will the MCT BFR launcher fly before Skylon's first production vehicle? Before Skylon's first test article?
-Will a Dragon leave LEO before Orion (defined as, oh, say, 1000km AGL)?
-Will a SpaceX engine power an Atlas V launch before 2020? Before 2030?

I'm not taking a stand on these myself. I'm going to make popcorn and watch the arguments :-)

[Lar]

-Will a Dragon leave LEO before Orion (defined as, oh, say, 1000km AGL)?

I don't really care about any of the rest (they're interesting, but...) ... that said, I'll take the Dragon side of that one against anyone who cares to risk the same sort of bottle H and I have riding. Heck, I'll take it up to 5 times (5 different people, even odds)

Side bet (with myself) is that I get no takers

EDIT: I meant manned but quoted sloppily. ... mheney, clearly a fellow FSM adherent, swooped in and picked off an easy win. Anyone else this is manned vs manned. (not to be confused with mano a mano)

[mheney]

-Will a Dragon leave LEO before Orion (defined as, oh, say, 1000km AGL)?

I don't really care about any of the rest (they're interesting, but...) ... that said, I'll take the Dragon side of that one against anyone who cares to risk the same sort of bottle H and I have riding. Heck, I'll take it up to 5 times (5 different people, even odds)

Side bet (with myself) is that I get no takers

You lose that side bet - I'll take the Orion side of that.  EFT-1, nominally in December,  leaves LEO by that definition.

[Lar]

-Will a Dragon leave LEO before Orion (defined as, oh, say, 1000km AGL)?

I don't really care about any of the rest (they're interesting, but...) ... that said, I'll take the Dragon side of that one against anyone who cares to risk the same sort of bottle H and I have riding. Heck, I'll take it up to 5 times (5 different people, even odds)

Side bet (with myself) is that I get no takers

You lose that side bet - I'll take the Orion side of that.  EFT-1, nominally in December,  leaves LEO by that definition.

Whoops! I was thinking manned but forgot to say that.. any one else will have to take manned or no bet. You got yourself some easy money there I think.

Shake attached, and I'm still the blue classic spaceman.. I think most folk know what I think of SLS/Orion so... you get to be Darth

[mheney]

-Will a Dragon leave LEO before Orion (defined as, oh, say, 1000km AGL)?

I don't really care about any of the rest (they're interesting, but...) ... that said, I'll take the Dragon side of that one against anyone who cares to risk the same sort of bottle H and I have riding. Heck, I'll take it up to 5 times (5 different people, even odds)

Side bet (with myself) is that I get no takers

You lose that side bet - I'll take the Orion side of that.  EFT-1, nominally in December,  leaves LEO by that definition.

Whoops! I was thinking manned but forgot to say that.. any one else will have to take manned or no bet. You got yourself some easy money there I think.

Nah - I have no interest in "gotchas".   We can stipulate "manned mission beyond LEO" - I still think Orion will get there first.  (Although with far less confidence than I had with EFT--1 ) 

FWIW, my unmanned scenario  had
    (1) EFT-1 delayed  (delayed?  I'm SHOCKED ....)
    (2) SpaceX flying a used Dragon on a heatshield test mission (similar to EFT-1), possibly on a recovered first stage.  They're going to have to test a Mars return reentry sometime; and they may have "spare" hardware sitting around for a mission like this.

I can see someone (presumably a bigger fanboi than me) taking the Dragon side of that. 

But if manned is what you intended, then manned is what we'll do.

[Lar]

But if manned is what you intended, then manned is what we'll do.

You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. May you continue to be Touched by His Noodly Appendage.  Done.

[su27k]

No no no! The waaaaay more interesting bet should be: does ULA still exist 10 years from now. 
(But I guess that is OT for a SpaceX thread...)

I would take that in a modified form, will Atlas or Delta still be around (it doesn't matter what is  the name of the company that operates them)

That may be a simpler form of the same bet. If Atlas or Delta are still around in 10 years, rapid reusability has failed in some pretty fundamental way. No need to pick an arbitrary launch rate.

Not necessarily. I suspect Jim is counting on there're enough national security payload specifically designed for Atlas and Delta to keep them going even if reusability has made them obsolete for the rest of the market.

[Burninate]

Stirring the pot - Will the next human being to land on the moon do so before the 50th anniversary of the first man on the moon, July 21 2019?  Before the 50th anniversary of the *last* man on the moon, December 7, 2022?

Will a private enterprise beat the Chinese space agency to the Moon?

[dcporter]

so did these bets get added?

Yes indeed. @goformars and strangequark, I'm happy to add your teeshirt bet too if you want to post the details.

[mikelepage]

Stirring the pot - Will the next human being to land on the moon do so before the 50th anniversary of the first man on the moon, July 21 2019?  Before the 50th anniversary of the *last* man on the moon, December 7, 2022?

Will a private enterprise beat the Chinese space agency to the Moon?

I was going to add the moon anniversary idea if no one else did

But back on topic, I tend to agree with Jim though that number of launches is the thing that matters (recycling stages should make that easier, but it's only a means to an end, and trying to count them will complicate matters).

I'd rather have a running pool - a kind of "guess the number of jellybeans in the jar" style competition.  Everyone puts in their guesses and then when it actually happens we can decide who was closest and arrange for them to win a prize (I dunno - maybe Chris can pull some strings and arrange for them to meet Elon Musk ).

So with that in mind, I'd phrase it this way: Guess (at to-the-day level accuracy) when SpaceX will first perform 48 successful orbital (or beyond) launches within a running 365 day period.  Only one person per nominated date.  To make things interesting: You may only renew your guess once the date you nominate comes to pass without success, for a day not nearer than 2 years in the future.  Obviously if you don't think it will ever happen, you only win when SpaceX goes bust, in which case I doubt Elon would want to meet you

My guess is July 1st 2022.

EDIT: I suppose we also need a caveat that to win you must have nominated the date at least 2 years in advance.

[majormajor42]

So with that in mind, I'd phrase it this way: Guess (at to-the-day level accuracy) when SpaceX will first perform 48 successful orbital (or beyond) launches within a running 365 day period. 

My guess is July 1st 2022.

It's hard for me to imagine two things: an upcoming need for 48 launches by one company in a year. What do you think the spread of those 48 launches will be?
a few commercial station supply
a few commercial station personnel ferries
ISS supply and ferries
commercial satellites
military satellites
NASA satellites & probes
It's an interesting question because it just doesn't imagine SpaceX being able to do it but also imagines a need for it to be done.
By 2022, will there be some sort of large station or spacecraft construction project that requires many launches?
So this is an economic issue bigger than just SpaceX's ability to do it.

Then there is also the frequency of range closures for these flights.
What is the current total annual high for orbital flights out of the two main launch ranges? Then add the number you think they will be able to get out of Texas. (they are initially being limited). Do range closures for rocket launches have economic impact on the maritime and aviation industries? Is an increase in range closures something they would protest? Will 1st stage recovery increase the impact on other users of that space if it requires the range to remain closed for a longer period? I'm not sure how long it has taken in the past for civil airplanes to be allowed to traverse the area after a rocket launch. Extending this till the stage comes back...what is this, an extra ten...twenty minutes?
Maybe, as reliability and launch frequency increases, the rules will change.
So this is a bureaucratic issue bigger than just SpaceX's ability to do it.

That all said, one way to think about the answer it to work up to it instead of just jumping to it.
2014...6, 2015...9, 2016...14, I realize now I'm just increasing launch rate by 50% each year...2017...21, 2018...32, .... yeah, so I'm even more optimistic than Mike, despite my comments above. So "before this decade is out"? Nah, I think I throw in another half year and say July 1st, 2020.

[Robotbeat]

2022 for 48 orbital launches in a year?? I sincerely doubt it. If we DO get there, no question we'd be operating in a totally different paradigm.

[Lar]

I think 48 a year would probably be about 1/2 or more propellant supply launches (Once Elon gives in on the need for depots EVERYWHERE and agrees... ) so it could come earlier than we might think. I'd say when MCT has 2 units in operation

Of course, the BFR increases the size of the tankerload, cutting the number of flights.

I hope I live to see the day. But I doubt 2022... even me, crazy optimist that I am..

[mikelepage]

My reasoning may be a little touchy-feely for all you engineer types, but for me it's probably best expressed as a question which highlights a massive pent-up desire in the western world:

Is there any other industry where there is a such a large gap between the number of people who *want* to participate and the number of people who *can* participate?

(EDIT: My point being, once all the pieces are in place, there's no reason not to expect it to expand at an exponential rate.  I don't see the pieces being in place until next year or the year after, but then I think an expansion such as Major predicted is entirely reasonable.)

Let me just throw out one idea which becomes more viable once the cost of LEO isn't so insanely expensive: televised zero-gee sports.  As an example: Zero-gee table tennis.  Four playing surfaces (transparent perspex or some such), regulation height nets, bats and balls.  You'd also need a fixed ring of foot-holds on either end of the table so each player can stand at any orientation.  I think it would probably be as good or better an exercise regimen as what astronauts currently have to do anyway.

Honestly I think if Bigelow or anyone else can put up habitats at a reasonable pace, there will be more than enough people willing to pay (or be sponsored) for a visit.

[QuantumG]

Is there any other industry where there is a such a large gap between the number of people who *want* to participate and the number of people who *can* participate?

Sports stars, movie stars, rock stars. They all have their amateur subcultures, just like rocketry.

[mikelepage]

Is there any other industry where there is a such a large gap between the number of people who *want* to participate and the number of people who *can* participate?

Sports stars, movie stars, rock stars. They all have their amateur subcultures, just like rocketry.

All of those things require there to be an audience.  Plenty of people go to a rock concert without wanting to be onstage.

[Robert Thompson]

I converted SpaceX's launch dates so far into Unix time, plugged those into Excel, got a quadratic polynomial fit of: y = 6 * 10^(-16) * x^2 - 9 * 10^(-9) * x + 1.4313. Polynomial had higher R-squared than exponential. Keeping it as tantamount to exponential because BIC. Then I plugged that into a graphing calculator and traced to y = 11, 12 and 13, etc, to evaluate x (Unix time). Then I converted from Unix time back to date. If SpaceX maintains its present acceleration of cadence, the next launches will be roughly around

Tue, 02 Sep 2014
Sun, 16 Nov 2014
Mon, 26 Jan 2015
Fri, 03 Apr 2015
Mon, 08 Jun 2015
Mon, 10 Aug 2015
Sat, 10 Oct 2015

SpaceX cannot maintain present acceleration of cadence.

[Lar]

I take it you think it's not accelerating fast enough given the curve fitting you did? Did you use everything back to F1? What if you toss some data points, do you get different results? What if you start at F9 V1.1

Just wondering, this is interesting.

[dcporter]

I take it you think it's not accelerating fast enough

I read Hernault's post to say that their schedule is picking up speed exponentially and that they won't be able to maintain that forever (of course). Hernault is that what you meant?

[Lar]

I take it you think it's not accelerating fast enough

I read Hernault's post to say that their schedule is picking up speed exponentially and that they won't be able to maintain that forever (of course). Hernault is that what you meant?

Most phenomena can't maintain exponential acceleration indefinitely (or even polynomial for powers greater than 1 and I thought he said it was a better poly fit that exp, but used exp "because I can" (BIC) )

My read of those dates is that they don't meet the manifest... not enough launches in out years and the backlog grows (or customers leave)

[Coastal Ron]

I converted SpaceX's launch dates so far...

Of course that assumes no other factors change from the past, including design improvements, production rate, customer readiness, number of customers, number of launch facilities, improvements in launch facilities, improvements in launch capabilities, a learning curve, etc.

I'm not a math whiz, but if those new factors increase faster than the past launch history, and could be factored in, wouldn't that change the predicted outcome?

[Lar]

Of course, but this was just a curve fit... not an actual model

[Robert Thompson]

Lar: If I drop first and second launches, to erase that huge gap between second and third launches, it's exponential. I'll post that projection later. If I do Falcon 9 V1.1 alone, there's fewer data, so larger error, but an unambiguous negative quadratic (decelerating) launch rate. {y = - 3 * 10 ^ -15 x^2 + 8*10^-7*x.}

(BIC is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_information_criterion. It means, 'Don't use so many parameters to achieve a perfect fit that it looks airbrushed. Your model will pay for that in credibility.' I'm sticking with a 2nd order polynomial because customers/investors don't want to hear about a service provider's 4th order oil in the capsule or 5th order helium leak. They want a simple, robust, predictable prospect.)

Coastal Ron: Useful objection. Moore's Law affects most but not all the factors you mention. If SpaceX's launch rate reflected only factors pegged to Moore's Law, it should increase exponentially. But number of facilities for one will not grow exponentially, so that bottleneck is a linear subtraction. In that light, the present increase is realistic (sub-exponential), rather than pessimistic (only-quadratic).

dcporter: The launch rate to date is only accelerating at a rate less than quadratic, therefore less than exponential. The difference between these fits is the difference between an R^2 of .98 over .97, .96, .95 or so. The curve *looks exponential. I think, and I think I have numerical indicators, that SpaceX Must step it up just to meet the demands of its back log. Most commercial customers can probably bear with a service provider that gives consistent evidence of progress. E.g. SpaceX has lost no primary payload.

[Hyperion5]

Lar: If I drop first and second launches, to erase that huge gap between second and third launches, it's exponential. I'll post that projection later. If I do Falcon 9 V1.1 alone, there's fewer data, so larger error, but an unambiguous negative quadratic (decelerating) launch rate. {y = - 3 * 10 ^ -15 x^2 + 8*10^-7*x.}

[/quote]

Hernalt, you may want to wait a year or two before applying that kind of mathematics to the Falcon 9 V1.1's launch rate.  The sample size is simply too small to be very valuable.  When we've gotten at least 10 launches, then you'll have a halfway decent gauge of launch rate.  Statistically speaking however I'd prefer if we didn't cast too much judgment till we've got a truly adequate sample size (20 launches at least).  Otherwise the chances of errors being caused by small sample size will be simply too large. 

[skybum]

It's hard for me to imagine two things: an upcoming need for 48 launches by one company in a year. What do you think the spread of those 48 launches will be?

The operational model for commercial stations such as Bigelow proposes will be very different from the ISS. Short-duration, high turnover. I can easily imagine a single Bigelow station having a requirement for 12-24 passenger/cargo launches per year. By 2022 I expect that there will be more than one such station -- so yeah, the industry will be very very different than what we see today, and 48 will hopefully seem like a conservatively small number then.

In the short-term, I don't foresee SpaceX getting more than 6 launches this year, and 9 next year... but my hunch is that they'll be able to continue that rate of growth for a very long time.

[AJW]

If you look at the number of days between the first 10 Atlas V launches, they were staggered at 266, 64, 519, 84, 154, 160, 91, 323, and 98 days, so an average of 195 days between launches.  This will tell you very little about launch rates just a few years later.  If you want to test your methodology of prediction the future, start to see if it can accurately predict events in the past.

Launches are dependent on a myriad of other factors, payload readiness, weather, range, ISS VV schedule.  In addition, the first units off any assembly line often have issues that need to be resolved, and many efficiencies are only found after running production for some time.  As an example, the Tesla factory here is currently shut down for improvements that are expected to increase production efficiency by as much as 25%.

The next two months of SpaceX launches may tell us more about their capabilities going into the future, than any amount of studying of the past four years of launches.

[Robert Thompson]

Hyperion5: You're not wrong.

AJW: I want to look at Atlas next. Primary competitor.

Lar: I did the V1.1 launches slowly from scratch. Not exponential. A quadratic with a positive linear term. y = 9 * 10^-16 * x^2 + 4 * 10 ^08 * x. The schedule slides to the right early because of ignoring the first two Falcon launches. It overtakes the previous fit on the 11th launch of V1.1. Then it picks up because of the positive linear term.

Sun, 21 Sep 2014 9th  launch of V1.1 (11th launch of Falcon)
Tue, 25 Nov 2014
Mon, 26 Jan 2015
Thu, 26 Mar 2015
Thu, 21 May 2015 13th launch of V1.1 (15th launch of Falcon)
Tue, 14 Jul 2015
Fri, 04 Sep 2015 15th launch of V1.1 (17th launch of Falcon)

[TrevorMonty]

It's hard for me to imagine two things: an upcoming need for 48 launches by one company in a year. What do you think the spread of those 48 launches will be?

The operational model for commercial stations such as Bigelow proposes will be very different from the ISS. Short-duration, high turnover. I can easily imagine a single Bigelow station having a requirement for 12-24 passenger/cargo launches per year. By 2022 I expect that there will be more than one such station -- so yeah, the industry will be very very different than what we see today, and 48 will hopefully seem like a conservatively small number then.

In the short-term, I don't foresee SpaceX getting more than 6 launches this year, and 9 next year... but my hunch is that they'll be able to continue that rate of growth for a very long time.

A 2 module Bigelow research station with 12 staff on 3 month cycle would require 8 passenger flights a year and 6+ cargo flights.

I to can see there being a lot more just 2 BA330 modules.

[Robert Thompson]

Prior to Asia Sat 8, I am lodging my c code results for Lar's optimistic choice of fit for Falcon 9 v1.1, alone. At its current increase of flight rate, Falcon 9 v1.1 reaches 21 launches in 2023, 23 launches in 2024 (<15> days apart), 25 launches in 2025, 26 launches in 2026 (the 26th falls on December 18), 29 launches in 2027 (so 2026 should really have 27). Unix time for 32 bit stops at 2038 - the number of fights per year in 2037 is 46 (<7> days apart). I might try Musk's statement about one thousand launches per year doing manual calculation or upgrading for 64 bit.

[editing 8/1 15:16]

Atlas V:

Atlas V launches start 8/21/2002, with highly variable cadence up until the 15th launch on 4/4/2009  (wikipedia).
The polynomial for the _entire_ sequence of all Atlas V launches is:
Launch no. = 3*10^-16*sec^2 + 2*10^-9*sec + 2.4766, R^2 = 0.99671.
A sequence of low variability cadence missions starts June 19, 2009.
The polynomial for the _recent, low variability_ sequence of Atlas V launches is:
Launch no. = 4*10^-16*sec^2 + 1*10^-7*sec + 2.0243, R^2 = 0.99607.
ULA formed in December 2006. I cannot determine any reason for the year long gap between launch 14, April 14, 2008, and launch 15, April 4, 2009. No failures, nothing on the wiki page, and I have no knowledge of political effects at the LM/ULA level.
The fit for the entire launch history skews forward in time because of the high-variability low-cadence in the first few years.
The fit for the recent low-variability high-cadence string skews forward in time due to the 4 recent instances that ULA achieved whiplash turnaround, 8/30/12 + 9/13/12, 1/31/13 + 2/11/13, 11/18/13 + 12/6/13, 4/3/14 + 4/10/14. These whiplash instances "make" the rest of the low-variability high-cadence launches "look" like they're standing still. The last one, with one-week turnaround, causes the most skew forward. An analogous effect is seen going from the entire Falcon 9 sequence to the Falcon 9 v1.1 alone. So that's assured launch for ya. In comparing annual launch count, the recent string of Atlas V immediately overtakes the entire string.

The following sequence of future circa launch cadence reflects the entire lifespan of the Atlas V:

Launch No.  45.000000090052    No. for Year:   4    Circa: 2014 06 18 17:47:32    Unix: 1403138852    Delta_t Secs:  4453016    Delta_t Days:  51
*Launch No.  46.000000089251    No. for Year:   5    Circa: 2014 08 08 16:16:53    Unix: 1407539813    Delta_t Secs:  4400961    Delta_t Days:  50
Launch No.  47.000000072161    No. for Year:   6    Circa: 2014 09 28 00:48:23    Unix: 1411890503    Delta_t Secs:  4350690    Delta_t Days:  50
Launch No.  48.000000197148    No. for Year:   7    Circa: 2014 11 16 19:50:07    Unix: 1416192607    Delta_t Secs:  4302104    Delta_t Days:  49

2014, 4 (skews dates forward less but under-reports for annual count)
2015, 5
2023, 11 launches
2024, 12
2025, 13
2026, 14
2027, 14 (last launch on Dec 20, so fudge that to "about 15" launches)
2037, 23 launches.

The following reflects the recent string of high cadence low variability launches (note skew forward):
Launch 32 in this, recent string, is the same physical launch as Launch 46 (above) in the entire lifespan.

Launch No.  31.000000219046    No. for Year:   6    Circa: 2014 09 12 15:34:34    Unix: 1410561274    Delta_t Secs:  4242539    Delta_t Days:  49
*Launch No.  32.000000169339    No. for Year:   7    Circa: 2014 10 31 01:26:48    Unix: 1414744008    Delta_t Secs:  4182734    Delta_t Days:  48
Launch No.  33.000000127751    No. for Year:   8    Circa: 2014 12 17 19:23:18    Unix: 1418869398    Delta_t Secs:  4125390    Delta_t Days:  47
Launch No.  34.000000151481    No. for Year:   1    Circa: 2015 02 02 22:02:20    Unix: 1422939740    Delta_t Secs:  4070342    Delta_t Days:  47
Launch No.  35.000000104198    No. for Year:   2    Circa: 2015 03 21 09:59:40    Unix: 1426957180    Delta_t Secs:  4017440    Delta_t Days:  46
Launch No.  36.000000091333    No. for Year:   3    Circa: 2015 05 06 07:48:49    Unix: 1430923729    Delta_t Secs:  3966549    Delta_t Days:  45
Launch No.  37.000000022953    No. for Year:   4    Circa: 2015 06 20 16:01:13    Unix: 1434841273    Delta_t Secs:  3917544    Delta_t Days:  45

2014, 8 (skews dates forward more but more or less 'correctly' reports for annual count)
2015, 8
2023, 15 launches
2024, 15
2025, 16
2026, 17
2027, 18
2037, 25

Here's to Asia Sat 8.

[Editing Tue 8/5 2:41 Tucson]

I was misusing "V1.1". Incorporating Asia Sat 8, and correctly fitting V1.1 (6! flights), it's a decelerating curve with low R^2, so it's not useful. What I fitted at the beginning of this post, calling it "V1.1", was "Falcon flights since 2012". This string, "Falcon flights since 2012", has higher R^2 than "All Falcon flights" or "V1.1", and after Asia Sat 8 has annual flight rates:

5 for 2014, 7 for 2015, 9 for 2016, 11 for 2017, …, 23 for 2023, 25 for 2024, ..., 51 for 2037.

[dcporter]

Bump for the first anniversary, we're 10% of the way there. A rough time to look to the future, but also a useful time to remember the big picture.

[Ludus]

2022 for 48 orbital launches in a year?? I sincerely doubt it. If we DO get there, no question we'd be operating in a totally different paradigm.

One version of that paradigm would be success of the Internet constellation. It might look kinda humble, one pad at Vandenberg just launching and recovering about once a week. Same boring satellite payload every time. Several reused cores around being worked on. All internal SpaceX business, no payload clients. A pretty evolved, polished routine with relatively few employees on site. Enough to win this bet though.

[nadreck]

2022 for 48 orbital launches in a year?? I sincerely doubt it. If we DO get there, no question we'd be operating in a totally different paradigm.

Same boring satellite payload every time.

Boring usually wins in business because boring is usually synonymous with repeatable, predictable, routine.

[mikelepage]

2022 for 48 orbital launches in a year?? I sincerely doubt it. If we DO get there, no question we'd be operating in a totally different paradigm.

Same boring satellite payload every time.

Boring usually wins in business because boring is usually synonymous with repeatable, predictable, routine.

Funnily enough, I'm still happy with July 1st 2022 for 48 launches in a year, although my confidence level has dropped somewhat.  If we get to 2019 and we still haven't cleared 20 launches in a year (what I understand the Hawthorne factory is built for) then I'll start to get worried.

[wannamoonbase]

Funnily enough, I'm still happy with July 1st 2022 for 48 launches in a year, although my confidence level has dropped somewhat.  If we get to 2019 and we still haven't cleared 20 launches in a year (what I understand the Hawthorne factory is built for) then I'll start to get worried.

20 launches per year in 2019 should be achievable with 3 East coast and 1 West coast pad. 

Getting to 48 launches a year is going to depend a lot on having enough payloads.

Re-useability will help both goals but what will help more is a stable vehicle configuration.

The changes are incremental, but as we've seen recently it only takes one very small thing to cause failure.  Get stable and start cranking them out.

[Jcc]

Putting 4000 of their own satellites in orbit should help with the launch rate, although not with revenue per launch.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Putting 4000 of their own satellites in orbit should help with the launch rate, although not with revenue per launch.

To put some numbers on it. Using an estimate for the sats size and weight an FHR to launch 128 sats at once would still need from 8 to 12 FHR launches a year. BTW that's for a per sat weight of ~180kg. The heavier the sats become the more FHR launches would be required. This is likely to occur on a yearly basis as more capability (more spots and more cross connection channels are added) requiring more power and more heat rejection.

The other item is there seems to be a 5 launches per year increase in year over year occurring. Although this phenomenon could just be a temporary thing, if it prevails then by 2022 that 5 per year increase reaches 46.

If there is a commercial station as well as the ISS then SpaceX could be doing 8 cargo and 4 crew launches in 2022. That is 12 more for total of 24 out of the 48. With as many as 8 other gov launches (DOD and NASA combined) leaves only 16 commercial sat launches. So 48 is not really that huge of a number. 2016 is likely to see as many as 8 commercial sat launches. For that to double in 6 years to 16 is not much of a stretch, a 12% increase each year compounded yearly in the number of commercial sat launches.

These increases are all predicated on SpaceX getting the F9R and FHR to be priced somewhere around $40M and $70M. At $70M for a FHR launch to launch 128 sats is ~$500K per sat in launch costs. Without a lowering of launch costs the paradigm will not shift to more often launches and quicker retirements of sats with newer more capable ones. Especially FHR can provide the economic incentive to change the business practice of expensive long lived satellites to that of cheaper and more often replaced (planned more rapid upgrade).

[dcporter]

Annual bump! 20% of the way there. Things are looking much sunnier this year, with RTF and the landed cores starting to stack up in the warehouse. Jim, how are you feeling about SpaceX this year?

Public notice served, and a place to tally SpaceX's long-term progress towards reusability and market growth.

It all started here:

That is nonsense. 
And get ready to be disappointed.  The dead end method is likely the only viable method.   If the GSE can't support routine and rapid launches, don't expect the reused flight hardware to be any different.

I feel like there's a friendly case-of-beer-in-ten-years bet that I want to make here.

Jim always serves up a nice counterpoint to the rampant optimism around these boards, but I like to make predictions stick. So I've bet him a 24-case of beer against a bottle of vodka that SpaceX will fly 48 or more missions – an average of 4 per month – on reused rockets in 2024. Expendable rockets don't count, and neither do first-time-flying ones.

If they don't execute that, then they've likely fallen well short of Elon's goals and our hopes. Jim, public shake? (Edit: Shook.)

I'll bump this thread every year until 2024 and then we'll tally that year and see. So, everybody go join L2 so Chris can keep the site running for the next decade!



Lar and Hernalt have agreed to one of their own:

Lar. Cleaned it up. Hopefully no language, all math. I go with FH means 3 cores. Any ONE core delay can delay two additional. How does this look? For all years prior to 2025:
X * 1 core* (F9 + derivatives + variants) + Y * 1 core* (F9R + derivatives + variants) + Z * 3 core * (FH + derivatives + variants) < 24 / year.

Done. If at any time that formula exceeds 24, you owe me a bottle of 15 year or older single malt, you can pick the particular malt and vintage. If for all years prior to 2025 it never does, I owe you the same,  except that I can pick[1]

1 - this is to prevent the selection of some exceedingly pricey ones that I just can't afford.. for example this one
http://www.thewhiskyexchange.com/P-16442.aspx is 350 pounds! Too rich for me.

Shaken upon.


Lar has bet that Dragon will leave LEO with people in it before Orion does so. mheney has accepted that bet in a most gentlemanly manner. The handshake was laden with symbolism. (Lar is willing to take that bet from four other people, by the way, if there are any takers.)

[MP99]

Without a lowering of launch costs the paradigm will not shift to more often launches and quicker retirements of sats with newer more capable ones. Especially FHR can provide the economic incentive to change the business practice of expensive long lived satellites to that of cheaper and more often replaced (planned more rapid upgrade).

I know that LEO sats would probably be configured to deorbit themselves once replaced, but I wonder if failed sats might require additional mass launched for deorbit tugs?

Cheers, Martin

[dcporter]

Annual bump! 30% of the way there. We were seeing a launch every two weeks for a little while there, which is half the cadence I need for a full year…

[rakaydos]

My reasoning may be a little touchy-feely for all you engineer types, but for me it's probably best expressed as a question which highlights a massive pent-up desire in the western world:

Is there any other industry where there is a such a large gap between the number of people who *want* to participate and the number of people who *can* participate?

(EDIT: My point being, once all the pieces are in place, there's no reason not to expect it to expand at an exponential rate.  I don't see the pieces being in place until next year or the year after, but then I think an expansion such as Major predicted is entirely reasonable.)

Let me just throw out one idea which becomes more viable once the cost of LEO isn't so insanely expensive: televised zero-gee sports.  As an example: Zero-gee table tennis.  Four playing surfaces (transparent perspex or some such), regulation height nets, bats and balls.  You'd also need a fixed ring of foot-holds on either end of the table so each player can stand at any orientation.  I think it would probably be as good or better an exercise regimen as what astronauts currently have to do anyway.

Honestly I think if Bigelow or anyone else can put up habitats at a reasonable pace, there will be more than enough people willing to pay (or be sponsored) for a visit.

Lunar Waterpolo.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/124/

[Roy_H]

First time I've read this amusing thread. I would like to create a bet myself. But first conditions. I bet on my end a dinner & drink(s) out to a bar/restaurant of your choice where we go together and I pay $50 of your tab. You see I want to pay my bet in person and if I loose I get to spend an evening talking with a fellow space enthusiast. Also assuming there are more than 3 takers that the bet is limited to 3 and I get to choose who I take the bets up with. Payment will not be immediate as I will have to schedule a vacation to your area. If I win I will still go to that restaurant with you only you pay up to $50 for my bill.

On to the bet. I believe SpaceX will build and fly at least one Raptor powered second stage on a Falcon Heavy before Jan 1, 2020. I expect lots of takers, I know this is definitely a long shot.

[Jim]

On to the bet. I believe SpaceX will build and fly at least one Raptor powered second stage on a Falcon Heavy before Jan 1, 2020. I expect lots of takers, I know this is definitely a long shot.

Not a long shot.  Just not going to happen.

[alienmike]

Not a long shot.  Just not going to happen.

So does that mean you are taking his bet?

[meekGee]

First time I've read this amusing thread. I would like to create a bet myself. But first conditions. I bet on my end a dinner & drink(s) out to a bar/restaurant of your choice where we go together and I pay $50 of your tab. You see I want to pay my bet in person and if I loose I get to spend an evening talking with a fellow space enthusiast. Also assuming there are more than 3 takers that the bet is limited to 3 and I get to choose who I take the bets up with. Payment will not be immediate as I will have to schedule a vacation to your area. If I win I will still go to that restaurant with you only you pay up to $50 for my bill.

On to the bet. I believe SpaceX will build and fly at least one Raptor powered second stage on a Falcon Heavy before Jan 1, 2020. I expect lots of takers, I know this is definitely a long shot.

You should clarify whether any Raptor-powered orbital vehicle mounted on top of the Falcon's first stage counts.

Just to make sure that if that hypothetical vehicle is not a classical "second stage" but rather an integrated vehicle, the outcome of the bet is unambiguous.

[Roy_H]

First time I've read this amusing thread. I would like to create a bet myself. But first conditions. I bet on my end a dinner & drink(s) out to a bar/restaurant of your choice where we go together and I pay $50 of your tab. You see I want to pay my bet in person and if I loose I get to spend an evening talking with a fellow space enthusiast. Also assuming there are more than 3 takers that the bet is limited to 3 and I get to choose who I take the bets up with. Payment will not be immediate as I will have to schedule a vacation to your area. If I win I will still go to that restaurant with you only you pay up to $50 for my bill.

On to the bet. I believe SpaceX will build and fly at least one Raptor powered second stage on a Falcon Heavy before Jan 1, 2020. I expect lots of takers, I know this is definitely a long shot.

You should clarify whether any Raptor-powered orbital vehicle mounted on top of the Falcon's first stage counts.

Just to make sure that if that hypothetical vehicle is not a classical "second stage" but rather an integrated vehicle, the outcome of the bet is unambiguous.

I hadn't thought of that. If you are talking about an integrated second stage and orbital vehicle then yes it would count. I've been told (mostly by Jim) that supplying methane for second stage at 39A is not possible. Trying to get clarification on why has no response, I assume it has to do with TEL possibly no room for extra pipes. I look at the TEL and I think, my god this is huge! and can't imagine insufficient space.

[meekGee]

First time I've read this amusing thread. I would like to create a bet myself. But first conditions. I bet on my end a dinner & drink(s) out to a bar/restaurant of your choice where we go together and I pay $50 of your tab. You see I want to pay my bet in person and if I loose I get to spend an evening talking with a fellow space enthusiast. Also assuming there are more than 3 takers that the bet is limited to 3 and I get to choose who I take the bets up with. Payment will not be immediate as I will have to schedule a vacation to your area. If I win I will still go to that restaurant with you only you pay up to $50 for my bill.

On to the bet. I believe SpaceX will build and fly at least one Raptor powered second stage on a Falcon Heavy before Jan 1, 2020. I expect lots of takers, I know this is definitely a long shot.

You should clarify whether any Raptor-powered orbital vehicle mounted on top of the Falcon's first stage counts.

Just to make sure that if that hypothetical vehicle is not a classical "second stage" but rather an integrated vehicle, the outcome of the bet is unambiguous.

I hadn't thought of that. If you are talking about an integrated second stage and orbital vehicle then yes it would count. I've been told (mostly by Jim) that supplying methane for second stage at 39A is not possible. Trying to get clarification on why has no response, I assume it has to do with TEL possibly no room for extra pipes. I look at the TEL and I think, my god this is huge! and can't imagine insufficient space.

I can't take your bet since I believe such a stage is a real possibiliy, and I also can't imagine how a company that can build rockets will be stymied by figuring out how to route some plumbing lines next to those it already ran....

But bets being bets  I wanted the statement to be precise.

[Jim]

I hadn't thought of that. If you are talking about an integrated second stage and orbital vehicle then yes it would count. I've been told (mostly by Jim) that supplying methane for second stage at 39A is not possible. Trying to get clarification on why has no response, I assume it has to do with TEL possibly no room for extra pipes. I look at the TEL and I think, my god this is huge! and can't imagine insufficient space.

I never said it was not possible, just that there isn't going to be a TEL that can handle both a RP-1 or a methane stage. 

And also integrated second stage and orbital vehicles is also not going to happen with RP-1 second stages with regular fairings flying from the same TEL.

There is one umbilical for the second stage that handles everything:  power, data, gases, RP-1 and LOX.    So is this going to be swapped out every time the methane stage is going to fly?  What about the launch cadence?

[DaveS]

I hadn't thought of that. If you are talking about an integrated second stage and orbital vehicle then yes it would count. I've been told (mostly by Jim) that supplying methane for second stage at 39A is not possible. Trying to get clarification on why has no response, I assume it has to do with TEL possibly no room for extra pipes. I look at the TEL and I think, my god this is huge! and can't imagine insufficient space.

I never said it was not possible, just that there isn't going to be a TEL that can handle both a RP-1 or a methane stage. 

And also integrated second stage and orbital vehicles is also not going to happen with RP-1 second stages with regular fairings flying from the same TEL.

There is one umbilical for the second stage that handles everything:  power, data, gases, RP-1 and LOX.    So is this going to be swapped out every time the methane stage is going to fly?  What about the launch cadence?

No need. Just tee off the plumbing that's currently handling the RP-1. Then you just activate whichever branch you need at the time, RP-1 or methane. AFAIK, that's how they planned to do it with the Shuttle/Centaur, even though the Centaur had it's own F/D umbilical on the LOX TSM carrier plate, it was tee'd off the main MPS LOX skid on Side 1 of the MLPs. And both MLPs were used without the Centaur well after they had been modded to support the Centaur LOX F/D umbilical.

[envy887]

An integrated stage/fairing would be a different diameter than the current upper stage, so the physical interface with the TEL (where it grabs the upper stage) would have to be significantly changed and would likely not be backwards compatible.

And I rather doubt the RP-1 lines are compatible with cryogenic LNG.

[guckyfan]

Run separate methane lines. Two separate umbilicals, both feeding off the same LOX line and of RP-1 or methane for the two types of stage. Have two different arms, one of which engages or have an arm for the methane stage with possible adapters for the RP-1 stage.

A methane first stage would need a complete different TEL. But swapping the TEL out is not that hard with two cranes.

[Jim]

No need. Just tee off the plumbing that's currently handling the RP-1. Then you just activate whichever branch you need at the time, RP-1 or methane.

They can't share the same piping.  One is room temp and the other is cryogenic.  Also, methane would freeze any residual RP-1.

[Lar]

First time I've read this amusing thread. I would like to create a bet myself. But first conditions. I bet on my end a dinner & drink(s) out to a bar/restaurant of your choice where we go together and I pay $50 of your tab. You see I want to pay my bet in person and if I loose I get to spend an evening talking with a fellow space enthusiast. Also assuming there are more than 3 takers that the bet is limited to 3 and I get to choose who I take the bets up with. Payment will not be immediate as I will have to schedule a vacation to your area. If I win I will still go to that restaurant with you only you pay up to $50 for my bill.

On to the bet. I believe SpaceX will build and fly at least one Raptor powered second stage on a Falcon Heavy before Jan 1, 2020. I expect lots of takers, I know this is definitely a long shot.

You should clarify whether any Raptor-powered orbital vehicle mounted on top of the Falcon's first stage counts.

Just to make sure that if that hypothetical vehicle is not a classical "second stage" but rather an integrated vehicle, the outcome of the bet is unambiguous.

I hadn't thought of that. If you are talking about an integrated second stage and orbital vehicle then yes it would count. I've been told (mostly by Jim) that supplying methane for second stage at 39A is not possible. Trying to get clarification on why has no response, I assume it has to do with TEL possibly no room for extra pipes. I look at the TEL and I think, my god this is huge! and can't imagine insufficient space.

If a FH launched with a conventional RP-1 second stage but the payload was something methalox powered and Raptor engined, would that count as a win ( built and flew at least one Raptor second stage) or a loss (it technically isn't a second stage, unlike an integrated vehicle) under the revised terms of this bet? If it's a loss, I'd take on one of these 3 bets, as I don't see SpaceX doing a real Raptor S2 for F9 or FH, ever.  If it's a win, pass, as I could see them doing this for test purposes.

[envy887]

Run separate methane lines. Two separate umbilicals, both feeding off the same LOX line and of RP-1 or methane for the two types of stage. Have two different arms, one of which engages or have an arm for the methane stage with possible adapters for the RP-1 stage.

A methane first stage would need a complete different TEL. But swapping the TEL out is not that hard with two cranes.

Swapping the TEL out might be easier than using adapters, running more pluming, adding arms, etc to the exiting TEL. Not to mention that they could build a second TEL without interfering with the current launch cadence to modify the existing one.

That could be the simplest way to add methane vehicle capability to 39A.

[dcporter]

Robotbeat and Peter.Colin have (a heavily local) one regarding pyrotechnics on FH's first launch:

How likely is the chance of failure if you make this statement?
I would bet money it fails

www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-bz-ap-spacex-falcon-heavy-fail-risk-20170719-story.html

Okay, I'll take that bet. Easy peasy. $10, in the form of a beverage of the winner's choice, must be redeemed in person.

Good! if the first Falcon Heavy doesn't explode (when the engines are burning) you get a $10 beverage at my place (Belgium)  and vice versa.

Robotbeat and I spun one up on Twitter at 6-to-12 odds that SpaceX will shut down F9 booster production by EOY 2018. (Not counting 2nd stages obviously, and not counting FH cores.)

Start: https://twitter.com/Robotbeat/status/898357597945954304
Odds: https://twitter.com/davecporter/status/898398397337526272
Caveat: https://twitter.com/Robotbeat/status/898398638958723072
Handshake: https://twitter.com/davecporter/status/898399581574012928

Bump! Notice served of two new bets. --^

[Roy_H]

First time I've read this amusing thread. I would like to create a bet myself. But first conditions. I bet on my end a dinner & drink(s) out to a bar/restaurant of your choice where we go together and I pay $50 of your tab. You see I want to pay my bet in person and if I loose I get to spend an evening talking with a fellow space enthusiast. Also assuming there are more than 3 takers that the bet is limited to 3 and I get to choose who I take the bets up with. Payment will not be immediate as I will have to schedule a vacation to your area. If I win I will still go to that restaurant with you only you pay up to $50 for my bill.

On to the bet. I believe SpaceX will build and fly at least one Raptor powered second stage on a Falcon Heavy before Jan 1, 2020. I expect lots of takers, I know this is definitely a long shot.

You should clarify whether any Raptor-powered orbital vehicle mounted on top of the Falcon's first stage counts.

Just to make sure that if that hypothetical vehicle is not a classical "second stage" but rather an integrated vehicle, the outcome of the bet is unambiguous.

I hadn't thought of that. If you are talking about an integrated second stage and orbital vehicle then yes it would count. I've been told (mostly by Jim) that supplying methane for second stage at 39A is not possible. Trying to get clarification on why has no response, I assume it has to do with TEL possibly no room for extra pipes. I look at the TEL and I think, my god this is huge! and can't imagine insufficient space.

If a FH launched with a conventional RP-1 second stage but the payload was something methalox powered and Raptor engined, would that count as a win ( built and flew at least one Raptor second stage) or a loss (it technically isn't a second stage, unlike an integrated vehicle) under the revised terms of this bet? If it's a loss, I'd take on one of these 3 bets, as I don't see SpaceX doing a real Raptor S2 for F9 or FH, ever.  If it's a win, pass, as I could see them doing this for test purposes.

Well, it seems I have at least one taker. Yes I mean a true methalox fueled Raptor upper stage, not just a payload with a raptor test engine.

[dcporter]

Just to clarify, a combined second stage and payload which makes it to orbit doesn't count?

[Roy_H]

Just to clarify, a combined second stage and payload which makes it to orbit doesn't count?

I don't know how I can make this clearer. Bottom three cores (F9 derivatives) are kerosene/lox fueled Merlin engines. Stage above (any possible configuration) methane/lox Raptor engine. Or maybe I should say upper stage NOT Merlin powered?

[dcporter]

I don't know how I can make this clearer.

- I misread Lar's aside to read "it technically isn't a second stage, like an integrated vehicle isn't", and thought there was ambiguity left in your answer to his question.
- This is a rocket forum beer bet thread. I can't picture a lower-stakes place for you to get spiky.

Added, with mild pique.

[Lar]

Let's all chill, k? I'm excited I have a bet going...

[wannamoonbase]

Beer bets:

1) FH flies in December and is successful.
2) FH Demo payload has some portion of cheese in it.

[Hauerg]

Just to clarify, a combined second stage and payload which makes it to orbit doesn't count?

I don't know how I can make this clearer. Bottom three cores (F9 derivatives) are kerosene/lox fueled Merlin engines. Stage above (any possible configuration) methane/lox Raptor engine. Or maybe I should say upper stage NOT Merlin powered?

If Elon reads this he might go through his basement. There must be a few Kestrels left.....

[Lar]

Kestrel will never fly again ... I'm willing to bet on that one

[david1971]

Kestrel will never fly again ... I'm willing to bet on that one

How does that bet work?  If it flies, you buy me beer, and as long as it doesn't, I remind you that never means a very long time?

[Lar]

Kestrel will never fly again ... I'm willing to bet on that one

How does that bet work?  If it flies, you buy me beer, and as long as it doesn't, I remind you that never means a very long time?

Haha, good point. Maybe 10 years then...

[Lar]

Bump. This is the general place for bets to be recorded...

[wes_wilson]

A thread that has been quiet for too long 

I will bet that SpaceX launches something towards Mars before January 20th, 2021.  Doesn't have to arrive at Mars by that date; has to reach Earth orbit by that date with governmental permission to go to Mars.

If I lose, winners must collect their bet in Tampa Fl.   

Takers?

Edit: Excluding the Tesla they already sent.

[meberbs]

A thread that has been quiet for too long 

I will bet that SpaceX launches something towards Mars before January 20th, 2021.  Doesn't have to arrive at Mars by that date; has to reach Earth orbit by that date with governmental permission to go to Mars.

If I lose, winners must collect their bet in Tampa Fl.   

Takers?

Edit: Excluding the Tesla they already sent.

I'd take this bet, though it is almost too easy. The Tesla would not count to begin with, since it only has an apogee past Mars orbit, it was never sent towards Mars. The launch window this year is too soon for SpaceX to have a chance of sending Starship this year, and it would make very little sense to send anything between windows, it could actually arrive later than if they just wait for the 2022 window.

If this doesn't change your mind, I'll take the easy win. I expect to be in Orlando in the future to either meet friends or watch a launch, so should be able to arrange payment. What value are you willing to bet? (I don't generally like beer, but will take an equivalent drink as an option.)

[wes_wilson]

A thread that has been quiet for too long 

I will bet that SpaceX launches something towards Mars before January 20th, 2021.  Doesn't have to arrive at Mars by that date; has to reach Earth orbit by that date with governmental permission to go to Mars.

If I lose, winners must collect their bet in Tampa Fl.   

Takers?

Edit: Excluding the Tesla they already sent.

I'd take this bet, though it is almost too easy. The Tesla would not count to begin with, since it only has an apogee past Mars orbit, it was never sent towards Mars. The launch window this year is too soon for SpaceX to have a chance of sending Starship this year, and it would make very little sense to send anything between windows, it could actually arrive later than if they just wait for the 2022 window.

If this doesn't change your mind, I'll take the easy win. I expect to be in Orlando in the future to either meet friends or watch a launch, so should be able to arrange payment. What value are you willing to bet? (I don't generally like beer, but will take an equivalent drink as an option.)

Bet taken, call it up to $20 of consumables?

I have a pet theory that they'd like to launch something (anything) towards Mars under the current administration who is not overly concerned about environmental issues (IE planetary protection).  Simply securing the approvals for a private company to land on Mars (regardless of the success of the mission itself) would be a political win and create precedent for future launches.  IANARS but I also think they could do a ballistic capture trajectory after this fall's transfer window closes. 

[meberbs]

A thread that has been quiet for too long 

I will bet that SpaceX launches something towards Mars before January 20th, 2021.  Doesn't have to arrive at Mars by that date; has to reach Earth orbit by that date with governmental permission to go to Mars.

If I lose, winners must collect their bet in Tampa Fl.   

Takers?

Edit: Excluding the Tesla they already sent.

I'd take this bet, though it is almost too easy. The Tesla would not count to begin with, since it only has an apogee past Mars orbit, it was never sent towards Mars. The launch window this year is too soon for SpaceX to have a chance of sending Starship this year, and it would make very little sense to send anything between windows, it could actually arrive later than if they just wait for the 2022 window.

If this doesn't change your mind, I'll take the easy win. I expect to be in Orlando in the future to either meet friends or watch a launch, so should be able to arrange payment. What value are you willing to bet? (I don't generally like beer, but will take an equivalent drink as an option.)

Bet taken, call it up to $20 of consumables?

Agreed 

Hopefully see you next year, one way or another.

[Lar]

Actually, starting from the beginning of the thread and reviewing, since I have a bet pending once we finalize the details, I think we have some settle-able bets at this point.

Probably should go through and try to summarize resolved bets.

Apropos of nothing at all:

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-gambler-who-cracked-the-horse-racing-code

Fascinating read and completely irrelevant to what we're doing here. (I think?)

[meberbs]

Jadebenn has previously indicated willingness to make bets related to Starship, it seems that those bets were never finalized, so here is what I would be willing to bet with him (or anyone else willing to take these bets) I prefer leaving SLS comparisons off so things like SLS delays and work stoppages won't affect the maximum timeline of resolving the bet, not that I expect it to matter:

1. Starship flies to orbit this year (NLT December 31, 2020) I'd bet about $20 or equivalent value, a typical bet for a friendly "beer bet"

2. Starship flies to orbit by the end of next year (NLT December 31, 2021) I'd bet a lot. The highest value I can think of that stays within the bounds of a friendly bet is lifetime L2 membership. I already have this, but upon me winning, I would accept an equivalent donation to the L2 student scholarship fund in my name.

For definitions, orbit means fully travel at least once around the world, no straight up and down flight counts unless it stays up for around 24 or more hours to land back near the launch site. (because this clearly exceeds the capability of reaching orbit) Once around and land back near the launch site counts even with unsuccessful re-entry, but if this single orbit was not the plan such as due to a failure on the way up it doesn't count. Stranded Starship in unplanned orbit due to failure on the way up also would not count.

Terms, definitions, and bet amounts negotiable.

[dglow]

Jadebenn has previously indicated willingness to make bets related to Starship, it seems that those bets were never finalized, so here is what I would be willing to bet with him (or anyone else willing to take these bets) I prefer leaving SLS comparisons off so things like SLS delays and work stoppages won't affect the maximum timeline of resolving the bet, not that I expect it to matter:

1. Starship flies to orbit this year (NLT December 31, 2020) I'd bet about $20 or equivalent value, a typical bet for a friendly "beer bet"

2. Starship flies to orbit by the end of next year (NLT December 31, 2021) I'd bet a lot. The highest value I can think of that stays within the bounds of a friendly bet is lifetime L2 membership. I already have this, but upon me winning, I would accept an equivalent donation to the L2 student scholarship fund in my name.

For definitions, orbit means fully travel at least once around the world, no straight up and down flight counts unless it stays up for around 24 or more hours to land back near the launch site. (because this clearly exceeds the capability of reaching orbit) Once around and land back near the launch site counts even with unsuccessful re-entry, but if this single orbit was not the plan such as due to a failure on the way up it doesn't count. Stranded Starship in unplanned orbit due to failure on the way up also would not count.

Terms, definitions, and bet amounts negotiable.

I will take your bet #1. As for the definition of 'orbit', why not simply: Starship achieves orbital velocity. The nature or lack of reentry is irrelevant for purposes of the bet.

[Robotbeat]

Actually, starting from the beginning of the thread and reviewing, since I have a bet pending once we finalize the details, I think we have some settle-able bets at this point.

Probably should go through and try to summarize resolved bets.

Apropos of nothing at all:

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-gambler-who-cracked-the-horse-racing-code

Fascinating read and completely irrelevant to what we're doing here. (I think?)

I've got a couple on here. I won one vs peter.colin, I lost one (but I had low confidence and gave 6 to 12 odds, so I guess I only need to buy a cheap beer? for dcporter), and I think I lost an old one to Jim (ULA beat SpaceX in launch count in 2015... although 2 years later in 2017, SpaceX more than doubled ULA's count... which is irrelevant to the fact I lost, but still LOL), but I don't remember the terms with Jim (happy to settle with beer).

Not on here, but I DID make another bet with a coworker of mine with respect to SpaceX launch rate in 2018ish (and another that I won with rocketrepreneur), so I feel slightly better than even.

[meberbs]

1. Starship flies to orbit this year (NLT December 31, 2020) I'd bet about $20 or equivalent value, a typical bet for a friendly "beer bet"
...

I will take your bet #1. As for the definition of 'orbit', why not simply: Starship achieves orbital velocity. The nature or lack of reentry is irrelevant for purposes of the bet.

I was mostly overcompensating for fairly unlikely cases. Your definition gets at the core of the matter.

Do you have any preferences on the exact stakes? I know some people prefer payments in person (I live in CO)

Otherwise, its a bet.

[dglow]

1. Starship flies to orbit this year (NLT December 31, 2020) I'd bet about $20 or equivalent value, a typical bet for a friendly "beer bet"
...

I will take your bet #1. As for the definition of 'orbit', why not simply: Starship achieves orbital velocity. The nature or lack of reentry is irrelevant for purposes of the bet.

I was mostly overcompensating for fairly unlikely cases. Your definition gets at the core of the matter.

Do you have any preferences on the exact stakes? I know some people prefer payments in person (I live in CO)

Otherwise, its a bet.

The winner may opt for $20 or a surprise gift to be selected by the payee.

I'm in the Bay Area. Let's assume payment by mail unless circumstances allow otherwise!

<virtual handshake>

[meberbs]

<virtual handshake>

<shakes>

[oiorionsbelt]

<virtual handshake>

<shakes>

Wash your hands

[Robotbeat]

Made another bet here. SpaceX will attempt to land a vehicle at least 30 tons wet on Mars by 2035: https://mobile.twitter.com/Robotbeat/status/1254542805436977153

[dcporter]

Technically off-topic, but it’ll be resolved shortly:

https://twitter.com/davecporter/status/1240487275357749250

Chris no cheap beer but I will take a half pint of something good.

[Robotbeat]

Not until the clamps are released!

[dcporter]

I've bet [J]im a 24-case of beer against a bottle of vodka that SpaceX will fly 48 or more missions – an average of 4 per month – on reused rockets in 2024. Expendable rockets don't count, and neither do first-time-flying ones.

Happy Anniversary Jim!

Okay we've crossed the halfway point. I can see this playing out a few ways: basically status quo, where I lose by a factor of two or three; I win because Starlink is a wild success and Starship isn't running yet; or I lose because Starship has taken over Starlink launching but hasn't really gotten into its sci fi thousands-of-launches-per-conjunction cadence yet.

[Comga]

I've bet [J]im a 24-case of beer against a bottle of vodka that SpaceX will fly 48 or more missions – an average of 4 per month – on reused rockets in 2024. Expendable rockets don't count, and neither do first-time-flying ones.

Happy Anniversary Jim!

Okay we've crossed the halfway point. I can see this playing out a few ways: basically status quo, where I lose by a factor of two or three; I win because Starlink is a wild success and Starship isn't running yet; or I lose because Starship has taken over Starlink launching but hasn't really gotten into its sci fi thousands-of-launches-per-conjunction cadence yet.

6 out of 10 years is the halfway point?
Or are you referring to the first anniversary of the halfway point? 
I like this bet, except considering vodka as a prize.
Still, 48 is a pretty big number.

[philw1776]

Jadebenn has previously indicated willingness to make bets related to Starship, it seems that those bets were never finalized, so here is what I would be willing to bet with him (or anyone else willing to take these bets) I prefer leaving SLS comparisons off so things like SLS delays and work stoppages won't affect the maximum timeline of resolving the bet, not that I expect it to matter:

1. Starship flies to orbit this year (NLT December 31, 2020) I'd bet about $20 or equivalent value, a typical bet for a friendly "beer bet"

2. Starship flies to orbit by the end of next year (NLT December 31, 2021) I'd bet a lot. The highest value I can think of that stays within the bounds of a friendly bet is lifetime L2 membership. I already have this, but upon me winning, I would accept an equivalent donation to the L2 student scholarship fund in my name.

For definitions, orbit means fully travel at least once around the world, no straight up and down flight counts unless it stays up for around 24 or more hours to land back near the launch site. (because this clearly exceeds the capability of reaching orbit) Once around and land back near the launch site counts even with unsuccessful re-entry, but if this single orbit was not the plan such as due to a failure on the way up it doesn't count. Stranded Starship in unplanned orbit due to failure on the way up also would not count.

Terms, definitions, and bet amounts negotiable.

I accept your bet #2. I also have L2 Lifetime and would donate such upon losing.
To clarify, I am betting that SS does not orbit by end 2021.

[wannamoonbase]

I've bet [J]im a 24-case of beer against a bottle of vodka that SpaceX will fly 48 or more missions – an average of 4 per month – on reused rockets in 2024. Expendable rockets don't count, and neither do first-time-flying ones.

Happy Anniversary Jim!

Okay we've crossed the halfway point. I can see this playing out a few ways: basically status quo, where I lose by a factor of two or three; I win because Starlink is a wild success and Starship isn't running yet; or I lose because Starship has taken over Starlink launching but hasn't really gotten into its sci fi thousands-of-launches-per-conjunction cadence yet.

6 out of 10 years is the halfway point?
Or are you referring to the first anniversary of the halfway point? 
I like this bet, except considering vodka as a prize.
Still, 48 is a pretty big number.

Whoa, 48 is a huge number for the F9.  They are trying really hard, but still with weather and ASDS cycles, 48 will seem to require more boosters and 3 pads, or 2 pads and 3 HIFs.

Getting the west coast launching Starlink flights would go a long way to help this out.

[steveleach]

I've bet [J]im a 24-case of beer against a bottle of vodka that SpaceX will fly 48 or more missions – an average of 4 per month – on reused rockets in 2024. Expendable rockets don't count, and neither do first-time-flying ones.

Happy Anniversary Jim!

Okay we've crossed the halfway point. I can see this playing out a few ways: basically status quo, where I lose by a factor of two or three; I win because Starlink is a wild success and Starship isn't running yet; or I lose because Starship has taken over Starlink launching but hasn't really gotten into its sci fi thousands-of-launches-per-conjunction cadence yet.

6 out of 10 years is the halfway point?
Or are you referring to the first anniversary of the halfway point? 
I like this bet, except considering vodka as a prize.
Still, 48 is a pretty big number.

Whoa, 48 is a huge number for the F9.  They are trying really hard, but still with weather and ASDS cycles, 48 will seem to require more boosters and 3 pads, or 2 pads and 3 HIFs.

Getting the west coast launching Starlink flights would go a long way to help this out.

Don't they have 45 planned for this year? So 48 by 2024 doesn't seem that unrealistic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Launch_history

[niwax]

I've bet [J]im a 24-case of beer against a bottle of vodka that SpaceX will fly 48 or more missions – an average of 4 per month – on reused rockets in 2024. Expendable rockets don't count, and neither do first-time-flying ones.

Happy Anniversary Jim!

Okay we've crossed the halfway point. I can see this playing out a few ways: basically status quo, where I lose by a factor of two or three; I win because Starlink is a wild success and Starship isn't running yet; or I lose because Starship has taken over Starlink launching but hasn't really gotten into its sci fi thousands-of-launches-per-conjunction cadence yet.

6 out of 10 years is the halfway point?
Or are you referring to the first anniversary of the halfway point? 
I like this bet, except considering vodka as a prize.
Still, 48 is a pretty big number.

Whoa, 48 is a huge number for the F9.  They are trying really hard, but still with weather and ASDS cycles, 48 will seem to require more boosters and 3 pads, or 2 pads and 3 HIFs.

Getting the west coast launching Starlink flights would go a long way to help this out.

Don't they have 45 planned for this year? So 48 by 2024 doesn't seem that unrealistic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Launch_history

By 2024, you'll also get the overlap between F9 at its highest historical flight volume as well as the Starship orbital test program, and the bet didn't specify which booster. At this point I give it good odds.

[RotoSequence]

Is that specifically in 2024, or by 2024?

[mheney]

Lar. Cleaned it up. Hopefully no language, all math. I go with FH means 3 cores. Any ONE core delay can delay two additional. How does this look? For all years prior to 2025:
X * 1 core* (F9 + derivatives + variants) + Y * 1 core* (F9R + derivatives + variants) + Z * 3 core * (FH + derivatives + variants) < 24 / year.

Done. If at any time that formula exceeds 24, you owe me a bottle of 15 year or older single malt, you can pick the particular malt and vintage. If for all years prior to 2025 it never does, I owe you the same,  except that I can pick[1]

1 - this is to prevent the selection of some exceedingly pricey ones that I just can't afford.. for example this one
http://www.thewhiskyexchange.com/P-16442.aspx is 350 pounds! Too rich for me.

Did 2020's 26 launches settle this bet?

[Robotbeat]

Bump!

[go2mars]

I bet starship lands on the moon by the end of 2025.
If it does, you send me a space-themed T-shirt, ideally involving crass humour.

If you win, I owe you a case of beer or equivalent value something else.

First 3 takers before June 2022. Any takers?

[Zed_Noir]

....
First 3 takers before June 2022. Any takers?

You meant before June 2023? 

[su27k]

Pretty crazy how people underestimate SpaceX in the long term. 8 years ago there're still doubts whether SpaceX can launch 24/48 times annually by 2024/2025, yet here we're, seeing them launched 61 times in 2022 and gunning for 100 launches in 2023.

I wish mods would bring back the thread for optimistic SpaceX outlook, that's a great example of "People tend to overestimate what can be done in one year and to underestimate what can be done in five or ten years."

[2megs]

I bet starship lands on the moon by the end of 2025.
If it does, you send me a space-themed T-shirt, ideally involving crass humour.

If you win, I owe you a case of beer or equivalent value something else.

First 3 takers before June 2022. Any takers?

I'll take the other side of this bet, with a couple of definitions:


"Starship..." is a complete self-contained 9m stainless steel vehicle with methalox engines, comprising the entirety of dry mass launched directly atop a single SH booster. Anything involving kick stages, descent vehicles, or in-orbit (dis)assembly isn't "Starship" as understood today.

"...lands on the moon" intact, upright, and stable. Nothing about the landing itself would preclude a healthy crew from conducting a 7-day mission and then flying the entire vehicle back to NRHO. (Although it needn't actually carry a crew, a cabin, or liftoff fuel.)


My thought is those definitions force an orbital fuel depot, which requires a rapid launch cadence to top off and then transfer fuel before boiloff, which requires mastering reuse of both stages, which is going to require some downtime after every unsuccessful attempt on the road to mastery. Think of the "How Not to Land an Orbital Rocket Booster" video, except the role of cheap offshore barge is played by an expensive launch site.

They'll get there, but my bet is it takes more than 34 months. I'll cheer right along with you if I'm wrong, but if I'm right I'll at least get to drown my sorrows in someone else's beer. 

[dcporter]

Watch for the plot twist where Starship goes big next year and cannibalizes all but 47 reused F9s. 

Also—there's no beer I want 24 of at a time any more

[2megs]

Watch for the plot twist where Starship goes big next year and cannibalizes all but 47 reused F9s. 

Counterintuitively, I'm counting on it. HLS requires a topped-up depot, which requires a salvo of tankers, which requires full and rapid reuse, which requires reliably launching in the first place. Somewhere along the line from consistently launching to consistently landing, there are a lot of Starlinks that will ride up on Starships that aren't necessarily coming down in one piece.

I think they get there eventually; I just think that chain of prerequisites adds up to more than (now only) 33 months of real non-Elon time.

[Robotbeat]

https://twitter.com/robotbeat/status/1727388030355530038?s=46

[wannamoonbase]

https://twitter.com/robotbeat/status/1727388030355530038?s=46

I bet booster recovery before end of Q3 2024 and ship recovery by end of Q1 2025

I don’t think people appreciate how much of a multiplier booster recovery is going to be. 

Once they don’t have to build 1 booster for each ship the development/flight pace will be significant

[Elmar Moelzer]

For Chris/Robotbeat. It is not SpaceX related, but I hereby open a "beer" - bet that Helion will produce net electricity from fusion before the end of 2025. If I lose, you get a drink from me. If I win, I will buy a bottle of port or two for us to cheer with together. My treat, but you have to come for a visit to Michigan!
Deal?

[Robotbeat]

For Chris/Robotbeat. It is not SpaceX related, but I hereby open a "beer" - bet that Helion will produce net electricity from fusion before the end of 2025. If I lose, you get a drink from me. If I win, I will buy a bottle of port or two for us to cheer with together. My treat, but you have to come for a visit to Michigan!
Deal?

Deal. I will only modify that if either of us is nearby each other, we can pay up. Additionally, value of bet not to exceed $20!

I usually go to Michigan once or twice a year, so this should be doable!

[rsdavis9]

For Chris/Robotbeat. It is not SpaceX related, but I hereby open a "beer" - bet that Helion will produce net electricity from fusion before the end of 2025. If I lose, you get a drink from me. If I win, I will buy a bottle of port or two for us to cheer with together. My treat, but you have to come for a visit to Michigan!
Deal?

Deal. I will only modify that if either of us is nearby each other, we can pay up. Additionally, value of bet not to exceed $20!

I usually go to Michigan once or twice a year, so this should be doable!

So is that net for the reaction or for the whole machine?
The laser implosion is positive for the reaction but negative for the whole machine.

[Jim]

Public notice served, and a place to tally SpaceX's long-term progress towards reusability and market growth.

It all started here:

That is nonsense. 
And get ready to be disappointed.  The dead end method is likely the only viable method.   If the GSE can't support routine and rapid launches, don't expect the reused flight hardware to be any different.

I feel like there's a friendly case-of-beer-in-ten-years bet that I want to make here.

Jim always serves up a nice counterpoint to the rampant optimism around these boards, but I like to make predictions stick. So I've bet him a 24-case of beer against a bottle of vodka that SpaceX will fly 48 or more missions – an average of 4 per month – on reused rockets in 2024. Expendable rockets don't count, and neither do first-time-flying ones.

I will pay off based on 2023.  When and where?

[dcporter]

🤝🏻. Thanks Jim, it's been an honor. I'm excited for SpaceX, and for the future!

Two 12-packs of Night Shift Santilli should settle us up? I'll reach out.

[scaesare]

🤝🏻. Thanks Jim, it's been an honor. I'm excited for SpaceX, and for the future!

Two 12-packs of Night Shift Santilli should settle us up? I'll reach out.

Resurrecting a decade-old thread to pay off a bet.

Well done, honorable sir!

[Jim]

🤝🏻. Thanks Jim, it's been an honor. I'm excited for SpaceX, and for the future!

Two 12-packs of Night Shift Santilli should settle us up? I'll reach out.

is it available in FL?

[meekGee]

. Thanks Jim, it's been an honor. I'm excited for SpaceX, and for the future!

Two 12-packs of Night Shift Santilli should settle us up? I'll reach out.

Resurrecting a decade-old thread to pay off a bet.

Well done, honorable sir!

Damn accurate though, from 9 years away!

[Hog]

🤝🏻. Thanks Jim, it's been an honor. I'm excited for SpaceX, and for the future!

Two 12-packs of Night Shift Santilli should settle us up? I'll reach out.

Resurrecting a decade-old thread to pay off a bet.

Well done, honorable sir!

Jim's the one who posted up that he's ready to pay off the beer bet.  Post #151.
We don't do "stolen honour" here at NSF.com.(j/k) 

It's nice to see a long term friendly wager come to completion.  Congrats gentlemen!



Edit 1/16/24:man to men

[Robotbeat]

*Bump* (more to come)

[Elmar Moelzer]

So is that net for the reaction or for the whole machine?
The laser implosion is positive for the reaction but negative for the whole machine.

More energy in the capacitor bank after the pulse than before the pulse.