SpaceX Beer Bet Tracker

[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.