Projected SpaceX launch rate vs demand, satellite collisions, and space debris

[CyndyC]

Not that SpaceX hasn't fulfilled many extreme, even outrageous claims already and will probably continue to, but 90 launches a year in 3 years, as stated in the bottom line of today's Fox35 news update? Exactly who and what are these 90 space travelers and satellites going to be each year, and maybe the more important question, where are they going to be? I'm not seeing it, or more accurately, I'm afraid to look. Just because SpaceX may be capable and plans to operate at that pace & density doesn't mean the customer base can and/or will, or that anti-collision and space debris removal technology can get and stay ahead of it.

[MattMason]

If there's a customer that wants to pay, SpaceX may fly it.

With LC39A coming online soon (with Boca Chica in a year or two), the odds of keeping to a high launch schedule isn't off the table. However, weather, payload delays, other range reservations (ULA, later Blue Origin, SLS, et al) will slow them down.

As for debris: SpaceX itself seems currently more conscious of this problem than other launch providers. Their stage separation is spring-loaded latches rather than pyrotechnic bolts. This not only doesn't throw orbital shrapnel into space, they feel it greatly decreases staging failures. SpaceX also tends to deorbit their second stages after payloads are delivered.

[Toast]

Exactly who and what are these 90 space travelers and satellites going to be each year

Well, one of the biggest potential satellite launch customers for SpaceX will be SpaceX itself. If they choose to pursue their internet satellite constellation, they'll be putting ~4000 satellites into orbit. And if I recall correctly, they're looking towards relatively low orbits that will be self-cleaning to prevent the accumulation of debris, but I could be misremembering that.

[docmordrid]

In the "CommX" info it was stated the birds would use SpaceX produced Hall thrusters, so a programmed deorbit sounds like low hanging fruit.

[Robotbeat]

90/year in 3 years is clearly aspirational, and I'm certain SpaceX would admit as much if you asked. The previous launch rate that they talked about was 40/year. Before that, it was 20/year.

But yeah, remember that the constellation is 4000 satellites, and they want to replace them every 4 years. So they want to launch like 1000 birds in a year. At 10-20 per flight, that's 50-100 F9 launches in a year...

...that's in addition to current launch manifest, which is what, like 70 launches??

They'd have to do:
15 in 2016
30 in 2017
50 in 2018
90 in 2019.

It's clearly aspirational. I'd bet no more than 30 launches in 2019. Which is, of course, still an insane number!

More like:
11 in 2016
16 in 2017
20 in 2018
25-30 in 2019.

That's still on par with all of Russia.

[Ludus]

I think they were being a bit informal about what a "rocket" is since from the POV of the guy being interviewed it was about what fee to charge per "rocket" returned to the dock. They probably meant cores. 15 FHR launches could be half that total. It's still a lot of launches.

[CyndyC]

Their stage separation is spring-loaded latches rather than pyrotechnic bolts. This not only doesn't throw orbital shrapnel into space, they feel it greatly decreases staging failures.

So that's why they avoid pyrotechnics....I've read on NSF they prefer other options, but not why. You probably can't get much more detailed than that to avoid adding to the space debris field.

SpaceX also tends to deorbit their second stages after payloads are delivered.

I was wondering about that part re space debris. I believe it's only one so far they've said hasn't come down, and may not ever.

I didn't include space debris originally with SpaceX vehicles as much in mind, but with all the satellites in mind.

[guckyfan]

Their stage separation is spring-loaded latches rather than pyrotechnic bolts. This not only doesn't throw orbital shrapnel into space, they feel it greatly decreases staging failures.

So that's why they avoid pyrotechnics....I've read on NSF they prefer other options, but not why. You probably can't get much more detailed than that to avoid adding to the space debris field.

Elon Musk gave another reason. He said he does not want pyros because they cannot be tested. They are very reliable but he prefers testable.

[Jim]

So that's why they avoid pyrotechnics....I've read on NSF they prefer other options, but not why. You probably can't get much more detailed than that to avoid adding to the space debris field.

A.  Staging and fairing pyrotechnics have no bearing on space debris field.   Both events happen long before orbital velocity.

A.  Spacex uses pyrotechnics for spacecraft separation.

As for debris: SpaceX itself seems currently more conscious of this problem than other launch providers. Their stage separation is spring-loaded latches rather than pyrotechnic bolts. This not only doesn't throw orbital shrapnel into space, they feel it greatly decreases staging failures. SpaceX also tends to deorbit their second stages after payloads are delivered.

Not true.
A.  See above.
B.  ULA has deorbited stages also.

[Jim]

In the "CommX" info it was stated the birds would use SpaceX produced Hall thrusters, so a programmed deorbit sounds like low hanging fruit.

The type of propulsion system has little to do with it.  It is a matter of propellant reserves and orbital altitude.  Also, a programmed deorbit is useless on a spacecraft with malfunctioning avionics.

[S.Paulissen]

I was under the impression that SpX used all pneumatics for separation. 

[envy887]

A.  Spacex uses pyrotechnics for spacecraft separation.

Where, exactly? The Falcon user guide claims all pneumatic release and sep systems.

[abaddon]

Where, exactly? The Falcon user guide claims all pneumatic release and sep systems.

Dragon separates with pyros, for one.

[Jim]

Most comsats use RUAG adapters and sep systems.

[baldusi]

A.  Spacex uses pyrotechnics for spacecraft separation.

Where, exactly? The Falcon user guide claims all pneumatic release and sep systems.

The Falcon rocket actually ends at the spacecraft adapter. They do supply a standard 1667mm one, I believe. The adaptor and separation mechanisms are sort of payload issues.

[CyndyC]

they're looking towards relatively low orbits that will be self-cleaning to prevent the accumulation of debris

It took some searching to look into the "self-cleaning" concept, but it was fun re-reading about the future SpaceX internet satellite fleet a year and a half after Elon's talk at the Seattle Center. Below is how he answered a question about space junk, and the entire transcript can be found at http://tinyurl.com/gp8jkut.

"We aren’t too worried about the space junk thing. Actually, we should worry about us creating the space junk, but at the altitude in question, there’s really not a lot out there. We’re talking about the 1,100-km level, and there’s just not a lot out there. The thing we need to make sure of is we don’t want to create any issues, so we’re going to make sure that we can deal with the satellites effectively and have them blown up on re-entry … that’s basically what we need to make sure of. The number of satellites we’re talking about here ultimately is around 4,000. Actually, technically today, in our discussion, it was 4,025, but that’s probably false precision there, but that’s kind of what we’re thinking right now. And there’s less than half that number in active satellites currently in existence. So this will be more than double the number of currently active satellites."

[Danderman]

Problem solved:

RemoveDebris Mission Confirms Launch in 2017 using the ISS

http://nanoracks.com/removedebris-mission/

Surrey Space Centre and NanoRacks are pleased to announce the RemoveDebris mission will be deployed into low-Earth orbit from the International Space Station (ISS) using the NanoRacks Kaber Satellite Deployment System (Kaber).

Since the beginning of the space era, a huge amount of orbital debris has progressively been building up; from old rocket casings to dead satellites, there are almost 7,000 tonnes of it around the Earth. Active debris removal missions have been suggested as a way of limiting and controlling future growth by actively sending up spacecraft to capture and remove the debris from space – to date this has never been fully achieved.

[speedevil]

In addition, if ITS in fact can do ~$50/kg or so fuel to a propellant depot in orbit, the cost of operating an orbital tug with a small methalox engine - perhaps gaseous - really crashes hard.
It is currently 'ridiculous' to consider deorbiting spent stages and many satellites, as matching orbits is so expensive, or the capital needed (large Ion tug) is massive.
With a high thrust stage letting you do a satellite a week, it becomes a rather different game.

[Mike Jones]

FYI their record is still only 8 launches in a year and you can be sure they are not gonna launch 20 Falcon à year in the foreseeable future. Overpromising is key to their business model (like Tesla) but sooner or later they will have to set more realistic goals because most customers don't trust them, they Judy use SpaceX to put pressure on ULA and ARianespace prices.

[envy887]

SpaceX is probably worried about a lot of things other than customers jumping due to scheduling slips right now.