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.

[Toast]

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.

I don't think it's as out there as you seem to. If you look at the elapsed days between launches, they've been converging on a value of about 25 days between launches, which amounts to an estimated annual launch rate of ~15. To up that to 20 launches annually, they only have to reduce the time between launches to ~18 days. That's not a goal that's unobtainable in the foreseeable future, on the contrary, I would expect them to hit that in the next two years. They've already managed a turnaround of 13 days at LC40, so we know it's an obtainable goal. Provided, of course, that they avoid another RUD, since that's what's hampered them the last two years in a row. 

[CuddlyRocket]

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.

I don't think it's as out there as you seem to. If you look at the elapsed days between launches, they've been converging on a value of about 25 days between launches, which amounts to an estimated annual launch rate of ~15. To up that to 20 launches annually, they only have to reduce the time between launches to ~18 days. That's not a goal that's unobtainable in the foreseeable future, on the contrary, I would expect them to hit that in the next two years. They've already managed a turnaround of 13 days at LC40, so we know it's an obtainable goal. Provided, of course, that they avoid another RUD, since that's what's hampered them the last two years in a row. 

What they really need is another launch pad (excluding Vandenberg as that serves a different market and whose launch rate appears to be more limited by demand rather than capacity) along with additional resources in personnel etc.

[Toast]

Which they are aiming to do with pad 39A and their launch site at Boca Chica. They'll probably have three if not four pads operating by the end of next year, almost certainly all four operational by the end of 2018.

[CyndyC]

For the people who were following the multiple concerns in this thread or would like to start, there was an AIAA SciTech 2017 panel discussion on "Space Traffic Management" held just last month, and an archived video of the discussion can be found at:

https://livestream.com/AIAAvideo/SciTech2017/videos/146497817?origin=digest&mixpanel_id=136b121d63432e-06c456027-316f6852-13c680-136b121d635aad&acc_id=9915092

There is also a discussion on this subject going on in the One Web thread under Commercial Spaceflight General.

[edkyle99]

I don't understand the worry about launch range availability, etc.  Last year, Cape Canaveral handled 18 launches and almost 19 (AMOS 6, obviously not making it all the way to launch).  That's the most launches in a few years from the Cape, but is still a launch, on average, only once every 20-ish days.  The range (Cape and KSC together) can easily support a launch every 14 days on average (it did during the 1990s) and could likely support one per week on average without too much trouble. 

With more money for upgrades and personnel, much higher launch rates could be supported.  This isn't abstract theory.  It is proven.  In 1960, the Cape handled 201 launches (mostly suborbital missile tests).  It supported 31 orbital launches in 1966. Vandenberg AFB launched 44 orbital missions that same year.   

 - Ed Kyle

[Jim]

With more money for upgrades and personnel, much higher launch rates could be supported.  This isn't abstract theory.  It is proven.  In 1960, the Cape handled 201 launches (mostly suborbital missile tests).  It supported 31 orbital launches in 1966. Vandenberg AFB launched 44 orbital missions that same year.   

who is going to pay for the upgrades and people?

[Brovane]

With more money for upgrades and personnel, much higher launch rates could be supported.  This isn't abstract theory.  It is proven.  In 1960, the Cape handled 201 launches (mostly suborbital missile tests).  It supported 31 orbital launches in 1966. Vandenberg AFB launched 44 orbital missions that same year.   

who is going to pay for the upgrades and people?

Doesn't the range charge a fee for each launch? 

[Jim]

With more money for upgrades and personnel, much higher launch rates could be supported.  This isn't abstract theory.  It is proven.  In 1960, the Cape handled 201 launches (mostly suborbital missile tests).  It supported 31 orbital launches in 1966. Vandenberg AFB launched 44 orbital missions that same year.   

who is going to pay for the upgrades and people?

Doesn't the range charge a fee for each launch? 

The fee doesn't cover all the costs

[Lar]

who is going to pay for the upgrades and people?

Doesn't the range charge a fee for each launch? 

The fee doesn't cover all the costs

Maybe it needs to?

[edkyle99]

who is going to pay for the upgrades and people?

Doesn't the range charge a fee for each launch? 

The fee doesn't cover all the costs

Maybe it needs to?

Yes.  Somehow, and working that out would be a big deal.  But first, there would have to be much more demand for launch support than there is currently.  I think there is a long way to go before that threshold is reached.

 - Ed Kyle

[CyndyC]

Being that Jim said in another thread somewhere that the range turnaround is only 48 hours, and considering there are alternative launch sites, I don't think launch traffic will be a problem along with the multiplicity of satellites the launches will be deploying. The AIAA panel discussion was about orbiting satellite traffic. A single frame from one of the presentations kind of says it all:

Edit: Or not quite all, since One Web might be adding 2000 satellites to their original number http://spacenews.com/oneweb-weighing-2000-more-satellites/

[Jim]

who is going to pay for the upgrades and people?

Doesn't the range charge a fee for each launch? 

The fee doesn't cover all the costs

Maybe it needs to?

Not really feasible as long as the USAF (or US gov't) runs the range. 

[spacenut]

SpaceX could easily do one or two a month at the Cape if both 39A and 40 are operational.  Then there is Vandenburg for one a month, and Boca Chica when it comes on line.  That would be 40-50 a year, IF there is enough satellites to launch.  Also, they would have to get some launches from used boosters, as their manufacturing capabilities couldn't sustain a 50-60 launch per year without reuse when all pads are on line. 

[Steve D]

who is going to pay for the upgrades and people?

Doesn't the range charge a fee for each launch? 

The fee doesn't cover all the costs

Maybe it needs to?

Not really feasible as long as the USAF (or US gov't) runs the range.

Maybe the range needs to be run by private industry some time in the future.

 

[Jim]

Maybe the range needs to be run by private industry some time in the future.

Private industry doesn't run airports

[Brovane]

Maybe the range needs to be run by private industry some time in the future.

Private industry doesn't run airports

The majority of Airports are run by a governmental agency.  The Gov. Agencies that run the Airports also work to make sure that the Airport infrastructure is not the bottleneck for airline flights.  These upgrades are handled by charging user fees.  If the Eastern Range Infrastructure starts becoming a bottleneck for the tempo of launch operations then I am very confident that the issue will be resolved by a combination of user fees and government money.  Nobody wants to see the USAF be the bottleneck with launch activity from the Eastern Range, Not the USAF, not the companies using the launch facilities and not Space Florida.

Of course out of all of this discussion might also be why SpaceX decided to build a private SpacePort.  One way to make sure you don't have range conflicts, build your own private space launch pad and range. 

[JamesH65]

Maybe the range needs to be run by private industry some time in the future.

Private industry doesn't run airports

Yes they do, in the UK, and I believe HAA also run some US airports. Would need to read up on that though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport_Holdings

[dorkmo]

I dont know why i know this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BKG

[Eric Hedman]

Alliance Airport is a privately run but publicly owned airport.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Worth_Alliance_Airport

managed by Alliance Air Services, a subsidiary of Hillwood Development

[nacnud]

Maybe the range needs to be run by private industry some time in the future.

Private industry doesn't run airports

Yes they do, in the UK, and I believe HAA also run some US airports. Would need to read up on that though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport_Holdings

I pointed this out too, but I don't think it is really applicable to this situation. Are there any commercially operated military airports in the US.

[beancounter]

Maybe the range needs to be run by private industry some time in the future.

Private industry doesn't run airports

Yes they do, in the UK, and I believe HAA also run some US airports. Would need to read up on that though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport_Holdings

Also in Oz.
Cheers

[Jim]

Yes they do, in the UK, and I believe HAA also run some US airports. Would need to read up on that though.

What is done in the UK is not relevant.

[Mader Levap]

What is done in the UK is not relevant.

It is relevant. It shows privately operated range is possible, at least theoretically.

[Jim]

What is done in the UK is not relevant.

It is relevant. It shows privately operated range is possible, at least theoretically.

Wrong, it has nothing to do with the subject matter. This is about the US and not other countries. 

[Space Ghost 1962]

Different regulatory environment. Different legal framework and justification.

[meekGee]

Different regulatory environment. Different legal framework and justification.

In the US, there is a very sharp distinction between airports and the FAA.

The airport's, even if owned by local (city) government, are run for profit, like businesses, and have very little connection to the federal government agency controlling the airspace or setting regulations.

In comparison, KSC and CCAFB are part of federal bodies.