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

[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.