Four things SpaceX can do in 2017

[meekGee]

The things that SpaceX needs to do next year are the things it plans to do.  No insights from this particular peanut gallery are going to improve on that.

Yup.

Meanwhile, we'll cross fingers on the FH launch. ..

[Robotbeat]

The things that SpaceX needs to do next year are the things it plans to do.  No insights from this particular peanut gallery are going to improve on that.

Yup.

Meanwhile, we'll cross fingers on the FH launch. ..

High chance, say 50%, of a failure in its first 5 launches. Just how these things are.

[bob the martian]

I think SpaceX are quite aware of what they need to do, and are in the process of doing it.  It's not like they intend to stand down for months at a time.  I have a sneaking suspicion Eric had a deadline and nothing else to fill the space with, so he went with a pretty "well, duh" article. 

They found a new failure mode, which is actually a good thing.  Unfortunately, they did so with the customer's payload strapped on, which was a bad thing.   But given the nature of the failure, it was just as likely to happen during the actual launch countdown as during a test; it was entirely possible that the static fire could have gone smoothly, and then have the stack disintegrate during the actual countdown (which, frankly, would have been worse from a PR perspective). 

As long as they insist on innovating and upgrading the platform, they're going to find new and exciting ways to blow up, and I don't think they should shy away from that.  Customers just have to be aware that they are trading risk for cost.  As long as that risk can be quantified (and insured against), I don't think they'll have any issues with future orders.

Having said that, they really need a good solid round of successful launches.  One-off failures are survivable, but two or more in a row could be deadly. 

[dglow]

All these plans requires a lot of energy. I think nuclear on Mars will be necessary sooner rather than later.

Nuclear rockets, OTOH - what are we discussing?  (So I know which thread to take this to...)  Thermal?  Electric?

Advanced Concepts: propellantless nuclear electric. 

[Nomadd]

To be clear - Orbcomm-OG2 wasn't "splashed" it was put in a lower-than intended orbit.

It burned up in the atmosphere and the remaining pieces likely landed in the ocean.  I believe the point was clear.

Less than 10% of that F9's payload by mass and value and still partly successful. Point seems pretty clear.

It failed to get to orbit because one of SpaceX's engines RUD'd during first stage flight, and it was a paying customer payload that burned up in the atmosphere.  They've launched other stuff for that company.  If those count as successes, this one counts as a failure.

No, it failed to get to the right orbit because somebody decided it was a risk to the ISS to try. The rocket was almost certainly capable of doing the job.

[meekGee]

All these plans requires a lot of energy. I think nuclear on Mars will be necessary sooner rather than later.

Nuclear rockets, OTOH - what are we discussing?  (So I know which thread to take this to...)  Thermal?  Electric?

Advanced Concepts: propellantless nuclear electric. 

You must be speaking of non other than the mysterious and alluring Elon Musk drive!

[ZachS09]

Here are the four things SpaceX can do next year:

1: Try their best not to freeze the liquid oxygen in any stage tanks during the fueling process.

2: Get SLC-40 fixed up as soon as possible.

3: Stay away from "GO Fever" and launch at a steady rate. No rush.

4: Recover as many cores as they can.

[john smith 19]

Get the new pad working.

Get the old pad fixed within the first 6 months of 2017.

Launch the FH sometime in 2017.

Launch from Vandenberg. Ideally an FH.

IIRC SX has to do 3 successful launches to cerfity FH for NSS payloads.  The sooner they start the sooner this becomes a potential revenue stream, and it looks like SX is going to need a lot of revenue.

[jcliving]

There's a feasible rocket design that will carry ~100 people.

100 such ships is 10,000 people per synod. This already puts you in the ballpark, so impossible, it ain't. 

You can think it won't happen, but that's a far cry from "can't"

And again, why would a nuclear ship be any different?

There is a draft design for launching 100 people, but It has not progressed far enough for me to be comfortable calling it a feasible design.  I will stipulate that a viable ship that launches 100 people makes 10k per synod possible.  It still does not seem to be economically feasible to build 100 ITS ships plus the supporting tankers within the next 30 years.

[Robotbeat]

Musk seems to think reaching a million people on Mars could take a full century. But building 3 ITSes per year doesn't sound that hard. We used to talk about SLS flight rates of 4-10 per year, which is about the same level of difficulty and might cost more.

[jcliving]

It is very important to avoid an accident in 2017.  That has to be the top priority for Spacex.  The other very important goal is successfully reusing a core.  As long as people have faith Spacex will solve the reuse problem there will be tolerance for a slightly elevated failure rate.

[Robotbeat]

They can avoid a failure by just not launching very much.

[Nomadd]

They can avoid a failure by just not launching very much.

That would be one of the worst failures.

[Robotbeat]

They can avoid a failure by just not launching very much.

That would be one of the worst failures.

Precisely.

[rockets4life97]

I think Red Dragon is very important. SpaceX's reason for existence is Mars. Sending something to Mars in 2018 (even if it crashes - still valuable EDL data) is a big step towards fulfilling that goal. FH and Crew Dragon are on the critical path, so there needs to be big steps forward in 2017.

I'm not saying getting Falcon flying regularly isn't important - the satellite business and ISS business pay the bills - but I think much can be forgiven if they can pull off Red Dragon in 2018.

[ShawnGSE]

Get the new pad working.

Get the old pad fixed within the first 6 months of 2017.

Launch the FH sometime in 2017.

Launch from Vandenberg. Ideally an FH.

IIRC SX has to do 3 successful launches to cerfity FH for NSS payloads.  The sooner they start the sooner this becomes a potential revenue stream, and it looks like SX is going to need a lot of revenue.

There will be no FH launches from Vandenberg.

[AncientU]

In 2017? Or ever?

[Rocket Science]

Restrict their "blowing-up" experiments to the test stand and not the pad...

[ShawnGSE]

In 2017? Or ever?

Ever is a long time but as currently configured it will not launch a FH. 

[Kansan52]

Ok, you've got my curiosity going. Memory says that the Vandeburg launch site was modified to do F9 or FH and at one time the first FH launch would be there.