Author Topic: SpaceX progress towards a 100 launch year (Read 202860 times)

jimvela · « **Reply #180 on:** 04/04/2023 01:41 am »

What about leaving drone ships downrange and using a crane ship with a faster hull type to transport the boosters back to port?

kevin-rf · « **Reply #181 on:** 04/07/2023 02:35 pm »

13 of the 23 SpaceX's launches this year have started on SLC-40. SLC-40 is continuing to trend towards 50 launches.

It will be interesting to see what SLC-4E looks like at the end of the month. Will it pick up the pace, or continue trending towards only 24 launches.

With all the Dragon and Heavy launches, the low launch rate out of LC-39A continues.

AmigaClone · « **Reply #182 on:** 04/07/2023 06:23 pm »

Quote from: jimvela on 04/04/2023 01:41 am

What about leaving drone ships downrange and using a crane ship with a faster hull type to transport the boosters back to port?

That concept might be beneficial in cases of several consecutive Starlink launches with the same inclination, but it likely would not be viable as a general solution. A third ship similar to Bob and Doug along with a third East coast drone ship would allow more flexibility and likely be cheaper.

wannamoonbase · « **Reply #183 on:** 04/07/2023 06:43 pm »

Quote from: kevin-rf on 04/07/2023 02:35 pm

13 of the 23 SpaceX's launches this year have started on SLC-40. SLC-40 is continuing to trend towards 50 launches.

It will be interesting to see what SLC-4E looks like at the end of the month. Will it pick up the pace, or continue trending towards only 24 launches.

With all the Dragon and Heavy launches, the low launch rate out of LC-39A continues.

Wow, in the land of curve fitting, that's about a straight line as you're going to get.

Once per week seems about right, sometimes a bit quicker, sometimes a bit longer. Summer weather problems may cause some delays.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #184 on:** 04/07/2023 08:00 pm »

Quote from: wannamoonbase on 04/07/2023 06:43 pm

Quote from: kevin-rf on 04/07/2023 02:35 pm
13 of the 23 SpaceX's launches this year have started on SLC-40. SLC-40 is continuing to trend towards 50 launches.

It will be interesting to see what SLC-4E looks like at the end of the month. Will it pick up the pace, or continue trending towards only 24 launches.

With all the Dragon and Heavy launches, the low launch rate out of LC-39A continues.

Wow, in the land of curve fitting, that's about a straight line as you're going to get.

…

The Earth is flat to a linear approximation as well.

Comga · « **Reply #185 on:** 04/08/2023 12:21 am »

Well, I missed the end of the first quarter of 2023, but because this is "favorable to cause"

today, after the launch of Intelsat 40e, with TEMPO, (possibly the last hardware to which I contributed that will be launched to space) is a good day.
The pace of the last ten launches has hit a new high of 96 per year.
If one takes the number of launches to date in 2023, and adds the number of days left in the year times that average interval, it comes to 93.
But clearly the trend is up, even while it looks on some level like a straight line as flat as Kansas.
So I might lean your way, Robotbeat (even if you only had said it once in the poll.

)

redneck · « **Reply #186 on:** 04/08/2023 08:20 am »

Quote from: AmigaClone on 04/07/2023 06:23 pm

Quote from: jimvela on 04/04/2023 01:41 am
What about leaving drone ships downrange and using a crane ship with a faster hull type to transport the boosters back to port?

That concept might be beneficial in cases of several consecutive Starlink launches with the same inclination, but it likely would not be viable as a general solution. A third ship similar to Bob and Doug along with a third East coast drone ship would allow more flexibility and likely be cheaper.

I'm not sure I agree with your analysis. A drone ship to the north east and another to the south east general vicinity could move a fairly short distance between catches. Moving to a new location a couple of hundred miles away for a different inclination launch could take a day. Much less than the time to reach port and back.

Also, I would think in terms of the crane being on the drone ship with a much smaller fast hull for the run to port and back. A 'landed' F9 booster is not a lot of weight for a fast boat to carry. Possibly several of them could be acquired for the cost of another drone ship.

gsa · « **Reply #187 on:** 04/09/2023 02:38 pm »

Quote from: Comga on 04/08/2023 12:21 am

The pace of the last ten launches has hit a new high of 96 per year.

Hello, I was inspired by your great work and started making my own version of the plot. However, I noticed that I am getting different numbers for the last ten launches graph. For the latest 10 flights (between March 2nd and April 7th), I am getting 98.6 flights. And for the previous 10 flights (between February 27th and April 2nd), I am getting 104.3 flights.

To calculate the number of flights, I am using the formula 365 * 10 / (EndDate - BegDate + 1). Can you tell me what I am missing or doing wrong? Thanks in advance!

Comga · « **Reply #188 on:** 04/09/2023 06:49 pm »

Quote from: gsa on 04/09/2023 02:38 pm

Quote from: Comga on 04/08/2023 12:21 am
The pace of the last ten launches has hit a new high of 96 per year.
Hello, I was inspired by your great work and started making my own version of the plot. However, I noticed that I am getting different numbers for the last ten launches graph. For the latest 10 flights (between March 2nd and April 7th), I am getting 98.6 flights. And for the previous 10 flights (between February 27th and April 2nd), I am getting 104.3 flights.

To calculate the number of flights, I am using the formula 365 * 10 / (EndDate - BegDate + 1). Can you tell me what I am missing or doing wrong? Thanks in advance!

You may be using the last ten launches whereas my calculations use the last ten launch intervals, which cover the last 11 launches.
Your formula seems to exclude the interval before the first of those launches.
It really covers 9 launch intervals so returns a value ~11% higher than mine.
Note that I use the launch time to the minute which could impact the result by a few percent vs just using the date.

edit: In your terms
rate=(365*10)/(LaunchTime(n)-LaunchTime(n-11))

gsa · « **Reply #189 on:** 04/09/2023 08:21 pm »

Quote from: Comga on 04/09/2023 06:49 pm

Quote from: gsa on 04/09/2023 02:38 pm
Quote from: Comga on 04/08/2023 12:21 am
The pace of the last ten launches has hit a new high of 96 per year.
For the latest 10 flights (between March 2nd and April 7th), I am getting 98.6 flights.

To calculate the number of flights, I am using the formula 365 * 10 / (EndDate - BegDate + 1).
You may be using the last ten launches whereas my calculations use the last ten launch intervals, which cover the last 11 launches.
Your formula seems to exclude the interval before the first of those launches.
It really covers 9 launch intervals so returns a value ~11% higher than mine.
Note that I use the launch time to the minute which could impact the result by a few percent vs just using the date.

Thanks!
Counting to the minute now I get 95.5 for the latest 10. Guess you've rounded it up.
And you are right about the difference when using dates only. It is 93.6 for the same 10.
But I'm afraid I'm too lazy to add times.

Comga · « **Reply #190 on:** 04/09/2023 09:00 pm »

Minutes vs days is the smaller effect <5% & >-5%
Launches vs launch intervals, 10 launch dates vs ten launch date differences, is the bigger effect , +~11%.

After each launch my spreadsheet calculates the time from the previous launch.
DeltaT= LaunchTime(n)-LaunchTime(n-1)
If two of those are added we get
DeltaT2= LaunchTime(n)-LaunchTime(n-1)+ (LaunchTime(n-1)-LaunchTime(n-2))
= LaunchTime(n)-LaunchTime(n-2)
If we keep adding over the last ten intervals we get
DeltaT10= LaunchTime(n)-LaunchTime(n-11)
and the average is
dT= (LaunchTime(n)-LaunchTime(n-11))/10
Dividing that average interval into 365 yields a current a current annual rate of launches.

wannamoonbase · « **Reply #191 on:** 04/25/2023 03:00 pm »

After the Starship test flight last week, one of the few certainties, from my perspective, is that the F9/FH are going to be caring the load for SpaceX longer than many have been thinking.

The march to 100 flights per year will have increased pressure and likely beyond 100 flights per year with all the internal and external demand.

Back to one of my favorite points to hammer, SpaceX needs to time travel back 12-18 months and order another east coast ASDS.

leetdan · « **Reply #192 on:** 04/25/2023 03:15 pm »

All of these posts suggesting alternate ASDS ports are ignoring the considerable overhead required to transport boosters over public highways.

At Port Canaveral, the booster can be placed on the transporter hours after arrival with the legs folded up. It is then driven directly to the refurb site.

Elsewhere, the legs and grid fins would need to be removed prior to loading on to a flatbed. Leg removal adds several hours compared to folding, and grid fin removal hasn't been observed in public that I'm aware of. Plus the entire booster probably needs to be wrapped, as opposed to a simple boot over the two ends that we see used at Canaveral.

The final nail is launch trajectory. GTO, Polar corridor, and descending inclination launches would not benefit at all from a Charleston, Morehead City, or Jacksonville ASDS base.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #193 on:** 04/25/2023 08:03 pm »

I'm really itching for Starlink's 3-5, and 5-6 to clear the pads. This way I can play with the spreadsheets for SLC-40 and SLC-4E.

wannamoonbase · « **Reply #194 on:** 04/25/2023 08:34 pm »

Quote from: kevin-rf on 04/25/2023 08:03 pm

I'm really itching for Starlink's 3-5, and 5-6 to clear the pads. This way I can play with the spreadsheets for SLC-40 and SLC-4E.

When do you start your SLC6 spreadsheet?

kevin-rf · « **Reply #195 on:** 04/26/2023 02:03 am »

When they lift the Curse

catdlr · « **Reply #196 on:** 04/26/2023 02:23 am »

Quote from: kevin-rf on 04/26/2023 02:03 am

When they lift the Curse

Oh man, only a few of us know about that.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #197 on:** 04/26/2023 02:35 am »

More men have been to the moon (25) than rockets have launched from SLC-6 (including Athena, 14).

To be fair 12 have walked on the moon and 12 launches from SLC-6 have succeeded.

launchwatcher · « **Reply #198 on:** 04/26/2023 03:38 am »

Quote from: catdlr on 04/26/2023 02:23 am

Quote from: kevin-rf on 04/26/2023 02:03 am
When they lift the Curse
Oh man, only a few of us know about that.

A Google search for "slc6 curse" found:

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2349/1

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/653/1

and a few other less informative pieces.

xyv · « **Reply #199 on:** 04/27/2023 12:50 am »

Likeing the SLC-6 curse - gonna' have to read up on it. I hadn't heard about it but it makes sense. Nothing had launched when I worked on it for the Shuttle in the early 80's. Not going to rehash it here. If anybody cares...

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10321.msg2424682#msg2424682

(my limited history in rockets)