Quote from: meekGee on 07/17/2023 03:12 pmWhat's expected is a generally monotonous increase, and right now it's a bit overdue.Yes, math is boring, but I think you meant "monotonic". And also yes, the difference between linear and exponential is currently below the level of the variance.
What's expected is a generally monotonous increase, and right now it's a bit overdue.
SpaceX's 50th launch of the year on 7/25 is (if my math is correct) 98 days before their 50th launch of 2022, which happened on the 1st of November. Impressive.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/17/2023 02:39 pmQuote from: meekGee on 07/17/2023 01:21 pmMy quick tracking estimate was:100/yr requires 8/month on average, plus 4 some of which will be Starship.Since we started with 7, then for every 7 we need a 9.I was hoping for 7,7,7,7,8,8,8,8,9,9,9,9.By mid year it had to be:7,7,7,7,7,7,9,9,9,9,9,9.Right now it'll have to be:7,7,7,7,7,7,8,9,9,9,9,10They need to be at 9 asap, It's getting harder by the week....Starting at 7 and ending at 10 is just a smooth exponential curve similar to the curve they got last year. It's expected, unless they stop trying to improve launch rate (in which case the launch rate will plateau) or have a Falcon 9 launch failure.I get an estimated number of launches of 102-103 as of today, assuming gradual, compounding improvements (no sharp increases anywhere).This estimate has not changed more than about 1% in the last 2 months. Meanwhile, linear extrapolations keep changing over time.I expect around 100 launches per year as the mode or median, but the "average" value would be lower than that as there's still a non-insignificant chance of a Falcon failure (say, 10-25% cumulative through the end of the year), which would reduce the "average" to about 90 or so, mitigated by the fact that the failure is slightly more likely to occur later in the year and that if it occurs earlier, they may get back to launching in a couple months.I know.At this resolution though, it's really hard to tell the difference between different curve types, since the individual variances are too high.What's expected is a generally monotonous increase, and right now it's a bit overdue.I would be surprised if they stay at 7 per month. I'd expect it to go up to 10 with time, but whether it'll happen fast enough to hit 100 this year is TBD.It'll be hella cool if it happens, but honestly suppose they hit 100/year only in the last 6 months - I'd be ok with that too
Quote from: meekGee on 07/17/2023 01:21 pmMy quick tracking estimate was:100/yr requires 8/month on average, plus 4 some of which will be Starship.Since we started with 7, then for every 7 we need a 9.I was hoping for 7,7,7,7,8,8,8,8,9,9,9,9.By mid year it had to be:7,7,7,7,7,7,9,9,9,9,9,9.Right now it'll have to be:7,7,7,7,7,7,8,9,9,9,9,10They need to be at 9 asap, It's getting harder by the week....Starting at 7 and ending at 10 is just a smooth exponential curve similar to the curve they got last year. It's expected, unless they stop trying to improve launch rate (in which case the launch rate will plateau) or have a Falcon 9 launch failure.I get an estimated number of launches of 102-103 as of today, assuming gradual, compounding improvements (no sharp increases anywhere).This estimate has not changed more than about 1% in the last 2 months. Meanwhile, linear extrapolations keep changing over time.I expect around 100 launches per year as the mode or median, but the "average" value would be lower than that as there's still a non-insignificant chance of a Falcon failure (say, 10-25% cumulative through the end of the year), which would reduce the "average" to about 90 or so, mitigated by the fact that the failure is slightly more likely to occur later in the year and that if it occurs earlier, they may get back to launching in a couple months.
My quick tracking estimate was:100/yr requires 8/month on average, plus 4 some of which will be Starship.Since we started with 7, then for every 7 we need a 9.I was hoping for 7,7,7,7,8,8,8,8,9,9,9,9.By mid year it had to be:7,7,7,7,7,7,9,9,9,9,9,9.Right now it'll have to be:7,7,7,7,7,7,8,9,9,9,9,10They need to be at 9 asap, It's getting harder by the week....
They actually need to do 10- per month to make 100 at this point. 49 launches in 5 months - 4 10's and a 9. Since there are no more launches this month, I'll throw the update in here as well. Graph below is a repeat of the update at the front of the thread. The second graph is what I posted earlier this month - the end of the year total, projected from the linear fit of launches to date. It is gloriously insensitive to noise and is still essentially flat.One thing to watch for is if there is an acceleration in the last months, the offset term of the curve fit will start to move in a negative direction and the actual end of year will exceed the total projected - even after the year is done. Last year, the offset went negative at launch 22 and steadily "increased" to -2.2. This year the offset was negartive by launch 8 but went postivie for a while and has been between -.3 and +.3 since.
Even if they only get about 90, that is still 1/3 more than last year. Quite a jump.
When you consider that SpaceX are far more at risk from the Florida and Atlantic weather (not to mention the Pacific) than any other launch provider (they need good weather for launch *and* landing ten minutes later) their performance is simply astonishing. Their launch cadence and their reliability - never mind over 200 booster recoveries and multiple reuses - was widely considered to be impossible until it happened and hitting the magic figure of 100 launches in a year is just a sideshow,
@elonmusk's 100 launches plan as of Aug 3, 2023
