Daily Falcon launches

[meekGee]

Personally, I used to think the transition to Starship will occur a lot sooner than I do now.

Falcon launches have been growing more frequent, and while we can argue about the curve, we know that more pads are going to enter service in the coming year or two  and that will accelerate that growth.

So the obvious question is: What will it take to hit 365 Falcon launches per year, will it ever happen, and when?

Consider pads, barges, operational constraints, payloads, manufacturing, competition, politics...

[Nomadd]

 People like to compare Falcon MSRP to hoped for Starship cost. But twenty million clam Starship launches are a long ways off and they could probably cut Falcon prices in half and still make money.
 I'd bet that the Merlin powered ships have a lot of launches to go.

[TrevorMonty]

People like to compare Falcon MSRP to hoped for Starship cost. But twenty million clam Starship launches are a long ways off and they could probably cut Falcon prices in half and still make money.
 I'd bet that the Merlin powered ships have a lot of launches to go.

My guess at least another 5 years probably closer to 10yrs for crew launches. Still a few years away from SS taking over the Starlink launches. Lot of SS initial launches are committed to HLS program.

Unless SpaceX start selling SS launches for less than F9, it will be flying for very long time.   

[DanClemmensen]

People like to compare Falcon MSRP to hoped for Starship cost. But twenty million clam Starship launches are a long ways off and they could probably cut Falcon prices in half and still make money.
 I'd bet that the Merlin powered ships have a lot of launches to go.

My guess at least another 5 years probably closer to 10yrs for crew launches. Still a few years away from SS taking over the Starlink launches. Lot of SS initial launches are committed to HLS program.

Unless SpaceX start selling SS launches for less than F9, it will be flying for very long time.

A fundamental goal of Starship is full and rapid reuse. When/if they achieve this goal, the absolute marginal cost of a Starship mission will be below the absolute marginal cost of an F9 mission, and SpaceX will have no incentive to sell new F9 launches. It's not about the rocket. It's about the entire  expendables/launch/recovery/refurbishment cycle. SpaceX will have a higher profit selling a Starship launch for the same price as an F9 launch.

The question is: when?

[RedLineTrain]

To get to 365, it seems that F9 second stage manufacturing is the most relevant limiting factor.  Much of the marginal launch costs are related to that, so it's probably a good opportunity to lower unit costs while increasing production.  Maybe they should have invested in second stage reusability after all.

As for the switchover from Falcon to Starship, that should happen naturally and whenever Starship is able to handle it.  SpaceX has the environmental assessments in place for 5 launches a year at Starbase and 24 launches a year at LC-39A, so not quite enough to make the transition.  But I do not expect those to be hard constraints.  Starship manufacturing capacity at Starbase and Roberts Road looks like it will be ample very soon.

I expect SpaceX to push both F9 and Starship cadence for several years and the total tonnage to be impressive.

[meekGee]

My "when" was about 365/yr, should have clarified...   and...  just did.

[RedLineTrain]

Unless SpaceX start selling SS launches for less than F9, it will be flying for very long time.

For this analysis, I think we can more or less ignore external customers.  So we can also ignore pricing.

[DanClemmensen]

My "when" was about 365/yr, should have clarified...

My uninformed guess, based on industry history, is that Starship will not get to full cadence (meeting its full demand) in less than five years from first launch, i.e, before April 2028. This is based on flying their tenth flight about four years after the first one, i.e., in April 2027, and this is very aggressive compared to e.g. Falcon 9 or Atlas V, followed by a one year ramp to full cadence, which is unprecedented. Thus, April 2028 is overoptimistic, hyperagressive, aspirational, etc.

(An aside: the same alleged "reasoning" applies to Vulcan, NG, A6, Terran-1, Neutron, etc.)

So, full replacement of F9 by Starship cannot occur prior to 2028. Less than 5 Starlink-on-SS before April 2027, and less than 20 more before April 2028.

But after that, we are up to complete replacement of Starlink-on-F9, and moving rapidly toward replacing all F9 except Dragon and NSSL.

[DanClemmensen]

Unless SpaceX start selling SS launches for less than F9, it will be flying for very long time.

For this analysis, I think we can more or less ignore external customers.  So we can also ignore pricing.

The external customers (NASA and NSSL) are what will drive the "long tail" until the last F9 flies. Only a few launches a year, but at the very least it will fly Dragons until ISS is decommissioned.

[RedLineTrain]

Unless SpaceX start selling SS launches for less than F9, it will be flying for very long time.

For this analysis, I think we can more or less ignore external customers.  So we can also ignore pricing.

The external customers (NASA and NSSL) are what will drive the "long tail" until the last F9 flies. Only a few launches a year, but at the very least it will fly Dragons until ISS is decommissioned.

Yes, but those launches aren't enough to matter for the 365/yr cadence.

Starlink is creating more or less unlimited demand and external customers are not.  So the only thing to focus on is marginal launch costs.

Starlink demand is so great that I think SpaceX would wish to push F9 cadence even as it begins to achieve high Starship cadence.  For a while in the beginning of the Starship era, F9 launches will provide a good incremental value to the constellation, even if F9 marginal launch costs are somewhat higher than Starship's.

[DanClemmensen]

Unless SpaceX start selling SS launches for less than F9, it will be flying for very long time.

For this analysis, I think we can more or less ignore external customers.  So we can also ignore pricing.

The external customers (NASA and NSSL) are what will drive the "long tail" until the last F9 flies. Only a few launches a year, but at the very least it will fly Dragons until ISS is decommissioned.

Yes, but those launches aren't enough to matter for the 365/yr cadence.

Starlink is creating more or less unlimited demand and external customers are not.  So the only thing to focus on is marginal launch costs.

Starlink demand is so great that I think SpaceX would wish to push F9 cadence even as it begins to achieve high Starship cadence.

Possibly, but I think not. They really need to replace all of the satellites with the big V.2s, so they will shift to Starship as quickly as possible. Every F9 launch adds satellites that need to be replaced. When/if they get to full rapid reuse, a single SH and launch tower and a fleet of maybe six SS can support 1000 launches/yr.  (Clearly, you want a backup SH and tower also.) When Starlink achieves 40,000 satellites with a 5-year lifetime, they will replace 8000/yr. At 80 satellites per Starship launch, they need 100 launches/yr.

[wannamoonbase]

I think you need a fully reuseable upper stage to ever approach a launch cadence of once per day.  And the booster needs to RTLS.

I think you'd be looking at a booster in-between the F9 and Superheavy to support that upper stage size.

And probably a higher performance upper stage fuel.  So you'd be talking methane or LH2.

Basically you'd end up with a midsized Starship vehicle.

[RedLineTrain]

Unless SpaceX start selling SS launches for less than F9, it will be flying for very long time.

For this analysis, I think we can more or less ignore external customers.  So we can also ignore pricing.

The external customers (NASA and NSSL) are what will drive the "long tail" until the last F9 flies. Only a few launches a year, but at the very least it will fly Dragons until ISS is decommissioned.

Yes, but those launches aren't enough to matter for the 365/yr cadence.

Starlink is creating more or less unlimited demand and external customers are not.  So the only thing to focus on is marginal launch costs.

Starlink demand is so great that I think SpaceX would wish to push F9 cadence even as it begins to achieve high Starship cadence.

Possibly, but I think not. They really need to replace all of the satellites with the big V.2s, so they will shift to Starship as quickly as possible. Every F9 launch adds satellites that need to be replaced. When/if they get to full rapid reuse, a single SH and launch tower and a fleet of maybe six SS can support 1000 launches/yr.  (Clearly, you want a backup SH and tower also.) When Starlink achieves 40,000 satellites with a 5-year lifetime, they will replace 8000/yr. At 80 satellites per Starship launch, they need 100 launches/yr.

Starlink satellite mass and dimensions are not set in stone either for F9 or Starship.  Don't focus on quantity.  We can expect a bigger, heavier F9-4 configuration and so on.

[DanClemmensen]

Unless SpaceX start selling SS launches for less than F9, it will be flying for very long time.

For this analysis, I think we can more or less ignore external customers.  So we can also ignore pricing.

The external customers (NASA and NSSL) are what will drive the "long tail" until the last F9 flies. Only a few launches a year, but at the very least it will fly Dragons until ISS is decommissioned.

Yes, but those launches aren't enough to matter for the 365/yr cadence.

Starlink is creating more or less unlimited demand and external customers are not.  So the only thing to focus on is marginal launch costs.

Starlink demand is so great that I think SpaceX would wish to push F9 cadence even as it begins to achieve high Starship cadence.

Possibly, but I think not. They really need to replace all of the satellites with the big V.2s, so they will shift to Starship as quickly as possible. Every F9 launch adds satellites that need to be replaced. When/if they get to full rapid reuse, a single SH and launch tower and a fleet of maybe six SS can support 1000 launches/yr.  (Clearly, you want a backup SH and tower also.) When Starlink achieves 40,000 satellites with a 5-year lifetime, they will replace 8000/yr. At 80 satellites per Starship launch, they need 100 launches/yr.

Starlink satellite mass and dimensions are not set in stone either for F9 or Starship.  Don't focus on quantity.  We can expect a bigger, heavier F9-4 configuration and so on.

What's an F9-4? If you mean a new F9 with more cores, or other substantial modification, then I do not think SpaceX will bother, because Starship will be available sooner. Why spend more design time on an EOL product?

[RedLineTrain]

What's an F9-4? If you mean a new F9 with more cores, or other substantial modification, then I do not think SpaceX will bother, because Starship will be available sooner. Why spend more design time on an EOL product?

F9-3 is a Starlink v2 mini satellite configuration massing about 970kg and includes Direct-to-Device capability.  The Starship-2 v2 satellite configuration masses about 2 tons.  See Attachment A, "DAS Mass" column.

These figures are moving targets, meaning that launch demand is a moving target.  We can expect an F9-4 configuration, F9-5 configuration, etc.  Inasmuch as Starlink continues to be a very successful constellation, we can expect those configurations each to have more mass than the last.  Given this, for a few years, it would seem worthwhile for them to utilize any launch capacity that has reasonable costs.  That's why I expect F9 to hit 365/yr cadence.

[redneck]

Unless SpaceX start selling SS launches for less than F9, it will be flying for very long time.

For this analysis, I think we can more or less ignore external customers.  So we can also ignore pricing.

Ignore external pricing at your peril. Ignore internal costs and you will lose big time.

[Asteroza]

Unless SpaceX start selling SS launches for less than F9, it will be flying for very long time.

For this analysis, I think we can more or less ignore external customers.  So we can also ignore pricing.

The external customers (NASA and NSSL) are what will drive the "long tail" until the last F9 flies. Only a few launches a year, but at the very least it will fly Dragons until ISS is decommissioned.

Yes, but those launches aren't enough to matter for the 365/yr cadence.

Starlink is creating more or less unlimited demand and external customers are not.  So the only thing to focus on is marginal launch costs.

Starlink demand is so great that I think SpaceX would wish to push F9 cadence even as it begins to achieve high Starship cadence.

Possibly, but I think not. They really need to replace all of the satellites with the big V.2s, so they will shift to Starship as quickly as possible. Every F9 launch adds satellites that need to be replaced. When/if they get to full rapid reuse, a single SH and launch tower and a fleet of maybe six SS can support 1000 launches/yr.  (Clearly, you want a backup SH and tower also.) When Starlink achieves 40,000 satellites with a 5-year lifetime, they will replace 8000/yr. At 80 satellites per Starship launch, they need 100 launches/yr.

Starlink satellite mass and dimensions are not set in stone either for F9 or Starship.  Don't focus on quantity.  We can expect a bigger, heavier F9-4 configuration and so on.

Satellite counts are driven by the constellation design though. A Starlink sat can only see so much underneath it, thus it needs a specific number of neighbors to get global coverage. A heavy sat can do more within it's position (more size/power allows more beam spot subdivision, allowing more users), but the viewing angles are basically fixed.

[Brigantine]

See Attachment A, "DAS Mass" column.

Wait, 148⁰ inclination? Why retrograde? Why not 32⁰?

[DanClemmensen]

Unless SpaceX start selling SS launches for less than F9, it will be flying for very long time.

For this analysis, I think we can more or less ignore external customers.  So we can also ignore pricing.

The external customers (NASA and NSSL) are what will drive the "long tail" until the last F9 flies. Only a few launches a year, but at the very least it will fly Dragons until ISS is decommissioned.

Yes, but those launches aren't enough to matter for the 365/yr cadence.

Starlink is creating more or less unlimited demand and external customers are not.  So the only thing to focus on is marginal launch costs.

Starlink demand is so great that I think SpaceX would wish to push F9 cadence even as it begins to achieve high Starship cadence.

Possibly, but I think not. They really need to replace all of the satellites with the big V.2s, so they will shift to Starship as quickly as possible. Every F9 launch adds satellites that need to be replaced. When/if they get to full rapid reuse, a single SH and launch tower and a fleet of maybe six SS can support 1000 launches/yr.  (Clearly, you want a backup SH and tower also.) When Starlink achieves 40,000 satellites with a 5-year lifetime, they will replace 8000/yr. At 80 satellites per Starship launch, they need 100 launches/yr.

Starlink satellite mass and dimensions are not set in stone either for F9 or Starship.  Don't focus on quantity.  We can expect a bigger, heavier F9-4 configuration and so on.

Satellite counts are driven by the constellation design though. A Starlink sat can only see so much underneath it, thus it needs a specific number of neighbors to get global coverage. A heavy sat can do more within it's position (more size/power allows more beam spot subdivision, allowing more users), but the viewing angles are basically fixed.

Exactly. That 40,000 number is important. Until you have the full constellation, there will be time-dependent variation in available bandwidth pretty much everywhere on Earth. You do not get incremental improvement with each satellite. Instead, there are step functions, and the steps are fairly large. There are several games they can play to hide these variations, but they mostly come down to artificially limiting the bandwidth to the lowest common denominator. This means that incremental improvement in the capabilities of individual satellites will not help much.

I do not have any information on the details of the Starlink architecture, so this is a general analysis, based on my professional involvement in LEO constellation architecture.

[meekGee]

I think you need a fully reuseable upper stage to ever approach a launch cadence of once per day.  And the booster needs to RTLS.

I think you'd be looking at a booster in-between the F9 and Superheavy to support that upper stage size.

And probably a higher performance upper stage fuel.  So you'd be talking methane or LH2.

Basically you'd end up with a midsized Starship vehicle.

Remember that this year they'll most certainly get above 1/3 of that  and that they have 2 more pads coming, in 2025.

Manufacturing 3x of today's rate is certainly possible. 

By the numbers, 365/yr is feasible.  They'll need two more barges, and maybe more RTLS flights.

I am not sure if Starlink alone will justify it though.

---

But I still think Starship will kick on before they reach that flight rate.

To those comparing Starship to past rocket ramp-ups:  How many of those past rockets flew test flights as quickly as Starship did?

That rocket is already launching as fast as EELVs, and that's in prototype phase, including post flight investigations and modifications.

2024 will be mostly expendable, and support for Artemis will slow things down, but I think 2025 will be a jump in launch frequency much higher than F9 saw in 2022.