SpaceX Plans to Start Launching Rockets Every Two To Three Weeks (fortune.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpaceX Plans to Start Launching Rockets Every Two To Three Weeks (fortune.com)

Posted by msmash on Tuesday February 7, 2017 @04:40AM from the growing-fast dept.

Space Exploration Technologies, better known as SpaceX, plans to launch its Falcon 9 rockets every two to three weeks, its fastest rate since starting launches in 2010, once a new launch pad is put into service in Florida next week. From a report: The ambitious plan comes only five months after a SpaceX rocket burst into flames on the launch pad at the company's original launch site in Florida. SpaceX, controlled by billionaire Elon Musk, has only launched one rocket since then, in mid-January. "We should be launching every two to three weeks," SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell said in an interview on Monday.

104 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Vegas Odds by lazy+genes · 2017-02-07 04:46 · Score: 0

Wondering when Vegas will start a betting line on successful missions. I think it should be at even odds right now.
1. Re:Vegas Odds by ventsyv · 2017-02-07 05:42 · Score: 2
  
  I'll take take that bet at even odds.
2. Re:Vegas Odds by BradleyUffner · 2017-02-07 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  I'll take those odds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 04:47 · Score: 0, Funny

Seriously? Is there THAT much shit being sent into space? The entire US landscape looks like an episode of Hoarders, and now we need to turn space into a junk pile as well?
1. Re: SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  There's that many satellites that companies would like to launch, yes.
2. Re:SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Pascoea · 2017-02-07 05:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Is there THAT much shit being sent into space?
  Yes. And that's just Spacex, there are a 7 other providers with their own full launch manifests. SpaceFlightNow does a pretty good job tracking upcoming launches.
  Some quick searching shows there are about 4500 satellites in orbit, 1500 or them operational. Looks like we are putting about 200+ more per year up there. source So yeah, there is plenty of "shit" to send up there.
3. Re:SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  There's a chicken-and-egg situation there; you need a lot of launches going on to bring the price down, but you need the price to go down to generate demand. Maybe Elon plans to use the capacity initially for his proposed satellite internet system, or some of the several other proposed schemes that require networks of hundreds of satellites. Then as the self-generated demand tails off, new applications will hopefully appear to take advantage of the capacity. A properly big, spun-for-gravity space station starts to become feasible with that kind of launch capacity.
4. Re:SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Rei · 2017-02-07 05:14 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  That's the thing, there really is. With launch prices down, satellite tech advancing fast, and a rapidly growing middle class, there's a large demand for commercial launches right now, and it only looks to grow.
  My problem with SpaceX's plan isn't the market - that's solid. My concern is that the faster you want to launch, the less you can tolerate failures. The time a failure leaves you unable to launch for is independent of how fast you're launching. The faster you launch, the sooner the time between failures. So an increasingly large percent of your time becomes time down due to failures. The only way to overcome this is to correspondingly boost reliability. Want to 10x launch rates? Better 10x reliability. It's a tall order. SpaceX is already on the low end on reliability (not terrible by rocketry standards, but not great), so they already have a deficit to overcome.
  
  --
  Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
5. Re: SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  and a rapidly growing middle class
  Was that a joke?
6. Re:SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  Amazing, an AC has found a flaw in market capitalism, his chicken and egg observation will surely turn 200 years of economics orthodoxy on its head!
7. Re:SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 05:30 · Score: 0
  
  The market isn't there. Every place but Africa and India is wired pretty good with fiber and Africa and India cant pay for sat or fiber so there's just no market there. Launching to supply these places is launching to lose money and no one is racing to do it. There are no more imaging sats online than there are customers for all their images. The utilization rate is like 60%. What market are you talking about? All the new micro imaging sats in the 500kg and under weight class are bleeding money. Keep launching them!
8. Re: SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  A white picket fence, two cars in the garage, a chicken in the pot and a satellite...
9. Re: SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by ShanghaiBill · 2017-02-07 05:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  and a rapidly growing middle class
  Was that a joke?
  Take your blinders off. The middle class may not be doing so well in America and Europe, but in the other 90% of the world it is expanding rapidly.
10. Re:SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by nitehawk214 · 2017-02-07 05:37 · Score: 2
  
  SpaceX is launching most of Iridium Next this year, so that is 6 more polar-orbit launches (first one launched from Vandenberg last month). With ISS Supply missions and other commercial launches, they have a lot of stuff going up.
  The original AC probably thinks that everything space related is a waste of money. He also probably thinks that technology just magically comes into being when we are finished researching it, just like it does in video games.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
11. Re:SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  Space is already a junk pile. Read this to see exactly how bad it is.
12. Re:SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, yet another racist on /.
13. Re:SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  That's not America, that's just the hidey hole also known as your hoarder momma's basement.
14. Re: SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by diesalesmandie · 2017-02-07 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  ShanghaiBill? More like ShanghaiSHILL! :)
  
  --
  This is my sig, there are many like it but this one is mine
15. Re: SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by naughtynaughty · 2017-02-07 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps you limited your definition of "middle class" to the United States.
  The middle class is growing world-wide.
16. Re: SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 06:52 · Score: 0
  
  but in the other 90% of the world
  
  You mean, those places where a middle class family makes less than Americans living below the poverty line?
  Sure, I guess. Okay.
17. Re: SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by ScentCone · 2017-02-07 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  You mean, those places where a middle class family makes less than Americans living below the poverty line?
  Yes, them. Where the cost of living is a fraction of what it is in the US. Which you know, but are pretending you don't so you can have a nice little OMG INEQUALITY! rant inside your bubble. Have fun with that.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
18. Re:SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by ScentCone · 2017-02-07 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Every place but Africa and India is wired pretty good with fiber
  That's hilarious. Spoken like a true Coastal.
  
  Try driving, say, 45 minutes away from your nearest three-coffee-shops intersection, into any even slightly rural area in the US, and then get back to us with a re-evaluation of that comment. No, everyone outside of your apartment building isn't a redneck. Many of them make plenty of money, and can't buy broadband at twice what you're paying. Or ten times what you're paying. Because stringing fiber down a twenty mile road that's home to five houses is financially foolish for the ISPs. Which you know, but you're pretending not to, so you can act like this is all about that part of Africa you're sure isn't a market.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
19. Re:SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-02-07 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  SpaceX is already on the low end on reliability
  That sounds rather disingenuous if we're talking about two or three problems with the first thirty or so units of a brand new vehicle. It's no worse than what Ariane 5 had in the 1990s. Way better than what some old launchers had either initially (R-7) or even now (Proton). (Of course, Arianespace is surely glad it's the 2010s now.)
  
  My concern is that the faster you want to launch, the less you can tolerate failures.
  This is true, nevertheless, the Soviets managed to reach something like sixty launches of an R-7 in a year sometime in the 1970s. If you want to do it, you definitely can do it.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
20. Re: SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  Think about WHY the cost of living is cheaper in those places. Once growth reaches a certain point it will taper off, because it will drive up that cost of living. The question isn't if it will taper off, it's how quickly. If it happens faster, then it will be before there is a majority in that middle class. The cost of living in the US isn't higher because we have no resources and are isolated on a small island. It's higher because overall, the market bears it.
21. Re:SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by WindBourne · 2017-02-07 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Come on Rei,
  Their reliability as judged by other companies and groups getting started, is nothing less than amazing.
  Yeah, Atlas V and Delta 4 have 1 failure each, but most of the other new rockets typically have 2 OR MORE.
  As long as they have solved their issue from this point on, they should be rock solid. Even block 5 is supposed to put in a new helium tank that is 2 sided with metal (not 1).
  The Ariane 5 has had 4 failures out of 83, the Ariane 4 has had 3 out of 116, etc. And almost all failures are right up front, just like SpaceX's.
  And I would have to say that the second failure is actually on the sat company. They are the ones that insisted on loading that on the rocket. Otherwise, it would have failed prior, BUT, it would not have counted against them.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
22. Re: SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by WindBourne · 2017-02-07 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  uh no. Go to China, Mexico, Japan, Germany, India, etc. and you will find a rapidly growing middle class.
  The fact that our manufacturing in America has been sent overseas, has everything to do with it.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
23. Re: SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by WindBourne · 2017-02-07 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  why would say that? Bill has been on here for ages, and longer than you and I have not seen him shill for anybody or any nation. ,
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
24. Re: SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by WindBourne · 2017-02-07 09:43 · Score: 2
  
  yes, they are paid less in $ than Americans, but then again, they also are able to buy many local goods at a fraction of the price that we pay in America.
  There is a REAL reason why companies like Walmart and Target have profit margins similar to the high tech world, than to other retailers.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
25. Re:SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by im_thatoneguy · 2017-02-07 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  The faster you launch, the sooner the time between failures. So an increasingly large percent of your time becomes time down due to failures.
  
  I think at some point you just take the 'damn the torpedoes' approach.Insurance should be happy to pay-out and most launches aren't NASA grade one-off missions. So maybe delay a New-Horizons class launch or manned mission until you figure out what went wrong, but meanwhile keep launching GPS satellites which have a very small incremental unit cost. If you lose one... that's why you built spares. I imagine a company like iridium would be more than happy to jump-the-line if you've established a reliability record that is within their acceptable losses rate.
26. Re:SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Kjella · 2017-02-07 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  My problem with SpaceX's plan isn't the market - that's solid. My concern is that the faster you want to launch, the less you can tolerate failures. The time a failure leaves you unable to launch for is independent of how fast you're launching. The faster you launch, the sooner the time between failures. So an increasingly large percent of your time becomes time down due to failures. The only way to overcome this is to correspondingly boost reliability. Want to 10x launch rates? Better 10x reliability. It's a tall order. SpaceX is already on the low end on reliability (not terrible by rocketry standards, but not great), so they already have a deficit to overcome.
  Assuming every failure means you have to ground every launch, it's not like the FAA grounds every airplane of that model when one is involved in a crash. Maybe they can split it into experimental and conservative configurations like say ten experimental launches without failure and they follow different rules, like you don't need a full root cause analysis only to proven the failure is probably related to the new configuration. Not saying it'll happen quite like SpaceX wants but if it becomes a high-volume industry I think the rules will adapt somehow so the world doesn't have to stop because one accident happened.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
27. Re: SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by thinkwaitfast · 2017-02-07 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  You can also bring the cost of living in the US to the level of living in other parts of the world. Easily. You might have to give up many things like a big house with a yard, three cars and a swimming pool, but then they don't have those things either.
28. Re: SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by thinkwaitfast · 2017-02-07 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  Are you sure? One of the things that surprised me when I lived in Tanzania was how similar the prices were. Sure there were variations, but probably not more than 50%. A TV there costs about what a TV from Costco costs. Candy bars were roughly equivalent. The difference there was that few people could buy these things and the store (only found one) was for foreigners and very rich people. Most people could not afford to eat out and cooked at home food bought a street markets where they didn't have the same quality or variety as the (only) store did.
  The reason people can live inexpensive there is that they do not buy expensive things. There is that ability to do the same in more developed countries also, but most people have money and don't look for them. If you lived there you'd be eating a lot of kale, potato and corn. You're not going to find chicken or steak any cheaper.
29. Re:SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 11:00 · Score: 0
  
  I took it that the GP was looking at it from the viewpoint of an existing provider (i.e. ULA) who WANTS the market to stagnate so that they can continue to make money without introducing new features.
  It would be like being AT&T in 1990 thinking that they would continue to lease T1 lines for $1,500 a month... forever
  As it turns out (or as history demonstrated with telecom monopoly busting), these situations are sitting ducks for fast moving companies that can develop and deploy new technology rapidly
30. Re:SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 11:04 · Score: 0
  
  A friend of mine on the Hopi nation started putting up large masts and deploying wifi over vast areas... because they are their own nation and nobody can stop you as long as you have a friend on the tribal council
31. Re:SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by soc_cost_priv_gains · 2017-02-07 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  Speaking of waste of money, ULA gets a billion dollars a year without having to launch anything.
32. Re:SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Bruce+Perens · 2017-02-07 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  ULA has a great record of not recently blowing up rockets that have a 1960's heritage, at three times the cost of SpaceX. But their main effort has been to drive costs up rather than down.
  
  --
  Bruce Perens.
33. Re: SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by ShanghaiBill · 2017-02-07 12:38 · Score: 2
  
  Are you sure? One of the things that surprised me when I lived in Tanzania was how similar the prices were.
  A TV costs about the same everywhere in the world. If anything, it will be even more expensive in developing countries. But local goods are usually cheaper, and locally rendered services tend to be WAY cheaper.
  When I lived in Shanghai, I didn't own a car because I couldn't afford it. But my family had a live in housekeeper for $100 / month.
34. Re: SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by thinkwaitfast · 2017-02-07 14:21 · Score: 1
  
  Food looks comparable and there were few goods to be had.
  The average person could not afford fast food or to go out to eat.
  The biggest price difference was in carved elephants - I got one for ~$15 and saw an identical one in Santa Fe a year later selling for $900. I joked that it would be less expensive to fly there and buy it. That was the only local good, other than food, that I saw. The pay breakdown was approx $1/day laborer, $2/day skilled (plumber/electrician) and $3/day college professor/engineer.
35. Re: SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 14:59 · Score: 0
  
  You know China's middle class is bigger than US total population... And Billy, is solidly pro US, them and capitalism can do no wrong as far as he's concerned.
36. Re: SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 15:23 · Score: 0
  
  Have you ever lived or worked in Japan?
  The middle class is being squeezed hard. And young workers are being squeezed even harder.
  The middle class is being crushed here.
37. Re:SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Rei · 2017-02-08 00:55 · Score: 2
  
  That sounds rather disingenuous if we're talking about two or three problems
  What's disingenuous is selecting for comparison launchers that had early problems but leaving out those that didn't.
  By rocketry standards, SpaceX's record isn't terrible, but it's not great either.
  
  This is true, nevertheless, the Soviets managed to reach something like sixty launches of an R-7 in a year sometime in the 1970s
  Because the Soviets didn't have the FAA grounding them until they can prove to a very high degree of confidence that they'd identified and remedied the problem. The Soviets had precisely the opposite attitude. For almost every single Venus mission, for example, they launched in pairs, just in case there was a fault in one launch vehicle / transfer stage or probe en route (and sometimes they'd lose both!)
  
  --
  Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
38. Re:SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Rei · 2017-02-08 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  The industry average failure rate is commonly stated at 95%, although that number is biased down by older rockets who which were developed at a time where a higher failure rate was considered more acceptable (it's lower with modern rockets). SpaceX was at 93% after their last accident. I repeat what I wrote: "Not terrible, but not great."
  As for mounting satellite before static testing:
  
  According to Peter B. de Selding on Twitter, SpaceX implemented an optional policy of attaching the payload to the vehicle earlier this year with some “insurer upset”, as it saves about a day during of launch preparations, and allows SpaceX to monitor the payload’s interaction with the vehicle. The customer can decline this option if they wish.
  The idea was SpaceX's. Operators can opt-out, but as a general rule customers go with whatever the launch provider thinks is best. And to be fair, there is some risk from opting out as well. If something is messed up with how the payload is mounted it might become clear during the static test.
  Lastly, I would not call SpaceX's most recent failures "right up front". And while I was willing to give them a pass for their first failure (the short of it: a supplier who lied about their QA process), this last failure falls entirely on their risky decision to store COPVs with no external liner submerged in densified LOX. I certainly wouldn't have taken such a risk. And the design isn't changing. Great that they're trying to reduce buckling and changing their helium loading procedure and all of that, but at the end of the day, composites have poor LOX compatibility, and densification just makes it worse.
  
  --
  Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
39. Re:SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by Rei · 2017-02-08 01:07 · Score: 2
  
  Except 1) A failure takes out an (expensive) launch pad for half a year, and 2) the FAA won't let you just take a "damn the torpedoes" approach, because these "torpedoes" contain the energy of a small nuclear bomb.
  
  --
  Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
40. Re: SpaceX plans to waste tons of fucking money by diesalesmandie · 2017-02-08 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  I was jesting hence the :), c'mon, is banter not allowed? I seriously find Bill's comments very interesting.
  
  --
  This is my sig, there are many like it but this one is mine
put stuff in space!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 04:48 · Score: 0

hell yeah!!
Not going to happen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 04:49 · Score: 0

Globally just about every major nations sat constellations are in very good shape, new and healthy and there is no demand for 25 extra launches per year. In fact globally the number of sats going up has been declining in recent years precisely because everyone spent the 2003-2013 period putting so much tonnage up. The satellite imaging market is oversaturated. The comms market isn't but isn't far off.
1. Re:Not going to happen by Guspaz · 2017-02-07 04:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  SpaceX has 56 future launches on their manifest, and that doesn't even include most of their NASA crew launches (only the first one is listed on their manifest). Even at 25 launches per year, it will take SpaceX years to catch up with their backlog. If their own constellation ever takes off, that would also add a large number of additional launches.
2. Re:Not going to happen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  Iridium is replacing its constellation right now. Musk wants his own constellation for global internet service (I don't know whether this plan is 'on' or 'off' for now, but that probably changes with the day of the week). The increased launch cadence also includes ISS resupply missions, and Falcon Heavy and Dragon 2 test flights down the road. Didn't I also read that some satellites in the European Galileo GPS constellation are failing faster than expected? Perhaps ESA will need help launching replacements.
  
  TL;DR: there are PLENTY of things that need to get thrown into LEO, at least in the near term (next couple years).
3. Re:Not going to happen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  That's not a lot. That's a two year backlog in an industry where you need to show a 2 year backlog just to get your line of credit renewed at the bank. Sorry.
4. Re:Not going to happen by Guspaz · 2017-02-07 06:57 · Score: 3
  
  It's a backlog that has only ever grown in spite of SpaceX launching up to 8 times per year, and would likely attract more interest from customers if they were launching regularly and didn't have a many-year manifest to work through. Even if they launched 25 times per year and only continued signing launch contracts at their current rate, they'd probably need at least four years to run out of things to launch. Their poor cadence is a problem that has already cost them business (due to the long wait time), and they could probably just reduce their cadence once they manage to reduce that backlog.
  That also assumes that they're not able to increase their market share. They're working on reducing their prices to try to capture more commercial business, they're working on getting government/military contracts in the US, and they've already lost a bunch of business to the competition because of their poor launch cadence. I'm not sure if all of that would be enough to support 25 launches per year in the long term (beyond the time needed to clear out the current manifest), but they do need that sort of cadence in the near term to clear the backlog.
  In the long term, if their own constellation ever happens, that's at least an extra 200 or so launches for the initial constellation, and then roughly 30 launches per year to maintain the constellation (due to the 5 to 7 year lifespan SpaceX has given). I'm still pretty skeptical about their constellation, though. I think the odds are that it won't happen.
5. Re:Not going to happen by WindBourne · 2017-02-07 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  huh. Nearly all assessments differ with you, esp. with launch costs plummeting due to SpaceX. Many nations around the world want to put up their own sats, and some of them want to get up to space with their own space program.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
What about 8K video? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 04:53 · Score: 0

We need to start planning for that.
To launch what? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 04:56 · Score: 0

For who?
1. Re:To launch what? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  Census satellites to proportion your basic income.
  MAGA TRUMPER
Let's hope they do, but not too optimistic by JoshuaZ · 2017-02-07 04:58 · Score: 1

SpaceX has had this sort of launch rate as a goal for years now. Repeated delays and two rocket failures, CRS-7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-7 and last year's on the ground explosion of a Falcon 9 have both slowed things down a lot. They are right now cheaper and more cutting edge than pretty much every other medium payload launcher, but the pressure of that sort of launch schedule is going to be very tough. And we're already seeing the expected slippage- CRS-10 was originally scheduled for late January, then got rescheduled to Feb 14 and is now on Feb 17. Given that they only have two launch facilities and they share personnel, delays for any given launch can easily start eating into prep time for later launches, bumping them even further.
1. Re:Let's hope they do, but not too optimistic by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  I have a personal goal to launch one rocket a week into orbit for this year.
2. Re:Let's hope they do, but not too optimistic by zakonchen · 2017-02-07 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone has to have goals, right? But yeah, let's see them get a one-per-month schedule going before we expect one every two to three weeks. I just can't see this happening this year without an incredible string of good luck.
3. Re:Let's hope they do, but not too optimistic by phayes · 2017-02-07 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Space-X's has 2 launch centers at the Cape, SLC40 which was damaged but should be repaired and ready in a few months and SLC39C which would have already launched F9 Heavy had it not been for the COPV incident, Vandenburg and is building facilities at Spaceport America near Las Cruces, New Mexico.
  Besides which, Falcon 9 is not the Shuttle and does not need weeks/months of launchpad testing.
  
  --
  Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
4. Re:Let's hope they do, but not too optimistic by Bruce+Perens · 2017-02-07 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Not Las Cruces, Boca Chica, Texas.
  
  --
  Bruce Perens.
5. Re:Let's hope they do, but not too optimistic by phayes · 2017-02-07 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... states that the Spaceport facility will be used for testing returned 1st stages but I did indeed omit the Boca Chica site as information on it's readiness is hard to find.
  Thanks for the correction.
  
  --
  Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
6. Re:Let's hope they do, but not too optimistic by Bruce+Perens · 2017-02-07 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  The New Mexico Spaceport facility of SpaceX was never activated. SpaceX retired the Grasshopper at McGregor and they never started the F9-Reusable phase 2 flight tests, since the final tests of that were done with customer boosters after their missions. SpaceX is doing all of the engine tests of Falcon 9 boosters at McGregor. But they are not allowed to free-fly at McGregor any longer (local parents got upset when they had to destruct the last F9R - their school is only 3 miles away). So, when the time comes to test the Dragon 2 propelled landing or the huge Mars rocket, that site may be activated. There is also some potential that they can run these tests out of Boca Chica and over water.
  
  --
  Bruce Perens.
Good luck SpaceX by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 05:12 · Score: 0

As one of the few space companies attempting to do something to make space more accessible I wish them all the luck in the world. I have the feeling that they still have some problems to overcome (though I hope I'm wrong), but I suppose it is a fact of life that progress generally isn't an easy thing.
1. Re:Good luck SpaceX by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 10:01 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sorry, your comment is too rational and level-headed for this thread. Please move along.
Hate to be the one to say this... by diesalesmandie · 2017-02-07 05:14 · Score: 1

But the title is misleading, "plans" to launch (title) and "should" launch (summary) are two totally different things...

--
This is my sig, there are many like it but this one is mine
Reusablility problems by edxwelch · 2017-02-07 05:20 · Score: 5, Informative

According to an article on Arstechnica, there is some problem with the current design, which means the recovered boosters are only good for one or two re-launches. They need the next version of Falcon 9, block 5 before they are properly re-usable.
https://arstechnica.com/scienc...
"It now seems likely that SpaceX will fly the landed boosters it currently has, at most, once or twice, before retiring them, instead of multiple times. Although the company hasn't elaborated on the problems with the engines, booster structure or composite materials that has challenged their attempts to re-fly its Falcon 9 first stages, Musk seems confident that changes to the Block 5 version of the rocket will solve the problem. "
1. Re:Reusablility problems by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  The bigger reusability problem is that the 2nd and 3rd stages are not re-usable and those stages are 2/3 the cost of the rocket so what are you really saving with a reusable first stage after all refurb cost are factored in? 10% of the total launch cost? 20? Who knows? But its not like they are cutting launch costs in half here.
2. Re:Reusablility problems by BradleyUffner · 2017-02-07 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Google tells me that it currently costs $62 to launch the Falcon 9. Show me any company out there that wouldn't jump at the chance to save $6.2 million dollars.
3. Re:Reusablility problems by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  The article is pretty light on details as to why they would think that SpaceX would only be reusing the current returned boosters only one or two times. Even if it is accurate the explanation could be much more mundane than some kind of significant design problem. It could easily be that they simply want to standardize their launcher to their most modern version to prevent mistakes & streamline launch prep. Having multiple versions of anything floating around can result in someone utilizing the equipment/software from one on the other, just look at the Ariane 5 failure if you want to see the results.
4. Re: Reusablility problems by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 06:11 · Score: 0
  
  You've got it backwards. Two-thirds of the launch cost is the _first_ stage, not the 2nd.
5. Re:Reusablility problems by Thelasko · 2017-02-07 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  According to an article on Arstechnica, there is some problem with the current design, which means the recovered boosters are only good for one or two re-launches.
  There is an issue with turbopumps cracking. I suspect this issue was only detected because the rockets have been recovered after launch.
  
  --
  One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
6. Re: Reusablility problems by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  And there is no third stage.
7. Re: Reusablility problems by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  Unless they mean 2/3rds of the cost of the fully integrated vehicle is the payload sitting on top.
8. Re:Reusablility problems by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  According to an article on Arstechnica, there is some problem with the current design, which means the recovered boosters are only good for one or two re-launches.
  There is an issue with turbopumps cracking. I suspect this issue was only detected because the rockets have been recovered after launch.
  Nah, they've known about the cracking for years. They've also done at least 7 full-duration burns on one of the recovered stages. It would appear that the cracks are undesirable, but not a short-term threat.
9. Re: Reusablility problems by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  If you don't lose the payload, how can it be part of the (orbital launch) cost? The payload is still there after the launch and is written off after that during its operational lifetime. Cost is just what you pay SpaceX to get the payload up there. If you would launch a 5 ton boulder, then the cost would remain 60 million, so saying the first stage is 2/3 of the cost, the payload isn't part of that.
10. Re:Reusablility problems by tsotha · 2017-02-07 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  The turbine cracks seems to be more of an issue for manned flight.
11. Re:Reusablility problems by hey! · 2017-02-07 07:37 · Score: 2
  
  It depends on volume, I guess. An automotive engineer will sell his soul for a buck savings on a $30K car, because that savings if extended over several model years you could be talking millions of cars.
  The more repeatable an activity is, the more marginal improvements in financial efficiency matter. We only launched a dozen Saturn Vs, at a billion plus per launch, only 10% of which was the rocket itself. So you put a high premium on simpler operations than minor cost savings on the rocket. But if we were planning hundreds of launches the economics would be different. You'd amortize the engineering over 10x as many vehicles, and your refurbishment operations would become more efficient as it becomes more like an assembly line and less like a craft project.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
12. Re:Reusablility problems by im_thatoneguy · 2017-02-07 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  They need the next version of Falcon 9, block 5 before they are properly re-usable.
  That's a misinterpretation of what was stated. What Elon Musk said was that they want to consolidate their entire fleet onto one design. That means they will only be flying the current generation once or twice before they phase the 'legacy' design out of their fleet.
  There have been no statements about fitness of the design itself, just the business case for maintaining multiple builds. A problem every software developer should be familiar with. If you can, you want to update everybody to a single release and maintain that one branch instead of backporting all of your updates to past releases.
13. Re: Reusablility problems by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-02-07 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  I thought it was was three fourths? The second stage has one eighth the engines, and the structure and many of the components are shared, after all. So it's not wonder the ratio is more favourable than in the case of "heterogeneous" rockets like Atlas V.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
14. Re:Reusablility problems by Megane · 2017-02-07 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  Manned flights are more likely to be a source of fresh boosters than to re-use them. NASA can and so far does always require a fresh rocket and capsule anyhow, so turbine cracks after a flight probably aren't going to be an issue for manned flight.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
15. Re:Reusablility problems by Bruce+Perens · 2017-02-07 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  There is no third stage. The second stage has one engine. The first stage has nine engines. Guess which one is more expensive? :-)
  
  --
  Bruce Perens.
16. Re:Reusablility problems by Bruce+Perens · 2017-02-07 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the current design issue is not known to limit reuse, however there is a "block 5" design which is being done to incorporate what they have learned about reuse and SpaceX is not interested in learning the block 4 reusable lifetime with block 5 starting to come out. Musk claims this is the last F9 redesign, which is waaaaay optimistic considering that they've not flown crewed missions yet and they are bound to run into some qualification issues before the first crewed mission and as experience is gained.
  There is always going to be some sort of problem with a design. The current issue is cracks in the turbopump impeller and housing. The cracks do not grow large enough to cause the part to break, and the engine is designed to be robust to turbopump cracks - it keeps working. However, NASA has requested a redesign that doesn't crack for crewed use, and SpaceX will provide that.
  
  --
  Bruce Perens.
17. Re: Reusablility problems by Bruce+Perens · 2017-02-07 11:50 · Score: 2
  
  Not considering fixed costs. The costs of all of the things other than the rocket itself that go into making the rocket, flying the mission, and recovering the rocket. It will only be possible to amortize these costs if the launch volume is sufficient. This is why SpaceX must now approach a cadence of 2/month and that eventually gets higher.
  At this point someone who once took economics will ask if the market for launches is elastic. In other words, "if SpaceX builds it faster, will customers come faster?" Probably yes. Getting away from 15-year satellite lifetimes is the first thing we'll see. A 5-year satellite replacement cycle will be much more practical. Think about having to use a laptop from the year 2002, and you'll understand. And additional market changes follow that one.
  
  --
  Bruce Perens.
18. Re:Reusablility problems by tsotha · 2017-02-07 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  I think the feeling is cracks are an indication of impending failure. Can you imagine what would happen if NASA lost a fully crewed Dragon to a problem it already knew about?
19. Re:Reusablility problems by Agripa · 2017-02-08 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  The turbine cracks seems to be more of an issue for manned flight.
  Turbine cracks were not a problem on the space shuttle. NASA solved the issue but redefining them as a maintenance problem.
A rocket a day keeps the high costs away by Soft · 2017-02-07 05:29 · Score: 2

Almost a quarter-century ago, people were suggesting that way to drive down launch costs: http://www.fourmilab.ch/docume...
1. Re:A rocket a day keeps the high costs away by thinkwaitfast · 2017-02-07 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  This is what doomed the shuttle. The only way they could get costs down to the advertised price tag was to have a high launch rate. The only way to get that high of a launch rate was to get the dod to use their services, the only way to get the dod to use their services was to meet the requirements of the dod and that meant a lot of requirements that weren't originally expected, and those design changes doomed the program. The air force did not want the shuttle, but NASA lobbied congress to force them to use it.
Plan plan plan HYPE HYPE HYPE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 05:39 · Score: 0

Plan hype plan hype. Is that all you do?
1. Re: Plan plan plan HYPE HYPE HYPE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  Don't forget "ship cars, build battery plants, and launch rockets."
  Then probably more hype and planning. But don't for a moment try to pretend that Elon Musk is full of shit.
2. Re: Plan plan plan HYPE HYPE HYPE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 11:09 · Score: 0
  
  You forgot crash rockets, blow up rockets and of course kill drivers using autopilot...
  Last but not least.... Take tax abatements and government contracts....
That Sounds Great And All... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 05:51 · Score: 0

but are we no longer concerned with pollution & "global warming"? The toxic exhaust, all the energies that go into "setup" and myriad other factors that entail a launch. I'm a big fan of space exploration and furthering scientific knowledge, but how come Space X, et al, gets a pass?
my captcha=inequity
1. Re:That Sounds Great And All... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  The exhaust contains mostly CO2 and water with a little unburned fuel, so it's not particularly toxic. This isn't like STS with its hydrochloric acid-spewing solid boosters or Proton with its hypergolics. Yes, the exhaust contributes to AGW, but rockets are a drop in the bucket compared to the aviation and shipping industries, and the industry is starting to move away from RP-1 towards methane (which can be sourced in a carbon-neutral way).
Musk's response by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 06:44 · Score: 0

Musk has had a few humiliating failures. His response? Increase the launch rate! I look forward to the fireworks.
1. Re: Musk's response by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  You're right. Space is hard, he should just give up.
2. Re:Musk's response by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 07:11 · Score: 0
  
  Hi! Today some bad things happened. One bad thing was a rocket got crashed going into space. Wanna see? People won't be late for space though, because the SpaceX guy said, "I'm sending in more rockets!"
3. Re:Musk's response by ventsyv · 2017-02-07 07:24 · Score: 2
  
  Humiliating? This is one of the most successful people in the world, he has nothing to be humiliated about. He is KILLING IT !
4. Re: Musk's response by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 09:56 · Score: 0
  
  Space is empty. Except for a few probes and radios in space, yes, pretty much, give it up.
5. Re: Musk's response by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, aside from containing a thousand times the resources that we have on Earth (just in our tiny little solar system), space is empty
  The really nice thing is that much of it is outside of large gravity wells and you do not have to pay a heavy price to launch it
So two-thirds is space junk. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 06:57 · Score: 0

So two-thirds is space junk.
Who is going to pay to clean all that up when it starts destroying usable satellite orbits?
Until everybody learns and takes into account negative externalities we will not have a long-term functioning economy and civilization.
1. Re:So two-thirds is space junk. by mschuyler · 2017-02-07 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need to "clean it up." Just consider it raw material for a complete ring around the Earth.
  
  --
  How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
2. Re:So two-thirds is space junk. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  Consider it a "shield" for earth when the hostile ET's arrive... "Oh Yea? You want some of this? Take that space junk you ET bastards! We are INSANE and are not afraid to prove it! You need to leave now right? Right? Leave now or we launch another Falcon 9 loaded with microsats at you."
  BTW, all move rights reserved (apologies to Sandra).
Doubtful by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 07:09 · Score: 0

More likely Elon will be deported back to South Africa.
Two reasons for skepticism by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 07:34 · Score: 0

1. Elon NEVER achieves the schedules he aims for; he's nearly always years behind schedule. This is not necessarily a bad thing since it means he's always aiming to do better but it does mean the fanboys need to limit their crazy hero worship.
2. It's all predicated on the idea that he will have BILLIONS of dollars from NASA and USAF launch contracts. Since he recently joined the other billionaire elites of silicon valley in his attack on Trump's 90 day pause on immigrants from those 7 sources of all high-tech labor (Sudan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, etc) he ought to start thinking about whether those US Govt launch contracts will remain in place. That would have been like publicly attacking Obama on one of his main campaign pledges to the public, while standing there holding his hand out for subsidies for his Tesla cars...