For the umpteenth time.
With the cadence of Falcon 9 launches that SpaceX has been putting in - and working to increase - on any given day if they're not launching one, they're rolling one out to the pad to prepare for launch, or bringing one into port for refurbishment. Or all three.
The highlight of this is the booster as it's the recycling we see the most of. Even at nearly 400 successful landings, landing a booster is still incredible. While it's "the way it ought to be," for every launch I watch video coverage of I still read comments where people say, "it never gets old."
Last Friday, Booster B1067 became the fleet leader by launching for the 25th
time. B1067 has now launched 457 satellites and eight astronauts over
its 25 flights. You probably remember when they considered achieving 10
flights was a goal. Now we call boosters with up to 10 flights "near
new."
SpaceX now plans to launch each Falcon 9 booster up to 40 times. Engineers temporarily removed two Falcon 9 boosters from SpaceX's launch rotation in 2023 for in-depth inspections after their 15th flight. That allowed SpaceX to extend each booster's certification to 20 flights, and last year, officials announced they were going for 40.
As their experience with reuse has gone up, the time it takes to inspect a booster and prepare it for its next flight has gone down.
In November, SpaceX launched the same Falcon 9 booster twice in less than 14 days, the shortest turnaround time for a booster yet. The company has launched 38 missions with booster turnaround times of one month or less, and all but nine of those flights occurred within the last year.
Don't forget that the 14 days included returning the booster to Port Canaveral on the drone ship it landed on, that's usually around a day and a half travel back to port, followed by days getting it ready for the next flight.
And it's not just the booster. They successfully re-fly fairing halves, too, after dropping the concept of catching them in a giant net and instead just letting them splash down into the ocean, then picking them out of the water. In December, they announced a fairing was launched for the 22nd time.
SpaceX's factory in Hawthorne, California, must also churn out new upper stages for each Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy flight. That's 135 of these multi-million-dollar stages for each Falcon mission in the last 365 days, or one flight (and one new upper stage) every 2.7 days.
They regularly set new records increasing their launch cadence, or decreasing the amount of time spent on the ground.
When SpaceX landed twice on the same drone ship in three-and-a-half days last year, the company's vice president of launch, Kiko Dontchev, congratulated his team on X. The drone ship "traveled roughly 640 nautical miles in that time with only 3.5 hrs at the dock to drop off a rocket," he wrote.
All of this progress toward faster turnaround times and higher cadence is going to be essential for Starship if Musk's visions for the monster vehicle ever are to be realized. Musk has suggested that SpaceX must produce 100 or more Starships per year to fulfill his Mars settlement ambitions, even with full reusability. That link is saying SpaceX needs to build Starships as often as Boeing builds 737s. Boeing has several plants that can manufacture those planes. It sounds like they need to clone the Starbase factories in other places around the country.
In the background, a Falcon 9 rocket climbs away from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida. Another Falcon 9 stands on its launch pad at neighboring Kennedy Space Center LC-39A awaiting its opportunity to fly. Image credit: SpaceX
It looks like the choke point on Falcon 9 is the catcher ships.
ReplyDeleteAs to more factories, right now, during the experimental construction phase of both Starship and Booster, the current Star factory at Starbase is producing about one of each a week. That's making constant changes, ditching whole sections, trashing complete vehicles. And the choke point isn't the Star factory right now, it's the lack of space in the Mega Bays for stacking. Which is why the current High Bay will be going away and be replaced by a 'Giga' Bay that is both taller and larger in footprint than the two Mega Bays.
Though there is all that land and a building mostly already built at the Cape. Which probably will require a lot of reworking to meet the new Star Factory standards. And I'm pretty sure that SpaceX has that in its plans for the future, once they get the whole experimental phase down.
Though SpaceX is rather good at surprising the living daylights out of us. I wouldn't put it past them to move all Falcon9 production out of California and to the Cape.
Was thinking how they could possibly use a derrick out at sea, raise the recent landed booster off the drone ship, leaving out the two way trip it needs to take presently. But maybe the sea is too rough to safely do that out at station bobbing on the waves. Though they probably have some kind of stabilizers on them to limit that bobbing.
DeleteNowadays cruise ships have stabilizing systems that keep waves from making them bob around like crazy. I'm sure that's easier offshore where the seas are more uniform than between islands or places where waves could appear to be coming from multiple places.
DeleteI've never been on one of those ships but it would be interesting to talk with someone about whether they'd be capable of stabilizing the drone ships.
Knowing how they do stuff, probably have autonomous operated thrusters which steady the barge.
DeleteOil platforms use a variety of methods for stabilization. One of the easiest is just the sheer size of the things.
DeleteSpaceX could use one as long as the 'landing zone' is the same for every launch. Which it isn't. Thus the Drone Ships. Which can be moved around and shuffled in and out and can be withdrawn completely in case the weather/ocean gets 'stroppy.'
What also continually amazes me is the success/safety record.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the reasons for the success/safety record is that SpaceX is in 'mass production' mode using modern assembly technology. Rather than hand fettling each individual 'masterpiece' like other companies do. And that 'mass production' is also why the individual boosters are cheaper per brand-new unit than other boosters, even before one factors in the reusability.
DeleteWatching competence in action should never get old :)
ReplyDeleteIt's like watching an expert artist turn a bunch of random-looking motions into something beautiful. One of the things I routinely say when we're watching a launch is how much I love watching someone who knows what they're doing.
DeleteAdmiral Robert Heinlein Approves. Me, I just cry at the beauty and majesty .
ReplyDeleteExcellent!
DeleteAh! The best are the on booster shots, yeah never gets old experiencing just how friggin' fast those boosters coming in to land, and how quickly they slow down, looks like at the very edge of the last second to do so. Its one hairy view.
ReplyDeleteSeen that with super heavy, though its size kind of makes it look not so quickly it reduced its speed, the shock wave preceding the SH booster is sublime, makes the Falcon boosters look like balsa wood toys in comparison, hope we all get to see another successful SH booster catch today, thats never gonna get old, its just too fraught with potential disaster. First couple of astronauts who are riding a Star Ship, Mechazilla landing/catch will be ones who got cast iron testicles being essentially human crash test dummies, I know I would, no uncertain terms about it. There's just something a bit unnatural about catching a rocket out of thin air, (like Clint Eastwood quipped in Heartbreak Ridge about jumping out of a perfectly good airplane).
One of the aspects of genius you can see on every flight is to watch how they let the atmosphere do most of the work. They do an initial burn at high altitude that slows the booster a bit, and if you're watching the SpaceX video, in the lower left corner you can watch the speed dropping as the booster continues to drop after the engines shut down. I think most people think it will speed up, but it slows down.
DeleteThe other aspect that seems practically impossible is that a single Merlin engine is too powerful to get the F9 to hover, so they program in where it's supposed to get close enough to zero to be safe, without climbing again, and the velocity gets close to zero. They can't predict where the ship is going to be on the waves, so sometimes it lands harder than others.
Seen that couple times, looks like they get a hover about equal to the level if rise and fall, then gentle it in las few feet. Hey, guess if they can land them, thats pretty simple pie to do.
DeleteSay your right about that, they got the Falcon truly dialed in, to get that rate of success. In fact its the really most remarkable aspect, achieving that kind of safety rate, thats got to be 100% a specialized engineering and manufacturing feat. So much to possibly go wrong, and they beat the odds consistently.
ReplyDeleteToo bad they can't use some kind of drag chute to slow down re-entry speeds. Got no idea how the whole cycle works for re-entering Earth's atmosphere, there has to be another way, cause it is such a shame they can't cost effectively re-use the second stages. And thats a lot of space junk purposefully burning up on re-entry. Like to see one at night, must be pretty cool looking, lot of mass there not like tiny micro meteoroids we usually see.
ReplyDeleteRemember back how Lockheed CEO quipped the Falcon9 boosters weren't considered re-usable till their tenth recovery. Talk about running one's mouth, bet he's regretting that comment about now. (instead of stepping up to the plate, what with-all their capabilities, far as I know they aren't even attempting to do so, makes you wonder what all these legacy space corps been really doing, makes SpaceX's achievements in the time frame they been operating that much more amazing)
ReplyDelete"I see your 10 and raise you another 15. Let me know when you recover something 25 times. Or just let me know when you recover something even once."
DeleteBooster 1067 with 25 flights, has launched more times since its first flight in June 2021 than all of ULA's (Lockheed and Martin Marietta) missions, everything they fly, in the same time period.
Heh! :-)
Deletehttps://arstechnica.com/space/2025/01/a-nasa-astronaut-may-have-just-taken-the-best-photo-from-space-ever/
ReplyDeleteAwesome photo, he got the whole heavens in one shot.
I really wish we - as a nation - celebrated this for the accomplishment that it is. This really has all the makings of the next "big push" out into space, and too many ignore the accomplishment because of their opinions about the owner.
ReplyDeleteKeep up or be left behind for the great frontier. Always be flat earthers and such. We are such strange creatures.
DeleteShould be a great show at dusk, for SuperHeavy launch. The day launches are not near as spectacular, in relative terms that is.
ReplyDeleteHi Ho! That was sudden. Checked Next SpaceFlight few minutes ago, now shows BO set to launch at 1pm today, maybe they do not want SpaceX to steal the lime light on them.
ReplyDelete?? For me it still says NG-1 is 1AM tonight/tomorrow morning. They pushed Starship to Thursday at 5PM.
DeleteSiG - forgive me if you've already addressed this subject, but I'm really curious about the supply chain for propellants. It seems like the cadence of launches is far in excess of historical (60s, 70s, 80s) launch rates. How do Canaveral, Vandenberg, Boca Chica, etc. provide the continuing vast quantities of LOx, LH, methane, and hypergolics needed to sustain the current launch rates?
ReplyDeleteI haven't really covered that and haven't seen much of anything about the subject. On Tuesday, hours after the New Glenn scrub, Eric Berger at Ars Technica thought that it may be a mandatory 48 hours to allow Blue's methane and LOX tanks to be refilled, but they announced there were going to try again in 24 hours, negating that. A couple of hours later, they cancelled that and went to a longer reset.
DeleteFor Starship tests, they bring in tanker truck after tanker truck and fill their onsite storage tanks. My WAG is that goes on pretty much unseen in all places. Supply has got to be getting pinched. In terms of launches, SpaceX alone exceeds the total number of launches of everyone else on Earth - combined - and has done it repeatedly. That's got to matter.
Space-X doesn't do 100 rocket launches/year, so much as they launch the same rockets 5-15 times each.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but, every launch takes pretty much the same amount of fuel (if you're referring to the anon post an hour before my 12:56 reply). And last year's 137 launches is that many tanks of fuel and the same number of LOX.
DeleteYes. But they're using 95 fewer engines.
DeleteIt's the difference between filling you tank with gas every week, or throwing away your car every day.
NASA's heads have probably exploded.
40! This is the future I was looking for!
ReplyDeleteStill waiting on the jetpacks, though. Jet-X, anyone?
DeleteThe Solotrek XFV was one of the first attempts for personal flying craft, it never panned out but was a good idea that never made it. Jet engines (no matter what size) are expensive to maintain and use. Electric or gas motor driven fans are easier and cheaper to make, maintain, and operate. Quieter, too!
DeleteWith the technology gains in control systems I'm surprised the Solotrek didn't "survive", but the Springtail EFV (no online references) seems to be an offshoot.
I was hoping to see one in commercial/military use before I die, but we'll see...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete