On New Year's Eve, I posted a screen capture of the first three launches of the year from Next Spaceflight to show the first three launches of the year. I'll just repost it here.
All three of those launches have shifted later. We just watched the Thuraya 4-NGS launch from the backporch here south of the Cape. Instead of being at the earliest time that would be called Jan. 2nd, it was about 3-1/2 hours less than two full days late.
The Starlink 6-71 mission is bumped from Sunday afternoon at 12:10 PM to Monday, Jan. 6 at 11:44 AM. Since it's launching from the same complex as tonight's flight, I figure there must be some amount of time allowed to recycle everything between launches.
New Glenn is currently set for Weds. Jan. 8 at 1:00 AM.
A new Starlink mission, Group 12-11 which will be launched from Pad 39A, is now inserted between Sunday's Starlink 6-71 and New Glenn early Wednesday morning. This new group 12-11 mission will launch NET Tues. Jan 7 @ 10:51 AM EST.
And if you can keep all that straight without going reflexively back and forth to NextSpaceflight, you're doing better than me!
The first launch of 2025, tonight's Falcon 9 launch from SLC-40 on Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. Screen capture from the NSF (NASA Spaceflight) video.
There are reports or rumors that SpaceX has set their goal for this year at around 180 launches. I've also seen 188 mentioned as the goal, and I don't know of an official place to see that. So pick one or the other of those and divide 365 days by that number of launches. You'll get a number close to two, which implies a launch every other day. Last year, SpaceX launched more than every other launch provider on Earth, combined. I don't see that as likely to change.
Will SpaceX ever complete the Starlink series? Yes, they will need to replace failure and damaged sats but at what point will they say enough. Then what will replace the Star link launches? Will there be that much lift capacity needed? Inquiring minds want to know.
ReplyDeleteRight now Starlink is funding all of SpaceX. Once the constellations are complete, SpaceX will be able to replace early Starlink satellites with more capable ones. And the Starlink satellites are designed for less than decades service, so there will always be a replacement there, too.
DeleteThe bigger Starlinks, launchable using Starlink, will be able to carry more power and equipment, be able to crosslink and send/receive much more.
This means an eventual end to Falcon as SpaceX transfers launch capability to Starship. Just commercially, the savings per kg between the two justifies ditching Falcon (and, yes, Dragon. Oh, let's launch a Falcon 9 with 4 people in Dragon at $140 million or launch a Starship with 40 people and 100 tons of cargo for... $140 million or less. Gee...)
Then there's Starlink Cellular/Satphone service, which will be introduced soon at a price probably comparable to some of the mid-to-higher level plans and then dropping in price. That's a whole nuther bunch of info to clog the satellites with.
Once SpaceX gets all of near-Earth Starlink up and running, there's always putting up relay Starlinks around the Moon and/or between Earth and the Moon. Then between Earth and Mars. And then around Mars. Then further out. Starlink has the ability, as it is upgraded, to connect the whole star system eventually.
Imagine that. Standing on the dark side of the Moon and talking to your family or boss on your friggin cell phone. Or on Mars cell phoning (with, yes, a serious data transmission delay) to home. Or on Mars talking to someone else on Mars on in orbit around Mars.
As 'complete' as Starlink is now, there's so much more to be added and improved on.
It's just Falcon is probably going away in the future as Starship, once it gets launching commercially, eclipses it.
And that's the thing. One Starship launch will be at the same cost or less than Blue Origin, will be mostly to 100& reusable and lift so much more per launch that the next generation of satellites and probes won't have to be built to maximize potential in a minimal space. They'll be able to have hardened structures, bigger batteries and solar arrays or RTGs to power and keep the system warm or dissipate waste heat and so much more.
Yes, we are reaching peak current-Starlink. But current-Starlink is 2-3 generations behind what SpaceX wants right now. Lots of room to improve. Even if only to make the satellites less visible so Earth-based astronomers would quit whinging about how Starlinks are spoiling their pictures.
Didn't Nixon take a phone call from the moon?
DeleteOfficial recording has 5 second lag time between his talking and the moon's response.
Thanks Beans, that clears up many questions I had. As old as I am I don't think much beyond my next cup of coffee.
DeleteThe speed of light is 186,000 miles/second, and the moon is an average of 250,000 miles, so just bouncing a signal off the moon is 2.7 seconds round trip. I'm assuming some delay in the phone system (it was over 50 years ago, after all) so another 2.3 seconds added in the hardware sounds like a pretty reasonable number. It's awkward to carry out a conversation with that sort of delay. Now think of carrying out conversations to Mars - the delays vary widely, but I think the planning number is 20 seconds each way. Then the Voyagers out where it's more like 24 hours each way...
DeleteThe universe has much too low a speed limit.
I think communications within the Solar system will be much like what was depicted in The Expanse (books and T.V.). One will record a message which is much like writing a letter, send it and then wait for a similar message in response. The time delays are enormous for live communication.
DeleteCould quantum entangled "devices" as has been speculated be created? That has been speculated on where two devices have quantum entangled "somethings" within them that when one is stimulated the other does the same with no time delay. Then one is taken to a far distant place and they are used to provide communication. I don't think that the quantum physics of this has been established. BUT, if possible it would be great. What is science fiction today is to some extent science fact in the future.
Quantum entangled devices: there was a report in the last week or two about a Google quantum computer that solved a problem that would take existing computers longer than the universe has been around. That's all wonderful, but the problem isn't communications - or, at least, it's not all communications. We need ways to turn months or years of space travel into much shorter intervals. At some point, it becomes infeasible to load the food and water on a ship. It simply becomes too big and too heavy. Better engines? Sure. Nuclear? Absolutely. But what if quantum entanglement could put a ship where you want it to be now instead of years from now?
DeleteWhat BillB said about transmission lag. We'll be able to Starlink-phone from close, even from the Moon to Earth or to locations in and around Marsabut everything else will become a lot of text and recorded messages sent back and forth.
DeleteWhich was covered by the great Sci-Fi authors like Heinlein and that jackass Asimov.
One story, I think Asimov, has the main Herr Doktor's wife giving the suggestion as to how to communicate to be, "We see you have a problem, we'll start talking about possible solutions and when you hear this, just start talking and if any of this is helpful we'll keep talking and if it isn't tell us what it could be and what you've done and we'll start providing more information." Like talking on a party line.
Quantum Comm is an interesting idea, but at this time too much handwavium is required.
Better yet would be, as SiG said, nuclear engines cutting travel time from months to weeks. And, well, larger ships that carry more. Fast clippers carrying smaller important cargo and lumbering merchants carrying lots of less important or less time sensitive cargo. Maybe even launching cargo pods from the Moon using a mass accelerator, like God and Heinlein intended.
That right there, fast ships for priority and time sensitive cargo, slow freight for regular cargo, will be the way to handle things.
And those slow ships can handle huge cargos, which, of course should include some manufacturing equipment to ease the reliance on shipping for some parts.
Some food may be able to be grown 'out there,' like some veggies and such, but proteins will need to come from Earth. At least for a decade or so, depending on how quickly the 'out there' infrastructure takes to build.
The FFA license for BO gives them next day the 9th if they scrub the 8th window.
ReplyDeleteHope they achieve all their goals, their rocket sure seems a pretty slick set up, doing everything by the numbers, really shows. Want to see what their 5 booster engines do, from the looks of the test firing other day, they got some serious hp.
The graph for the last 50 years really gives a good impression how much things have ramped up since Falcon 9 hit its stride.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.universetoday.com/170295/there-were-over-260-orbital-launches-in-2024-a-new-record/
Looking at events space related, I bet looking back, SpaceX development of return to base boosters, combined with them being at least partly private venture operations, is the pivotal technology that totally alters reaching sustainable human involved space operations. It was what was needed in every sense of things, of history. Its not AI, its not fusion power, its non of those great leaps, its getting the human race up out if earths gravity well and never looking back. Though fusion power in small form factors could be the next leap, cause with that kind of wattage a number of engines are possible which solve the distance/fuel equation, and in part the time to travel part of the equation, engines which can boost a gas to high percentages of light speeds, or possibly a gravity engine, probably requiring quite a lot of electrical power, if its even possible, then we are talking serious space operations. I think that in combination with profitable mining of the asteroid belt, that will make human space operations permanent. And with say small form factor fusion, or even direct fusion powered engines, something like being able to economically reach, I think its Anceladeus, Saturn's moon, made almost entirely of water ice, dropping mined water payloads down the gravity well using long duration minimal fuel return Holman orbits, set up a pipeline of payloads, by simply strapping on economical ion engines to a large chunk o ice, or even more economical, as it appears from evidence building, water ice asteroids, those just need a few engines and you could even mount a control cabin on them to move people around at the same time, or find a valuable metals bearing asteroid, same thing, but add in mining op's while its heading back down the gravity well, time it arrives, those orbits can be pretty long duration, you have ready product to sell. Got to be chunks of the broke apart planet that created the belt, made from rich concentrations of metals from that planets early formation. With solar power and handy vacuum, its a blast or reduction furnace just for relatively cheap equipment, compared to possible returns on investment. Mining parts of a planets core not feasible say on earth. And earth can be turned into a garden planet, it is. It all looks pretty good from here, what I'm saying.
ReplyDelete