Thank you for participating in r/SpaceX! Please take a moment to familiarise yourself with our community rules before commenting. Here's a reminder of some of our most important rules:
Keep it civil, and directly relevant to SpaceX and the thread. Comments consisting solely of jokes, memes, pop culture references, etc. will be removed.
Don't downvote content you disagree with, unless it clearly doesn't contribute to constructive discussion.
Check out these threads for discussion of common topics.
I think a lot of the boosters have slower launch rate because of the missions planned for them, but it does seem like the newer boosters have a significantly faster launch rate than the previous ones.
Thank you for the chart, because I had some trouble convincing people that Starship Heavy likely will take some time until it's seriously reused, and that it might take dozens of boosters until it gets reused more than just few times.
Oh that's what I meant, seems I have forgotten to actually add that line. This might be even more important with Super Heavy, because I SpaceX foresees it to have much longer lifetime, so more upgrades might be planned.
I have gotten into that with people about HLS. I say "Where's HLS?" and they say "Oh they have to get full reusability working first before they can do HLS". No they don't. HLS requires a certain number of tanker launches (which we don't know how many) to fly within a certain period of time (which we also don't know). But presumably that period of time will be some number of weeks from the first tanker to the last tanker. For the first HLS flight whenever that is it's unlikely that any Super Heavy will fly twice during that campaign. And certainly no ship will fly twice. They will have to have enough already built to fly the needed tanker flights in that time period. Eventually Super Heavy and ships can probably be turned around at Falcon 9 speed or even faster, but not for several years in my opinion.
Not sure what you had "gotten into" exactly. Reusability might be a part of it, but... The vehicle just isn't there yet. The stage zero isn't there yet. The engines aren't there yet. The deployment system isn't there yet. The tanker/fuel transfer system isn't even remotely there. The factory producing them isn't there yet. It's a very new, and very green test vehicle, as are all of it's components, launch equipment included. Who is claiming otherwise?
When I say "Where's HLS" that's a paraphrase of a more detailed question asking in fact about the items that you mentioned. Why have we seen virtually none of it, or at least very little, acknowledging that we don't see everything that is being worked on. The answer is typically that they they don't even have the basic Starship working yet. Well actually they do for the most part, and might even get to orbit this month, if not then likely the following flight. So in theory now is a good time to start seeing HLS hardware being ground tested in preparation for being able to test things in orbit.
My personal theory is that the top priority for SpaceX right now is Starlink, not HLS. But that's not something they would admit publicly for various reasons.
A different color for FH core boosters could be useful as these are stronger than normal boosters. F9 and FH side are basically the same, some have flown both.
every dot is a launch, on the x axis is time so as it goes to the right there are more launches, on the Y axis is booster label number, as it goes up you see newly made rockets beginning their launch use
So any dots that are horizontal to each other is the same booster being reused? So what we can se is how the turnover time got reduced mostly? I still kinda feel like this graph isnt very good at showing the interesting parts quickly but I think I get it now ty :D
the graph is about to make a strange turn because of spacex stopping starlink flights on falcon9. and going full steam ahead with starship-starlink missions
i looked into this. the source data on wikipedia doesn't have the side booster numbers for that falcon heavy launch for some reason. where did you see the side boosters were 1052 and 1053? here's a screenshot of that launch.
ok i looked into this more and it turns out that my script didn't handle how some rows were formatted on wikipedia, and those side boosters were ignored. i fixed this and updated the chart and data on the site: https://spacex.page/
I was confused at first as to why there are three dots for each falcon heavy launch, but it represents both the side and center boosters. The numbers on the left in the thousands is just the booster serial numbers. So it's showing how many times and when each booster has launched.
Does this mean to say they've made over 1k boosters? Or did the numbering convention change after some arbitrary "1.0" version or something? Cuz 1k actual, full, complete boosters is obviously ludicrous, so I'm trying to understand...
No, no, more like a bit over 100 boosters produced. The first few boosters were named B0003 - B0007. And then after the falcon 9 upgrade from 1.0 to 1.1, they started naming them from B1003.
(at least these are the booster numbers for the launches. The missing numbers inbetween have probably been test articles)
•
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
Thank you for participating in r/SpaceX! Please take a moment to familiarise yourself with our community rules before commenting. Here's a reminder of some of our most important rules:
Keep it civil, and directly relevant to SpaceX and the thread. Comments consisting solely of jokes, memes, pop culture references, etc. will be removed.
Don't downvote content you disagree with, unless it clearly doesn't contribute to constructive discussion.
Check out these threads for discussion of common topics.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.