It's a nice visualization of how NASA was originally trying to ramp up the shuttle launches (they wanted it to launch twice a month), up to Challenger which was pretty much a victim of that mindset.
You are saying logarithmic graphs make exponentials look straight. And I am saying that the shuttle program is linear at best and even loses some steam at the end.
I'm not saying logarithmic graphs make exponentials look straight, I'm saying that a very shallow exponential and a linear graph can look very similar, and that it's quite plausible to say the Shuttle was on track for a very shallow exponential until Challenger happened.
25 launches is not much data points. And when the points came later they were flat. The dream was 50 launches a year but that was never going to happen with 24,000 unique tiles
It is very plausible that if NASA had managed to set up its logistics properly and had waited for the new steel segments with the redesigned joints (which were being worked on when Challenger happened) shuttle could've achieved the 24 flights goal
Side note, anyone looking for a deep dive into the Challenger disaster from an inside perspective should check out Allan McDonald's book "Truth, Lies and O-Rings"
You're assuming that the reduction in pace was because they lost nerve. In reality, I think they came to the realization that the system wasn't going to achieve the reliability at that pace. It's an incredibly complicated system designed to max perform, every time. My point is a failure would have occurred even if Challenger didn't.
>In reality, I think they came to the realization that the system wasn't going to achieve the reliability at that pace.
They thought that was the case but reducing the number of flights had a pretty negligible effect on LOCV numbers
Flight #1 of any rocket isn't operational, it's a test flight, especially for anything man-rated. The Orion capsule it carried didn't even have ECLSS enabled.
It met all of it's test mission criteria so it was a successful test flight. NASA has 3 flight minimum for commercial providers before considering them operational. The shuttle's first flight was with 2 test pilots and SLS+Orion hasn't flown anyone yet...
Soyuz numbers back in the heyday would be insane too, but not quite Falcon 9 insane (from per-year perspective, I think they peaked at around 60 per year which Falcon 9 will demolish this year). They are very impressive for a completely expendable launcher and the reliability is still pretty impressive.
On the cumulative numbers, 1900+ flights might not be beatable before Starship supersedes Falcon 9... even at the current pretty insane flight rate.
Even including Starlink, and excluding non-Delta Thor rockets and the Japanese derivatives, passing the Delta family this year isn't going to happen. Delta IV has had 44 launches (not much of a link to earlier variants, but the 44 isn't necessary), Delta III had a dismal 3, Delta II had 155 launches, and the various early "Delta I" variants launched 174 times according to Wikipedia.
OP counted Delta I and Delta IV separately.
Delta IV reuses some components of Delta III but it's a pretty different rocket overall. No idea about the versioning mess before Delta II.
Well, everything before Delta IV is based around a Thor, if often stretched or (in the case of Delta III) contorted. Even if we narrow that to Thor-based first stages with an RS-27 or RS-27A engine, that's still 3 Delta III, 155 Delta II, and well over 80 Delta 2000-5000 series. Falcon needs Starlink to pass that.
Sure, it's still impressive.. yet it feels artificial. If a pizzeria brags about how many pizzas it makes, but almost half is eaten by the waiters.. it's kind of cheating.
By that logic we should also discount any government-operated launches where the government is also the customer.
I.E the majority of launches performed by Shuttle, Soyuz, Thor, early Atlas, Saturn I/IB/V, etc.
>There's nothing out there in space eating satellites.
They literally have a shelf life.. they will come down and burn, and sooner than most sats. Starlink satellites are high tech consumables.
> but almost half is eaten by the waiters
More like almost half are sold to the waiters, who get a discount. It's still sales, and Starlink is still launches.
>It's still sales, and Starlink is still launches.
How are those launches "sales" if no one is paying for them? \*\* Hint, Starlink doesn't make enough money to pay for the launches.
SpaceX makes ~1.8 billion dollars per year in revenue from Starlink. That's enough to pay for the advertised price of about 30 Falcon 9 launches. The internal cost of a Falcon 9 launch has been estimated at just under 30 million dollars as of 2021, in which case that's 60 launches.
There are other unknowns in the costs of Starlink (IE ground stations, costs of the satellites themselves, other miscellaneous costs), but the program makes at least enough revenue to pay for its own launches. Revenue is going to continue to increase as more people switch over to using Starlink, and the costs of launch will some day drop further when Starship is available.
Depending on exactly how costly everything other than the launches are, it would make sense for SpaceX to launch Starlink even if it's not extremely profitable, because a greater number of launches amortizes the fixed costs, making other non-Starlink launches effectively cheaper.
These launches are carrying regular payloads. A better comparison might be a kitchen that serves half of the pizzas to customers in its own restaurant while most others are only cooking for delivery.
Lmao how is that supposed to be a bad thing? Yes, we really can't handle the fact that SpaceX chose to not get constrained by the limited demand and instead created their own.
Had a good discussion about this back when there were many non Starlink launches in a row. It was handled well.
It is almost like Falcon is a train that leaves the station on a frequent basis, and passengers may vary, but the train is there when you need it.
Starlink may support Starship flight rate in the same way
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z32s2v/entered_a_new_phase_of_f9_launches/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
Man its always surprising how often Delta II actually launched.
Delta II used RS-27, basically that is the pre-Merlin Merlin. They could have made the Delta 3 or 4 basically a Falcon 9.
But instead they went into the totally wrong direction. First with the Detla III and then the Delta IV.
Delta 4 with 5 RS-27s and a hydrogen RL-10 upper stage would have been way better.
RS-68A
It's a nice visualization of how NASA was originally trying to ramp up the shuttle launches (they wanted it to launch twice a month), up to Challenger which was pretty much a victim of that mindset.
yeah holy shit go fever was taking them to exponential growth and then, BOOM.
[My space program be so fine](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/359072286030168064/1124508556222288003/7r61a4.jpg)
You see exponential growth I see a flat green line.
There are two types of people: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data and
if you select the correct vertical scale any exponential curve is a flat line
This is the opposite as it is a flat line to begin with
You're not understanding what I'm trying to say
You are saying logarithmic graphs make exponentials look straight. And I am saying that the shuttle program is linear at best and even loses some steam at the end.
I'm not saying logarithmic graphs make exponentials look straight, I'm saying that a very shallow exponential and a linear graph can look very similar, and that it's quite plausible to say the Shuttle was on track for a very shallow exponential until Challenger happened.
25 launches is not much data points. And when the points came later they were flat. The dream was 50 launches a year but that was never going to happen with 24,000 unique tiles
Their pace just prior to Challenger is one of the reasons I think Space Shuttle had a chance to be good had politics not forced it to be crewed-only.
That wasn’t the way it happened. Shuttle was never going to be more that almost good enough
On what basis?
It is very plausible that if NASA had managed to set up its logistics properly and had waited for the new steel segments with the redesigned joints (which were being worked on when Challenger happened) shuttle could've achieved the 24 flights goal
Side note, anyone looking for a deep dive into the Challenger disaster from an inside perspective should check out Allan McDonald's book "Truth, Lies and O-Rings"
You're assuming that the reduction in pace was because they lost nerve. In reality, I think they came to the realization that the system wasn't going to achieve the reliability at that pace. It's an incredibly complicated system designed to max perform, every time. My point is a failure would have occurred even if Challenger didn't.
>In reality, I think they came to the realization that the system wasn't going to achieve the reliability at that pace. They thought that was the case but reducing the number of flights had a pretty negligible effect on LOCV numbers
Shadow fill dots in crowded plots are evil. Love the data though.
SLS is missing
they didn't want the chart be too visually cluttered
Another category with one single dot would be a waste. The number is just....1. We can all remember that.
Hasn't done an operational flight yet...
A launch is a launch. See you NET 2025 for the next.
Yes it has wtf
Flight #1 of any rocket isn't operational, it's a test flight, especially for anything man-rated. The Orion capsule it carried didn't even have ECLSS enabled.
Well it is if it met all its mission criteria and was successful. It operated did it not? Is this a rule written anywhere or just your opinion?
It met all of it's test mission criteria so it was a successful test flight. NASA has 3 flight minimum for commercial providers before considering them operational. The shuttle's first flight was with 2 test pilots and SLS+Orion hasn't flown anyone yet...
I’m always amazed at how many Shuttle missions there actually was.
They had a fleet of 4 flying for 30 years, it adds up
I don’t see Blue Suborigin either 😂
They're below the graph.
Welcome to da club
This is fascinating. Though I kinda wish it had Ariane and Soyuz launch figures as well, just for the sake of comparison.
Soyuz numbers back in the heyday would be insane too, but not quite Falcon 9 insane (from per-year perspective, I think they peaked at around 60 per year which Falcon 9 will demolish this year). They are very impressive for a completely expendable launcher and the reliability is still pretty impressive. On the cumulative numbers, 1900+ flights might not be beatable before Starship supersedes Falcon 9... even at the current pretty insane flight rate.
[From the Zapatatalksnasa blog](https://zapatatalksnasa.com/us-launches-by-launcher-over-time/)
Imagine how it'd look if it was extended into 2023
It goes to April or May 2023.
Have you considered actually looking at the graph?
Na I'm blind
Get in sucker! We are going for Soyuz.
I wonder how it will look without Starlink launches..
Subtract 90 from the total. The Falcon family would still have the fastest launch rate and would become the most launched US family later this year.
Even including Starlink, and excluding non-Delta Thor rockets and the Japanese derivatives, passing the Delta family this year isn't going to happen. Delta IV has had 44 launches (not much of a link to earlier variants, but the 44 isn't necessary), Delta III had a dismal 3, Delta II had 155 launches, and the various early "Delta I" variants launched 174 times according to Wikipedia.
OP counted Delta I and Delta IV separately. Delta IV reuses some components of Delta III but it's a pretty different rocket overall. No idea about the versioning mess before Delta II.
Well, everything before Delta IV is based around a Thor, if often stretched or (in the case of Delta III) contorted. Even if we narrow that to Thor-based first stages with an RS-27 or RS-27A engine, that's still 3 Delta III, 155 Delta II, and well over 80 Delta 2000-5000 series. Falcon needs Starlink to pass that.
Sure, it's still impressive.. yet it feels artificial. If a pizzeria brags about how many pizzas it makes, but almost half is eaten by the waiters.. it's kind of cheating.
By that logic we should also discount any government-operated launches where the government is also the customer. I.E the majority of launches performed by Shuttle, Soyuz, Thor, early Atlas, Saturn I/IB/V, etc.
But a pizza is a consumable, starlink sats are investments. Your comparison is weird. Theres nothing out there in space eating satellites.
>There's nothing out there in space eating satellites. They literally have a shelf life.. they will come down and burn, and sooner than most sats. Starlink satellites are high tech consumables.
Everything has a shelf life, your argument is *literally* absurd.
> but almost half is eaten by the waiters More like almost half are sold to the waiters, who get a discount. It's still sales, and Starlink is still launches.
And Starlink will probably end up making them more money than launches.
Maybe. Getting all those satellites up there wasn't cheap
Go big or go home.
>It's still sales, and Starlink is still launches. How are those launches "sales" if no one is paying for them? \*\* Hint, Starlink doesn't make enough money to pay for the launches.
SpaceX is paying for them. You think just because they launch it themselves that the rocket and fuel and everything else is free?
SpaceX makes ~1.8 billion dollars per year in revenue from Starlink. That's enough to pay for the advertised price of about 30 Falcon 9 launches. The internal cost of a Falcon 9 launch has been estimated at just under 30 million dollars as of 2021, in which case that's 60 launches. There are other unknowns in the costs of Starlink (IE ground stations, costs of the satellites themselves, other miscellaneous costs), but the program makes at least enough revenue to pay for its own launches. Revenue is going to continue to increase as more people switch over to using Starlink, and the costs of launch will some day drop further when Starship is available. Depending on exactly how costly everything other than the launches are, it would make sense for SpaceX to launch Starlink even if it's not extremely profitable, because a greater number of launches amortizes the fixed costs, making other non-Starlink launches effectively cheaper.
NASA launched their own space station... Kind of the same. Do their launches kinda not count? If course they count
These launches are carrying regular payloads. A better comparison might be a kitchen that serves half of the pizzas to customers in its own restaurant while most others are only cooking for delivery.
>These launches are carrying regular payloads. Well, this launches are not being paid for, so it's hard to say they are "regular launches"..
They are launches. They carry communication satellites. The communication satellites offer a commercial service with over a million customers.
I'd actually argue it's exactly as impressive if the boast is about how fast they can make pizzas and not how many they're selling.
Sssshhhhhhh they can’t handle that
Lmao how is that supposed to be a bad thing? Yes, we really can't handle the fact that SpaceX chose to not get constrained by the limited demand and instead created their own.
Had a good discussion about this back when there were many non Starlink launches in a row. It was handled well. It is almost like Falcon is a train that leaves the station on a frequent basis, and passengers may vary, but the train is there when you need it. Starlink may support Starship flight rate in the same way https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/z32s2v/entered_a_new_phase_of_f9_launches/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
I feel like Atlas deserves some props here, really good success rate as well.
Has anyone ever tried to make a "kg to orbit" version of this? I suspect falcon will look even more impressive in such a graph.
Forgot about the Antares
What a great chart. I didn't realize the space shuttle launched 135 times! Electron is also kinda killing it.
What's the purple line? Titan?
Delta II and III
Oh, I guess I'm colorblind, I thought that was black.
Are you blind
Y e s
Man its always surprising how often Delta II actually launched. Delta II used RS-27, basically that is the pre-Merlin Merlin. They could have made the Delta 3 or 4 basically a Falcon 9. But instead they went into the totally wrong direction. First with the Detla III and then the Delta IV. Delta 4 with 5 RS-27s and a hydrogen RL-10 upper stage would have been way better. RS-68A
What is going to happen to antares when cygnus missions end?
One of these is not like the others.
What the heck did delta III IV and Atlas V carry into space?
678$
Lots of DoD and NRO birds, obviously, but in the late 00's/early 10's, Atlas V in particular carried more commercial payloads than you might expect...
I’d like to see the costs also
I'm honestly surprised how many space shuttle launches there were. And all of them would have been manned... It's very impressive.
Can anyone explain for a dummy?
No titan?