Rocket Report: Firefly delivers for NASA; Polaris Dawn launching this month

The all-private Polaris Dawn spacewalk mission is set for launch no earlier than July 31.

See full article...

 

[drwho9437]

Although it is possible to see ULA and Blue Origin's remarks as strictly a legal blocking tactic; if their assertion that they would need to stop work for each launch then their concern has a lot of merit.

It would not be feasible to use their launch systems if SpaceX is authorized to launch 120 times a year and they have to clear out each time.

SpaceX has shown it can launch from TX. There is Vandenburg of course. They don't have to launch from the cape always.

This drama makes Rocket Lab's choice to launch from Wallops seem potentially wiser in the crowded cape.

 

[Smashing Young Man]

Why the hell would China conduct a rocket test within spitting distance of a city of nearly one million people? It's a large country with plenty of sparsely populated land. I suppose it's a rhetorical question.

 

[Soothsayer786]

"I want to break free." One of the most promising Chinese space startups, Space Pioneer, experienced a serious anomaly last weekend while testing the first stage of its Tianlong 3 rocket

I watched that video with that song actually playing and you know what... it was perfect.

 

[Wickwick]

Italian startup test-fires small rocket. Italian rocket builder Sidereus Space Dynamics has completed the first integrated system test of its EOS rocket, European Spaceflight reports. This test occurred Sunday, culminating in a firing of the rocket's kerosene/liquid oxygen MR-5 main engine for approximately 11 seconds. The EOS rocket is a novel design, utilizing a single-stage-to-orbit architecture, with the reusable booster returning to Earth from orbit for recovery under a parafoil. The rocket stands less than 14 feet (4.2 meters) tall and will be capable of delivering about 29 pounds (13 kilograms) of payload to low-Earth orbit.

Am I the only one that feels the need for a citation needed in response to the SSTO claim? The linked article certainly doesn't provide any insight.

This is a small rocket and small rockets typically have worse aero losses (fractionally speaking) than large rockets. So a small SSTO would have to have a dry mass fraction even better than the ridiculous ones needed for SSTO designs of the past.

Edit: And there are no technical details on Sidereus Space Dynamics' website. The only remotely descriptive thing is this section:

At Sidereus Space Dynamics, we’re committed to making space accessible and affordable for everyone. We are proud to be leading a growing team of talented and dedicated engineers and technicians who are working tirelessly to bring our revolutionary orbital launch vehicle to the world.

Our launch vehicle is designed to be user-friendly, reliable, and affordable so that anyone can use it to deliver and recover payloads from space. This technology has the potential to revolutionize the way we explore and utilize space, and we are confident that it will open up a whole new world of possibilities for humanity.

I looked to see if Jim Cantrell is involved somehow, but he's not listed.

 

[Lexomatic]

Weekly incremental summary of orbital and suborbital rocket launches by SpaceX and others

• Time frame: 2024 YTD through Thu 7/4 (185 of 366 days = 0.51 year)
• SpaceX: 70 launches (+2 w/w), of which 67 by Falcon 9, of which 48 Starlink (70%)
• Other providers: 63 launches (+1 w/w) by 19 (+1) providers of 8 nationalities

Spoiler: Performance by SpaceX

SpaceX launches completed

• Total launches: 68 (+4 w/w)
• By customer type:
  • 48 internal (Starlink)
  • 20 external/paying (2 NASA cargo, 1 NASA crew, 5[1] other U.S. government, 12 other)
  • 2 test (2 Super Heavy/Starship)
• Payload mass: >852 ths. kg [2] (or >2.03 ISS masses)
• By launch site: 46 Florida (34 CCSFS, 12 KSC), 22 California (VSFB), 2 Texas (Starbase)
• By landing site:
  • Florida: 34 drone ship (20 ASOG, 14 JRTI), 11 RTLS (9 LZ-1, 2 LZ-2)[3], 2 expended[3]
  • VSFB: 18 drone ship (OCISLY), 4 RTLS (LZ-4)
• By rocket model: 67 F9, 2 SH/SS, 1 FH
• By core number (fleet utilization):
  • 1 each by 3: B1072, 86, 87
  • 3 each by 5: B1060, 63, 71, 75
  • 4 each by 5: B1061, 69, 73, 77, 83
  • 5 each by 7: B1062, 67, 76, 78, 80-82
  • Flight leaders: 22 by B1062, 21 by B1061, 20 by B1067
  • Expended: B1060, B1087

SpaceX performance goals (F9 and FH)

• Goal for year: 148
• Annualized rate: 135 (down w/w)

At the start of the year, to achieve 148 (non-test) flights, assuming use only of F9, with a fleet of 16 cores, each must launch >9 times. After expending B1060, to achieve the remaining 80 flights, each must launch ~5.3 times, with an average turnaround of no more than 34 days. (If the launch manifest included FH, reuse numbers would be slightly different.)
On-time statistics (excl. Starlink and tests):

• Count of launches: 20
• Days of delay, mean: 3.2
• Days of delay, spectrum: 0x7, 1x4, 2x1, 3x3, 6x1, 8x1, 9x1, 10x1, 12x1
• Longest delays: Crew-8, Ovzon 3
• Missions behind initial firm schedule: None
• Missions behind initial loose schedule: Polaris Dawn

Spectating a SpaceX launch (probabilities)
Launches:

• In Florida, NLT one day after initial schedule: 0.63 (i.e., 29/46)
• In Florida, on any given day: 0.25
• In Florida, within any given week: 0.82
• In Florida, weeks without a launch: 2 of 27
• Of which during dawn, daylight or dusk hours: 0.72 (i.e., 33/46)
• Near VSFB, within any given week: 0.57

RTLS viewings:

• In Florida: 0.22 (i.e., 10/46)[4]
• Near VSFB: 0.18 (i.e., 4/22)

Spoiler: Comparative performance by other providers

Total: 67 (+4 w/w)
By nationality of provider:

• China: 31 (+2) (CASC: 25 (+2), CAS Space: 1, Expace: 3, Galactic Energy: 3, Orienspace: 1)
• Europe: 0
• Germany: 1 (HyImpulse: 1)
• India: 3 (Agnikul Cosmos: 1, ISRO: 2)
• Iran: 2 (Islamic Guard: 1, ISA: 1)
• Japan: 4 (+1) (JAXA/MHI: 3 (+1), Space One: 1)
• Korea, North: 1 (NATA: 1)
• Korea, South: 0
• Russia: 8 (Roscosmos: 8)
• U.S.: 13 (+1) (Blue Origin: 1, Firefly: 1 (+1), Rocket Lab: 8, ULA: 3, Virgin Galactic: 2)

Note: New provider (their first launch this year) Firefly.

Spoiler: Notes and caveats

• Note: Most (70% during 2024) launches are F9 carrying Starlink and hence fungible for spectating purposes, so a long delay attributable to any particular mission (e.g., 10-2 was delayed 12 days while B1073 was swapped for B1078, during which 9-1 and SES-24 launched) doesn't reduce the chance of seeing a launch in general. Starlink launches always land downrange on a drone ship, so RTLS is a possibility only on the 30% that are paying-customer launches.
• Caveat 1: Some early launches of Starshield were believed to be mixed with Starlink, so they would count towards two customers. Later launches are believed to be categorized as NROL.
• Caveat 2: Starting with Starlink 7-9 in January, select launches have manifested a mix of sats with D2C capability. The number of each type is announced by SpaceX, but the mass of the latter is not known.
• Caveat 3: An FH counts for one launch but three landings.
• Caveat 4: An FH dual landing counts as one RTLS viewing opportunity.

Spoiler: Methodology

• Counts include orbital launches; suborbital launches by entities with aspirations to be orbital, including tourist flights; success, failures (i.e., launched but terminated); tests and production. They exclude ground tests, pad aborts and unintended launches (i.e., Space Pioneer 6/30).
• Date format: month/day, i.e., U.S. style.
• Annualized rates assume 366 days for year 2024.
• Abbreviations: n/a=not available, w/w=week over week, F9=Falcon 9 Block 5, FH=Falcon Heavy.
• Abbreviations for entities and programs: CASC=China Aerospace Corporation, CRS=NASA Commercial Resupply, ISRO=Indian Space Research Organization, ISA=Iranian Space Agency, JAXA=Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, MHI=Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, NATA=National Aerospace Technology Administration f.k.a. National Aerospace Development Administration (North Korea), ULA=United Launch Alliance.
• Metrics and formatting are subject to change.
• Counts and allocations are subject to correction.
• SpaceX launch mass assumes 730 kg for Starlink v2 Mini (per Wikipedia) and Starlink v2 Mini w/ D2C (this is wrong: they're heavier, but by an unknown amount); 5,000 kg for Transporter-10; >12,000 kg for Crew-8; USSF-124 is unknown; Starship IFTs are excluded.
• Launch mass fraction assumes 419,725 kg for ISS.
• Launch goal during 2024 for SpaceX is per comments of VP Jon Edwards at Everyday Astronaut AstroAwards 1/14. Includes four launches delayed from 2023.
• Launch rate and fleet utilization includes only the F9 fleet, not the (much less common) FH.
• Delay stats are subject to correction if initially-announced schedule (within a sequence of scrubs) is corrected. Aggregates will be marked "n/a" if I have incomplete data.
• Launch probability uses the Poisson method, per Wickwick 7/5.
• Nationality of provider vs. launch site: Rocket Lab is a U.S.-domiciled company but launches from New Zealand. Orbex is British but plans to build engines in Denmark.
• Sources: EverydayAstronaut.com (previous and upcoming), Ken's Launch Schedule, NASA.gov (ISS CRS mission overview PDF), NASASpaceFlight.com, NextSpaceflight.com, Space.com, Space Explored, SpaceX.com, SpaceX.com X feed, SpaceflightNow.com.

Changes in this issue: Corrected "Falcon 9 Heavy" to "Falcon Heavy." Removed "delays of Starlink launches" subsection. Changed calculation of "expected launches per week" to Poisson per suggestion of @Wickwick, augmented by "count of weeks without a launch."

 

[Pueo]

Footage of what is likely to have been the Firefly's Alpha rocket's second, as seen from Chile:

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/Astronomy/comments/1dvl1ju/any_idea_what_this_is/

 

[ColdWetDog]

Am I the only one that feels the need for a citation needed in response to the SSTO claim? The linked article certainly doesn't provide any insight.

This is a small rocket and small rockets typically have worse aero losses (fractionally speaking) than large rockets. So a small SSTO would have to have a dry mass fraction even better than the ridiculous ones needed for SSTO designs of the past.

Edit: And there are no technical details on Sidereus Space Dynamics' website. The only remotely descriptive thing is this section:


I looked to see if Jim Cantrell is involved somehow, but he's not listed.

Any apparent cross pollination from the Pythom people?

 

[FlyingSteamGoat]

Although I do not admire the figurehead of both Tesla and SpaceX, I must concede that:

Economic reuse of orbital boosters has been demonstrated.

Economic application of electric vehicles and an effective charging network have been demonstrated.

Kudos.

 

[EngineerX]

Best luck to them.

 

[saltyfrog]

Good top image choice

 

[Ken the Bin]

***********************************

Spoiler: Ken's Launch Schedule

SpaceX schedule ...

SpaceX - Starlink Group 9-3 - F9 from VSFB SLC-4E:

Primary Day = Monday, July 8 at ~~03:10-07:10 UTC (Sunday at ~~20:10-00:10 PDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #1 = Tuesday, July 9 at ~~02:46-06:46 UTC (Monday at ~~19:46-23:46 PDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #2 = Wednesday, July 10 at ~~02:23-06:23 UTC (Tuesday at ~~19:23-23:23 PDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #3 = Thursday, July 11 at ~~02:00-06:00 UTC (Wednesday at ~~19:00-23:00 PDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #4 = Friday, July 12 at ~~01:37-05:37 UTC (Thursday at ~~18:37-22:37 PDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #5 = Saturday, July 13 at ~~01:13-05:13 UTC (Friday at ~~18:13-22:13 PDT) (convert time).

Space Affairs rebroadcast:

Spoiler: YouTube Embed

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6br6_Q6qjWU

SpaceX - Türksat 6A from CCSFS SLC-40:

Primary Day = Monday, July 8 at ~~~21:20 UTC (~~~17:20 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #1 = Tuesday, July 9 at ~~~21:19 UTC (~~~17:19 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #2 = Wednesday, July 10 at ~~~21:19 UTC (~~~17:19 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #3 = Thursday, July 11 at ~~~21:19 UTC (~~~17:19 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #4 = Friday, July 12 at ~~~21:19 UTC (~~~17:19 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #5 = Saturday, July 13 at ~~~21:18 UTC (~~~17:18 EDT) (convert time).
Backup Day #6 = Sunday, July 14 at ~~~21:18 UTC (~~~17:18 EDT) (convert time).

Note: Possibly slipping to Tuesday, July 9.

Space Affairs rebroadcast:

Spoiler: YouTube Embed

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoKYdf7HJx4

SpaceX - Polaris Dawn - F9 + Crew Dragon C207.3 Resilience from Florida:

NET Wednesday, July 31.

Website: https://polarisprogram.com/dawn/.

Space Affairs rebroadcast:

Spoiler: YouTube Embed

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6et8-MVR3Qg

SpaceX - Starship Integrated Flight Test #5 - SH12/SS30 from Starbase TX:

Targeting late July.
__________________________________________________

Rocket Lab schedule ...

TBD.
__________________________________________________

Other ...

Arianespace - first launch (rideshare) - Ariane 6 (62) from Guiana Space Centre:

Primary Day = Tuesday, July 9 at 18:00-22:00 UTC (convert time).

The launch period runs through Thursday, August 8 at ~18:00-22:00 UTC each day.

Note: I don't normally cover Ariane launches, but this is a special case.

ESA webcast:

Spoiler: YouTube Embed

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0oFpOJaIYc

ESA "clean feed" webcast:

Spoiler: YouTube Embed

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogXamYYJpQk

Boeing - Starliner CFT - Starliner Calypso return from the ISS:

Weather, etc. permitting ...

Undock = TBD.
* Land = TBD.

***********************************

 

[MarkW98]

This drama makes Rocket Lab's choice to launch from Wallops seem potentially wiser in the crowded cape.

Them and Firefly both.

 

[YetAnotherAnonymousAppellation]

I watched that video with that song actually playing and you know what... it was perfect.

Reminds me of being onsite at General Dynamics, Fort Worth in the 80's. I saw an F-16 held down with substantial cables doing some kind of static thrust test (impressive flame!). The eyebrow-raising part was that the aircraft was pointed directly at the factory...

 

[r0twhylr]

Am I the only one that feels the need for a citation needed in response to the SSTO claim? The linked article certainly doesn't provide any insight.

This is a small rocket and small rockets typically have worse aero losses (fractionally speaking) than large rockets. So a small SSTO would have to have a dry mass fraction even better than the ridiculous ones needed for SSTO designs of the past.

Edit: And there are no technical details on Sidereus Space Dynamics' website. The only remotely descriptive thing is this section:


I looked to see if Jim Cantrell is involved somehow, but he's not listed.

Ditto. IANARS and all that, but I don't know how that's even theoretically possible with a kerolox LV that small.

 

[Dogs in a Pile]

Why the hell would China conduct a rocket test within spitting distance of a city of nearly one million people? It's a large country with plenty of sparsely populated land. I suppose it's a rhetorical question.

Because it's China. Their boosters regularly crash to earth near population center spewing toxic chemicals as they do. Just another day for the Chinese.

 

[Dogs in a Pile]

Although I do not admire the figurehead of both Tesla and SpaceX, I must concede that:

Economic reuse of orbital boosters has been demonstrated.

Economic application of electric vehicles and an effective charging network have been demonstrated.

Kudos.

I was going to post something similar. While I don't agree with a lot of what Elon says and does he damn sure gets things done. And in record time and at a profit. Between Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink and The Boring Co his companies are absolute engineering powerhouses accomplishing what a lot of doubters said couldn't be done in BEVs/charging, space launch systems, LEO broadband and tunneling. Each went from "No way" to now being routine, business as usual endeavors.

 

[MarkW98]

Am I the only one that feels the need for a citation needed in response to the SSTO claim? The linked article certainly doesn't provide any insight.

For what it's worth, similar skepticism was expressed on Reddit 2 to 3 years ago.

 

[greybeardengineer]

Am I the only one that feels the need for a citation needed in response to the SSTO claim? The linked article certainly doesn't provide any insight.

I rank reusable SSTO rocketry schemes on the same rough level as net power production from controlled nuclear fusion - not ruled out by physical laws. Both have been long sought after holy grails and in both cases no one has come any where close. Even if some group eventually technically achieves either no doubt the economics/business case will be horrendously bad so as to render the achievement moot. Expendable SSTO is closer to being technically achievable but the economics are arguably even worse.

 

[Observer]

Trying to put my head around the logistics required for a 3 per day launch of starship. How could it work?

Per launch (rounded up for easier mental calculations):
Fuel 3400t + 1200t = 4600t. 75% is lox
Exclusion zone 5 miles (8km) radius = 80 sqmiles (200 sqkm)
Fueling time: 90 mins
Launch safe time: 10 min
Launch noise pollution time: 1 min

So for 3 times a day, 8 hours (480 min) per launch cycle. Per day:
Fuel 13,800t
Safe time total 300min or 5hours
Meaning between launch 380min, 6hours and 20 min to handle all of the logistics, including people transfer etc... through the 5 mile exclusion zone...

Some questions.
Fuel logistics is crazy with cryo requirements. Do they need a refinery onsite?
How far does the noise pollution go? What is the accepted threshold? 60dB?
What mitigation techniques could be used to shrink the exclusion/noise zone? Big redirection walls?
I suppose safe time can be reduce with even shorter fueling time which can be done.
How does this compare to a normal airport?

Hopefully the hive mind can help to advance this mental exercise and to correct/update the numbers.

Edit: extra 0

 

[greybeardengineer]

Looks like Reaction Engines, the folks who pushed the Skylon space plane and its SABRE engine, is scrambling to find more funding amid losses and layoffs.

Spoiler

Rolls Royce-backed Reaction Engines scrambles for new funding

Based in Oxfordshire, the Boeing-backed company has hired Silverpeak to help find new funding after a slowdown in revenue growth and a round of job cuts, Sky News learns.

news.sky.com

 

[Roonski]

Does anyone believe at this point, in Blue Origin‘s claims of launching in September? It seems impossible given that we haven’t even seen a whole real rocket, just a mockup.

 

[Quisquis]

I give the kudos to the teams of talented people who made the demonstrations possible.

I don't like being a weapon in your fight.

Give us credit when you're not fighting with someone who gave musk credit.

 

[HBrown]

Does anyone believe at this point, in Blue Origin‘s claims of launching in September? It seems impossible given that we haven’t even seen a whole real rocket, just a mockup.

I think the key missing detail is: September of what year?

 

[galahad05]

I think the key missing detail is: September of what year?

I don't think they'll make it by this September, just like OP and you implied. But...I feel like they're actually pushing forward now (just a gut feel I suppose, or maybe hopeful thinking). I really do hope they start delivering, joining the Big Boys club.

 

[mhalpern]

Looks like Reaction Engines, the folks who pushed the Skylon space plane and its SABRE engine, is scrambling to find more funding amid losses and layoffs.

Spoiler

Rolls Royce-backed Reaction Engines scrambles for new funding

Based in Oxfordshire, the Boeing-backed company has hired Silverpeak to help find new funding after a slowdown in revenue growth and a round of job cuts, Sky News learns.

news.sky.com

surprised they've lasted this long

 

[Jack56]

Am I the only one that feels the need for a citation needed in response to the SSTO claim? The linked article certainly doesn't provide any insight.

This is a small rocket and small rockets typically have worse aero losses (fractionally speaking) than large rockets. So a small SSTO would have to have a dry mass fraction even better than the ridiculous ones needed for SSTO designs of the past.

Edit: And there are no technical details on Sidereus Space Dynamics' website. The only remotely descriptive thing is this section:


I looked to see if Jim Cantrell is involved somehow, but he's not listed.

Yes, it beggars belief but there clearly is only one stage

 

[DDopson]

Am I the only one that feels the need for a citation needed in response to the SSTO claim? The linked article certainly doesn't provide any insight.

This is a small rocket and small rockets typically have worse aero losses (fractionally speaking) than large rockets. So a small SSTO would have to have a dry mass fraction even better than the ridiculous ones needed for SSTO designs of the past.

Edit: And there are no technical details on Sidereus Space Dynamics' website. The only remotely descriptive thing is this section:


I looked to see if Jim Cantrell is involved somehow, but he's not listed.

Yeah, that's absurd.

It's kerolox, so an ISP around 300 seconds. Most launch vehicles need at least 10 km / s to make orbit, so the rocket equation says their SSTO needs to be at least 96.7% propellant mass, meaning they have to stay under 3.3% dry mass or they have a negative payload mass. The F9 booster has 6% dry mass and the expendable F9 upper stage is 4% dry mass.

And that's just to get to orbit. Then they have to somehow reenter safely and have enough mass budget left over for a parafoil and whatever other hardware is required for recovery.

So their challenge is to take a F9 upper, shrink it, add a heat shield and parafoil, and somehow end up with a better dry-mass ratio?

 

[GreyGoshawk]

I had missed Ringwatchers' latest (Jun 2nd) Starship Production Diagram. Previous diagram was Mar 29th.

Ship 32 nearly completed; Booster 14 in final stacking.

 

[nimelennar]

Looks like Reaction Engines, the folks who pushed the Skylon space plane and its SABRE engine, is scrambling to find more funding amid losses and layoffs.

Spoiler

Rolls Royce-backed Reaction Engines scrambles for new funding

Based in Oxfordshire, the Boeing-backed company has hired Silverpeak to help find new funding after a slowdown in revenue growth and a round of job cuts, Sky News learns.

news.sky.com

the Boeing-backed company

Well, that's not a good sign.

 

[traumadog]

I was going to post something similar. While I don't agree with a lot of what Elon says and does he damn sure gets things done. And in record time and at a profit. Between Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink and The Boring Co his companies are absolute engineering powerhouses accomplishing what a lot of doubters said couldn't be done in BEVs/charging, space launch systems, LEO broadband and tunneling. Each went from "No way" to now being routine, business as usual endeavors.

Starlink is part of SpaceX.

And OTOH, The Boring Company really hasn't made that much of a difference in drilling tunnels underground. And Tesla Energy isn't doing well in terms of solar roof deployments.

And then there's Xitter.

 

[Paranoid Android]

I'm very happy to see Firefly getting an unambiguously successful launch. The company has certainly been through the ringer over the years. Hopefully this becomes a consistent trendline.

 

[Wickwick]

Ditto. IANARS and all that, but I don't know how that's even theoretically possible with a kerolox LV that small.

Is it kerolox? They don't even address that on their website.

 

[MLMichael]

This Week's Additional Launches
FWIW, I never got this edition in an E-Mail. Anyway, there are no more launches scheduled this week.

 

[eyesoars]

Any apparent cross pollination from the Pythom people?

So you suspect both teams have been/are just f*%@ing around?

 

[greybeardengineer]

Elon: "Flight 5 in 4 weeks"

Presumably that is predicated on incurring no hurricane related delays.

Spoiler

View: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1809381756199661879

 

[r0twhylr]

Is it kerolox? They don't even address that on their website.

The test fire writeup by europeanspaceflight.com thinks it is.

This doesn't seem to be the final flight-ready airframe design, but they don't seem to be pushing the fineness ratio to its upper limits yet.

Spoiler

 

[Black_Mokona]

And OTOH, The Boring Company really hasn't made that much of a difference in drilling tunnels underground. And Tesla Energy isn't doing well in terms of solar roof deployments.

Tesla is energetically succeeding in deploying battery fleets, last quarter they installed over 9 gigawatts.

 

[Hydrargyrum]

Tesla is energetically succeeding in deploying battery fleets, last quarter they installed over 9 gigawatts.

How many gWh? I’m interested in what the energy capacity of their average installation is.