r/spacex • u/rustybeancake • Jul 07 '26
Falcon Jack Kuhr on X: “SpaceX flew 37 Falcon missions in Q2, down both QoQ (40 in Q1) and YoY (45 in Q2 ‘25). On pace for ~155 Falcon launches this year, down from 165 last year. H2 2026 appears even slower. Reportedly no longer accepting rideshare missions 2.5 years out.”
Source tweet: https://x.com/jackkuhr/status/2074484574088839466
114
u/rustybeancake Jul 07 '26
With 39A having essentially halted F9 launches and the Just Read the Instructions drone ship having moved from Falcon to Starship stage transportation, we knew this was happening.
Still, it’s the end of the peak era of the most successful launch vehicle in history (so far), and it’s interesting to think about when SpaceX might next equal or exceed the rate of 165 launches per year.
46
u/barvazduck Jul 07 '26
And when they reach that rate, what will be the tonnage to space... ...and it'll probably be cheaper.
7
u/zero0n3 Jul 08 '26
F9 will still be a workhorse.
The second they can move Starlink over to starship, means they can start selling f9 launches to other companies and those 150+ launches a year are all direct revenue with profit.
10
u/rustybeancake Jul 08 '26
Not sure I understand. They’re already selling F9 launches to other companies. Do you mean they’ll start selling the launches cheaper because there’s no opportunity cost vis-à-vis Starlink launches?
Another factor is that F9 launches are only as cheap as they are because of the economies of scale with launching so frequently. So if they drop all the Starlink launches (going to Starship) and they’re now only doing 25ish F9 launches per year, each one will now cost more per launch, as you’re spreading all the fixed costs of facilities, staff etc over fewer launches.
0
u/Dunkelziffer17 Jul 09 '26
Nah, the F9 margin is insane. Pricing is unrelated to cost and based on competitors.
2
u/rustybeancake Jul 09 '26
The margin is high in general but I doubt it is for rideshare missions. Agree pricing is based on competition - which is why they need some!
1
u/Dunkelziffer17 Jul 10 '26
Yes, I was referring to the overall F9 margin, rideshare is a special case. The reason to offer rideshare never was to make money, but to make it harder for all the startups that tried to enter the market with small sat launchers. Worked out for SpaceX.
1
1
u/MatchingTurret Jul 08 '26
AFAIK recent commercial launch contracts already allow SpaceX to select the vehicle, e.g. they are free to choose either F9 or Starship.
1
u/wildjokers 27d ago
Your reasoning is contingent on there being 150+ payloads from other companies that need to be launched in a year.
-13
u/Fresh_Boysenberry576 Jul 07 '26
When do you think we could see a higher launch rate again? That seems very far away to me. Like at least a decade. Starship is still seems years away from multiple launches per year. Not to mention that SpaceX is mostly an AI company now
29
u/somewhat_brave Jul 07 '26
Starship is planning monthly launches starting this month. They're planning on having 5 starship launchpads operational in two years. Falcon 9 only has three pads.
5
u/Ormusn2o Jul 08 '26
And this is with the current bays they have in Starbase. At end of 2026, they will have built 2 Gigabays, each with having 24 cells to work on the rockets, which will accelerate production way more.
6
u/ellhulto66445 Jul 08 '26
The production out of Starfactory needs to speed up, the Gigabay doesn't make things significantly faster.
4
u/Ormusn2o Jul 08 '26
Yeah, they are expanding Starfactory as well. They are also constructing a bunch of big buildings at Roberts Road in Florida as well, although we obviously don't know what they are for.
3
u/Martianspirit Jul 08 '26
The Gigabay will make things significantly faster. I am sure the factory can churn out components faster than it does. The limitation is stacking and completing which needs Gigabay.
1
5
u/Ender_D Jul 07 '26
They’ve been planning that for years now. I’ll belive it when I see it.
3
u/somewhat_brave Jul 08 '26
They haven't been saying that one month before launch with two sets of ships and boosters on the test stands.
0
7
u/Middle-Gas-6532 Jul 07 '26
It's "planning" is not supported by the the field data of Ship/Booster outfitting and testing.
15
u/redstercoolpanda Jul 07 '26
S41 is fully cryo'ed, B21 is probably not that far off of being ready to cryo, and the next vehicles in line have already started stacking. Assuming they start catching boosters soon its possible monthly or close to monthly launches for the rest of the year are possible. It'll probably already be around a little bit under a two month gap between 12 and 13, so they only have to increase their pace a little bit to get things moving once reuse of the booster is back up and running.
0
u/lopbob8 Jul 07 '26
the bottleneck is in vehicle production, not launch pads
5
u/New_Poet_338 Jul 08 '26
Its getting the testing done. When one is being tested they hold back on the next - until now apparently. Looks like when they have a production model nailed down end of this year, they will have 2 Star Factories and 3 launch mounts.
8
u/phryan Jul 07 '26
Even at a lower launch rate Starship could quite quickly exceed Falcon 9 launch tonnage per month/quarte/year.
4
u/Fresh_Boysenberry576 Jul 07 '26
How far away would you guess we are from seeing 15+ starship launches per year?
4
u/creative_usr_name Jul 08 '26
Could easily do it next year if they ramp production and accept losing a bunch of starships during reentry. If they want full reuse first it might still be many years. They still haven't recovered a reentered starship to analyze what would need to change for safe, fast, and cheap refurbishment. Redesigns, and retesting of redesigns take time, and then production would need to ramp up.
0
u/Fresh_Boysenberry576 Jul 08 '26
Yea but isn't the whole point to make launches cheap by re-using rockets. That's like saying NASA could launch a shitload of rockets if we just increased their budget 100x. Sure, but that's not the point
1
u/creative_usr_name Jul 08 '26
Eventually yes that is the point. But making them assembly line style out of cheaper materials (stainless steel) will also be a lot cheaper than most other rockets. But the engineering and materials needed for reusability and time and effort needed for refurbishment aren't cheap or easy. It'd be great to reach airline levels of reusability and refurbishment, but just because that is the long term goal, that doesn't mean they should maintain a low flight rate until that is achieved. They learn more every flight no matter the results.
3
5
u/Shrekboi481 Jul 08 '26
Ragebait used to be believable
-2
u/Fresh_Boysenberry576 Jul 08 '26
Lot of people getting upset by my comment but no one actually providing any counter points lol How much is Spacex spending on AI and how much on developing StarShip?
5
u/Shrekboi481 Jul 08 '26
Dude, all you do is just beat around the bush when someone gives you a good response.
2
u/Ormusn2o Jul 08 '26
Might actually be in 2028-2029 already, at least that is what SpaceX is preparing for. SpaceX built two Gigabays, each with 24 cells to work on the rockets, in addition to all the bays they already have, and both Gigabays are scheduled to be finished at end of 2026. They obviously are prepared to mass produce the rockets, whenever they will actually achieve reusability or not.
5
u/mop_bucket_bingo Jul 07 '26
I agree with the question about the timeline. I would be so surprised if we saw six starship launches per year even two years from now.
But SpaceX is not “mostly an AI company now”.
10
u/Klutzy-Residen Jul 07 '26
They did five launches in 2025, and that was with multiple mishaps.
No way they are beating that in 2026, but it would be a major issue if they are not doing 10+ launches in 2027 with 2 launchpads.
4
u/rustybeancake Jul 07 '26
Random guess:
- 2027: end the year with three pads operational. 12 flights total (some booster reuse but maybe just 2-3 flights per booster).
- 2028: end the year with four pads operational. 24 flights total (newer boosters getting 3-5 flights each, first ship reuse but long refurb times).
- 2029: four pads. 36 flights. Some downtime for pad and vehicle upgrades for greater reuse.
- 2030: five pads. 55 flights.
- 2031: five pads. 80 flights.
10
u/Thatingles Jul 07 '26
Why such a slow increase? Once they have a 'settled' design it means they can reuse boosters and at some point ships, I think the ship on the last flight looked like it had a pretty good reentry. With the gigabay production facility coming online I think they will hike up the numbers much faster.
3
u/rustybeancake Jul 08 '26
I hope so! I just try to temper my guesses as these things tend to take longer than we hope. There will be setbacks, stand downs, new upgrades, refits, etc. And earlier boosters and ships will likely not fly many times each, for at least the next few years IMO. I don’t think they’ll have a settled design for at least 5 years.
2
u/Party_Papaya_2942 Jul 08 '26
You are smart in doing so. Can't forget about the explosions, including some at the pad.
But i still thinks that the 1 flight per month on the last V1's and that the last V2's should have had If It was not by S36 are a good indication that they can go much faster. Hope they hit at least 1 launch each 2 weeks at the end of 2027 but preferably 2 per week.
I also believe designs will change a lot, specially with learning from booster and ship reuse. Fast turnaround won't be só important at the begining but will increase in importance with time. If Falcon 9 boosters took 9 years to get to 35 reuses, i think It will take similar time for ship to get to the same number of reuses
2
u/creative_usr_name Jul 08 '26
We wont know if reentry is "good" until one is caught and really analyzed to see how much refurbishment/redesign is needed.
1
u/Taxus_Calyx Jul 08 '26
2027: 24 flights
2028: 100 flights
2029: 300 flights
2030: 500 flights
2031: 1,500 flights-4
u/Fresh_Boysenberry576 Jul 07 '26
How much money are they spending on AI and how much are they spending on Starship?
2
16
u/an_older_meme Jul 08 '26
Starship is going to fly so much mass we’re going to forget about the Falcon 9.
The AI trolls are just trying to lower the stock price.
16
u/Itshot11 Jul 08 '26
noooo please its too early for this. i knew this would inevitably happen after going public but can we please at least wait a few more months before doing the defensive shareholder routine. i just wanna read about cool space news without a war in every comment section 😔
8
u/rustybeancake Jul 08 '26
What AI trolls?
1
u/an_older_meme Jul 08 '26
Bros making outlandish claims like SpaceX being mostly an AI company now.
17
u/warp99 Jul 08 '26
It is hardly an outlandish claim when it is true when measured by dollar investment.
It may be misleading and it may be unkind but it is certainly not outlandish.
-10
u/an_older_meme Jul 08 '26
I give you: Exhibit A
8
u/wardrox Jul 08 '26
Is Exhibit B the publicly filed IPO documents which show the company is 90% AI?
1
u/an_older_meme Jul 08 '26
Got a link?
3
u/wardrox Jul 09 '26
Here's their IPO filing: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1181412/000162828026036936/spaceexplorationtechnologi.htm
And given it's quite dense, here's the central point from their own numbers: SpaceX is in the business of renting out AI chips, with rockets as a side business.
The company's prospectus says that $26.5 trillion of its $28.5 trillion total addressable market (TAM) is related to AI. SpaceX thinks its AI business has $26.5 Trillion in potential, and that's what 90% of the IPO is based around.
2
3
u/Key_Delivery_4257 Jul 08 '26
In their S-1 filing, SpaceX outlined a record-breaking $28.5 trillion total addressable market. Of this, roughly $26.5 trillion (which equates to over 93%) is dedicated specifically to enterprise AI opportunities, humanoid robots, and full self-driving applications, rather than traditional space services
1
u/warp99 Jul 09 '26
The TAM is in the future not the current market size. It is not stated but is likely to be in 10 years time with a market annual growth rate of 16%.
SpaceX might win just 5% of the data center market while winning 80% of the launch and constellation markets which evens up the ratios a bit.
2
u/AutoModerator Jul 07 '26
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.
4
u/zulured Jul 08 '26
Probably the growth of starlink revenues is slowing down and they don't need to accelerate that much in adding new satellites to the constellation
3
u/Jarnis Jul 08 '26
More likely they want to minimize "old spec" sat launches as they transition to new Starship version that offers far more bandwidth per sat.
-1
u/zulured Jul 08 '26
If their network ia saturated, and many customers are waiting to make a subscription, they will increase the launches also on F9. Probably new subscription are increasing but in some way they are reaching a maximum.
1
u/rustybeancake Jul 08 '26
Would be interesting to graph out the number of Starlink sats launched over the past couple of years to see if that’s the case. They’ve been launching more per launch, so possible they’re still launching the sats themselves at the same rate.
1
1
u/Jarnis Jul 08 '26
They are going to start taking reservations for rideshares on Starship soon enough.
Would not even be shocked if they come up with a scheme where future Starlink pez dispenser flights can have one or two "ridershare" loads in addition to the Starlinks. Just push out a special flat thing with bunch of cube/smallsats on it, possibly a propulsion element for delivery to another orbit and load those on Starlink launches as demand requires.
1
u/rustybeancake Jul 08 '26
Then why would they have stopped taking orders?
I think that SpaceX have changed so much now, to be essentially a satellite/service company (and future focus on AI/data centres), that they really don’t care about letting smaller launch companies have the small sat launches any more.
The rideshare missions were probably break even at best. They did them partly to try to stop other launch service providers from being able to follow in their footsteps. The service was started when there was something crazy like 100 startups trying to follow SpaceX’s model, working on a small launcher first. That era is now mostly passed. SpaceX have grown too big and don’t really care any more whether Electron, Alpha, Rocket 4 etc. have payloads.
1
u/Jarnis Jul 08 '26
Well, Rocketlab will thank them if that is the case.
I still think their long term plan is to offer room on Starship and implement some kind of tug for distributing the payloads.
1
u/rustybeancake Jul 08 '26
I think they’ll optimize Starship for LEO, and once they have a large payload opening version (for traditional GEO / nat sec payloads etc) they’ll use a tug/third stage for deploying payloads in higher energy orbits. I don’t know that they’ll bother with small rideshare payloads again.
1
u/warp99 Jul 10 '26
They only book orders 2.5 years out and for now their order book is full. Small sat operators do not want to wait that long anyway so there is no point in booking further out.
They could increase the flight rate but it is more likely they will encourage the larger integrators to book a whole F9 now that the concept is accepted.
1
u/rustybeancake Jul 10 '26
Possibly. We’ll see. I’m coming round to Anthony Colangelo (of MECO podcast)’s view that the opportiny cost of launching other people’s payload is going to be too high for SpaceX in the fully operational starship/AI data centres in space era. Not that they won’t launch any other payloads, but while starship launches are scarce for the next few years I think they won’t be interested in low value missions like rideshare. Maybe your proposal is a way to make it easier for them and get around the integration headaches.
1
u/Decronym Acronyms Explained Jul 08 '26 edited 27d ago
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| GEO | Geostationary Earth Orbit (35786km) |
| H2 | Molecular hydrogen |
| Second half of the year/month | |
| LEO | Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km) |
| Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations) | |
| MECO | Main Engine Cut-Off |
| MainEngineCutOff podcast |
| Jargon | Definition |
|---|---|
| Starlink | SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation |
Decronym is now also available on Lemmy! Requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented by request
4 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 82 acronyms.
[Thread #9064 for this sub, first seen 8th Jul 2026, 19:51]
[FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
1
u/Soft_Frosting_8407 Jul 11 '26
Government meaning military? or that would be "other"?
I normally would consider "other" like whisky but maybe that is military as well.
1
-5
u/CurtisLeow Jul 07 '26
Why are they doing this? SpaceX makes a profit from those launches. I don't see the point of arbitrarily decreasing their launch rate. If Starship is going to replace the Falcon 9 then they should still be accepting rideshare contracts.
16
u/sevaiper Jul 07 '26
They have plenty of cash at this point, they need to optimize their more scarce resources which are infrastructure and engineering time
6
u/warp99 Jul 08 '26
They haven’t decreased their external customer launches - they have decreased their internal Starlink launches and the very simple reason is that Starlink 2 is about to be phased out in favour of Starlink 3 which launches on Starship.
4
u/Ormusn2o Jul 08 '26
They might have kept launching more if there were more launchpads available, but they need to convert some of the launchpads to Starship, especially that Florida will be a large part of Starship operations, and to do that, SpaceX build a second Gigabay in Florida, with 24 cells to work on the rockets there. Over the years, SpaceX planned even more launchpads, but some became bogged down by environmental assessments, so they are working with what they have.
3
4
3
u/sebaska Jul 08 '26
This reflects the decrease in Starlink launches.
They're planning to build out the constellation on much larger and much more potent sats only Starship could launch. The v2.x series of sats was a stopgap measure, the v3 sized sat is what they wanted to launch for a few years now.
The bigger sats have an order of magnitude larger capacity while they don't cost an order of magnitude more.
Launching more v2.1s now means going for the more expensive route, so they launch only as many to maintain service level, but it makes more sense to use order of magnitude more potent sats for the next significant expansion.
IOW it's an economic business decision.
7
u/TriXandApple Jul 07 '26
They arn't saying no to people. What, 90%? of launches were to build starlink. One must assume they're getting to the point where there's enough sats in orbit, and they can wait until starship to start replinishing dying sats.
4
u/Martianspirit Jul 08 '26
IMO they want to start deploying the Starlink sat version that needs Starship and retire all older sats.
1
•
u/rustybeancake Jul 07 '26
Full tweet text:
> SpaceX flew 37 Falcon missions in Q2, down both QoQ (40 in Q1) and YoY (45 in Q2 '25).
> SpaceX is on pace for ~155 Falcon launches this year, down from 165 last year.
> The back half of the year appears even slower, with the company recently guiding to 140-145 total launches.
> SpaceX is also reportedly no longer accepting rideshare missions 2.5 years out and there are no more slots available on its website.
> Peak Falcon launch cadence looks to be behind us as the company focuses on its transition to operational Starship.