Nope, I got that wrong. It has been a Space Force Station since December, six months ago.

Number of launches, number of satellites or probes launched, tonnage launched, data returned, goods or services rendered, etc. are all reasonable measures of the functional significance of the use of space, and we occasionally do a little debate on them. The number of launches is the most reliable number that we can get, as the weight of payloads is not always known. Do we want to include propellant weight, and if not then how do we subtract it out?

We know that in the 1960s more rockets launched were smaller than there are today. The tonnage back then was less than over the past decade. Starting in the 1970s, there was a movement from smaller satellites and probes to larger ones, as each one could perform more tasks and be more useful. These days, the movement is in the other direction, where a large constellations of smaller satellites are performing more — and doing it better — than the few larger satellites. Smaller satellites are more affordable, and with the return of the small launch rockets, they can be put into specific orbits to perform specific tasks at an affordable price, allowing for more and more companies, countries, and universities to join in on the action that was mostly enjoyed by large countries with large space programs.

Large number of rockets or not, massive tonnage or not, we should be seeing more and more functional usage of space in the coming decade. Measuring that usage will remain difficult, but as more commercial operations come online, we may be able to approximate it with total revenues from space companies, whether they perform services on orbit or analyze space data after it arrives on Earth, and with goods coming from space, we should see improvements to our lifestyles and health.

David Eastman asked: “Three days between launches and drone ship landings. Has SpaceX gotten the whole cycle down that fast, with the booster back to port and the ship back out to sea that quickly, or did they use a different drone ship?”

SpaceX has both drone ships in the Atlantic, now, and its CRS 22 launcher had a boost back burn that brought it to a drone ship that was closer to Canaveral than usual, reducing its turnaround time. So the answer is a little of both: two drone ships occasionally able to operate with a faster cycle time.

SpaceX may be choosing to not land boosters on land, in some cases, because a return to launch site means that, for safety reasons, Canaveral Air Force Station (apparently not a Space Force Station) shuts down a lot of its operations during the return.

You actually make a valid point. And, in mass terms, the U.S. lead over both Russia and China is much more lopsided than its lead in launch count. With all due respect to ZimmerBob, total mass to orbit matters. A standard 60-bird F9 load of Starlink satellites, for example, weighs 15.6 metric tons or 17.2 imperial tons. SpaceX has launched a dozen such payloads thus far this year, plus one mission that traded some rideshare birds for part of the Starlink load. That payload weighed 14 metric tons or 15.5 imperial tons.

With apologies to the late Tennessee Ernie Ford:

You launch 17 tons and what do you get?
Another 60 birds and more Internet.

Most of China’s launches are of venerable Long March 2- & 3-series rockets which have much less payload capacity than the Falcon 9. China has launched just one payload this year that masses more than a standard F9 load of Starlink sats, the 22.6 metric ton Tianhe core module of its new Tiangong space station.

Russia, likewise, launches mainly the venerable Soyuz rocket. The only payload Russia is expected to launch this year which is heavier than a standard F9 load of Starlink sats will be the 20.3 metric ton Nauka ISS module.

The year I was born. I was almost 3 at the Moon landing. Born Sept 22 nine months after Korolev died…

Gary in transit: Tonnage to orbit doesn’t matter that much if you comparing SpaceX to Russia or China, as their rockets are mostly comparable. It only matters significantly if you want to compare the smallsat rocket companies, like Rocket Lab, with either other nations or with the companies like SpaceX that launch larger payloads.

Personally I don’t think it matters that much even then. The capability to launch I think is a much more important measure. Companies that succeed in doing it will eventually scale up to match their competitors, as Rocket Lab is now doing.