My point... I guess... is this...The top of thread manifest seems to assume OCISLY if RTLS is not obviously possible...My opinion... we will really not know till just before launch on each flight... will we...
Quote from: John Alan on 05/09/2016 08:26 pmSeems the launch mass has come into question... may only be 4500kg-ish... for the pairIf so, then this launch may be recovered... BUT... I still think 5250kg-ish and up will NOT be recovered sometimes... The recent update on SpaceX's capabilities page lists their new F9 price of $62M for up to 5,500kg to GTO. Which says to me that they believe that is their limit for recovery. Though, that may be only once they adjust for the planned uprated thrust "later this year".
Seems the launch mass has come into question... may only be 4500kg-ish... for the pairIf so, then this launch may be recovered... BUT... I still think 5250kg-ish and up will NOT be recovered sometimes...
Spaceflight Now updated their list and now has Thaicom 8 on May 26 and CRS-9 on June 27.
Quote from: rockets4life97 on 05/06/2016 03:34 pmSpaceflight Now updated their list and now has Thaicom 8 on May 26 and CRS-9 on June 27.sSeems like SpaceX is falling behind their launch rate target for the year. Seems more than likely that they'll do say 12 - 14 max for the year. That's still double what they managed last year but we all know why of course. Still better than 1 a month would be an indication that they've got on top of production and launch issues that have been reducing launch rates. Could they do better and if so why? Or do I have this backwards and it's really payloads that are delaying launches? Thanks.
Quote from: beancounter on 05/10/2016 03:09 pmQuote from: rockets4life97 on 05/06/2016 03:34 pmSpaceflight Now updated their list and now has Thaicom 8 on May 26 and CRS-9 on June 27.sSeems like SpaceX is falling behind their launch rate target for the year. Seems more than likely that they'll do say 12 - 14 max for the year. That's still double what they managed last year but we all know why of course. Still better than 1 a month would be an indication that they've got on top of production and launch issues that have been reducing launch rates. Could they do better and if so why? Or do I have this backwards and it's really payloads that are delaying launches? Thanks.Looks to me like they are now in their stride, as long as it doesn't break, to do two a month for the rest of the year which would put the total at 17.
EchoStar: EchoStar 23 Ku-band sat, for 45 deg West over Brazil, to launch Q3 this yr by SpaceX. EchoStar 105, w/ SES, is on SpaceX in Q4.
Tweet from Peter B. de Selding:QuoteEchoStar: EchoStar 23 Ku-band sat, for 45 deg West over Brazil, to launch Q3 this yr by SpaceX. EchoStar 105, w/ SES, is on SpaceX in Q4.Echostar 105=SES 11
Quote from: gongora on 05/11/2016 01:21 pmTweet from Peter B. de Selding:QuoteEchoStar: EchoStar 23 Ku-band sat, for 45 deg West over Brazil, to launch Q3 this yr by SpaceX. EchoStar 105, w/ SES, is on SpaceX in Q4.Echostar 105=SES 11SES11 is already on the list but EchoStar 23 should be added. It is listed on Gunter's pace page as slated for launch in 2016. The satellite is made by Space Systems/Loral and based on SSL-1300 bus, no mass is available. http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/echostar-23.htm
Did this just get squeezed into this summers manifest? If so does it represent something we already expected slipping significantly (ie giving up its place for this one) or does it possibly represent a scheduled core (say the one for SES-10) that is freed up by the first re-use launch? Or, more boldly, is this the first re-use launch? (though my bets are on SES-10 using the CRS-9 core)
Quote from: beancounter on 05/10/2016 03:09 pmQuote from: rockets4life97 on 05/06/2016 03:34 pmSpaceflight Now updated their list and now has Thaicom 8 on May 26 and CRS-9 on June 27.sSeems like SpaceX is falling behind their launch rate target for the year. Seems more than likely that they'll do say 12 - 14 max for the year. That's still double what they managed last year but we all know why of course. Still better than 1 a month would be an indication that they've got on top of production and launch issues that have been reducing launch rates. Could they do better and if so why? Or do I have this backwards and it's really payloads that are delaying launches? Thanks.Payloads shouldn't be the problem now, they still haven't caught up on stuff they were supposed to launch last year. They've really just begun trying to up the production rate, the second east coast pad isn't completed yet, and the western launch range may be down for maintenance most of the summer. If they can get their production/testing ramped up in the next few months they can still get closer to 18 than 12. They're on track to have 6-7 launches in the first half of the year, so you're assuming no improvement at all in the next 7 months.
Payloads will be limiting after a few months if the reuse begins to work. 1-2 re-launches doubles the effective production rate; 5-10 re-launches provides capacity to launch the world's 100 per year even at a production rate of only one per month -- which they probably are doing now. Payload increase will probably never outpace SpaceX's capacity to launch with LC-40, 39A, and 4E on line. Then add Boca Chica...
Eutelsat launch seems to be firming up as mid-June (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40088.msg1533755#msg1533755). IF that holds it could be SpaceX are finally getting into the long promised increase in launch frequency.
Window: 05:40PM-TBA EST