SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread

[Starship_SpaceX]

[Jansen]

Sam Gibbs is correct in that Starlink launches are planned far in advance, but he is also leaving out that SpaceX has the ability to take advantage of short-term Starlink launch opportunities that may arise and that the launch schedule is actually very flexible.

There are hundreds of Starlink satellites in storage at the Cape right now. I wonder if the current slowdown in cadence is solely due to ASDS constraints, or there are other external factors.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

There are hundreds of Starlink satellites in storage at the Cape right now. I wonder if the current slowdown in cadence is solely due to ASDS constraints, or there are other external factors.

The total launch cadence is the highest it’s ever been, with SpaceX almost certain to do 20 launches in first half of this year (13 Starlink), with four launches last month and this. I think SpaceX are at, or close to, their current limit of sustainable cadence on the East Coast. ASDS turnaround times being one constraint.

I put the recent lack of Starlink launches purely down to a number of customer launches coming together on the schedule.

[scr00chy]

SpaceX filed launch communications permits for polar Starlink launches from the Cape.  Drone ship location is 23° 17' 50" N 78° 58' 45" W

1007-EX-ST-2021  Mission 1-6
1010-EX-ST-2021  Mission 2-6
1011-EX-ST-2021  Mission 3-6
1012-EX-ST-2021  Mission 4-6
1013-EX-ST-2021  Mission 5-6
1014-EX-ST-2021  Mission 6-6

The FCC site seems to be down at the moment. Does anyone remember what the Operation Start Date in the request was?

[crandles57]

Re

SpaceX filed launch communications permits for polar Starlink launches from the Cape.  Drone ship location is 23° 17' 50" N 78° 58' 45" W

1007-EX-ST-2021  Mission 1-6
1010-EX-ST-2021  Mission 2-6
1011-EX-ST-2021  Mission 3-6
1012-EX-ST-2021  Mission 4-6
1013-EX-ST-2021  Mission 5-6
1014-EX-ST-2021  Mission 6-6

The FCC site seems to be down at the moment. Does anyone remember what the Operation Start Date in the request was?

Does this answer your query.

Six permits requested for Starlink flights from Vandenberg NET July, missions 1-5 through 6-5, with ASDS landing.
0817-EX-ST-2021 1-5
0826-EX-ST-2021 2-5
0842-EX-ST-2021 3-5
0843-EX-ST-2021 4-5
0844-EX-ST-2021 5-5
0845-EX-ST-2021 6-5

This application uses information from previous grant 1379-EX-ST-2020. This STA is necessary to authorize launch vehicle communications for Starlink RF Mission 1-5 from SLC-4E, Vandenberg Air Force Base, and the experimental recovery operation following the Falcon 9 launch. The application includes sub-orbital first stage and orbital second stage. Trajectory data shall be provided directly to NTIA, USAF, and NASA. All downrange Earth stations are receive-only. The recovery portion is limited to two functions: 1) pre-launch checkout test of the command uplink from an onshore station at launch site, and 2) command of landed stage from recovery boat. All operations are pre-coordinated with the Launch Range. Launch licensing authority is FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation.

Requested Period of Operation
Operation Start Date:   07/01/2021
Operation End Date:   01/01/2022

0817-EX-ST-2021 grant 1-5
0826-EX-ST-2021 grant 2-5
0842-EX-ST-2021 grant 3-5

[scr00chy]

Does this answer your query.

No, those are different licence requests. I'm asking about the polar Starlink launches from Florida.

EDIT: Nevermind, I found an alternate link to the request. The start date is July 26.

[scr00chy]

SFN reported in April that SpaceX is "expected" to continue mid-inclination launches from Florida while conducting polar launches from Vandenberg. So are these new polar missions from Florida in addition to that, or are no more mid-inclination launches planned in the near future?

I'm leaning towards the latter because a SpaceX representative has mentioned recently that one Starlink launch is planned for July 12 and one for July 30 and that there are only 2 Starlink launches per month planned for the remainder of the year. So I'm guessing they're all going to be polar (one from Florida and one from California)?

The operation start date of July 26 in the most recent FCC request also implies that California would be up first and SpaceX is targeting July 12 for the first polar mission from there. Conversely, that would mean the first polar Starlink launch from the Cape is currently planned for July 30.

Which brings me to mission numbering. Should we use different numbering for the polar launches, or do we just keep calling them v1.0 L29, v1.0 L30 and so on, regardless of where they're launching from or whether they're polar or not? Some or all polar mission are expected to utilize laser intersatellite links which might warrant designating them v2.0 or maybe v1.5, right? Who decides that, though?

[smoliarm]

...

Which brings me to mission numbering. Should we use different numbering for the polar launches, or do we just keep calling them v1.0 L29, v1.0 L30 and so on, regardless of where they're launching from or whether they're polar or not? Some or all polar mission are expected to utilize laser intersatellite links which might warrant designating them v2.0 or maybe v1.5, right? Who decides that, though?

That's a good question

Of course it would be better to distinguish between different layers/shells.
However, may be more important to keep the same flight numbering system with the others - catalogs, news sites and SpaceX themselves...

[Jansen]

Which brings me to mission numbering. Should we use different numbering for the polar launches, or do we just keep calling them v1.0 L29, v1.0 L30 and so on, regardless of where they're launching from or whether they're polar or not? Some or all polar mission are expected to utilize laser intersatellite links which might warrant designating them v2.0 or maybe v1.5, right? Who decides that, though?

We will update the numbering based on information provided from SpaceX.

[Jansen]

B1049 - VSFB
B1051 - VSFB (probable)
B1058 - May 15 (58 days)
B1060 - Transporter-2
B1061 - June 6 (31 days)
B1062 - June 17 (25 days)
B1063 - May 26 (47 days)

B1067 - Reserved Crew-3 23 Oct 2021

There are quite a few booster options for a 12th July launch from the Eastern Range.

B1058-9 seems the most likely option. Turnaround would actually have been below 45 days for its last four launches, if not for weather and payload issues.

[vaporcobra]

SFN reported in April that SpaceX is "expected" to continue mid-inclination launches from Florida while conducting polar launches from Vandenberg. So are these new polar missions from Florida in addition to that, or are no more mid-inclination launches planned in the near future?

Also good to note (IIRC) that SpaceX is only able to do East Coast polar launches out of LC-40, which would inherently leave 39A free for mid-inclination Starlink launches, Dragons, and commercial missions. So it seems likely that both polar and mid-inclination Starlink launches will happen simultaneously at SLC-4E, LC-40, and LC-39A.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

A nice summary of current launch cadence:

https://twitter.com/stuck4ger/status/1407467988869996547

If somebody asks me when the next @SpaceX launch is, I don’t bother doing any research but just say “in a few days.”

[wannamoonbase]

Question: Is it possible that the gap in East coast flights is because some of the staff are on the West coast getting that site back up, trained and ready to roll after a few years of very little use?

With all the boosters available and starlings waiting on the ground, I'm surprised there isn't a ASDS flight scheduled for the East Coast.

[Jansen]

The significant gap in operations at LC-39A leads me to believe there is some preparation for FH VLI being conducted.

They aren’t alternating pads as expected. LC-39A will be unused for at least two months, maybe until CRS-23 on 18 August.

[gongora]

The significant gap in operations at LC-39A leads me to believe there is some preparation for FH VLI being conducted.

They aren’t alternating pads as expected. LC-39A will be unused for at least two months, maybe until CRS-23 on 18 August.

I think you're reading way too much into a couple flights.  The flight that didn't alternate was GPS III, and they may have assigned it to that particular pad due to customer preference.  The polar flights may prefer SLC-40.

[Jansen]

The significant gap in operations at LC-39A leads me to believe there is some preparation for FH VLI being conducted.

They aren’t alternating pads as expected. LC-39A will be unused for at least two months, maybe until CRS-23 on 18 August.

I think you're reading way too much into a couple flights.  The flight that didn't alternate was GPS III, and they may have assigned it to that particular pad due to customer preference.  The polar flights may prefer SLC-40.

GPS SV05 was always likely for SLC-40 as a flight for NSSL.

I’m thinking more of the launch opportunities from LC-39A that aren’t being taken advantage of. Transporter-2 I think might require SLC-40 and the July Starlink launch looks like it will be from SLC-40 as well.

The last launch from LC-39A was on June 3rd. The next launch will either be July 12 or 30th. So even if not causative, there is still a significant opportunity for work to be conducted.

[Jansen]

From what I recall, SpaceX will be required to field VI capability by July 2022 for Category A/B missions.

So it makes sense to conduct some of that work now, as it will be more likely to affect the launch manifest next year, especially with all the FH, lunar missions, and Crew/CRS flights.

[scr00chy]

Are polar trajectories actually allowed from LC-39A? I thought it was SLC-40 only (at least for now).

[vaporcobra]

Are polar trajectories actually allowed from LC-39A? I thought it was SLC-40 only (at least for now).

That's my understanding, too. Without an almost 90-degree dogleg immediately after liftoff, high-inclination launches from 39A would directly overfly virtually every major CCAFS facility.

[Orbiter]

The significant gap in operations at LC-39A leads me to believe there is some preparation for FH VLI being conducted.

They aren’t alternating pads as expected. LC-39A will be unused for at least two months, maybe until CRS-23 on 18 August.

I don't think LC-39A is going unused.

SiriusXM SXM-8 had to go from SLC-40 due CRS-22 ops at LC-39A

GPS III-5 had been scheduled to launch from SLC-40 for months.

Transporter-2 had to go from SLC-40 due to the polar trajectory, as noted above.


I wouldn't be surprised if the next Starlink goes from LC-39A.