So, uh, it appears SpaceX has reached a flight rate that does not support keeping both future missions and all of the current year's missions in the top post of the manifest updates thread
Quote from: gongora on 11/13/2023 08:09 pmSo, uh, it appears SpaceX has reached a flight rate that does not support keeping both future missions and all of the current year's missions in the top post of the manifest updates threadMaybe time to start a new thread with top post for current year and a few yearly posts for future missions.
I don't need to make a new thread, but I'll have to move stuff around among the top posts more often. For the moment I moved the first six months of the year out of the top post.
From 2024, The Exploration Company will fly another, slightly larger demonstration prototype called “Mission Possible” in the fourth quarter of 2024. While Bikini will burn up in the atmosphere, the two-year-old startup will attempt an ocean splashdown with the Mission Possible prototype.
The startup has booked a SpaceX Falcon 9 mission next year that Huby said will carry a larger 1,600-kilogram, 2.5-meter demonstration capsule. This capsule would have propulsion and a parachute for a more controlled reentry after taking payloads for clients, including European space agencies, on a brief trip in low Earth orbit.
Any ideas on which Falcon this could ride? Transporter-12?
Over in the SpaceX progress towards a 100 launch year thread, it was said that after Starlink 6-29 the average interval of the last ten launches was one every 2.4 days, or a 150 launches per year. But now there is at least a 5.8 day gap to Starlink 6-30 and only 3 launches on the Manifest in the following 18 days. (It seems that four launches in 24 days is now a disappointment. )Is it just the vagaries of scheduling or the two USG launches gumming up the works or what?
How does launch optimisation work best re using RTLS vs ASDS vs a partial boostback to reduce ASDS turnaround time?Target of 144 is 12 per month but there is bound to be some non optimal periods we weather, payload delay so I think you have to be able/aim for at least 13 launches a month to achieve that 144 target.23 sats with ASDS is presumably going to be better than 17 for RTLS. So going for all ASDS launches with 8 day turnaround gives an optimum possible of 365/8*3=137 so not enough but it is surprisingly close.One possibility might to do all partial boostbacks to reduce ASDS turnaround time to 7 days 365/7*3= max theoretical of 156 which might be enough to get to an actual 144 launches? Not sure how many fewer satellites might be possible with this route?I am more inclined to think it is more cost effective for West coast does all max payloads 365/8= theoretical 45 so might get in 40?East coast would have to aim for a launch every 3 days, 2 max payloads then 1 RTLS which requires an ASDS turnaround of 9 days which looks possible. 365/3= theoretical 121 so maybe get in an actual 104 East coast plus 40 West coast = our 144? What do you think one in three launches RTLS sufficient to get to 144 target launches?Or are partial boostbacks more cost effective and/or necessary/more cost effective?Or...?
Maybe developed the operational flexibility to RTLS if weather precludes ASDS. It's a boon for both coasts.
Quote from: meekGee on 12/12/2023 02:10 pmMaybe developed the operational flexibility to RTLS if weather precludes ASDS. It's a boon for both coasts.How late before a launch do you think they can/would be able to * change the number of sats on board* change flight profile* change the droneship landing location (I assume not a problem to change from ASDS to RTLS but for changing to a partial boostback. If the ASDS is (heading) out there in marginal weather, better to use it with a partial boostback than not use it?)or do you envisage having both flight plans filed for same date and two sets of fairings with different sats encapsulated in each and just a matter of which is selected to be used at a late stage?It would be helpful but is it enough to get from current ~10 per month to 12 per month? I am not seeing it as that major. Could be a combination of a few things though.
Quote from: crandles57 on 12/12/2023 02:31 pmQuote from: meekGee on 12/12/2023 02:10 pmMaybe developed the operational flexibility to RTLS if weather precludes ASDS. It's a boon for both coasts.How late before a launch do you think they can/would be able to * change the number of sats on board* change flight profile* change the droneship landing location (I assume not a problem to change from ASDS to RTLS but for changing to a partial boostback. If the ASDS is (heading) out there in marginal weather, better to use it with a partial boostback than not use it?)or do you envisage having both flight plans filed for same date and two sets of fairings with different sats encapsulated in each and just a matter of which is selected to be used at a late stage?It would be helpful but is it enough to get from current ~10 per month to 12 per month? I am not seeing it as that major. Could be a combination of a few things though.I'm thinking both flight plans, one with a drone ship, one without. The two plans may not even go to the same orbit. Two encapsulated payloads ready to go. If logistics are going to delay plan A (recovery weather, drone ship delay or lack of availability, etc) they switch to plan B.
Quote from: meekGee on 12/12/2023 04:47 pmQuote from: crandles57 on 12/12/2023 02:31 pmQuote from: meekGee on 12/12/2023 02:10 pmMaybe developed the operational flexibility to RTLS if weather precludes ASDS. It's a boon for both coasts.How late before a launch do you think they can/would be able to * change the number of sats on board* change flight profile* change the droneship landing location (I assume not a problem to change from ASDS to RTLS but for changing to a partial boostback. If the ASDS is (heading) out there in marginal weather, better to use it with a partial boostback than not use it?)or do you envisage having both flight plans filed for same date and two sets of fairings with different sats encapsulated in each and just a matter of which is selected to be used at a late stage?It would be helpful but is it enough to get from current ~10 per month to 12 per month? I am not seeing it as that major. Could be a combination of a few things though.I'm thinking both flight plans, one with a drone ship, one without. The two plans may not even go to the same orbit. Two encapsulated payloads ready to go. If logistics are going to delay plan A (recovery weather, drone ship delay or lack of availability, etc) they switch to plan B.Why is everyone basing these scenarios on the size/mass of V2.0 Minis?In the FCC documents, SpaceX provided multiple constellation Group sizes for satellites. The first was 840. The next was double 1680. We just launched the ~840th V2.0 Mini last week. At some point. I suspect, Launching additional V2.0 Mini's will have a smaller and smaller return on performance gains.They need the "Full Sized V2/V3 variants" on orbit (with/or without Starship.) Especially to launch service in India and other populous Equatorial territories. The V2 full-sized promised a 10X improvement over V1.5's. We have no information on the performance of the V3 mentioned by Musk earlier. So one reason to move to RTLS could be that the physical size of the satellites being launched (Maxie's?) limits the number of satellites under the fairing (vertically stacked) to a smaller number. Less satellites, less mass to orbit...... Less mass to orbit, RTLS within limits. The F9-3 [D2D] variant in FCC documents showed a Satellite Buss size of 20 Square Meters. You can't lie that horizontally within a current F9 Faring unless it is round, it folds, or they have a larger fairing.. I think that as the V1.0's and V1.5's before the Mini's were incremental building blocks. That the V2.0 Mini has perhaps completed it's duties in the evolution of Starlink / D2D with the completion of 840+ satellites. Less satellites per launch, more launches needed to reach the next 840.Just a passing thought.
Quote from: raptorx2 on 12/13/2023 12:17 amQuote from: meekGee on 12/12/2023 04:47 pmQuote from: crandles57 on 12/12/2023 02:31 pmQuote from: meekGee on 12/12/2023 02:10 pmMaybe developed the operational flexibility to RTLS if weather precludes ASDS. It's a boon for both coasts.How late before a launch do you think they can/would be able to * change the number of sats on board* change flight profile* change the droneship landing location (I assume not a problem to change from ASDS to RTLS but for changing to a partial boostback. If the ASDS is (heading) out there in marginal weather, better to use it with a partial boostback than not use it?)or do you envisage having both flight plans filed for same date and two sets of fairings with different sats encapsulated in each and just a matter of which is selected to be used at a late stage?It would be helpful but is it enough to get from current ~10 per month to 12 per month? I am not seeing it as that major. Could be a combination of a few things though.I'm thinking both flight plans, one with a drone ship, one without. The two plans may not even go to the same orbit. Two encapsulated payloads ready to go. If logistics are going to delay plan A (recovery weather, drone ship delay or lack of availability, etc) they switch to plan B.Why is everyone basing these scenarios on the size/mass of V2.0 Minis?In the FCC documents, SpaceX provided multiple constellation Group sizes for satellites. The first was 840. The next was double 1680. We just launched the ~840th V2.0 Mini last week. At some point. I suspect, Launching additional V2.0 Mini's will have a smaller and smaller return on performance gains.They need the "Full Sized V2/V3 variants" on orbit (with/or without Starship.) Especially to launch service in India and other populous Equatorial territories. The V2 full-sized promised a 10X improvement over V1.5's. We have no information on the performance of the V3 mentioned by Musk earlier. So one reason to move to RTLS could be that the physical size of the satellites being launched (Maxie's?) limits the number of satellites under the fairing (vertically stacked) to a smaller number. Less satellites, less mass to orbit...... Less mass to orbit, RTLS within limits. The F9-3 [D2D] variant in FCC documents showed a Satellite Buss size of 20 Square Meters. You can't lie that horizontally within a current F9 Faring unless it is round, it folds, or they have a larger fairing.. I think that as the V1.0's and V1.5's before the Mini's were incremental building blocks. That the V2.0 Mini has perhaps completed it's duties in the evolution of Starlink / D2D with the completion of 840+ satellites. Less satellites per launch, more launches needed to reach the next 840.Just a passing thought.India is as equatorial as Mexico is, just saying.
Quote from: meekGee on 12/13/2023 01:01 amQuote from: raptorx2 on 12/13/2023 12:17 amQuote from: meekGee on 12/12/2023 04:47 pmQuote from: crandles57 on 12/12/2023 02:31 pmQuote from: meekGee on 12/12/2023 02:10 pmMaybe developed the operational flexibility to RTLS if weather precludes ASDS. It's a boon for both coasts.How late before a launch do you think they can/would be able to * change the number of sats on board* change flight profile* change the droneship landing location (I assume not a problem to change from ASDS to RTLS but for changing to a partial boostback. If the ASDS is (heading) out there in marginal weather, better to use it with a partial boostback than not use it?)or do you envisage having both flight plans filed for same date and two sets of fairings with different sats encapsulated in each and just a matter of which is selected to be used at a late stage?It would be helpful but is it enough to get from current ~10 per month to 12 per month? I am not seeing it as that major. Could be a combination of a few things though.I'm thinking both flight plans, one with a drone ship, one without. The two plans may not even go to the same orbit. Two encapsulated payloads ready to go. If logistics are going to delay plan A (recovery weather, drone ship delay or lack of availability, etc) they switch to plan B.Why is everyone basing these scenarios on the size/mass of V2.0 Minis?In the FCC documents, SpaceX provided multiple constellation Group sizes for satellites. The first was 840. The next was double 1680. We just launched the ~840th V2.0 Mini last week. At some point. I suspect, Launching additional V2.0 Mini's will have a smaller and smaller return on performance gains.They need the "Full Sized V2/V3 variants" on orbit (with/or without Starship.) Especially to launch service in India and other populous Equatorial territories. The V2 full-sized promised a 10X improvement over V1.5's. We have no information on the performance of the V3 mentioned by Musk earlier. So one reason to move to RTLS could be that the physical size of the satellites being launched (Maxie's?) limits the number of satellites under the fairing (vertically stacked) to a smaller number. Less satellites, less mass to orbit...... Less mass to orbit, RTLS within limits. The F9-3 [D2D] variant in FCC documents showed a Satellite Buss size of 20 Square Meters. You can't lie that horizontally within a current F9 Faring unless it is round, it folds, or they have a larger fairing.. I think that as the V1.0's and V1.5's before the Mini's were incremental building blocks. That the V2.0 Mini has perhaps completed it's duties in the evolution of Starlink / D2D with the completion of 840+ satellites. Less satellites per launch, more launches needed to reach the next 840.Just a passing thought.India is as equatorial as Mexico is, just saying.You are of course correct.India population density = 481 per Km2Mexico population density = 66 per Km2Bangladesh popultion density = 1330 per Km2US population denisty = 37 per Km2
Why is everyone basing these scenarios on the size/mass of V2.0 Minis?In the FCC documents, SpaceX provided multiple constellation Group sizes for satellites. The first was 840. The next was double 1680. We just launched the ~840th V2.0 Mini last week. At some point. I suspect, Launching additional V2.0 Mini's will have a smaller and smaller return on performance gains.They need the "Full Sized V2/V3 variants" on orbit (with/or without Starship.) Especially to launch service in India and other populous Equatorial territories. The V2 full-sized promised a 10X improvement over V1.5's. We have no information on the performance of the V3 mentioned by Musk earlier. So one reason to move to RTLS could be that the physical size of the satellites being launched (Maxie's?) limits the number of satellites under the fairing (vertically stacked) to a smaller number. Less satellites, less mass to orbit...... Less mass to orbit, RTLS within limits. The F9-3 [D2D] variant in FCC documents showed a Satellite Buss size of 20 Square Meters. You can't lie that horizontally within a current F9 Faring unless it is round, it folds, or they have a larger fairing.. I think that as the V1.0's and V1.5's before the Mini's were incremental building blocks. That the V2.0 Mini has perhaps completed it's duties in the evolution of Starlink / D2D with the completion of 840+ satellites. Less satellites per launch, more launches needed to reach the next 840.Just a passing thought.
