Author Topic: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread  (Read 447326 times)

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1811
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
« Reply #1200 on: 11/14/2023 03:38 am »
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
Maybe time to start a new thread with top post for current year and a few yearly posts for future missions.  :)

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2881
  • Liked: 1105
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
« Reply #1201 on: 11/14/2023 03:41 am »
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
Maybe time to start a new thread with top post for current year and a few yearly posts for future missions.  :)

So a "this year" thread and a "this year+" thread?

I guess just turning a monitor from landscape to portrait mode wasn't enough...

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10309
  • US
  • Liked: 14122
  • Likes Given: 6029
Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
« Reply #1202 on: 11/14/2023 03:42 am »
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.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5461
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3163
  • Likes Given: 3921
Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
« Reply #1203 on: 11/15/2023 02:47 pm »
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.

I appreciate the work you do on this.  It's very impressive.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5 (Welp a little early on IFT-4, but still have a shot at 5)

Offline Barley

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1049
  • Liked: 715
  • Likes Given: 390
Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
« Reply #1204 on: 11/15/2023 03:36 pm »
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.
Darn SpaceX and their 100 launches per year.  Creating problems for everyone.


Offline PM3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1500
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1863
  • Likes Given: 1326
Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
« Reply #1205 on: 11/17/2023 03:12 pm »
Quote
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.
https://techcrunch.com/2023/09/13/the-european-company-signs-agreements-with-axiom-indian-space-research-organization/

Quote
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.
https://spacenews.com/european-startup-gets-44-million-for-space-station-transportation-vehicles/

Any ideas on which Falcon this could ride? Transporter-12? Their smaller first demonstrator capsule "Bikini Demo" will go as a secondary payload on this PSLV launch and be the last payload to be deployed.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2023 03:14 pm by PM3 »
"Never, never be afraid of the truth." -- Jim Bridenstine

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10309
  • US
  • Liked: 14122
  • Likes Given: 6029
Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
« Reply #1206 on: 11/17/2023 03:53 pm »
Any ideas on which Falcon this could ride? Transporter-12?

Bandwagon?

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6485
  • Liked: 4594
  • Likes Given: 5231
Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
« Reply #1207 on: 11/24/2023 11:21 pm »
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?

What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Galactic Penguin SST

Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
« Reply #1208 on: 11/25/2023 01:23 am »
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?

Possible problems launching over these few days due to Thanksgiving holidays air traffic? (see 6-30 thread)
Astronomy & spaceflight geek penguin. In a relationship w/ Space Shuttle Discovery.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5461
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3163
  • Likes Given: 3921
Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
« Reply #1209 on: 11/25/2023 01:00 pm »
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?



I concur, likely the TG holiday has an impact.  We’re getting spoiled with the launch cadence but remember there is still a finite amount of resources in the SpaceX navy and staff.  Maybe they are between surges. 

Also, do we know if any resources were directed to IFf-2 that would have cause a lag on the coasts?
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5 (Welp a little early on IFT-4, but still have a shot at 5)

Offline crandles57

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
  • Sychdyn
  • Liked: 443
  • Likes Given: 137
Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
« Reply #1210 on: 12/12/2023 01:47 pm »
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...?

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14322
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14186
  • Likes Given: 1397
Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
« Reply #1211 on: 12/12/2023 02:10 pm »
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.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline crandles57

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
  • Sychdyn
  • Liked: 443
  • Likes Given: 137
Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
« Reply #1212 on: 12/12/2023 02:31 pm »
Maybe 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.
« Last Edit: 12/12/2023 02:33 pm by crandles57 »

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14322
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14186
  • Likes Given: 1397
Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
« Reply #1213 on: 12/12/2023 04:47 pm »
Maybe 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.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 192
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
« Reply #1214 on: 12/13/2023 12:17 am »
Maybe 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.

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14322
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14186
  • Likes Given: 1397
Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
« Reply #1215 on: 12/13/2023 01:01 am »
Maybe 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.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 192
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 100
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
« Reply #1216 on: 12/13/2023 01:36 am »
Maybe 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 Km2
Mexico population density = 66 per Km2
Bangladesh popultion density = 1330 per Km2
US population denisty = 37 per Km2

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14322
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14186
  • Likes Given: 1397
Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
« Reply #1217 on: 12/13/2023 01:44 am »
Maybe 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 Km2
Mexico population density = 66 per Km2
Bangladesh popultion density = 1330 per Km2
US population denisty = 37 per Km2
Yes, I wasn't disputing the population numbers, just that India was equatorial.

Most of its population is in the north, in line with the southern parts of Florida and Texas...

Everything else is fine, nothing else to see here...
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11544
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7674
  • Likes Given: 74960
Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
« Reply #1218 on: 12/14/2023 09:17 pm »
Near-term not-Starlink launch schedule; also noting LC-39A use:

✅️ SARah 2 & 3 (Dec 24 2024 TBD? Dec 21 22 23, SLC-4E)

✅️ USSF-52 = OTV-7 (Dec 29 UTC TBD, LC-39A)

✅️ Ovzon-3 (Jan 3 Dec 22, SLC-40)

Axiom-3 (Jan 17 10, LC-39A LC-39A SLC-40)

<room for a LC-39A Starlink launch?>

Cygnus NG-20 (Jan 29, SLC-40)

PACE (NET Feb 6, SLC-40)

Nova-C IM-1 (Feb 10 mid Feb Jan 13/12 to 18, LC-39A)

Crew Dragon Crew-8 (mid Feb(?), LC-39A)

Transporter-10 (Mar 1?, SLC-4E)

USSF-124 (NET Q1 NET Feb, SLC-40)

Astranis Block 2 (Q1, SLC-40)

WorldView Legion (NET Q2 2024 TBD?, SLC-4E)

Edited through mid January
« Last Edit: 01/12/2024 07:42 am by zubenelgenubi »
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline crandles57

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
  • Sychdyn
  • Liked: 443
  • Likes Given: 137
Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
« Reply #1219 on: 12/15/2023 02:02 pm »
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.

Re "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."

https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=22627897
Seems to show the 20m^2 as being 7.4m*2.7m

Yes 7.4m is larger than 5.2m current fairing width so it wouldn't go flat. Are they planning a fairing wider than ~8m or planning to stack them on a slant or vertically rather than horizontal or fold it or something else?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0