NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX Missions Section => Topic started by: gongora on 10/26/2020 04:10 pm

Title: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 10/26/2020 04:10 pm
Thread for discussing the upcoming SpaceX launch manifest.  Updates can go in the SpaceX Manifest Updates Thread 5 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43418.0)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Orbiter on 10/26/2020 04:39 pm
Based on core rotation, I think B1060.4 will support the SiriusXM SXM-7 mission should it fly in November. Starlink L15 should be B1049.7.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 10/26/2020 04:43 pm
Based on core rotation, I think B1060.4 will support the SiriusXM SXM-7 mission should it fly in November. Starlink L15 should be B1049.7.

B1060 is still at sea. Won’t be available until December.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 10/26/2020 04:44 pm
There are currently 5 regular F9 boosters available for reuse:

B1049 - Starlink v1.0 L15 integration?
B1051 - Offloaded from ASDS
B1058 - Reprocessing for CRS-21
B1059 - NROL-108 integration HIF SLC-40
B1060 - Starlink v1.0 L14 ASDS recovery

New boosters:
B1061 - Dragon C207 Resilience (Crew-1)
B1062 - GPS III SV04 Sacagawea (engine investigation)
B1063 - Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich

B1064 - FH side USSF-44
B1065 - FH side USSF-44
B1066 - FH center USSF-44

Launch list for Eastern Range:
NROL-108
Crew-1
GPS III-SV04
SXM 7
CRS 21
Turksat 5A
Transporter 1
Starlink v1.0 L15 (non-priority/flexible)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Orbiter on 10/26/2020 04:52 pm
Based on core rotation, I think B1060.4 will support the SiriusXM SXM-7 mission should it fly in November. Starlink L15 should be B1049.7.

B1060 is still at sea. Won’t be available until December.

Not an absolute time frame. We know SpaceX's goal is to decrease* the turnaround time between booster reuse, especially as next year they're planning 40+ launches per Musk.

B1060 is the only candidate that's obvious to me.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 10/26/2020 05:00 pm
Based on core rotation, I think B1060.4 will support the SiriusXM SXM-7 mission should it fly in November. Starlink L15 should be B1049.7.

B1060 is still at sea. Won’t be available until December.

Not an absolute time frame. We know SpaceX's goal is to increase the turnaround time between booster reuse, especially as next year they're planning 40+ launches per Musk.

B1060 is the only candidate that's obvious to me.

You mean decrease?

Current booster turnaround is around 45 days if they push it for a Starlink launch. Going to 35 days seems a bit of a stretch for now.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Orbiter on 10/26/2020 05:02 pm
Based on core rotation, I think B1060.4 will support the SiriusXM SXM-7 mission should it fly in November. Starlink L15 should be B1049.7.

B1060 is still at sea. Won’t be available until December.

Not an absolute time frame. We know SpaceX's goal is to increase the turnaround time between booster reuse, especially as next year they're planning 40+ launches per Musk.

B1060 is the only candidate that's obvious to me.

You mean decrease?

Current booster turnaround is around 45 days if they push it for a Starlink launch. Going to 35 days seems a bit of a stretch for now.

Typo on my part, apologies. Very possible then that Sirius SXM-7 is delayed until December.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 10/26/2020 05:09 pm
Typo on my part, apologizes. Very possible then that Sirius SXM-7 is delayed until December then.

I concur; however the possibility exists that B1051.7 could launch SXM-7 after B1049.7 goes up.

It all depends on the engine issues. Crew-1 workflow takes up a large chunk of November.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 10/27/2020 05:18 am
Confirmed:

Nov 05 SLC-40
B1062.1 - GPS III SV04 Sacagawea

Nov 10 SLC-4E
B1063.1 - Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich

Nov 15 LC-39A
B1061.1 - Dragon C207 Resilience (Crew-1)

Unconfirmed:

Nov 17-19  SLC-40
B1059.5 - NROL-108

Nov 24-27 LC-39A
B1049.7 - SXM 7

Nov 30 SLC-40
B1051.7 - Turksat 5A

Mid- Dec LC-39A
B1058.4 - CRS 21

Dec 16 SLC-40
B1060.4 - Transporter 1

Reasoning:

There are currently only five regular F9 boosters available.

B1049 - Storage HIF LC-39A
B1051 - Enroute to reprocessing
B1058 - Reprocessing for CRS-21
B1059 - NROL-108, moved to storage
B1060 - Starlink v1.0 L14 ASDS recovery

NROL-108 is confirmed to use B1059.5 for launch. There was a lot of smooth talking to slot this behind the NASA and USSF launches. With Crew-1 taking up LC-39A, SLC-40 is the logical choice. Timetable can be compressed a bit with more shifts during integration and testing. 12 days is the fastest turnaround so far at SLC-40.

Normally a flight time leader would be used on a Starlink launch, but there are only 5 boosters for 5 launches. So B1049.7 looks like the booster for  SXM7 unless they want to delay it into late December when a less experienced booster is available.  This would mean Starlink v1.0 L15 goes up in its place. 9 days is the fastest turnaround at LC-39A.

Turksat 5A is currently scheduled for Nov 30. B1051.7 would be the only booster available during that timeframe. Bit tight with a 43 day booster turnaround but possible with multiple shifts working. Will probably require B1049.7 to go up first as a flight time leader. Launch date is doable if NROL-108 goes up on time.

B1058.4 is confirmed for CRS 21. Requires LC-39A. NASA workflow probably requires at least 15 days from previous launch.

B1060.4 will finish reprocessing just in time for  the Dec 16 targeted launch of Transporter 1. SLC-40 will have the only HIF available at that time.

With the holidays at end of December, it seems unlikely that we will see launches with the new boosters until early January. Possibly there will be some Starlink launches.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: AndrewRG10 on 10/27/2020 06:53 am

Unconfirmed:

Nov 17-19  SLC-40
B1059.5 - NROL-108

Nov 24-27 LC-39A
B1049.7 - SXM 7

Nov 30 SLC-40
B1051.7 - Turksat 5A

Mid- Dec LC-39A
B1058.4 - CRS 21

B1059.5 has been confirmed as the booster for NROL and B1058.4 is also confirmed as CRS-21. B1049.7 and B1051.7 for commercial flights is extremely wild speculation, and will not happen.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: smoliarm on 10/27/2020 08:00 am

...

Nov 24-27 LC-39A
B1049.7 - SXM 7

Nov 30 SLC-40
B1051.7 - Turksat 5A

...

B1059.5 has been confirmed as the booster for NROL and B1058.4 is also confirmed as CRS-21. B1049.7 and B1051.7 for commercial flights is extremely wild speculation, and will not happen.

Agree 100%, this will not happen.
Because both commercial birds, SXM 7 and Turksat 5A, are insured by commercial insurance.
Therefore insurance underwriters do have strong voice in these decisions, and they have VERY effective leverage - premium size. And right now the insurance premium - for a full-size GEO-commsat - launched with "heavily-used" booster - would be VERY high. I'd say - prohibiting.
Hopefully it will change - soon. Though not now.
Right now we have -
*** commercial launches with B10xx.2 became a routine
*** a handful of commercially insured B10xx.3 launches
*** just one orbital launch with B10xx.4 for "external" customer - CONAE (SAOCOM-1B), which may be was not insured by commercial insurer.
And yes, SpaceX already demonstrated several successes with B10xx.5 and even B10xx.6 - but I'm afraid it's just not enough for insurance underwriters.
My guess - they either will wait for longer used booster flight statistics, or the underwriters will wait for NASA and USAF - see what they do - and follow the suit.

So, the bottom line:
we will see launches with B10xx.7 for commercial customers - eventually.
And may by soon.
But next month? - no, we won't.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 10/27/2020 08:53 am

Unconfirmed:

Nov 17-19  SLC-40
B1059.5 - NROL-108

Nov 24-27 LC-39A
B1049.7 - SXM 7

Nov 30 SLC-40
B1051.7 - Turksat 5A

Mid- Dec LC-39A
B1058.4 - CRS 21

B1059.5 has been confirmed as the booster for NROL and B1058.4 is also confirmed as CRS-21. B1049.7 and B1051.7 for commercial flights is extremely wild speculation, and will not happen.

You’re not reading the whole thing.

Quote
NROL-108 is confirmed to use B1059.5 for launch.

Quote
B1058.4 is confirmed for CRS 21. Requires LC-39A. NASA workflow probably requires at least 15 days from previous launch.

Quote
Normally a flight time leader would be used on a Starlink launch, but there are only 5 boosters for 5 launches. So B1049.7 looks like the booster for  SXM7 unless they want to delay it into late December when a less experienced booster is available.  This would mean Starlink v1.0 L15 goes up in its place. 9 days is the fastest turnaround at LC-39A.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 10/27/2020 09:25 am
Agree 100%, this will not happen.
Because both commercial birds, SXM 7 and Turksat 5A, are insured by commercial insurance.
Therefore insurance underwriters do have strong voice in these decisions, and they have VERY effective leverage - premium size. And right now the insurance premium - for a full-size GEO-commsat - launched with "heavily-used" booster - would be VERY high. I'd say - prohibiting.
Hopefully it will change - soon. Though not now.
Right now we have -
*** commercial launches with B10xx.2 became a routine
*** a handful of commercially insured B10xx.3 launches
*** just one orbital launch with B10xx.4 for "external" customer - CONAE (SAOCOM-1B), which may be was not insured by commercial insurer.
And yes, SpaceX already demonstrated several successes with B10xx.5 and even B10xx.6 - but I'm afraid it's just not enough for insurance underwriters.
My guess - they either will wait for longer used booster flight statistics, or the underwriters will wait for NASA and USAF - see what they do - and follow the suit.

So, the bottom line:
we will see launches with B10xx.7 for commercial customers - eventually.
And may by soon.
But next month? - no, we won't.

You bring up some great points. I hadn’t considered the insurance angle before. But first let me point out what I wrote before:

Quote
Normally a flight time leader would be used on a Starlink launch, but there are only 5 boosters for 5 launches. So B1049.7 looks like the booster for  SXM7 unless they want to delay it into late December when a less experienced booster is available.  This would mean Starlink v1.0 L15 goes up in its place. 9 days is the fastest turnaround at LC-39A.

I agree that previous SpaceX policy has been to use flight time leaders for internal payloads. But with a limited number of boosters, SX may not want to have the financial liability of not meeting the terms of the launch contracts.

Commercial contracts are very different from government launch contracts. NASA, USSF, and NRO pay extra (a lot extra) to have control over all aspects of a launch. That results in a lot of specifics around workflow, testing requirements, and booster selection.  They can basically veto any decision because they’ve bought that right.

My understanding is that commercial contracts are based more on deliverables. Basically that SpaceX will utilize F9 to deliver this payload to this orbit on such date, with allowable delays for weather, governmental priority launches, etc.

SX has typically had control over which booster to use, because to have that specified so far out when the contract is signed cuts down on flexibility. If the customer wants control, they pay for it, which commercial customers tend not to do.

The average cost for launch insurance is $5 million USD. That would be significantly lower for a LV like F9 that has a great flight record. Peak insurance rates were in 2009-2010 when insurance premiums reached 10% of launch & satellite costs.

Someone in another thread found that the SXM7 launch plus satellite cost was $120 million. So even if the insurer were to charge the highest historical premium, it would only be $12 million. And that would be for a brand new, untried vehicle type, not one with a 97.98% success rate.

So either SpaceX delays SXM7 and occurs a financial liability for not having a booster ready, or they shift the onus to Sirius XM and give them the option to delay.

However a smart salesperson at SX would recognize what a great opportunity for free advertising this launch would be and sell that as a free bonus.

If SXM were to delay, it probably won’t launch until January. Same for Turksat 5A. That might not be acceptable to those customers.

I agree that it is likely we will see Starlink launches in place of those launches. But the fact that there are a limited number of boosters and those launches haven’t been delayed yet despite an extremely tight launch schedule tells us that it’s not 100%.

A lot of people disagreed that NROL-108 would fly on a x.5 booster, but necessity sometimes forces our hand. And I’m sure an actuary would determine the risk between a x.7 and a x.5 launch would not be that much greater.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: friendly3 on 10/27/2020 01:25 pm
NROL-108 is confirmed to use B1059.5 for launch. There was a lot of smooth talking to slot this behind the NASA and USSF launches. With Crew-1 taking up LC-39A, SLC-40 is the logical choice. Timetable can be compressed a bit with more shifts during integration and testing. 12 days is the fastest turnaround so far at SLC-40.

Sorry but the fastest turnaround so far at SLC-40 is 9 days and a few hours (Starlink v1.0 L7 on 2020-06-03 followed by Starlink v1.0 L8 on 2020-06-13).
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 10/27/2020 01:34 pm
NROL-108 is confirmed to use B1059.5 for launch. There was a lot of smooth talking to slot this behind the NASA and USSF launches. With Crew-1 taking up LC-39A, SLC-40 is the logical choice. Timetable can be compressed a bit with more shifts during integration and testing. 12 days is the fastest turnaround so far at SLC-40.

Sorry but the fastest turnaround so far at SLC-40 is 9 days and a few hours (Starlink v1.0 L7 on 2020-06-03 followed by Starlink v1.0 L8 on 2020-06-13).

You’re right, I swapped the turnaround times on LC-39A and SLC-40 by mistake.

Messes up the estimated dates a bit but it still fits in with the timeline.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: dlapine on 10/27/2020 04:51 pm
So seven projected flights in November alone? That seems like it's pushing some boundaries.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 10/27/2020 04:55 pm
So seven projected flights in November alone? That seems like it's pushing some boundaries.

More like 9-10 in November-December.  Some of them will slip a little.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 10/27/2020 05:28 pm
So seven projected flights in November alone? That seems like it's pushing some boundaries.

More like 9-10 in November-December.  Some of them will slip a little.

I think 6 in November is the most they can do with the amount of time a crewed flight takes.

Maybe 9-10 max for November-December.

The limiting factor is the number of boosters available. There’s only so much you can do.

The boosters from November start to be available again in January, which will enable Starlink launches to ramp up again.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/27/2020 07:27 pm
For turnaround on a pad the limiting factor is the strongback TE. For a Starlink it s 9 days for a customer launch with a hot fire without the payload it is 12 days. You loose 3 days in the cycle due to the 2 extra transports to and from the pad.

Now as far as the possibility of SXM-7 in Nov. Is the sat even at the cape? If it is is it ready for encapsulation in 2 weeks?

It is definitely true that for enabling late load for CRS2 while vertical requires the access arm at 39A. depending on the actual launch date of CRS2 it could be the next after Crew -1 or if it is after mid Dec it would be the second after Crew-1.

Two many convolutions for the Cape schedules for a prediction with high certainty of launch date until after the next 2 Cape launches occur.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 10/28/2020 12:10 am

Now as far as the possibility of SXM-7 in Nov. Is the sat even at the cape? If it is is it ready for encapsulation in 2 weeks?

It is definitely true that for enabling late load for CRS2 while vertical requires the access arm at 39A. depending on the actual launch date of CRS2 it could be the next after Crew -1 or if it is after mid Dec it would be the second after Crew-1.

Two many convolutions for the Cape schedules for a prediction with high certainty of launch date until after the next 2 Cape launches occur.

SXM-7 arrived at the Cape October 13. I believe it’s being stored at the PPF right now.

I read somewhere the current target for CRS21 is the December 10-15 timeframe. It was delayed to  give Crew-2 some time to settle into a routine.

I concur that November is not the best weather month for launches.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 10/30/2020 12:25 am
Confirmed:

Nov 05 SLC-40
B1062.1 - GPS III SV04 Sacagawea

Nov 10 SLC-4E
B1063.1 - Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich

Nov 15 LC-39A
B1061.1 - Dragon C207 Resilience (Crew-1)

Unconfirmed:

Nov 17-19  SLC-40
B1059.5 - NROL-108

Quote
NROL-108 is confirmed to use B1059.5 for launch. There was a lot of smooth talking to slot this behind the NASA and USSF launches. With Crew-1 taking up LC-39A, SLC-40 is the logical choice. Timetable can be compressed a bit with more shifts during integration and testing.

We have a NET launch date, November 18
Quote
RocketRocketLAUNCH UPDATE: The next NRO launch to watch is NROL-101 on an #AtlasV with
@ulalaunch
 on Nov. 3 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, followed by NROL-108 on a #Falcon9 with
@SpaceX
 NET 18 Nov, also from CCAFS.
@45thSpaceWing

https://twitter.com/NatReconOfc/status/1321926366149959681

Right in the middle of expected range.

GPS III SV04 got moved to 04 Nov, means 14 day  turnaround on the HIF due to USSF workflow.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: smoliarm on 10/30/2020 11:56 am
Since November schedule got a bit clearer,
here is updated "FPIP-chart"
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43418.msg1704237#msg1704237
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 10/30/2020 12:46 pm
November looks so busy, that's really exciting.

Hard to say what happens during Thanksgiving in the final week.  But 6 flights wouldn't be impossible.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 10/30/2020 12:55 pm
November looks so busy, that's really exciting.

Hard to say what happens during Thanksgiving in the final week.  But 6 flights wouldn't be impossible.

If the weather holds up, Turksat 5A would be the sixth launch in November. But it would have to use B1051.7 as that would be the only booster available.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: smoliarm on 10/30/2020 01:33 pm
November looks so busy, that's really exciting.

Hard to say what happens during Thanksgiving in the final week.  But 6 flights wouldn't be impossible.

If the weather holds up, Turksat 5A would be the sixth launch in November. But it would have to use B1051.7 as that would be the only booster available.
For November launch Turksat should be in Cape already. Otherwise - launch will be in Dec or 2021.

An even if SpaceX does just next two launches *as scheduled* - it will be two new records on *fast launch cadence*.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: mandrewa on 10/30/2020 01:43 pm
November looks so busy, that's really exciting.

Hard to say what happens during Thanksgiving in the final week.  But 6 flights wouldn't be impossible.

If the weather holds up, Turksat 5A would be the sixth launch in November. But it would have to use B1051.7 as that would be the only booster available.

Is B1049.7 already committed to another flight?

Edit: Oh, I see, you're assuming SXM-7 on B1049.7 and then Turksat 5A on B1051.7.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 10/30/2020 02:01 pm
November looks so busy, that's really exciting.

Hard to say what happens during Thanksgiving in the final week.  But 6 flights wouldn't be impossible.

If the weather holds up, Turksat 5A would be the sixth launch in November. But it would have to use B1051.7 as that would be the only booster available.

Is B1049.7 already committed to another flight?

Edit: Oh, I see, you're assuming SXM-7 on B1049.7 and then Turksat 5A on B1051.7.

B1049.7 will launch either Starlink v1.0 L15 as a flight leader or SXM-7 due to contractual commitments.

It’s the only booster available, but it *will* be available per the contract. So the onus will be shifted to Sirius XM on whether they want to delay to a later booster or not.

However, I have doubts that they have paid for this privilege like NASA and USSF do.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: DreamyPickle on 10/31/2020 02:03 am
The scheduled for November looks more crowded than usual, there's a good chance that this will be the first month with 4 flights.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Norm38 on 11/06/2020 04:06 pm
So the launch orders flipped a lot in the last two weeks, but for the next set, three launches in a week is pretty impressive if it holds.


2020-11-14*1949/-5   F9   1061           S   CCtCap Crew-1
2020-11-18 (NET)       F9   1059.5         L   NROL-108
2020-11-21  0917/-8   F9   1063           L   Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/07/2020 03:08 pm
Wow, a lot of recent changes as NASA and SpaceX try to catch up on their backlog.

Confirmed:

Nov 15 LC-39A
B1061.1 - Dragon C207 Resilience (Crew-1)

Nov 18  SLC-40
B1059.5 - NROL-108

Nov 21 SLC-4E
B1063.1 - Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich

Dec 2 LC-39A
B1058.4 - CRS 21

Unconfirmed:

Nov 27-30? SLC-40
B1049.7 - SXM-7 or Starlink

Early Dec (6-9?) SLC-40
B1051.7 - Turksat 5A

Dec 18 LC-39A or SLC-40
B1060.4 - Transporter 1

Rationale:

There are currently only six regular F9 boosters available.

B1049 - Storage
B1051 - Reprocessing
B1058 - Reprocessing for CRS-21
B1059 - Prep NROL-108 SLC-40
B1060 - Reprocessing from Starlink v1.0 L14
B1062 - Reserved GPS III SV05

NSSL and NASA have priority over commercial flights. 18 days between Crew-1 and CRS-21 doesn’t leave enough time for a launch at LC-39A due to NASA workflow.

Normally a flight time leader would be used on a Starlink launch, but there are only 5 boosters for 5 launches. So B1049.7 looks like the booster for  SXM7 unless they want to delay it into mid-January when a less experienced booster is available.  This would mean Starlink v1.0 L15 goes up in its place. 9 days is the fastest turnaround at SLC-40.

Turksat 5A is currently scheduled for early December. B1051.7 would be the only booster available during that timeframe if B1049.7 goes up. Will probably require that to go up first as a flight time leader. SLC-40 will have the only HIF available at that time. Dec 6 would be 49 day booster turnaround and 9 day launchpad turnaround.

B1060.4 could turnaround in time (~Dec8-13) for  the Dec 18 targeted launch of Transporter 1. Will probably launch from LC-39A.

At that point all boosters will require reprocessing. With the holidays at end of December, it seems unlikely that we will see any launches until mid January when B1059.6 and B1063.2 become available. This is based on the assumption that B1067 will be a Falcon Heavy booster.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 11/07/2020 03:34 pm
My guess is they'll use B1060.4 for SXM-7 or Turksat 5A, the two .7 will be used on their own missions: Starlink and Transporter 1. And I think they'll put B1062 to use before the next GPS.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: klod on 11/07/2020 03:39 pm
No, 1062 will be waiting for the next GPS launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Orbiter on 11/07/2020 04:33 pm
Definitely does seem like there's a bit of a booster shortage if SpaceX hasn't improved their booster turnaround time. I bet Turksat-5A gets pushed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: mandrewa on 11/07/2020 06:42 pm
The shortest time, so far, between launches on the same booster is 51 days.  This has
happened twice, from 1058.1 to 1058.2 and 1060.2 to 1060.3.  So it's a bit optimistic,
but it's credible to assume a booster will be ready 51 days after it's most recent launch.

So other than the boosters that are already committed to various flights, what boosters
are available before the end of the year?

I count four: 1049.7, 1051.7, 1060.4, and 1062.2.

1049.7 and 1051.7 are available now or will be in the immediate future.
1060.4 may be available by 12/14/2020.
1062.2 may be available by 12/26/2020.

So what is the order of priority?  I imagine SXM-7, Turksat 5A, Transporter 1, and Starlink 16.

If the owners of SXM-7 and Turksat 5A both choose to use *.7 boosters then the launch priority
will be SXM-7, Turksat 5A, Transporter 1, and then Starlink 16.

If one of these companies chooses not to use a *.7 booster, then it will have to wait for
12/14/2020, when booster 1060.4 might be ready.  In that event Starlink 16 may go before
Transporter 1, because it is ready now.

If both companies choose not to use a *.7 booster, then it will be Starlink 16 first and
then it's a question of whether Transporter 1 goes next because the desired Transporter 1
launch date isn't until the middle of December anyway.

All of these are timings are contingent upon 1061.1, 1059.4, 1063.1, and 1058.4 launching
on time.

Another potential confounding factor is pad turn around time.  Pad 39A is probably committed
to 1061.1 and 1058.4 before it is available for anything else.  If I estimate 10 days between
launches on a single pad, that means ideally Pad 39A becomes available on 12/12/2020 and
Pad 40 becomes available on 11/28/2020.

So in the best case that would be one more flight on Pad 39A for 2020 and three more on
Pad 40 for 2020, and this is after 1061.1, 1059.4, 1063.1, and 1058.4 have launched. 
In that case the last launch pad opportunity for Pad 40 is on 12/27/2020.  And to repeat, for
that last flight to make 12/27/2020, you have to have seven flights go off without a hitch
before it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/07/2020 07:06 pm
The shortest time, so far, between launches on the same booster is 51 days.  This has
happened twice, from 1058.1 to 1058.2 and 1060.2 to 1060.3.  So it's a bit optimistic,
but it's credible to assume a booster will be ready 51 days after it's most recent launch.

So other than the boosters that are already committed to various flights, what boosters
are available before the end of the year?

I count four: 1049.7, 1051.7, 1060.4, and 1062.2.

1049.7 and 1051.7 are available now or will be in the immediate future.
1060.4 may be available by 12/14/2020.
1062.2 may be available by 12/26/2020.

So what is the order of priority?  I imagine SXM-7, Turksat 5A, Transporter 1, and Starlink 16.

If the owners of SXM-7 and Turksat 5A both choose to use *.7 boosters then the launch priority
will be SXM-7, Turksat 5A, Transporter 1, and then Starlink 16.

If one of these companies chooses not to use a *.7 booster, then it will have to wait for
12/14/2020, when booster 1060.4 might be ready.  In that event Starlink 16 may go before
Transporter 1, because it is ready now.

If both companies choose not to use a *.7 booster, then it will be Starlink 16 first and
then it's a question of whether Transporter 1 goes next because the desired Transporter 1
launch date isn't until the middle of December anyway.

All of these are timings are contingent upon 1061.1, 1059.4, 1063.1, and 1058.4 launching
on time.

Another potential confounding factor is pad turn around time.  Pad 39A is probably committed
to 1061.1 and 1058.4 before it is available for anything else.  If I estimate 10 days between
launches on a single pad, that means ideally Pad 39A becomes available on 12/12/2020 and
Pad 40 becomes available on 11/28/2020.

So in the best case that would be one more flight on Pad 39A for 2020 and three more on
Pad 40 for 2020, and this is after 1061.1, 1059.4, 1063.1, and 1058.4 have launched. 
In that case the last launch pad opportunity for Pad 40 is on 12/27/2020.  And to repeat, for
that last flight to make 12/27/2020, you have to have seven flights go off without a hitch
before it.

Interesting conjecture, but there are a few points you may not be aware of.

B1062 is specifically reserved for USSF testing and analysis of booster refurbishment methodology. It is not likely to fly until the next GPS mission because it will be used for verification of the new workflow.

Turksat 5A is a politically sensitive launch for the Erdogan regime. They have a lot at stake with this launch and are highly unlikely to delay it.

The boosters on the referenced 51 day turnarounds were actually ready at 45 and 47 days. Weather was the primary reason for their delays. 45 days is doable, but 50 might be a good nominal target. That’s why I put a range of Dec 8-13.

The dates I have used for Turksat 5A and Transport-1 are from statements and filings made within the last 3 days. SXM-7/Starlink are the only ones I’m unsure of, but both payloads are onsite at the PPF.

If you look at where I’ve plugged everything, it fits with established ranges for turnaround. Things are always subject to change, but this is based on the latest available info.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: mandrewa on 11/07/2020 07:38 pm
The shortest time, so far, between launches on the same booster is 51 days.  This has
happened twice, from 1058.1 to 1058.2 and 1060.2 to 1060.3.  So it's a bit optimistic,
but it's credible to assume a booster will be ready 51 days after it's most recent launch.

So other than the boosters that are already committed to various flights, what boosters
are available before the end of the year?

I count four: 1049.7, 1051.7, 1060.4, and 1062.2.

1049.7 and 1051.7 are available now or will be in the immediate future.
1060.4 may be available by 12/14/2020.
1062.2 may be available by 12/26/2020.

So what is the order of priority?  I imagine SXM-7, Turksat 5A, Transporter 1, and Starlink 16.

If the owners of SXM-7 and Turksat 5A both choose to use *.7 boosters then the launch priority
will be SXM-7, Turksat 5A, Transporter 1, and then Starlink 16.

If one of these companies chooses not to use a *.7 booster, then it will have to wait for
12/14/2020, when booster 1060.4 might be ready.  In that event Starlink 16 may go before
Transporter 1, because it is ready now.

If both companies choose not to use a *.7 booster, then it will be Starlink 16 first and
then it's a question of whether Transporter 1 goes next because the desired Transporter 1
launch date isn't until the middle of December anyway.

All of these are timings are contingent upon 1061.1, 1059.4, 1063.1, and 1058.4 launching
on time.

Another potential confounding factor is pad turn around time.  Pad 39A is probably committed
to 1061.1 and 1058.4 before it is available for anything else.  If I estimate 10 days between
launches on a single pad, that means ideally Pad 39A becomes available on 12/12/2020 and
Pad 40 becomes available on 11/28/2020.

So in the best case that would be one more flight on Pad 39A for 2020 and three more on
Pad 40 for 2020, and this is after 1061.1, 1059.4, 1063.1, and 1058.4 have launched. 
In that case the last launch pad opportunity for Pad 40 is on 12/27/2020.  And to repeat, for
that last flight to make 12/27/2020, you have to have seven flights go off without a hitch
before it.

Interesting conjecture, but there are a few points you may not be aware of.

B1062 is specifically reserved for USSF testing and analysis of booster refurbishment methodology. It is not likely to fly until the next GPS mission because it will be used for verification of the new workflow.

Turksat 5A is a politically sensitive launch for the Erdogan regime. They have a lot at stake with this launch and are highly unlikely to delay it.

The boosters on the referenced 51 day turnarounds were actually ready at 45 and 47 days. Weather was the primary reason for their delays. 45 days is doable, but 50 might be a good nominal target. That’s why I put a range of Dec 8-13.

The dates I have used for Turksat 5A and Transport-1 are from statements and filings made within the last 3 days. SXM-7/Starlink are the only ones I’m unsure of, but both payloads are onsite at the PPF.

If you look at where I’ve plugged everything, it fits with established ranges for turnaround. Things are always subject to change, but this is based on the latest available info.

That's a good point about 1062, and I wasn't aware of that.  I also wasn't aware of the political implications of the Turksat 5A launch.  So that probably means that short of things getting screwed up, Turksat 5A will launch this year on something.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Orbiter on 11/09/2020 09:57 pm
Anyone able to identify the boosters in this pic next to B1061?

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1325931233784680448/photo/3
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: AndrewRG10 on 11/09/2020 10:16 pm
Anyone able to identify the boosters in this pic next to B1061?

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1325931233784680448/photo/3

B1058 due to logo, possibly b1049 cause the '49' looking serial number and not sure on the other one.

Edit: Colin has got you covered, the other one is B1051
https://twitter.com/c_fletcher22/status/1325932000394551297

Quote
Boosters in the 39A HIF: B1061 (Crew-1), B1049, B1051, and B1058 (CRS-21)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/16/2020 05:18 pm
Still trying to get confirmation, but apparently this is what is happening.

A last minute issue with NROL-108 is causing a  delay. Possibly being moved back to NRO’s Eastern Processing Facility.

As a result, Starlink v1.0 L15 will go up on Nov 22, probably using B1049.7 from SLC-40.

The rest of the schedule is in flux until the issue with NROL-108 is resolved.

Everything with LC-39A and CRS-21 is unaffected.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/16/2020 09:57 pm
Starlink v1.0 L16 discussion (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52324.0)

The probability of a Starlink launch in December is low, but with the NROL-108 delay anything can happen.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: mandrewa on 11/16/2020 10:06 pm
Starlink v1.0 L16 discussion (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52324.0)

The probability of a Starlink launch in December is low, but with the NROL-108 delay anything can happen.

But which booster is available for a Starlink 17 launch in December?  By my count every available booster must have already been  committed.  And in fact we are one short for the payloads already on the schedule.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/16/2020 10:17 pm
Starlink v1.0 L16 discussion (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52324.0)

The probability of a Starlink launch in December is low, but with the NROL-108 delay anything can happen.

But which booster is available for a Starlink 17 launch in December?  By my count every available booster must have already been  committed.  And in fact we are one short for the payloads already on the schedule.

Yep, one or more of the rostered missions would  have to slip. However there may be transportation issues with Turksat 5A and Transporter-1 might see a delay due to payload processing.

Anything can happen at this point, but the Starlink payload will be prepped in case a launch opportunity occurs.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/17/2020 05:25 pm

B1049.7 will launch either Starlink v1.0 L15 as a flight leader or SXM-7 due to contractual commitments.

Now confirmed that B1049.7 will launch Starlink v1.0 L15 as the new flight leader on Nov 22!

This opens the door for B1051.7 to fly SXM-7 or Turksat 5A in December.

It’s possible we will see three launches from SLC-40 in December, depending on what happens with NROL-108.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 11/17/2020 05:43 pm
The payload I'd really like an update on is SARah.  If that's delayed at all then 1063 should come to Florida.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jakusb on 11/17/2020 06:08 pm

B1049.7 will launch either Starlink v1.0 L15 as a flight leader or SXM-7 due to contractual commitments.

Now confirmed that B1049.7 will launch Starlink v1.0 L15 as the new flight leader on Nov 22!

This opens the door for B1051.7 to fly SXM-7 or Turksat 5A in December.

It’s possible we will see three launches from SLC-40 in December, depending on what happens with NROL-108.
Why so convinced SpaceX would ever use a flight leader for commercial payloads?
Seems very far fetched and extremely unlikely to me.
And we have several SpaceX missions that are available for such higher risk flights.
Transporter-1 and Starlink-L17.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 11/17/2020 06:25 pm
Transporter-1 is also external payloads.  They're running low on boosters.  The lowest available are .4's unless you wait for the one from Sentinel 6 to be refurbished.  Maybe a customer would be willing to give it a shot for schedule certainty or a discount?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/17/2020 07:23 pm
Why so convinced SpaceX would ever use a flight leader for commercial payloads?
Seems very far fetched and extremely unlikely to me.
And we have several SpaceX missions that are available for such higher risk flights.
Transporter-1 and Starlink-L17.

There are only two boosters will be available in December that are not assigned.

B1051.7 - Reprocessing (early Dec)
B1060.4 - Reprocessing (mid Dec)

Paying customers take priority over Starlink launches.

Right now you have SXM-7, Turksat 5A, and Transporter-1 as commercial customers that are supposed to launch in December. So that’s already only 2 boosters for 3 launches.

The next batch of boosters won’t be available until mid-late January.

Due to the current political situation and the amount of prestige that Turkey has placed, Turksat 5A is unlikely to be delayed.

It’s possible that B1051.7 will launch Starlink v1.0 L16 in December. But consider that NASA and USSF pay a lot extra to select which booster they use. Commercial customers don’t necessary want to pay for that privilege. Instead it’s more “launch as a service”.

The risk between a .6 launch and a .7 launch is nominal, especially when 1049.7 is going up first.

Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: steveleach on 11/17/2020 07:58 pm
The risk between a .6 launch and a .7 launch is nominal, especially when 1049.7 is going up first.
Excuse me while I take a moment to get my head around the fact that we're able to make statements like this now.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 11/17/2020 08:04 pm
The risk between a .6 launch and a .7 launch is nominal, especially when 1049.7 is going up first.
Excuse me while I take a moment to get my head around the fact that we're able to make statements like this now.

I was reading this thread and thinking 'Wow, we're getting really close to 10'

Edit:  Will SpaceX stop at 10 just because they say they designed to that, if the vehicle is holding up during inspections do they keep going?  With the stated goal of 50 (or was it 52) launches SpaceX may need the booster inventory.   
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/17/2020 08:10 pm
I was reading this thread and thinking 'wow, we're getting really close to 10'

Probably in the first half of 2021.  ;D
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: pb2000 on 11/17/2020 09:19 pm
Transporter-1 is also external payloads.  They're running low on boosters.  The lowest available are .4's unless you wait for the one from Sentinel 6 to be refurbished.  Maybe a customer would be willing to give it a shot for schedule certainty or a discount?
I know we've heard that booster production has been scaled back significantly, but with 1061 and 1062 being put on ice for 4+ months, it wouldn't surprise me if there is an extra new core or two laying around Hawthore ready to ship if the schedule required it. Consider that 1057 was flown (and sadly lost) nearly a year and a half ago!
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jakusb on 11/17/2020 09:23 pm
Transporter-1 is also external payloads.  They're running low on boosters.  The lowest available are .4's unless you wait for the one from Sentinel 6 to be refurbished.  Maybe a customer would be willing to give it a shot for schedule certainty or a discount?
I know we've heard that booster production has been scaled back significantly, but with 1061 and 1062 being put on ice for 4+ months, it wouldn't surprise me if there is an extra new core or two laying around Hawthore ready to ship if the schedule required it. Consider that 1057 was flown (and sadly lost) nearly a year and a half ago!
Don’t forget they are also building a new Falcon Heavy. Of which we only have seen 1 side booster still. So at least 2 cores indeed under construction.
However some other new ones seems a smart move, if only for rapid deployment when needed.
I believe there biggest challenge is producing enough second stages.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/17/2020 10:06 pm
Transporter-1 is also external payloads.  They're running low on boosters.  The lowest available are .4's unless you wait for the one from Sentinel 6 to be refurbished.  Maybe a customer would be willing to give it a shot for schedule certainty or a discount?
I know we've heard that booster production has been scaled back significantly, but with 1061 and 1062 being put on ice for 4+ months, it wouldn't surprise me if there is an extra new core or two laying around Hawthore ready to ship if the schedule required it. Consider that 1057 was flown (and sadly lost) nearly a year and a half ago!

B1064-B1066 are part of the next Falcon Heavy launch. There is another FH launch soon after that which will require another 3 new cores. That would pretty much use up production capacity from July 2020 through March 2021.

There has been speculation that B1067 is a F9 core to make up for the ones lost during sea recovery and B1068-B1070 are FH, but that is unconfirmed at this time.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gemmy0I on 11/18/2020 05:20 am
B1064-B1066 are part of the next Falcon Heavy launch. There is another FH launch soon after that which will require another 3 new cores. That would pretty much use up production capacity from July 2020 through March 2021.
Wow, that's right...they'll have quite a lot of FH boosters piling up that they can't readily use for FH flights because the Space Force is (for now) still insisting on new ones. Given the evident crunch for F9 boosters at the Cape, I wonder if we'll finally see them converting some of the side cores to single-stick F9s. If we don't see them doing that now, of all times, that would suggest they have a really good reason not to, which we aren't privy to.

I keep waiting for them to convert 1052 and 1053 to F9s, but for them to have sat on them this long suggests it's not as easy as has been assumed. It's been over a year since they've last flown, and it wouldn't make sense to save them for FH usage as they've known the next two FH missions would require all-new boosters. (Unless maybe they were hoping to cajole the Space Force into accepting a reflight on USSF-44, though that obviously didn't pan out as we've seen 1064 at McGregor.) Perhaps there's something about the first B5 FH that was "odd" and makes the conversion less "plug and play" than they previously said it was designed to be. Or maybe they scrapped that idea for whatever reason and didn't end up designing them for easy conversion after all. Who knows...
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: mandrewa on 11/18/2020 10:51 am
B1064-B1066 are part of the next Falcon Heavy launch. There is another FH launch soon after that which will require another 3 new cores. That would pretty much use up production capacity from July 2020 through March 2021.
Wow, that's right...they'll have quite a lot of FH boosters piling up that they can't readily use for FH flights because the Space Force is (for now) still insisting on new ones. Given the evident crunch for F9 boosters at the Cape, I wonder if we'll finally see them converting some of the side cores to single-stick F9s. If we don't see them doing that now, of all times, that would suggest they have a really good reason not to, which we aren't privy to.

I keep waiting for them to convert 1052 and 1053 to F9s, but for them to have sat on them this long suggests it's not as easy as has been assumed. It's been over a year since they've last flown, and it wouldn't make sense to save them for FH usage as they've known the next two FH missions would require all-new boosters. (Unless maybe they were hoping to cajole the Space Force into accepting a reflight on USSF-44, though that obviously didn't pan out as we've seen 1064 at McGregor.) Perhaps there's something about the first B5 FH that was "odd" and makes the conversion less "plug and play" than they previously said it was designed to be. Or maybe they scrapped that idea for whatever reason and didn't end up designing them for easy conversion after all. Who knows...

I do wonder if maybe SpaceX has a contract with the Air Force (or now the Space Force) to keep a set of Falcon Heavy boosters in reserve, not designated for a particular payload but just in case there is an immediate need for them.

If that is so then maybe 1052 and 1053 will be freed for other uses after USSF-44 launches.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jakusb on 11/18/2020 11:59 am
B1064-B1066 are part of the next Falcon Heavy launch.

Is this confirmed somewhere or assumed?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Elthiryel on 11/18/2020 12:06 pm
I think there hasn't been any official confirmation, however the timeline of this booster being in McGregor suggests it's 1064 and it was confirmed that this is a Falcon Heavy side booster.

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1309548574053675008

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1309540792688574465

From the NSF article by Thomas Burghardt: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/09/spacex-manifest-falcon-heavy-arrives-mcgregor/
Quote
This requirement suggests the next boosters through McGregor, B1065 and B1066, will also be Falcon Heavy stages for the USSF-44 mission.

Next Spaceflight also claims this is the case and Michael seems to have a good source for booster assignments.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jakusb on 11/18/2020 12:21 pm
I think there hasn't been any official confirmation, however the timeline of this booster being in McGregor suggests it's 1064 and it was confirmed that this is a Falcon Heavy side booster.

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1309548574053675008

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1309540792688574465

From the NSF article by Thomas Burghardt: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/09/spacex-manifest-falcon-heavy-arrives-mcgregor/
Quote
This requirement suggests the next boosters through McGregor, B1065 and B1066, will also be Falcon Heavy stages for the USSF-44 mission.

Next Spaceflight also claims this is the case and Michael seems to have a good source for booster assignments.
I am aware of that public info, but I did not see any official confirmation that 1065 and 1066 actually are FH boosters. For all we know 1065 could be a regular F9. ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: TJL on 11/18/2020 04:22 pm
Can a side booster from a Falcon Heavy be used for a standard Falcon 9 launch?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: whitelancer64 on 11/18/2020 04:31 pm
Can a side booster from a Falcon Heavy be used for a standard Falcon 9 launch?

In theory, yes, but in practice, so far every booster used on a Falcon Heavy has not been reused as a single stick launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: niwax on 11/18/2020 05:59 pm
Can a side booster from a Falcon Heavy be used for a standard Falcon 9 launch?

In theory, yes, but in practice, so far every booster used on a Falcon Heavy has not been reused as a single stick launch.

The side boosters on the initial heavy previously flew CRS-9 and Thaicom 8.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachS09 on 11/18/2020 06:17 pm
There’s also B1052 and B1053 that were flown on the Arabsat 6A and STP-2 missions, but both have been in storage for a year and a half now.

I expected them to be converted to regular F9 boosters to help with the Starlink launches, but no.

Plus, the next few Falcon Heavy rockets only call for new boosters.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: AstroWare on 11/18/2020 06:23 pm
I was wondering, has anyone considered if  reusing the center core of the FH in a single stick F9 configuration?

Sure, it's overbuilt, weighs more, and had extra hardware not needed for the F9 config.

But, it already has an interstage. Couldn't you theoretically just launch it without any hardware changes? (With a payload penalty of course) If you have time you could, and likely would, remove some of the unneeded hardware.

Just seems like reusing the core as a F9 may be easier then Reusing the boosters.

Another reason this makes sense to me, is the FH will likely have a few partially expendable roles. The side boosters recovered and core expended. If that is realized, then you would want to get as many launches out of the core as possible. And there are many more F9 launches on the manifest then FHs.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: whitelancer64 on 11/18/2020 06:26 pm
Can a side booster from a Falcon Heavy be used for a standard Falcon 9 launch?

In theory, yes, but in practice, so far every booster used on a Falcon Heavy has not been reused as a single stick launch.

The side boosters on the initial heavy previously flew CRS-9 and Thaicom 8.

Correct, although they were v1.2 boosters... they were converted to Falcon Heavy side cores for the Demo flight, both were recovered, but neither was flown again after that.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: whitelancer64 on 11/18/2020 06:30 pm
I was wondering, has anyone considered if  reusing the center core of the FH in a single stick F9 configuration?

Sure, it's overbuilt, weighs more, and had extra hardware not needed for the F9 config.

But, it already has an interstage. Couldn't you theoretically just launch it without any hardware changes? (With a payload penalty of course) If you have time you could, and likely would, remove some of the unneeded hardware.

Just seems like reusing the core as a F9 may be easier then Reusing the boosters.

Another reason this makes sense to me, is the FH will likely have a few partially expendable roles. The side boosters recovered and core expended. If that is realized, then you would want to get as many launches out of the core as possible. And there are many more F9 launches on the manifest then FHs.

In theory, yes, but then again, all center cores to date have been lost, so....
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jakusb on 11/18/2020 06:34 pm
I was wondering, has anyone considered if  reusing the center core of the FH in a single stick F9 configuration?

Sure, it's overbuilt, weighs more, and had extra hardware not needed for the F9 config.

But, it already has an interstage. Couldn't you theoretically just launch it without any hardware changes? (With a payload penalty of course) If you have time you could, and likely would, remove some of the unneeded hardware.

Just seems like reusing the core as a F9 may be easier then Reusing the boosters.

Another reason this makes sense to me, is the FH will likely have a few partially expendable roles. The side boosters recovered and core expended. If that is realized, then you would want to get as many launches out of the core as possible. And there are many more F9 launches on the manifest then FHs.

In theory, yes, but then again, all center cores to date have been lost, so....
I believe there was mention the next FH center cores will be expended too. Unless they get a third barge active, they will have no place to land anyway.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: AstroWare on 11/18/2020 06:36 pm
I was wondering, has anyone considered if  reusing the center core of the FH in a single stick F9 configuration?

Sure, it's overbuilt, weighs more, and had extra hardware not needed for the F9 config.

But, it already has an interstage. Couldn't you theoretically just launch it without any hardware changes? (With a payload penalty of course) If you have time you could, and likely would, remove some of the unneeded hardware.

Just seems like reusing the core as a F9 may be easier then Reusing the boosters.

Another reason this makes sense to me, is the FH will likely have a few partially expendable roles. The side boosters recovered and core expended. If that is realized, then you would want to get as many launches out of the core as possible. And there are many more F9 launches on the manifest then FHs.

In theory, yes, but then again, all center cores to date have been lost, so....
Well yes. There is that. :)

But in the future... That could play into their manifest planning.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: AstroWare on 11/18/2020 06:47 pm
I was wondering, has anyone considered if  reusing the center core of the FH in a single stick F9 configuration?

Sure, it's overbuilt, weighs more, and had extra hardware not needed for the F9 config.

But, it already has an interstage. Couldn't you theoretically just launch it without any hardware changes? (With a payload penalty of course) If you have time you could, and likely would, remove some of the unneeded hardware.

Just seems like reusing the core as a F9 may be easier then Reusing the boosters.

Another reason this makes sense to me, is the FH will likely have a few partially expendable roles. The side boosters recovered and core expended. If that is realized, then you would want to get as many launches out of the core as possible. And there are many more F9 launches on the manifest then FHs.

In theory, yes, but then again, all center cores to date have been lost, so....
I believe there was mention the next FH center cores will be expended too. Unless they get a third barge active, they will have no place to land anyway.
I wasn't aware of that. Obviously there is no Triple-asds option right now. I had thought the upcoming missions were going to fly the same profile as two last times (dual rtls & core asds).

Is there any info on those missions ACTUAL plans available? I read some people's personal calculations saying it's borderline in the USSF-44 thread...
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Elthiryel on 11/18/2020 06:52 pm
Is there any info on those missions ACTUAL plans available? I read some people's personal calculations saying it's borderline in the USSF-44 thread...

From the SFN article by Stephen Clark:
Quote
“Based on mission performance requirements, the center core will be expendable and the two side boosters intend to be recovered,” Bongiovi said.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/04/27/falcon-heavy-on-track-for-design-validation-milestone-before-late-2020-launch/

Col. Robert Bongiovi is the head of the launch enterprise division at SMC.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: AstroWare on 11/18/2020 06:56 pm
Awesome, thanks! Someday they will recover a center core ...  Lol
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/18/2020 07:13 pm
Awesome, thanks! Someday they will recover a center core ...  Lol

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/09/spacex-manifest-falcon-heavy-arrives-mcgregor/
Quote
The following Falcon Heavy mission, another classified payload named USSF-52, will also require three new stages. That mission is expected to enable the recovery of all three stages: both side boosters and the center core.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/18/2020 07:24 pm
I am aware of that public info, but I did not see any official confirmation that 1065 and 1066 actually are FH boosters. For all we know 1065 could be a regular F9. ;)

I wish we had more information as well. You are unlikely to get official confirmation from SpaceX until close to launch.

Many people are tracking SpaceX booster production and know their timelines. Based on manufacturing capacity and expected requirements for Falcon Heavy launches, it is highly likely that B1064-B1069 are for FH launches.

Michael Baylor is a credible source. I’m going with that until new information comes to light.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 11/18/2020 08:57 pm
Still trying to get confirmation, but apparently this is what is happening.

A last minute issue with NROL-108 is causing a  delay. Possibly being moved back to NRO’s Eastern Processing Facility.

As a result, Starlink v1.0 L15 will go up on Nov 22, probably using B1049.7 from SLC-40.

The rest of the schedule is in flux until the issue with NROL-108 is resolved.

Everything with LC-39A and CRS-21 is unaffected.

There was certainly a lot of NRO-related personal at the Cape this past weekend and also a few military cargo planes coming and going. Not saying it is further proof but certainly could be related.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: soltasto on 11/18/2020 11:34 pm
Possible Starlink polar launch in December:

Quote
SpaceX submits this request now because it has an opportunity for a polar launch in
December that could be used to initiate its service to some of the most remote regions of the
country.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/19/2020 12:11 am
Possible Starlink polar launch in December:

Quote
SpaceX submits this request now because it has an opportunity for a polar launch in
December that could be used to initiate its service to some of the most remote regions of the
country.

I’m not sure how solid this “opportunity” is. It could just be tentative depending on how things turn out with NROL-108, SXM-7, and Turksat 5A.

Smart of them to use a potential delay for political advantage with the FCC.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gemmy0I on 11/19/2020 12:55 am
Possible Starlink polar launch in December:

Quote
SpaceX submits this request now because it has an opportunity for a polar launch in
December that could be used to initiate its service to some of the most remote regions of the
country.

I’m not sure how solid this “opportunity” is. It could just be tentative depending on how things turn out with NROL-108, SXM-7, and Turksat 5A.

Smart of them to use a potential delay for political advantage with the FCC.
I wonder if this "opportunity" could be for a flight out of Vandenberg, rather than from the Cape?

The Cape's manifest is looking pretty busy right now, and if any gaps open up in it, they can easily fill them with regular non-polar Starlink flights. They've done exactly that just now by scheduling Starlink-v1.0L15 for 11/22 to fill the gap left by NROL-108's delay.

But if Sentinel-6 goes off as planned from Vandenberg this Saturday (11/21), they'll have a golden opportunity for a launch from Vandenberg in December. Historically, they've said it takes about a month to turn around the pad there with its old-style TE. That lines up for a December flight next after Sentinel-6. (Even if they've optimized the turnaround since then and can do it in 2-3 weeks, it'd still be December.) Crucially, however, they'll now have - for the first time in a long time - a free booster at Vandenberg. The next Vandenberg flight, SARah 1, isn't scheduled until February, leaving at least two opportunities to fly the same booster from the same pad in the meantime.

The one major wrinkle in this speculation is that they don't have a West Coast ASDS at the moment, meaning they would need to launch fewer satellites to stay within RTLS limits. I don't see that as prohibitive, though. The Iridium flights, which were said to be just on the RTLS/ASDS line, weighed in at 9600 kg. That's equal to 36 Starlinks. Padding that a bit to ensure they're comfortably on the RTLS side of that line, they can likely muster a 30-Starlink payload - i.e. half of a standard 60-satellite ASDS payload.

Considering that a) the cost of a launch has dropped dramatically due to booster reuse; b) they don't need to launch a whole lot of Starlinks to polar orbits this way, especially early on (just enough to support early customers in sparsely-populated northern areas; by the time they need large numbers of polar Starlinks, Starship should be able to help out); and c) they would be doing this strictly on boosters which would otherwise be "just sitting around" at an idle Vandenberg pad, the cost of being able to pack only half as many satellites onto a flight doesn't seem so bad. "Time is money" is going to be the driving equation for Starlink, so it behooves them to take any opportunity they can get to build out their network as quickly as possible. Even if it increases their launch costs a bit in the short term, if it means ramping up customer revenue sooner they'll probably come out ahead. (And they don't seem to have a hard time raising investment capital these days to fund those pre-revenue launch costs.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/19/2020 01:05 am
I wonder if this "opportunity" could be for a flight out of Vandenberg, rather than from the Cape?

The Cape's manifest is looking pretty busy right now, and if any gaps open up in it, they can easily fill them with regular non-polar Starlink flights. They've done exactly that just now by scheduling Starlink-v1.0L15 for 11/22 to fill the gap left by NROL-108's delay.

But if Sentinel-6 goes off as planned from Vandenberg this Saturday (11/21), they'll have a golden opportunity for a launch from Vandenberg in December. Historically, they've said it takes about a month to turn around the pad there with its old-style TE. That lines up for a December flight next after Sentinel-6. (Even if they've optimized the turnaround since then and can do it in 2-3 weeks, it'd still be December.) Crucially, however, they'll now have - for the first time in a long time - a free booster at Vandenberg. The next Vandenberg flight, SARah 1, isn't scheduled until February, leaving at least two opportunities to fly the same booster from the same pad in the meantime.

The one major wrinkle in this speculation is that they don't have a West Coast ASDS at the moment, meaning they would need to launch fewer satellites to stay within RTLS limits. I don't see that as prohibitive, though. The Iridium flights, which were said to be just on the RTLS/ASDS line, weighed in at 9600 kg. That's equal to 36 Starlinks. Padding that a bit to ensure they're comfortably on the RTLS side of that line, they can likely muster a 30-Starlink payload - i.e. half of a standard 60-satellite ASDS payload.

Considering that a) the cost of a launch has dropped dramatically due to booster reuse; b) they don't need to launch a whole lot of Starlinks to polar orbits this way, especially early on (just enough to support early customers in sparsely-populated northern areas; by the time they need large numbers of polar Starlinks, Starship should be able to help out); and c) they would be doing this strictly on boosters which would otherwise be "just sitting around" at an idle Vandenberg pad, the cost of being able to pack only half as many satellites onto a flight doesn't seem so bad. "Time is money" is going to be the driving equation for Starlink, so it behooves them to take any opportunity they can get to build out their network as quickly as possible. Even if it increases their launch costs a bit in the short term, if it means ramping up customer revenue sooner they'll probably come out ahead. (And they don't seem to have a hard time raising investment capital these days to fund those pre-revenue launch costs.)

I believe all the boosters that would be available in December are currently in Florida.

Polar orbits can be launched from Florida.

There is a slight chance it could be B1063.2, but it’s super tight for end of December. The fastest turnaround for a booster so far has been around 45 days. (That ended up going to 51 days due to weather and non-SpaceX delays). You’re facing the US Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays that would impede launch operations.

The most likely option would be a standby Starlink v1.0 L16 from SLC-40 in case of a delay from NROL-108 or commercial customers.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Confusador on 11/19/2020 01:55 am
Are we not assuming that they're referring to Transporter-1?  (Which, yes, is probably January, but I suspect that was not known when the letter was drafted and anyway is close enough)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/19/2020 03:32 am
Are we not assuming that they're referring to Transporter-1?  (Which, yes, is probably January, but I suspect that was not known when the letter was drafted and anyway is close enough)

It’s heading to a SSO, but I think it’s already pretty full.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: klod on 11/19/2020 08:35 am
There is a slight chance it could be B1063.2, but it’s super tight for end of December. The fastest turnaround for a booster so far has been around 45 days. (That ended up going to 51 days due to weather and non-SpaceX delays).
You should not forget that all those landing wasn't on land. Transfer to port adds at least 5 days. 45-5 = 40 days - seems OK. Musk said that they need 2-3 weeks for maintenance. 14-21 day and 10 days for other preparations. BTW landing on LZ less stressful than on droneship. So maybe 35-40 days can be reachable for turnaround time.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: DreamyPickle on 11/19/2020 08:37 pm
SpaceX recently asked FCC to approve 6 polar launches stating it has "an opportunity for a polar launch in December". Link: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg2155812#msg2155812

Any idea how this maps to launches and boosters, and if this is going to happen from Vandenberg?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Celestar on 11/19/2020 09:16 pm
How are they going to land a booster for a Vandenberg-Starlink launch? The booster cannot RTLS with 60 Sats and there isn't any barge to land on on the west coast is there? Maybe launch fewer Starlinks?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: AndrewRG10 on 11/19/2020 09:22 pm
How are they going to land a booster for a Vandenberg-Starlink launch? The booster cannot RTLS with 60 Sats and there isn't any barge to land on on the west coast is there? Maybe launch fewer Starlinks?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Launch from Cape Canaveral I would say.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/19/2020 10:01 pm
SpaceX recently asked FCC to approve 6 polar launches stating it has "an opportunity for a polar launch in December". Link: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg2155812#msg2155812

Any idea how this maps to launches and boosters, and if this is going to happen from Vandenberg?

We discussed this on the previous page. You’ll find the discussion here:
Possible Starlink polar launch in December:
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gemmy0I on 11/19/2020 10:23 pm
How are they going to land a booster for a Vandenberg-Starlink launch? The booster cannot RTLS with 60 Sats and there isn't any barge to land on on the west coast is there? Maybe launch fewer Starlinks?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Using the Iridium missions (which were said to be just on the line for RTLS/ASDS) as a rough guide, I estimate that they can launch a half-sized Starlink mission of 30 satellites on a polar trajectory from Vandenberg and still RTLS.

Half as many satellites means the launch costs are effectively doubled. I don't think that's necessarily prohibitive, considering that with reuse launches have gotten a lot cheaper (~$15-20M/launch internally vs. $50-60M public pricing), and if they were to do this it would be entirely with boosters which would otherwise be sitting around unused (e.g. B1063 after Sentinel-6).

6 launches at 30 sats/launch would be enough to put 180 satellites in orbit. That should be enough for global coverage considering that Iridium does it with ~70 satellites from a similar orbit. Given these polar satellites are there to serve sparsely populated northern regions (i.e. Alaska), I suspect that will be plenty for their early customer rollout there. More satellites should only be needed to add additional bandwidth once they fill those up.

I could be wrong and they might be planning these all from Canaveral on the new polar trajectory. The FCC application did say that each polar plane would comprise 58 satellites, which sounds about right for a standard ASDS 60-satellite load de-rated for the increased delta-v requirements of a polar trajectory (including the dogleg to avoid Miami). But I feel like the Canaveral manifest is so busy right now that if there's an "opportunity" popping up in the December-January time frame, it's more likely at Vandenberg, since it'll be idle in exactly that timeframe after Sentinel-6.

At Canveral, they do probably have an "opportunity" or two to launch Starlinks in December, but that wouldn't really represent a unique opportunity for a polar launch, as they've got plenty of non-polar Starlinks lined up to fill such a void. If they are framing a Canaveral launch window as the "opportunity" for a polar launch motivating this request to the FCC, they are probably milking the language a little bit to cajole the FCC into giving them the conditional pre-approval they seek. Which is entirely possible, and par for the course in these FCC battles. They know Kuiper (Amazon) is years away from launching anything, and they've already reached an agreement with Kuiper to allow them to share this orbit band amicably; yet Kuiper will want to drag out the FCC's ratification of that resolution as much as possible to slow down their competitor. Anything SpaceX can do to create a narrative of "this delay will cause underserved customers to wait longer for high-speed Internet" helps give the FCC a reason to fast-track it instead of taking the path of least resistance of letting bureaucracy run its normal slow course. Framing the situation as an imminent opportunity they'll miss if the FCC doesn't act - even if it's a a bit pretextual - puts the onus on the FCC to fast-track their approval or risk appearing to be biased against them.

So, I guess we'll have to wait and see what they do. Assuming they get the approval, we should know in December if they're planning a Starlink launch from Vandenberg, or if they divert one of the standard Cape Starlink launches that month to take a polar trajectory. They may even do both, as time is money right now for them and any opportunity to get Starlinks in the sky at a reasonable price is a win for them. The question is whether paying 2x as much to launch them via RTLS from Vandenberg is still a good enough price in comparison to the value of expanding their paying customer base more quickly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 11/19/2020 10:34 pm
SpaceX recently asked FCC to approve 6 polar launches stating it has "an opportunity for a polar launch in December". Link: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg2155812#msg2155812

Any idea how this maps to launches and boosters, and if this is going to happen from Vandenberg?
Where did you get 6 launches? The document only mentions one, I think.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/19/2020 10:40 pm
There is a slight chance it could be B1063.2, but it’s super tight for end of December. The fastest turnaround for a booster so far has been around 45 days. (That ended up going to 51 days due to weather and non-SpaceX delays).
You should not forget that all those landing wasn't on land. Transfer to port adds at least 5 days. 45-5 = 40 days - seems OK. Musk said that they need 2-3 weeks for maintenance. 14-21 day and 10 days for other preparations. BTW landing on LZ less stressful than on droneship. So maybe 35-40 days can be reachable for turnaround time.

I don’t see how turnaround would be that much faster at Vandenberg, when the fastest ever turnarounds have been at Florida where the majority of their personnel and infrastructure for refurbishment are.

Vandenburg hasn’t even been used by SpaceX since June 2019. That’s 17 months of inactivity.

The current thinking that B1063 will be based at VAFB is based on speculation. The opportunity cost alone of having a useful booster sitting on the west coast when there is a shortage of boosters for commercial customers makes this highly unlikely.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/19/2020 10:47 pm
SpaceX recently asked FCC to approve 6 polar launches stating it has "an opportunity for a polar launch in December". Link: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg2155812#msg2155812

Any idea how this maps to launches and boosters, and if this is going to happen from Vandenberg?
Where did you get 6 launches? The document only mentions one, I think.

From the first full paragraph of page 2:
Quote
Specifically, SpaceX requests that the Commission authorize deployment of one of the sun synchronous polar shells proposed in the modification, composed of six orbital planes with 58 satellites in each at 560 km altitude.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 11/19/2020 10:48 pm

I don’t see how turnaround would be that much faster at Vandenberg, when the fastest ever turnarounds have been at Florida where the majority of their personnel and infrastructure for refurbishment are.

Vandenburg hasn’t even been used by SpaceX since June 2019. That’s 17 months of inactivity.


The boosters meant for VAFB are refurbished in Hawthorne, IIRC.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/19/2020 10:54 pm

I don’t see how turnaround would be that much faster at Vandenberg, when the fastest ever turnarounds have been at Florida where the majority of their personnel and infrastructure for refurbishment are.

Vandenburg hasn’t even been used by SpaceX since June 2019. That’s 17 months of inactivity.


The boosters meant for VAFB are refurbished in Hawthorne, IIRC.

That’s kinda my point, the refurbishment at VAFB is non-existent and requires shipping off site. Any time saving from a RTLS are negated by additional transportation time.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 11/19/2020 11:42 pm
https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/1150

NET June 2021 from SLC-40

Those NROL-85 and 87 dates on Michael's site just look like placeholders to me, I'm going to ignore them for now.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: DreamyPickle on 11/19/2020 11:53 pm
Isn't there a performance penalty when doing polar orbits from Cape Canaveral? Launching 58 starlinks at a time into polar orbit might not even be possible.

A few months ago there was an announcement of a 4th droneship "A shortfall of gravitas". Maybe it will be ready to support Vandenberg launches from December?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/20/2020 12:00 am
Isn't there a performance penalty when doing polar orbits from Cape Canaveral? Launching 58 starlinks at a time into polar orbit might not even be possible.

A few months ago there was an announcement of a 4th droneship "A shortfall of gravitas". Maybe it will be ready to support Vandenberg launches from December?

Slight performance penalty, that’s why it’s 58 sats instead of 60. SSO are a type of polar orbit so not much difference from what has been demonstrated.

Shortfall of Gravitas will be east coast. All three will support increased launch cadence and FH triple recovery.

Edit for clarity.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 11/20/2020 07:57 am
SpaceX recently asked FCC to approve 6 polar launches stating it has "an opportunity for a polar launch in December". Link: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg2155812#msg2155812

Any idea how this maps to launches and boosters, and if this is going to happen from Vandenberg?
Where did you get 6 launches? The document only mentions one, I think.

From the first full paragraph of page 2:
Quote
Specifically, SpaceX requests that the Commission authorize deployment of one of the sun synchronous polar shells proposed in the modification, composed of six orbital planes with 58 satellites in each at 560 km altitude.

They're only saying the number of planes and satellites that will go in each plane not the number of launches. If they want to launch from Florida these polar Starlinks they'll need to cut down on payload to at least 50 Starlink satellites. To launch from Vandy and allow RTLS to LZ-4 they would need to cut it down even further to 30 satellites at the very least
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/20/2020 05:55 pm
They're only saying the number of planes and satellites that will go in each plane not the number of launches. If they want to launch from Florida these polar Starlinks they'll need to cut down on payload to at least 50 Starlink satellites. To launch from Vandy and allow RTLS to LZ-4 they would need to cut it down even further to 30 satellites at the very least

I think we can agree on “at least six flights” for the polar shells.

I believe Starlink launches to LEO are volume constrained, not mass constrained. There is additional margin there that can be used for polar  orbits, but I don’t think those figures are available publicly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 11/20/2020 06:03 pm
I believe Starlink launches to LEO are volume constrained, not mass constrained. There is additional margin there that can be used for polar  orbits, but I don’t think those figures are available publicly.

Elon said they were mass constrained at a press conference when they started launching the Starlink flights.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/20/2020 07:48 pm
Elon said they were mass constrained at a press conference when they started launching the Starlink flights.

Do you have a link handy? Would love to have it as a reference.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 11/20/2020 07:50 pm
Elon said they were mass constrained at a press conference when they started launching the Starlink flights.

Do you have a link handy? Would love to have it as a reference.

I don't have a link
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 11/20/2020 08:48 pm
I believe Starlink launches to LEO are volume constrained, not mass constrained. There is additional margin there that can be used for polar  orbits, but I don’t think those figures are available publicly.

Elon said they were mass constrained at a press conference when they started launching the Starlink flights.

That can also be confirmed by reducing the number of Starlinks per flight when they have rideshare partners.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/20/2020 09:01 pm
I believe Starlink launches to LEO are volume constrained, not mass constrained. There is additional margin there that can be used for polar  orbits, but I don’t think those figures are available publicly.

Elon said they were mass constrained at a press conference when they started launching the Starlink flights.

That can also be confirmed by reducing the number of Starlinks per flight when they have rideshare partners.

Those were definitely a volume issue. Skysats only weigh 110 kg and Blacksky around 50kg each.

Each Starlink is ~260kg.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Tomness on 11/20/2020 09:10 pm
I believe Starlink launches to LEO are volume constrained, not mass constrained. There is additional margin there that can be used for polar  orbits, but I don’t think those figures are available publicly.

Elon said they were mass constrained at a press conference when they started launching the Starlink flights.

I thought he said they could do 2 or 3 more but scrifice recovery which they don't want to do. So leads to will they do Starlink with FH with extended fairing if they can recover all the boosters and the fairings
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 11/20/2020 09:15 pm
I believe Starlink launches to LEO are volume constrained, not mass constrained. There is additional margin there that can be used for polar  orbits, but I don’t think those figures are available publicly.

Elon said they were mass constrained at a press conference when they started launching the Starlink flights.

That can also be confirmed by reducing the number of Starlinks per flight when they have rideshare partners.

Those were definitely a volume issue. Skysats only weigh 110 kg and Blacksky around 50kg each.

Each Starlink is ~260kg.

The Blacksky rideshare was to a slightly higher orbit.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/20/2020 09:30 pm
I thought he said they could do 2 or 3 more but scrifice recovery which they don't want to do. So leads to will they do Starlink with FH with extended fairing if they can recover all the boosters and the fairings

The extended fairing won’t be available for at least six months, probably at least 9 months for an available FH slot based on production and refurbishment.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 11/20/2020 09:44 pm
The constrain for Starlink is mass. 60 satellites means over 15 metric tons to a medium inclination LEO, it is right there in the edge of maximum performance for Falcon 9 with downrange booster recovery withput partial nor full boostback burn. If you add a dogleg then the performance drops and they won't be able to carry those 60 Starlinks. I invite you to try it out on a website that I think it's very good for this which is flightclub. I tried to send 60 Starlinks with the dogleg maneuver into a polar orbit with similar deployment orbit as normal Starlinks and I couldn't. I even tried to deploy them in a 150km circular orbit and it's directly impossible. I started "removing" payload and at around 13 tons there was enough margins for both the landing of the booster and the orbital insertion of the second stage.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/21/2020 04:26 am
I believe Starlink launches to LEO are volume constrained, not mass constrained. There is additional margin there that can be used for polar  orbits, but I don’t think those figures are available publicly.

Elon said they were mass constrained at a press conference when they started launching the Starlink flights.

I thought he said they could do 2 or 3 more but scrifice recovery which they don't want to do. So leads to will they do Starlink with FH with extended fairing if they can recover all the boosters and the fairings
Ha! Yeah, what if they do a Falcon Heavy flight from Vandenberg like they were originally planning to do... That'd be interesting. Would need new launch mount but wouldn't need a droneship as all RTLS. Could use an extended fairing, even.

...I highly doubt they'd do something like that, tho. F9 is such a workhorse for Starlink right now. Keeping the same basic configuration is such a win for them operationally. I'm betting they'll just do polar F9 launches from Florida and take the slight payload hit.

(Also, fairly certain it'd cost way too much to modify the pad for FH ops now. ...unless the Air Force wants them to do it anyway!)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Arb on 11/21/2020 01:50 pm
...what if they do a Falcon Heavy flight from Vandenberg like they were originally planning to do... That'd be interesting. Would need new launch mount but wouldn't need a droneship as all RTLS. Could use an extended fairing, even.
...
My bold.

Vandenberg only has one landing pad, at the mo...
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/22/2020 12:55 am
Falcon 9s usually return to the HIF after a static fire and roll out on launch day.

B1049.7 has been sitting out at SLC-40 since Thursday. It didn’t return to the HIF after the SF abort and troubleshooting, and it is still out at the pad after today’s successful test.

This leads me to believe that another booster is already in the HIF and undergoing integration for the next launch.

If they have a three day head start, the next launch could be as early as six days after the Starlink launch tomorrow and set a new pad turnaround record. The only snag would be the Thanksgiving holiday.

Likeliest candidate is NROL-108 on B1059.5 if the payload issues are resolved.

B1051.7 is the only other booster that would be remotely available. A launch on Nov 28 would mean a new booster turnaround record of 41 days. Possible payloads are SXM-7 or Starlink v1.0 L16.

The possibility exists that NROL-108 is seriously delayed, in which case B1059.5 would launch one of the above payloads.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 11/22/2020 01:57 am
A Starlink flight with the payload integrated has no reason to go back to the HIF after static fire unless something is really wrong.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: AndrewRG10 on 11/22/2020 02:01 am
Falcon 9s usually return to the HIF after a static fire and roll out on launch day.
Not missions which static fire with payload on top.

B1051.7 is the only other booster that would be remotely available. A launch on Nov 28 would mean a new booster turnaround record of 41 days. Possible payloads are SXM-7 or Starlink v1.0 L16.

Not SXM-7. B1049 and B1051 are destined to fly Starlink the rest of their life. I dunno why you keep insisting they will take on commercial payloads. Elon has stated in the past all flight leaders will fly Starlink. And I haven't heard that'll change. And remember B1060 landed late October so much more likely for it to take on the next GTO satellite in December.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: launchwatcher on 11/22/2020 02:51 am
...what if they do a Falcon Heavy flight from Vandenberg like they were originally planning to do... That'd be interesting. Would need new launch mount but wouldn't need a droneship as all RTLS. Could use an extended fairing, even.
...
My bold.

Vandenberg only has one landing pad, at the mo...
At the moment.   Wouldn't take long to clear, level, and pave a couple more.

(RTLS for FH center core seems unlikely, though..)



Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jakusb on 11/22/2020 09:03 am
What about 1063-2 launching a Starlink mission? Polar orbit as suggested.
This could mean a quick follow up launch at VAFB.
I believe this would make several statements made more understandable.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: TJL on 11/22/2020 10:58 am
Sorry if this has been asked previously...is it the customers choice whether or not to use a previously flown booster to launch their payload or does SpaceX have a say? Thank you.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Tomness on 11/22/2020 12:11 pm
Sorry if this has been asked previously...is it the customers choice whether or not to use a previously flown booster to launch their payload or does SpaceX have a say? Thank you.

Yeah they get a choice it's like 10% discounts and better schedule assurance or new booster at reg prices and behind nasa and dod
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/22/2020 05:10 pm
Sorry if this has been asked previously...is it the customers choice whether or not to use a previously flown booster to launch their payload or does SpaceX have a say? Thank you.

Generally, the contract is structured as a service. If you want additional things like a new booster, the ability to select which booster, extra time in the SPIF, etc.  you can pay for it.

SpaceX generally selects the booster based on availability. If they fail to have a booster available there are penalties involved. Same for failure to reach orbit.

NASA and NSSL launches are always a priority as they pay for that privilege.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 11/22/2020 08:24 pm
...what if they do a Falcon Heavy flight from Vandenberg like they were originally planning to do... That'd be interesting. Would need new launch mount but wouldn't need a droneship as all RTLS. Could use an extended fairing, even.
...
My bold.

Vandenberg only has one landing pad, at the mo...
At the moment.   Wouldn't take long to clear, level, and pave a couple more.

Even at California real estate prices, new pads have to be cheaper than commissioning a new ASDS.

Quote

(RTLS for FH center core seems unlikely, though..)


Seem to recall seeing an analysis that the center core RTLS makes the mission basically not much better than an F9
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/25/2020 02:23 am
B1049.7 was the first time a booster has flown 7 times and the 100th Falcon 9 launch, but also the first time SpaceX had four launches in a month.

It was also the 22nd SpaceX launch of 2020, breaking the previous record of 21 launches in 2018.

Looking ahead, we could see up to four launches in December as well. Two will probably be in the first week, and the last two in mid/late December.

A lot depends on things with NROL-108 and booster refurbishment. The first launch of 2021 will probably be Transporter-1, currently targeting January 14.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 11/25/2020 02:36 am
It was also the 22nd SpaceX launch of 2020, breaking the previous record of 21 launches in 2018.
Technically, it was the 23rd launch if you count the abort test. 22nd orbital launch, though.

Also, it broke the record for the most launches in one calendar quarter (7).
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 11/25/2020 03:05 am
I'll be a bit surprised if there are more than 3 flights in December, and I would guess one of the GTO flights happens before Transporter-1 in January.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: rockets4life97 on 11/25/2020 03:14 am
The number of Starlink flights flown this year (14) is impressive. The 2020 manifest was fairly sparse without them.

Looking ahead to 2021, I count 26 potential non-Starlink flights (possibly more if December flights slip a month). Even assuming a quarter or more of these slip to 2022, I think we could be regularly seeing 3 to 4 launches a month if the Starlink launch cadence continues on pace. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/25/2020 03:16 am
I'll be a bit surprised if there are more than 3 flights in December, and I would guess one of the GTO flights happens before Transporter-1 in January.

B1060.4 looks likely for Turksat 5A, won’t surprise me if it slips to early January due to the transport issues you highlighted.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 11/25/2020 04:22 am
It was also the 22nd SpaceX launch of 2020, breaking the previous record of 21 launches in 2018.

Technically, it was the 23rd launch if you count the abort test. 22nd orbital launch, though.

Also, it broke the record for the most launches in one calendar quarter (7).

And set a new record for the most launches, 25, within one calendar year.
(That record was set two days ago, but instead of publishing the graph then, it seemed a good bet to wait for yesterday's launch. :D )

Note in passing:  A few days ago marked 15 years for me on NSF. 
Lifetime member.  Almost a post a day.  It's been real fun.  Thank you to all.
Most liked post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40815.msg1644987#msg1644987): Telling of my conversation with Buzz Aldrin after the CRS-10 launch (with my hardware onboard). 
Worst post: Completely garbling orbital mechanics (Hint: Stop posting when your fever goes over 101 F.  Rule: Stop everything when it goes over 102.  But everyone has an excuse.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/25/2020 11:16 pm
Hypothesis: Might we see first stage 1051 make a seventh flight in December, launching Starlink v1.0 Flight 16?

SpaceX appears to prefer to launch gaggles of Starlinks on the most-used boosters, saving less-used boosters for external customers?  So, not an option for SXM-7 or Turksat 5A.

SpaceX has had a month and a half to refurbish 1051, as of this posting.  It could be ready in December.

1058, 1059, 1061, are 1062 already spoken for.

As a follow-on hypothesis, might we see a fourth flight for first stage 1060, launching SXM-7 in December, when that booster becomes available?  1060 is likely the only other currently-at-the-Cape booster that would be refurbished before the end of December.

EDIT: Not quite, but the reality of assigning 1051 to SXM-7 is more exciting from an operational point of view.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/25/2020 11:28 pm

There are only two boosters will be available in December that are not assigned.

B1051.7 - Reprocessing (early Dec)
B1060.4 - Reprocessing (mid Dec)

Paying customers take priority over Starlink launches.

Right now you have SXM-7, Turksat 5A, and Transporter-1 as commercial customers that are supposed to launch in December. So that’s already only 2 boosters for 3 launches.

The next batch of boosters won’t be available until mid-late January.

Due to the current political situation and the amount of prestige that Turkey has placed, Turksat 5A is unlikely to be delayed.

It’s possible that B1051.7 will launch Starlink v1.0 L16 in December.

It’s been a week since that post, and a lot still depends on what’s going on with NROL-108. If it’s a major delay, it could open up a launch opportunity for SXM-7.

B1051.7 should be ready for launch by the Dec 2-7 timeframe from SLC-40, if NROL-108 doesn’t go up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gemmy0I on 11/26/2020 12:44 am
As a follow-on hypothesis, might we see a fourth flight for first stage 1060, launching SXM-7 in December, when that booster becomes available?  1060 is likely the only other currently-at-the-Cape booster that would be refurbished before the end of December.
Agreed. 1060 isn't presently spoken for and should be ready "any day now" per the usual ~1-month refurbishment timeframe. Should be a comfortable turnaround for a hypothetical SXM-7 mission around the second week of December. Second week of December would also be a comfortable pad turnaround for SLC-40. The SXM-7 payload itself arrived at the Cape October 13 (https://blog.maxar.com/space-infrastructure/2020/maxar-delivers-high-power-digital-audio-radio-satellite-to-launch-base-for-siriusxm) so, based on the typical workflow for commercial comsats, it should definitely be ready to launch then unless there are payload-side complications.

The big question, in my mind, is what happens if Turksat 5A is also ready to launch in December. The only remaining non-spoken-for booster that could conceivably be ready in time (assuming, as always, that neither 1052 nor 1053 make a surprise single-stick appearance) is 1051.7. But it would definitely be very surprising to see anything other than a Starlink payload go on the second .7, given historical patterns.

Part of me's wondering if they might borrow 1062 for a mission or two between now and the next GPS flight in July. The general assumption has been that it's "reserved" for GPS flights (at least through its .2) as a certification case study, similar to how 1061.2 is for Crew-2. But IIRC the public statements about 1062 haven't been as precise as those regarding 1061 - we know that the booster is planned to fly GPS III SV05, but not necessarily on its second flight.

If they do end up using 1062 for non-GPS missions between now and July, I feel like they'd prefer to fly SXM-7 on it, and leave 1060.4 for Turksat-5A. That way they can avoid having a high-visibility defense payload (GPS) flying on a booster previously occupied by a foreign government payload from a country that hasn't been especially friendly with the U.S. of late. Not that there is likely a risk in practice - it's hard to imagine a plausible scenario where a payload customer could stealthily affect a booster so as to compromise the security of a subsequent payload - but I can see there being optics concerns. The usual anti-SpaceX forces in Congress would no doubt make much hay over "critical national defense payloads sharing rockets with a frenemy nation with ties to Russia".  :-\

What I find fascinating is that the NRO - whose top-secret payloads genuinely do have far greater security concerns than GPS satellites (which, while having some classified/sensitive components, are generally publicized and not restricted from being seen "on-camera" during launch webcasts and publicity photos; plus they're part of a constellation with redundancy such that the loss of one satellite wouldn't devastate the network) - seems far less concerned about the previous flights of its boosters. NROL-108 is supposed to be flying on B1059.5, which flew a foreign government Earth observation satellite on its previous flight. Clearly the NRO feels its security concerns are adequately addressed by whatever procedures and inspections SpaceX has in place, independent of the booster's previous passengers. But perhaps it's just a matter of a smaller (and less scrutinized, due to its secrecy) agency having less red tape. :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/26/2020 12:52 am
I’m getting indications that B1051.7 might launch as a quick turnaround Starlink opportunity before NROL-108. No confirmation yet.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/26/2020 06:15 am
SFN's article on Sentinel-6 (https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/11/21/international-satellite-launches-to-extend-measurements-of-sea-level-rise/) mentions that F9 1st stage B1063 will be reserved for the launch of DART next July.

We have a discussion about it in the DART thread:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47871.msg2157386#msg2157386

SpaceX has it tentatively planned for DART, but it is not necessarily exclusively reserved and will probably be available for other launches. It is also a backup launcher for Crew-2.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: lrk on 11/27/2020 11:14 pm
What about 1063-2 launching a Starlink mission? Polar orbit as suggested.
This could mean a quick follow up launch at VAFB.
I believe this would make several statements made more understandable.

You are suggesting a Starlink launch out of VAFB?  That would require the deployment of an ASDS to the west coast, since Starlink missions aren't capable of RTLS.  Unless they were to fly a partial stack of Starlinks, that is. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jakusb on 11/28/2020 12:34 am
What about 1063-2 launching a Starlink mission? Polar orbit as suggested.
This could mean a quick follow up launch at VAFB.
I believe this would make several statements made more understandable.

You are suggesting a Starlink launch out of VAFB?  That would require the deployment of an ASDS to the west coast, since Starlink missions aren't capable of RTLS.  Unless they were to fly a partial stack of Starlinks, that is.
Indeed, maybe a half Starlink with some rideshares?
If only they could land down range, but that would be in Mexico.
Or maybe they ship 1063 to cape for a mission in januari/februari.
Time will tell.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 11/28/2020 07:13 pm
Polar orbit has a minimum of 43 Starlink sats per plane. Should not Falcon be able to launch that number with RTLS? Fewer planes means long drift times. Maybe better and faster to target each of 10 planes directly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: r8ix on 11/29/2020 02:46 am
Does anybody know of a shared public calendar (iCal or google Cal) with the SpaceX launches kept ?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: DreamyPickle on 11/29/2020 08:25 am
Polar orbit has a minimum of 43 Starlink sats per plane. Should not Falcon be able to launch that number with RTLS?
Where is that number from?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jakusb on 11/29/2020 09:03 am
Does anybody know of a shared public calendar (iCal or google Cal) with the SpaceX launches kept ?
No, but I use SpaceXNow App. Works nice. But iCal would be a nice added function for them.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: guckyfan on 11/29/2020 05:37 pm
Polar orbit has a minimum of 43 Starlink sats per plane. Should not Falcon be able to launch that number with RTLS?
Where is that number from?

From the SpaceX proposed modification of the constellation.

Inclination 97.6°, altitude 560 km, 4 planes 43 sats, 6 planes 58 sats.

If they fill all 10 planes with 43 sats, they can fill 6 planes up to 58 at a slower pace.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: r8ix on 11/29/2020 06:35 pm
Does anybody know of a shared public calendar (iCal or google Cal) with the SpaceX launches kept ?
No, but I use SpaceXNow App. Works nice. But iCal would be a nice added function for them.

Y, I've got that one, but it'd be really nice to have something that automatically keeps my calendar updated...
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/30/2020 07:57 am
Does anybody know of a shared public calendar (iCal or google Cal) with the SpaceX launches kept ?

Try this one:
https://nextspaceflight.com/calendar/
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 11/30/2020 02:06 pm
Polar orbit has a minimum of 43 Starlink sats per plane. Should not Falcon be able to launch that number with RTLS?
Where is that number from?

There is a larger proposal to modify the majority of SpaceX’s constellation. The urgent request for the polar shell is just a part of it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: r8ix on 11/30/2020 05:11 pm
Does anybody know of a shared public calendar (iCal or google Cal) with the SpaceX launches kept ?

Try this one:
https://nextspaceflight.com/calendar/

Thanks! That one's pretty good, just wish there were a way to limit it to SpaceX...
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/01/2020 06:42 pm
Apparently the problem with NROL-108 will take longer to resolve than expected.

As a result B1051.7 will launch SXM-7 instead of a Starlink mission as there is now a sufficient gap. The next flight after that will tentatively be NROL-108 on B1059.5 if the issues are resolved, then Turksat 5A on B1060.4 in late December/early January.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 12/01/2020 06:57 pm
Apparently the problem with NROL-108 will take longer to resolve than expected.

As a result B1051.7 will launch SXM-7 instead of a Starlink mission as there is now a sufficient gap. The next flight after that will tentatively be NROL-108 on B1059.5 if the issues are resolved, then Turksat 5A on B1060.4 in late December/early January.

You state a lot of assumptions like they're facts.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/01/2020 07:00 pm
You state a lot of assumptions like they're facts.

Should be confirmation soon from the usual sources.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/01/2020 07:07 pm
Apparently the problem with NROL-108 will take longer to resolve than expected.

As a result B1051.7 will launch SXM-7 instead of a Starlink mission as there is now a sufficient gap. The next flight after that will tentatively be NROL-108 on B1059.5 if the issues are resolved, then Turksat 5A on B1060.4 in late December/early January.

NRO payload issues can days or years long. 

It makes sense to move on with the busy manifest, fly the booster and start the next processing cycle as soon as possible.

Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 12/01/2020 07:21 pm
You state a lot of assumptions like they're facts.

Should be confirmation soon from the usual sources.

Your assumptions aren't just dates.  You're assuming relationships between missions that don't exist.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/01/2020 07:41 pm
Apparently the problem with NROL-108 will take longer to resolve than expected.

As a result B1051.7 will launch SXM-7 instead of a Starlink mission as there is now a sufficient gap. The next flight after that will tentatively be NROL-108 on B1059.5 if the issues are resolved, then Turksat 5A on B1060.4 in late December/early January.

NRO payload issues can days or years long. 

It makes sense to move on with the busy manifest, fly the booster and start the next processing cycle as soon as possible.

My sources won’t give me any specific information about NRO missions. Everything is very general or  tentative.

The schedule revolves around them, so it really depends on when they say they will be ready.

It’s actually not so bad for SX as they have Starlink opportunities. It’s a lot less flexible for commercial launches as corners can’t be cut.

I’m not going to risk anyone’s job, so the info I  post can usually be inferred based on publicly available info.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 12/03/2020 04:43 am
However, 1060.4 may be assigned to another payload that isn't stuck on the other side of an ocean (for the time being/until alternate transportation is arranged for Turksat 5A).

This could be a "if life gives you lemons, make lemonade" opportunity for SpaceX to launch another gaggle of Starlinks from Canaveral/KSC before the end of December, on B1060.4.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/03/2020 05:01 am
However, 1060.4 may be assigned to another payload that isn't stuck on the other side of an ocean (for the time being/until alternate transportation is arranged for Turksat 5A).

This could be a "if life gives you lemons, make lemonade" opportunity for SpaceX to launch another gaggle of Starlinks from Canaveral/KSC before the end of December, on B1060.4.

That’s one possibility, or it could be used for Transporter-1, based on the recently moved  launch date of January 14.

The alternatives for that would be B1063 with a 53 day turnaround and B1049 with 50 days.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 12/04/2020 10:49 pm
In the CRS-21 briefing Kenny Todd mentioned nine Cargo Dragon 2 flights on contract.  I don't recall any official announcement of flights past the first six, but more were expected to be added.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Josh_from_Canada on 12/04/2020 11:01 pm
In the CRS-21 briefing Kenny Todd mentioned nine Cargo Dragon 2 flights on contract.  I don't recall any official announcement of flights past the first six, but more were expected to be added.

Yes, same with Soyuz, Progress, Cygnus, HTV-X, Crew Dragon, Starliner, and Dream Chaser. The contracts were signed to allow the order of more missions as the life of the station is currently funded until 2024, is waiting be extended to 2028, and possibly beyond.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 12/05/2020 12:08 am
Contract mods show Authority to Proceed for the Crew-4 mission, which should be early or mid 2022 depending on what Boeing does next year.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 12/06/2020 05:45 pm
Cross-post

https://www.anchoragepress.com/news/new-telecom-satellite-for-alaska-on-schedule-for-launch-next-summer-will-provide-broadband-high/article_3c355424-0dad-11eb-8f93-0feaade192f0.html
Quote
A new communications satellite dedicated to Alaska is set for its launch next summer. It will provide affordable broadband service across the state, said Chuck Schumann, CEO of Alaska-based Pacific DataPort Inc.

It will also provide improved satellite access. Existing satellites that provide service to Alaska are in more southern latitudes so that they serve most of the state including Anchorage from very low angles.

That means the Chugach Mountains and trees around homes frequently block access.

The Aurora 4A satellite, the first of two planned by Pacific DataPort, will roar into space atop a SpaceEx Falcon Heavy rocket from the SpaceEx commercial launch facility at Cape Canaveral in Florida.

Schumann said the satellite will be placed into orbit by “direct entry,” a space industry term for a direct launch to geosynchronous orbit 22,000 miles above the earth. The usual procedure, he said, is to lift a geosynchronous satellite to its high orbit in several stages, a procedure that can take up to four months.

...

The Aurora 4A satellite will also be one of the first compact high-capacity satellites to be put in geosynchronous orbit typically at an altitude of 22,000 miles above the earth. Once in position, the Aurora 4A and Aurora IV, the second satellite that will follow the first, will be able to reach all parts of the state including areas off Alaska’s Arctic coast to a distance of several hundred miles offshore.

...

Two satellites are being launched so that there is a backup in case one malfunctions. Aurora 4-A is smaller and is being launched first so the Pacific DataPort can establish contracts with customers and secure revenue while the launch of the larger Aurora IV is being planned.

The first satellite, Aurora 4A, will have a capacity of 7.5 gigabytes per second, while the second satellite, Aurora IV, will have a capacity of 70 gigabytes per second. This is the speed at which data can be processed.

The current schedule calls for Aurora IV, which with more advanced service, to be put in orbit in about three years, but the second satellite requires more investment than the first and financing, from private sources, is still being raised.

Aurora IV could be launched sooner if public investment could be obtained to supplement private funds. The money could come from federal COVID-19 impact funds if Congress passes a new COVID-19 economic stimulus plan, or other state of federal sources. An argument can be made for a degree of public funding because the Aurora satellites will improve broadband access, and at lower costs, for rural health facilities as well as on-line learning in schools.

This seems strange to me. I'm guessing there is a mistake in the article?

Previous announcement (https://www.geekwire.com/2019/astranis-reserves-ride-spacex-satellite-thatll-boost-broadband-alaska/) about this satellite said it would launch on a shared Falcon 9 in late 2020. Now this article says it's actually launching on an FH to GEO in the summer of 2021. Is there some FH launch we don't know about, or is the sat hitching a ride on USSF-44 which is the only FH GEO launch around that timeframe? Neither of those seem likely to me...

So let's say the FH part is a mistake (it mentions Canaveral, not KSC, after all). Does that mean it's launching on a dedicated F9 directly to GEO now? That's never been done before, but at 300 kg, I guess it's possible?

Or is the entire article wrong and the sat is launching on F9 to GTO with some normal communications satellite, as was assumed previously based on the original announcements?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: PM3 on 12/06/2020 06:04 pm
This seems strange to me. I'm guessing there is a mistake in the article?

Previous announcement (https://www.geekwire.com/2019/astranis-reserves-ride-spacex-satellite-thatll-boost-broadband-alaska/) about this satellite said it would launch on a shared Falcon 9 in late 2020. Now this article says it's actually launching on an FH to GEO in the summer of 2021. Is there some FH launch we don't know about, or is the sat hitching a ride on USSF-44 which is the only FH GEO launch around that timeframe? Neither of those seem likely to me...

Could launch with Viasat-3, which goes to GEO on FH.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 12/06/2020 06:09 pm
If the first Viasat 3 is going up with SpaceX (they still haven't announced their launch order)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/06/2020 06:10 pm
The first Viasat won’t be ready until Q4 2021. That was announced recently.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/07/2020 10:14 am

Confirmed:

Dec 10  SLC-40
B1051.7 - SXM7

Dec 17  LC-39A
B1059.5 - NROL-108

Unconfirmed:

Dec 30  LC-39A or SLC-40
B1060.4 - Turksat 5A

Jan 14  LC-39A or SLC-40
B1063.2 or B1049.8 - Transporter 1

NET Jan 14 - Starlink v1.0 L16

Rationale:

There are currently only six regular F9 boosters available.

B1049 - Reprocessing (mid Jan)
B1051 - SXM-7 SLC-40
B1058 - At sea ASDS (late-Jan)
B1059 - NROL-108 LC-39A
B1060 - Reprocessing (mid-Dec)
B1063 - Reprocessing (mid-Jan)

B1061 - Reserved Crew-2
B1062 - Reserved GPS III SV05


Turksat 5A is currently scheduled for 30th December according to Turkish news sources. B1060.4 is the only booster available at that time.

B1049.8 or B1063.2 are the only boosters available for the Jan 14 launch of Transporter 1.

It is likely that B1049.8 will be used for Starlink v1.0 L16, leaving B1063.2 for Transporter-1.

The next available booster after that would be B1058 in late January.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Mangala on 12/08/2020 07:48 pm
Yep, SpaceX would be glad to have available 2 or 3 more boosters to meet its launch needs.

I think the unexpected lost of B-1048 and B-1056 in the beginning of this year, not to speak about B-1050 just two years ago, left them in an uncomfortable situation to meet all their launch needs, specially for Starlink launches.

It is why I'm still surprised they didn't use B-1052 and B-1053 to compensate these lost. Maybe these two Falcon Heavy side boosters were made so lighter that they can't support a second stage without massive modifications that they are not worth to do.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Mangala on 12/08/2020 07:51 pm
In the other hand, if they could bring down the time between two launches from some 50, 60 days to some 35 days, it will make the actual fleet enough.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/08/2020 09:18 pm
In the other hand, if they could bring down the time between two launches from some 50, 60 days to some 35 days, it will make the actual fleet enough.

Those 2 FH side boosters would really help out.

Shortening the reuse cycle helps for sure.  But at some point with the reserved cores and aging cores they could use more cores to meet the desired Starlink flight rate.

They need to improve several things to get to 40-50 flights per year.  ASDS and weather alone creates enough issues to make that flight rate.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/09/2020 11:34 pm
I’m predicting at least 10-15 Starlink launches in the first half of 2021.

The rationale for that is simple. SpaceX can easily launch 4 flights a month with its current rate of booster reprocessing. However, there are only 7-8 external launches booked for 1H 2021. Three Starlink launches a month would fill that gap.

There is a huge demand for Starlink, and they will need a lot of capacity to meet that demand, which is reflected in the chart below.

Currently, there is a backlog of at least 720 Starlink satellites waiting to be launched.

With at least 16 external launches in 2H 2021 planned, the time to launch is sooner rather than later.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: smoliarm on 12/10/2020 11:17 am
Well, I hear a bit different story on Starlink deployment -
saying they will need some pause in Starlink launches - soon after beta-testing starts.
The pause would be on months scale.
Although, I can't be sure it's an info from insider, it well can be just another speculation.
Anyway, here are the reasons for a pause -
* evaluation of satellites, user terminals & gateway performance,
* collecting feedback from beta,
* implementing possible upgrades to satellites/terminals.

So, if we put some trust in this source, then the number of Starlink launches in H1 2021 would be 3 to 4.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 12/10/2020 04:29 pm
Starlink deployment strategy for 2021, AND satellite construction:
Moved to the Starlink general discussion thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48297.0).
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 12/13/2020 06:36 pm
Updated graph after today's SXM-7 launch
A new record: 26 launches within the last 12 months (366 days)
If CRS-2 Flight 21 has not been delayed by a day SpaceX would have hit this mark last week.
The last ten launches have gone at a pace equivalent to almost 35 per year.
Food for thought for the upcoming annual prediction poll for the number of orbital launches in 2021.
(If anyone has a better place for these posts, please suggest it, probably by PM rather than clogging the thread.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/13/2020 10:43 pm
Updated graph after today's SXM-7 launch
A new record: 26 launches within the last 12 months (366 days)
If CRS-2 Flight 21 has not been delayed by a day SpaceX would have hit this mark last week.
The last ten launches have gone at a pace equivalent to almost 35 per year.
Food for thought for the upcoming annual prediction poll for the number of orbital launches in 2021.
(If anyone has a better place for these posts, please suggest it, probably by PM rather than clogging the thread.)

Maybe the most impressive stat is the pace of the last 10 flights.  That harbors well for 40 launches next year.

Maybe by the end of 2021 they will have the pace of 50 per year. 

I was looking at the stats that 26 of the 102 F9 flights have been in 2020, so 25% in the last year.  A year from how it could be that 1/3 of F9 flights happening in 2021.  That is a truly crazy ramp rate.

Regardless of the development pace of SS/SH it would probably be mid 2022 before there is any impact on the F9/FH manifest. 

Edit: They will need a few more boosters in rotation as well as another ASDS.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/17/2020 02:39 pm
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1339567835840962560
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/17/2020 09:33 pm
Just got this sent to me.

December SMSR schedule from NASA
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 12/18/2020 02:08 am
https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1339766017199726594
Quote
I believe this is the first time that a Falcon 9 has ever been lifted to the booster stand in Port Canaveral at night.

SpaceX means business with this booster. Hoping to fly it again for an eighth flight as early as January.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/18/2020 04:59 am
Quote
I believe this is the first time that a Falcon 9 has ever been lifted to the booster stand in Port Canaveral at night.

SpaceX means business with this booster. Hoping to fly it again for an eighth flight as early as January.

50 day turnaround would be Feb 1, but I think they can pull off a 45 day turnaround for 27 January.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/19/2020 02:55 pm
The dates below are estimated booster turnaround times, not launch dates unless noted. The launch schedule in January/February will be dependent on Turksat 5A and Transporter-1 launch dates as the primary commercial payloads.

B1060.4
Ready, waiting for Turksat 5A payload mate
Launch from SLC-40, Jan 10-15??

B1063.2
53 days Nov21-Jan 14
Likely Transporter-1, launching Jan 14

B1049.8
50 days Nov 25-Jan 14
Likely Starlink v1.0 L16

B1058.5
50 days Dec 6-Jan 25
Likely Starlink v1.0 L17

B1051.8
50 days Dec 13-Feb 1
Likely Starlink RF Mission 1-1

B1059.6
45 days Dec 19-Feb 2
Likely Starlink RF Mission 2-1


B1059 has a good chance of a 45 day turnaround thanks to RTLS landing. However, it probably won’t happen due to the holidays, personnel limitations from having 5 boosters refurbishing in such a short period of time, and a lack of pad availability in the early February timeframe.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: soltasto on 12/19/2020 03:24 pm
B1063.2
53 days Nov21-Jan 14
Likely Transporter-1, launching Jan 14

63 is on the west coast while Transporter-1 will launch from the east coast. It also appears to be reserved for the DART mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/19/2020 03:31 pm
B1063.2
53 days Nov21-Jan 14
Likely Transporter-1, launching Jan 14

63 is on the west coast while Transporter-1 will launch from the east coast. It also appears to be reserved for the DART mission.

I haven’t seen information that B1063 is still on the west coast. At the very least it would have to go to McGregor for refurbishment.

Yes, it is slated for DART, but I don’t believe it is exclusively reserved.

The only alternative for Transporter-1 would be B1049.8, which seems unlikely. Doesn’t rule it out though.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 12/19/2020 03:45 pm
I haven’t seen information that B1063 is still on the west coast. At the very least it would have to go to McGregor for refurbishment.

West coast boosters can go to Hawthorne for refurbishment, not McGregor.  As far as we know 1063 isn't coming east for any of these January flights.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/19/2020 03:53 pm
I haven’t seen information that B1063 is still on the west coast. At the very least it would have to go to McGregor for refurbishment.

West coast boosters can go to Hawthorne for refurbishment, not McGregor.  As far as we know 1063 isn't coming east for any of these January flights.

It doesn’t make sense to keep B1063 on the west coast when they are booster constrained. A lot of people think it will stay out west because of the SARah launch, but I’m doubtful that will happen in February, or even that it needs to launch from Vandenburg.

Unless the new Starlink RF missions polar missions are going to launch from VAFB. That would be an interesting development.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 12/19/2020 04:03 pm
Those Starlink RF- permits are from Florida, and the drone ships are in the normal location.  I seriously doubt SARah is launching in February.  There's still no indication of 1063 coming east.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/19/2020 04:04 pm
Those Starlink RF- permits are from Florida, and the drone ships are in the normal location.

Good point, forgot about that. 🤦🏻‍♂️

I should’ve said “polar Starlink missions”.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 12/19/2020 04:32 pm
B1063.2
53 days Nov21-Jan 14
Likely Transporter-1, launching Jan 14

63 is on the west coast while Transporter-1 will launch from the east coast. It also appears to be reserved for the DART mission.

I haven’t seen information that B1063 is still on the west coast. At the very least it would have to go to McGregor for refurbishment.

Yes, it is slated for DART, but I don’t believe it is exclusively reserved.

The only alternative for Transporter-1 would be B1049.8, which seems unlikely. Doesn’t rule it out though.

I suspect Transporter-1 will launch on B1062.2 (yes, that booster is supposed to fly on GPSIII-SV05 but it seems to me it will be allowed to do other missions before that, just as you suggested in the case of DART).

B1063 could launch on SARah-1 and then DART.

B1049.8 could be reused on Starlink L16.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/19/2020 04:38 pm
I suspect Transporter-1 will launch on B1062.2 (yes, that booster is supposed to fly on GPSIII-SV05 but it seems to me it will be allowed to do other missions before that, just as you suggested in the case of DART).

B1063 could launch on SARah-1 and then DART.

B1049.8 could be reused on Starlink L16.

SpaceX stated on their launch stream that the next flight for B1062 would the next GPS launch.

There’s a lot of refurbishment workflow analysis they want to conduct to validate proven boosters for the entire NSSL2 contract.

So that leaves either B1063 or B1049 for Transporter-1, unless they delay.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 12/19/2020 04:47 pm
I suspect Transporter-1 will launch on B1062.2 (yes, that booster is supposed to fly on GPSIII-SV05 but it seems to me it will be allowed to do other missions before that, just as you suggested in the case of DART).

B1063 could launch on SARah-1 and then DART.

B1049.8 could be reused on Starlink L16.

SpaceX stated on their launch stream that the next flight for B1062 would the next GPS launch.

There’s a lot of refurbishment workflow analysis they want to conduct to validate proven boosters for the entire NSSL2 contract.

So that leaves either B1063 or B1049 for Transporter-1, unless they delay.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time they got something wrong on the webcast. :)

I'm mainly basing my speculation on the fact that B1060 is also supposed to be "reserved" for one of the GPS launches (according to SFN) and yet it's still being used on other non-GPS missions in the meantime. The "workflow analysis" you mention could just mean USSF will be overseeing the refurbishment process of the B1062 booster, even on non-military launches, not that they will be analyzing it on the ground for 7 months. Also, it might explain the need for this: https://spacenews.com/space-force-to-get-deeper-insight-into-inner-workings-of-spacex-commercial-launches/
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: klod on 12/19/2020 05:31 pm
B1063.2
53 days Nov21-Jan 14
Likely Transporter-1, launching Jan 14

63 is on the west coast while Transporter-1 will launch from the east coast. It also appears to be reserved for the DART mission.

I haven’t seen information that B1063 is still on the west coast. At the very least it would have to go to McGregor for refurbishment.

Yes, it is slated for DART, but I don’t believe it is exclusively reserved.

The only alternative for Transporter-1 would be B1049.8, which seems unlikely. Doesn’t rule it out though.

I suspect Transporter-1 will launch on B1062.2 (yes, that booster is supposed to fly on GPSIII-SV05 but it seems to me it will be allowed to do other missions before that, just as you suggested in the case of DART).

B1063 could launch on SARah-1 and then DART.

B1049.8 could be reused on Starlink L16.
Why would they hold GPS launches until July 2021 if they could do it in January, as they planned 6 months ago?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/19/2020 05:34 pm
I'm mainly basing my speculation on the fact that B1060 is also supposed to be "reserved" for one of the GPS launches (according to SFN) and yet it's still being used on other non-GPS missions in the meantime.

Please provide a link for this.

Quote
The "workflow analysis" you mention could just mean USSF will be overseeing the refurbishment process of the B1062 booster, even on non-military launches, not that they will be analyzing it on the ground for 7 months. Also, it might explain the need for this: https://spacenews.com/space-force-to-get-deeper-insight-into-inner-workings-of-spacex-commercial-launches/

That contract ended in November.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Elthiryel on 12/19/2020 05:55 pm
That contract ended in November.

SpaceX was awarded a new one: https://spacenews.com/spacex-gets-29-million-space-force-contract-for-surveillance-of-non-military-launches/
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/19/2020 05:56 pm
Turksat 5A is now slated for 04 Jan 2021.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 12/19/2020 07:20 pm
I'm mainly basing my speculation on the fact that B1060 is also supposed to be "reserved" for one of the GPS launches (according to SFN) and yet it's still being used on other non-GPS missions in the meantime.

Please provide a link for this.

Sorry, it was Space News, not SFN:
Quote
The Falcon 9 rockets that launched two military GPS satellites June 30 and Nov. 5 both had brand-new boosters which the company recovered after launch. After renegotiating its contract with the Space Force, SpaceX will use the recovered boosters from the June and November launches to fly two more GPS satellites in 2021.

https://spacenews.com/spacex-to-transition-to-fully-reusable-fleet-for-national-security-launches/
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 12/19/2020 07:28 pm
I don't think 1060 is targeted for GPS use.  I wouldn't be surprised if 1062 launches the next two GPS sats.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/19/2020 07:31 pm
Sorry, it was Space News, not SFN:
Quote
The Falcon 9 rockets that launched two military GPS satellites June 30 and Nov. 5 both had brand-new boosters which the company recovered after launch. After renegotiating its contract with the Space Force, SpaceX will use the recovered boosters from the June and November launches to fly two more GPS satellites in 2021.

That doesn’t say anything about B1060 being reserved exclusively for GPS use.

On the other hand, we have a SpaceX representative saying on camera that B1062 will fly next launching GPS III SV05. If you don’t believe that, then nothing I can find will convince you.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 12/19/2020 07:40 pm
Sorry, it was Space News, not SFN:
Quote
The Falcon 9 rockets that launched two military GPS satellites June 30 and Nov. 5 both had brand-new boosters which the company recovered after launch. After renegotiating its contract with the Space Force, SpaceX will use the recovered boosters from the June and November launches to fly two more GPS satellites in 2021.

That doesn’t say anything about B1060 being reserved exclusively for GPS use.

That's my point. It says both boosters will launch GPS sats in the future but since B1060 is about to launch Turksat 5A, it's clearly not reserved. So I'm thinking the same might be true for B1062.

I'm not trying to argue with you or trying to convince you I'm right. I'm just explaining what I'm basing my speculation on, just like you're doing with regards to B1063 moving to Florida, for example. I'm not saying I'm definitely right, so relax please.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/19/2020 07:58 pm
No hard feelings, I just think that you have misunderstood the article.

It’s not saying that they are reserved at all, just that they will be used again later for GPS flights. And it doesn’t make sense that B1060 would be reserved, because USSF only started talking about reusing boosters in September, 3 months after the GPS III SV03 launch.

On the other hand, B1062 is being used for reuse validation for the entire NSSL2 contract. That’s worth it for SpaceX to reserve it exclusively for USSF usage, not to mention that they have paid for that exclusivity.

Same thing with NASA and B1061. Paid for reserved use. There’s an article that talks about how closely NASA is involved with every aspect of that booster.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 12/19/2020 08:31 pm
B1063 is unequivocally assigned to DART. There's a distant chance SpaceX will fly it again for SARah-1 in Q1 or early Q2 but that mission has been MIA for like 15 months and DART will be NASA LSP's first flight-proven launch, so it shouldn't come as a surprise if B1063 spends 6+ months between flights 1 and 2.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/19/2020 09:34 pm
B1063 is unequivocally assigned to DART. There's a distant chance SpaceX will fly it again for SARah-1 in Q1 or early Q2 but that mission has been MIA for like 15 months and DART will be NASA LSP's first flight-proven launch, so it shouldn't come as a surprise if B1063 spends 6+ months between flights 1 and 2.

Tentatively, not unequivocally, according to SFN.

Quote
SpaceX tentatively plans to reuse first stage that flew with the Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich mission Saturday on the company’s next launch of a NASA spacecraft from Vandenberg next July, NASA launch director Tim Dunn said in a recent interview with Spaceflight Now

Now look at what Cathy Lueders said about B1061 vs B1063:
Quote
“We have a backup in case something happens to this particular stage, but we’ve done all our inspections on this stage,” Lueders said. “We’ve done all the work. We understand the hardware. So we would really like to use this because it makes the job for Crew-2 easier.

“One of the things we’re looking at is using the Sentinel-6 booster because it is a booster we’ve looked at, too,” Lueders said. “It will have had a flight on it. But … there are a couple of other ones out there. The nice thing with SpaceX is there is a range of hardware out there that we can use.


From both of those statements, it doesn’t seem like there’s much exclusivity on B1063 or that it has had the same level of inspections as B1061.

Also consider that SpaceX has been very forthcoming in mentioning the exclusivity on B1061 and B1062, but no mention at all for B1063. That doesn’t fit the pattern.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 12/19/2020 11:13 pm
After recovery and with preliminary inspections and performance data reviews already complete, what I'm saying is that I'm hearing B1061 and B1063 are much more firmly (if not 100%) assigned to Crew-2 and DART, respectively.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/20/2020 02:30 pm
After recovery and with preliminary inspections and performance data reviews already complete, what I'm saying is that I'm hearing B1061 and B1063 are much more firmly (if not 100%) assigned to Crew-2 and DART, respectively.

I concur that they have been assigned to Crew-2 and DART. That has been corroborated by other articles.

However, there is no indication of B1063’s exclusivity when taken in context, compared to B1061’s exclusivity as stated by NASA and SpaceX.

Take the example of B1058. Scheduled for CRS-21 for months, even has the NASA worm on it. Flew two missions in between NASA launches anyway.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/20/2020 06:20 pm
https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1340725113277300741

Quote
Every single SpaceX's launch at one render. Since 2006 till 2020. Launch with its mission name, date, rocket visualization (detailed) & booster number.

#Falcon9 #Space
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: spacenut on 12/20/2020 07:22 pm
I looked up on US launches posted by Salo a few hours ago.  SpaceX has 39 scheduled for 2021.  Two of which are orbital Starships.  There were 2 or 3 Falcon Heavies, don't remember exactly right now.  This is more than all others combined.  Most of which are Starlink launches. 

How many used boosters are still in use?  How many new boosters will they make?  I know they have to make new FH cores if they can't manage to save them. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/20/2020 08:14 pm
I looked up on US launches posted by Salo a few hours ago.  SpaceX has 39 scheduled for 2021.  Two of which are orbital Starships.  There were 2 or 3 Falcon Heavies, don't remember exactly right now.  This is more than all others combined.  Most of which are Starlink launches. 

How many used boosters are still in use?  How many new boosters will they make?  I know they have to make new FH cores if they can't manage to save them.

SpaceX is targeting 48 launches for 2021. The priority is NSSL and NASA launches, followed by commercial launches. Starlink will launch in any available gaps.

B1049 - Reprocessing (mid Jan)
B1051 - ASDS unloading (late-Jan)
B1058 - Reprocessing (late-Jan)
B1059 - LZ-1 (early Feb)
B1060 - Turksat 5A
B1063 - Reprocessing (mid-Jan)

B1061 - Reserved Crew-2
B1062 - Reserved GPS III SV05

B1064 FH
B1065 FH
B1066 FH

The plan was for 10 new Falcon 9 first stages in 2020. There is a need for at least 6 new boosters due to FH requirements for 2021, 3 of which are probably already built (64-66).

Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/21/2020 01:29 am
Jansen, great summary. 

Still think they need more first stages in circulation, and a 3rd ASDS
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jakusb on 12/21/2020 10:44 am
I looked up on US launches posted by Salo a few hours ago.  SpaceX has 39 scheduled for 2021.  Two of which are orbital Starships.  There were 2 or 3 Falcon Heavies, don't remember exactly right now.  This is more than all others combined.  Most of which are Starlink launches. 

How many used boosters are still in use?  How many new boosters will they make?  I know they have to make new FH cores if they can't manage to save them.

SpaceX is targeting 48 launches for 2021. The priority is NSSL and NASA launches, followed by commercial launches. Starlink will launch in any available gaps.

B1049 - Reprocessing (mid Jan)
B1051 - ASDS unloading (late-Jan)
B1058 - Reprocessing (late-Jan)
B1059 - LZ-1 (early Feb)
B1060 - Turksat 5A
B1063 - Reprocessing (mid-Jan)

B1061 - Reserved Crew-2
B1062 - Reserved GPS III SV05

B1064 FH
B1065 FH
B1066 FH

The plan was for 10 new Falcon 9 first stages in 2020. There is a need for at least 6 new boosters due to FH requirements for 2021, 3 of which are probably already built (64-66).
Where do you get the target to build 10 in 2020?
They have build 1060-1066, with 1066 unseen. That is 7, so either they already also build 1067-1069 (FH too?), or they fell short of their target.
Somehow the test flow in McGregor seems halted for S1’s as none have been seen vertical there since the arrival of presumably 1065.
And no other has been reported being transported. Interesting.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: smoliarm on 12/21/2020 11:59 am
Quote
SpaceX is targeting 48 launches for 2021.
Yes, I heard this too. However I doubt they can get close to such target.
Below I attached graph showing SpaceX cadence during 2020 in the form "Date vs # days between launches".
Assuming SpaceX was REALLY busy with Dragon Crew DM2 in the first months of 2020, therefore they had slow launch cadence in this period.
So I calculated the average tempo for the rest of the year - from June to Dec. It gives 11.3 days between launches on average, which translates in (365/11.3) = 32.3 launches per year.
This is what one should expect IF SpaceX will keep the pace.
As we see from this year scheduling history, the launch tempo depends on (1) number of cores in rotation and on (2) refurbishing time.
As far as we can see, the refurbishing time remained the same during 2020
The number of cores did not go up significantly, as two new cores turned as GPS/Crew-assigned.
Actually one could expect number of cores will go down when B1049 and B1051 reach 10 flights. At that point SpaceX may want to take the core out of rotation for overhaul.

Bottom line - I don't see a way to boost the flight rate 50% up.
And to be honest - the flight rate of one launch evry 11 days - that's already awesome !!
;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: rockets4life97 on 12/21/2020 12:29 pm
I think there will be 8 or so flights out of Vandenberg next year (mostly Starlink) and that will be a key part of how SpaceX achieves a higher cadence than this fall.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: clongton on 12/21/2020 12:53 pm
And don't forget Boca Chica. That 48 number includes Starship and Super Heavy launches.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: butters on 12/21/2020 01:11 pm
The 3 scheduled Falcon Heavy missions for 2021 have been eating up booster production capacity in the last quarter of 2020 and may eat up significant launch operations capacity in 2021. Starlink will have LC-40 mostly to itself for the first half of the year for lack of customer payloads for mid/low-inclination F9 launches, but LC-39A is going to be tied up for chunks of the year, and those FH missions will require both droneships, which will block Starlink missions from the other pad. FH is a bit of a cadence-killer for the Cape operations.

Fortunately, behind those three FH boosters on the production line, there should be badly-needed F9 boosters to replenish the fleet, hopefully by springtime. They need to replace the two life-leader boosters that are approaching well-deserved retirements, and they need to replace the two boosters which were unexpectedly lost in 2020.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/21/2020 01:30 pm
The 3 scheduled Falcon Heavy missions for 2021 have been eating up booster production capacity in the last quarter of 2020 and may eat up significant launch operations capacity in 2021. Starlink will have LC-40 mostly to itself for the first half of the year for lack of customer payloads for mid/low-inclination F9 launches, but LC-39A is going to be tied up for chunks of the year, and those FH missions will require both droneships, which will block Starlink missions from the other pad. FH is a bit of a cadence-killer for the Cape operations.

Fortunately, behind those three FH boosters on the production line, there should be badly-needed F9 boosters to replenish the fleet, hopefully by springtime. They need to replace the two life-leader boosters that are approaching well-deserved retirements, and they need to replace the two boosters which were unexpectedly lost in 2020.

Don't forget that 2020 had multiple COVID problems and 2 lost cores early in the year.  without that maybe they could have made 30 flights this year.

I think they can make a 48 flight rate next year, but it will require increased use of VAFB (or is it VSFB now) and taking every possible window including the better Florida weather before summer.

If SS/SH make a single orbital flight in 2021 that would be massive, delivery any payload would be a cherry on top.

Maybe we need a 2021 poll, LOL!
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: DistantTemple on 12/21/2020 02:10 pm
Quote
SpaceX is targeting 48 launches for 2021.
Yes, I heard this too. However I doubt they can get close to such target.
Below I attached graph showing SpaceX cadence during 2020 in the form "Date vs # days between launches".
Assuming SpaceX was REALLY busy with Dragon Crew DM2 in the first months of 2020, therefore they had slow launch cadence in this period.
So I calculated the average tempo for the rest of the year - from June to Dec. It gives 11.3 days between launches on average, which translates in (365/11.3) = 32.3 launches per year.
This is what one should expect IF SpaceX will keep the pace.
As we see from this year scheduling history, the launch tempo depends on (1) number of cores in rotation and on (2) refurbishing time.
As far as we can see, the refurbishing time remained the same during 2020
The number of cores did not go up significantly, as two new cores turned as GPS/Crew-assigned.
Actually one could expect number of cores will go down when B1049 and B1051 reach 10 flights. At that point SpaceX may want to take the core out of rotation for overhaul.

Bottom line - I don't see a way to boost the flight rate 50% up.
And to be honest - the flight rate of one launch evry 11 days - that's already awesome !!
;)
From your graph Oct Nov Dec, ballpark average is about 8 days between launches. 365/8 =~ 45 Launches per year. I've read the rest of the posts about FH and FH dedicated manufacturing... And taking the flight leaders out of service for refurb.... But even if true, that effects the early part of the year. No one argues that several more new cores could be manufactured by mid year. Also, we don't know that a serious overhaul will take months! This is an EM company!
His recent attention to recovery turn around, and advertising for new managers, sounds like he considers recovery a bottle neck. One conclusion from that, is that he expects a faster launch cadence, and for recovery to be able to cope by improving their procedure's. Why consider the whole of 2020, or even the second half... the third 4th quarter better shows SX capabilities now, with an intention to improve.
Many many launches will be Starlink. SX probably has a strategy for continuing to use flight leaders for Starlink beyond 10 flights. Its crucial for them to race ahead with SL. And as for pads... it was once said SX were aiming for 24hr turn around. Although weather and holds are a major problem, we should still see faster cadence.
Edit 4th Quarter!
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: mandrewa on 12/21/2020 02:13 pm
A Shortfall of Gravitas may show up in 2021.  If it is moved to the west coast then that will increase the number of Starlink satellites launched per polar launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/21/2020 02:22 pm
I looked up on US launches posted by Salo a few hours ago.  SpaceX has 39 scheduled for 2021.  Two of which are orbital Starships.  There were 2 or 3 Falcon Heavies, don't remember exactly right now.  This is more than all others combined.  Most of which are Starlink launches. 

How many used boosters are still in use?  How many new boosters will they make?  I know they have to make new FH cores if they can't manage to save them.

SpaceX is targeting 48 launches for 2021. The priority is NSSL and NASA launches, followed by commercial launches. Starlink will launch in any available gaps.

B1049 - Reprocessing (mid Jan)
B1051 - ASDS unloading (late-Jan)
B1058 - Reprocessing (late-Jan)
B1059 - LZ-1 (early Feb)
B1060 - Turksat 5A
B1063 - Reprocessing (mid-Jan)

B1061 - Reserved Crew-2
B1062 - Reserved GPS III SV05

B1064 FH
B1065 FH
B1066 FH

The plan was for 10 new Falcon 9 first stages in 2020. There is a need for at least 6 new boosters due to FH requirements for 2021, 3 of which are probably already built (64-66).
Where do you get the target to build 10 in 2020?
They have build 1060-1066, with 1066 unseen. That is 7, so either they already also build 1067-1069 (FH too?), or they fell short of their target.
Somehow the test flow in McGregor seems halted for S1’s as none have been seen vertical there since the arrival of presumably 1065.
And no other has been reported being transported. Interesting.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/12/20/spacex-poised-to-accelerate-launch-cadence-with-series-of-starlink-missions/
Quote
The company says it plans to build around 10 new Falcon 9 first stages in Hawthorne next year. That’s down from around 16 to 18 new first stages that SpaceX manufactured a couple of years ago.

B1064 was seen in McGregor in September. Everything past that is unconfirmed.

There has a been a lot of testing at McGregor, it’s just that there are more restrictions there and people are unable to get close enough for booster confirmation.

A booster was spotted horizontal on Nov 10, and a new booster left Hawthorne and should’ve arrived around Nov 20. That might’ve been B1067.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jakusb on 12/21/2020 02:37 pm
I looked up on US launches posted by Salo a few hours ago.  SpaceX has 39 scheduled for 2021.  Two of which are orbital Starships.  There were 2 or 3 Falcon Heavies, don't remember exactly right now.  This is more than all others combined.  Most of which are Starlink launches. 

How many used boosters are still in use?  How many new boosters will they make?  I know they have to make new FH cores if they can't manage to save them.

SpaceX is targeting 48 launches for 2021. The priority is NSSL and NASA launches, followed by commercial launches. Starlink will launch in any available gaps.

B1049 - Reprocessing (mid Jan)
B1051 - ASDS unloading (late-Jan)
B1058 - Reprocessing (late-Jan)
B1059 - LZ-1 (early Feb)
B1060 - Turksat 5A
B1063 - Reprocessing (mid-Jan)

B1061 - Reserved Crew-2
B1062 - Reserved GPS III SV05

B1064 FH
B1065 FH
B1066 FH

The plan was for 10 new Falcon 9 first stages in 2020. There is a need for at least 6 new boosters due to FH requirements for 2021, 3 of which are probably already built (64-66).
Where do you get the target to build 10 in 2020?
They have build 1060-1066, with 1066 unseen. That is 7, so either they already also build 1067-1069 (FH too?), or they fell short of their target.
Somehow the test flow in McGregor seems halted for S1’s as none have been seen vertical there since the arrival of presumably 1065.
And no other has been reported being transported. Interesting.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/12/20/spacex-poised-to-accelerate-launch-cadence-with-series-of-starlink-missions/
Quote
The company says it plans to build around 10 new Falcon 9 first stages in Hawthorne next year. That’s down from around 16 to 18 new first stages that SpaceX manufactured a couple of years ago.

B1064 was seen in McGregor in September. Everything past that is unconfirmed.

There has a been a lot of testing at McGregor, it’s just that there are more restrictions there and people are unable to get close enough for booster confirmation.

A booster was spotted horizontal on Nov 10, and a new booster left Hawthorne and should’ve arrived around Nov 20. That might’ve been B1067.

How do you make that nov20 booster 1067?
Boosters being transported have, sofar, almost always been spotted somewhere along the route.
In L2 we have information implying that since 1064 no booster has been vertical on the test stand there, where 1064 is also implied, as I believe there is no photo yet of the booster explicitly showing 64.
So either several boosters have been transported unseen, and tested at McGregor unseen, and in the very short windows in where there were no eyes on the test stand, I have to conclude that 1065 is at McGregor and 1066+ are all still at Hawthorne.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachS09 on 12/21/2020 02:43 pm
The 3 scheduled Falcon Heavy missions for 2021 have been eating up booster production capacity in the last quarter of 2020 and may eat up significant launch operations capacity in 2021. Starlink will have LC-40 mostly to itself for the first half of the year for lack of customer payloads for mid/low-inclination F9 launches, but LC-39A is going to be tied up for chunks of the year, and those FH missions will require both droneships, which will block Starlink missions from the other pad. FH is a bit of a cadence-killer for the Cape operations.

Fortunately, behind those three FH boosters on the production line, there should be badly-needed F9 boosters to replenish the fleet, hopefully by springtime. They need to replace the two life-leader boosters that are approaching well-deserved retirements, and they need to replace the two boosters which were unexpectedly lost in 2020.

To be honest, I'm tired of B1052 and B1053 being stuck in storage for a year and a half. They only have two flights under their belts and have had all those opportunities to get up to where B1049 and B1051 are right now.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/21/2020 02:44 pm
Quote
SpaceX is targeting 48 launches for 2021.
Yes, I heard this too. However I doubt they can get close to such target.

You need to look at the launch cadence in November and December after Elon’s site visit. There is a new drive to speed things up with overnight operations, faster payload processing, and more hiring for refurbishment and LV integration.

November already demonstrated that 4 launches a month is doable, and 5 should be sustainable if you consider current pad turnaround times at around 9 days and 12 days.

Don’t forget that 2020 has been full of anomalies  such as COVID-19, several engine issues, and significant launch delays from customers. The target for 2020 was 38, and that would’ve been reachable.

I concur that the current constraint is booster availability, and I believe that booster production has increased as a result of NSSL2, Starlink launches, Artemis, the FH backlog, and recovery losses.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 12/21/2020 02:55 pm
And as for pads... it was once said SX were aiming for 24hr turn around.
In fact, that goal was reiterated in the most recent launch broadcast.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: smoliarm on 12/21/2020 05:34 pm
...

From your graph Oct Nov Dec, ballpark average is about 8 days between launches. 365/8 =~ 45 Launches per year.

...

Well, they can launch 10 missions in 3 months, there is no doubt about it.
But classic proportion - which works so nice in arithmetic - just does not work here.
Unfortunately...
Yes, [10 missions / 3 months * 12 months] = 40 missions per year
- that's true in theoretical math,
but in real life -
you typically have - sometimes:
- bad weather (up to hurricane season)
- bad luck - all fashions and colors - on your side, or supplier side, or customer side, range side etc.
- and don't forget about NASA's missions and USSF missions which always have priority.

Bottom line:
Add September 2020 (with a single launch) to the last quarter 2020 (with 10 launches) - and you'll get more realistic estimate.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/21/2020 05:41 pm
...

From your graph Oct Nov Dec, ballpark average is about 8 days between launches. 365/8 =~ 45 Launches per year.

...

Well, they can launch 10 missions in 3 months, there is no doubt about it.
But classic proportion - which works so nice in arithmetic - just does not work here.
Unfortunately...
Yes, [10 missions / 3 months * 12 months] = 40 missions per year
- that's true in theoretical math,
but in real life -
you typically have - sometimes:
- bad weather (up to hurricane season)
- bad luck - all fashions and colors - on your side, or supplier side, or customer side, range side etc.
- and don't forget about NASA's missions and USSF missions which always have priority.

Bottom line:
Add September 2020 (with a single launch) to the last quarter 2020 (with 10 launches) - and you'll get more realistic estimate.

Consider that October-December already had many delays for weather, as well as delays from customers, range delays from ULA, and engine issues that forced more delays.

If anything, that period is as real as it gets.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/21/2020 05:54 pm
Consider that October-December already had many delays for weather, as well as delays from customers, range delays from ULA, and engine issues that forced more delays.

If anything, that period is as real as it gets.

Yep, and those things come up all the time right, so they need to drive for every opportunity they can and fill things with Starlinks.  One never knows when weather, payload issue or pandemic impacts things.

48 is possible, with some luck.  They probably need to be trying for launch at least every 6-7 days and those impacts will slow you down.

It's going to be a hard push for sure, Vandenberg will have to do some lifting for sure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: kdhilliard on 12/21/2020 09:45 pm
The 3 scheduled Falcon Heavy missions for 2021 ...

Three Falcon Heavies for 2021?
I only see two on our manifest (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43418.0): USSF-44 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47474.0) (2021 late spring) & USSF-52 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45886.0) (2021).
What is number three?

And are neither of the two (none of the three?) expected to RTLS the side boosters?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/21/2020 10:30 pm
The 3 scheduled Falcon Heavy missions for 2021 ...

Three Falcon Heavies for 2021?
I only see two on our manifest (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43418.0): USSF-44 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47474.0) (2021 late spring) & USSF-52 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45886.0) (2021).
What is number three?

And are neither of the two (none of the three?) expected to RTLS the side boosters?

USSF-44 will recover both side boosters via ASDS. Probably all three for USSF-52.

There is the possibility of a Viasat-3 launch in Q4 2021, but unconfirmed. It is likely to recover all boosters.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 12/22/2020 02:47 am
Recent NLS II contract mods:
Quote
NASA LAUNCH SERVICES II - MOD 146: Revises the launch dates for IXPE, IMAP, Psyche and Sentinel-6 missions.  Also, to adds funding.

(MOD 145)NASA LAUNCH SERVICES II - SPACE EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGIES.  This modification is to add a Non-Standard Service (NSS) 27.1 CLA for the Psyche/Janus Mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/22/2020 06:27 pm
Quote
SpaceX is targeting 48 launches for 2021.
Yes, I heard this too. However I doubt they can get close to such target.
Below I attached graph showing SpaceX cadence during 2020 in the form "Date vs # days between launches".
Assuming SpaceX was REALLY busy with Dragon Crew DM2 in the first months of 2020, therefore they had slow launch cadence in this period.
So I calculated the average tempo for the rest of the year - from June to Dec. It gives 11.3 days between launches on average, which translates in (365/11.3) = 32.3 launches per year.
This is what one should expect IF SpaceX will keep the pace.
As we see from this year scheduling history, the launch tempo depends on (1) number of cores in rotation and on (2) refurbishing time.
As far as we can see, the refurbishing time remained the same during 2020
The number of cores did not go up significantly, as two new cores turned as GPS/Crew-assigned.
Actually one could expect number of cores will go down when B1049 and B1051 reach 10 flights. At that point SpaceX may want to take the core out of rotation for overhaul.

Bottom line - I don't see a way to boost the flight rate 50% up.
And to be honest - the flight rate of one launch every 11 days - that's already awesome !!
 ;)
You have your graphs.  I have mine. :)
As for the line bolded above, my calculations include the annualized pace for the last ten launches.
As of the Dec 17 launch of NROL-108 it was 34.7, vs your 32.3 for the last half of the year.
48 launches is barely more than a third higher than that. :P  [/sarcasm]

Edit: Seems that to get to 48 launches per year SpaceX needs more out of VAFB or another east coast pad, more HIF capacity and a 3rd ASDS, a 4th ASDS if they move one to the west coast.

With all the things that can delay launches, then to get to 48 launches a year we'll eventually see 2 launches scheduled within 24-48 hours of each other on a routine basis. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 12/22/2020 07:37 pm
Quote
SpaceX is targeting 48 launches for 2021.
Yes, I heard this too. However I doubt they can get close to such target.
Below I attached graph showing SpaceX cadence during 2020 in the form "Date vs # days between launches".
Assuming SpaceX was REALLY busy with Dragon Crew DM2 in the first months of 2020, therefore they had slow launch cadence in this period.
So I calculated the average tempo for the rest of the year - from June to Dec. It gives 11.3 days between launches on average, which translates in (365/11.3) = 32.3 launches per year.
This is what one should expect IF SpaceX will keep the pace.
As we see from this year scheduling history, the launch tempo depends on (1) number of cores in rotation and on (2) refurbishing time.
As far as we can see, the refurbishing time remained the same during 2020
The number of cores did not go up significantly, as two new cores turned as GPS/Crew-assigned.
Actually one could expect number of cores will go down when B1049 and B1051 reach 10 flights. At that point SpaceX may want to take the core out of rotation for overhaul.

Bottom line - I don't see a way to boost the flight rate 50% up.
And to be honest - the flight rate of one launch evry 11 days - that's already awesome !!
 ;)
You have your graphs.  I have mine. :)
As for the line bolded above, my calculations include the annualized pace for the last ten launches.
As of the Dec 17 launch of NROL-108 it was 34.7, vs your 32.3 for the last half of the year.
48 launches is barely more than a third higher than that. :P  [/sarcasm]

{edit: Reposted with better version of graph after wannamoonbase's reply }
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 12/23/2020 01:25 am
Quote
SpaceX is targeting 48 launches for 2021.
Bottom line - I don't see a way to boost the flight rate 50% up.
And to be honest - the flight rate of one launch evry 11 days - that's already awesome !! ;)
You have your graphs.  I have mine. :)
As for the line bolded above, my calculations include the annualized pace for the last ten launches.
As of the Dec 17 launch of NROL-108 it was 34.7, vs your 32.3 for the last half of the year.
48 launches is barely more than a third higher than that. :P  [/sarcasm]

{edit: Reposted with better version of graph after wannamoonbase's reply }

Both some reasonable and data-driven arguments. At the same time, if we assume that a single launch in September was an outlier, as it certainly appears to be, SpaceX launched 10 times in Q4 2020 or once every 9.1 days, which averages out to 40.1 launches annually.

And that's despite the fact that there was only one Starlink launch total in two of those three months. IMHO, the high-30s or low-40s are well within reach in 2021, though that's obviously only the case if there are no major hiccups. I'd go so far as to say that had there had been no Starlink-4 landing failure, Starlink-5 engine-out/landing failure, or GPS III SV04 static fire anomaly, 2020 may have easily reached the low 30s.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: smoliarm on 12/23/2020 08:59 am
Quote
At the same time, if we assume that a single launch in September was an outlier, as it certainly appears to be

Yes, statistically - the September point is an outlier - there is no doubt about it.
But the bitter truth is: we WILL have such "outliers" - from time to time - inevitably.
It represents the fundamental Law of Nature which says that "life is full of unpredictable events", or "C'est la vie" in French.
Or in plain English - "Shit Happens".
And it always looks like "outlier", but these outliers will happen more or less systematically.
There are hundreds of causes for delays, and most of them are quite unique and would not repeat in decades - but two or three WILL happen on the scale of a given year. Just because there are hundreds of them out there :)

Also - an important note:
Beside these hundreds of causes for delays with unique nature - there are a few with SYSTEMATIC  nature, e.g. - hurricane season. There are heavy hurricanes hitting Cape and sometimes they cause pretty long stand-downs.
Another example - winter storms in Atlantic, which may not affect Delta or Atlas launches at all, but they WILL affect ASDS operations for Falcons.

Strictly statistically:
If SpaceX had 10 launches in 3 months - and historically it's a rare (or lucky) event -
- one MUST assume probability less-than-1 for the repetition of this event. Let's call this probability "P(q)".
Now, if we want 40 launches in a year - we NEED this lucky event happen FOUR TIMES IN A ROW.
The probability of such year-long string - P(y) - will be equal to P(q)^4.
That's the bitter truth -
P(y) = P(q)^4
(yes, statistics is a bitch)

or in plain numbers
P(q) = 0.80
P(y) = 0.41
or
even if P(q) is quite high = 0.90
P(y) = 0.66

The bottom line:
If you take SHORT period with the best performance and propagate it to a much longer period - you are bound for some disappointment (statistically bound).
What it's gonna be in numbers? - hard to tell :)
This is why we use CI (confidence intervals) marked with "±".
So judging from the available data, next year SpaceX will have 33 ± 4 launches of Falcons (both 9s and Heavies) - if no major bad thing happen.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: DistantTemple on 12/23/2020 11:10 am
Quote
At the same time, if we assume that a single launch in September was an outlier, as it certainly appears to be

Yes, statistically - the September point is an outlier - there is no doubt about it.
But the bitter truth is: we WILL have such "outliers" - from time to time - inevitably.
It represents the fundamental Law of Nature which says that "life is full of unpredictable events", or "C'est la vie" in French.
Or in plain English - "Shit Happens".
And it always looks like "outlier", but these outliers will happen more or less systematically.
There are hundreds of causes for delays, and most of them are quite unique and would not repeat in decades - but two or three WILL happen on the scale of a given year. Just because there are hundreds of them out there :)

Also - an important note:
Beside these hundreds of causes for delays with unique nature - there are a few with SYSTEMATIC  nature,
snip...

Strictly statistically:

Snip...
The bottom line:
If you take SHORT period with the best performance and propagate it to a much longer period - you are bound for some disappointment (statistically bound).
What it's gonna be in numbers? - hard to tell :)
This is why we use CI (confidence intervals) marked with "±".
So judging from the available data, next year SpaceX will have 33 ± 4 launches of Falcons (both 9s and Heavies) - if no major bad thing happen.

(my snips of maths etc...)
All of what is said is of itself valid. However you are talking about it all as if its a static situation, and the risks and response of SpaceX to that risk are both constant.
Elon is strongly driving the whole of his space program towards the "airline like" reliability he frequently touts. We see his success in his other businesses, and his success with SpaceX has seen it move from a joke to the premier world launch business. (IMO). There is not much reason to think he will now rest on his laurels, and coast on F9's current cadence. Conversely it seems his attention has returned to the bottle necks in the F9 system.

When we pick the best 3 months from the data, we didn't cherry pick from the whole year, but took the last three, which arguably show SX's latest and most improved performance. One reason that is the best, is that more of SX's systems are optimised.

If we assume (as you implied) that this is the best possible then the disruptions like hurricane, landing weather, accidents, competitors, etc will at times make this cadence unobtainable. However that is an incorrect assumption.

For example, if SX had enough boosters ready to fly, pad turn around and readiness down to 48 hrs, and payload processing and encapsulation lined up smoothly, they could take advantage of good weather and no range contention to get 6 launches off in two weeks!  Then outliers, ULA's hogging the range, or some bad weather might destry the month's figures, but not the year. This is not outrageous, it is the sort of turn around SX has said they are aiming for. SX also have the need for it as they have al least a year before SS will be launching Starlink, and they want to get the constellation up as fast as they can manufacture the satellites.

The "best period" of the last 10 weeks, is the best because they DID have the payloads, and boosters ready. Earlier in the year like the 1st 1/4 they didn't. Therefore these last 10 weeks are MORE representative of their performance than earlier in the year.

(Also some SL from VAFB will increase overall cadence)

Conclusion. SpaceX will significantly improve on its best period by streamlining its processing, and removing bottlenecks. This will allow for some disruption. Overall Sx will increase its cadence greatly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 12/23/2020 12:39 pm
I’m going to suggest that discussion about the number of flights in 2021 should continue with the poll here:

POLL: Number of SpaceX orbital flights in 2021
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52633.0
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/04/2021 08:46 pm
Quote
Gwynne Shotwell talks about selling flight-proven rockets, Starship
"It was easier to sell 'flight proven' to customers than it was to sell Falcons."

ERIC BERGER - 1/4/2021, 8:45 PM

SpaceX enjoyed its most successful year in 2020. Amidst the pandemic, the company set a record for total number of launches: 26. All met their objectives. The Crew Dragon spacecraft flew humans—Doug Hurley and Bob Behnken—into orbit for the first time. And then it did so again, with the Crew-1 mission in November. SpaceX also made demonstrable progress on its next-generation Starship launch system.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/gwynne-shotwell-talks-about-selling-flight-proven-rockets-starship/

Some discussion in the article of SpaceX selling Starship to customers includes:

Quote
"We have signed deals where we can pick whether it's a Falcon or a Starship,"
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 01/04/2021 09:32 pm
B1051.7 is the only other booster that would be remotely available. A launch on Nov 28 would mean a new booster turnaround record of 41 days. Possible payloads are SXM-7 or Starlink v1.0 L16.

Not SXM-7. B1049 and B1051 are destined to fly Starlink the rest of their life. I dunno why you keep insisting they will take on commercial payloads.

Most of the posts saying how wrong I was about commercial launches have mysteriously disappeared. But here is a quote from Shotwell saying how it works:

Quote
Unless a customer has a strong argument one way or the other, the decision on what booster to use is left up to SpaceX. "You're buying a launch service, and we will provide you the best vehicle that we can in the timeframe that you need to fly," she said. "And we basically put the control for the most part in our hands."
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/gwynne-shotwell-talks-about-selling-flight-proven-rockets-starship/

Which jives with what I’ve been saying for months:
Commercial contracts are very different from government launch contracts. NASA, USSF, and NRO pay extra (a lot extra) to have control over all aspects of a launch. That results in a lot of specifics around workflow, testing requirements, and booster selection.  They can basically veto any decision because they’ve bought that right.

My understanding is that commercial contracts are based more on deliverables. Basically that SpaceX will utilize F9 to deliver this payload to this orbit on such date, with allowable delays for weather, governmental priority launches, etc.

SX has typically had control over which booster to use, because to have that specified so far out when the contract is signed cuts down on flexibility. If the customer wants control, they pay for it, which commercial customers tend not to do.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 01/05/2021 06:50 pm
https://twitter.com/julia_bergeron/status/1346503659996274690

Maintenance on OCISLY could affect launch cadence, might delay Transporter-1
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: SMS on 01/08/2021 10:16 am
https://twitter.com/SpaceNosey/status/1347469151565197312
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 01/12/2021 08:18 pm
As much as I hate to do it, I may end up changing the Starlink mission thread titles to something like "Starlink (17) v1.0 L16" again.  It gets confusing because SpaceX still (usually) uses the "17th Starlink Mission" nomenclature with the media for the missions, and there are those upcoming missions with a different name on the FCC permits.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 01/12/2021 08:30 pm
As much as I hate to do it, I may end up changing the Starlink mission thread titles to something like "Starlink (17) v1.0 L16" again.  It gets confusing because SpaceX still (usually) uses the "17th Starlink Mission" nomenclature with the media for the missions, and there are those upcoming missions with a different name on the FCC permits.

Most space launch websites are using the “Starlink v1.0 L16” nomenclature. It’s on Wikipedia and most people understand and pick it up pretty quickly.

I suspect the RF mission names are placeholders like the previous “Mission 1xxx” format, or perhaps it will be “Starlink v1.1 L1”.

We can make a note of the total launch number in the first post. Would probably have to do it eventually anyway.

But for now let’s wait until SpaceX publishes their pre launch blurb for the first RF mission before we have to change thread title nomenclature.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: mandrewa on 01/12/2021 09:32 pm
As much as I hate to do it, I may end up changing the Starlink mission thread titles to something like "Starlink (17) v1.0 L16" again.  It gets confusing because SpaceX still (usually) uses the "17th Starlink Mission" nomenclature with the media for the missions, and there are those upcoming missions with a different name on the FCC permits.

I would just call it Starlink 17.  Let SpaceX decide what it wants to call their missions and go with that.  Besides this v1.0 L16 naming scheme is going to lead to more confusion down the road.

What happens when we get to v1.1?  Are we going to start counting from 1 again?  Given "v1.0 L16" that would certainly make sense.  But that also positively invites confusion.

Suppose the first version 1.1 batch is at Starlink 25.  The current naming scheme would mean going from v1.0 L24 to v1.1 L1.  And that would be logical if NasaSpaceFlight.com continues the convention that it has established.

But it would be less confusing and more straightforward to go from Starlink 24 to Starlink 25, which is almost certainly what SpaceX will do.  And then it will be merely a footnote that Starlink 25 was the first v1.1 batch, which is appropriate.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/12/2021 09:53 pm
As much as I hate to do it, I may end up changing the Starlink mission thread titles to something like "Starlink (17) v1.0 L16" again.  It gets confusing because SpaceX still (usually) uses the "17th Starlink Mission" nomenclature with the media for the missions, and there are those upcoming missions with a different name on the FCC permits.

I would just call it Starlink 17.  Let SpaceX decide what it wants to call their missions and go with that.  Besides this v1.0 L16 naming scheme is going to lead to more confusion down the road.

What happens when we get to v1.1?  Are we going to start counting from 1 again?  Given "v1.0 L16" that would certainly make sense.  But that also positively invites confusion.

Suppose the first version 1.1 batch is at Starlink 25.  The current naming scheme would mean going from v1.0 L24 to v1.1 L1.  And that would be logical if NasaSpaceFlight.com continues the convention that it has established.

But it would be less confusing and more straightforward to go from Starlink 24 to Starlink 25, which is almost certainly what SpaceX will do.  And then it will be merely a footnote that Starlink 25 was the first v1.1 batch, which is appropriate.

Here here, I favor just calling it Starlink X and not worrying about the V1.x
We could be headed into a period of Starlink rideshare, V1.0, whatever the RF ones are, polar etc.  It's going to get wild.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: niwax on 01/12/2021 10:30 pm
As much as I hate to do it, I may end up changing the Starlink mission thread titles to something like "Starlink (17) v1.0 L16" again.  It gets confusing because SpaceX still (usually) uses the "17th Starlink Mission" nomenclature with the media for the missions, and there are those upcoming missions with a different name on the FCC permits.

If they keep swapping numbers and versions around, why not use the SpaceX name and then add something like (v1 1260-1320)? Number of launches since v0.9 isn't that helpful when they start putting small numbers of Starlinks on all kinds of missions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 01/13/2021 12:26 am
A lot of the people asking for a change are simply saying the same thing: it’ll simplify things.

I would argue that the people who come to the forums are looking for more information, not less.  There is a reason virtually all sites that cater to space enthusiasts use this current format.

We use mission names instead of generic launch numbers for the same reason.

Spaceflight Now, NextSpaceFlight, Reddit, Wikipedia, etc. all use the current format. Unilaterally changing it actually adds to confusion because you’d be using a different format than everyone else.

When you’re looking at a list of dozens of launches, having differentiation is important. And do we really want to go back and start changing thread titles?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 01/13/2021 12:45 am
Spaceflight Now, NextSpaceFlight, Reddit, Wikipedia, etc. all use the current format. Unilaterally changing it actually adds to confusion because you’d be using a different format than everyone else.

We were one of the first sites to use the current format and drop the other numbering.  I'm not going to drop the detailed mission names. 

SpaceX uses different numbering (starting with the v0.9 flight) with the media and that's what you'll see in many news stories and social media posts.  Even our own media team ends up using those numbers when planning mission coverage because that's what they are called on the media attendance forms.  Long term it's probably less confusing to add SpaceX's media numbering in addition to the detailed mission name.

Part of the reason I had such antipathy towards the "17th Starlink Mission" numbering early on is that SpaceX hadn't publicly admitted the v0.9 satellites weren't part of the constellation, even though it was obvious they wouldn't be.  (It was also obvious that many SpaceXers were using the v1.0 numbers internally when they mentioned a flight number.)  Now that those test satellites are mostly gone and the numbers are getting bigger I'm a little more ambivalent about it. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: mandrewa on 01/13/2021 01:09 am
A lot of the people asking for a change are simply saying the same thing: it’ll simplify things.

I would argue that the people who come to the forums are looking for more information, not less.  There is a reason virtually all sites that cater to space enthusiasts use this current format.

We use mission names instead of generic launch numbers for the same reason.

Spaceflight Now, NextSpaceFlight, Reddit, Wikipedia, etc. all use the current format. Unilaterally changing it actually adds to confusion because you’d be using a different format than everyone else.

When you’re looking at a list of dozens of launches, having differentiation is important. And do we really want to go back and start changing thread titles?

I doubt it was Spaceflight Now that made this decision.  I doubt it was NextSpaceFlight that made this decision.  It certainly wasn't Wikipedia that made this decision, since the relevant Wikipedia entries are just a reflection of this community.

Very likely it was either at here or at Reddit that the decision was made to name things like this, and then that decision was copied elsewhere.  But regardless of the logic for naming a mission "Starlink v1.0 16", SpaceX doesn't describe it as such, and that is a constant source of confusion, and if we keep to this scheme, it's going to get even more confusing in the future, once new versions of Starlink come along, and it escapes me what the benefit is of doing things this way.

I'm not arguing for going back and rewriting all the past references up to now, but for simply giving into how SpaceX wishes to name things and using that, mostly, from now on.

For instance the next mission might be described as "Starlink 17 (v1.0 16)."   This should make it clear to everyone what is being described.  And if at some point later, say "Starlink 24 (v1.0 23)," the name is reduced to simply "Starlink 24" then hopefully everyone will have adjusted and know what is meant.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 01/13/2021 01:21 am
... simply giving into how SpaceX wishes to name things and using that, mostly, from now on.

The problem is we don’t know how SpaceX will name things going forward and whether it will be based on marketing versus facts.

There is a theory that they will start counting every launch that contains a Starlink satellite as a launch. Which sounds great from a marketing perspective, but illogical when you’re counting launches.

Call me conservative, but let’s wait and see how things play out over the next couple of weeks. We should be seeing the first Starlink launch after Transporter-1 at the end of January, and the first of the RF missions the first week of February. Let’s make changes after this period of uncertainty, rather than before.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/13/2021 01:49 pm
On a Falcon 9? Kudos to Bezos on donating money to a good cause and not attaching strings to it that just benefit himself. This is good to see!
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 01/13/2021 04:51 pm
On a Falcon 9? Kudos to Bezos on donating money to a good cause and not attaching strings to it that just benefit himself. This is good to see!
Could you maybe clarify the reference there?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/13/2021 05:01 pm
On a Falcon 9? Kudos to Bezos on donating money to a good cause and not attaching strings to it that just benefit himself. This is good to see!
Could you maybe clarify the reference there?
nothing at all in particular. im just saying that  it's good that bezos allowed them enough of a free hand to use the rocket of his competitor. sometimes donations by the very rich have strings attached so the donation ends up just helping the donor's financial  interests. or at least  that's the fear .

edit: looks like the post i was replying to was moved/deleted. reference to a methane observing satellite funded by bezos' climate charity
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Lar on 01/14/2021 01:47 am
On a Falcon 9? Kudos to Bezos on donating money to a good cause and not attaching strings to it that just benefit himself. This is good to see!
Could you maybe clarify the reference there?
nothing at all in particular. im just saying that  it's good that bezos allowed them enough of a free hand to use the rocket of his competitor. sometimes donations by the very rich have strings attached so the donation ends up just helping the donor's financial  interests. or at least  that's the fear .

edit: looks like the post i was replying to was moved/deleted. reference to a methane observing satellite funded by bezos' climate charity
Thanks.

I think this might be the story?  https://cosmiclog.com/2021/01/13/rival-billionaires-both-play-roles-in-methanesat/

There are probably other sources...
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 01/14/2021 02:15 am
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1349361110135222272

Quote
The Environmental Defense Fund says its Earth observing MethaneSat will launch on a Falcon 9 rocket in October, 2022. The satellite and its launch will largely be paid for by a $100 million grant from the Bezos Earth Fund.

Robotbeat posted a response in the Manifest Updates thread, so a moderator moved it out.

There is now a discussion thread for MethaneSat.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52787.0
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: PM3 on 01/16/2021 10:39 am
Gwynne Shotwell said two weeks ago:

Quote
We have signed deals where we can pick whether it's a Falcon or a Starship
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/gwynne-shotwell-talks-about-selling-flight-proven-rockets-starship/

This means that for 2022+ SpaceX launch contracts that do not reportedly include a Falcon rocket, it cannot be assumed that they will be fulfilled with a Falcon.

Is there any more information about launch contracts that include this Starship option for SpaceX? Did any customer come out with that?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: SMS on 01/20/2021 02:43 pm
https://twitter.com/SpaceNosey/status/1351912449038024709
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 01/24/2021 02:05 am
Korea made an ITU filing for KPLO on January 12.  It doesn't really have any useful information unless you're really into antenna plots, but good to see that project is still going.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: SMS on 01/24/2021 05:16 pm
https://twitter.com/SpaceNosey/status/1353401031191891973
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 01/24/2021 05:46 pm
Updated graph after today's SXM-7 launch
A new record: 26 launches within the last 12 months (366 days)
If CRS-2 Flight 21 has not been delayed by a day SpaceX would have hit this mark last week.
The last ten launches have gone at a pace equivalent to almost 35 per year.
Food for thought for the upcoming annual prediction poll for the number of orbital launches in 2021.
(If anyone has a better place for these posts, please suggest it, probably by PM rather than clogging the thread.)

Updated graph after today's Transporter launch
Another new record: 27 launches within the last 12 months
The last ten launches have gone at a pace equivalent to over 40 per year.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 01/24/2021 05:52 pm
The last ten launches have gone at a pace equivalent to over 40 per year.

The launch cadence will actually increase during February and March due to being primarily Starlink launches and not having that holiday gap. There is much more control and the ability to cut corners. Also the reduced 35 day turnaround thanks to Elon’s initiatives.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/24/2021 08:23 pm
The last ten launches have gone at a pace equivalent to over 40 per year.

The launch cadence will actually increase during February and March due to being primarily Starlink launches and not having that holiday gap. There is much more control and the ability to cut corners. Also the reduced 35 day turnaround thanks to Elon’s initiatives.
But the three items controlling the pace are:

1- The number of boosters is 5 in the rotation. 11 more launches will advance 2 boosters to 10 each when the max pace is performed. 10 launches starting 1 Feb over a period of 70 days minimum or ~10 weeks. One launch a week on average maximum.
2- The minimum cycle time Launch to Launch for a booster is 35 days. But it could be more leaving an average of from 37 to 40 days for this cycle time. See next item.
3- The minimum pad recycle time is 9 to 11 days for a Starlink launch depending on pad. Same for a Cargo D2. For all the others ~14 days. The pad cycle time for all launches is 14 days or less and with 2 pads gives a easy 1 a week launch rate. So the maximum rate defined by booster availability can be achieved without any additional effort than normal.

Note once the 2 reuse leading booster reach 10 each ther is a ? on whether they will continue launching after a significant inspection and some refurbishment. Such as replacement of some parts that have been superseded by updated ones on the latest boosters possibly even including new engines. For engines it is the carbon soot buildup primarily. If it is determined that the soot buildup is not as sever as predicted and the engines are in good shape the engines may not be replaced after a through inspection. In this case the boosters could be back in rotation in as little as 60 days Launch to Launch from their 10th flight.

So the next two months at max possible launch rates would have Feb with 3 launches (due to booster availability) and Mar with 3 or 4 Starlink launches with possibly 1 non-Starlink along with a low possibility of also a Crew Dragon flight which is on it's for now dedicated booster held out of the normal readiness que.

Which could result in total number of flights for Q1 2021 at 10 to 12. Note a sustained flight rate of 12 per quarter would result in 48 launches for the year.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachF on 01/25/2021 04:12 pm
Interesting factoid: In adjusted tonnage to orbit, it looks like SpaceX will have likely already beaten last year's totals for ULA or Arianespace (ex Soyuz) by early to mid February!  :o
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 01/26/2021 06:18 pm
Confirmed:

Jan 30 LC-39A
B1049.8 - Starlink v1.0 L17
66 days Nov 25-Jan 30

Feb 04 SLC-40
B1059.6? - Starlink v1.0 L18
47 days Dec 19-Feb 04


Unconfirmed:

Feb 11 LC-39A
B1060.5 - Starlink v1.0 L19
35 days Jan7-Feb 11
Starlink v1.0 L19

Feb 24
B1051.9 - Starlink v1.0 L20
35 days Jan20-Feb 24

Feb 28
B1058.6 - Starlink v1.0 L21
35 days Jan 24-Feb28


There is an outside chance of 4 launches in February based on the new best case 35 day turnaround. I’m not saying that this will happen, just plotting out the possibility.

This is all based on the assumption that B1063 is on the west coast and there aren’t any NROL-108 type fastball launches thrown in. Also an outside chance of a Vandenburg launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/26/2021 06:35 pm
A flurry of Starlinks, I like it.

That would be a ton of additional on orbit capacity. 

Bye bye Better than nothing Beta, hello commercial operation.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 01/26/2021 06:51 pm
A flurry of Starlinks, I like it.

That would be a ton of additional on orbit capacity. 

Bye bye Better than nothing Beta, hello commercial operation.


I’m predicting at least 10-15 Starlink launches in the first half of 2021.

The rationale for that is simple. SpaceX can easily launch 4 flights a month with its current rate of booster reprocessing. However, there are only 7-8 external launches booked for 1H 2021. Three Starlink launches a month would fill that gap.

There is a huge demand for Starlink, and they will need a lot of capacity to meet that demand, which is reflected in the chart below.

Currently, there is a backlog of at least 720 Starlink satellites waiting to be launched.

With at least 16 external launches in 2H 2021 planned, the time to launch is sooner rather than later.

Pretty much as I predicted almost two months ago. 1H on the manifest is wide open versus 2H.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/26/2021 06:57 pm
A flurry of Starlinks, I like it.

That would be a ton of additional on orbit capacity. 

Bye bye Better than nothing Beta, hello commercial operation.


I’m predicting at least 10-15 Starlink launches in the first half of 2021.

The rationale for that is simple. SpaceX can easily launch 4 flights a month with its current rate of booster reprocessing. However, there are only 7-8 external launches booked for 1H 2021. Three Starlink launches a month would fill that gap.

There is a huge demand for Starlink, and they will need a lot of capacity to meet that demand, which is reflected in the chart below.

Currently, there is a backlog of at least 720 Starlink satellites waiting to be launched.

With at least 16 external launches in 2H 2021 planned, the time to launch is sooner rather than later.

Pretty much as I predicted almost two months ago. 1H on the manifest is wide open versus 2H.

100% your analysis on 1H is right on.  2H from the east coast is tight.  But they could shift Starlink activity to the west coast in 2H and put all the Polar birds up this year.

I agree the demand for Starlink is gigantic and increasingly global.  Global is kind of big.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/31/2021 01:32 am
There is a possible patter that could emerge over the next month of Feb and Mar. And that is that every ~14 days SpaceX would do Starlink launch followed a couple of days later by another Starlink launch. Thereby utilizing the two fairing catchers in one deployment. A 14 day spacing for a launch from a specific pad plus for a specific ASDS would be about the best possible launch rate achievable. It also after 2 months would then run into another problem of booster availability restricting launch rate back down but also into April other non Starlink launches also complicate the usage of this launch pattern so it would only exist for 4 or at most 5 clusters of Starlink launches L17/18, L19/20, L21/22, and L23/24. 8 launches over 2 months or 11 for the quarter. Also note that if this pattern holds that booster 1051 will fly not only 9 th time but also a 10th time. A VAFB launch in the quarter would make it 12. The next quarter (Apr, May, Jun) may see a drop in the total to under 10 due to booster availability and payload schedules. Note that a Crew 2 is showing a April 20 date. Also there is a possible range complication with the Starliner launch in late March on the neighboring 41 pad to 40. This may cause any Starlink launches in the last week of March move into April.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 01/31/2021 04:17 am
There is a possible patter that could emerge over the next month of Feb and Mar. And that is that every ~14 days SpaceX would do Starlink launch followed a couple of days later by another Starlink launch. Thereby utilizing the two fairing catchers in one deployment. A 14 day spacing for a launch from a specific pad plus for a specific ASDS would be about the best possible launch rate achievable.

The best rate launch cadence from SLC-40 without a static fire is theoretically around 7-8 days. There are other ships that can recover  fairings out of the water. I don’t see SpaceX waiting an extra week on launches just to catch fairings.

If you look at the best case scenario a few posts above, they are already booster constrained in mid February.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/31/2021 04:53 am
There is a possible patter that could emerge over the next month of Feb and Mar. And that is that every ~14 days SpaceX would do Starlink launch followed a couple of days later by another Starlink launch. Thereby utilizing the two fairing catchers in one deployment. A 14 day spacing for a launch from a specific pad plus for a specific ASDS would be about the best possible launch rate achievable.

The best rate launch cadence from SLC-40 without a static fire is theoretically around 7-8 days. There are other ships that can recover  fairings out of the water. I don’t see SpaceX waiting an extra week on launches just to catch fairings.

If you look at the best case scenario a few posts above, they are already booster constrained in mid February.
The problem is a combination of booster availability, ASDS cycle time, Pad cycle time, faring catchers cycle time, and not to forget weather which is a wild card. Plus after 11 more launches that includes L17 launch, 2 boosters out of the 5 available will have reach 10 flights each. What happens then is a ???. But the pattern is one that can save a little time and money for SpaceX if managed correctly. It ends with an average launch rate of 1 launch a week. But only can be kept up for 11 more weeks from now. After that with only 3 available boosters and a 35 day launch to launch for a booster. Those 3 boosters would only support 3 launches a month at best. After Crew 2 1061 may be added to the que so that in June there would be 4 boosters in rotation. The other question is the number of flights 10 and then a significant refurb or is the number flexible?

To many unknowns. But the main driver limiting in Feb and Mar to ~4 launches each month are booster availability even with a few 35 day launch to launch booster cycles.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: cpushack on 01/31/2021 07:07 am
It feels like a long time since we have seen a new built booster (out side of the FH ones)

Surely one or 2 should be coming out of Hawthorne soon?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 01/31/2021 08:28 am
It feels like a long time since we have seen a new built booster (out side of the FH ones)

Surely one or 2 should be coming out of Hawthorne soon?

My suspicion is that the Hawthorne facility is rolling out just upper stages lately. How else they keep up their current launch cadence. ;)
 
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 01/31/2021 08:38 am
It feels like a long time since we have seen a new built booster (out side of the FH ones)

Surely one or 2 should be coming out of Hawthorne soon?

There is speculation that B1067 will be a regular booster, with B1068-70 for another FH.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: cwr on 01/31/2021 07:00 pm
It feels like a long time since we have seen a new built booster (out side of the FH ones)

Surely one or 2 should be coming out of Hawthorne soon?

Pure speculation on my part, but given the projected shortage of boosters
projected in the near term and the next two FH vehicles will use all new cores,
I've wondered if 1052 and 1053 aren't due to be refurbished as F9 boosters?

18 months sitting idle seems like a long time!

Plus SpaceX is quite good at logistics planning  yet we've not heard rumours
about 1052 and 1053 in a long while.

Carl
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: mandrewa on 01/31/2021 08:01 pm
It feels like a long time since we have seen a new built booster (out side of the FH ones)

Surely one or 2 should be coming out of Hawthorne soon?

Pure speculation on my part, but given the projected shortage of boosters
projected in the near term and the next two FH vehicles will use all new cores,
I've wondered if 1052 and 1053 aren't due to be refurbished as F9 boosters?

18 months sitting idle seems like a long time!

Plus SpaceX is quite good at logistics planning  yet we've not heard rumours
about 1052 and 1053 in a long while.

Carl


That is what I've been thinking for some time.  I'm not even sure that there is an alternative.

1063.2 is the Vandenberg booster, and it should launch Sarah 1, Sarah 2/3, Dart, and then are plenty of other missions for it at Vandenberg after that.

1062.2 is dedicated to GPS III-5 and is not for the use of anything else in between.  The earliest it will be available for other missions is August.

1061.2 is dedicated to CCtCap Crew-2 and then CRS2 SpX-22 and the earliest it will become available for other missions is July.

That leaves five boosters, 1049.8, 1051.9, 1058.6, 1059.6, and 1060.5, for everything else, and they can support, based on the empirical evidence, three missions per month. 

Except that 1049 and 1051 are almost at the end of their planned life.  And then 1058 and 1059 aren't that far behind.

So where are the other boosters going to come from?  Well it wouldn't surprise me if 1067.1 is going to be put into this pool.  And I won't be at all surprised if 1049 and 1051 end up doing more than ten missions.  But I can't believe that SpaceX actually planned for that to happen.  It's more that it's great if it happens, but they didn't count on it happening.

So that leaves 1052.3 and 1053.3 which I suspect have been sidelined because SpaceX has some kind of contract to keep a Falcon Heavy set ready.  And I speculate that they will show up in use for other missions, once USSF-44 launches.

Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 01/31/2021 08:48 pm
Pure speculation on my part, but given the projected shortage of boosters
projected in the near term and the next two FH vehicles will use all new cores,
I've wondered if 1052 and 1053 aren't due to be refurbished as F9 boosters?

There is extensive debate about those particular boosters in the reusability subforum. I’m going to suggest that discussion continue over there, as it’s more appropriate than a launch manifest thread.

 Converting Falcon Heavy core/side boosters for regular launches
 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52154.0)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: PM3 on 02/03/2021 11:02 am
BTW how do we know the "L17" & "L18" designators are assigned to specific rockets/satellites and not sequential?

Those are the mission names they provide to the range.  They are on all of the planning documents (weather forecasts, hazard areas).

Further analysis shows that the rest of the naming scheme has been somewhat volatile. These are all from the weather reports:

- Starlink-1 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48983.msg2012858#msg2012858)
- StarlinkV1.0-L2 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49547.msg2031212#msg2031212)
- StarlinkV1.0-L3 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49765.msg2037495#msg2037495)
- StarlinkV1-L4 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49766.msg2045781#msg2045781)
- Starlink V1.0-L5 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50372.msg2058845#msg2058845)
- (no weather report preserverd for L6)
- Starlink L7 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50923.msg2094202#msg2094202)
- Starlink L8 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50923.msg2094202#msg2094202)
- Starlink L9 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51150.msg2098940#msg2098940)
- Mission Name (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51258.msg2120386#msg2120386)  ::)
- Starlink V1.0-L11 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51758.msg2125471#msg2125471)
- Starlink v1.0-L12 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51762.msg2131972#msg2131972)
- Starlink V1.0-L13 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51858.msg2143169#msg2143169)
- Starlink V1.0-L14 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52098.msg2143712#msg2143712)
- Starlink V1.0-L15 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52101.msg2155990#msg2155990)
- Starlink V1.0-L16 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52324.msg2178923#msg2178923)
- Starlink L17 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52511.msg2186863#msg2186863)
- Starlink L18 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52617.msg2187021#msg2187021)

Let's see if the version numbers were permanently dropped now or if they will return.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: SMS on 02/04/2021 10:02 am
https://twitter.com/SpaceNosey/status/1357263912782151681
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: hopalong on 02/04/2021 10:22 am
It feels like a long time since we have seen a new built booster (out side of the FH ones)

Surely one or 2 should be coming out of Hawthorne soon?

Pure speculation on my part, but given the projected shortage of boosters
projected in the near term and the next two FH vehicles will use all new cores,
I've wondered if 1052 and 1053 aren't due to be refurbished as F9 boosters?

18 months sitting idle seems like a long time!

Plus SpaceX is quite good at logistics planning  yet we've not heard rumours
about 1052 and 1053 in a long while.

Carl


That is what I've been thinking for some time.  I'm not even sure that there is an alternative.

1063.2 is the Vandenberg booster, and it should launch Sarah 1, Sarah 2/3, Dart, and then are plenty of other missions for it at Vandenberg after that.

1062.2 is dedicated to GPS III-5 and is not for the use of anything else in between.  The earliest it will be available for other missions is August.

1061.2 is dedicated to CCtCap Crew-2 and then CRS2 SpX-22 and the earliest it will become available for other missions is July.

That leaves five boosters, 1049.8, 1051.9, 1058.6, 1059.6, and 1060.5, for everything else, and they can support, based on the empirical evidence, three missions per month. 

Except that 1049 and 1051 are almost at the end of their planned life.  And then 1058 and 1059 aren't that far behind.

So where are the other boosters going to come from?  Well it wouldn't surprise me if 1067.1 is going to be put into this pool.  And I won't be at all surprised if 1049 and 1051 end up doing more than ten missions.  But I can't believe that SpaceX actually planned for that to happen.  It's more that it's great if it happens, but they didn't count on it happening.

So that leaves 1052.3 and 1053.3 which I suspect have been sidelined because SpaceX has some kind of contract to keep a Falcon Heavy set ready.  And I speculate that they will show up in use for other missions, once USSF-44 launches.

The planned life is in the order of 100 missions with 10 missions between major overhauls / inspections.

Will SpaceX pull one at 10 flights and completely disassemble it for a very deep inspection, then let the others go beyond 10 flights based on the results on that destructive inspection?   
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: SMS on 02/04/2021 11:04 am
After Starlink-18 launch:
Core   Mission      retry    Last flight
B1049   Starlink-19   7x           2020 Nov 24
B1051      ?                8x       2021 Jan 20
B1058      ?                5x       2021 Jan 24
B1059       ?             5x       2020 Dec 19
B1060       ?             5x       2021 Feb 4
B1061   Crew-2      1x       2020 Nov 16
B1062   GPS 3-5      1x       2020 Nov 05
B1063   DART      1x       2020 Nov 21
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: mandrewa on 02/04/2021 12:21 pm

The planned life is in the order of 100 missions with 10 missions between major overhauls / inspections.

Will SpaceX pull one at 10 flights and completely disassemble it for a very deep inspection, then let the others go beyond 10 flights based on the results on that destructive inspection?   

Yes.  But to put "100 missions with 10 missions between major overhauls/inspections" into what I think is the proper context, this was an aspirational goal.  It's not like the first boosters they make are actually expected to get to 100 uses.  But it was expected at the time that the statement was made that they were going to try to reach that goal with more development.

But this is all before Starship, aka BFR.  My interpretation of what Elon Musk said when he announced Starship as a very active goal was that they were going to stop putting development money into the Falcon 9.  Now as long as there is demand for the Falcon 9 they are going to keep making them, but that is the end of their commitment.

With Elon Musk you have to distinguish between statements about where are things now and what he is trying to reach.  He's always been very clear that Mars is the goal.  And to that end that was why he was pushing so hard to radically reduce the cost of the Falcon 9.  But once he realized that it just wasn't going to work, that even with the most optimistic assumptions the Falcon 9 was going to be too expensive -- for a Mars colony -- that was when he switched his energy to the Starship (called BFR back then) and when the aspirational statements about the Falcon 9 expired.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 02/05/2021 01:16 pm
https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/02/04/no-spacex-double-header-this-week-but-eastern-range-is-ready-for-two-launches-in-one-day/
Quote
Launch pads at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station and the Kennedy Space Center supported 31 rocket flights last year, and there are more than 50 missions scheduled in 2021, according to the 45th Space Wing, which oversees the unit commanded by Shoemaker and manages all Eastern Range launch operations on the Space Coast.

All those Starlink missions are adding up. Going to be a busy year!
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 02/13/2021 04:11 pm
https://ria.ru/20210212/spacex-1597241938.html
Google translate:
Quote
KIEV, February 12 - RIA Novosti. Ukraine is negotiating with SpaceX on the possibility of a joint launch in December of the Sich 2-30 remote sensing satellite, said Minister for Strategic Industries of the country Oleg Urusky.
Earlier, Urusky said that the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky ordered to launch the Sich 2-30 remote sensing satellite into low-earth orbit.
“We are working intensively with a potential company that provides launch services because it’s not that easy. It’s a foreign company. We actually have a window to launch the spacecraft in December with the help of the foreign operator SpaceX we are working with. I think in the near future time will become clear, "Urusky said on the air of the First Business TV channel.
According to him, today the satellite is "practically ready", it needs final analysis and verification of its readiness for launch.

Looking through other articles there is a little doubt cast on the satellite readiness, and it doesn't appear to be a signed contract yet, so not putting it on the manifest until it's finalized.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 02/16/2021 08:14 am
The loss of booster 1059 represents a significant setback to SpaceX’s goal of 48 launches and a rapid launch cadence in order to facilitate commercial Starlink operations in the first half of 2021.

The loss of 20% of their available booster capacity on the Eastern Range means that they will be booster constrained again, despite being able to turnaround some of their boosters in less than a month.

More troubling is that B1049 and B1051 are approaching their tenth flights, which could necessitate a substantial period of downtime for major refurbishment. This would likely be in the March/April timeframe, leaving only two boosters for Starlink launches.

I believe the company has contingencies to deal with this problem though, possibly put in place since the loss last year of B1048 and B1056.

These may include increased rate of F9 booster production, the use of B1063 on the east coast (if contractually possible), and conversion of Falcon Heavy side boosters.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: klod on 02/16/2021 09:08 am
I wonder what booster will use SpaceX for CRS-22.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Rebel44 on 02/16/2021 10:13 am
IMO, it would make sense for SpaceX to build up a slightly larger fleet of boosters if they want to launch 40+ times per year because some booster losses are likely to happen over time and some boosters might need a longer inspection/refurbishment after doing ~10 flights.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 02/16/2021 11:11 pm
Just had the new SMSR master schedule sent to me.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 02/17/2021 12:41 am
Just had the new SMSR master schedule sent to me.

Which is publicly available on the NASA site: https://sma.nasa.gov/sma-disciplines/smsr
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 02/17/2021 01:53 am
twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1361848375713296385

Quote
Commercial Crew tentative schedule, per latest NASA planning document. Note that these schedules are fairly fluid.

2021:
- OFT 2 - 3/25
- Crew 2 - 4/20
- Crew 1 Return - 5/1
- Crew 3 - 9/13
- Crew 2 Return - 9/27
- CFT - September

https://sma.nasa.gov/docs/default-source/sma-disciplines-and-programs/smsr/smsr-intergrated-master-schedule_24feb2020aab4a269d2a865b9a1a0ff0f003ca228.pdf?sfvrsn=8290faf8_18 (https://sma.nasa.gov/docs/default-source/sma-disciplines-and-programs/smsr/smsr-intergrated-master-schedule_24feb2020aab4a269d2a865b9a1a0ff0f003ca228.pdf?sfvrsn=8290faf8_18)

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1361848376568868868 (https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1361848376568868868)

Quote
2022:
- Crew 4 - 2/4
- Starliner 1 - 2/24 (Obviously, only Crew-4 or Starliner-1 will happen in this timeframe)
- Starliner-2 - 4/21
- Crew 5 - 8/15
- Starliner 3 - 12/14

2023:
- Crew 6 - 2/1

The schedule ends here, but more Starliner launches likely in 2023.

That answers a question from another thread a while ago.
It seemed like Boeing was going to be allied to “catch up” to SpaceX on the crew flights.
This says, to me, that Boeing can get into the regular rotation a year from now, if they are ready.
After that it will go back and forth between them.
I had worked out some convoluted logic about why Boeing would get to do several crew flights in a row, but it turns out that’s not the plan.
Seems fair enough.
It’s still got to be painful to their bottom line to be so far behind their plan.
But SpaceX, our subject here, will do quarterly flights until that time, then delay one flight and switch to semi-annual flights.
Also fair enough.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: marsbase on 02/17/2021 02:09 am
It’s still got to be painful to their bottom line to be so far behind their plan.
But SpaceX, our subject here, will do quarterly flights until that time, then delay one flight and switch to semi-annual flights.
Also fair enough.
They contracted for an initial number of flights each. When SpaceX has fulfilled that contract, they will be able to re-negotiate for flights after that.  I suspect SpaceX will increase its per flight charges to match those of Boeing in the first round of contracts.  That's what SpaceX did when negotiating a renewal of the ISS CRS2 agreement.  It's hard for NASA to argue that their price is too expensive, since they were willing to pay that amount to Boeing.  And if NASA wants two competing flight services, they don't have a lot of choice.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 02/17/2021 04:28 am
It’s still got to be painful to their bottom line to be so far behind their plan.
But SpaceX, our subject here, will do quarterly flights until that time, then delay one flight and switch to semi-annual flights.
Also fair enough.
They contracted for an initial number of flights each. When SpaceX has fulfilled that contract, they will be able to re-negotiate for flights after that.  I suspect SpaceX will increase its per flight charges to match those of Boeing in the first round of contracts.  That's what SpaceX did when negotiating a renewal of the ISS CRS2 agreement.  It's hard for NASA to argue that their price is too expensive, since they were willing to pay that amount to Boeing.  And if NASA wants two competing flight services, they don't have a lot of choice.

Those points are neither in dispute nor relevant to a discussion of SpaceX’s manifest. 
The point was in the last line: quarterly SpaceX Crew flights until Boeing gets certified.
There will be no long pause between Crew missions.
Both parties will fly out their minimum contracts and get extended.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: mandrewa on 02/17/2021 12:06 pm
It’s still got to be painful to their bottom line to be so far behind their plan.
But SpaceX, our subject here, will do quarterly flights until that time, then delay one flight and switch to semi-annual flights.
Also fair enough.
They contracted for an initial number of flights each. When SpaceX has fulfilled that contract, they will be able to re-negotiate for flights after that.  I suspect SpaceX will increase its per flight charges to match those of Boeing in the first round of contracts.  That's what SpaceX did when negotiating a renewal of the ISS CRS2 agreement.  It's hard for NASA to argue that their price is too expensive, since they were willing to pay that amount to Boeing.  And if NASA wants two competing flight services, they don't have a lot of choice.

I don't believe that is what happened.  I suspect SpaceX offered basically the same price for CRS2 as it did for CRS1, and here is the important part, for the same number of missions.  But NASA reduced the number of missions, or the pace at which they occur, for CRS2 and SpaceX's price went up accordingly, because a significant part of the cost of doing CRS each year is going to stay the same regardless of the number of missions.

Those fixed costs, or the fixed cost per year, now have to be spread over fewer missions.

NASA is making this trade, and I agree with their priorities, in order to bring Dream Chaser into the mix.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 03/07/2021 03:41 am
Cross-posts

Starlink v1.0 Flight 21:
There are 2 booster available for use for this flight: 1060.6 at 37 days L2L and 1051.9 at 52 days L2L.

Also even though the ambitious 9 day pad turnaround for 39A [March 4 to March 13] is possible in practice due to many obstacles it has been more like 11 to 14 days. Putting a more likely launch date as 15th to 18th.

Starlink v1.0 Flight 22:
For a flight in March there are 2 boosters available. But one of them them would be used by L21 leaving the other available to be used by L22.

The primary restriction is site resources. SpaceX Navy/ASDS availability and the pad turnaround of a nominal 11 to 14 days for a launch of ~24 March to the very end of March [from SLC-40]. Based on when L20 actually launches.

Starlink v1.0 Flight 23 and Crew 2; beyond:
There are sufficient boosters available for a launch of L21 ~18 Mar (39A), and of L22 on or just before 1 Apr (40).

But the next booster 1049.9 would not be available (assume L2L of 28 days) NET 2 Apr. But more likely 1049 would not be up and ready for another launch until 35-45 days or 7-17 Apr. Making it possible that it would likely launch on 10 Apr on (40) 10 days after launching L22 on (40) very late March.

But also by 6 Apr 1058.7 at 28 days L2L would possibly become available. So 2 boosters for L23 are likely to be available for a launch in first half of April.

[LC-39A may be unavailable,] because of the complication of launching early enough on 39A prior to the April 22 date for Crew 2. [With LC-39A being unavailable] and booster unavailability, [the L23 launch will] likely be [from SLC-40] on April 10 or even later.

[Beyond:]
It is likely only one launch from 39A (Crew 2) would occur in April.

But it is likely that a launch [of] L24 on 40 would happen 24 April or later [, again from SLC-40]. By then several boosters would be available.

[The] May launch schedule will not be as constrained and would likely have as many as 3 launches of Starlink (L25, L26 and L27) on both 39A and 40. With only [3] launches using the booster pool in April, there would be 2 boosters available at the beginning of May with a third by the middle to late May.

Edited by me, primarily for clarity, including [ ].
oldAtlas_Eguy, please contact me if I made errors.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 03/08/2021 02:54 pm
https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/03/03/launch-companies-range-officials-reassessing-weather-constraints-at-cape-canaveral/

Quote
Launch companies and U.S. Space Force range officials at Cape Canaveral are reassessing long-standing weather rules, looking at beefing up rocket defenses against lightning, and considering strategies to prepare for two different launch windows on a given day to guard against weather delays

Quote
The 45th Space Wing is eventually eyeing a switch to automated range scheduling to handle more requests from launch providers. Each range request currently takes “multiple hours of coordination” with security, safety, weather, and other teams, including the Federal Aviation Administration, which must help clear airspace over the launch site.

There have been a lot of changes recently to enable faster turnaround and recycling. Many more are being considered to prevent weather scrubs and mitigate the effects of weather.

For SpaceX Starlink launches, multiple launch windows on the same day might become standard.

This is a great article, suggest you give it a read.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 03/09/2021 02:10 am
https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/03/03/launch-companies-range-officials-reassessing-weather-constraints-at-cape-canaveral/

It's interesting that they're focusing a lot on lightning, I guess that's why they have a job opening for Lightning Direct and Indirect Effects Engineer, Senior (https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/4977363002?gh_jid=4977363002).
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 03/12/2021 02:33 am
Re: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52191.msg2191728#msg2191728

https://www.yuzhnoye.com/ua/press-center/news/copy_news_823.html
TECHNICAL MEETING ON URGENT ISSUES OF SICH-2-1 SPACECRAFT READINESS FOR LAUNCH IN 2021

Quote
March 11, 2021
On March 10, CB Pivdenne chaired by the Chairman of the State Tax Administration Volodymyr Taftay hosted a technical meeting of chief designers on urgent issues of readiness of the Sich-2-1 spacecraft for launch in 2021

The technical meeting was attended by representatives of co-contractors: SPE "Hartron-ARCOS LTD", SPE "Hartron-YUKOM", KP SPB "Arsenal", SPE SE "ZAO NDIRV", DNDP "CONNEX", as well as representatives of the National Center management and testing of spacecraft, the Ministry of Strategy and PGZ-DKAU.

After hearing and discussing the reports and speeches of the participants of the meeting on the current state of work, they noted that the work is being performed in full and in accordance with the approved General Schedule for the completion of the space system "Sich-2-1".

The issue of providing current funding for the Sich-2-1 project was also discussed. Given the necessary time to advance launch services, the technical meeting of chief designers appealed to the SCA and the Ministry of Strategy to make every effort to sign the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers on some issues of creating a space system "Sich-2-1".

Regarding the readiness of the spacecraft "Sich-2-1", at this time SE "CB" South "together with the cooperation of co-performers have already performed the following works:

- developed design documentation;

- conducted autonomous testing of subsystems;

- made a dimensional and dynamic model and conducted static and dynamic tests of spacecraft structures;

- manufactured and purchased components of the spacecraft of domestic and foreign production;

- assembled the flight model;

- performed 75% of work on the program of electroradiotechnical tests .
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: steveleach on 03/12/2021 07:06 am
Have we seen any evidence of the impact of the loss of B1059 on the 2021 schedule yet?

Will there even be any impact, or are they not significantly constrained by booster numbers?

Just curious.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 03/12/2021 09:35 am
Have we seen any evidence of the impact of the loss of B1059 on the 2021 schedule yet?

Will there even be any impact, or are they not significantly constrained by booster numbers?

We’re starting to see an impact in the end of March/early April timeframe. March would’ve likely been a five launch month if not for the loss of B1059.

A lot of boosters were held up due to the issues with B1049. Now that it has launched, those boosters are going up and SpaceX will be booster constrained again.

You can’t lose 20% of your Starlink launch capacity and not have an impact.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 03/13/2021 02:14 pm
Will there even be any impact, or are they not significantly constrained by booster numbers?

It appears that B1063 is being transported to Florida to support launch operations. Unconfirmed at this time, as the pictures aren’t conclusive.

With the delays to DART and other VAFB flights, it makes sense to use B1063 as a replacement and new build (B1070?) for west coast operations.

If it’s true, we could still see five launches in March.

Edit:  Confirmed by Michael Baylor

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1370400469479161860
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/13/2021 08:58 pm
It is likely that 1063 would arrive just after L21 launches from 39A. ~Mar 16 -17. It could then be used for a on or before 1 April launch out of 39A of L23. But likely it would be more like sometime after 1 April but before 6 April. A 20 day process  launch after an arrival on 15 Apr to 39A would be 3 April. This should be plenty of time.

Next launch L24 out of LC40 a week later on the 10th is possible with 1058 (30 days) or even 1049 (39 days).

Then 3 days after Crew 2 another launch L25 on LC40 which would have 2 booster to pick from in the narrow window between the SpaceX Navy assets involvement in Crew 2 support and then for the Crew 1 landing 1st week of May.

As soon as SpaceX Navy assets are available another launch L26 out of 39A with at least 2 if not 3 boosters to pick from can be performed. May would likely sport 4 launches in total.

B1063's arrival in Florida will make possible for 1 additional launch in both April and May. 4 in each month. Possibly as many as 5 in May.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: steveleach on 03/13/2021 09:30 pm
You can’t lose 20% of your Starlink launch capacity and not have an impact.
You can if launch capacity (booster availability) isn't the primary constraint. Maybe range availability is. 

I'm not saying that's the case, just that I'd be interested in seeing evidence one way or the other.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 03/14/2021 03:26 am
You can’t lose 20% of your Starlink launch capacity and not have an impact.
You can if launch capacity (booster availability) isn't the primary constraint. Maybe range availability is. 

I'm not saying that's the case, just that I'd be interested in seeing evidence one way or the other.

SpaceX is the only provider launching from CCSFS or KSC from January through March. The only conflict has been a sounding rocket out of Wallops. So definitely not range constrained in that way.

The primary constraints have been ASDS availability and the issues with B1049 tying up LC-39A for an extended period. Now that LC-39A is launching again, SpaceX is booster constrained again after L22.

Hence the move of B1063. It’s almost perfect timing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachF on 03/14/2021 12:35 pm
Two more Starlink launches and SpaceX will have already beaten ULA and Arianespace's combined 2020 ΔV-adjusted tonnage to orbit figures!

Three more and they will have beaten China's 2020 total

It's possible SpaceX will have individual boosters this year that will beat ULA or Arianespace all by themselves
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: niwax on 03/14/2021 01:43 pm
Two more Starlink launches and SpaceX will have already beaten ULA and Arianespace's combined 2020 ΔV-adjusted tonnage to orbit figures!

Three more and they will have beaten China's 2020 total

It's possible SpaceX will have individual boosters this year that will beat ULA or Arianespace all by themselves

They certainly have single boosters that are responsible for a double digit percentage of active satellites. That is pretty bonkers to think about, especially since most of those weigh more than the maximum payload on Electron.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: SMS on 03/14/2021 08:00 pm
https://twitter.com/SpaceNosey/status/1371142214538178565
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: SMS on 03/24/2021 07:56 am
https://twitter.com/SpaceNosey/status/1374645210756608001
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 03/24/2021 08:03 am
SpaceX has a good chance for 5 launches during April thanks to B1063 and B1061. Slight possibility of 6 launches, but ASDS constrained.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/24/2021 12:06 pm
Just a question:

What’s the logic behind the current manifest update thread mission list format? Why is there not a line drawn after 2020 to show where 2021 launches start? At the moment it is a rather taxing, squint-eyed, manual exercise to count 2021 launches separately, especially on a phone screen.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 03/24/2021 12:14 pm
Why is there not a line drawn after 2020 to show where 2021 launches start? At the moment it is a rather taxing, squint-eyed, manual exercise to count 2021 launches separately, especially on a phone screen.

Try viewing it in landscape mode.

But yes, it is probably time to move the 2020 launches to the other list.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Joffan on 03/24/2021 01:03 pm
Just a question:

What’s the logic behind the current manifest update thread mission list format? Why is there not a line drawn after 2020 to show where 2021 launches start? At the moment it is a rather taxing, squint-eyed, manual exercise to count 2021 launches separately, especially on a phone screen.
It's good to have a reasonable number of recent launches in the top list. A line to mark off the change of year is a reasonable suggestion though.


2020-12-19  0900/-5   F9   1059.5   L   NROL-108   LEO   .   C-39A   103
---------------------------------------- 2021 --------------------------------------
2021-01-07*2115/-5   F9   1060.4   S   Türksat 5A   GTO   3500   C-40   104


(I can't do the proper formatting but you get the idea)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: allio on 03/25/2021 10:40 am
When was the last time that the starlink manifest of confirmed dates was bare? as in they launched yesterday and there is no confirmed date for the next launch of starlink... in fact there are no NET dates now for falcon 9 with the exception of Crew 2 and 3...... Easter holidays?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 03/25/2021 01:05 pm
Starlink dates are not confirmed very far in advance.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 03/26/2021 05:53 pm
 Capella has previously applied back in January for permission to launch two sats on F9 to 53 degree 575km orbit NET April (which would probably make it one of the next two Starlink flights?), and haven't received permission yet.  More filings today for communications with those satellites starting in mid-April from several ground stations, pending approval to launch them.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Orbiter on 03/27/2021 09:27 pm
Surprise new F9 first stage going up on the stand - any guesses what mission this one will be for? Seems a little early for Crew-3, but that's the first one that comes to mind! CRS-22 might be a good guess too.

https://twitter.com/bluemoondance74/status/1375665823377805315
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: AndrewRG10 on 03/29/2021 08:16 am
Surprise new F9 first stage going up on the stand - any guesses what mission this one will be for? Seems a little early for Crew-3, but that's the first one that comes to mind! CRS-22 might be a good guess too.

https://twitter.com/bluemoondance74/status/1375665823377805315

It's B1067 and will probably enter service pretty quickly. Not sure what mission though, you're right it's early for Crew-3 but even CRS-22 is a bit too far out to get it in service quickly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/05/2021 09:05 pm
Quite a year unfolding for Dragon teams:

SMSR schedule update as of March 16:

SpaceX CRS-22 on June 3
SpaceX CRS-24 on December 2
SpaceX Crew-4 on April 5, 2022
SpaceX Crew-5 on October 25, 2022

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1379176348619567105

Quote
SpaceX has a packed schedule for crew and cargo Dragon missions in the months ahead:

April 22 — Crew-2 launch
April 28 — Crew-1 return
June 3 — CRS-22 launch
Sept. 15 — Inspiration4 launch
Oct. 23 — Crew-3 launch
Oct. 31  — Crew-2 return
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 04/05/2021 09:43 pm
Quite a year unfolding for Dragon teams:

Quote
SpaceX has a packed schedule for crew and cargo Dragon missions in the months ahead:

April 22 — Crew-2 launch
April 28 — Crew-1 return
June 3 — CRS-22 launch
Sept. 15 — Inspiration4 launch
Oct. 23 — Crew-3 launch
Oct. 31  — Crew-2 return
Hopefully there's a missing "Inspiration4 return" in there ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 04/06/2021 03:25 am
Quite a year unfolding for Dragon teams:

Quote
SpaceX has a packed schedule for crew and cargo Dragon missions in the months ahead:

April 22 — Crew-2 launch
April 28 — Crew-1 return
June 3 — CRS-22 launch
Sept. 15 — Inspiration4 launch
Oct. 23 — Crew-3 launch
Oct. 31  — Crew-2 return
Hopefully there's a missing "Inspiration4 return" in there ;)

Since Inspiration4 is planning for a 3 day mission. You can probably penciled in Sept. 18 as their return date.  ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/06/2021 03:28 am
No Falcon Heavy launch this year then? Has it been deferred to early 2022?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 04/06/2021 03:33 am
That was a partial schedule of NASA crew and cargo launches.  It doesn't even have all of those.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: SMS on 04/07/2021 05:26 pm
https://twitter.com/SpaceNosey/status/1379846832919023617
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 04/07/2021 06:00 pm
https://twitter.com/SpaceNosey/status/1379846832919023617 (https://twitter.com/SpaceNosey/status/1379846832919023617)
These are really great charts. So information dense.
The label hexagons have all shades of blue-grey from white to navy, uniform for each booster but different for different boosters.
What is the significance of this color?
The out-of-service boosters on the left are grey but so is 1060 on the right.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 04/10/2021 06:55 pm
The Biden administration just released its 2022 discretionary budget request. If approved by Congress, it would fund a whole series of launches for NASA, including Artemis and the ISS.

Specifically the Dragonfly, Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, and Europa Clipper are all expected to be awarded Falcon Heavy launches.

Quote
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) inspires the Nation by sending astronauts and robotic missions to explore the solar system, advancing understanding of the Earth and space, and developing new technologies and approaches to improve aviation and space activities. The 2022 discretionary request invests in developing new technologies to improve the Nation’s space and sustainable aviation capabilities; human and robotic exploration of the Moon, Mars, and beyond, including returning Martian rocks and soil to earth; and development of Earth-observing satellites that would produce breakthrough science and support the Nation’s efforts to address climate change.
The President’s 2022 discretionary request includes $24.7 billion for NASA, a $1.5 billion or 6.3-percent increase from the 2021 enacted level. It:
 Supports Human Exploration of the Moon, Mars, and Beyond. The discretionary request provides $6.9 billion, an increase of $325 million above the 2021 enacted level, for the Artemis program, a series of crewed exploration missions to the lunar surface and beyond. This funding supports the development of capabilities for sustainable, long- duration human exploration beyond Earth, and eventually to Mars.
 Furthers the Robotic Exploration of the Solar System and the Universe. Following the successful landing of the Perseverance rover on Mars, the discretionary request funds the Mars Sample Return mission, the first mission to transport Martian soil samples back to Earth. The discretionary request also supports the Clipper mission to explore Jupiter’s icy moon Europa, the Dragonfly mission to fly a drone-like rotorcraft on Saturn’s largest moon Titan, and the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope to build on the discoveries of the Hubble and James Webb space telescopes.
 Enhances Research and Development at NASA. The discretionary request increases funding for NASA’s Space Technology research and development portfolio to
$1.4 billion, a $325 million increase above the 2021 enacted level. With this investment, the program would enhance the capabilities and reduce the costs of the full range of NASA missions and provide new technologies to help the commercial space industry grow. In addition, the discretionary request encourages novel early-stage space technology research that would support the development of clean energy. The discretionary request also provides $915 million, an increase of $86 million above the 2021 enacted level, for Aeronautics research and development that would enhance U.S. competitiveness in the global aviation industry that employs hundreds of thousands of Americans. This increased funding would broaden and accelerate the testing of technologies that would enable highly efficient, next-generation airliners.
 Advances Climate Science. NASA uses the unique vantage point of space to enhance understanding of Earth systems and to observe the effects of climate change. The discretionary request provides $2.3 billion for Earth Science programs, an increase of $250 million above the 2021 enacted level, to initiate the next generation of Earth- observing satellites to study pressing climate science questions.
 Builds a Diverse Future Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Workforce. The discretionary request provides a $20 million, or 16 percent, increase for the Office of STEM Engagement to expand initiatives to attract and retain underserved and underrepresented students in engineering and other STEM fields, in partnership with minority serving institutions and other higher education institutions.
 Continues Research on the International Space Station (ISS). The discretionary request provides more than $3 billion to operate the ISS and use it as a research laboratory in space. ISS funding would support space station operations, cargo and crew transportation, and research that benefits the exploration of space and life on Earth.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 04/11/2021 10:44 pm
In trying to figure out what is possible for launches after Crew 2.

LC-40:
 4-25 (NET) but NLT 4-28   L24
 5-4 (NET) but NLT 5-7       L25
 5-18                                 L27
 6-1 (NET)                         SXM

LC-39A
 5-6 but NLT 5-9                L26
 5-21                                L27
 6-3                                  CRS2 SPX-22  (Likely uses 1061.3)

If CRS22 uses 1061.3 then there are no foreseeable booster availability problems until later into last of June.

Launch counts of 3 for Apr, 4 for May, and a possible another 4 or even an eake out a 5th one for June.
This availability of boosters though depends on 1063 being introduced into the Que later this month. More launches may not happen in April because of asset and range conflicts with Crew 2.

I see another potential phenomena occurring and that is a cycling between 4/5 launches in a month to 3 the following month out of the cape (East coast). This is due to 3 booster being able to launch every 27/28 days and 2 at 35+ days. Things are unlikely to line up to have a steady 4 launches every month but an oscillation.

Also as far as VAFB launches and the possible Starlink launches in July. There doesn't seem to be a booster problem if the next booster 1067 is shipped to VAFB. With it supposedly at McGregor and a 30 day gin up after shipping. It should be ready for use with a month to spare.

On booster production. 6 boosters were produced and tested in 2020. So far only 2 known 1066 and 1067 yet this year 2021. Such that it is likely that by July another booster will go into testing at McGregor (1068). This one would be just in time for use by Inspiration 4. And then by Crew 3 after that ~3 months later in November. It is likely that the next booster production start (1069) may await the successful landing or not of the FH core and it's successful return to the facilities at the cape. Such that the booster could be made as another FH core vs a regular F9. Past this point too many variables to even make intelligible guesses.



Starship: A side item is that with a possible Orbital Test Demo flight NET July. I would actually believe Aug or Sept a more likely launch date. That is because of the pad construction as well as the FCC EPA review completion and Licencing needed. But We may be surprised. As far as an SS available for a trip to orbit there is not much concern that one would be ready by 1 July. The primary for vehicles is the testing of the SH which include the construction of the first and probably second flight article availability.

To put it short. Start thinking about the addition of SS Orbital Demo test flight to the Manifest with a July 21-07 NET date. It can be reviewed once a month to move it out or or not depending on circumstances.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: PM3 on 04/12/2021 12:41 pm
Launch counts of 3 for Apr, 4 for May, and a possible another 4 or even an eake out a 5th one for June.

This would require additional Starlink FCC licenses (see Spacenews (https://spacenews.com/spacex-launches-another-set-of-starlink-satellites-as-it-nears-global-coverage/), 7 April). Current licenses allow 1584 sats in 550 km inclined orbits and 10 sats in polar orbits. 1376 of 550 km inclined sats and 10 polar sats are already up there. So without additional licenses, only 4 more Starlink launches.

Quote
Starship: A side item is that with a possible Orbital Test Demo flight NET July. I would actually believe Aug or Sept a more likely launch date.

The NET July goal was published by Elon on 17 March, i.e. 105 days in advance. Translated to real time this is >= 210 days, which means NET mid October.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 04/12/2021 06:37 pm
Launch counts of 3 for Apr, 4 for May, and a possible another 4 or even an eake out a 5th one for June.

This would require additional Starlink FCC licenses (see Spacenews (https://spacenews.com/spacex-launches-another-set-of-starlink-satellites-as-it-nears-global-coverage/), 7 April). Current licenses allow 1584 sats in 550 km inclined orbits and 10 sats in polar orbits. 1376 of 550 km inclined sats and 10 polar sats are already up there. So without additional licenses, only 4 more Starlink launches.

Quote
Starship: A side item is that with a possible Orbital Test Demo flight NET July. I would actually believe Aug or Sept a more likely launch date.

The NET July goal was published by Elon on 17 March, i.e. 105 days in advance. Translated to real time this is >= 210 days, which means NET mid October.
As for the Starlink FCC licenses allowing launch into an operational altitude of 550km there is 45 days to resolve before the 5th launch from now in the end of May. There are currently FCC licencesse modifications pending FCC approval and have been for some time. 3 of those 4 approved 550km sat deployments remaining are needed to fulfill the coverage to bring the constellation to a minimum of operational status. It is always possible to just start parking sats at the higher orbit allowed (for which there exists a FCC license) and await approvals for a lower orbit FCC license then move them. They do not have to stop launching. The primary constraints on deployment speed is the max launch per month. If you stop launching Starlinks and you are already at the max launch rate possible there is no way to make up for the pause when latter you start back up.

So do not assume that Starlink launches will stop just because the lower 550km altitude license modification has not been approved.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 04/12/2021 06:42 pm
As for the Starlink FCC licenses allowing launch into an operational altitude of 550km there is 45 days to resolve before the 5th launch from now in the end of May. There are currently FCC licencesse modifications pending FCC approval and have been for some time. 3 of those 4 approved 550km sat deployments remaining are needed to fulfill the coverage to bring the constellation to a minimum of operational status. It is always possible to just start parking sats at the higher orbit allowed (for which there exists a FCC license) and await approvals for a lower orbit FCC license then move them. They do not have to stop launching. The primary constraints on deployment speed is the max launch per month. If you stop launching Starlinks and you are already at the max launch rate possible there is no way to make up for the pause when latter you start back up.

So do not assume that Starlink launches will stop just because the lower 550km altitude license modification has not been approved.

The modified constellation also has different inclinations (anywhere from .6deg to 17deg), and SpaceX really doesn't want to have them climb to 1000km and then back down.  The number of sats per launch would go down to accommodate higher fuel loads.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 04/12/2021 06:56 pm
As for the Starlink FCC licenses allowing launch into an operational altitude of 550km there is 45 days to resolve before the 5th launch from now in the end of May. There are currently FCC licencesse modifications pending FCC approval and have been for some time. 3 of those 4 approved 550km sat deployments remaining are needed to fulfill the coverage to bring the constellation to a minimum of operational status. It is always possible to just start parking sats at the higher orbit allowed (for which there exists a FCC license) and await approvals for a lower orbit FCC license then move them. They do not have to stop launching. The primary constraints on deployment speed is the max launch per month. If you stop launching Starlinks and you are already at the max launch rate possible there is no way to make up for the pause when latter you start back up.

So do not assume that Starlink launches will stop just because the lower 550km altitude license modification has not been approved.

The modified constellation also has different inclinations (anywhere from .6deg to 17deg), and SpaceX really doesn't want to have them climb to 1000km and then back down.  The number of sats per launch would go down to accommodate higher fuel loads.
NOTE is that these are all V1.0 sats and are likely to be obsolete and may even be deorbited early in 2 or 3 years. Such that no changes . No extra prop. Just use the the existing design as is and deorbit these early. As they runn out of prop. Also due to higher orbit these use significantly less orbit maintenance prop. The V1.0 were designed for high orbit maintenance prop use. So there may not be much of a problem.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 04/12/2021 07:51 pm
NOTE is that these are all V1.0 sats and are likely to be obsolete and may even be deorbited early in 2 or 3 years. Such that no changes . No extra prop. Just use the the existing design as is and deorbit these early. As they runn out of prop. Also due to higher orbit these use significantly less orbit maintenance prop. The V1.0 were designed for high orbit maintenance prop use. So there may not be much of a problem.

There has to be extra fuel for satellites going to the higher altitude.  The current prop load is to maximize the number of satellites they can launch to 550km and still recover the booster.  There is no reason for them to replace v1.0 satellites in a couple years.  That would be very expensive.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Nomadd on 04/12/2021 08:14 pm
NOTE is that these are all V1.0 sats and are likely to be obsolete and may even be deorbited early in 2 or 3 years. Such that no changes . No extra prop. Just use the the existing design as is and deorbit these early. As they runn out of prop. Also due to higher orbit these use significantly less orbit maintenance prop. The V1.0 were designed for high orbit maintenance prop use. So there may not be much of a problem.

There has to be extra fuel for satellites going to the higher altitude.  The current prop load is to maximize the number of satellites they can launch to 550km and still recover the booster.  There is no reason for them to replace v1.0 satellites in a couple years.  That would be very expensive.
It might depend on how they transition to ISL.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/13/2021 01:19 pm
https://spacenews.com/astrobotic-selects-falcon-heavy-to-launch-nasas-viper-lunar-rover/

Well that explains the Going to the Moon tweet.

More Falcon Heavy’s is always a good thing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 04/14/2021 02:48 pm
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/14/astranis-satellite-internet-raises-250-million-from-blackrock-others.html

Astranis is Q4 now
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/16/2021 06:52 am
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/14/astranis-satellite-internet-raises-250-million-from-blackrock-others.html

Astranis is Q4 now

I believe the name of the satellite is Aurora 4A.

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/aurora-4a.htm
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 04/16/2021 05:54 pm
https://spacenews.com/nasa-delays-starting-contract-with-spacex-for-gateway-cargo-services/
Quote
NASA, in a statement provided to SpaceNews April 14, said it has yet to formally authorize SpaceX to proceed on the Gateway Logistics Services contract because the agency is studying the overall schedule of the Artemis lunar exploration program, of which development and use of the Gateway is just one part.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/16/2021 07:22 pm
It’d make sense to shorten the initial stay on Gateway so logistics isn’t required for the first visit(s). Could save money to accelerate the lander portion, and this could be justified because the Starship lander could also do at least some logistics.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 04/17/2021 03:29 am
Since now that there are 2 Lunar Starship missions actually on contract for ~2023/2024/2025 time period. Should be possible to add a placeholder for the HLS Demo unmanned and HLS Demo manned missions?

Also add a placeholder for the tanker flights preceding but at this time do not know what the actual number may be which could be from 5 to as many as 10. Just that they would all take place just prior as fast as could be accomplished with the HLS launch immediately following. The tanker flights could be as a note as part of the same mission placeholder showing total flights related to the mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: SMS on 04/22/2021 07:27 am
Crew Dragon Launch statistics (04/22/2021)
all times in GMT/UTC:
=
DM-2
Prime: = = = = =Dock = = = = = =MET (d:h:m:s)
(05/27/2020)
148:20:32:32? 149:15:29?   +0:18:56:28
148:20:33:31   149:15:39:55   +0:19:06:23
Backup #1
(05/30/2020)
152:19:22:45   153:14:16:00   +0:18:53:14
= =
Crew-1
Prime: = = = = =Dock = = = = = =MET (d:h:m:s)
(11/15/2020)
320:00:49:49   320:09:20:00   +0:08:30:10
Backup #1
(11/16/2020)
321:00:27:17   322:04:00:00   +1:03:32:42
= = =
Crew-2
Prime: = = = = =Dock = = = = = =MET (d:h:m:s)
(04/22/2021)
112:10:11:35   113:09:30:00   +0:23:18:25
112:10:11:45   113:11:05:00   +1:00:53:15?
Backup #1
(04/23/2021)
113:09:49:01   114:09:10:00   +0:23:20:59
Launch: 4/23 09:49:01 Dock: 4/24 09:10:00
Backup #2
(04/26/2021)
116:08:38:10   117:08:00:00   +0:23:21:50
Launch: 4/26 08:38:10 Dock: 4/27 08:00:00
Backup #3
(04/27/2021)
117:08:15:37   118:07:40:00   +23:24:23
Launch: 4/27 08:15:37 Dock: 4/28 07:40:00
= = = =
Any comments are welcome.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 04/23/2021 10:24 am
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1385527271671226368

Quote
Was able to confirm with NASA that SpaceX now, essentially, chooses which rockets it will use from its fleet to launch astronauts. SpaceX can propose a new booster, or a first stage that has flown once. Further certification is needed for boosters used more than once.

This is a huge transfer of power, and opens up a lot of flexibility for SpaceX on the launch manifest.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: SMS on 04/23/2021 12:35 pm
Crew Dragon Launch statistics (04/22/2021)
all times in GMT/UTC:
=
DM-2
Prime: = = = = =Dock = = = = = =MET (d:h:m:s)
(05/27/2020)
148:20:32:32? 149:15:29?   +0:18:56:28
148:20:33:31   149:15:39:55   +0:19:06:23
Backup #1
(05/30/2020)
152:19:22:45   153:14:16:00   +0:18:53:14
= =
Crew-1
Prime: = = = = =Dock = = = = = =MET (d:h:m:s)
(11/15/2020)
320:00:49:49   320:09:20:00   +0:08:30:10
Backup #1
(11/16/2020)
321:00:27:17   322:04:00:00   +1:03:32:42
= = =
Crew-2
Prime: = = = = =Dock = = = = = =MET (d:h:m:s)
(04/22/2021)
112:10:11:35   113:09:30:00   +0:23:18:25
112:10:11:45   113:11:05:00   +1:00:53:15?
Backup #1
(04/23/2021)
113:09:49:01   114:09:10:00   +0:23:20:59
Launch: 4/23 09:49:01 Dock: 4/24 09:10:00
Backup #2
(04/26/2021)
116:08:38:10   117:08:00:00   +0:23:21:50
Launch: 4/26 08:38:10 Dock: 4/27 08:00:00
Backup #3
(04/27/2021)
117:08:15:37   118:07:40:00   +23:24:23
Launch: 4/27 08:15:37 Dock: 4/28 07:40:00
= = = =
Any comments are welcome.

Schedule Crew-2 Launch 113:09:49:02.100 ! and real time: ?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/23/2021 01:40 pm
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1385527271671226368

Quote
Was able to confirm with NASA that SpaceX now, essentially, chooses which rockets it will use from its fleet to launch astronauts. SpaceX can propose a new booster, or a first stage that has flown once. Further certification is needed for boosters used more than once.

This is a huge transfer of power, and opens up a lot of flexibility for SpaceX on the launch manifest.

Seems it would be a benefit to SpaceX to keep a NASA booster for NASA.  Eventually it goes into open circulation.  Same as DOD.

That's a big stamp of approval though, impressive.

Edit: I wonder if those turbine wheels ended up in another Merlin.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 04/23/2021 02:10 pm
Quote
Seems it would be a benefit to SpaceX to keep a NASA booster for NASA.  Eventually it goes into open circulation.  Same as DOD.

That's a big stamp of approval though, impressive.

Edit: I wonder if those turbine wheels ended up in another Merlin.

It does appear to be a reflight limit of 1 for now, but it could change.

I wonder if that’s why B1063 hasn’t done a Starlink launch yet. They’re going to use B1061 for general launches instead after this launch, and use 1063 for one more NASA launch.

Edit: Possibly B1063.2 for CRS-23 in August? Then B1067.2 for Crew-3 in October would make sense after it launches CRS-22 in June.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: cppetrie on 04/23/2021 04:15 pm
Quote
Seems it would be a benefit to SpaceX to keep a NASA booster for NASA.  Eventually it goes into open circulation.  Same as DOD.

That's a big stamp of approval though, impressive.

Edit: I wonder if those turbine wheels ended up in another Merlin.

It does appear to be a reflight limit of 1 for now, but it could change.

I wonder if that’s why B1063 hasn’t done a Starlink launch yet. They’re going to use B1061 for general launches instead after this launch, and use 1063 for one more NASA launch.

Edit: Possibly B1063.2 for CRS-23 in August? Then B1067.2 for Crew-3 in October would make sense after it launches CRS-22 in June.
I took the limit on single reflights to be applicable only to crew launches not cargo.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: SMS on 04/23/2021 05:09 pm
https://twitter.com/SpaceNosey/status/1385622970140332035
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: smoliarm on 04/23/2021 05:11 pm
Quote
Seems it would be a benefit to SpaceX to keep a NASA booster for NASA.  Eventually it goes into open circulation.  Same as DOD.

That's a big stamp of approval though, impressive.

Edit: I wonder if those turbine wheels ended up in another Merlin.

It does appear to be a reflight limit of 1 for now, but it could change.

I wonder if that’s why B1063 hasn’t done a Starlink launch yet. They’re going to use B1061 for general launches instead after this launch, and use 1063 for one more NASA launch.

Edit: Possibly B1063.2 for CRS-23 in August? Then B1067.2 for Crew-3 in October would make sense after it launches CRS-22 in June.
I took the limit on single reflights to be applicable only to crew launches not cargo.
Yes, the booster B1058.4 was used for CRS launch for NASA:
B1058.4 ... 2020-093 ... Dec 06, 2020 ... F9 FT b.5 ... Dragon v2 SpX-21

So it looks like there is no "reflight limit of 1", at least for Cargo Dragons.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachF on 04/26/2021 06:04 pm
So far this year SpaceX has put up ~61% of the world's adjusted tonnage to orbit, and ~57% of the world's people

SpaceX is on track to put up ~500,000kg of adjusted tonnage this year, equal to ULA's 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 totals combined.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: smoliarm on 04/26/2021 06:22 pm
So far this year SpaceX has put up ~61% of the world's adjusted tonnage to orbit, and ~57% of the world's people

SpaceX is on track to put up ~500,000kg of adjusted tonnage this year, equal to ULA's 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 totals combined.
Thanks a lot for sharing!
Could you tell (briefly) how do you calculate DV-adjusted tonnage?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Blackjax on 04/27/2021 01:14 am
So far this year SpaceX has put up ~61% of the world's adjusted tonnage to orbit, and ~57% of the world's people

SpaceX is on track to put up ~500,000kg of adjusted tonnage this year, equal to ULA's 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 totals combined.

Awesome table, I'd love to know where you get the data from.  I'd been unsuccessfully looking for something like that a few years ago when I was trying to compare payload capacity of a single starship flying once a month per year to the yearly world demand for launch capacity.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 04/28/2021 02:12 pm
https://www.reuters.com/technology/fcc-votes-approve-spacex-satellite-plan-official-2021-04-27/

Quote
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said on Tuesday it had voted to approve a SpaceX plan to deploy some Starlink satellites at a lower earth orbit than planned as part of its push to offer space-based broadband internet.

Elon Musk's SpaceX had asked the FCC for approval to fly 2,824 satellites at a lower orbit as part of the plan to provide high-speed broadband internet services to people who currently lack access.

It’ll be interesting to see which flights will start deploying to the 570km orbit. All of the currently approved launches have the same flight and recovery plans.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 04/28/2021 02:18 pm
The pace of Starlink launches has slowed noticeably below their capacity. I’m assuming it will pick up again now that they have approval for all those additional satellites.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: freddo411 on 04/28/2021 02:37 pm
The pace of Starlink launches has slowed noticeably below their capacity. I’m assuming it will pick up again now that they have approval for all those additional satellites.

Seems like SpaceX assumes a bit of a "quiet period" around the Crew2 launches  ( including both Falcon and Starship ops ).    Perhaps this is to focus the company, perhaps it's to avoid alarming NASA, perhaps it's got roots in media/PR strategy.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/28/2021 02:38 pm
The pace of Starlink launches has slowed noticeably below their capacity. I’m assuming it will pick up again now that they have approval for all those additional satellites.

Is that a real slow down, or just booster availability and the Crew-2 gap?

I expect that Starlink is going to be about once a week in May until there is a booster shortage.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: klod on 04/28/2021 04:45 pm
The pace of Starlink launches has slowed noticeably below their capacity. I’m assuming it will pick up again now that they have approval for all those additional satellites.

Is that a real slow down, or just booster availability and the Crew-2 gap?

I expect that Starlink is going to be about once a week in May until there is a booster shortage.
TO time for droneship - 7-10 days. That would be a limiting factor.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 04/29/2021 12:41 am
NASA has given SpaceX authority to proceed with the PCM-5 (Crew-5) mission, which should be either Fall 2022 or Spring 2023.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 04/29/2021 07:23 am
https://www.reuters.com/technology/fcc-votes-approve-spacex-satellite-plan-official-2021-04-27/

Quote
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) said on Tuesday it had voted to approve a SpaceX plan to deploy some Starlink satellites at a lower earth orbit than planned as part of its push to offer space-based broadband internet.

Elon Musk's SpaceX had asked the FCC for approval to fly 2,824 satellites at a lower orbit as part of the plan to provide high-speed broadband internet services to people who currently lack access.

It’ll be interesting to see which flights will start deploying to the 570km orbit. All of the currently approved launches have the same flight and recovery plans.

They'll start with dedicated polar launches, though SpaceX will presumably continue deploying around ~280 km and just tack an extra few days onto the existing orbit raising schedule. There will be 3168 satellites between 540 and 550 km (half at 53, other half at 53.2 degrees). The other 1240 will be split between 70 and 97.6 degrees and 560, 569, or 570 km.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 04/29/2021 10:55 am
https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/04/29/spacex-launches-60-more-starlink-spacecraft-fcc-clears-spacex-to-fly-satellites-at-lower-altitudes/
Quote
The updated Starlink network architecture has 1,584 satellites at 341 miles (550 kilometers) altitude and an inclination of 53 degrees, 1,584 satellites at 335 miles (540 kilometers) and an inclination of 53.2 degrees, 720 satellites at 354 miles (570 kilometers) and an inclination of 70 degrees, and 520 satellites at 348 miles (560 kilometers) and an inclination of 97.6 degrees.

To clarify, 2824 new satellites approved:

1,584 satellites at 540 km and inclination of 53.2 degrees

720 satellites at 570 km and inclination of 70 degrees

520 satellites at 560 km and inclination of 97.6 degrees
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: mandrewa on 04/29/2021 12:12 pm
The pace of Starlink launches has slowed noticeably below their capacity. I’m assuming it will pick up again now that they have approval for all those additional satellites.

I think they've been going just as fast as they can.  At this point the Starlink satellites are being launched by just four boosters, 1049, 1051, 1058, and 1060.  Booster 1060 is amazing in that it has launched in each of the last four months, but the turnaround times on booster 1049 are much longer with the most recent being 100 days.  That's either because there is something different about 1049, perhaps because it is the oldest, or maybe because it is being studied more because it was a life leader. 

But there's no longer much to distinguish between these boosters in terms of the number of times they have been launched.  It's 8, 9, 7, and 7 launches respectively for 1049, 1051, 1058, and 1060.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Huskymaniac on 04/29/2021 02:29 pm
https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/04/29/spacex-launches-60-more-starlink-spacecraft-fcc-clears-spacex-to-fly-satellites-at-lower-altitudes/
Quote
The updated Starlink network architecture has 1,584 satellites at 341 miles (550 kilometers) altitude and an inclination of 53 degrees, 1,584 satellites at 335 miles (540 kilometers) and an inclination of 53.2 degrees, 720 satellites at 354 miles (570 kilometers) and an inclination of 70 degrees, and 520 satellites at 348 miles (560 kilometers) and an inclination of 97.6 degrees.

To clarify, 2824 new satellites approved:

1,584 satellites at 540 km and inclination of 53.2 degrees

720 satellites at 570 km and inclination of 70 degrees

520 satellites at 560 km and inclination of 97.6 degrees

Would love to know when they plan to do their first launch from Vandenberg.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/29/2021 02:32 pm
https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/04/29/spacex-launches-60-more-starlink-spacecraft-fcc-clears-spacex-to-fly-satellites-at-lower-altitudes/
Quote
The updated Starlink network architecture has 1,584 satellites at 341 miles (550 kilometers) altitude and an inclination of 53 degrees, 1,584 satellites at 335 miles (540 kilometers) and an inclination of 53.2 degrees, 720 satellites at 354 miles (570 kilometers) and an inclination of 70 degrees, and 520 satellites at 348 miles (560 kilometers) and an inclination of 97.6 degrees.

To clarify, 2824 new satellites approved:

1,584 satellites at 540 km and inclination of 53.2 degrees

720 satellites at 570 km and inclination of 70 degrees

520 satellites at 560 km and inclination of 97.6 degrees

Would love to know when they plan to do their first launch from Vandenberg.

I thought there was previous information that the Vandenberg launches would start in the middle of this year, July I believe.

I'm curious if they are going to do RTLS flights with less satellites, or if they are going for a full load and ASDS recovery.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 04/29/2021 02:58 pm
I doubt they'll do RTLS for Starlink.  All signs point to having a west coast droneship soon.  I also don't think they'll deploy one shell at a time.  Vandenberg will most likely have a much slower flight rate than Florida.  They can put up a lot of the SSO sats from Vandy while deploying the other shells from Florida.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Nomadd on 04/29/2021 04:01 pm
 Can they keep on orbit spares in addition to the 4408 approved in service sats?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 04/29/2021 04:28 pm
I think they'd have to request another modification to put up spares that took them beyond the approved numbers.  I also think that won't be a problem for a while if ever.  If they have problems with a set of the sats probably best just to replace them in a timely fashion.

I'm curious to see if deployments slow down for a while after the initial shell is filled.  They're still iterating on everything, ISLs are still a work in progress.  If they don't care about ISL for the 70 degree shell it would be a good one to start filling.  Also curious to see if the number of sats on a rocket goes down as they launch to different inclinations and use Vandy for some.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 04/29/2021 06:54 pm
Soon we are going to need to add the following like entry on the manifest. But first a little more critical evaluation of the status of the element:
SN20 build status
BN3 Build status
Orbital Launch Facility build status.
Experimental FAA Launch license status
Experimental FCC com licences for an Orbital Starship launch and on orbit operations status

Here is the proposed line:

            2021-07-1 (NET)    SS BN3-1    L   Starship Orbital Demo        LEO  .             SN20-1

For now I think existing format can handle the Starship orbital launches since they will be in the counts of likely 5 or less over a period of the first year. But after that first launch a format extension to enable the inclusion of the fact that Starship has 2 significant reusable parts. That could be a lively discussion. As always such a discussion has its own thread. So those that want to discuss a format change should discuss it there.SpaceX Manifest Table Format Discussion (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43214.0)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: AC in NC on 04/29/2021 08:47 pm
Soon we are going to need to add the following like entry on the manifest.

Here is the proposed line:

            2021-07-1 (NET)    SS BN3-1    L   Starship Orbital Demo        LEO  .             SN20-1

For now I think existing format can handle the Starship orbital launches since they will be in the counts of likely 5 or less over a period of the first year.

I think the situation begs for independent Manifest Threads right from the start.  Knowing how much work such tables are to maintain, there's probably enough difference to warrant it and it would eliminate having to look through noise if you're looking for a particular Family.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 04/29/2021 09:11 pm
Soon we are going to need to add the following like entry on the manifest.

Here is the proposed line:

            2021-07-1 (NET)    SS BN3-1    L   Starship Orbital Demo        LEO  .             SN20-1

For now I think existing format can handle the Starship orbital launches since they will be in the counts of likely 5 or less over a period of the first year.

I think the situation begs for independent Manifest Threads right from the start.  Knowing how much work such tables are to maintain, there's probably enough difference to warrant it and it would eliminate having to look through noise if you're looking for a particular Family.
To keep them all in one basket may still be better. Since for a while Starlink will be launching on both SS and F9 at the same time. And in order to keep up with that constellation's launches, having to go to 2 threads would be a problem especially on the determination on order of launch for what batch went to what inclination and when in relation to when others did which launched on a different LV. Later when most launches have been taken over by Starship. And the number of Starship launches to the remaining launches still on F9 may be a significant item in the swamping out of trying to find and manage the few remaining F9 launches. For now I think the existing manifest can handle Starship at least for next couple of years (until 2023).
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: AC in NC on 04/29/2021 09:27 pm
That's a good point. 

I can see value in both approaches but it wouldn't be worth doing if you weren't going to do it right.  And I could see doing it right taking more than two Manifests.  Tables are too much pain enough to maintain to go down that route.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 04/29/2021 10:21 pm
That's a good point. 

I can see value in both approaches but it wouldn't be worth doing if you weren't going to do it right.  And I could see doing it right taking more than two Manifests.  Tables are too much pain enough to maintain to go down that route.
Would really need an online portal that is database backed that your own queries can be made to find any data you are looking for fast.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: SMS on 04/30/2021 05:23 pm
https://twitter.com/SpaceNosey/status/1388153699353169921
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/30/2021 05:53 pm
Love that graphic.

I'm still confused on what the plan is for 1052 and 1053.  Those FH side boosters could be earning their keep and new Side boosters are on the way.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: yokem55 on 04/30/2021 09:30 pm
Love that graphic.

I'm still confused on what the plan is for 1052 and 1053.  Those FH side boosters could be earning their keep and new Side boosters are on the way.
My theory is that they've been canabalized to the point that they aren't worth bringing back to flight status.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachS09 on 04/30/2021 09:51 pm
Love that graphic.

I'm still confused on what the plan is for 1052 and 1053.  Those FH side boosters could be earning their keep and new Side boosters are on the way.
My theory is that they've been cannibalized to the point that they aren't worth bringing back to flight status.

Someone needs to ask SpaceX about the actual story behind B1052 and B1053.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Mangala on 05/01/2021 05:58 pm
If SpaceX will have four starlink launches before June 1st XM-8 launch, so they will have to use their four available boosters, B-1049, B-1051, B-1058 and B-1060 (the order is about their number, not the launch order), so I'm very curious to see what booster they will use for the XM-8 launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 05/02/2021 04:30 am
If SpaceX will have four starlink launches before June 1st XM-8 launch, so they will have to use their four available boosters, B-1049, B-1051, B-1058 and B-1060 (the order is about their number, not the launch order), so I'm very curious to see what booster they will use for the XM-8 launch.

We don't know how many Starlink launches will be before SXM-8.  I just list the next few Starlink launches on the manifest and move them around as we find out the real dates.  Sometimes that's a few weeks, sometimes it's a couple months.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 05/02/2021 12:35 pm
Love that graphic.

I'm still confused on what the plan is for 1052 and 1053.  Those FH side boosters could be earning their keep and new Side boosters are on the way.
My theory is that they've been cannibalized to the point that they aren't worth bringing back to flight status.

Someone needs to ask SpaceX about the actual story behind B1052 and B1053.

There’s  an L2 thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45275.msg1800660#msg1800660) for that.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Mangala on 05/02/2021 08:08 pm
If SpaceX will have four starlink launches before June 1st XM-8 launch, so they will have to use their four available boosters, B-1049, B-1051, B-1058 and B-1060 (the order is about their number, not the launch order), so I'm very curious to see what booster they will use for the XM-8 launch.

We don't know how many Starlink launches will be before SXM-8.  I just list the next few Starlink launches on the manifest and move them around as we find out the real dates.  Sometimes that's a few weeks, sometimes it's a couple months.

Understood, thanks. As your manifest was the same that the one of Nextspaceflight's site, I assumed that four starlink launches were effectively scheduled to launch before XM-8 launch, then my interrogation.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/03/2021 06:44 pm
We should be seeing a Starlink L26 date any minute now.

Edit: Also curious as to what booster is assigned to the SXM-8 flight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 05/04/2021 09:10 pm
Confirmed in bold, rest is estimated

B1049 - Starlink v1.0 L25
B1051 - Starlink v1.0 L27

B1058 - Available now Starlink L26?
B1060 - Reprocessing - June 1 (32 days)
B1063 - Available now Starlink L28?

B1061 - Reserved Inspiration4?
B1062 - Reserved GPS III SV05
B1067 - Reserved CRS-22 June 3



May 09 SLC-40
B1051.10 - Starlink v1.0 L27


May 14 LC-39A (10 days pad turnaround)
B1058 (37 days last launch) Starlink v1.0 L26

May 20 SLC-40 (11 days)
B1063.2 Starlink v1.0 L28

June 1 SLC-40 (12 days)
B1060.8? (32 days)- SXM-8

June 3 LC-39A (20 days)
B1067.1 - CRS-22

June 17 SLC-40 (16 days)
B1062.2 - GPS III SV05



Best estimation based on booster processing and availability.

Assumptions are that B1061 will be used for Inspiration4 and NASA workflow will again require long lead time for CRS-22. Also that B1063 will be put into rotation for Starlink, but that might not happen. If so, L28 gets bumped to June.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 05/05/2021 06:28 am
https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/05/04/starlink-launch-marks-100-straight-missions-since-an-in-flight-falcon-rocket-failure/

Quote
The next Falcon 9 launch is scheduled for 2:42 a.m. EDT (0642 GMT) Sunday from pad 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, carrying the next batch of Starlink internet satellites.

Another Starlink mission is planned in mid-May with a Falcon 9 launch from pad 39A.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: SMS on 05/05/2021 10:45 am
https://twitter.com/SpaceNosey/status/1389889862044692481

Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 05/06/2021 08:17 pm
OFT-2 is now targeting Friday 30 July for launch. Should end before CRS-23.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 05/06/2021 08:40 pm
May 14 LC-39A (10 days pad turnaround)
B1058 (37 days last launch) Starlink v1.0 L26


Launch targeting 15 May 2021 at 6:58pm EDT (2258 UTC) on Falcon 9 (booster 1058.8 ) from KSC LC-39A. ASDS landing is expected on OCISLY.


I was pretty close on the prediction, HIF turnaround taking slightly longer.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/08/2021 09:25 pm
Should this section  (not this thread) host the upcoming soon Starship Orbital launch operations and preceding actions?

The start of a thread should probably not start until SpaceX starts stacking the SH and possibly not until the SS is scheduled to be stacked on top. Since the thread if made available for discussion would likely get overrun. It is suggested that this thread for the orbital flight be an Updates only thread. With any discussion being offloaded to the Starship section multitude of threads.

The reason I am posting this is that in even the last month the orbital flight went from a probable in 2021 to now a highly likely in just 2 months from now. Such a thread in this section was not even a consideration until recently.

I don't anticipate a thread start until ~Mid June though. So there is time for a discussion on this subject.

 
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/09/2021 03:18 pm
May 20 SLC-40 (11 days)
B1063.2 Starlink v1.0 L28
We'll soon see if SpaceX fits a 4th Starlink launch in May between Flight 26 and SXM-8, from SLC-40--also if they launch B1063 in Florida.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 05/09/2021 04:08 pm
May 20 SLC-40 (11 days)
B1063.2 Starlink v1.0 L28
We'll soon see if SpaceX fits a 4th Starlink launch in May between Flight 26 and SXM-8, from SLC-40--also if they launch B1063 in Florida.

Like I said in the main post, there are a few assumptions made. But the only two boosters available before June 1 would be B1061 and B1063.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachF on 05/10/2021 05:45 pm
So far this year SpaceX has put up ~61% of the world's adjusted tonnage to orbit, and ~57% of the world's people

SpaceX is on track to put up ~500,000kg of adjusted tonnage this year, equal to ULA's 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 totals combined.
Thanks a lot for sharing!
Could you tell (briefly) how do you calculate DV-adjusted tonnage?

Basically, it uses the rocket equation, and an ISP of 320 (typical of hypergolic orbit raising rockets) and applies it based on the the delta-V difference between it's achieved orbit, and the DV it would take to get to 185km, 28deg LEO. It is launcher and launch site independent, ie a 5500kg GTO-1800 orbit will count the same value no matter where it was launched from out what it was launched on.

When a satellite is dropped off in GTO, it will need to raise itself to geostationary, and most satellites still use hypergolic rockets to do this. The typical 5500kg Falcon 9 GTO-1800 payload will mass ~3,100kg once it lifts itself to geostationary with a 320 ISP rocket. If it was lifted to GTO-1500, it would only need to mass 5000kg to hit an on-orbit mass mass of 3100kg.

Roughly, the multipliers end up looking like this:

e^((DV difference)/3136)

~1.067 LEO-ISSS
~1.250 SSO
~2.219 GTO-1800
~2.442 GTO-1500
~2.730 TLI
~3.940 Direct Geo

So, under my DV adjustment system:

A Delta IV heavy lifting a 6000kg payload to direct GEO counts as a ~23,640kg DV-adj payload
An Ariane 5 lifting 9,500kg to GTO-1500 counts as a ~23,200kg DV-adj payload
A Falcon 9 lifting a 15,600kg Starlink payload counts as a ~16,570kg DV-adj payload
A Falcon 9 lifting 5,500kg to GTO-1800 counts as a ~12,200kg DV-adjusted payload
And a Saturn V lifting 44,000kg to TLI counts as a ~120,000kg DV-adjusted payload

etc, etc...

You'll also notice that using my geosat numbers above, a ~5500kg payload to GTO-1800, a ~5000kg payload to GTO-1500, and a ~3100kg to direct GEO, will all have the same value, as they will have the same on-orbit mass using a 320 ISP orbit-raising motor.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachF on 05/10/2021 05:50 pm
So far this year SpaceX has put up ~61% of the world's adjusted tonnage to orbit, and ~57% of the world's people

SpaceX is on track to put up ~500,000kg of adjusted tonnage this year, equal to ULA's 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 totals combined.

Awesome table, I'd love to know where you get the data from.  I'd been unsuccessfully looking for something like that a few years ago when I was trying to compare payload capacity of a single starship flying once a month per year to the yearly world demand for launch capacity.

I've been compiling it on excel for myself for several years.

Here is the file, be aware that it's still a bit incomplete. Bolded "APV" (AA) is the DV adjusted payload value. Also breaks it down by satellite.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: dcp123 on 05/10/2021 11:47 pm
May 20 SLC-40 (11 days)
B1063.2 Starlink v1.0 L28
We'll soon see if SpaceX fits a 4th Starlink launch in May between Flight 26 and SXM-8, from SLC-40--also if they launch B1063 in Florida.

Like I said in the main post, there are a few assumptions made. But the only two boosters available before June 1 would be B1061 and B1063.
That's why my thinking is that if SpaceX has promised to make best efforts to give Sirius XM a launch on June 1, they must be planning to use 1063 for that launch. 

- If they're holding B1063 out of StarLink launches to keep it available for SXM-8, that would explain why no launches have yet been scheduled on B1063 since it was shipped east.
- They can't be completely certain that they'll be done refurbishing B1060 by then.  That would be pretty close to a record turnaround.
- B1061 would only be slightly better.
- B1049, B1051, and B1058 would all require a record turnaround to be available on June 1.  They're not in contention.
- SpaceX has only twice turned a first stage around in less than 60 days before a launch of anything other than a StarLink flight.
- The shortest turnaround before an non-StarLink flight was 49 days and that was before a rideshare flight (no extremely expensive cargo was on board).
- B1063 is the only first stage known to exist that should require no refurbishment between now and June 1.

The only real alternatives I see are either that they've already given up on a June 1 launch or that B1068 will soon be in Brownsville for testing prior to use for SXM-8 and neither of those seem very likely.

Edited to add:  But of course, I could be dead wrong.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/13/2021 02:15 pm
It seems possible that Starlink L28 waits still after the commercial launch rush at the start of June.

Seems it would need to be announced very soon to clear the pads and ASDS fleet before June 1. 

If that does happen then the fully booster fleet will be ready in June.  They could have the hardware for 7 or 8 flights at 1 per week.  Rolling right into the FH launch.

And that FH launch will take 39A out for a bit to change over. 

June and July are going to be fun!
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: dcp123 on 05/13/2021 04:18 pm
It seems possible that Starlink L28 waits still after the commercial launch rush at the start of June.

Seems it would need to be announced very soon to clear the pads and ASDS fleet before June 1. 

If that does happen then the fully booster fleet will be ready in June.  They could have the hardware for 7 or 8 flights at 1 per week.  Rolling right into the FH launch.

And that FH launch will take 39A out for a bit to change over. 

June and July are going to be fun!

Agreed.

I don't think it's really possible to launch Starlink L28 in May, Sirius XM-8 on June 1 and CRS-22 on June 3.  Barring a B1068 being rolled out ASAP, L28 or SXM-8 would have to use B1060. For reasons explained above, I don't think that can be SXM-8 on a 33-day turnaround.  If B1060 matched the previous record 27-day turnaround, the earliest L28 could launch on B1060 would be May 26.  If all the stars alligned perfectly, it might be possible to launch L28 on B1060 from pad 39A on May 26, land it on an ASDS, launch SXM-8 on B1063 from pad 40 on June 1, land it on the other ASDS, and launch CRS-22 on B1067 from pad 39A on June 3, and land it on the first ASDS, but SpaceX would have to be crazy to plan around that and I doubt NASA or Sirius would be thrilled by scheduling that might put their launch dates in question.

But once SXM-8 and CRS-22 are launched, B1060, B1049, B1051 and B1058 if it launched on May 15, as planned, could all be finished refurbishing and ready for use sometime in June in roughly that order and B1063 (assuming it carries SXM-8 on or about June 1) and B1067 could become available in July.  They may be constrained by the combination of weather and pad and ASDS availabilty for the next couple months.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 05/13/2021 05:16 pm
I don't think it's really possible to launch Starlink L28 in May, Sirius XM-8 on June 1 and CRS-22 on June 3.  Barring a B1068 being rolled out ASAP, L28 or SXM-8 would have to use B1060. For reasons explained above, I don't think that can be SXM-8 on a 33-day turnaround.  If B1060 matched the previous record 27-day turnaround, the earliest L28 could launch on B1060 would be May 26.

You’ve started out with the premise that SXM-8 will launch on B1063, and constructed all of your supporting arguments in reverse.

Instead of B1060’s previous turnaround of 27 days supporting its use on SXM-8, you argue that since it has only done it once before, it’s unlikely to do so again.

You keep insisting that SXM wants B1063 for some reason, even though SXM-7 flew on B1051-7 and the company has no issues with high number reuse. In fact, with the way the contract is structured as a service, I doubt SXM has paid for booster selection at all.

SXM-8 might fly on B1063, but doubtfully for the reasons you listed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: dcp123 on 05/13/2021 09:23 pm
I don't think it's really possible to launch Starlink L28 in May, Sirius XM-8 on June 1 and CRS-22 on June 3.  Barring a B1068 being rolled out ASAP, L28 or SXM-8 would have to use B1060. For reasons explained above, I don't think that can be SXM-8 on a 33-day turnaround.  If B1060 matched the previous record 27-day turnaround, the earliest L28 could launch on B1060 would be May 26.

You’ve started out with the premise that SXM-8 will launch on B1063, and constructed all of your supporting arguments in reverse.

Instead of B1060’s previous turnaround of 27 days supporting its use on SXM-8, you argue that since it has only done it once before, it’s unlikely to do so again.

You keep insisting that SXM wants B1063 for some reason, even though SXM-7 flew on B1051-7 and the company has no issues with high number reuse. In fact, with the way the contract is structured as a service, I doubt SXM has paid for booster selection at all.

SXM-8 might fly on B1063, but doubtfully for the reasons you listed.
You say that I "keep insisting that SXM wants B1063 for some reason..."  My reasons aren't mysterious.  I listed at least seven of them in my May 10 comment.  You're welcome to disagree with them and I did even admit that I could be dead wrong in them, but please don't pretend that I just asserted that SXM-8 had to go on B1063 without giving any explanation of my reasoning.

I also did consider the possibility of Starlink L28 launching on B1063 and SXM-8 launching on B1060, but that goes against all of the points in my May 10 comment whope solving only one of the problems identified in my comment earlier today.

None of my points related even slightly to the number of reuses of any of the rockets.  Apparently, that is a concern of yours.  It is not a concern of mine.

To date only one non-Starlink cargo has launched on a particularly short turnaround.  Now, I have to concede that the prior launch in question was of SXM-7 after a 56-day turnaround, but launching SXM-8 on B1060 on June 1 would be a 33-day turnaround, which is quite a bit less than 56 days.  My concern with a commercial launch on a short turnaround is less that the paying customers will think that SpaceX may miss things during such a rushed turnaround, although I think that is a concern, and more that turnaround times are not that predictable and, without another rocket siting around ready to go, SpaceX can't promise a launch on June 1 on a rocket that just flew on 29 April.  I suspect most customers would rather have a date a bit more certain than "June 1 if there are no difficulties in the refurbishment."

But, keeping in mind that my point was the improbability of Starlink L28 occuring in May, let's consider how launching SXM-8 on something other than B1063 changes things.  For SXM-8 to launch on June 1, the only other potentially available first stage would be B1060.  That would have to be a 33-day turnaround, which would be the third-shortest turnaround ever for a Falcon 9.  Paid commercial launches clearly get priority over Starlink launches.  Would SpaceX really be so confident of B1060's readiness on June 1 that it would make the agreed launch date of SXM-8 dependent on that readiness just so SpaceX could launch another Starlink flight in May?  Would SXM be fine with that or would it ask SpaceX to delay its Starlink flight a couple of weeks to let SXM be launched on a rocket that is presumably certain to be ready on June 1.

You either didn't read it didn't understand the reasons I gave on 10 May for my opinion that, if SXM launches on 1 June it will probably be on B1063, then you assumed a basis for my opinion that I never hinted at and did not consider, you never set out what you expect to launch on which rocket and when as an alternative to the scenarios I described, and then you wrapped it all in a layer of rudeness.

You can do better.  Try harder to consider other people's points, set out the reasons for any disagreements, and do it all politely.  Simply saying that I'm wrong and that SXM is fine with highly reused rockets, which I never suggested they weren't, isn't making a point.  It's just shouting incoherently.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 05/14/2021 03:54 pm
Sorry I hurt your feelings.

I never said you were wrong. I pointed out the flaws in your logic. Sorry you took it the wrong way.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 05/14/2021 08:15 pm
Confirmed in bold, rest is estimated

B1049 - Starlink v1.0 L25
B1051 - Starlink v1.0 L27

B1058 - Available now Starlink L26?
B1060 - Reprocessing - June 1 (32 days)
B1063 - Available now Starlink L28?

B1061 - Reserved Inspiration4?
B1062 - Reserved GPS III SV05
B1067 - Reserved CRS-22 June 3



May 09 SLC-40
B1051.10 - Starlink v1.0 L27


May 14 LC-39A (10 days pad turnaround)
B1058 (37 days last launch) Starlink v1.0 L26

May 20 SLC-40 (11 days)
B1063.2 Starlink v1.0 L28

June 1 SLC-40 (12 days)
B1060.8? (32 days)- SXM-8

June 3 LC-39A (20 days)
B1067.1 - CRS-22

June 17 SLC-40 (16 days)
B1062.2 - GPS III SV05



Best estimation based on booster processing and availability.

Assumptions are that B1061 will be used for Inspiration4 and NASA workflow will again require long lead time for CRS-22. Also that B1063 will be put into rotation for Starlink, but that might not happen. If so, L28 gets bumped to June.


Now that B1063.2 has been confirmed for L28, the two most likely options for SXM-8 are B1060 and B1061 if it is not reserved for Inspiration4.

I’m thinking SXM-8 might be delayed a few days to 04 June. Seems too tight with pad turnaround and ASDS availability.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/14/2021 09:25 pm
SXM-8 sliding to after CRS would make sense and help take pressure off the ASDS fleet.

Really great to see 63 get an assignment.  June is really stacking up to be a busy month.  They can probably so as many as the ASDS will support.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 05/14/2021 10:17 pm
SXM-8 sliding to after CRS would make sense and help take pressure off the ASDS fleet.

Really great to see 63 get an assignment.  June is really stacking up to be a busy month.  They can probably so as many as the ASDS will support.

I suspect there is an issue with the SXM-8 launch, hence inserting L28. Twelve days is pretty much the full LV integration workflow. If they had L28 planned it would likely have been sooner.

Might see five F9 launches in June!
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Orbiter on 05/16/2021 11:40 pm
You know I'm curious to see which booster gets assigned for Crew-3 if B1067 is being reserved for Inspiration4. Will be interesting to see if a new booster pops up at McGregor soon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: cwr on 05/17/2021 01:26 am
You know I'm curious to see which booster gets assigned for Crew-3 if B1067 is being reserved for Inspiration4. Will be interesting to see if a new booster pops up at McGregor soon.

I can't point to a specific reference but my recollection is that during one of
the press conferences for crew 2 it was mentioned that 1061.3 would be used for Inspiration 4.

Again I can't quote a reference but my notes say that 1067.1 is for CRS-22
and 1067.2 is for Crew 3.

Carl
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 05/17/2021 01:44 am
Jared Isaacman tweeted a couple days ago that 1067 is likely going to fly Inspiration 4.  That's the most current information.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 05/17/2021 02:11 am
https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1393402386845208579

It doesn’t sound like he knows for sure, and I don’t know he has much input into it either.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachF on 05/19/2021 01:56 am
There have been a lot of launches since my last post, so here is an updated scorecard.

With ~38% of the year over, SpaceX has launched 56% of the world's adjusted tonnage to orbit.

Falcon is on pace to beat the one-year adjusted record for an LV family, and SpaceX could be close to beating the 1988 Record the USSR set for largest tonnage sent by a single entity. The US on the whole will very likely beat the all-time tonnage record for a country this year too... big doings!

I think this year will also beat 1985 for the most adjusted tonnage sent to orbit too.

I also attached a chart of LV payload history (Adjusted tonnage to orbit again)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/19/2021 09:56 pm
July seems to be without any scheduled launches now. Unless Transporter 2 slips into July from June that is. Such that other than for weather which can be good or bad like an on/off switch in the month of July. So there could be 5-6 launches or just 2. SpaceX is likely to fill up the month with Starlink launches as long as the weather is good. Weather for the Florida east coast in July through September is as always a big ??? It can be completely at ease with an occasional rain showers/thunderstorms lasting barely a half day or it can be riddled with multiple Tropical storms. Such that a long enough period with good enough weather in order to launch can be a usual occurrence to that of a rare occurrence.

SpaceX's plan should be to maximize use of the good weather opportunities.

ADDED:
Situation on Boosters and pads going into June.
Boosters available for use likely by:
1060.8 -  26 May
1049.10 - 18 June
1051.11 - 14 June
1058.9 - 12 June
There is still in my mind at least as to whether 1063 is really at the Cape vs still being in VAFB. We will know soon if it shows up on L28 on 26 May.
If it is at the Cape then
1063.3 - 23 June
Also with a launch on June 3 with 1067.1 it would be available again by the last day of June or the 1st of July.

Next is pad availability launch dates:
40 - available after 27 June. But not available before the June 17th  date for GPS III. At least currently with GPS III scheduled for 17 June.
39A - available after 13 June.
Such that pads and boosters are available for 3 additional launch opportunities in June besides the 2 scheduled on June 3 and 17th.

Somewhere in one of those launch opportunity dates is probably the SXM launch with the other 2 being Starlink. Note is that Transporter 2 is likely only to launch from 40. So a late June very early July date is consistent with the current 40 availabilities.

Such that it is likely that at least 1 Starlink launch (L29) occuring in June and possibly 2 (L30).

Going into July there should not be any problems with booster availabilities to support as many as 5 launches in the month of July.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: AndrewRG10 on 05/20/2021 08:22 am
ADDED:
Situation on Boosters and pads going into June.
Boosters available for use likely by:
1060.8 -  26 May...

...There is still in my mind at least as to whether 1063 is really at the Cape vs still being in VAFB. We will know soon if it shows up on L28 on 26 May.
If it is at the Cape then

I don't think I've seen any evidence of B1063 being moved from the Cape to VAFB. In fact, I don't think there is evidence of any boosters moving west, only moving east such as when B1063 arrived or more recently B1067.
And plus Nextspaceflight has confirmed B1063, and I don't remember a time nextspaceflight was wrong this close to launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 05/20/2021 05:43 pm
...There is still in my mind at least as to whether 1063 is really at the Cape vs still being in VAFB. We will know soon if it shows up on L28 on 26 May.
If it is at the Cape then

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1370400469479161860

There are dozens of pictures of B1063 being moved in March. In fact you posted on that subject:
With this progress looks like arrival possible at the Cape tomorrow.

If they are going in the direction you believe. Looks to be headed down to 98 and then to possibly 27 then through Ocala and skirt Orlando area possibly on the North side.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/20/2021 07:09 pm
My doubts have been fueled by the fact that the supposedly 1063 arrived on or about 17 March at the Cape. That was 2 months ago. It may have needed more than normal processing for some reason. Or just was SpaceX's hole card.

With 6 boosters in general rotation then launching an average of 4 times a month should not be difficult. If this next booster that comes out of McGregor. No evidence yet of a booster there though. Is then shipped to VAFB. Then VAFB could start it's monthly launches probably in August not the planned July as SpaceX's Shotwell statement over a month ago.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jakusb on 05/20/2021 07:53 pm
...There is still in my mind at least as to whether 1063 is really at the Cape vs still being in VAFB. We will know soon if it shows up on L28 on 26 May.
If it is at the Cape then

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1370400469479161860

There are dozens of pictures of B1063 being moved in March. In fact you posted on that subject:
With this progress looks like arrival possible at the Cape tomorrow.

If they are going in the direction you believe. Looks to be headed down to 98 and then to possibly 27 then through Ocala and skirt Orlando area possibly on the North side.
We saw an anonymous booster. AFAIK there was no explicit core number painted on it.
Still all signs seem to confirm it is at the Cape.
But there seems no good obvious reason for it to take so long to prepare for launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 05/20/2021 08:16 pm
But there seems no good obvious reason for it to take so long to prepare for launch.

Well, it was missing a bunch of engines. That could explain why it took longer to prepare it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/26/2021 02:42 pm
Looks like the Manifest is ready to have more Starlink missions added to the upcoming flights.

Today’s flight finishes the first shell, so maybe there is some kind of pause, or transition to the next version of satellite.  But that doesn’t seem like SpaceX. 

They have so many to put up I just expect them to keep launching vehicles at every opportunity.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 05/26/2021 05:14 pm
Looks like the Manifest is ready to have more Starlink missions added to the upcoming flights.

There are 2-3 Starlink launch opportunities in June, but the schedule is already pretty busy. Could see 5 or 6 launches with all the available boosters.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: StraumliBlight on 05/26/2021 07:21 pm
SpaceX will launch 10 satellites for Chile's government.

Quote
"The project considers putting the Fasat Delta, Fasat Echo 1 and Fasat Echo 2 satellites in space between 2021 and 2024. The other 7 smaller satellites, between 12 and 13 kilos, will be launched as follows: one in 2023, three in 2024 and three in 2025."

https://www.radioagricultura.cl/nacional/2021/05/26/chile-lanzara-10-satelites-space-x-los-pondra-en-orbita.html (https://www.radioagricultura.cl/nacional/2021/05/26/chile-lanzara-10-satelites-space-x-los-pondra-en-orbita.html)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 05/26/2021 07:32 pm
SpaceX will launch 10 satellites for Chile's government.

Quote
"The project considers putting the Fasat Delta, Fasat Echo 1 and Fasat Echo 2 satellites in space between 2021 and 2024. The other 7 smaller satellites, between 12 and 13 kilos, will be launched as follows: one in 2023, three in 2024 and three in 2025."

https://www.radioagricultura.cl/nacional/2021/05/26/chile-lanzara-10-satelites-space-x-los-pondra-en-orbita.html (https://www.radioagricultura.cl/nacional/2021/05/26/chile-lanzara-10-satelites-space-x-los-pondra-en-orbita.html)

Sounds like they will all be on rideshares:
Quote
The project includes three mini-satellites weighing less than 100kg each, and another seven micro-satellites, at 12-13 kg each. The launches will be carried out by SpaceX.
https://www.bnamericas.com/en/news/chile-set-for-blast-off-with-10-satellite-plan
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 05/26/2021 07:35 pm
SpaceX has done a record 35 successful launches within the past 12 months.
(This remains true for only a day, but it is a new record.)
They just set a record at 30 back on April 7.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/26/2021 10:16 pm
Looks like the Manifest is ready to have more Starlink missions added to the upcoming flights.

There are 2-3 Starlink launch opportunities in June, but the schedule is already pretty busy. Could see 5 or 6 launches with all the available boosters.

I think they will squeeze in Starlink flights, just to get the boosters back on land and into the next cycle.  I think we’ll see attempts at 5 flights in June.

Keep the boosters flying, that’s the key to cheaper access to space!
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/27/2021 02:50 am
Apologies if this has been answered recently:
Is there any indication that SpaceX will continue Starship/Superheavy work at LC-39A in the coming months?  (Asking with respect to the launch schedule.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 05/27/2021 03:09 am
Apologies if this has been answered recently:
Is there any indication that SpaceX will continue Starship/Superheavy work at LC-39A in the coming months?  (Asking with respect to the launch schedule.)

There is no indication that any possible Starship construction will interfere with the launch schedule.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/27/2021 03:24 am
Apologies if this has been answered recently:
Is there any indication that SpaceX will continue Starship/Superheavy work at LC-39A in the coming months?  (Asking with respect to the launch schedule.)

There is no indication that any possible Starship construction will interfere with the launch schedule.

Barring mishaps, the Falcon 9 Space Coast launches can continue full-throttle!
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/28/2021 02:14 pm
Apologies if this has been answered recently:
Is there any indication that SpaceX will continue Starship/Superheavy work at LC-39A in the coming months?  (Asking with respect to the launch schedule.)

There is no indication that any possible Starship construction will interfere with the launch schedule.

Barring mishaps, the Falcon 9 Space Coast launches can continue full-throttle!

Agreed, there appears to be enough boosters available and Starlink and Commercial launches on the manifest to really keep pumping out the launches.

However, having lived in Central Florida in the past, we are enter the summer weather season and we can start expecting weather issues for launch and recovery coming up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/30/2021 08:47 pm
Hypothetical near-term Falcon 9 schedule:

June 3 - SpX-22 - KSC LC-39A - OCISLY recovery (June 3 successful)

June 6 - SXM-8 - CCSFS SLC-40 - JRTI recovery (June 6 successful)

overnight June 11/12 - OCISLY departs for the Pacific (via Neopanamax Panama Canal) to support NET July 70 deg orbital inclination Starlink launches from VSFB.  Perhaps the recent activity off-shore of Cape Canaveral is to support this? (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52211.msg2244881#msg2244881)
Update June 6: Because the barge wings do not need removal, OCISLY should be able to proceed directly to the 1st stage recovery area. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39766.msg2248656#msg2248656)
Update June 12: OCISLY departure (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39766.msg2250221#msg2250221)

June 17 - GPS III-5 - CCSFS SLC-40 - JRTI recovery (June 17 successful)

late June 25 24 - Transporter-2 - CCSFS SLC-40 - RTLS recovery (corrected)

early July - Starlink v1.0 Flight 29 - Cape - JRTI recovery

July - Starlink launches continue from the Cape from either LC at a pace supportable by JTRI.

NET July - Starlink cluster, size TBD - VSFB SLC-4E - OCISLY recovery.  (Vandenberg Starlink launches continue at an approximate pace of once per month.)

?? - ASOG joins JRTI in Florida > Falcon 9 Cape launches "pedal to the metal"

Changes June 3
Changes June 6
Changes June 7
Changes June 12
Changes June 17th
Changes June 18th
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/01/2021 02:17 pm
With a fast start to June with the 3rd and 6th, it looks like there is a slot before the GPS launch on the 17th for a Starlink flight.

Also another possible window between the 17th and Transporter 2.

On the face of it, there looks like room for 6 flights in June.  Which sounds completely insane, but also possible.

If OCISLY does make a run for the West Coast soon, I can see SpaceX trying to squeeze out another 1 or 2 launches on it quickly before packing up and heading West.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 06/02/2021 12:59 am
Maybe SpaceX will keep OCISLY on the East coast and just launch reduce Starlink stacks from Vandenberg that will allow Return to Launch Site for the Falcon 9 cores.


SpaceX need a minimum of two available drone ships if they want to maintain their launch rate. Which is dicey with only two drone ships station on the East coast.

Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 06/02/2021 12:48 pm
For people excited for 5 or 6 launches in June and continuing rapid pace, how do you interpret this:

Quote
But the launch of the 60 newest Starlinks Wednesday could be the last dedicated Starlink mission to take off from Florida’s Space Coast, at least for a while. The next Falcon 9 rocket fully loaded with Starlink satellites is scheduled to launch in July from Vandenberg Space Force Base, California.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/05/28/five-launches-planned-from-floridas-space-coast-in-june/

Will take a while for asds to get to Vandenberg, looking late July or even August for next Starlink from West coast. Quote therefore seems to imply no Florida starlink launches in at least June and July.

So what is SpaceX going to launch in July and August?
A polar starlink in each of July and August, and CRS-23. Just 3 launches is 2 months?

That would seem surprisingly low.

Is that quote just unduly pessimistic and starlink missions from Florida will continue in July and August after just a brief break in June for 4 non starlink launches? (Perhaps at reduced rate while only 1 ASDS on East coast.)

Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 06/02/2021 01:34 pm
For people excited for 5 or 6 launches in June and continuing rapid pace, how do you interpret this:

Quote
But the launch of the 60 newest Starlinks Wednesday could be the last dedicated Starlink mission to take off from Florida’s Space Coast, at least for a while. The next Falcon 9 rocket fully loaded with Starlink satellites is scheduled to launch in July from Vandenberg Space Force Base, California.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/05/28/five-launches-planned-from-floridas-space-coast-in-june/

Will take a while for asds to get to Vandenberg, looking late July or even August for next Starlink from West coast. Quote therefore seems to imply no Florida starlink launches in at least June and July.

So what is SpaceX going to launch in July and August?
A polar starlink in each of July and August, and CRS-23. Just 3 launches is 2 months?

That would seem surprisingly low.

Is that quote just unduly pessimistic and starlink missions from Florida will continue in July and August after just a brief break in June for 4 non starlink launches? (Perhaps at reduced rate while only 1 ASDS on East coast.)

Starlink missions are often short notice and based on opportunities that open up, like the delays with SXM-8 that allowed for L28.

Just because there isn’t anything currently shared with the media doesn’t mean that they won’t add one or two missions.

I’m increasingly leaning towards a west coast drone ship that is already converted or being converted, beside the one that was spotted in Louisiana. I laid out some of my  thoughts here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53965.msg2244684#msg2244684), but the short timeframe for  the Panama transit required looks really tight for a July launch.

Operations on the Eastern Range have been constrained by ASDS availability. SpaceX would’ve been aware of this and taken steps to address that. The planned reuse for Falcon Heavy next year also points towards the necessity for a fourth droneship.

It makes sense considering that Elon originally tweeted about ASOG in 2018. If the plan was to have a droneship operating in the west coast, then the introduction would be delayed when Vandenberg fell out of favour. Elon’s recent tweets about ASOG also coincided with job postings for west coast recovery operations.

Nothing conclusive yet unless someone spots something in a west coast port, but I’m not sure anybody has been looking in the right places.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: mandrewa on 06/02/2021 01:56 pm
For people excited for 5 or 6 launches in June and continuing rapid pace, how do you interpret this:

Quote
But the launch of the 60 newest Starlinks Wednesday could be the last dedicated Starlink mission to take off from Florida’s Space Coast, at least for a while. The next Falcon 9 rocket fully loaded with Starlink satellites is scheduled to launch in July from Vandenberg Space Force Base, California.
https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/05/28/five-launches-planned-from-floridas-space-coast-in-june/

Will take a while for asds to get to Vandenberg, looking late July or even August for next Starlink from West coast. Quote therefore seems to imply no Florida starlink launches in at least June and July.

So what is SpaceX going to launch in July and August?
A polar starlink in each of July and August, and CRS-23. Just 3 launches is 2 months?

That would seem surprisingly low.

Is that quote just unduly pessimistic and starlink missions from Florida will continue in July and August after just a brief break in June for 4 non starlink launches? (Perhaps at reduced rate while only 1 ASDS on East coast.)



From the same article:

Quote
There are no drone ships for booster landings currently on the West Coast, but SpaceX could transfer one of the two landing vessels based in Florida to a California port. SpaceX is also readying a third drone ship for its debut, perhaps later this year.

This is a speculation.  We do not know that JRTI is being moved to Vandenberg.  It's possible but it's also possible that A Shortfall of Gravitas is about to be deployed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: AndrewRG10 on 06/03/2021 11:57 pm

This is a speculation.  We do not know that JRTI is being moved to Vandenberg.  It's possible but it's also possible that A Shortfall of Gravitas is about to be deployed.

My understanding is that JRTI and ASOG are too wide to fit through the Panama canal with the new thrusters.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: SMS on 06/04/2021 02:33 am
https://twitter.com/SpaceNosey/status/1400535164715941894

Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: cpushack on 06/04/2021 05:01 pm
https://twitter.com/SpaceNosey/status/1400535164715941894

These diagrams will get messier ig they show the parts they use from one Dragon on another (CRS-22 Heatsheild was apparently liberated from the DM-2 capsule)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Orbiter on 06/06/2021 05:47 pm
Sounding like OCISLY is leaving Port Canaveral and heading to the West Coast here soon.

https://twitter.com/SpaceXFleet/status/1401592220571082760

Unless ASOG can be ready in time for OCISLY to leave, there might only be one droneship at the Cape for a few weeks.

Maybe Transporter-2 will be an RTLS with no Starlinks? That's the only way I could foresee that one happening on June 24.

Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 06/06/2021 06:01 pm
Maybe Transporter-2 will be an RTLS with no Starlinks? That's the only way I could foresee that one happening on June 24.

The current paperwork filed is for a RTLS recovery.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 06/06/2021 06:54 pm
Maybe Transporter-2 will be an RTLS with no Starlinks? That's the only way I could foresee that one happening on June 24.

The current paperwork filed is for a RTLS recovery.

If JRTI can do SXM-8 on 6th June and GPSIII-05 on 17th June, and Transporter 2 is RTLS, then even with just one drone ship, they could do starlink launches about 1 every 11/12 days, starting around 29th June?

Maybe even that "slow" pace wont last long if ASOG is nearly ready as indicated at
https://spaceexplored.com/2021/06/05/exclusive-new-photos-of-a-shortfall-of-gravitas-show-spacexs-new-droneship-is-getting-close-to-done/
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/06/2021 07:53 pm
An ASDS for the west coast is only half the problem. Also need a booster at VAFB. A booster could be shipped from the Cape to VAFB but at this point it would likely not able to support a launch from VAFB even if it shipped out tomorrow for a month and a half or NET mid July. A new booster has first to go through its acceptance testing then shipped out and then worked up (takes about 20 days at least once it arrives at a destination) before it would do a launch. Or at this point likely end of July or even August.

So just how long would it take to transfer OCISLY from the Cape to VAFB. My current estimates is there is about just less than 2 months before everything else is ready for which OSCILY would then be needed to support the catching of a booster.


The other thing getting me scratching my head is 39A sitting idle for what it seems like some 3 weeks at least or even longer. If OCISLY is ready to go back out then a launch of a Starlink sats L29 could be done around the 13th off of 39A. There is 3 booster that should all be available to choose from. Specifically 1058 which has done <28 day turnaround before. Booster 1049 40 days and 1051 35 days.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 06/06/2021 08:00 pm
An ASDS for the west coast is only half the problem. Also need a booster at VAFB. A booster could be shipped from the Cape to VAFB but at this point it would likely not able to support a launch from VAFB even if it shipped out tomorrow

A booster was already sent west.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/06/2021 08:39 pm
An ASDS for the west coast is only half the problem. Also need a booster at VAFB. A booster could be shipped from the Cape to VAFB but at this point it would likely not able to support a launch from VAFB even if it shipped out tomorrow

A booster was already sent west.
Had to go back and catch up on the booster movement info. So 1049 has been in VAFB for more than a week. Such that it would be ready to do a launch come 1 July. So OCISLY is going to be late to the party then.

Any latest info on when ASOG will be moving out to the Cape? Otherwise best possible support for ASDS needed is once every 8 days or more. They could practically just launch off of LC40 launching Starlinks 1 every 10 days for 3 launches in 30 days for July and August. And that a Starlink L29 could launch approximately 10 days after the GPS III (NET) June 27th.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 06/06/2021 10:36 pm
An ASDS for the west coast is only half the problem. Also need a booster at VAFB. A booster could be shipped from the Cape to VAFB but at this point it would likely not able to support a launch from VAFB even if it shipped out tomorrow

A booster was already sent west.
Had to go back and catch up on the booster movement info. So 1049 has been in VAFB for more than a week. Such that it would be ready to do a launch come 1 July. So OCISLY is going to be late to the party then.

Any latest info on when ASOG will be moving out to the Cape? Otherwise best possible support for ASDS needed is once every 8 days or more. They could practically just launch off of LC40 launching Starlinks 1 every 10 days for 3 launches in 30 days for July and August. And that a Starlink L29 could launch approximately 10 days after the GPS III (NET) June 27th.

Another possibility is that they do RTLS with a reduced number of Starlinks until a drone ship arrives on the west coast.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: butters on 06/06/2021 11:31 pm
My read is that SpaceX's Cape operation is dropping from two pads and two droneships to one pad (LC-40) and one droneship (JRTI) from now until CRS-23 in mid-August. The first mid-inclination shell being fully deployed, OCISLY and the Starlink campaign are moving to the west coast in July. I suspect SpaceX will take advantage of a relative lull in Cape launch operations to do HLS-related work at LC-39A.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: StraumliBlight on 06/07/2021 09:26 am
An ASDS for the west coast is only half the problem. Also need a booster at VAFB. A booster could be shipped from the Cape to VAFB but at this point it would likely not able to support a launch from VAFB even if it shipped out tomorrow

Seeing as OCISLY's wings wont be removed for the Panama canal trip (http://ports.com/sea-route/#/?a=1760&b=2286&c=Port%20of%20Canaveral,%20United%20States&d=Port%20of%20Los%20Angeles,%20United%20States), they could shave a week off by sailing directly to the starlink landing zone instead of Port of LA.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Fmedici on 06/07/2021 01:05 pm
Any news about the NationSat satellite? (here (https://spacenews.com/nilesat-buys-satellite-from-thales-alenia-%e2%80%a2-arctic-comms-payloads-pass-review-%e2%80%a2-nationsat-launch-slips-to-2021/) for reference). It was supposed to be launched in 2021 but I haven't heard anything about it in a while.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: klod on 06/07/2021 01:11 pm
Any news about the NationSat satellite? (here (https://spacenews.com/nilesat-buys-satellite-from-thales-alenia-%e2%80%a2-arctic-comms-payloads-pass-review-%e2%80%a2-nationsat-launch-slips-to-2021/) for reference). It was supposed to be launched in 2021 but I haven't heard anything about it in a while.
q2 2022 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49956.msg2246041#msg2246041
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Fmedici on 06/07/2021 01:15 pm
Any news about the NationSat satellite? (here (https://spacenews.com/nilesat-buys-satellite-from-thales-alenia-%e2%80%a2-arctic-comms-payloads-pass-review-%e2%80%a2-nationsat-launch-slips-to-2021/) for reference). It was supposed to be launched in 2021 but I haven't heard anything about it in a while.
q2 2022 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49956.msg2246041#msg2246041

That's a different one, even if it's cited in that same article. I'm talking about NationSat of Saturn Satellite Network.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/07/2021 01:17 pm
My read is that SpaceX's Cape operation is dropping from two pads and two droneships to one pad (LC-40) and one droneship (JRTI) from now until CRS-23 in mid-August. The first mid-inclination shell being fully deployed, OCISLY and the Starlink campaign are moving to the west coast in July. I suspect SpaceX will take advantage of a relative lull in Cape launch operations to do HLS-related work at LC-39A.

One thing we may have already forgotten is the delayed FH flight.  That would have taken up a lot of LC39A's time.  The ASDS fleet movement and the June/July schedule may have been set months ago.

The addition of ASOG on the east coast and a monthly flight from VSFB is going to be fun.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 06/07/2021 01:24 pm
My read is that SpaceX's Cape operation is dropping from two pads and two droneships to one pad (LC-40) and one droneship (JRTI) from now until CRS-23 in mid-August. The first mid-inclination shell being fully deployed, OCISLY and the Starlink campaign are moving to the west coast in July. I suspect SpaceX will take advantage of a relative lull in Cape launch operations to do HLS-related work at LC-39A.

One thing we may have already forgotten is the delayed FH flight.  That would have taken up a lot of LC39A's time.  The ASDS fleet movement and the June/July schedule may have been set months ago.

SpaceX’s schedule is very responsive and flexible. The FH launch in July required two ASDS for side booster recovery. The shift from July to October creates an opportunity for Starlink.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 06/07/2021 01:40 pm
Any news about the NationSat satellite? (here (https://spacenews.com/nilesat-buys-satellite-from-thales-alenia-%e2%80%a2-arctic-comms-payloads-pass-review-%e2%80%a2-nationsat-launch-slips-to-2021/) for reference). It was supposed to be launched in 2021 but I haven't heard anything about it in a while.
q2 2022 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49956.msg2246041#msg2246041

Nilesat is a completely different company.

Nationsat was supposed to be on a rideshare with Interspunik. They also had a contract with NG on Omega.

No confirmation they had a signed contract with SpaceX. They were supposed to have a launch in Q2 2021 but nothing concrete.

They have made a few purchases and signed some agreements but no mentions of a launch since 2019.

www.parabolicarc.com/2020/12/17/apollo-fusion-propulsion-systems-selected-by-saturn-satellite-networks/
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 06/07/2021 05:16 pm
Any news about the NationSat satellite? (here (https://spacenews.com/nilesat-buys-satellite-from-thales-alenia-%e2%80%a2-arctic-comms-payloads-pass-review-%e2%80%a2-nationsat-launch-slips-to-2021/) for reference). It was supposed to be launched in 2021 but I haven't heard anything about it in a while.
q2 2022 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49956.msg2246041#msg2246041

Nilesat is a completely different company.

Nationsat was supposed to be on a rideshare with Interspunik. They also had a contract with NG on Omega.

No confirmation they had a signed contract with SpaceX. They were supposed to have a launch in Q2 2021 but nothing concrete.

They have made a few purchases and signed some agreements but no mentions of a launch since 2019.

www.parabolicarc.com/2020/12/17/apollo-fusion-propulsion-systems-selected-by-saturn-satellite-networks/

The first Nationsat was supposed to be for Intersputnik, not a rideshare with another Intersputnik payload.  I haven't heard anything about progress on that program, I wouldn't be surprised if it's no longer happening.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Orbiter on 06/07/2021 09:41 pm
Do we have anything definitive confirming USSF-44 will feature the first dual droneship landing?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: StraumliBlight on 06/07/2021 09:48 pm
Do we have anything definitive confirming USSF-44 will feature the first dual droneship landing?

It was confirmed by SFN (https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/02/15/spacex-planning-launch-of-two-falcon-heavy-missions-in-summer-and-fall/):

Quote
The core stage will be expended on the launch, while the rocket’s two side boosters will be recovered on two SpaceX drone ships positioned downrange east of Cape Canaveral.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 06/08/2021 12:25 am
Nationsat was supposed to be on a rideshare with Interspunik. They also had a contract with NG on Omega.
The first Nationsat was supposed to be for Intersputnik, not a rideshare with another Intersputnik payload.  I haven't heard anything about progress on that program, I wouldn't be surprised if it's no longer happening.

Yes, Intersputnik was going to be their first customer. That was supposed to be a rideshare with another unnamed partner. Sorry if it wasn’t clear.

https://www.spaceintelreport.com/russia-intersputnik-citing-spacex-co-passenger-delay-seek-itu-deadline-extension-for-saturn-satellite-networks-nationsat/
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 06/15/2021 02:13 pm
If Transporter 2 is now confirmed as RTLS on 25 June, what and when is next flight?

JRTI is available very soon after if not by 26 June. There is usually at least a hint of other upcoming missions at http://www.launchphotography.com/Launch_Viewing_Guide.html
if there are any soon.

Why no details/gap?

Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Orbiter on 06/15/2021 02:22 pm
If Transporter 2 is now confirmed as RTLS on 25 June, what and when is next flight?

JRTI is available very soon after if not by 26 June. There is usually at least a hint of other upcoming missions at http://www.launchphotography.com/Launch_Viewing_Guide.html
if there are any soon.

Why no details/gap?



If I had to speculate I'd say the next flight out of Cape Canaveral is Starlink L29 sometime around July 1st.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/15/2021 04:02 pm
If Transporter 2 is now confirmed as RTLS on 25 June, what and when is next flight?

JRTI is available very soon after if not by 26 June. There is usually at least a hint of other upcoming missions at http://www.launchphotography.com/Launch_Viewing_Guide.html
if there are any soon.

Why no details/gap?



If I had to speculate I'd say the next flight out of Cape Canaveral is Starlink L29 sometime around July 1st.

What's crazy is that it's June 15th, there are 2 Falcon 9 flights in the next 9 days, that we expect a third flight in 16 days or so, and that this 3rd flight has not been announced yet.

This is such a stunning achievement for SpaceX.  I've been closely following space flight for nearly 30 years.  This pace and response time that we have gotten use to was only dreamed of by many of us for so long.

We are all excited about Starship, but Falcon 9 is already a huge revolution!
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Fmedici on 06/15/2021 08:28 pm
If Transporter 2 is now confirmed as RTLS on 25 June, what and when is next flight?

JRTI is available very soon after if not by 26 June. There is usually at least a hint of other upcoming missions at http://www.launchphotography.com/Launch_Viewing_Guide.html
if there are any soon.

Why no details/gap?



If I had to speculate I'd say the next flight out of Cape Canaveral is Starlink L29 sometime around July 1st.

What's crazy is that it's June 15th, there are 2 Falcon 9 flights in the next 9 days, that we expect a third flight in 16 days or so, and that this 3rd flight has not been announced yet.

This is such a stunning achievement for SpaceX.  I've been closely following space flight for nearly 30 years.  This pace and response time that we have gotten use to was only dreamed of by many of us for so long.

We are all excited about Starship, but Falcon 9 is already a huge revolution!

Yeah, we already got too used to SpaceX's ease in launching and recovering an incredible amount of rockets.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 06/15/2021 09:48 pm
Did they decide to do the late 2022 flight in October instead of December?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 06/15/2021 10:00 pm
Did they decide to do the late 2022 flight in October instead of December?

Hm, maybe... Although some customers like Alba (http://www.albaorbital.com/launch) and Lynk have mentioned Dec 2022 specifically.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 06/15/2021 10:10 pm
I would also like to know what the March 2022 opportunity is. I'm thinking SARah or WorldView?

EDIT: Hm, actually, it's listed in the Dedicated category. So I guess it's just a regular Transporter launch?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 06/15/2021 11:26 pm
I would also like to know what the March 2022 opportunity is. I'm thinking SARah or WorldView?

EDIT: Hm, actually, it's listed in the Dedicated category. So I guess it's just a regular Transporter launch?

Yes, I think so too. Had heard a few months back they were floating the idea of doing 3 Transporter missions a year, but nothing solid and forgot to follow up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 06/16/2021 12:11 am
I'd kinda like to quit pretending we know the names of these missions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/17/2021 07:23 pm
To date that is 19 flights for the F9 in 2021.

If they finish with 40+ flights this year that would be amazing. 

It should be possible with both east and west coast operations and 3 combined ASDS working.

This cadence is just fantastic. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 06/17/2021 08:35 pm
Next Spaceflight is showing all Transporter launches after Transporter-2 from SLC-4E.

Makes sense considering SSO.

Pretty full manifest of NRO, Starlink, and Transporter rideshares. I’m thinking they’ll add a second or third older booster to the west coast now that they have so many out east.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 06/17/2021 10:26 pm
Next Spaceflight is showing all Transporter launches after Transporter-2 from SLC-4E.

Makes sense considering SSO.

Pretty full manifest of NRO, Starlink, and Transporter rideshares. I’m thinking they’ll add a second or third older booster to the west coast now that they have so many out east.

Michael said he just put that as a likely location, not confirmed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 06/18/2021 05:20 pm
Received word there are multiple Starlink launches planned for July. No details beyond that.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/18/2021 10:54 pm
Received word there are multiple Starlink launches planned for July. No details beyond that.
Considering there is nothing but Starlink sats available for a launch in July for east coast much less the one scheduled for the west coast (VSFB), that is a safe bet.

The question is how many launches. Until the ASDS ASOG is available the number of launches may be just 3 or less from LC39A and LC40. Do we have an availability date for ASOG? Do we have a turn around time for JRTI Launch 2 Launch of serial Starlink launches?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: dror on 06/18/2021 11:17 pm

The question is how many launches. Until the ASDS ASOG is available the number of launches may be just 3 or less from LC39A and LC40.

If ASDS availability is the limiting factor,  can they add an RTLS launch ?
What will be the number of Starlink sats on such a flight?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 06/18/2021 11:36 pm
If ASDS availability is the limiting factor,  can they add an RTLS launch ?
What will be the number of Starlink sats on such a flight?

We’ve done the calculations before. Basically the cost of a launch is about 5% less with RTLS, but you’re launching half the payload and you save 3-4 days on the turnaround.

Doubling the effective cost for limited benefit doesn’t make sense, especially when you can still do 3-4 launches a month with a single ASDS.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: joek on 06/19/2021 12:03 am
We’ve done the calculations before. Basically the cost of a launch is about 5% less with RTLS, but you’re launching half the payload and you save 3-4 days on the turnaround.

Doubling the effective cost for limited benefit doesn’t make sense, especially when you can still do 3-4 launches a month with a single ASDS.

Yes, and we have an existence proof. If it were more cost effective to RTLS Starlink missions, believe we would see that as the norm. Instead, SpaceX norm for Starlink is ASDS.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Starship_SpaceX on 06/19/2021 09:35 am
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 06/19/2021 02:10 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/22/2021 05:52 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 06/22/2021 10:43 am
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 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=108366&RequestTimeout=1000)  Mission 1-6
1010-EX-ST-2021 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=108370&RequestTimeout=1000)  Mission 2-6
1011-EX-ST-2021 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=108371&RequestTimeout=1000)  Mission 3-6
1012-EX-ST-2021 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=108373&RequestTimeout=1000)  Mission 4-6
1013-EX-ST-2021 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=108374&RequestTimeout=1000)  Mission 5-6
1014-EX-ST-2021 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=108375&RequestTimeout=1000)  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?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 06/22/2021 11:03 am
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 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=108366&RequestTimeout=1000)  Mission 1-6
1010-EX-ST-2021 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=108370&RequestTimeout=1000)  Mission 2-6
1011-EX-ST-2021 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=108371&RequestTimeout=1000)  Mission 3-6
1012-EX-ST-2021 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=108373&RequestTimeout=1000)  Mission 4-6
1013-EX-ST-2021 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=108374&RequestTimeout=1000)  Mission 5-6
1014-EX-ST-2021 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=108375&RequestTimeout=1000)  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 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=107705&RequestTimeout=1000) 1-5
0826-EX-ST-2021 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=107729&RequestTimeout=1000) 2-5
0842-EX-ST-2021 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=107777&RequestTimeout=1000) 3-5
0843-EX-ST-2021 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=107778&RequestTimeout=1000) 4-5
0844-EX-ST-2021 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=107779&RequestTimeout=1000) 5-5
0845-EX-ST-2021 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=107780&RequestTimeout=1000) 6-5

Quote
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 (https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=276390) 1-5
0826-EX-ST-2021 grant (https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=276392) 2-5
0842-EX-ST-2021 grant (https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=276396) 3-5

Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 06/22/2021 11:05 am

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 (https://fcc.report/ELS/Space-Exploration-Technologies-Corp-SpaceX/1014-EX-ST-2021) to the request. The start date is July 26.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 06/22/2021 11:33 am
SFN reported in April (https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/04/06/spacex-to-ramp-up-vandenberg-launch-cadence-with-starlink-missions/) 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? :)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: smoliarm on 06/22/2021 12:03 pm
...

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...
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 06/22/2021 03:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 06/22/2021 04:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 06/22/2021 09:35 pm
SFN reported in April (https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/04/06/spacex-to-ramp-up-vandenberg-launch-cadence-with-starlink-missions/) 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.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/23/2021 06:57 am
A nice summary of current launch cadence:

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

Quote
If somebody asks me when the next @SpaceX launch is, I don’t bother doing any research but just say “in a few days.”
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/23/2021 01:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 06/24/2021 06:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 06/24/2021 07:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 06/24/2021 07:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 06/24/2021 07:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 06/24/2021 10:46 pm
Are polar trajectories actually allowed from LC-39A? I thought it was SLC-40 only (at least for now).
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 06/24/2021 10:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Orbiter on 06/25/2021 12:30 am
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.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Starship_SpaceX on 06/29/2021 01:40 pm
Are polar trajectories actually allowed from LC-39A? I thought it was SLC-40 only (at least for now).
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 06/29/2021 02:04 pm
Are polar trajectories actually allowed from LC-39A? I thought it was SLC-40 only (at least for now).

Which document is this from? Context matters.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Starship_SpaceX on 06/29/2021 02:35 pm
Are polar trajectories actually allowed from LC-39A? I thought it was SLC-40 only (at least for now).

Which document is this from? Context matters.
https://www.faa.gov/space/environmental/nepa_docs/media/SpaceX_Falcon_Program_Final_EA_and_FONSI.pdf
40 pages
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Redclaws on 06/29/2021 02:47 pm
Are polar trajectories actually allowed from LC-39A? I thought it was SLC-40 only (at least for now).

Which document is this from? Context matters.
https://www.faa.gov/space/environmental/nepa_docs/media/SpaceX_Falcon_Program_Final_EA_and_FONSI.pdf
40 pages

The sentence quoted also doesn’t necessarily say polar launches are allowed from LC-39A.  It can be read to be broadly inclusive of all options rather than tightly applied to both sites.

Still that doesn’t seem like a restriction with much good reason to stick around - do we know why it’s present?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/29/2021 09:53 pm
Are polar trajectories actually allowed from LC-39A? I thought it was SLC-40 only (at least for now).

Which document is this from? Context matters.
https://www.faa.gov/space/environmental/nepa_docs/media/SpaceX_Falcon_Program_Final_EA_and_FONSI.pdf
40 pages

The sentence quoted also doesn’t necessarily say polar launches are allowed from LC-39A.  It can be read to be broadly inclusive of all options rather than tightly applied to both sites.

Still that doesn’t seem like a restriction with much good reason to stick around - do we know why it’s present?
For the same launch inclination. A SSO launch from LC-40 goes out over water almost immediately. But a launch from LC-39A almost directly overflies the Atlas V pad before going also over LC-40 to get out over the water. Take a look at the maps of the pads and coastline.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 06/30/2021 08:11 pm
SpaceX has done a record 35 successful launches within the past 12 months.
(This remains true for only a day, but it is a new record.)
They just set a record at 30 back on April 7.

Midyear graph
SpaceX has now done a new record of 36 successful launches within the past 12 months.
This remains true for only 24 minutes, before the exact anniversary of the launch of GPS-III-2, but it is a new record.
The pace of the past ten launches is above 40 per year.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 07/01/2021 02:14 pm
I’m hearing that the Eastern Range is entering a stand down period. Also known as recapitalization, this is so that critical maintenance and upgrade work can be performed on Range assets.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 07/01/2021 06:24 pm
https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/06/30/spacex-rocket-hauls-88-small-satellites-to-orbit/
Quote
SpaceX had 26 launches last year, the most in the company’s history. If its near-term launch manifest remains on schedule, SpaceX could reach the 26-launch mark by late August or September.

Looks like SFN is expecting at least 4-5 Starlink launches in the next couple of months.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 07/01/2021 09:22 pm
SpaceX rideshare schedule was updated through 2023
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/01/2021 09:44 pm
Are they only going to ride shares to SSO?

Previously there were only a few launches a year to SSO now they are going to deliver a few hundred satellites a year to SSO.

Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 07/01/2021 09:46 pm
Are they only going to ride shares to SSO?

Previously there were only a few launches a year to SSO now they are going to deliver a few hundred satellites a year to SSO.

There are still rideshare opportunities for mid inclination Starlink launches.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 07/03/2021 10:56 am
Are they only going to ride shares to SSO?

Previously there were only a few launches a year to SSO now they are going to deliver a few hundred satellites a year to SSO.

There are still rideshare opportunities for mid inclination Starlink launches.

But these aren't shown past 2021 because they don't know whether they will be Falcon 9 or starship?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 07/03/2021 12:21 pm
I suspect there isn't that much interest in the Starlink rideshares, so they've stopped listing them on the website but they're probably still offered off-the-menu if anyone wants to utilize them.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 07/03/2021 07:31 pm
Are they only going to ride shares to SSO?

Previously there were only a few launches a year to SSO now they are going to deliver a few hundred satellites a year to SSO.

There are still rideshare opportunities for mid inclination Starlink launches.

But these aren't shown past 2021 because they don't know whether they will be Falcon 9 or starship?

I can confirm that there are rideshare opportunities going beyond 2021, but can’t provide details. However, SpaceX specifically states on their rideshare page:
Quote
Affordable rates also available to Mid-Inclination LEO, GTO, and TLI.

SSO missions approximately every 4 months. Frequent launches to mid-inclination. Inquire for other orbits.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 07/09/2021 12:00 am
I don't believe for a second that Astranis is on this flight.  The slide deck that Jansen posted is not for the EELV/NSSL program.

And you would be correct. According to https://spacenews.com/first-astranis-satellite-in-final-phase-of-assembly/ it will be flying on F9. I'm wondering if it's flying with a kick stage or just a expended F9 for direct GEO (if it even has the propellant margins still for the long coast).

Could it hitch a ride with IM-1?

That would be an interesting combination.  I'm going to wait for another source before 100% believing the Space News story since it contradicts the FCC filing.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 07/09/2021 12:06 am
I don't believe for a second that Astranis is on this flight.  The slide deck that Jansen posted is not for the EELV/NSSL program.

And you would be correct. According to https://spacenews.com/first-astranis-satellite-in-final-phase-of-assembly/ it will be flying on F9. I'm wondering if it's flying with a kick stage or just a expended F9 for direct GEO (if it even has the propellant margins still for the long coast).

Could it hitch a ride with IM-1?

That would be an interesting combination.  I'm going to wait for another source before 100% believing the Space News story since it contradicts the FCC filing.

Which part of the article contradicts the filing?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 07/09/2021 12:19 am
That would be an interesting combination.  I'm going to wait for another source before 100% believing the Space News story since it contradicts the FCC filing.

Which part of the article contradicts the filing?

F9.  Astranis FCC filing said FH secondary payload.  Plans may have changed, we'll see.  I like to find multiple sources when we see contradictions like that, reporter could have been working off old information for that part, or they could be right.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 07/09/2021 06:34 pm
1080-EX-ST-2021 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=108627&RequestTimeout=1000)  NET August

Quote
This application uses information from previous grant 0156-EX-ST-2021. This STA is necessary to authorize launch vehicle communications for Starlink RF Mission 6-7 from Cape Canaveral FL at LC-40 CCAFS or LC-39a at KSC, and the experimental recovery operation following the Falcon 9 launch. Includes sub-orbital first stage, and orbital second stage. Trajectory data will 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. Launch licensing authority is FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation.

Droneship position would suggest the 53.2deg shell: North  32  34  42   West  75  53  21

Is this the next Starlink mission from Florida, or could there still be another before this one?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 07/09/2021 08:27 pm
There are a bunch of permits already filed for Florida
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 07/09/2021 08:38 pm
Is this the next Starlink mission from Florida, or could there still be another before this one?

Recapitalization of range assets is underway. It depends on when it will be completed.

The lack of a TFR indicates the 12 July launch is pushed back.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: cwr on 07/09/2021 09:58 pm
Is this the next Starlink mission from Florida, or could there still be another before this one?

Recapitalization of range assets is underway. It depends on when it will be completed.

The lack of a TFR indicates the 12 July launch is pushed back.

I have no special knowledge, but I seem to recollect that this exercise happens each year
around this time. If memory serves it typically lasts 1-2 weeks.

Do we know when it started this year? Maybe July 1st or July 6th?

thanks

Carl
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/09/2021 11:16 pm
Is this the next Starlink mission from Florida, or could there still be another before this one?

Recapitalization of range assets is underway. It depends on when it will be completed.

The lack of a TFR indicates the 12 July launch is pushed back.

I have no special knowledge, but I seem to recollect that this exercise happens each year
around this time. If memory serves it typically lasts 1-2 weeks.

Do we know when it started this year? Maybe July 1st or July 6th?

thanks

Carl
Considering that Starliner OFT-2 is 31 July it should be finished about a week before that or around 24 July. Putting if it started as late as this week on the 6th finishing on the 20th is about right. Gives a few days leeway if needed.

Such that a launch at 3 or 4 days before OFT-2 is a likely date of 27 or 28 July for a Starlink launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 07/10/2021 12:49 pm
Is this the next Starlink mission from Florida, or could there still be another before this one?

Recapitalization of range assets is underway. It depends on when it will be completed.

The lack of a TFR indicates the 12 July launch is pushed back.

I have no special knowledge, but I seem to recollect that this exercise happens each year
around this time. If memory serves it typically lasts 1-2 weeks.

Do we know when it started this year? Maybe July 1st or July 6th?

thanks

Carl
Considering that Starliner OFT-2 is 31 July it should be finished about a week before that or around 24 July. Putting if it started as late as this week on the 6th finishing on the 20th is about right. Gives a few days leeway if needed.

Such that a launch at 3 or 4 days before OFT-2 is a likely date of 27 or 28 July for a Starlink launch.

FCC application for polar LEO from East Coast from 26th July fits with that.
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=108366&RequestTimeout=1000
Has that been approved?

OTOH
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1410322653160804356
includes "there will be at most one Falcon 9 launch in July" which I was guessing was VSFB Starlink launch 30 July if that isn't delayed into August.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/10/2021 06:47 pm
They need to launch out of the Cape whenever the weather is good for a week. July weather is bad but August and September weather is worse. So if the last week of July is to have decent weather. No tropical storms or even significant fronts moving through. Then they should do a launch. Because the likelihood of being able to do a launch in July and August because of weather is <75% chance and September is lower. October is better but not much better since tropical storms and fronts are still very active during that month too. NOTE that in a high storm count year which 2021 is supposedly one of those. Having good weather to be able to launch in July through October is scarce.

Fortunately for the Cape is that Elsa occurred causing wind and cloud disturbances in central florida and the East coast this past week coincided with the Eastern Range down time for "recalibration". So got lucky that bad weather occurrence did not interfere much in operations other than for the retrieval and landing of CRS-22.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Jansen on 07/12/2021 01:47 am
I have no special knowledge, but I seem to recollect that this exercise happens each year
around this time. If memory serves it typically lasts 1-2 weeks.

Do we know when it started this year? Maybe July 1st or July 6th?

Usually 2-4 weeks, depending on what needs to be done.

The last information I had was regarding significant schedule risk due to Elsa. A lot of the work involves outdoor equipment and only so much can be worked around.

I might have more information later this week.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 07/13/2021 09:30 pm
Nextspaceflight
https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/?search=SpaceX

now has no July launches.  :(
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/19/2021 04:38 pm
No idea if the following is accurate about the current launch hiatus:

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1417150526593118216

Quote
Still no firm word yet from SpaceX on when its next Falcon 9 launch will take place. They were launching so frequently earlier this year the 19 day (and counting) stretch since the last one seems like a lot longer.

twitter.com/alejandro_debh/status/1417154312799653893

Quote
As I understand it, part of the reason is also the preparation of assets for the next batches of Starlink satellites as well as having no customers ready to fly this month. Per Elon, next batches of Starlinks will be the "v1.5" version, then onto version 2 next year

https://twitter.com/alejandro_debh/status/1417154632837746688

Quote
These batches will fill shells 3 and 4 at 70º inclinations (near polar orbits) that will be launched from Vandenberg and the Cape. It's also to be expected that the naming will reset with these launches as well so fasten your seatbelt for more naming fights on twitter
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/22/2021 11:44 pm
Suggestion of a Starlink launch beginning of August?

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1418336291259785216

Quote
If OFT-2 doesn’t launch on July 30, next opportunity would be Aug. 3 because of a range conflict. OFT-2 can also launch and attempt ISS docking even if the Nauka module has not yet arrived.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 07/22/2021 11:50 pm
Suggestion of a Starlink launch beginning of August?

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1418336291259785216

Quote
If OFT-2 doesn’t launch on July 30, next opportunity would be Aug. 3 because of a range conflict. OFT-2 can also launch and attempt ISS docking even if the Nauka module has not yet arrived.

They said there was a range conflict on July 31, didn't say what it was.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: tesh90 on 07/27/2021 03:02 pm
It seems that they are cutting it very, very, very fine to launch Booster+Starship at the end of this month... And, as currently nothing is actually finished, what are the chances they launch next month - 50:50 or < 50:50?

  Orbital launch pad
  The launch tower
  The relevant space ship
  The relevant booster
  The Raptors

They could be really close to finishing on all of the above (I cannot tell tbh) but just thinking logistically, lets say, they finish up the above in 2 weeks time... they would still have to move the current booster, cairns and other equipment currently there out, move and test the starship and booster separately, and then stack the starship onto the booster and then launch... all in the remaining 2-3 weeks.

I guess they could move the Booster and Starship out to the launch pad and test them to static fire while they continue to finish the orbital launch pad and tower, which potentially saves a bit of time by removing a potential bottle neck.

Early Sept?

p.s. there's also the small matter of the licence to launch...
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 07/27/2021 03:13 pm
It seems that they are cutting it very, very, very fine to launch Booster+Starship at the end of this month... And, as currently nothing is actually finished, what are the chances they launch next month - 50:50 or < 50:50?
Zero.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 07/27/2021 04:03 pm
Starship prototype launch discussion should probably be in that forum section.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 08/06/2021 12:41 pm
It's starting to feel like we are never going to see a Falcon 9 flight again.

Although I assume once they start up the next round of Starlinks that we'll return to a flight cadence of 10-14 days.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: M.E.T. on 08/15/2021 03:25 pm
So apologies if bits and pieces of the answer might be buried across various preceding pages of this thread.

Can anyone provide the latest understanding of why SpaceX had no F9 launches in August and appears to only have one at the very end of the month?

I understand that July was lost to range maintenance, but what is the general consensus about the loss of August?

Customers not being ready? Starlink sats also not being ready? (Which seems weird given the backlog they had supposedly produced up to now).

Or some other constraints? (Like they only want to launch v1.5 Starlink sats from now on, and those not being ready yet.)🤷‍♂️

Thanks in advance for your time.

Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: cuddihy on 08/15/2021 04:46 pm
Half the pad crew is at Boca Chica finishing “stage zero?”
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 08/15/2021 04:59 pm
FWIW I never bought "range maintenance" as a reason for not launching at all in July, and I didn't believe there were hundreds of Starlinks sitting around waiting to be launched.  Probably a combination of pad maintenance, ship maintenance, no external customer missions waiting at the moment, and Starlink not being quite as high a priority for a bit as they launched enough to finish the first shell and get ready for the next shells.  Boca Chica does seem to have soaked up a lot of employees lately, but management (aka Elon) apparently didn't think other tasks they could be doing were higher priority at the moment.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: SpaceDave on 08/15/2021 11:02 pm
FWIW I never bought "range maintenance" as a reason for not launching at all in July, and I didn't believe there were hundreds of Starlinks sitting around waiting to be launched.  Probably a combination of pad maintenance, ship maintenance, no external customer missions waiting at the moment, and Starlink not being quite as high a priority for a bit as they launched enough to finish the first shell and get ready for the next shells.  Boca Chica does seem to have soaked up a lot of employees lately, but management (aka Elon) apparently didn't think other tasks they could be doing were higher priority at the moment.

I can’t speak to some of the other questions you raise, but I can assure you that KSC and CCSFS as a whole were no-go for launches for most of the month of July due to maintenance and upgrades on shared infrastructure.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 08/21/2021 10:37 am
EnMAP to launch in 2022 on Falcon 9:

https://www.dlr.de/eoc/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-5514/20470_read-47899/


It's fairly small and light, and launching to SSO. Could this fly on a Transporter mission?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 08/21/2021 12:09 pm
Does this make sense?

I watched Gwynne speak at the Space Warfighting Industry Forum yesterday. 
...
Need to get over the chip hump and think they will in October.
Standing down on F9 Starlink launches…waiting on building more sats with newer laser terminals.


If they are waiting on the building of more sats, would they have known that and not requested polar launch orbits from VSFB & Florida from July?

Is the chip hump for satellites or terminals?

Perhaps they were hoping chips to make the sats would become available but the chip shortage has lasted longer than they hoped?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 08/22/2021 07:19 pm
If they are waiting on the building of more sats, would they have known that and not requested polar launch orbits from VSFB & Florida from July?

The permits are good for six months, if you run out of time you just file new ones, and if you don't end up using them it's not that big a deal.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/24/2021 10:57 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1430302841202089984

Quote
Shotwell says one supply chain issue for SpaceX is a lack of liquid oxygen because of demands to treat COVID-19 patients. Will impact launch plans, she says. #SpaceSymposium
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/26/2021 08:51 am
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1430302841202089984

Quote
Shotwell says one supply chain issue for SpaceX is a lack of liquid oxygen because of demands to treat COVID-19 patients. Will impact launch plans, she says. #SpaceSymposium

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1430778850825355269

Quote
This is a risk, but not yet a limiting factor
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Yiosie on 09/08/2021 10:45 pm
South Korea's CAS500-4 satellite to be launched by SpaceX.

SpaceX to launch Korea’s midsize satellite in 2023 (http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20210718000164)

Quote from: The Korea Herald
SpaceX will send South Korea’s next-generation midsize satellite into orbit in 2023, Korea Aerospace Industries said Sunday.

KAI, the nation’s sole aircraft manufacturer, which developed KF-21 fighters, plans to launch four midsize satellites by 2025 -- No. 2 in 2022, No. 3 and No. 4 in 2023 and No. 5 in 2025. SpaceX rocket will carry the No. 4 into orbit, which will monitor Korean agriculture.

KAI selected SpaceX in an open bidding. Though the launch will take place in the US, many details remain unclear at the moment, including the size of the deal and the type of SpaceX rocket.

The launch of midsize satellite No. 1 in March was conducted by the state-run Korea Aerospace Research Institute. Starting from the launch of satellite No. 2, which will be the first one in Korea led by the private sector, KAI will be responsible for the development of the four satellites’ system design, body development, manufacture, assembly, test and actual launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 09/09/2021 02:40 pm
Worth noting that SpaceX has a significant challenge coming up for Pad 39A operations. Inspiration4 is scheduled to launch NET Sept 14/15, followed by USSF-44 NET Oct 9 and Crew-3 NET Oct 31. That gives SpaceX about three weeks to reconfigure 39A for Falcon Heavy's static fire rollout (likely around Oct 2-5). Then, after USSF-44, SpaceX will have a little over two weeks to re-reconfigure 39A and the T/E for Crew-3, which likely needs to roll out around Oct 26 to make the 31st.

I can't quite remember if we had any official comments about the minimum time needed to switch between 39A configs but the best data we have for Crew Dragon -> FH is the ~40-day turnaround between Demo-1 and Arabsat 6A. SpaceX has also routinely swapped between Dragon 2 and fairing configs in less than a month and once in just 11 days.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Rebel44 on 09/12/2021 03:04 pm
Worth noting that SpaceX has a significant challenge coming up for Pad 39A operations. Inspiration4 is scheduled to launch NET Sept 14/15, followed by USSF-44 NET Oct 9 and Crew-3 NET Oct 31. That gives SpaceX about three weeks to reconfigure 39A for Falcon Heavy's static fire rollout (likely around Oct 2-5). Then, after USSF-44, SpaceX will have a little over two weeks to re-reconfigure 39A and the T/E for Crew-3, which likely needs to roll out around Oct 26 to make the 31st.

I can't quite remember if we had any official comments about the minimum time needed to switch between 39A configs but the best data we have for Crew Dragon -> FH is the ~40-day turnaround between Demo-1 and Arabsat 6A. SpaceX has also routinely swapped between Dragon 2 and fairing configs in less than a month and once in just 11 days.

It is possible that the recent 2-month launch pause allowed SpaceX to make preparations to accomodate this series of missions.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: alugobi on 09/12/2021 03:36 pm
Quote
It is possible that the recent 2-month launch pause allowed SpaceX to make preparations to accomodate this series of missions.
But then they flew a bunch of peeps to Boca Chica to work on the launch site there, likely the very same crew who would have been working on the Cape infrastructure if your speculation were to be true.  I think we'll have to wait to see how or whether they pull this off on that schedule.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/12/2021 03:45 pm
Quote
It is possible that the recent 2-month launch pause allowed SpaceX to make preparations to accomodate this series of missions.
But then they flew a bunch of peeps to Boca Chica to work on the launch site there, likely the very same crew who would have been working on the Cape infrastructure if your speculation were to be true.  I think we'll have to wait to see how or whether they pull this off on that schedule.

I think that fits in their turnaround ability. What if anything is going on at SLC40 at that time may impact it as well.

Both the FH and Crew dates are more subject to change than most payloads.  Defense payloads have the tendency to slip.

Nice to see Florida flights picking up though.

It will be interesting to see when the first Florida launch happens with Starlink with lasers, or if the push will be to fly as many as possible out of VSFB.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: GWR64 on 09/13/2021 05:19 pm
crossposting  SpaceX Manifest Updates Thread

CSG-2 is listed by most manifests as launching on Vega-C.  A recent filing for ground station support shows it as launching on a Falcon 9 from Florida NET November.  A document on the Italian Space Agency's site that has a 2021 date shows it as launching before the end of 2021.

In an older pdf from Oct. 26 2020, for CSG-2 a launch date in May 2021 in Kourou was called.
I suspect with Soyuz, as @Salo once had on schedule. (for a short time :) )
I think in October 2020 it was already clear that a second Vega-C would not be ready for a launch in May 2021.
A few weeks ago (?) there was a message in the Russian media, Roscosmos would have refused a launch order because no launcher was available. Maybe it was about CSG-2.
(the Soyuz that launched Falcon Eye 2 is missing now, maybe)
It's amazing how quickly they got a launch date at SpaceX.

The outdated PDF as attachment.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: FLHerne on 09/14/2021 02:23 pm
crossposting  SpaceX Manifest Updates Thread

CSG-2 is listed by most manifests as launching on Vega-C.  A recent filing for ground station support shows it as launching on a Falcon 9 from Florida NET November.  A document on the Italian Space Agency's site that has a 2021 date shows it as launching before the end of 2021.

In an older pdf from Oct. 26 2020, for CSG-2 a launch date in May 2021 in Kourou was called.
I suspect with Soyuz, as @Salo once had on schedule. (for a short time :) )
I think in October 2020 it was already clear that a second Vega-C would not be ready for a launch in May 2021.
A few weeks ago (?) there was a message in the Russian media, Roscosmos would have refused a launch order because no launcher was available. Maybe it was about CSG-2.
(the Soyuz that launched Falcon Eye 2 is missing now, maybe)
It's amazing how quickly they got a launch date at SpaceX.

I wondered if this could be a rideshare with IXPE, which is very light and has a latest public NET of November 17th.

...but that's going to an inclination of 0° and this is to 97°, so probably not!
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: M.E.T. on 09/17/2021 03:17 am
Eh…is SpaceX really not launching anything else for the rest of September, or are the dates for the next West Coast Starlink launches simply not publicised at this time?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 09/17/2021 03:27 am
I would guess they're done for September.  They just did 3 launches in 3 weeks, that's not so bad after the 2 month layoff.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Lars-J on 09/17/2021 05:14 am
Worth noting that SpaceX has a significant challenge coming up for Pad 39A operations. Inspiration4 is scheduled to launch NET Sept 14/15, followed by USSF-44 NET Oct 9 and Crew-3 NET Oct 31. That gives SpaceX about three weeks to reconfigure 39A for Falcon Heavy's static fire rollout (likely around Oct 2-5). Then, after USSF-44, SpaceX will have a little over two weeks to re-reconfigure 39A and the T/E for Crew-3, which likely needs to roll out around Oct 26 to make the 31st.

I can't quite remember if we had any official comments about the minimum time needed to switch between 39A configs but the best data we have for Crew Dragon -&gt; FH is the ~40-day turnaround between Demo-1 and Arabsat 6A. SpaceX has also routinely swapped between Dragon 2 and fairing configs in less than a month and once in just 11 days.

It is possible that the recent 2-month launch pause allowed SpaceX to make preparations to accomodate this series of missions.
Since the FH core booster was seen right next to the Inspiration Dragon in the integration building, it would suggest (but not prove) that they are going to try to launch the FH before the next crew flight.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210917/a140f3f7f308a4febc73e9f51ff33e6c.jpg)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/05/2021 09:27 am
CSG-2 is listed by most manifests as launching on Vega-C.  A recent filing for ground station support shows it as launching on a Falcon 9 from Florida NET November.  A document on the Italian Space Agency's site that has a 2021 date shows it as launching before the end of 2021.

confirmation
https://www.asi.it/en/earth-science/cosmo-skymed/

Quote
...The second COSMO SkyMed Second Generation satellite (CSG-2) was planned to be launched with VEGA-C within 2021, but the launcher development has been impacted by the VV15 and VV17 failures and, above all, by the COVID pandemic. The delays, postponing the VEGA-C Maiden Flight to Q1 2022, with a consequent tight schedule of launches in 2022, made the  launch period of CSG-2 no longer compatible with the needs of the COSMO Mission. Since Arianespace backlog was already full on Soyuz and Ariane systems in 2021, it was not possible to have a European back-up solution compliant with the CSG-2 schedule, thus an alternative solution with the US provider SPACE X has been adopted allowing to keep the CSG-2 launch within the current year. ...
Easy enough for SpaceX fit this in their launch schedule. Just reassign a Starlink F9 US and fairing to this launch, may need to find low flight rate booster. Postponing a Starlink launch for paying customer is good PR and keeps accountants happy.


Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 10/11/2021 11:48 pm
Cross Post
Quote
Launch of 3 @SES_Networks #O3bmPower sats on @SpaceX slips to early 2022 for final tests at  @BoeingSpace. SES: Mid-2022 service start still good. 2nd 3-sat Falcon 9 in 2022 is expendable, drops sats closer to destination.  All 6 to arrive at ~ same time.https://bit.ly/2YGp6fK (https://bit.ly/2YGp6fK)

my emphasis
"Expendable" now seems odd and archaic.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: alugobi on 10/12/2021 12:05 am
I wonder what the premium is for that.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Thorny on 10/12/2021 12:14 am
I wonder what the premium is for that.

Maybe none if it is an "end-of-life" booster.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/12/2021 05:04 pm
What Falcon first stages do we know or deduce are at Vandenberg?

1049
1051? (VSFB arrival circa September 1)
1063

Any others?

Edited through October 14.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachS09 on 10/12/2021 08:20 pm
I believe B1051 is also at Vandenberg.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 10/12/2021 08:35 pm
Cross Post
Quote
Launch of 3 @SES_Networks #O3bmPower sats on @SpaceX slips to early 2022 for final tests at  @BoeingSpace. SES: Mid-2022 service start still good. 2nd 3-sat Falcon 9 in 2022 is expendable, drops sats closer to destination.  All 6 to arrive at ~ same time.https://bit.ly/2YGp6fK (https://bit.ly/2YGp6fK)

my emphasis
"Expendable" now seems odd and archaic.

It sure does and it’s a shame one will be wasted.  But I can appreciate the full out performance.  The telemetry on the first stage maybe fun to compare to other flights.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 10/12/2021 08:45 pm
What Falcon first stages do we know or deduce are at Vandenberg?

1049
1063

Any others?

B1049 has apparently left California shortly after Starlink 2-1:
https://twitter.com/TGMetsFan98/status/1447618259390537731
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 10/12/2021 08:48 pm
I believe B1051 is also at Vandenberg.

Have you seen any proof? Because I believe that apart from B1049 we've only seen one other booster being transported to California and that might have been B1063, as I've speculated here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47871.msg2298730#msg2298730).

Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 10/12/2021 09:23 pm
I believe B1051 is also at Vandenberg.

Have you seen any proof? Because I believe that apart from B1049 we've only seen one other booster being transported to California and that might have been B1063, as I've speculated here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47871.msg2298730#msg2298730).

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42977.msg2283896#msg2283896
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 10/13/2021 12:16 am
I believe B1051 is also at Vandenberg.

Have you seen any proof? Because I believe that apart from B1049 we've only seen one other booster being transported to California and that might have been B1063, as I've speculated here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47871.msg2298730#msg2298730).

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42977.msg2283896#msg2283896

1051 leaving McGregor for California on August 29?

Instead of 1051 leaving the Cape for California on June 17?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachS09 on 10/13/2021 01:20 am
I believe B1051 is also at Vandenberg.

Have you seen any proof? Because I believe that apart from B1049 we've only seen one other booster being transported to California and that might have been B1063, as I've speculated here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47871.msg2298730#msg2298730).



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.teslarati.com/spacex-west-coast-starlink-booster-fleet/amp/
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 10/13/2021 06:28 am
I believe B1051 is also at Vandenberg.

Have you seen any proof? Because I believe that apart from B1049 we've only seen one other booster being transported to California and that might have been B1063, as I've speculated here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47871.msg2298730#msg2298730).



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.teslarati.com/spacex-west-coast-starlink-booster-fleet/amp/

That's my bad, I completely forgot to correct that article once it became less clear which booster the second arrival was.

What is now clear is that B1063 probably isn't launching Starlink 2-2 and B1049 (aside from likely being on the wrong side of the country) would have to cut its turnaround record in half to do support the mission. Which ultimately means that we missed a westbound booster or that the HangarX tour post was wrong (maybe OP misheard, maybe the source misspoke or was mistaken).
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 10/13/2021 10:23 am
What is now clear is that B1063 probably isn't launching Starlink 2-2 and B1049 (aside from likely being on the wrong side of the country) would have to cut its turnaround record in half to do support the mission. Which ultimately means that we missed a westbound booster or that the HangarX tour post was wrong (maybe OP misheard, maybe the source misspoke or was mistaken).

See the link gongora posted a few comments up. That was probably B1051 moving to California. It happened during that period in McGregor with several boosters coming and going over a few days, so it's understandable there is still a lot of confusion about where some boosters are.

B1051 now seems to be the booster for Starlink 2-2, we should have a confirmation from SpaceX soon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 10/31/2021 05:12 pm
With the delay of Crew 3 to next week, October will be the second month this year, after July, without a SpaceX launch.
The graph of the pace of the last ten launches will nosedive from over 40 to half the peak, back to the level seen in 2018.

I miss my regular fix of “launch and land”.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 10/31/2021 08:28 pm
With the delay of Crew 3 to next week, October will be the second month this year, after July, without a SpaceX launch.
The graph of the pace of the last ten launches will nosedive from over 40 to half the peak, back to the level seen in 2018.

I miss my regular fix of “launch and land”.

Just seeing your post got me excited that there was a new launch date announced.  But no ☹️

The first half of the year was incredible for pace, I miss those days too.  Once Starlink is ready in numbers again we should return to that pace.

The manifest for 2022 is going to require a two coast 3 ship fleet working hard!
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/07/2021 10:03 pm
SpX-23          LC-39A    August 29 (UTC)
Inspiration4  LC-39A    September 16
Crew-3           LC-39A    November 11
Starlink 4-1   SLC-40     November 13 12
??                   ??              ??
IXPE               LC-39A    December 9
CSG-2            SLC-40    December 14
SpX-24           LC-39A    December 21
Turksat 5B    SLC-40     mid Dec late 2021

An observation: If SpaceX wishes to, there is room in the launch schedule for another Starlink cluster launch from SLC-40 in late November, before CSG-2.

I don't know how much time the IXPE launch campaign needs, or I might also speculate about a launch from LC-39A in late November.

Also, I'm wondering if the Turksat launch will slip into 2022.--
But, still no news of the satellite shipping to the Space Coast.

Edit/add: Also, the CSG-2 launch is from SLC-40 in the middle of December.  So, this launch in early December, or late December?

Edit: Nov 12
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 11/11/2021 08:35 pm
Turksat 5B now reported to be pad 40 by LP (11 Nov version)
http://www.launchphotography.com/Launch_Viewing_Guide.html

says Dec rather than late 2021 but placement between 9th and 14th seems odd as CSG 2 on 14th is also from pad 40. 28th or later seems more likely, but perhaps first 2 or 3 days of Dec is possible?


Quote
The next SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch the next Starlink internet satellite batch on November 12 at 7:40am EST. Other upcoming launches include Falcon 9 with the next batch of Starlink satellites on TBA. A Falcon 9 from pad 39A will launch NASA's Imaging X-Ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) spacecraft on December 9 at 1:00am EST. A Falcon 9 will launch the Turksat 5B communication satellite from pad 40 in December. A Falcon 9 from pad 40 will launch the CSG-2/CosmoSkyMed satellite for Italy on December 14 around 6:11pm EST. Sunset is 5:27pm. A Falcon 9 from pad 39A will launch the CRS-24 Dragon resupply mission to the ISS on December 21 at 5:06am EST.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/12/2021 04:42 am
Space Coast orbital launch schedule for the immediate future:
Scheduled:
№ – Date - Satellite(s) - Rocket - Launch Site - Time (UTC)

December 1 NET July NET August? Aug Aug? NET October TBD - Starlink 4-3 4-2? (x53? x60) (flight 32 TBD) [v1.5 L3 v1.0 L30] - Falcon 9-130 (1062.4? S) - Canaveral SLC-40 / Kennedy LC-39A - 06:36
(Starlink: launch 20-22 minutes earlier/day)

December 4 TBD Q1 February 26 TBD midyear June 23 NET late NET July NET August late Aug or early Sept? NET early Sept ? TBD NET mid-November ~22 22 - STP-3: STPSat-6, ROOSTER-1 (LDPE-1), small satellites (up to 4 x6?) - Atlas V 551 (AV-093) - Canaveral SLC-41 - 09:04-11:04

December 9 May 31 September 15 NET November 20 NET 17 Dec 13 - IXPE - Falcon 9 (1062.4? previously flown S) - Kennedy LC-39A - 06:00-07:30

Mid December Q2 June Q4 end of year December - Türksat 5B - Falcon 9 (S) - Canaveral SLC-40 / Kennedy LC-39A - likely night EST

December 21 October 2 November Nov 10 December Dec 2 Dec 4 late Dec - Dragon SpX-24 - Falcon 9 (S) - Kennedy LC-39A - 10:06 ~09:00
(ISS flights: 22-26 minutes earlier/day)

December? TBD 2022 (NET) November 18 December December 14 - CSG-2 - Falcon 9-TBD 128? (L?) Vega-C - Canaveral SLC-40 / Kennedy LC-39A Kourou - ~23:11 23:11:12
(Sun-synchronous orbit satellites: launch at approximately the same time of day year-round)

Changes on September 23, 2020
Changes on October 6th, 2020
Changes on November 5th,  2020
Changes on November 7th, 2020
Changes in November 2020
Changes on November 16th, 2020
Changes on December 14th, 2020
Changes in January
Changes on January 25th
Changes on February 15th
Changes in February
Changes on March 16th
Changes on April 7th
Changes on April 12th
Changes on April 15th
Changes on May 21st
Changes on May 22nd
Changes on June 4th
Changes on June 7th
Changes on June 10th
Changes on June 14th
Changes on June 24th
Changes on June 30th
Changes on July 13th
Changes on July 27th
Changes on August 10th
Changes on August 11th
Changes on August 13th
Changes on August 14th
Changes on September 7th
Changes on September 8th
Changes on September 14th
Changes on September 27th
Changes on September 30th
Changes on October 6th
Changes on October 14th
Changes on October 16th
Changes on October 18th
Changes on October 19th
Changes on October 20th
Changes on October 22nd
Changes on October 30th
Changes on November 1st
Changes on November 4th
Changes on November 5th
Changes on November 9th
Changes on November 11th
Changes on November 12th
Changes on November 13th
Changes on November 17th
zubenelgenubi
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 11/14/2021 01:38 am
Congratulations SpaceX on what appears to be a flawless flight and a return of east coast Starlink flights. 

The rest of the 2021 Manifest looks like it could finish strong. Hopefully there can be 1 or two more Starlink flights before 12/31

This is a better fit for a manifest thread. Been meaning to do this for awhile but per Elon's tweet that SpaceX plans to launch 80t in Q4, that will definitely require at least a few more Starlink launches. Based on him saying that SpaceX launched 41t in Q3, I'll ballpark that as 13t for Inspiration4, 14t for CRS-23, and 14t for Starlink 2-1.

In Q4, we have two launches behind us and five more confirmed missions on the manifest:
Quote
Crew-3 (13t)
Starlink 4-1 (15t)
DART (0.7t)
IXPE (0.4t)
CSG-2 (2.2t)
Turksat 5B (4.5t)
CRS-24 (14t)
Altogether, that's about 50t, leaving room for two more Starlink launches to reach Elon's 80t prediction. I'd personally guess that that means one more Starlink launch from each coast before the end of the year.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 11/18/2021 02:32 am
Not a big surprise, but I appreciate them reaching the same conclusions as us.

(This is beyond the Florida Starlink launch confirmed for December 1.)

SFN, SpaceX is about to break its own annual launch record (https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/11/17/spacex-is-about-to-break-its-own-annual-launch-record/), dated November 17

Quote
The schedule in December could have room for two more Starlink launches — one from California and one from Florida. But SpaceX typically does not reveal schedules for its Starlink missions until weeks, or even days, before the launch date.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 12/02/2021 07:55 pm
Is there any evidence, at this juncture, against a very late December Starlink launch from Florida?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: realnouns on 12/02/2021 08:23 pm
ASDS (would line up to be ASOG) turnaround would be tight.  12 days from Turksat 5B, if launched just before midnight EST on 12/31.  Doable, but ASOG shortest turnaround so far will be tonight (21.9 days launch to launch)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 12/02/2021 08:44 pm
Also, SpaceX has so far never launched after Dec 23, possibly to avoid launching over the holidays.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Josh_from_Canada on 12/02/2021 08:57 pm
I'm thinking this Starlink mission that's currently listed for late December will be there first launch of 2022.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 12/02/2021 09:02 pm
Also, SpaceX has so far never launched after Dec 23, possibly to avoid launching over the holidays.

They've scheduled at least one launch between Christmas and New Year before, but it slipped.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 12/02/2021 09:35 pm
Also, SpaceX has so far never launched after Dec 23, possibly to avoid launching over the holidays.

They've scheduled at least one launch between Christmas and New Year before, but it slipped.


There is also this:
I don't get this mission numbering.     1908-EX-ST-2021 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=111750&RequestTimeout=1000)

Starlink 4-5, launching southeast from the Cape, NET late27 December.
Droneship location east of the Bahamas
North  25  43  12   West  75  2  52

If they were planning a break over the holidays, why ask to start it on 27 Dec rather than Jan 2?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/02/2021 09:52 pm
Also, SpaceX has so far never launched after Dec 23, possibly to avoid launching over the holidays.

They've scheduled at least one launch between Christmas and New Year before, but it slipped.


There is also this:
I don't get this mission numbering.     1908-EX-ST-2021 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=111750&RequestTimeout=1000)

Starlink 4-5, launching southeast from the Cape, NET late27 December.
Droneship location east of the Bahamas
North  25  43  12   West  75  2  52

If they were planning a break over the holidays, why ask to start it on 27 Dec rather than Jan 2?

I think that would be range driven. Elon just told people to come in and work during Thanksgiving and held an all hands meeting at midnight (or was it 2 am).

Elon gives no dams about peoples days off. Only if an external source has them stand down.

Personally, whether they launch at the end of December or the start of January, it's about the same.  I'll be watching.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 12/03/2021 02:52 am
https://twitter.com/SLDelta45/status/1466594550705639424
Quote
Congrats to SLD 45 & @SpaceX on this evening’s Starlink 4-3 launch. This launch kicks off what is sure to be a busy December, with 5 launches slated to close out the year. Without the dedication from our teammates, this high ops tempo would not be possible! #SetThePaceForSpace

That could have been phrased a little more clearly, but if I read it as Starlink 4-3 being the first of five launches in December (one of which is ULA) then no pop-up Starlink launches would be in there (which doesn't necessarily mean one couldn't occur).
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/03/2021 03:49 pm
SpaceX has quietly pulled off 4 launches in less than a month.  That surprised me after the quiet since June.

December looks pretty full and we should start filling in January.  What I'm most interested in now is when and how that FH launch fits into Q1.  LC39A will take time to transition to the FH then back to the F9.

Here's looking for a very packed and exciting manifest in 2022.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 12/03/2021 07:22 pm
Starlink 4-3 using B1060.9.  B1062.4 for IXPE?
Booster B1062.4 has been spotted recently at KSC with a second stage already attached, but since it wasn't used for Starlink 4-1, I'm guessing it will launch IXPE?
<snip>
Or, it could be for the next Florida Starlink launch. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55212.0)
The IXPE science team have been told that they have the same booster as Crew-1 which would make this B1061.5.

SpaceX really throwing us for like five loops with B1062's random appearance last month 😂 I guess... CRS-24?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Orbiter on 12/08/2021 03:43 pm
Looks like B1052 (FH side booster) is now finally supporting Falcon 9 missions after over two years of waiting.

https://twitter.com/spacecoast_stve/status/1468617143671480326

Possible booster for Turksat 5B?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/08/2021 04:36 pm
Looks like B1052 (FH side booster) is now finally supporting Falcon 9 missions after over two years of waiting.

https://twitter.com/spacecoast_stve/status/1468617143671480326

Possible booster for Turksat 5B?

Excellent news, they need some more single stick boosters in the rotation.

This may open the door to retire or fly expendable on some of the older Block 5's that are more time consuming to turn around.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: jpo234 on 12/13/2021 10:06 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1470433949344313352

Do we know whether he is talking about private crewed missions like I4 and AX-1 or does this include NASA's missions?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 12/13/2021 10:39 pm
Do we know whether he is talking about private crewed missions like I4 and AX-1 or does this include NASA's missions?

He's almost certainly referring to Ax-1, Crew-4, and Crew-5, with Ax-2 (as confirmed by Axiom and NASA today) as the possible fourth.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: jpo234 on 12/13/2021 10:54 pm
Do we know whether he is talking about private crewed missions like I4 and AX-1 or does this include NASA's missions?

He's almost certainly referring to Ax-1, Crew-4, and Crew-5, with Ax-2 (as confirmed by Axiom and NASA today) as the possible fourth.
I counted the same and was wondering whether there was anything new here or not.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 12/14/2021 04:10 pm
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/1470783838058078208
Quote
At Euroconsult’s World Satellite Business Week, SpaceX’s Jonathan Hofeller says launches into the Starlink network’s polar orbital shell will begin “in a month or so.”

Dedicated Starlink missions so far have targeted the 53-degree, 53.2-degree, and 70-degree inclination shells.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 12/17/2021 01:14 pm
My gosh, there are 40+ flights on the manifest for 2022 and that doesn’t include most of the Starlink flights.

SpaceX is going to keep the Operations staff and those 3 ASDS’ very busy.  This is going to be really exciting.

IMO if they hit an annual average of 52 flights with the F9/FH that maybe the upper limit for the architecture and pad constraints.

No wonder ESA is concern about SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 12/17/2021 02:41 pm
My gosh, there are 40+ flights on the manifest for 2022 and that doesn’t include most of the Starlink flights.

SpaceX is going to keep the Operations staff and those 3 ASDS’ very busy.  This is going to be really exciting.

IMO if they hit an annual average of 52 flights with the F9/FH that maybe the upper limit for the architecture and pad constraints.

No wonder ESA is concern about SpaceX.
Let's not forget new boosters, those being converted and landing zones, it's going to be a big year for 2022.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachS09 on 12/18/2021 03:29 am
Is there a possibility to launch 60 Starlink v1.5 satellites on an expendable booster?

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53788.msg2308971#msg2308971

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53788.msg2310314#msg2310314

Using the two above forum posts as references, if each Starlink v1.5 sat is 294 kilograms and 53 of them (15,582 kg) are nearly equivalent to the 60-count of v1.0 satellites (15,600 kg), then 60 of them would equal around 17,640 kg. That's way over the mass limit of allowable Stage 1 recovery.

Therefore, if SpaceX wants to send an old booster off, they can try this type of mission and get a few more Starlinks in orbit that way.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 12/18/2021 04:58 pm
We could see another 1-2-3 launch scenario in early January: LC-39A Starlink, Vandenberg polar Starlink, SLC-40 Transporter-3.

It could very well become SpaceX Standard Operating Procedure in 2022, when circumstances allow.  Perhaps some labor force and resources advantages?  🤔  Especially for no Static Fire Starlink launches.

Example: Encourage folks to take leave during a somewhat predictable lull in their sector of the launch campaign cycle.

Thinking as a scheduling manager.

Repost/update:
[Starlink 4-4] Falcon 9 launch is at December 18 12:41 UTC.

15 hours, 17 minutes later, the Turksat 5B Falcon 9 will launch at Dec 19 03:58 UTC.

54 hours, 12 minutes after the second launch, the Dragon SpX-24 Falcon 9 will launch at Dec 21 10:06 UTC.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 12/22/2021 12:22 am
Cross-post:
Cross-post; an interesting possibility; my bold:
F9 launch from Florida NET January 10 with no droneship shown
1811-EX-ST-2021 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=111326&RequestTimeout=1000)

Nextspaceflight has Transporter-3 on/NET that Jan 10 date.
https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/?search=SpaceX

but no droneship?
or is that just 'no droneship *shown*'?

Interesting, you might be onto something.

My guess is SpaceX might be planning on adding a bunch of Starlink sats to the Transporter stack and then fly expendable with B1049.11 which is the oldest booster in the fleet. Elon has said in the past that the older boosters are a pain in the butt to refurbish because they don't have many of the upgrades that the newer boosters have received.

As opposed to the hypothesis that B1049's final and expendable launch will serve the second O3b satellite triplet, bound for MEO (Medium Earth Orbit), later in 2022. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51658.msg2298945#msg2298945)  That launch is already known to be expendable.

A thought.
SpaceX could use "high-milage" first stages for Transporter-3 and Starlink launches in January.

Hypothetical:
next Florida Starlink, in early January, from LC-39A: 1058.10, previously launched Nov 13.

Transporter-3, January 10, SLC-40, including multiple Starlink satellites?: 1049.11 expended, previously launched Sept 14.

next Vandenberg Starlink, mid to late January: 1051.12, previously launched Dec 18.

another Florida Starlink, mid or late January: 1060.10, previously launched Dec 2.

CSG-2, late January: lower reflight amount booster; 1052.3, 1061.6, or 1062.4.

NROL-87, from Vandenberg, February: 1063.4, previously launched Nov 24.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 12/22/2021 12:49 am
We could see another 1-2-3 launch scenario in early January: LC-39A Starlink, Vandenberg polar Starlink, SLC-40 Transporter-3.

or maybe Transporter-3 is the next SpaceX flight and there may not even be a Vandenberg launch in January?  We'll see.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 01/17/2022 07:16 pm
Is it just me that a 5 launch month still feels like not enough?

I feel the 5 launches is grabbing one from December or February and that a steady state of 4 east coast launches is probably what they can sustain over time. 

Now throw in the west coast and maybe 5-6 is possible
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 01/17/2022 07:45 pm
I feel the 5 launches is grabbing one from December or February and that a steady state of 4 east coast launches is probably what they can sustain over time. 

That's more a question of whether SpaceX has the payloads to support that cadence. They unequivocally have the boosters and pads to support 5-6 launches per month - and 5 just on the East Coast. For example, excluding the possibility of broken turnaround records, LC-40 should be ready for a February launch as early as Feb 6th or 7th and 39A NET Feb 8th or 9th if CSG-2 and Starlink 4-7 launch on Jan 27th and Jan 29th - effectively opening the door for a repeat of January.

The only real uncertainty is drone ship availability and Starlink production. SpaceX will only be able to launch 5+ times in Feb if JRTI can return to full operational duty by the middle of the month.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: AC in NC on 01/17/2022 09:36 pm
I feel the 5 launches is grabbing one from December or February and that a steady state of 4 east coast launches is probably what they can sustain over time. 

That's more a question of whether SpaceX has the payloads to support that cadence. They unequivocally have the boosters and pads to support 5-6 launches per month - and 5 just on the East Coast. For example, excluding the possibility of broken turnaround records, LC-40 should be ready for a February launch as early as Feb 6th or 7th and 39A NET Feb 8th or 9th if CSG-2 and Starlink 4-7 launch on Jan 27th and Jan 29th - effectively opening the door for a repeat of January.

The only real uncertainty is drone ship availability and Starlink production. SpaceX will only be able to launch 5+ times in Feb if JRTI can return to full operational duty by the middle of the month.

What about 2nd Stages?  Have we ever had confirmation of what cadence Stage 2 production rate could support?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: schaban on 01/18/2022 03:06 am
Don’t think would be a problem
One booster approx equal 3 second stages in production
Last year before reuse spaces flew 17 boosters. Presuming production rate equal to it that is 51 additional second stages
68 total
Now they produced 5 boosters last year?
Subtract and you still get 50 2nd stages per year
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 01/18/2022 03:22 am
I feel the 5 launches is grabbing one from December or February and that a steady state of 4 east coast launches is probably what they can sustain over time. 

That's more a question of whether SpaceX has the payloads to support that cadence. They unequivocally have the boosters and pads to support 5-6 launches per month - and 5 just on the East Coast. For example, excluding the possibility of broken turnaround records, LC-40 should be ready for a February launch as early as Feb 6th or 7th and 39A NET Feb 8th or 9th if CSG-2 and Starlink 4-7 launch on Jan 27th and Jan 29th - effectively opening the door for a repeat of January.

The only real uncertainty is drone ship availability and Starlink production. SpaceX will only be able to launch 5+ times in Feb if JRTI can return to full operational duty by the middle of the month.

What about 2nd Stages?  Have we ever had confirmation of what cadence Stage 2 production rate could support?

H1 2021 (26 launches) all but confirmed that SpaceX is capable of producing at least one upper stage a week and ~50 launches is about what I expect this year, if all goes well. So basically 2021 but with a far busier commercial manifest and (hopefully) no Starlink production woes to cause an abrupt slowdown in H2.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/24/2022 07:53 am
February 2022 launches (28 days):

Maximum 4 Florida Starlink launches?

NROL-87 + 1 Starlink launch from Vandenberg?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 01/24/2022 09:47 am
February 2022 launches (28 days):

Maximum 4 Florida Starlink launches?

NROL-87 + 1 Starlink launch from Vandenberg?
Maybe, although we will have to see the availability of the boosters.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 01/24/2022 11:24 am
February 2022 launches (28 days):

Maximum 4 Florida Starlink launches?

NROL-87 + 1 Starlink launch from Vandenberg?

Right now it's looking like only 2 Florida Starlinks (4-8 and 4-9)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 01/26/2022 02:45 pm
It's nice that the [FCC] filings now actually spell out the Starlink mission names.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 01/27/2022 10:16 pm
SpaceX planning to launch up to 52 missions in 2022 (https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/27/22905029/spacex-nasa-52-launches-record-2022)
Quote
The impressive figure was given during a virtual meeting of NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, or ASAP, which gives guidance to the space agency on how to maintain safety within its biggest programs. “NASA and SpaceX will have to be watchful during 2022 that they’re not victims of their success,” Sandy Magnus, a former NASA astronaut and member of the panel, said during the meeting. “There’s an ambitious 52-launch manifest for SpaceX over the course of the year. And that’s an incredible pace.”

I read that and hear Dana Carvey’s George Bush impression: “Wouldn’t be prudent!”
What about a launch provider that delays a launch for bad DOWN RANGE weather in the fairing recovery area, says “Go Fever” to you?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/29/2022 09:16 pm
Revised thoughts on the February SpaceX manifest:

Launch a maximum of four three Florida Starlink clusters, spread approximately evenly apart in February, alternating use of SLC-40 and LC-39A.

Edit Jan 31: Starlink 4-7 launch delayed to February 1.

Launch rate will be gated by ASDS availability. When JRTI returns to operation, launch rate can increase.

If the USSF-44 launch campaign takes custody of LC-39A, then that would slow the Starlink launch rate by limiting it to SLC-40 and Vandenberg.  But, I don't think the Space Force will launch that mission before Axiom-1 (March 31), Crew-4 (April 15), and SpX-25 (May 1).  I suspect LC-39A will be booked solid or near-solid by these three missions from mid March through early May.  There may be small "quickie-launch with no Static Fire for Starlink" windows, but I don't intimately know SpaceX operations.

NROL-87 and the possibly-named Starlink 4-11 launch from Vandenberg, February 2 and in the latter half of the month.

Total launches: Maximum of 6.



February 2022 launches (28 days):

Maximum 4 Florida Starlink launches?

NROL-87 + 1 Starlink launch from Vandenberg?

Right now it's looking like only 2 Florida Starlinks (4-8 and 4-9)

Three Florida Starlink launches authorized; add Starlink 4-10, NET February 25:
0155-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=112926&RequestTimeout=1000)  Another southeast trajectory Starlink from the Cape, NET late February

Quote
Please explain in the area below why an STA is necessary:
This application uses information from previous grant 1994-EX-ST-2021. This STA is necessary to authorize launch vehicle communications for Mission 1721 Starlink Group 4-10 from Cape Canaveral FL at LC-40 CCAFS or LC-39a at KSC, and the experimental recovery operation following the Falcon 9 launch. Includes sub-orbital first stage, and orbital second stage.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 02/03/2022 02:52 pm
SpaceX planning to launch up to 52 missions in 2022 (https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/27/22905029/spacex-nasa-52-launches-record-2022)
Quote
The impressive figure was given during a virtual meeting of NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, or ASAP, which gives guidance to the space agency on how to maintain safety within its biggest programs. “NASA and SpaceX will have to be watchful during 2022 that they’re not victims of their success,” Sandy Magnus, a former NASA astronaut and member of the panel, said during the meeting. “There’s an ambitious 52-launch manifest for SpaceX over the course of the year. And that’s an incredible pace.”

I read that and hear Dana Carvey’s George Bush impression: “Wouldn’t be prudent!”
What about a launch provider that delays a launch for bad DOWN RANGE weather in the fairing recovery area, says “Go Fever” to you?

Like you mention, because of the range and weather making 52 launches will require Vandenberg to do as many as possible and to have vehicles stacked and waiting for the ASDS to get on station. 

A third east coast ASDS would go along way to opening up the number of possible flights.  Or improve the turnaround time with ASOG.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 02/03/2022 06:39 pm
https://twitter.com/_rykllan/status/1489306375968722946?s=20&t=NW0QEdl2a6ZpZlxm54omNQ

Updated log after this launch
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Orbiter on 02/03/2022 06:52 pm
B1053 was spotted outside Hangar X. Might be getting converted to a F9 booster as well?

https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/1489270438438084614
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/03/2022 07:40 pm
Cross-post; identity and modification discussion in the spotting thread, which is the location of the post.
Manifest discussion here.
https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/1489270438438084614 (https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/1489270438438084614)
It seems that B1053 is out rolling somewhere at the Cape...
B1053 was spotted outside Hangar X. Might be getting converted to a F9 booster as well?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 02/04/2022 02:58 am
0155-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=112926&RequestTimeout=1000)  Another southeast trajectory Starlink from the Cape, NET late February

Quote
Please explain in the area below why an STA is necessary:
This application uses information from previous grant 1994-EX-ST-2021. This STA is necessary to authorize launch vehicle communications for Mission 1721 Starlink Group 4-10 from Cape Canaveral FL at LC-40 CCAFS or LC-39a at KSC, and the experimental recovery operation following the Falcon 9 launch. Includes sub-orbital first stage, and orbital second stage.
why is " the experimental recovery operation " Saying experimental
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: russianhalo117 on 02/04/2022 03:06 am
0155-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=112926&RequestTimeout=1000)  Another southeast trajectory Starlink from the Cape, NET late February

Quote
Please explain in the area below why an STA is necessary:
This application uses information from previous grant 1994-EX-ST-2021. This STA is necessary to authorize launch vehicle communications for Mission 1721 Starlink Group 4-10 from Cape Canaveral FL at LC-40 CCAFS or LC-39a at KSC, and the experimental recovery operation following the Falcon 9 launch. Includes sub-orbital first stage, and orbital second stage.
why is " the experimental recovery operation " Saying experimental
While routine and operational every flight and landing is still an experiment. Every STS flight was considered experimental because you always gain data and learn things. Even operational flights are still flight tests. The scientific method is continuous.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: M.E.T. on 02/08/2022 02:42 pm
What’s up with the lack of clarity around the next F9 launches?

50 launches for the year surely requires every calendar month’s launches to be tentatively scheduled at least by the start of each month? Yet I see nothing confirmed after the end Jan/early Feb “burst” of launches.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Orbiter on 02/08/2022 02:48 pm
What’s up with the lack of clarity around the next F9 launches?

50 launches for the year surely requires every calendar month’s launches to be tentatively scheduled at least by the start of each month? Yet I see nothing confirmed after the end Jan/early Feb “burst” of launches.

Starlink 4-8 is being reported as Feb. 20th.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 02/08/2022 02:52 pm
What’s up with the lack of clarity around the next F9 launches?

50 launches for the year surely requires every calendar month’s launches to be tentatively scheduled at least by the start of each month? Yet I see nothing confirmed after the end Jan/early Feb “burst” of launches.

Starlink 4-8 is being reported as Feb. 20th.

It is estimated that by February we will have two Starlink missions from Florida (one from each pad) and one from California.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Spiffles on 02/09/2022 03:07 pm
Worth noting that in the likely scenario USSF-44 is not ready to launch before mid march, it will probably be delayed to late Q2/early Q3 due to pad constraints. LC-39A is packed with launches until at least May (AX-1 on March 30th, Crew-4 on April 15th, and CRS-25 on May 1st).
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 02/09/2022 04:13 pm
Worth noting that in the likely scenario USSF-44 is not ready to launch before mid march, it will probably be delayed to late Q2/early Q3 due to pad constraints. LC-39A is packed with launches until at least May (AX-1 on March 30th, Crew-4 on April 15th, and CRS-25 on May 1st).

CRS-25 depends on OFT-2
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: kdhilliard on 02/09/2022 05:04 pm
Worth noting that in the likely scenario USSF-44 is not ready to launch before mid march, it will probably be delayed to late Q2/early Q3 due to pad constraints. LC-39A is packed with launches until at least May (AX-1 on March 30th, Crew-4 on April 15th, and CRS-25 on May 1st).
CRS-25 depends on OFT-2

How is that?

OFT-2 is reportedly targeting May 20 (per Bill Harwood's sources) and we have CRS-25 penciled in for May 1 (per SFN's Stephen Clark).  Are you suggesting that CRS-25 can only fly after OFT-2?

Editing to add:
All four Cargo Dragon 2 flight to date have been from LC-39A because it offers easy access for late cargo loading,right?  But is that a requirement, of is there an option to fly from SLC-40 with less convenient late loading?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: ajmarco on 02/09/2022 05:09 pm

CRS-25 depends on OFT-2

How is that?

OFT-2 is reportedly targeting May 20 (per Bill Harwood's sources) and we have CRS-25 penciled in for May 1 (per SFN's Stephen Clark).  Are you suggesting that CRS-25 can only fly after OFT-2?

CRS-25 will be using the same docking port as OFT-2. Dragon is usually docked to the ISS for around 30 days. Assuming all dates hold and no weather issues for the return of CRS-25, it would only be docked for about 17 days. That is most likely not enough time for the unloading and loading of supplies to satisfy NASA's requirements.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 02/09/2022 05:35 pm
All four Cargo Dragon 2 flight to date have been from LC-39A because it offers easy access for late cargo loading,right?  But is that a requirement, of is there an option to fly from SLC-40 with less convenient late loading?

I recall someone from SpaceX or NASA saying during one of the press conferences that launching Cargo Dragon 2 from SLC-40 is possible, but LC-39A is preferable due to the easier late-loading, as you mentioned.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/11/2022 05:18 pm
They should be able to launch an uncrewed crew Dragon from LC-40 no problem. Crewed Dargon would need a newly fabricated crew access arm, escape Zipline, etc.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Tomness on 02/12/2022 12:06 am
They should be able to launch an uncrewed crew Dragon from LC-40 no problem. Crewed Dargon would need a newly fabricated crew access arm, escape Zipline, etc.

As quickly they have the launch table at Boca Chica and ULA built theirs for Starliner. Should be fairly quickly if they want it.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/13/2022 02:22 am
I kind of think it wouldn't be a terrible idea to have plans for it ready to go before the first Starship launch at LC-39A.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 02/14/2022 06:01 pm
I have been tracking the pace of Falcon launches for the decade of their flights.
The original metric was the number of flights in the preceding 12 months.
An additional metric was added: The pace of the last ten launches.
Simple math. Take the interval between the last ten launches and divide one tenth of that into a year.
The recent salvo forced the graph to be rescaled, as it approached 60 flights per year.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: realnouns on 02/16/2022 02:02 pm
Per my projections, 58, 60, 61, 69, 52 on EC + 51, 71 on WC, could all be ready for reuse sometime in March.  Plus 49, 63, and all the FH hardware.  Things could get busy again, just in time for JRTI's return. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/16/2022 06:29 pm
Polar Starlink?  Start date is about 1 month early for Transporter-4.
0310-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=113458&RequestTimeout=1000) NET late March [March 23]

Quote
This application uses information from previous grant 1845-EX-ST-2021. There is a Stage 1/Stage 2 frequency swap to mitigate interference. This STA is necessary to authorize launch vehicle communications for SpaceX Mission 1690 from Cape Canaveral FL at LC-40 CCAFS or LC-39A KSC, and the experimental recovery following the Falcon 9 launch. Includes sub-orbital first stage, and orbital second stage. Trajectory data will be provided directly to NTIA, USAF, and NASA. All downrange Earth stations are receive-only. All operations are pre-coordinated with the Launch Range. Launch licensing authority is FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation.

Droneship position looks like SSO:   North  23  56  25   West  79  13  16
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/18/2022 01:33 am
If I recall correctly, there has been an possibility that Eutelsat would launch one or more geocomm satellites aboard one or more Falcon 9s this or next year.

In sorting out the payload duos for the final Ariane 5 launches, etc., Salo found this article.

[dated March 2, 2021]
https://aircosmosinternational.com/article/the-first-assembled-eurostar-neo-satellite-3106
Quote
Hotbird 13F, like its twin Hotbird 13G, is scheduled for launch next year [2022] using an Ariane 64 launcher from the Guyana Space Center.

It's a year old, but if it was and is true, then all of these Eutelsat satellites have Ariane 5 or 6 rides.
[dated February 17]
https://www.benzinga.com/pressreleases/22/02/b25681068/eutelsat-communications-first-half-2021-22-results
Quote
FLEET DEPLOYMENT

Nominal deployment programme

Compared to the last quarterly update in October 2021, the entry into service of KONNECT VHTS has been delayed from the first half to the second half of calendar 2023. Furthermore, while still expected within the H1 2023 window, the entry into service of the EUTELSAT 10B satellite has been delayed versus our previous expectations. This reflects the impact of both manufacturing delays and their knock-on effects, including pairing difficulties, related to launch rescheduling, in the context of global Covid crisis.

All other data remains unchanged.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 02/18/2022 10:45 pm
0325-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=113488&RequestTimeout=1000)

Vandy RTLS, NET April

Quote
This application uses information from previous grant 1981-EX-ST-2021. There is a Stage1TX2/Stage2TX1 frequency swap for this mission to mitigate interference. This STA is necessary to authorize launch vehicle communications for SpaceX Mission 1523 from SLC-4E, Vandenberg Space Force Base. 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 VSFB, and 2) experimental post landing first-stage uplink testing from the onshore station at VSFB. All operations are pre-coordinated with the Launch Range.
Probably NROL-85?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: soltasto on 02/19/2022 08:12 am
0325-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=113488&RequestTimeout=1000)

Vandy RTLS, NET April

Quote
This application uses information from previous grant 1981-EX-ST-2021. There is a Stage1TX2/Stage2TX1 frequency swap for this mission to mitigate interference. This STA is necessary to authorize launch vehicle communications for SpaceX Mission 1523 from SLC-4E, Vandenberg Space Force Base. 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 VSFB, and 2) experimental post landing first-stage uplink testing from the onshore station at VSFB. All operations are pre-coordinated with the Launch Range.
Probably NROL-85?
Could also be the long awaited SARah 1
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 02/22/2022 07:51 pm
With JRTI back in the que. The FH mission can go forward if the payload is ready. But once you get past the mid Mar for a launch date. All of the Crew Dragon and cargo Dragon flights one right after another would mean that it is either now (after the 3 Mar flight) or mid to late May.

Is there info as to if the payload is ready or not?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/22/2022 08:02 pm
Thoughts on the March SpaceX manifest:

Launch a maximum of four Florida Starlink group, spread approximately evenly apart in the month, alternating use of LC-39A SLC-40, and alternating use of JRTI and OCISLY.

Starlink 4-9, March 3, LC-39A, JRTI
Starlink 4-10, March 8, SLC-40, ASOG

Will SpaceX squeeze in the Starlink 4-12 launch from LC-39A in mid March (NET March 15) before the Axiom-1 launch campaign, especially if no Static Fire is required?  Or is that too much schedule risk re: ISS operations?

If so, then Starlink 4-12 could launch from SLC-40 as soon as the pad and an ASDS are available after the March 8 launch.

If the first mPower triplet does not launch in March, I think another Starlink group will launch from SLC-40 end of March/beginning of April.

Axiom-1 (March 30), Crew-4 (April 15), and SpX-25 (May 1): I suspect LC-39A is booked solid by these three missions from mid March through early May.  There may be small "quickie-launch with no Static Fire for Starlink" windows, but I don't intimately know SpaceX operations.

No Falcon Heavy launch until after the above three launches from LC-39A--NET mid May.

Launch one Starlink group from Vandenberg in the last half of March.
Edit Feb 23: Using 1071.2.  1051.12 is returning to the Cape.  1063.5 would not likely be ready yet.

Edit Feb 23: NROL-85 will use 1071.X sometime later this year.

Total Falcon launches in March: Maximum of 6.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 02/22/2022 08:16 pm
With JRTI back in the que. The FH mission can go forward if the payload is ready. But once you get past the mid Mar for a launch date. All of the Crew Dragon and cargo Dragon flights one right after another would mean that it is either now (after the 3 Mar flight) or mid to late May.

Is there info as to if the payload is ready or not?

USSF-44 is not happening until next quarter at the earliest.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 02/22/2022 10:04 pm
Thoughts on the March SpaceX manifest:

Launch a maximum of four Florida Starlink group, spread approximately evenly apart in the month, alternating use of LC-39A SLC-40, and alternating use of JRTI and OCISLY.

Starlink 4-9, March 3, LC-39A, JRTI
Starlink 4-10, March 8, SLC-40, OCISLY

Will SpaceX squeeze in the Starlink 4-12 launch from LC-39A in mid March (NET March 15) before the Axiom-1 launch campaign, especially if no Static Fire is required?  Or is that too much schedule risk re: ISS operations?

If so, then Starlink 4-12 could launch from SLC-40 as soon as the pad and an ASDS are available after the March 8 launch.

If the first mPower triplet does not launch in March, I think another Starlink group will launch from SLC-40 end of March/beginning of April.

Axiom-1 (March 30), Crew-4 (April 15), and SpX-25 (May 1): I suspect LC-39A is booked solid by these three missions from mid March through early May.  There may be small "quickie-launch with no Static Fire for Starlink" windows, but I don't intimately know SpaceX operations.

No Falcon Heavy launch until after the above three launches from LC-39A--NET mid May.

Launch one Starlink group from Vandenberg in the last half of March.

Total Falcon launches: Maximum of 6.

They can slot in a Starlink launch from SLC40 between each LC39A flight and that is still almost a mission a week.

Throw in 1 per month from Vandenberg and they can stay on track for 52 launches this year.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 02/23/2022 11:47 am
Thoughts on the March SpaceX manifest:

Launch a maximum of four Florida Starlink group, spread approximately evenly apart in the month, alternating use of LC-39A SLC-40, and alternating use of JRTI and OCISLY.

Starlink 4-9, March 3, LC-39A, JRTI
Starlink 4-10, March 8, SLC-40, OCISLY

Will SpaceX squeeze in the Starlink 4-12 launch from LC-39A in mid March (NET March 15) before the Axiom-1 launch campaign, especially if no Static Fire is required?  Or is that too much schedule risk re: ISS operations?

If so, then Starlink 4-12 could launch from SLC-40 as soon as the pad and an ASDS are available after the March 8 launch.

If the first mPower triplet does not launch in March, I think another Starlink group will launch from SLC-40 end of March/beginning of April.

Axiom-1 (March 30), Crew-4 (April 15), and SpX-25 (May 1): I suspect LC-39A is booked solid by these three missions from mid March through early May.  There may be small "quickie-launch with no Static Fire for Starlink" windows, but I don't intimately know SpaceX operations.

No Falcon Heavy launch until after the above three launches from LC-39A--NET mid May.

Launch one Starlink group from Vandenberg in the last half of March.

Total Falcon launches: Maximum of 6.

Reaaaaallllyyy hoping 4-12 holds for around March 15th, will be at the cape!
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/23/2022 09:03 pm
With JRTI back in the que. The FH mission can go forward if the payload is ready. But once you get past the mid Mar for a launch date. All of the Crew Dragon and cargo Dragon flights one right after another would mean that it is either now (after the 3 Mar flight) or mid to late May.

Is there info as to if the payload is ready or not?
USSF-44 is not happening until next quarter at the earliest.

Assuming USSF-52 still follows USSF-44, it would now be NET June?

How long is a Falcon Heavy launch campaign?
Edit: 40 days from Crew DM1 to Arabsat-6A, in 2019, is the minimum thus far.
I assume/hope it will take less time now?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: ra[email protected] on 02/23/2022 09:22 pm
What about Nilesat, transporter-4 and SARah?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/23/2022 09:30 pm
What about Nilesat, transporter-4 and SARah?
Nilesat-301: Canaveral SLC-40, NET April
Transporter-4: Canaveral SLC-40, April
SARah 1: Vandenberg SLC-4E?, NET April

Edit: The most up-to-date information is usually in the particular launch thread and the US launch schedule thread.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/26/2022 04:24 am
0325-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=113488&RequestTimeout=1000)

Vandy RTLS, NET April

Quote
This application uses information from previous grant 1981-EX-ST-2021. There is a Stage1TX2/Stage2TX1 frequency swap for this mission to mitigate interference. This STA is necessary to authorize launch vehicle communications for SpaceX Mission 1523 from SLC-4E, Vandenberg Space Force Base. 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 VSFB, and 2) experimental post landing first-stage uplink testing from the onshore station at VSFB. All operations are pre-coordinated with the Launch Range.
Probably NROL-85?
Could also be the long awaited SARah 1

SpaceX mission 1523, Vandenberg SFB, operation start date April 7, LZ-4 landing = NROL-85:
LZ-4 landing, check out FCC permit https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=113488&RequestTimeout=1000
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: realnouns on 02/28/2022 04:33 pm
0310-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=113458&RequestTimeout=1000) NET late March.  [NET March 23]

Quote
This application uses information from previous grant 1845-EX-ST-2021. There is a Stage 1/Stage 2 frequency swap to mitigate interference. This STA is necessary to authorize launch vehicle communications for SpaceX Mission 1690 from Cape Canaveral FL at LC-40 CCAFS or LC-39A KSC, and the experimental recovery following the Falcon 9 launch. Includes sub-orbital first stage, and orbital second stage. Trajectory data will be provided directly to NTIA, USAF, and NASA. All downrange Earth stations are receive-only. All operations are pre-coordinated with the Launch Range. Launch licensing authority is FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation.

Droneship position looks like SSO:   North  23  56  25   West  79  13  16

Could this be Transporter 4?

[zubenelgenubi: I split/merged this post to the manifest discussion thread, with one previous discussion post up-thread here.]
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 02/28/2022 09:25 pm
0310-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=113458&RequestTimeout=1000) NET late March [NET March 23]

Quote
This application uses information from previous grant 1845-EX-ST-2021. There is a Stage 1/Stage 2 frequency swap to mitigate interference. This STA is necessary to authorize launch vehicle communications for SpaceX Mission 1690 from Cape Canaveral FL at LC-40 CCAFS or LC-39A KSC, and the experimental recovery following the Falcon 9 launch. Includes sub-orbital first stage, and orbital second stage. Trajectory data will be provided directly to NTIA, USAF, and NASA. All downrange Earth stations are receive-only. All operations are pre-coordinated with the Launch Range. Launch licensing authority is FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation.

Droneship position looks like SSO:   North  23  56  25   West  79  13  16

Could this be Transporter 4?

[zubenelgenubi: I split/merged this post to the manifest discussion thread, with one previous discussion post up-thread here.]

Given the fact that Ben Cooper lists Transporter 4 as being early April and doesn't mention LZ landing, I'd say it's most likely the case that one is T-4.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/28/2022 09:48 pm
Could this be Transporter 4?
Given the fact that Ben Cooper lists Transporter 4 as being early April and doesn't mention LZ landing, I'd say it's most likely the case that one is T-4.
April; no mention of early April on his website, most recent update dated Feb 24.
Quote
A Falcon 9 from pad 40 will launch the Transporter-4 smallsat rideshare mission on April.

Nextspaceflight lists as "NET April."
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 03/01/2022 08:50 am
https://techcrunch.com/2022/02/28/nasa-extends-spacexs-commercial-crew-contract-by-three-missions-for-900-million

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-awards-spacex-additional-crew-flights-to-space-station
Quote
NASA has awarded three additional missions to Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, California, for crew transportation services to the International Space Station as part of its Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract. The CCtCap modification, following the agency’s notice of intent to procure the flights in December 2021, brings the total missions for SpaceX to nine and allows NASA to maintain an uninterrupted U.S. capability for human access to the space station.

This is a firm fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract modification for the Crew-7, Crew-8, and Crew-9 missions, bringing the total contract value to $3,490,872,904. The period of performance runs through March 31, 2028. The current sole source modification does not preclude NASA from seeking additional contract modifications in the future for additional transportation services as needed.

In 2014, NASA awarded the CCtCap contracts to Boeing and SpaceX through a public-private partnership as part of the agency’s Commercial Crew Program. Under CCtCap, NASA certifies that a provider’s space transportation system meets the agency’s requirements prior to flying missions with astronauts.

SpaceX was certified by NASA for crew transportation in November 2020, and currently its third crew rotation mission for the agency is in orbit. As part of the missions, SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 rocket transport up to four astronauts along with critical cargo to the space station.

For information about NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, visit: https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew.

Guessing based on recent contract totals, looks like maybe around $755 million for the three flights?

The original contract was 2.6B so that would suggest 900M difference. Or were there some adjustments made to the contract before this? I seem to recall something about additional parachute testing that NASA ended up paying for, but I'm not sure where to look for this information.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 03/01/2022 01:28 pm
Guessing based on recent contract totals, looks like maybe around $755 million for the three flights?

The original contract was 2.6B so that would suggest 900M difference. Or were there some adjustments made to the contract before this? I seem to recall something about additional parachute testing that NASA ended up paying for, but I'm not sure where to look for this information.

Last total I see for the contract in FPDS (early February) is $2.735B.  Unless NASA actually says the amount of this extension it's hard to figure out the real number.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: soltasto on 03/01/2022 09:59 pm
Guessing based on recent contract totals, looks like maybe around $755 million for the three flights?

The number I came up with is $755,125,510.00
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: vaporcobra on 03/01/2022 10:07 pm
Guessing based on recent contract totals, looks like maybe around $755 million for the three flights?

Just for reference, that equates to about $63M per seat instead of the ~$55M NASA is paying for the first six.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: realnouns on 03/04/2022 02:08 pm
0168-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=112971&RequestTimeout=1000)
Quote
This application uses information from previous grant 1994-EX-ST-2021. This STA is necessary to authorize launch vehicle communications for Mission 1724 Starlink Group 4-12 from Cape Canaveral FL at LC-40 CCAFS or LC-39a at KSC, and the experimental recovery operation following the Falcon 9 launch. Includes sub-orbital first stage, and orbital second stage.

ASDS North  32  37  20   West  75  49  44

0447-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=113884&RequestTimeout=1000)

Quote
This application uses information from previous grant 0155-EX-ST-2022. This STA is necessary to authorize launch vehicle communications for Mission 1739 Starlink Group 4-14 from Cape Canaveral FL at LC-40 CCAFS or LC-39a at KSC, and the experimental recovery operation following the Falcon 9 launch. Includes sub-orbital first stage, and orbital second stage.

ASDS    North  32  37  20   West  75  49  44

Starlink 4-12 & 4-14 FCC applications indicate a return to northeast trajectories
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 03/04/2022 03:10 pm
Starlink 4-13 not yet announced.  Perhaps it will be the next Vandenberg Starlink, which is not expected until NET May?
0447-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=113884&RequestTimeout=1000)

Quote
This application uses information from previous grant 0155-EX-ST-2022. This STA is necessary to authorize launch vehicle communications for Mission 1739 Starlink Group 4-14 from Cape Canaveral FL at LC-40 CCAFS or LC-39a at KSC, and the experimental recovery operation following the Falcon 9 launch. Includes sub-orbital first stage, and orbital second stage. Trajectory data will 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. Launch licensing authority is FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation.

ASDS    North  32  37  20   West  75  49  44
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Orbiter on 03/08/2022 04:02 am
0450-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=113910&RequestTimeout=1000), Mission 1581   NET Apr. 22
From Florida
ASDS  North  27  46  48  West  73  38  10

Looks like a GTO mission - Nilesat-301 perhaps?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 03/08/2022 04:49 am
0450-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=113910&RequestTimeout=1000), Mission 1581   NET Apr. 22
From Florida
ASDS  North  27  46  48  West  73  38  10
Looks like a GTO mission - Nilesat-301 perhaps?
Or SES-22.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/08/2022 07:43 am
With landing at that place it could be any GTO sat or even the O3b mPOWER mission 1 which is supposedly not expendable and needs low inclination so a launch straight out to the east would also be needed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 03/08/2022 08:30 pm
With landing at that place it could be any GTO sat or even the O3b mPOWER mission 1 which is supposedly not expendable and needs low inclination so a launch straight out to the east would also be needed.
Nilesat-301, SES-22, and the first mPower launch are the only Falcon 9 launches that fit the bill for April/second annual quarter, according to our current NSF launch schedule.

The first two will be overseas deliveries from Thales Alenia, and the third will be delivered from Boeing.

If there are no corporate announcements, then watching for heavy cargo aircraft landing at one of the Space Coast airports would be an option.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: jpo234 on 03/08/2022 09:04 pm
Guessing based on recent contract totals, looks like maybe around $755 million for the three flights?

Just for reference, that equates to about $63M per seat instead of the ~$55M NASA is paying for the first six.
That's pretty close to the inflation adjustment from 2014.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 03/08/2022 09:54 pm
Transporter mission schedules

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1501307339651141637
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachS09 on 03/09/2022 04:59 pm
Can SpaceX launch other payloads besides Starlink?

There’s too many Starlink missions for me to count, unless there’s a demand to get all those sats up in record time.

How many Starlink missions do they have planned anyway?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/09/2022 05:21 pm
Can SpaceX launch other payloads besides Starlink?

There’s too many Starlink missions for me to count, unless there’s a demand to get all those sats up in record time.

How many Starlink missions do they have planned anyway?

If Starship was delayed or to never come on line the F9 would be flying endless missions to build, renew and replenish Starlink.

They can fly 50 times a year for many years to come in that case. 

One fact that many people miss is that yes Starlink was created as a service to make money to fund Mars ambitions.  However, an unmentioned purpose is to keep the F9 busy.  It has long been studied that reuseable rockets only make sense at a higher flight rate.  Elon knew that and that's why they launched Starlink after they had booster reuse established.  Both reasons compliment and require each other.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/09/2022 05:41 pm
It’s not quite necessary for F9 to launch 50 times per year, though. Probably viable at just 10-15 per year.

If Starship is delayed, I could see SpaceX attempting fully reuse again. Falcon 9 is such a dang workhorse. Multiple stages have more than 10 flights already, no reason they couldn’t do 20-30 launches per core. They’ve done 10 launches in 10 weeks and there might be sufficient demand for over 100 launches per year.

But I think they’ll get Starship going soon.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/09/2022 08:39 pm
It’s not quite necessary for F9 to launch 50 times per year, though. Probably viable at just 10-15 per year.

If Starship is delayed, I could see SpaceX attempting fully reuse again. Falcon 9 is such a dang workhorse. Multiple stages have more than 10 flights already, no reason they couldn’t do 20-30 launches per core. They’ve done 10 launches in 10 weeks and there might be sufficient demand for over 100 launches per year.

But I think they’ll get Starship going soon.

They could do 10-15 flights a year and would only need 3 cores to do.  Wouldn't that be something to see?

I've wondered what a fully reuseable vehicle would look like that is smaller than Starship.  They could combine the Merlin with the stainless steel construction and have something flying quickly.  Whether Merlin or Raptor, it would be interesting vehicle.   (Maybe Blue Origin will spend a decade developing that capability)

But like you said, Starship will be flying soon enough. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: jpo234 on 03/22/2022 07:44 am
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1505879400641871872

Quote
Notable: Important space officials in Germany say the best course for Europe, in the near term, would be to move six stranded Galileo satellites, which had been due to fly on Soyuz, to three Falcon 9 rockets.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Asteroza on 03/23/2022 12:34 am
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1505879400641871872

Quote
Notable: Important space officials in Germany say the best course for Europe, in the near term, would be to move six stranded Galileo satellites, which had been due to fly on Soyuz, to three Falcon 9 rockets.

Considering the likely fate of Sentinel 1-B, Sentinel 1-C and 1-D launch may be moved up, necessitating a SpaceX launch as well...
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: baldusi on 03/23/2022 01:24 am
[...]
Quote
Notable: Important space officials in Germany say the best course for Europe, in the near term, would be to move six stranded Galileo satellites, which had been due to fly on Soyuz, to three Falcon 9 rockets.

Considering the likely fate of Sentinel 1-B, Sentinel 1-C and 1-D launch may be moved up, necessitating a SpaceX launch as well...

I'm wondering if the current circumstances won't be used by many users to "Oh! Regrettably we are forced to launch on F9", which was probably what they would have chosen had they be free to do so.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Hog on 03/23/2022 01:55 pm
[...]
Quote
Notable: Important space officials in Germany say the best course for Europe, in the near term, would be to move six stranded Galileo satellites, which had been due to fly on Soyuz, to three Falcon 9 rockets.

Considering the likely fate of Sentinel 1-B, Sentinel 1-C and 1-D launch may be moved up, necessitating a SpaceX launch as well...

I'm wondering if the current circumstances won't be used by many users to "Oh! Regrettably we are forced to launch on F9", which was probably what they would have chosen had they be free to do so.
Probably, but you can't blame a country/area for wanting to better their own interests.  These forums and the world would be completely different if SX was a European company.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/25/2022 12:15 am
At this rate, one has to wonder if SpaceX needs yet another east coast Falcon 9 pad....
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Tomness on 03/25/2022 12:38 am
At this rate, one has to wonder if SpaceX needs yet another east coast Falcon 9 pad....

That's what Boca Chica/StarBase was for. I see if Starship goes orbital and the tanker is ready after that. Then they will move Starlink V2 to Starship freeing up F9/FH.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/25/2022 01:05 pm
At this rate, one has to wonder if SpaceX needs yet another east coast Falcon 9 pad....

That's what Boca Chica/StarBase was for. I see if Starship goes orbital and the tanker is ready after that. Then they will move Starlink V2 to Starship freeing up F9/FH.

There is likely time for this, but Starlink will need access to the inclinations available from the coasts.  Boca made sense for GEO launches but Starship could do a whole years worth in a single flight.

Launching and filling the Tanker version from Boca makes sense.  Then it could be accessed by Boca and KSC.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Clavin on 03/27/2022 03:36 am
Why has there been no FCC filings for Starlink 4-13 and Starlink 4-15? Is it because they have been planned from VAB and the launches have been planned for much later into the future?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 03/28/2022 05:13 am
SFN Launch Schedule (https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/) update, March 25 (one of many):
Starlink 4-15 launches in May 2022 from either Kennedy LC-39A or Cape Canaveral SFS SLC-40, with ASDS landing.

However, we already have Starlink 4-16 scheduled for NET April 23.
0527-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=114229&RequestTimeout=1000)
Mission 1778 Starlink Group 4-16 from Cape Canaveral FL at LC-40 CCAFS or LC-39a at KSC
North  32  37  20   West  75  49  44   Autonomous Drone Ship
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 03/28/2022 05:29 am
It's Nilesat-301.
0450-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=113910&RequestTimeout=1000), Mission 1581   NET Apr. 22
From Florida
ASDS  North  27  46  48  West  73  38  10
With landing at that place it could be any GTO sat or even the O3b mPOWER mission 1 which is supposedly not expendable and needs low inclination so a launch straight out to the east would also be needed.
Nilesat-301, SES-22, and the first mPower launch are the only Falcon 9 launches that fit the bill for April/second annual quarter, according to our current NSF launch schedule.

The first two will be overseas deliveries from Thales Alenia, and the third will be delivered from Boeing.

If there are no corporate announcements, then watching for heavy cargo aircraft landing at one of the Space Coast airports would be an option.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 03/29/2022 05:29 am
Cross-post:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1508540042817376256

Quote
SpaceX Falcon 🚀 team is making excellent progress – aiming for 60 launches this year!
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 03/30/2022 12:24 am
Cross-post:
The next several currently known LC-39A launches:
Crew Dragon Axiom-1  Falcon 9           April 6
Crew Dragon Crew-4    Falcon 9           April 19
<1 or 2 Starlink launches?>
Cargo Dragon SpX-25  Falcon 9           June 7
USSF-44                         Falcon Heavy  NET June
Psyche                           Falcon Heavy  August 1 (interplanetary launches generally have highest priority)
ViaSat-3 Americas       Falcon Heavy   NET August 15
Crew-5                           Falcon 9           September 1
IM-1 (Nova-C)               Falcon 9           Q3
USSF-52                        Falcon Heavy   October

Edited March 29
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 03/31/2022 04:46 am
Cross-post:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1508540042817376256 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1508540042817376256)
Quote
SpaceX Falcon 🚀 team is making excellent progress – aiming for 60 launches this year!
Wow
The NSF consensus over in the annual poll (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55469.msg2346520#msg2346520) was “only” 40 launches in 2022.
We have been overly optimistic for the past few years, but Musk is now more optimistic than we are!
With “only” 11 launches in Q1, SpaceX better get crackin’!
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: DanClemmensen on 03/31/2022 02:52 pm
Cross-post:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1508540042817376256 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1508540042817376256)
Quote
SpaceX Falcon 🚀 team is making excellent progress – aiming for 60 launches this year!
Wow
The NSF consensus over in the annual poll (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55469.msg2346520#msg2346520) was “only” 40 launches in 2022.
We have been overly optimistic for the past few years, but Musk is now more optimistic than we are!
With “only” 11 launches in Q1, SpaceX better get crackin’!
I think the only thing that might have kept F9 launches below 50 in 2022 would have been the beginning of Starship operations before about July 2022.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 03/31/2022 06:04 pm
Cross-post:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1508540042817376256 (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1508540042817376256)
Quote
SpaceX Falcon 🚀 team is making excellent progress – aiming for 60 launches this year!
Wow
The NSF consensus over in the annual poll (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55469.msg2346520#msg2346520) was “only” 40 launches in 2022.
We have been overly optimistic for the past few years, but Musk is now more optimistic than we are!
With “only” 11 launches in Q1, SpaceX better get crackin’!
I think the only thing that might have kept F9 launches below 50 in 2022 would have been the beginning of Starship operations before about July 2022.

I respectfully disagree.  Starlink is not going to contribute meaningfully until we know it can even fly successfully.

I think the biggest risk to keeping up the launch cadence is payloads being ready and summer weather in Florida at the launch and ASDS sites. 

Then the 3rd thing maybe how many second stages they can produce.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Spiffles on 04/13/2022 03:54 am

0687-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=114860&RequestTimeout=1000)
SpaceX Mission 1636 from Cape Canaveral FL at LC-40 CCAFS or LC-39A KSC, and the experimental recovery following the Falcon 9 launch.
Appears to be RTLS?

Most likely Transporter 5.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: jpo234 on 04/13/2022 01:32 pm
Typo in the manifest. Currently it looks like this: (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=52191.0;attach=2097011;sess=51683)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 04/13/2022 02:18 pm
Typo in the manifest. Currently it looks like this: (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=52191.0;attach=2097011;sess=51683)

dash, equals, they're close... (should be fixed now)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/15/2022 03:31 am
I wonder if SpaceX will have any "external customer" launches in May.  There are already 5 Starlink launches scheduled in May.

Starlink 4-13: Vandenberg
Starlink 4-15, 16, 17, 18: Florida
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Josh_from_Canada on 04/15/2022 04:01 am
I wonder if SpaceX will have any "external customer" launches in May.

Nilesat-301 is the only external customer that might have a chance of launching in May even though I'm a bit doubtful it launches before June
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 04/15/2022 10:16 am
I wonder if SpaceX will have any "external customer" launches in May.

Nilesat-301 is the only external customer that might have a chance of launching in May even though I'm a bit doubtful it launches before June

What about the first O3b mPOWER launch? That's currently scheduled for May AFAIK.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/15/2022 07:53 pm
I wonder if SpaceX will have any "external customer" launches in May.
Nilesat-301 is the only external customer that might have a chance of launching in May even though I'm a bit doubtful it launches before June
What about the first O3b mPOWER launch? That's currently scheduled for May AFAIK.
Exactly.  The Nilesat is coming by sea, and we have no news yet of departure or arrival.

The mPower satellites are likely coming by truck (although cargo plane is possible), and we have no news yet of departure or arrival.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/21/2022 12:30 pm
I wonder if SpaceX will have any "external customer" launches in May.  There are already 5 Starlink launches scheduled in May.

Starlink 4-13: Vandenberg
Starlink 4-15, 16, 17, 18: Florida

Launch cadence--noting an apparent lesser usage of LC-39A in May (and maybe June, if USSF-44 is further delayed).  Starship construction work?

Also, it looks like there will be less Starlink launches midyear, as there are many launches for external customers scheduled.  Perhaps more Starlink launches from Vandenberg, at an increased rate?

Starlink 4-14: SLC-40, April 21

Crew-4: LC-39A, NET April 27 26

Starlink 4-16: SLC-40, late NET April 29

Starlink 4-15: LC-39A, (early) May 8

Starlink 4-13: SLC-4E, (early?) May

Starlink 4-17: SLC-40, May 8

Starlink 4-18: SLC-40, (late) mid May

Starlink 4-19(?): LC-39A/SLC-40/SLC-4E, NET late May

Transporter-5: SLC-40, June 1

SpX-25: LC-39A, June 7

Nilesat-301: SLC-40, June

USSF-44: LC-39A, Falcon Heavy, NET June

O3b mPower 1, 2, 3: SLC-40, NET June

SES-22: SLC-40, June/July

WorldView Legion Flight 1: SLC-40, July

SARah 1: SLC-4E, midyear

Edited
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: jpo234 on 04/21/2022 08:05 pm
https://spacenews.com/south-korea-hires-spacex-to-launch-five-spy-satellites-by-2025/

Quote
South Korea has signed a contract with SpaceX to launch five spy satellites by 2025, with the first launch on a Falcon 9 rocket by the end of 2023.
It's this system: Space-Based Surveillance and Reconnaissance System (https://www.add.re.kr/board?menuId=MENU02891&siteId=SITE00003)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 04/22/2022 12:54 am
<snip>
Launch cadence--noting an apparent lesser usage of LC-39A in May (and maybe June, if USSF-44 is further delayed).  Starship construction work?
<snip>
Maybe a certain Orange thing at LC-39B might have something to do the paucity of launches at LC-39A during May and June.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 04/22/2022 01:03 am
<snip>
Launch cadence--noting an apparent lesser usage of LC-39A in May (and maybe June, if USSF-44 is further delayed).  Starship construction work?
<snip>
Maybe a certain Orange thing at LC-39B might have something to do the paucity of launches at LC-39A during May and June.

With it rolling back next week and not rolling out until heaven knows when, I see that unlikely. My bet is more that the launches originally scheduled from 39A in May have all been delayed and they might not have enough boosters around for extra Starlinks. They're already debuting a new booster to add to the fleet and on a Starlink mission precisely to be able to have more boosters in routine rotation, they would have to do record breaking booster turnarounds to keep up with their cadence.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/22/2022 02:21 am
<snip>
Launch cadence--noting an apparent lesser usage of LC-39A in May (and maybe June, if USSF-44 is further delayed).  Starship construction work?
<snip>
<snip>
My bet is more that the launches originally scheduled from 39A in May have all been delayed and they might not have enough boosters around for extra Starlinks. They're already debuting a new booster to add to the fleet and on a Starlink mission precisely to be able to have more boosters in routine rotation, they would have to do record breaking booster turnarounds to keep up with their cadence.
Would you deduce that booster refurbishment is a (or the) near-term limiting factor to launch rate?

I was surprised to learn that B1073 will join the Florida "single-stick" rotation in May.

It seems like SpaceX is whittling away at pad turnaround and ASDS turnaround times.

Payload processing time doesn't seem to be a concern.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Asteroza on 04/22/2022 04:13 am
<snip>
Launch cadence--noting an apparent lesser usage of LC-39A in May (and maybe June, if USSF-44 is further delayed).  Starship construction work?
<snip>
<snip>
My bet is more that the launches originally scheduled from 39A in May have all been delayed and they might not have enough boosters around for extra Starlinks. They're already debuting a new booster to add to the fleet and on a Starlink mission precisely to be able to have more boosters in routine rotation, they would have to do record breaking booster turnarounds to keep up with their cadence.
Would you deduce that booster refurbishment is a (or the) near-term limiting factor to launch rate?

I was surprised to learn that B1073 will join the Florida "single-stick" rotation in May.

It seems like SpaceX is whittling away at pad turnaround and ASDS turnaround times.

Payload processing time doesn't seem to be a concern.

Since payloads are nominally independent, parallel processing in theory should be easy. SpaceX is getting to the point that they can functionally launch on readiness for any customer that is good to fly right now. Musk is targeting 5 day turnaround nominal, which is pretty tight with both the ASDS tow back, and resetting the launchpad though. Plus if any customers aren't ready, there's always a Starlink stack to do...
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/25/2022 06:13 am
Cross-post; my bold:
Quote from: Peter B de Selding tweet
Launch of 3 SES Networks O3b mPower sats on  SpaceX slips to early 2022 for final tests at  BoeingSpace. SES: Mid-2022 service start still good. 2nd 3-sat Falcon 9 in 2022 is expendable, drops sats closer to destination.  All 6 to arrive at ~ same time. [Oct 11, 2021] https://bit.ly/2YGp6fK

After B1049.11 was returned to the Cape from Vandenberg, and it was not used for Starlink launches, it became clear that it was being held for an expendable launch.  The second O3b mPower triplet launch was the next, known, upcoming, expendable Falcon 9 launch, so the booster and launch were linked.

But now, Next Spaceflight (https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/3176), updated April 23, lists the Nilesat-301 Falcon 9 first stage as 1049.11 and expendable.

Another first stage will be expended for the second O3b mPower triplet launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Blackjax on 04/25/2022 12:50 pm
Does anyone know why oneweb is not listed on the manifest or is it just there in a way that I'm not recognizing?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/25/2022 02:22 pm
Does anyone know why oneweb is not listed on the manifest or is it just there in a way that I'm not recognizing?

I've wondered that too, but I think it's probably that there hasn't been set dates and I don't know that they have even committed to the East or West coasts (I'm assuming West).

Probably just waiting for more information.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 04/25/2022 02:36 pm
Does anyone know why oneweb is not listed on the manifest or is it just there in a way that I'm not recognizing?

I've wondered that too, but I think it's probably that there hasn't been set dates and I don't know that they have even committed to the East or West coasts (I'm assuming West).

Probably just waiting for more information.

We already know it's NET Summer 2022 from SLC-40
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 04/28/2022 08:32 am
Mission 1575, NE trajectory from Florida, NET early June
0788-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=115185&RequestTimeout=1000)

Plotting it on google maps it seems this is going a bit more north than Starlink missions tend to go but we don't know of any payload going to that kind of orbit. I wonder if we're going to see another last minute classified mission.

Edit: On a second thought, I wonder if this is for Worldview Legion...
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/28/2022 03:26 pm
Mission 1575, NE trajectory from Florida, NET early June
0788-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=115185&RequestTimeout=1000)
Plotting it on google maps it seems this is going a bit more north than Starlink missions tend to go but we don't know of any payload going to that kind of orbit. I wonder if we're going to see another last minute classified mission.

Edit: On a second thought, I wonder if this is for Worldview Legion...
The first two Legion satellites are for SSO, are they not?  That would be a southern trajectory dog-legging off the Florida Atlantic coast?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 04/28/2022 08:11 pm
Mission 1575, NE trajectory from Florida, NET early June
0788-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=115185&RequestTimeout=1000)
Plotting it on google maps it seems this is going a bit more north than Starlink missions tend to go but we don't know of any payload going to that kind of orbit. I wonder if we're going to see another last minute classified mission.

Edit: On a second thought, I wonder if this is for Worldview Legion...
The first two Legion satellites are for SSO, are they not?  That would be a southern trajectory dog-legging off the Florida Atlantic coast?

There are other sats for that constellation going to mid-inclination orbits. It's either this or a DoD mission that we don't know about. The Starlink landing sites are all nicely put together whereas this one is quite a few km north
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/29/2022 01:30 am
I want to comment that it's too bad that the May 8 dual launches have been rescheduled.

I hope another opportunity develops soon!
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 04/29/2022 09:59 am
I want to comment that it's too bad that the May 8 dual launches have been rescheduled.

I hope another opportunity develops soon!

Yep, I had talked about that on twitter as well the other day. I found it funny SFN updated their website just hours after heh
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: groknull on 05/03/2022 04:42 pm

       Local        LV  Core   Ret- .                             .    Mass   .     Mis-
Est. Date,  Time/UTC.   S/N    urn  Payload(s)                    Orb  (kg)   Site sion
------------------- .--- ------ .---  ----------------------------  --- .-----  -----  -- (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44662.0)-- (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43199.0)
[snip]
2022-04-21  1351/-4F91060-12SStarlink 4-14 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55971.0)LEO~14kC149
2022-04-23  0526/-4F91067-4SCCtCap Crew-4 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52608.0)LEO.C-39A150
2022-04-29  1727/-4F91062-6SStarlink 4-16 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=56082.0)LEO~14kC-40151
------------------- --- ------ ---  ----------------------------  ---  -----  ----- ----
[snip]

Unless I'm missing something, the manifest entry for CCtCap Crew-4 has the wrong date and time.  As highlighted in blue above, it lists an earlier estimate of 2022-04-23 0526/-4.  It should be 2022-04-27 0352/-4.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/05/2022 02:24 pm
Seems there is room for at least 1 more Starlink flight before the end of May to be added to the Manifest.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Josh_from_Canada on 05/06/2022 10:32 pm
It was mentioned in the Starlink 4-17 webcast that SpaceX has added more than 40 missions to their manifest in the past 12 months, not including Starlink or Transporter missions
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: GWR64 on 05/07/2022 09:37 am
EchoStar 24 / Jupiter 3 is scheduled for launch on a Falcon 9 in early 2023

https://spacenews.com/echostar-says-jupiter-3-wont-be-ready-for-2022-launch/

Somehow Falcon-9 doesn't fit the earlier article at SpaceNews:
https://spacenews.com/echostar-q4-2020/
Quote
EchoStar has selected the launch vehicle for Jupiter-3 but not yet announced it. Kaul said the large rocket selected “should limit the amount of time related to satellite orbit raising, which will assist our in-service schedule.”

I would have expected a Falcon Heavy.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: GWR64 on 05/08/2022 03:43 pm
EchoStar 24 / Jupiter 3 is scheduled for launch on a Falcon 9 in early 2023

https://spacenews.com/echostar-says-jupiter-3-wont-be-ready-for-2022-launch/ (https://spacenews.com/echostar-says-jupiter-3-wont-be-ready-for-2022-launch/)

Somehow Falcon-9 doesn't fit the earlier article at SpaceNews:
https://spacenews.com/echostar-q4-2020/ (https://spacenews.com/echostar-q4-2020/)
Quote
EchoStar has selected the launch vehicle for Jupiter-3 but not yet announced it. Kaul said the large rocket selected “should limit the amount of time related to satellite orbit raising, which will assist our in-service schedule.”

I would have expected a Falcon Heavy.

FCC Filing for EchoStar XXIV (https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATMOD2019021200011&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number) 2019 attachment A.pdf
https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1625879 (https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1625879)

Quote
Total Solar Pressure Area “A” = 155 m2
“M” = Dry Mass of Satellite = 5817 kg
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 05/11/2022 01:59 am
0881-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=115572&RequestTimeout=1000)
Mission 1590, NET late June
Low inclination with ASDS landing, North  27  47  53   West  73  50  48

Nilesat?

Nilesat 301 is now expendable. I'm guessing SES-22 will use the one for Nilesat 301 and this might be for O3b mPOWER which per SES the first mission should launch as soon as July
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: su27k on 05/11/2022 11:48 am
EchoStar 24 / Jupiter 3 is scheduled for launch on a Falcon 9 in early 2023

https://spacenews.com/echostar-says-jupiter-3-wont-be-ready-for-2022-launch/ (https://spacenews.com/echostar-says-jupiter-3-wont-be-ready-for-2022-launch/)

Somehow Falcon-9 doesn't fit the earlier article at SpaceNews:
https://spacenews.com/echostar-q4-2020/ (https://spacenews.com/echostar-q4-2020/)
Quote
EchoStar has selected the launch vehicle for Jupiter-3 but not yet announced it. Kaul said the large rocket selected “should limit the amount of time related to satellite orbit raising, which will assist our in-service schedule.”

I would have expected a Falcon Heavy.

FCC Filing for EchoStar XXIV (https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATMOD2019021200011&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number) 2019 attachment A.pdf
https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1625879 (https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1625879)

Quote
Total Solar Pressure Area “A” = 155 m2
“M” = Dry Mass of Satellite = 5817 kg

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/1524264239325761536

Quote
The @EchoStar /@HughesNet EchoStar 24/Jupiter 3 Ka-band broadband sat, whose launch w/ @SpaceX has slipped to early 2023, will weigh 9,200 kg at launch, according to prime contractor @Maxar. Stunning.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachS09 on 05/11/2022 12:43 pm
Yup. Definitely a Falcon Heavy payload.

Even an expendable Falcon 9 couldn’t have gotten EchoStar 24/Jupiter 3 far. It would end up in a sub-synchronous transfer orbit with an apogee of maybe 18,000 kilometers or something.

A Falcon Heavy can lift the satellite all the way and still recover the side boosters, but then the center core would have to be expended.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: realnouns on 05/11/2022 02:03 pm
0881-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=115572&RequestTimeout=1000)
Mission 1590, NET late June
Low inclination with ASDS landing, North  27  47  53   West  73  50  48

Nilesat?

It's pretty much exactly the same trajectory (6.60000 degrees SE) as the previous grant it uses information from (0450-EX-ST-2022), just ~3% shorter landing distance
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 05/11/2022 02:28 pm
Could it be a mistake? 9,200 lbs would be 4,173 kg which is a much more reasonable mass for an F9 payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: abaddon on 05/11/2022 03:07 pm
Could it be a mistake? 9,200 lbs would be 4,173 kg which is a much more reasonable mass for an F9 payload.
Peter B. de Selding called it "stunning".  He's a veteran space reporter, I doubt it's a mistake.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/11/2022 03:12 pm
The dry mass figure from the FCC fits well with the wet launch mass figure.

8200kg is the GTO capacity for Falcon 9 expendable, so it’s possibly they’re going to launch it to a very low GTO.

But I suspect this is a reusable Falcon Heavy launch. Expendable Falcon Heavy can do about 26.7t to GTO.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Skyrocket on 05/11/2022 06:09 pm
Could it be a mistake? 9,200 lbs would be 4,173 kg which is a much more reasonable mass for an F9 payload.

The dry mass of Echostar 24 (Jupiter 3) is known to be already 5817 kg. This is really a huge satellite.

I also think a FH is likely. A F9 with low perigee would take a long time to raise and as Echostar had already stated, they want to use a heavy launch vehicle which “should limit the amount of time related to satellite orbit raising, which will assist our in-service schedule.”
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/12/2022 08:48 pm
Perhaps seven Falcon launches in June?

SARah-1 from SLC-4E, NET June 3

Dragon SpX-25 from LC-39A, June 7

Nilesat-301 from SLC-40, also June 7 (expended, therefore no ASDS required)

Starlink 4-19 from (my hypothesis: LC-39A) SLC-40, NET June 10 / mid June

SES-22 from SLC-40, NET NLT mid June (or July) (due to ASDS availability)

A hypothetical Starlink 4-20 from SLC-4E, NET late June

A hypothetical Starlink 4-21 from LC-39A or SLC-40, late June

Nilesat-301 from SLC-40, late June (expended, therefore no ASDS required)

USSF-44 from LC-39A, late June (uses both JRTI and ASOG)

A lot of editing
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/12/2022 09:53 pm
Perhaps seven Falcon launches in June?

SARah-1 from SLC-4E, NET June 3

Dragon SpX-25 from LC-39A, June 7

Starlink 4-19 from SLC-40, NET June 10

SES-22 from SLC-40, NLT mid June (or July) (due to ASDS availability)

A hypothetical Starlink 4-20 from SLC-4E, NET late June

Nilesat-301 from SLC-40, late June (expended, therefore no ASDS required)

USSF-44 from LC-39A, late June (uses both JRTI and ASOG)

It's not impossible, I counted yesterday the non-Starlink flights listed for the rest of 2022 is 29!  And that only includes 1 Oneweb.

It's going to be a very busy rest of the year, even if half those flights slide in 2023.

Converting 39A to FH and back again is going to put a hole in the launch cadence as well.

This is going to be wild to watch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/13/2022 05:07 pm
NextSpaceFlight (https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/1151) indicates that the launch is now scheduled for the last quarter of this year.
Now same states NET December 2022.

Assuming this is true, it means, among other things, that SpaceX can use LC-39A for one or two? more Falcon 9 launches after SpX-25 (June 7) and before Psyche (August 1).

Perhaps Starlink 4-19 shifts from SLC-40 to LC-39A, leaving Nilesat-301 and SES-22 launching back-to-back at SLC-40?

Edit May 13: Nilesat-301 now launching June 7.

A hypothetical Starlink 4-21 from LC-39A in late June?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/13/2022 08:20 pm
I know I’m not alone, we need more launches from Vandenberg. 

They such dramatic weather conditions and it will help add to the cadence with 3 pads.

Seems they could probably do a launch every 2-3 weeks and add another 20 launches a year. 

They’re doing more lately but seems they could double up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 05/14/2022 01:08 am
I know I’m not alone, we need more launches from Vandenberg. 

They such dramatic weather conditions and it will help add to the cadence with 3 pads.

Seems they could probably do a launch every 2-3 weeks and add another 20 launches a year. 

They’re doing more lately but seems they could double up.
Launching from Vandenberg is not as necessary as previously with SpaceX able to do some polar and SSO launches from Florida.

Wonder if payload processing at Vandenberg have enough capacity for a doubling of the current West coast launch cadence. Also the number of Falcon 9 cores that can be ready for each month is unclear for the West coast.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 05/16/2022 01:13 pm
Could it be a mistake? 9,200 lbs would be 4,173 kg which is a much more reasonable mass for an F9 payload.

The dry mass of Echostar 24 (Jupiter 3) is known to be already 5817 kg. This is really a huge satellite.

I also think a FH is likely. A F9 with low perigee would take a long time to raise and as Echostar had already stated, they want to use a heavy launch vehicle which “should limit the amount of time related to satellite orbit raising, which will assist our in-service schedule.”


FH confirmed:
https://twitter.com/ElonXnet/status/1526188916705042432
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/17/2022 06:34 am
https://twitter.com/edzapata/status/1525846829522374657

Quote
With this Falcon 9 launch, SpaceX just reached the most number of launches set by the Delta II/III workhorse #spacex #Starlink
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: GWR64 on 05/26/2022 04:09 pm
Falcon Heavy rideshare payload  ???  SES-STA-INTR2022-01689 (https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SESSTAINTR202201689&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number)

Quote
USN support of the geosynchronous test spacecraft
USUVL from USN’s Hawaiian earth station.
The spacecraft will be launched on or about October 9 th, 2021 on a Falcon Heavy
from the Kennedy Space Center. USUVL will rideshare on the vehicle with an
unspecified US military spacecraft. USUVL will be injected into super-sync orbit
on or about November 27 th thru December 8 th at which time USN will begin S-
band support. ...

2021  ???
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 05/26/2022 04:20 pm
Falcon Heavy rideshare payload  ???  SES-STA-INTR2022-01689 (https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SESSTAINTR202201689&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number)
2021  ???

They just forgot to change the date on the paperwork.  Probably USSF-44 mission.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47474.msg2236960#msg2236960

edit: The new STA just starts on the day the previous STA ends.  Doesn't reallly say anything about the new launch date.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/26/2022 07:58 pm
0881-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=115572&RequestTimeout=1000)
Mission 1590, NET late June [NET June 20]
Low inclination with ASDS landing, North  27  47  53   West  73  50  48

Nilesat?

Nilesat 301 is now expendable. I'm guessing SES-22 will use the one for Nilesat 301 and this might be for O3b mPOWER which per SES the first mission should launch as soon as July
Newer news: Nilesat-301 will launch on B1062.7, first stage ASDS landing.

Will the frequency request be revised for an earlier launch date, currently June 10?

Or will this (still?) apply to SES-22?  The first O3b mPower launch is now scheduled in August.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/27/2022 03:45 pm
Will all July Falcon 9 launches be Starlink clusters, and nothing else?

I think so, 🤔 unless SARah 2 and 3 show up at Vandenberg in June for a July launch.  Every other payload is listed for August or later.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/28/2022 01:19 am
Launch Photography Viewing Guide (http://www.launchphotography.com/Launch_Viewing_Guide.html), updated May 27:

Next launch:
Quote
Falcon 9, early June @ TBA EDT (pad 40): Check back soon for information on where to view the next launch.
Quote
The next SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket is TBA. A Falcon 9 from pad 40 will launch the Nilesat 301 communication satellite on June. A Falcon 9 from pad 39A will launch the CRS-25 resupply mission to the ISS on June 9 at 10:45am EDT. Other upcoming launches include a Falcon 9 from pad 40 on mid-June. A Falcon 9 will launch the SES-22 communication satellite from pad 40 on June 27 or 28. Falcon 9s will launch more Starlink batches on TBD. A Falcon 9 will launch the Korean Pathfinder Lunar Orbiter on August 2. The next astronaut crew launch and the next Falcon Heavy launch are scheduled for September earliest.

There appears to be 4 SLC-40 launches in June vs. 1 LC-39A launch.

Is the Nilesat-301 launch date moving forward?  Or is a new launch being inserted into the schedule?

The schedule yesterday had 16 days between the Transporter-5 launch on May 25, and the the Nilesat-301 launch on June 10, at SLC-40.

The time-of-day of the Nilesat-301 launch should stay roughly the same?

The mid June SLC-40 launch: perhaps Starlink 4-19?

The launch time-of-day of SES-22 could fall in the time period of June 27 8:00 pm to 11:59 pm EDT = June 28 00:00 to 03:59 UTC.  That would make both June 27 or 28 the launch date, depending on the time zone referenced.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 05/28/2022 06:41 pm
Launch Photography Viewing Guide (http://www.launchphotography.com/Launch_Viewing_Guide.html), updated May 27:
<snip>
Is the Nilesat-301 launch date moving forward?  Or is a new launch being inserted into the schedule?

The schedule yesterday had 16 days between the Transporter-5 launch on May 25, and the the Nilesat-301 launch on June 10, at SLC-40.

The time-of-day of the Nilesat-301 launch should stay roughly the same?
<snip>
Same source, updated May 28:
Ben Cooper indicates on his website (http://www.launchphotography.com/Nilesat_301.html) that the launch is scheduled for June 7 at 21:03 UTC.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 06/03/2022 02:02 am
There appears to be an open launch slot in mid June at SLC-40.

June 8  Nilesat-301
<open slot>
June 28  SES-22

Starlink 4-19 is currently scheduled for launch from LC-39A, (probably) ASAP after SpX-25 in mid June.

Other Starlink launches are NET July.  Starlink 4-20 is now NET September, previously end of June.

ASAP = As Soon As Possible
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 06/03/2022 05:17 am
Mission 1575, NE trajectory from Florida, NET early June
0788-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=115185&RequestTimeout=1000)

It seems some people out there are thinking this is something like ZUMA?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 06/10/2022 07:43 pm
Will all July Falcon 9 launches be Starlink clusters, and nothing else?

I think so, 🤔 unless SARah 2 and 3 show up at Vandenberg in June for a July launch.  Every other payload is listed for August or later.

Starlink 4-21 and 4-22 from Florida, 3-1 and 3-2 from Vandenberg.

Seems a bit (SpaceX-y) sparse.

If a Galaxy pair ships 🚢 soon, maybe a 3rd Florida July launch?  (perhaps Q3 launch for Q4 in-service date)

Edit: I'm wrong; see below.  5 July Starlink launches scheduled.  + Starlink 4-25 from FL.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Clavin on 06/11/2022 02:26 pm
Will all July Falcon 9 launches be Starlink clusters, and nothing else?

I think so, 🤔 unless SARah 2 and 3 show up at Vandenberg in June for a July launch.  Every other payload is listed for August or later.

Starlink 4-21 and 4-22 from Florida, 3-1 and 3-2 from Vandenberg.

Seems a bit (SpaceX-y) sparse.

If a Galaxy pair ships 🚢 soon, maybe a 3rd Florida July launch?  (perhaps Q3 launch for Q4 in-service date)
Isnt Starlink 4-25 scheduled for july? and given that they are targeting 6 launch per month cadence, i expect more launches to show up
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Mangala on 06/11/2022 05:54 pm
Will all July Falcon 9 launches be Starlink clusters, and nothing else?

I think so, 🤔 unless SARah 2 and 3 show up at Vandenberg in June for a July launch.  Every other payload is listed for August or later.

Starlink 4-21 and 4-22 from Florida, 3-1 and 3-2 from Vandenberg.

Seems a bit (SpaceX-y) sparse.

If a Galaxy pair ships 🚢 soon, maybe a 3rd Florida July launch?  (perhaps Q3 launch for Q4 in-service date)

I'm not sure that this can explain a certain lack of launches from Florida in the Launch Manifest for July, but is it not usual that the range is closed for a few weeks each year, in summer, for maintenance?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 06/11/2022 06:00 pm
Will all July Falcon 9 launches be Starlink clusters, and nothing else?

I think so, 🤔 unless SARah 2 and 3 show up at Vandenberg in June for a July launch.  Every other payload is listed for August or later.

Starlink 4-21 and 4-22 from Florida, 3-1 and 3-2 from Vandenberg.

Seems a bit (SpaceX-y) sparse.

If a Galaxy pair ships 🚢 soon, maybe a 3rd Florida July launch?  (perhaps Q3 launch for Q4 in-service date)
Isnt Starlink 4-25 scheduled for july? and given that they are targeting 6 launch per month cadence, i expect more launches to show up
Re: Starlink 4-25: You are correct!  My mistake.  5 Starlink missions; 3 from Florida, 2 from Vandenberg.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 06/14/2022 11:10 pm
Saw this FCC filing (SES-MOD-20220614-00645 (https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SESMOD2022061400645&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number)) for communication with Varuna spacecraft (0279-EX-CN-2022), which turns out to be the Sherpa-LTC that's scheduled to fly on a Starlink rideshare.  It's a V-band tech demo for Boeing, built by Astro Digital, with the Sherpa serving as the body of the satellite.  It will climb to the ~1050km, 54 degree orbit approved for the Boeing V-band constellation and be used for testing and demos.  The ODAR filed in March gave an August launch date and deployment at 280km, don't know if that is still the current plan.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 06/15/2022 03:05 pm
With CRS-25 slipping to July 12, it appears there is a LC39A launch window open in late June early July.  Is there a Starlink to slip in there?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 06/15/2022 05:46 pm
With CRS-25 slipping to July 12, it appears there is a LC39A launch window open in late June early July.  Is there a Starlink to slip in there?

Yes, Starlink 4-21 will take that slot

And no, it's not a guess, I have confirmation of this and in fact I was the one who changed it on next spaceflight.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Clavin on 06/22/2022 06:27 pm
Given that Starlink 4-21 has been delayed to July 07. I think we are looking at  7 launches  in July with 6 launches in a month being the highest so far.
launches are Starlink 4-21, Starlink 3-1(VAB) ,CRS-25, Starlink 4-22, Starlink 4-25 , Starlink 3-2 (VAB) and mission 1066-EX-ST-2022  (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=116424&RequestTimeout=1000). Comparing this to  https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/ leads me to believe that 1066-EX-ST-2022 is oneweb and will indeed launch in July. PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG I AM JUST AN AMATUAR
The main contributing factor in achieving 7 launches (F & FH) a month would be Multiple launches from VAB.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 06/23/2022 01:55 am
Given that Starlink 4-21 has been delayed to July 07. I think we are looking at  7 launches  in July with 6 launches in a month being the highest so far.


Those 7 launches may have NET July dates as far as we know at this stage. This doesn't mean there will be 7 launches in July. It may not be completely impossible but I am thinking it is unlikely. Minimum pad turnarounds were posted recently as 40 8 days 39A 9 days and VSFB 22 days.

So VSFB could do 2: 8th and ~30th but not a lot of room for slippage there.
Pad 40: 7th ~15th ~23rd has a few more spare days until 31st but 2 record low turnarounds in a row is unlikely. Eg ASDS crews may be willing to cut number of days off for one quick turnaround if they get a longer break afterward...
39A: well not sure when CRS-25 will be ready. Trip to ISS involves longer period of operation. It is not impossible for CRS-25 to be delayed to something like 20th July and be the only launch from 39A in July.

More likely to get in 7 in a month if the first launch (or 2 or 3) is in the first few days of the month rather than none until the 7th. No ISS trips following Hydrazine leak might also help.

FCC STA earliest date are clearly NET dates and are unlikely to hold this month: 4-22 start date of 10th July and 4-25 14th July are very unlikely due to pad/ASDS not being available. That could easily also be the case for 1066-EX-ST-2022 unless one of the Starlink launches is postponed until after that launch. 
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 06/24/2022 06:50 pm
Cross-posts; this frees up LC-39A for other launches this year:
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1540394908720177152
Quote
NASA confirms Psyche will not launch in 2022.

From the teleconference: There will be a nice opportunity to launch in July 2023 and September 2023.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: DanClemmensen on 06/24/2022 07:19 pm
Cross-posts; this frees up LC-39A for other launches this year:
Quote
NASA confirms Psyche will not launch in 2022.

From the teleconference: There will be a nice opportunity to launch in July 2023 and September 2023.

Arrrgh! Falcon Heavy is cursed!

It seems that all of the FH payloads slip. Is this simply an attribute of heavy payloads in general?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 06/24/2022 07:36 pm
Almost everything has been slipping the last couple years.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: BrianNH on 06/27/2022 12:24 pm
The chart lists the weight of a Starlink batch at ~14mT, but Musk recently said that the newer ones weigh 16.25mT.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1505058886130311169
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Clavin on 06/27/2022 01:53 pm
16.25 Metric tones is the size of the Payload. We dont know whether that includes the payload adaptor ,Deployment rods etc.
IMO it probably does include those components, as that mass is orbital at the point of Deployment.

Also probably not the correct thread for this topic.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 06/27/2022 03:25 pm
Also probably not the correct thread for this topic.

It's a correction to the manifest table, it belongs in this thread.  (I had marked the March flight at 16t but never corrected the rest of them.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 07/09/2022 05:30 pm
August Falcon 9 launches

2nd, SLC-40: Danuri a.k.a. KPLO
Early?, SLC-4E: Starlink 3-2 July 21!
Early Late?, SLC-4E: Starlink 3-3
TBD, SLC-40: O3b mPower 1 & 2
9th, SLC-40: Starlink 4-26
Mid, Florida: Starlink 4-27
Mid?, SLC-4E: Starlink 3-4
Mid, Florida: Starlink 4-23
Late, Florida: Starlink 4-20

If BlueWalker 3 is a rideshare aboard Starlink 4-2, that launch is delayed to mid September.

Edited
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachF on 07/14/2022 06:26 pm
SpaceX must be getting pretty close to ULA’s 151 consecutive launch record.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 07/14/2022 06:36 pm
SpaceX must be getting pretty close to ULA’s 151 consecutive launch record.

Yes. SpaceX is at 138 right now.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/18/2022 05:07 pm
https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1549078643673927683

Quote
Falcon 9 has completed 31 missions so far this year, delivering ~351 metric tons to orbit – carrying astronauts & research to the @space_station, deploying Starlink to provide global high-speed internet, as well as many other critical payloads for our commercial & gov customers
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: alugobi on 07/18/2022 07:23 pm
Latest article by Eric Berger. (https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/07/spacex-just-matched-its-record-for-annual-launches-and-its-only-july/)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 07/20/2022 11:14 pm
It looks like there is currently no LC-39A launch scheduled for August.

- Is there another Starlink launch we don't know about?
- Is 4-26 actually launching from LC-39A instead of SLC-40, as was reported?
- Is more than one O3b mPOWER mission expected to launch in August? (the first one is reportedly planned for August from SLC-40)
- Is SpaceX planning on doing maintenance on the pad or something?
- Is this intended to minimize disruptions to the Starship pad build-up?

EDIT: Never mind, I somehow missed that Starlink 4-27 is NET August. I suspect that's the mission that will launch from LC-39A after Starlink 4-25.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/21/2022 05:04 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1550162624964329473

Quote
Sirangelo: supply chain issues impacting commercial cargo missions. [NG-18 has slipped two months because of this.] Also worried launch activity at LC-39A is reaching “overload stage” affecting commercial cargo and crew.

Not quite sure how to interpret this. He’s saying that too many non-NASA SpaceX launches at 39A is/may cause delays to SpaceX ISS launches?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: DanClemmensen on 07/21/2022 05:31 pm

Quote
Sirangelo: supply chain issues impacting commercial cargo missions. [NG-18 has slipped two months because of this.] Also worried launch activity at LC-39A is reaching “overload stage” affecting commercial cargo and crew.
Not quite sure how to interpret this. He’s saying that too many non-NASA SpaceX launches at 39A is/may cause delays to SpaceX ISS launches?
How hard or how expensive is it for SpaceX to shift non-Dragon missions to SLC-40?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 07/21/2022 05:35 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1550162624964329473

Quote
Sirangelo: supply chain issues impacting commercial cargo missions. [NG-18 has slipped two months because of this.] Also worried launch activity at LC-39A is reaching “overload stage” affecting commercial cargo and crew.

Not quite sure how to interpret this. He’s saying that too many non-NASA SpaceX launches at 39A is/may cause delays to SpaceX ISS launches?

Clarification:

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1550170367871811585
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 07/21/2022 06:13 pm
I thought SpaceX put other missions in the schedule gaps so as to not impact ISS?

I guess may get a bit more interesting with critical FH launches, but there aren’t many of those. With the pretty quick pad turnaround times, not sure it’s a big deal.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 07/25/2022 10:51 pm
Tracking Falcon 9 launches since the inaugural flight
One metric is the number of launches in the last 12 months
SpaceX just drove that to 44
Because there was a lack of launches in Q3 2021, this number should keep growing for next two months.
Another is the recent rate, calculated as the year divided by the average of the last ten launch intervals.
The latter has again come up just shy of 80.
(Amazing  Had to expand the Y scaling to fit it in.)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: AC in NC on 07/26/2022 01:08 am
Another is the recent rate, calculated as the year divided by the average of the last ten launch intervals.
The latter has again come up just shy of 80.
Stretching the point to near-breaking:

They just dropped the 6-launch in a month window from 28 days (April) to 17 days (July).  If you tack 3 days onto the 17 before starting the next 6-launch burst and kept that pace, it's 110/yr
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: r8ix on 07/26/2022 03:40 am
Another is the recent rate, calculated as the year divided by the average of the last ten launch intervals.
The latter has again come up just shy of 80.
Stretching the point to near-breaking:

They just dropped the 6-launch in a month window from 28 days (April) to 17 days (July).  If you tack 3 days onto the 17 before starting the next 6-launch burst and kept that pace, it's 110/yr

And now we've got to wait about 9 days, and it seems like forever...
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: AmigaClone on 07/26/2022 04:03 am
Another is the recent rate, calculated as the year divided by the average of the last ten launch intervals.
The latter has again come up just shy of 80.
Stretching the point to near-breaking:

They just dropped the 6-launch in a month window from 28 days (April) to 17 days (July).  If you tack 3 days onto the 17 before starting the next 6-launch burst and kept that pace, it's 110/yr

I can see five factors that would prevent that rate.
   1) Limits listed in 'https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/environmental/nepa_docs/SpaceX_Falcon_Program_Final_EA_and_FONSI.pdf'.
         For 2022 that indicates 10 FH and 10 F9 at LC 39A and 44 F9 at SLC 40.
         For 2023-2025 that indicates 10 FH and 10 F9 at LC 39A and 50 F9 launches at SLC 40.
       
   2) Extra time needed to prepare LC 39A for a crewed launch.
   3) Extra time needed to prepare LC 39A for a Falcon Heavy launch.
   4) Other launch providers at Cape Canaveral.
   5) Weather

Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/26/2022 04:12 am
Another is the recent rate, calculated as the year divided by the average of the last ten launch intervals.
The latter has again come up just shy of 80.
Stretching the point to near-breaking:

They just dropped the 6-launch in a month window from 28 days (April) to 17 days (July).  If you tack 3 days onto the 17 before starting the next 6-launch burst and kept that pace, it's 110/yr

I can see five factors that would prevent that rate.
   1) Limits listed in 'https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/environmental/nepa_docs/SpaceX_Falcon_Program_Final_EA_and_FONSI.pdf'.
         For 2022 that indicates 10 FH and 10 F9 at LC 39A and 44 F9 at SLC 40.
         For 2023-2025 that indicates 10 FH and 10 F9 at LC 39A and 50 F9 launches at SLC 40.
       
   2) Extra time needed to prepare LC 39A for a crewed launch.
   3) Extra time needed to prepare LC 39A for a Falcon Heavy launch.
   4) Other launch providers at Cape Canaveral.
   5) Weather
They can update that. Also, SLC-4E.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/26/2022 04:44 am
Another is the recent rate, calculated as the year divided by the average of the last ten launch intervals.
The latter has again come up just shy of 80.
Stretching the point to near-breaking:

They just dropped the 6-launch in a month window from 28 days (April) to 17 days (July).  If you tack 3 days onto the 17 before starting the next 6-launch burst and kept that pace, it's 110/yr

I can see five factors that would prevent that rate.
   1) Limits listed in 'https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/environmental/nepa_docs/SpaceX_Falcon_Program_Final_EA_and_FONSI.pdf'.
         For 2022 that indicates 10 FH and 10 F9 at LC 39A and 44 F9 at SLC 40.
         For 2023-2025 that indicates 10 FH and 10 F9 at LC 39A and 50 F9 launches at SLC 40.
       
   2) Extra time needed to prepare LC 39A for a crewed launch.
   3) Extra time needed to prepare LC 39A for a Falcon Heavy launch.
   4) Other launch providers at Cape Canaveral.
   5) Weather
They can update that. Also, SLC-4E.
Also add, ASDS cycle times.

The east coast flights for sure are further down range.

Then somewhere in this discussion there is the maximum production rate of second stages and MVACs. 

60-70 seems very plausible now.  100 is an exciting idea but a lot of limitations come up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: rsdavis9 on 07/26/2022 11:56 am
And the "worst" part is that the falcon launches are now boring to watch.
I was keeping up pretty well with just watching them in the background while I worked.
The last 3 launches I just gave up! I just watch the 10 second video of the launch(and/or landing) on twitter now.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 07/26/2022 12:38 pm

Also add, ASDS cycle times.

The east coast flights for sure are further down range.

Then somewhere in this discussion there is the maximum production rate of second stages and MVACs. 

60-70 seems very plausible now.  100 is an exciting idea but a lot of limitations come up.

So what would fit within all those limitations?

8 day record turnaround might be possible for gap between 2 launches but it may not be a sustainable rate. 11 days sustainable rate? That would allow 33 per pad. 66 from Florida might strictly require 6 to be FH but I don't see it being difficult to get agreement to flying a F9 instead of a FH.

So that gets us to 99 though I haven't really dealt with all the limits mentioned. While it may be possible for other launch providers to fit into the gaps it is likely there will be some delays to fit to launch windows and weather delays. Probably drops it below 90. 30 launches from VSFB might still be a stretch due to demand for launches from there.

If we drop it to 80, that then does not seem like much of a stretch for second stage or MVAC production (compared to having done 22 in 4 months)?

Plausible?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: schaban on 07/26/2022 01:14 pm
There are approx 10-20% RTLS flights
Also seems SpaceX works on reducing turnaround with partial boost backs
On the other hand if booster turnaround is 1 months that is harder limit to overcome
8 boosters in a fleet?
No more than 96 launches per year
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: realnouns on 07/26/2022 02:27 pm
Also demand for that many flights is a consideration.  Pretty soon SpaceX will have the currently approved Starlink network complete.  What will they be delivering to orbit with F9/FH if the 2nd Gen Starlink will fly exclusively on Starship?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 07/26/2022 02:37 pm
There are approx 10-20% RTLS flights
Also seems SpaceX works on reducing turnaround with partial boost backs
On the other hand if booster turnaround is 1 months that is harder limit to overcome
8 boosters in a fleet?
No more than 96 launches per year

Seems like an easy one to me. lots of FH built fairly recently but then launches delayed so if needed they can build more f9 cores and increase fleet size if needed.

1049 to be expended next flight but even excluding that and FH cores, this still leaves
51, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 67, 69, 71, 73, 77
11 in fleet which can be expanded as needed doesn't seem a problem to do more launches.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: AmigaClone on 07/26/2022 03:25 pm
Also demand for that many flights is a consideration.  Pretty soon SpaceX will have the currently approved Starlink network complete.  What will they be delivering to orbit with F9/FH if the 2nd Gen Starlink will fly exclusively on Starship?


As of today 26 July 2022 14:40 SpaceX has approval for two phases totaling 11926 Starlink satellites.

Phase 1 is nearly 60% complete and will require roughly 36 launches totaling 1732 satellites to complete.

Phase 2 is has not been started. It will require roughly 3750 satellites to be launched by November 2024. Depending on the Starlink version that would involve 75 F9 Starlink 1.5 launches or between 50 and 75 Starlink 2.0 Starship launches (using between 50 and 80 satellites per Starship).

One possible limit on haw many F9 launches are needed in a year would be the number of Starlinks manufactured a month even if some of the shells are initially filled with Starlink 1.5.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 07/26/2022 03:44 pm
Also demand for that many flights is a consideration.  Pretty soon SpaceX will have the currently approved Starlink network complete.  What will they be delivering to orbit with F9/FH if the 2nd Gen Starlink will fly exclusively on Starship?


As of today 26 July 2022 14:40 SpaceX has approval for two phases totaling 11926 Starlink satellites.

Phase 1 is nearly 60% complete and will require roughly 36 launches totaling 1732 satellites to complete.

Phase 2 is has not been started. It will require roughly 3750 satellites to be launched by November 2024. Depending on the Starlink version that would involve 75 F9 Starlink 1.5 launches or between 50 and 75 Starlink 2.0 Starship launches (using between 50 and 80 satellites per Starship).

One possible limit on haw many F9 launches are needed in a year would be the number of Starlinks manufactured a month even if some of the shells are initially filled with Starlink 1.5.

SpaceX doesn't talk about the V-band constellation (7k sats) at all anymore.  It's most likely dead.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 07/26/2022 07:11 pm
Also demand for that many flights is a consideration.  Pretty soon SpaceX will have the currently approved Starlink network complete.  What will they be delivering to orbit with F9/FH if the 2nd Gen Starlink will fly exclusively on Starship?


As of today 26 July 2022 14:40 SpaceX has approval for two phases totaling 11926 Starlink satellites.

Phase 1 is nearly 60% complete and will require roughly 36 launches totaling 1732 satellites to complete.

Phase 2 is has not been started. It will require roughly 3750 satellites to be launched by November 2024. Depending on the Starlink version that would involve 75 F9 Starlink 1.5 launches or between 50 and 75 Starlink 2.0 Starship launches (using between 50 and 80 satellites per Starship).

One possible limit on haw many F9 launches are needed in a year would be the number of Starlinks manufactured a month even if some of the shells are initially filled with Starlink 1.5.

I was looking at that yesterday.  The phase 2 quantities and date of having half deployed by Nov 2024 would seem to explain a huge urgency for Starship and getting it functional.

Pending when and how Starship testing goes perhaps we will see 2 more years of aggressive F9 flights cadence.

The number of Starlinks on orbit is not the kind of thing that can be made up easily if they fell behind.

An important question/assumption is if all the Phase 2 satellites are intended to be the larger V2 type or if SpaceX could keep flying V1.5 and do a partial deployment of smaller satellites until Starship is reliably deploying satellites?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 07/26/2022 07:36 pm
I was looking at that yesterday.  The phase 2 quantities and date of having half deployed by Nov 2024 would seem to explain a huge urgency for Starship and getting it functional.

Starlink Gen2 hasn't been approved and has no deadline yet.  The 2024 deadline is meaningless if they don't intend to actually build that constellation (V-band).
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: AmigaClone on 07/27/2022 08:13 pm
Just to clarify.
Quote
Starlink Gen1 - is the currently approved portion of Starlink. It has two portions.
Quote
Phase 1 with 5 orbital shells currently about 60% of the planned satellites are in orbit (2616 our of 4408) It needs 38 launches and could be completed, as early as a year before its 'halfway mark' date of April 2024. At that point, Shell 1 would be comprised (at least mostly) of Starlink V1.0, while the other three will be comprised of Starlink 1.5

Quote
The closest thing that I have seen to something official about SpaceX's plans for Phase 2 is a comment along the line that changes made to Phase 1 would not affect the approved V-band satellites or the proposed constellation. That would include 7500 satellites in 3 shells. If launched, it likely would be launched using Falcon 9s to meet the deadline of having half the constellation in orbit by November 2024.

Quote
Starlink Gen2 - Is a proposed 30,000 satellite constellation that has not yet been approved by the FCC. This would use Starlink 2.x and need to be launched via a Starship. Due to the physical size of Starship 2.0, I guestimate only 50-80 satellites are likely to be launched at a time, likely closer to the lower range.

Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 08/01/2022 10:28 pm
One of the upcoming Starlink rideshare payloads

https://spaceflight.com/good-vibes-next-propulsive-sherpa-clears-vibration-testing/
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Clavin on 08/05/2022 08:28 am
Elon Musk on Full Send Podcast youtube channel
"in the next 12 months we will probably do 60-70 launches  (starlink).. maybe more"-27:00
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 08/09/2022 02:47 pm
https://news.yahoo.com/northrop-grumman-taps-firefly-aerospace-191825721.html

SpaceX is creating a market and adding sales by having the ability to launch frequently.

Being able to easily pick up flights at a competitive price and provide a requested schedule is amazing compared to where the industry has ever been.

It's going to be fun seeing how the entire industry develops in the next 5 years or so.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 08/09/2022 03:17 pm
Quote
A Northrop spokeswoman told Reuters that the company purchased three Falcon 9 launches from Elon Musk's SpaceX to launch Cygnus capsules to the space station while Antares 330 is under development. Those Falcon 9 missions will launch in late 2023 and 2024.

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/northrop-taps-rocket-startup-firefly-replace-antares-russian-engines-2022-08-08/

Who thinks it will be developed on time so that no further SpaceX launches for Cygnus will be required?

If SpaceX is launching both Dragons and Cygnus, will NASA tend to favour Dragon as there is less independent supplier about Cygnus or will NASA want to help maintain/return to being an independent supplier?

Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: DanClemmensen on 08/09/2022 03:41 pm
Quote
A Northrop spokeswoman told Reuters that the company purchased three Falcon 9 launches from Elon Musk's SpaceX to launch Cygnus capsules to the space station while Antares 330 is under development. Those Falcon 9 missions will launch in late 2023 and 2024.

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/northrop-taps-rocket-startup-firefly-replace-antares-russian-engines-2022-08-08/

Who thinks it will be developed on time so that no further SpaceX launches for Cygnus will be required?

If SpaceX is launching both Dragons and Cygnus, will NASA tend to favour Dragon as there is less independent supplier about Cygnus or will NASA want to help maintain/return to being an independent supplier?
I doubt NASA will favor Dragon.  Cygnus and Cargo dragon have different capabilities. Cygnus uses the ISS berthing port, which can handle slightly larger cargo.  Cargo Dragon uses the docking port and therefore competes for this resource with CCP flights. Cygnus has demonstrated the ability to reboost (and possibly desat?) the ISS, while Dragons would have difficulties with this.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 08/09/2022 04:00 pm
Quote
A Northrop spokeswoman told Reuters that the company purchased three Falcon 9 launches from Elon Musk's SpaceX to launch Cygnus capsules to the space station while Antares 330 is under development. Those Falcon 9 missions will launch in late 2023 and 2024.

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/northrop-taps-rocket-startup-firefly-replace-antares-russian-engines-2022-08-08/

Who thinks it will be developed on time so that no further SpaceX launches for Cygnus will be required?

If SpaceX is launching both Dragons and Cygnus, will NASA tend to favour Dragon as there is less independent supplier about Cygnus or will NASA want to help maintain/return to being an independent supplier?
I doubt NASA will favor Dragon.  Cygnus and Cargo dragon have different capabilities. Cygnus uses the ISS berthing port, which can handle slightly larger cargo.  Cargo Dragon uses the docking port and therefore competes for this resource with CCP flights. Cygnus has demonstrated the ability to reboost (and possibly desat?) the ISS, while Dragons would have difficulties with this.

Cygnus can't load larger cargo than Dragon because Cygnus hatch is smaller than the size of the CBM hatch. TMK only HTV and Dragon 1 had hatches as big as the CBM hatch and neither are flying now.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: JayWee on 08/09/2022 04:29 pm
Dunno if this thread is the correct one:

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1557034116960268288

Quote from: Jeff Foust/SpaceX
SpaceX’s Jarrod McLachlan says the Transporter rideshare missions are fully booked for 2023 and getting full for 2024. But some movement in the manifest allows them to squeeze in latecomers.

He adds that the company is working on rideshare configurations for Starship, but nothing to announce today.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 08/10/2022 03:49 am
I'm curious what satellite Mission 1451 corresponds to:
1278-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=117237&RequestTimeout=1000)
This STA is intended to cover final pre-launch RF verifications for a commercial spacecraft on Mission 1451. Test will be conducted inside the SpaceX Payload Processing Facility (PPF) at Cape Canaveral SFS using a ground-support antenna. Customer will transmit commands from the ground-support device and receive telemetry from the spacecraft to verify final flight configurations. This STA is not for flight operations.
NET October 25
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Zed_Noir on 08/10/2022 07:51 am
<snip>
.... TMK only HTV and Dragon 1 had hatches as big as the CBM hatch and neither are flying now.
Does the HTX have the full size CBM hatch?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 08/10/2022 02:05 pm
Why are we dicussing the details of station resupply vehicles in this thread?  There are more appropriate places.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 08/10/2022 02:49 pm
On the manifest list, Vandenberg launches to shell 3 of 46 sats are listed at ~16k same as for 53 sat launches. That surely cannot be correct.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 08/10/2022 10:10 pm
If this is of any use... order of launches for August and first half of September was supposed to be

KPLO (already launched)
Starlink 4-26 (already launched)
Starlink 3-3 (currently scheduled for August 12th)
Starlink 4-27 (currently scheduled for August 16th)
Starlink 3-4
Starlink 4-23 (currently scheduled for August 24th)
Starlink 4-20
Starlink 4-2

I was and I'm still expecting 3-4 and 4-20 to be on for this month. Likely to have 3-4 around the 20th +- a couple of days and 4-20 could likely be anywhere from August 25th to 31st given pad turnaround times. But those are just guesses based on the expectation of those two happening this month. There's definitely room in the schedule for them.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wjbarnett on 08/11/2022 12:36 am
Alex, how much does the BC surge draw resources away from this?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 08/11/2022 03:04 am
On the manifest list, Vandenberg launches to shell 3 of 46 sats are listed at ~16k same as for 53 sat launches. That surely cannot be correct.

Even a lot of the shell 4 flights need the mass adjusted down, I'll do it sometime
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Alexphysics on 08/11/2022 03:17 am
Alex, how much does the BC surge draw resources away from this?

Little to none. This "surge" is mostly technical support rather than people being 24/7 hands on right there. Seems to have been overblown on the usual social media sites... sigh
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/12/2022 11:49 am
Not yet definite so putting in Discussion thread for now:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-europe-eyes-spacex-fill-launch-void-left-by-russian-tensions-2022-08-12/

Quote
August 12, 20228:01 PM GMT+9
Last Updated 44 min ago
EXCLUSIVE Europe eyes Musk's SpaceX to replace Russian rockets
By Tim Hepher and Joey Roulette


PARIS, Aug 12 (Reuters) - The European Space Agency (ESA) has begun preliminary technical discussions with Elon Musk's SpaceX that could lead to the temporary use of its launchers after the Ukraine conflict blocked Western access to Russia's Soyuz rockets.

The private American competitor to Europe's Arianespace has emerged as a key contender to plug a temporary gap alongside Japan and India, but final decisions depend on the still unresolved timetable for Europe's delayed Ariane 6 rocket.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 08/12/2022 02:08 pm
On the manifest list, Vandenberg launches to shell 3 of 46 sats are listed at ~16k same as for 53 sat launches. That surely cannot be correct.

Even a lot of the shell 4 flights need the mass adjusted down, I'll do it sometime

Hey man, I just appreciate all the work done on the manifest thread.  It's one of my top morning go-to items.

Especially with this launch cadence, there's no idea what might pop up.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Comga on 08/12/2022 04:08 pm
On the manifest list, Vandenberg launches to shell 3 of 46 sats are listed at ~16k same as for 53 sat launches. That surely cannot be correct.

Even a lot of the shell 4 flights need the mass adjusted down, I'll do it sometime

Hey man, I just appreciate all the work done on the manifest thread.  It's one of my top morning go-to items.

Especially with this launch cadence, there's no idea what might pop up.

I will “second” that appreciation for all the work that goes into the SpaceX Manifest thread. IMO it’s a terrific format to keep the current manifest in the updated first post. It’s nice and compact, “information dense”. I wish others, like the Rocketlab schedule, did the same.

One almost obligatory comment:
The Orbit entry for KPLO/Danuri is a question mark.
Note that its destination already has a Three Letter Acronym: BLT - Ballistic Lunar Trajectory IIRC
(We could have a link that directs anyone who thinks that stands for “Bacon, Lettuce, & Tomato “ out of NSF to a cooking forum.)
Ditto for HALO/PPE

Thanks again
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 08/16/2022 07:53 pm
Will there be another Starlink Group 3 launch from Vandenberg between Starlink 3-4 (late August) and the SDA launch (NET September 29)?

I suggest that at least one more Florida September Starlink Group 4 launch will be announced as well.  (2 more!)

September Falcon 9 launches:
4th early, SLC-40: Starlink 4-20
NET 7th, LC-39A: Starlink 4-2
NET 8th, SLC-40: Starlink 4-34
NET 15th TBA, LC-39A?: Starlink 4-35 ??
NET 20th, SLC-40?: Starlink 4-36
(hypothetical), SLC-4E: Starlink 3-?
NET 29th, SLC-4E: SDA Tracking Layer Tranche 0, Flight 1

October Falcon 9 launches:
early, LC-39A: Crew-5
8th, SLC-40?: Galaxy 33 and 34 (launch due east)
17th, ??: Eutelsat Hotbird 13G? (launch due east)
TBD, LC-39A: Cargo Dragon SpX-26 (Nov)
Q4 (1st of 3 mPower launches), SLC-40: O3b mPower 1 and 2 (launch due east)
Q4, SLC-40: WorldView Legion 1 and 2

Edited
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachF on 08/19/2022 07:56 pm
My estimated tally for YTD Δv adjusted payload to orbit:

529,282 (46x) 🇺🇸 United States
465,460 (37x) 🇺🇸 (SpaceX)
117,287 (29x) 🇨🇳 China
51,838 (11x) 🇷🇺 Russia
24,579 (2x) 🇪🇺 Europe
2,928 (2x) 🇮🇳 India
2,199 (1x) 🇰🇷 South Korea
1,090 (6x) 🇳🇿 New Zealand
15 (1x) 🇮🇷 Iran

729,704 🇺🇳 (98x) Earth

SpaceX is 63.8% of the YTD total!
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: friendly3 on 08/19/2022 10:47 pm
My estimated tally for YTD Δv adjusted payload to orbit:

529,282 (46x) 🇺🇸 United States
465,460 (37x) 🇺🇸 (SpaceX)
117,287 (29x) 🇨🇳 China
51,838 (11x) 🇷🇺 Russia
24,579 (2x) 🇪🇺 Europe
2,928 (2x) 🇮🇳 India
2,199 (1x) 🇰🇷 South Korea
1,090 (6x) 🇳🇿 New Zealand
15 (1x) 🇮🇷 Iran

729,704 🇺🇳 (98x) Earth

SpaceX is 63.8% of the YTD total!

How did you find 24,579 kg for Europe? I have 10,179 kg.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Josh_from_Canada on 08/20/2022 01:36 am
These both look like GTO trajectories. Any idea on what the payload(s) will be?

1436-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=117837&RequestTimeout=1000)
Mission 1588 from LC-40 at CCAFS or LC-39A at KSC, and the experimental recovery operation following the Falcon 9 launch
NET late September
ASDS to the East:  North  28  13  44   West  74  1  5

1452-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=117905&RequestTimeout=1000)
Mission 1498 from LC-40 at CCAFS or LC-39A at KSC, and the experimental recovery operation following the Falcon 9 launch
NET early October
ASDS to the East:  North  28  24  49   West  73  48  19
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 08/20/2022 02:52 am
Intelsat and Eutelsat are the obvious choices.  If not those two, O3B is also launching to the east in October-ish timeframe.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachF on 08/20/2022 07:24 pm
My estimated tally for YTD Δv adjusted payload to orbit:

529,282 (46x)  United States
465,460 (37x)  (SpaceX)
117,287 (29x)  China
51,838 (11x)  Russia
24,579 (2x)  Europe
2,928 (2x)  India
2,199 (1x)  South Korea
1,090 (6x)  New Zealand
15 (1x)  Iran

729,704  (98x) Earth

SpaceX is 63.8% of the YTD total!

How did you find 24,579 kg for Europe? I have 10,179 kg.

It’s delta v adjusted to 185km x 28.5d LEO, so that lighter higher energy payloads don’t get undercounted. Payloads sent to a GTO-1500 trajectory get a ~2.41x modifier. It uses the rocket equation and the isp (320) of a hypergolic orbit raise motor.

They get modifiers individually based on their injection orbits, but roughly the modifiers would look like this:

1.00x 185km LEO
1.06x ISS
1.25x 550km SSO
2.20x GTO-1800
2.41x GTO-1500
2.70x TLI
3.87x direct GEO insertion
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/20/2022 07:37 pm
Good methodology.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachF on 08/20/2022 09:05 pm
Good methodology.

Ultimately there will be edge cases for anything, but I think this is the “least unfair” way to tally payloads. Here are a few examples of Adjusted payload value (APV) to show how it works in practice:

-A Falcon 9 launching 16,250kg of Starlink sats to ~230x53d would have an APV of ~17,190.

-A Falcon 9 launching a 5.5t Geo sat to GTO-1800 would have an APV of ~12,100.

-A Delta IV Heavy lofting a 6t Orion satellite directly to geostationary would have a APV of ~23,240

-An Ariane 5 sending 9,500kg to GTO-1500 would have an APV of ~22,950

-A Saturn V sending 46t of CSM and LEM to TLI would have an APV of ~124,000.

The APV for the upcoming SLS launch will probably be in the 70,000-72,000 range.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: waveney on 08/23/2022 08:26 pm
News of a Net April 2025 Space X Falcon 9 mission for NASA not sure where it should go...

https://phys.org/news/2022-08-nasa-mission-sun.html (https://phys.org/news/2022-08-nasa-mission-sun.html)

NASA schedules Polarimeter to Unify the Corona and Heliosphere (PUNCH) mission to launch in 2025; will study the sun

Also refers to other payload on same flight: SPHEREx
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 08/23/2022 08:41 pm
News of a Net April 2025 Space X Falcon 9 mission for NASA not sure where it should go...

https://phys.org/news/2022-08-nasa-mission-sun.html (https://phys.org/news/2022-08-nasa-mission-sun.html)

NASA schedules Polarimeter to Unify the Corona and Heliosphere (PUNCH) mission to launch in 2025; will study the sun

Also refers to other payload on same flight: SPHEREx

the "other" payload is the main payload, and has an existing mission thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53004.0
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 08/24/2022 01:11 pm
Will there be another Starlink Group 3 launch from Vandenberg between Starlink 3-4 (late August) and the SDA launch (NET September 29)?
Apparently not.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 08/26/2022 03:32 pm
A question/discussion for my fellow Manifest junkies.

Regarding Elon's mention of a Starlink V2-Mini on F9. 

I would expect that part of a plan to mitigate any Starship development delays means that SpaceX needs to plan for an even more aggressive F9/FH launch cadence.

The pinch points for even more F9 flights would be upper stages and maybe adding a 3rd East coast ASDS.

For the upper stage does that mean any more testing capabilities in Texas?
An ASDS is a longer lead item and would have to be almost underway now.

Any thoughts?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: DanClemmensen on 08/26/2022 03:37 pm

The pinch points for even more F9 flights would be upper stages and maybe adding a 3rd East coast ASDS.

Any thoughts?
I thought they were approaching their maximum permitted launch rate for the Eastern range. Is there a technical limit on the range (flight controllers or whatever the call the personnel), or is this simply a regulatory constraint? Would shipping interests object to more frequent keep-out notices?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 08/26/2022 04:00 pm
Seems to me the regulatory 60 launches from Florida (5 per month) is about max that 2 ASDS can do. If 2 pads and 2 ASDS can do 60, the next easy one is to get Vandenberg up towards 30.

90 is a fairly large increase on the current nearly 6 per month.

If ~90 isn't enough, then it starts to get more problematic possibly needing several things, like: regulatory limit increase, extra ASDS, improved second stage production rate ...

If these issues are long, difficult, and expensive to solve, perhaps a bigger backlog of launches until Starship is sorted out makes more sense than fixing these issues for only a relatively short period of usage of the higher launch rate?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: ZachF on 08/28/2022 02:00 pm
Latest delta-v adjusted payload tallies:

546,970 (47x) 🇺🇸 United States
483,148 (38x) 🇺🇸 (SpaceX)
119,587 (31x) 🇨🇳 China
51,838 (11x) 🇷🇺 Russia
24,579 (2x) 🇪🇺 Europe
2,928 (2x) 🇮🇳 India
2,199 (1x) 🇰🇷 South Korea
1,090 (6x) 🇳🇿 New Zealand
15 (1x) 🇮🇷 Iran

749,692 🇺🇳 (101x) Earth

The reason I post this so close to the last one is because there is an important milestone about to be achieved; By my calcs, the all-time record for adjusted payload to orbit was set in 1988 by the USSR at 607,394. The upcoming SLS launch alone will add 70,000+ to the total and there is another ~17,000 Starlink launch right after. This year the US should handily beat that by 50%+.

The current American launch cadence is pretty unprecedented. I mean, the figure for SpaceX this year alone will be roughly equal to what Arianespace have done in the last decade.  :o

Attached below is my estimates by country and year (1964/65 is rough estimate btw because data is unfinished)
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: c4fusion on 08/28/2022 07:27 pm
I just saw this thread and the very cool delta V normalized chart from @ZachF. Not sure if this will derail the conversation too much, if so, moderators please feel free to delete this.

@ZachF Would that mean the normalized payload mass for landing Lunar Starship be on the order of half million to a million? Guessing landed mass to be 150 tons and multiplier of about 5.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 08/31/2022 04:00 pm
8 for group 4, 14 for group 2, 4 for group 3, 4 for group 5
https://twitter.com/Cosmic_Penguin/status/1564996560039120897?s=20&t=fJJfUBBg4FOJWxr3dqmUnA
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Vultur on 08/31/2022 07:40 pm
I dont know how many Starship flights are possible. Boca Chica is only permitted for 5/year after the 3 experimental... so if 1 is this year then no more than 7 from BC in 2023, right?

They are already building the launch tower in Florida though...
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/31/2022 07:53 pm
I dont know how many Starship flights are possible. Boca Chica is only permitted for 5/year after the 3 experimental... so if 1 is this year then no more than 7 from BC in 2023, right?

They are already building the launch tower in Florida though...
Yea, they are expecting (okay, TRYING) to fly from Florida very, very soon. Most certainly in 2023.

but TBH, if they get more than 6 total Starship orbital flights in 2023, I’ll be surprised because it just takes time to ramp such things up.

They’re also trying to get approvals for more launch pads in Florida, and doubtless will try for more in South Texas.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 08/31/2022 10:05 pm
5 more Crew Dragon flights

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/nasa-orders-five-more-astronaut-204550265.html

Crew Dragon has become a cash money machine for SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: DanClemmensen on 08/31/2022 11:02 pm
I dont know how many Starship flights are possible. Boca Chica is only permitted for 5/year after the 3 experimental... so if 1 is this year then no more than 7 from BC in 2023, right?

They are already building the launch tower in Florida though...
Yea, they are expecting (okay, TRYING) to fly from Florida very, very soon. Most certainly in 2023.

but TBH, if they get more than 6 total Starship orbital flights in 2023, I’ll be surprised because it just takes time to ramp such things up.

They’re also trying to get approvals for more launch pads in Florida, and doubtless will try for more in South Texas.
They don't need more launch pads, except for redundancy, because one pad can launch at least once a day. What they need is permission for more launches.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 09/01/2022 05:59 am
SFN SpaceX closes out quartet of Starlink launches from Vandenberg (https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/08/31/spacex-closes-out-quartet-of-starlink-launches-from-vandenberg/), August 31:
Quote
SpaceX’s Starlink 3-4 mission was the fourth straight launch from Vandenberg since July 10 to haul satellites into “Group 3” of the Starlink constellation. The 184 satellites launched on those four missions are enough to fill more than half of the slots in Group 3, which will eventually contain 348 satellites in polar orbit.

Quote
SpaceX is expected to take a pause from Group 3 launches for at least the next few months.

Which might contradict this statement from NSF SpaceX nails 150th Falcon recovery attempt on Starlink Group 3-4 (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/08/starlink-3-4-launch/), also August 31:
Quote
Because of the small size of this shell, it is expected that it will be filled in fewer than 10 Falcon 9 launches, and could be completed by the end of 2022.

The next Vandenberg Starlink launch is a Group 4 launch; NET September 25:
1496-EX-ST-2022 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=118080&RequestTimeout=1000)
Mission 1791 Starlink Group 4-29 from SLC-4E, Vandenberg
NET late September
ASDS North  29  47  54   West  116  40  39
My deduction is Starlink 4-29 launch is NET October.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 09/01/2022 06:34 am
Up to 100 orbital flights in 2023:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1564994769826172929
Quote
Eric Berger @SciGuySpace
SpaceX launched its 39th rocket of 2022 last night from Vandenberg Space Force Base. The company has now launched a Falcon 9 every 6.2 days this year, putting them on pace for a total of 55 to 60. I've heard the company's goal is 100 orbital flights next year.
Quote
Elon Musk @elonmusk
Yeah, aiming for up to 100 flights next year.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 09/01/2022 01:18 pm
Next Spaceflight (https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/6967) lists the Starlink 4-24 launch for December 2022. I wonder if it's the Lynk rideshare that was discovered last year (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53091.msg2288278#msg2288278).
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 09/01/2022 02:43 pm
when is group 5 starting or group 2 restarting?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 09/01/2022 03:44 pm
Next Spaceflight (https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/6967) lists the Starlink 4-24 launch for December 2022. I wonder if it's the Lynk rideshare that was discovered last year (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53091.msg2288278#msg2288278).

Most recent Lynk schedule:
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 09/01/2022 04:44 pm
Next Spaceflight (https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/6967) lists the Starlink 4-24 launch for December 2022. I wonder if it's the Lynk rideshare that was discovered last year (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53091.msg2288278#msg2288278).

Most recent Lynk schedule:

Thanks! Do we know if any of them are still planned for mid-inclination?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: AmigaClone on 09/01/2022 04:50 pm
when is group 5 starting or group 2 restarting?

Personal Speculation:

I can see SpaceX starting to launch Starlink satellites to Shell 5 as soon as they finish launching Shell 3. Note that Shell 5 has the same inclination and altitude as shell 3 so I suspect that Starlink 3-8 (which would complete Shell 3) might have a group of Starlinks destined for Shell 5. Shell 5 is comprised of 172 Starlink satellites so it would only need 4 launches to be completed.

As for Shell 2, I suspect that might have to wait until SpaceX finishes Shell 4 - the later needing about 8 launches. Shell 2 would in turn need about 14 launches.

Basically, only 30 launches are needed to complete the initial deployment of the current Starlink constellation.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gongora on 09/01/2022 05:02 pm
Next Spaceflight (https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/6967) lists the Starlink 4-24 launch for December 2022. I wonder if it's the Lynk rideshare that was discovered last year (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53091.msg2288278#msg2288278).

Most recent Lynk schedule:

Thanks! Do we know if any of them are still planned for mid-inclination?

I didn't notice anything saying they would change the inclinations from the initial filing.  I didn't look at every document filed, mostly focused on recent ones.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 09/02/2022 06:38 pm
September Falcon 9 launches:
5th, SLC-40: Starlink 4-20
10th, LC-39A: Starlink 4-2
NET 12th, SLC-40: Starlink 4-34
Mid/late, SLC-40: Starlink 4-35
Late, SLC-40: Starlink 4-36
NET 29th, SLC-4E: SDA Tracking Layer Tranche 0, Flight 1

October Falcon 9 and Heavy launches:
NET 3rd, LC-39A: Crew-5
8th, SLC-40: Galaxy 33 and 34 (launch due east)
17th, SLC-40?: Eutelsat Hotbird 13G
TBD, FH, LC-39A: USSF-44
TBD, SLC-4E: Starlink 4-29
Q4, SLC-40: WorldView Legion 1 and 2

Are the preparations for Crew-5 the cause for three consecutive Starlink launches from SLC-40?  Is it also part of the reason for launching Starlink 4-29 from Vandenberg?

Surprise!  USSF-44 launch moved forward:
SFN Launch Schedule (https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/), updated September 1:
October from LC-39A.

The October Hotbird would now (part of reason?) likely launch from SLC-40 because of this.

Some November launches may also launch from SLC-40 to accommodate the Falcon Heavy launch from LC-39A?  (Cargo Dragon SpX-26 launches from LC-39A on November 18.) 🐉 🐲 🀄
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 09/02/2022 09:51 pm
So pad 39A has to look something like this to fit them all in

10 Sept Starlink 4-2
3 Oct Crew -5
Oct FHeavy USSF-44
late Oct/Early Nov? FHeavy ViaSat-3
18 Nov CRS-26
Dec? FHeavy USSF-67
Dec 22 IM-1
Dec? Polaris Dawn

With changing pad over to heavy and back, that seems a pretty full schedule for the pad. Only possible extra slot is ~Sept 20 unless anything is delayed. Is it even possible to fit all these in before the end of the year?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: AmigaClone on 09/02/2022 10:45 pm
September Falcon 9 launches:
5th, SLC-40: Starlink 4-20
10th, LC-39A: Starlink 4-2
NET 12th, SLC-40: Starlink 4-34
Mid/late, SLC-40: Starlink 4-35
Late, SLC-40: Starlink 4-36
NET 29th, SLC-4E: SDA Tracking Layer Tranche 0, Flight 1

October Falcon 9 and Heavy launches:
NET 3rd, LC-39A: Crew-5
8th, SLC-40: Galaxy 33 and 34 (launch due east)
17th, SLC-40?: Eutelsat Hotbird 13G
TBD, FH, LC-39A: USSF-44
TBD, SLC-4E: Starlink 4-29
Q4, SLC-40: WorldView Legion 1 and 2

Are the preparations for Crew-5 the cause for three consecutive Starlink launches from SLC-40?  Is it also part of the reason for launching Starlink 4-29 from Vandenberg?

Likely a combination of preparations for Crew-5, lack of payloads from outside customers being ready to launch, and wanting to balance a little the number of Starlink launches left to launch the initial 4408 Gen1 Starlink satellites.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: AmigaClone on 09/02/2022 11:11 pm
So pad 39A has to look something like this to fit them all in

10 Sept Starlink 4-2
3 Oct Crew -5
Oct FHeavy USSF-44
late Oct/Early Nov? FHeavy ViaSat-3
18 Nov CRS-26
Dec? FHeavy USSF-67
Dec 22 IM-1
Dec? Polaris Dawn

With changing pad over to heavy and back, that seems a pretty full schedule for the pad. Only possible extra slot is ~Sept 20 unless anything is delayed. Is it even possible to fit all these in before the end of the year?

SpaceX at one point had the goal of being able to do the conversion in about a week - possibly while the regular refurbishment is being done. We will soon see if that goal was realistic or not.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 09/02/2022 11:34 pm
So pad 39A has to look something like this to fit them all in

10 Sept Starlink 4-2
3 Oct Crew -5
Oct FHeavy USSF-44
late Oct/Early Nov? FHeavy ViaSat-3
18 Nov CRS-26
Dec? FHeavy USSF-67
Dec 22 IM-1
Dec? Polaris Dawn

With changing pad over to heavy and back, that seems a pretty full schedule for the pad. Only possible extra slot is ~Sept 20 unless anything is delayed. Is it even possible to fit all these in before the end of the year?

IM-1 slipped to January:
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1549794532182695936
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/13/2022 03:12 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1569703705527599104

Quote
SpaceX’s Tom Ochinero: trying to get to a little over 60 launches this year, and 100 next year. Includes 6 Falcon Heavy launches in next 12 months.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: DanClemmensen on 09/13/2022 03:48 pm

Quote
SpaceX’s Tom Ochinero: trying to get to a little over 60 launches this year, and 100 next year. Includes 6 Falcon Heavy launches in next 12 months.
Interesting. SpaceX has already launched 41 times in 2022, and Wikipedia still shows an additional 27 planned launches, with references of variable quality. That would be 67 total for the year.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 09/13/2022 04:14 pm

Quote
SpaceX’s Tom Ochinero: trying to get to a little over 60 launches this year, and 100 next year. Includes 6 Falcon Heavy launches in next 12 months.
Interesting. SpaceX has already launched 41 times in 2022, and Wikipedia still shows an additional 27 planned launches, with references of variable quality. That would be 67 total for the year.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches

They are not going to get to 67 in 2022. Most any month so far 6, and if 6 in Oct to Dec that would be 63. Could possibly get 7 in one month but not in 4 consecutive months.

I am hoping for 62+ to make a third calendar year when SpaceX have doubled last years launches. With 2 or 3 falcon heavy launches and pad changeovers and more commercial and crew launches and fewer starlink launches 63 seems a stretch. So quite possible we don't get 62, in which case perhaps we will have to settle for more than doubling booster cores launched.

Wikipedia list uses NET dates - some will be delayed.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 09/13/2022 04:32 pm

Quote
SpaceX’s Tom Ochinero: trying to get to a little over 60 launches this year, and 100 next year. Includes 6 Falcon Heavy launches in next 12 months.
Interesting. SpaceX has already launched 41 times in 2022, and Wikipedia still shows an additional 27 planned launches, with references of variable quality. That would be 67 total for the year.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches

They are not going to get to 67 in 2022. Most any month so far 6, and if 6 in Oct to Dec that would be 63. Could possibly get 7 in one month but not in 4 consecutive months.

I am hoping for 62+ to make a third calendar year when SpaceX have doubled last years launches. With 2 or 3 falcon heavy launches and pad changeovers and more commercial and crew launches and fewer starlink launches 63 seems a stretch. So quite possible we don't get 62, in which case perhaps we will have to settle for more than doubling booster cores launched.

Wikipedia list uses NET dates - some will be delayed.
if any mission has good ref telling about a launch in 2022. wikipedia lists it in 2022. if strong ref is there for slip into 2023, it will soon move them to 2023.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/13/2022 05:19 pm

Quote
SpaceX’s Tom Ochinero: trying to get to a little over 60 launches this year, and 100 next year. Includes 6 Falcon Heavy launches in next 12 months.
Interesting. SpaceX has already launched 41 times in 2022, and Wikipedia still shows an additional 27 planned launches, with references of variable quality. That would be 67 total for the year.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches

They are not going to get to 67 in 2022. Most any month so far 6, and if 6 in Oct to Dec that would be 63. Could possibly get 7 in one month but not in 4 consecutive months.

I am hoping for 62+ to make a third calendar year when SpaceX have doubled last years launches. With 2 or 3 falcon heavy launches and pad changeovers and more commercial and crew launches and fewer starlink launches 63 seems a stretch. So quite possible we don't get 62, in which case perhaps we will have to settle for more than doubling booster cores launched.

Wikipedia list uses NET dates - some will be delayed.

100 flights in 12 months is going to really stress the SpaceX Navy and ASDS'

I think it will be very hard with FH's, weather and only two ASDS' to hit 100 flights, unless Vandenberg really steps up to 24-36 flights.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: DanClemmensen on 09/13/2022 05:43 pm

Quote
SpaceX’s Tom Ochinero: trying to get to a little over 60 launches this year, and 100 next year. Includes 6 Falcon Heavy launches in next 12 months.
Interesting. SpaceX has already launched 41 times in 2022, and Wikipedia still shows an additional 27 planned launches, with references of variable quality. That would be 67 total for the year.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches

They are not going to get to 67 in 2022. Most any month so far 6, and if 6 in Oct to Dec that would be 63. Could possibly get 7 in one month but not in 4 consecutive months.

I am hoping for 62+ to make a third calendar year when SpaceX have doubled last years launches. With 2 or 3 falcon heavy launches and pad changeovers and more commercial and crew launches and fewer starlink launches 63 seems a stretch. So quite possible we don't get 62, in which case perhaps we will have to settle for more than doubling booster cores launched.

Wikipedia list uses NET dates - some will be delayed.

100 flights in 12 months is going to really stress the SpaceX Navy and ASDS'

I think it will be very hard with FH's, weather and only two ASDS' to hit 100 flights, unless Vandenberg really steps up to 24-36 flights.
Agreed. That's a crazy workload for the existing infrastructure even if it were magically leveled out to a steady twice-a-week routine. Your point is well taken. LH and Dragon missions disrupt the cadence, so the pace cannot be steady and the peaks will get crazier.

Unless the "100" includes quite a few Starships. These will add their own craziness, but will not impose the same load on the SpaceX navy or the F9 reuse team.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 09/13/2022 05:48 pm
100 flights in 12 months is going to really stress the SpaceX Navy and ASDS'

I think it will be very hard with FH's, weather and only two ASDS' to hit 100 flights, unless Vandenberg really steps up to 24-36 flights.

A few possible routes to 100:

1. Get operational licence for starlink after 6 test flights by end October 2023 and fly Starship a dozen times in Nov and Dec. So 6+12 Starship + 60 from Florida + 22 VSFB

2. 60 Falcon 9 Florida (regulation limit) + 4 Falcon Heavy + 30 VSFB + 6 Starship test flight

Route 2 would stress ASDS and maritime crews but for route 1 it isn't all that much of a step up for them from what they are doing recently from Florida.

Hah, Dan beat me to this

Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 09/13/2022 05:51 pm
Navy ???  They are doing battle with the seas and those pesky boosters that want to fall over I suppose.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/13/2022 06:30 pm
Navy ???  They are doing battle with the seas and those pesky boosters that want to fall over I suppose.

Taking direct hits weekly.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/13/2022 09:38 pm
100 flights in 12 months is going to really stress the SpaceX Navy and ASDS'

I think it will be very hard with FH's, weather and only two ASDS' to hit 100 flights, unless Vandenberg really steps up to 24-36 flights.

A few possible routes to 100:

1. Get operational licence for starlink after 6 test flights by end October 2023 and fly Starship a dozen times in Nov and Dec. So 6+12 Starship + 60 from Florida + 22 VSFB

2. 60 Falcon 9 Florida (regulation limit) + 4 Falcon Heavy + 30 VSFB + 6 Starship test flight

Route 2 would stress ASDS and maritime crews but for route 1 it isn't all that much of a step up for them from what they are doing recently from Florida.

Hah, Dan beat me to this
Question please cite the F9 Florida regulation limit. As far as I know there is no such limit. Any limits are due to practicle items of SpaceX Navy, assets, TEs, HIF space for processing the next booster US in line for the next launch, boosters available to launch, and other odds and ends. The Range can obviously support at a max rate launches at 12 hours apart, but only with AFTS that the F9/FH/Starship has. Which means that irregardless of how often SpaceX does launches they can accommodate other launchers launches without much difficulty except the big guys like SLS.

VSFB has shown an average sustained seperation between launches over the last 4 launches of ~17 days. So it is possible even right now to support 20+ launches from VSFB. But Starship launches of ~5 testlike launches from BC and some number from 39A is an unknown. A NOTE here is that to do the operational Starlink launches with Starship will need 39A in the short term until offshore pads are placed at locations that have wider launch inclinations that include most of the inclinations needed by Starlink: 53, 70, SSO.

The goal for this year was 70+ but the actual will be much closer to 60. The goal now for 2023 is 100 but the actual may end being much like this year at ~85. An increase of around 20 launches next year, especially with Starship launches occuring and more VSFB launch such that more of the current SSO launches happening at LC-40, 39A is transferred all to VSFB that will increase VSFB totals by 6 to 10. Which would then may not need much of a launch increase of F9 from LC-40 and 39A that occured this year of an average of 5/month. Giving a average launches per month of 7 F9/FH / month or ~ 84 with some number of Starship launches.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: OceanCat on 09/14/2022 04:11 am
I was curious how many launches are needed to complete Starlink shell 4 so I counted the planes. Half of shell 4 is completely operational now. In the other half:

* 6 full planes
* 18 targeted planes
* 1 half targeted plane (only 13 satellites are on the way)
* Remaining planes: 11.5

Number of remaining launches assuming 54 satellites per launch and 20 satellites per plane: 4.25. 5 launches are needed to complete the shell. G4-37 in October is the last launch.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 09/14/2022 12:45 pm
Question please cite the F9 Florida regulation limit. As far as I know there is no such limit.

Their environmental assessment was worked out for up to 60 Falcon 9 and 10 Falcon heavy from Florida:

https://www.faa.gov/space/environmental/nepa_docs/media/SpaceX_Falcon_Program_Draft_EA_508.pdf

I understood they were only allowed to launch up to this number, but it is possible that I am incorrect about that.

A question in return: Where does your "The goal for this year was 70+" come from?

I was only aware of numbers of 52 and 60 from
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/27/elon-musks-spacex-planning-for-record-52-launches-in-2022.html Jan 22
and
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1508540042817376256 60 late March
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: kevin-rf on 09/14/2022 07:40 pm
https://spacenews.com/space-development-agencys-first-launch-slips-due-to-supply-chain-setbacks/

Quote
Space Development Agency’s first launch slips due to supply chain setbacks
by Sandra Erwin — September 14, 2022

SDA's second batch of Tranche 0 is still on track to launch in March

WASHINGTON — The first launch of the Space Development Agency’s low Earth orbit satellites that had been scheduled for late September is slipping to no earlier than mid-December.
Wonder if this will clear the way for an additional starlink launch in the near term.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/14/2022 08:33 pm
Question please cite the F9 Florida regulation limit. As far as I know there is no such limit.

Their environmental assessment was worked out for up to 60 Falcon 9 and 10 Falcon heavy from Florida:

https://www.faa.gov/space/environmental/nepa_docs/media/SpaceX_Falcon_Program_Draft_EA_508.pdf

I understood they were only allowed to launch up to this number, but it is possible that I am incorrect about that.

A question in return: Where does your "The goal for this year was 70+" come from?

I was only aware of numbers of 52 and 60 from
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/27/elon-musks-spacex-planning-for-record-52-launches-in-2022.html Jan 22
and
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1508540042817376256 60 late March
You may be correct on the Musk quotes on 2022 launches at 60 and I was off by what I remember.

Thanks for the Draft EA stating 60 F9 and 10 FH. But question what was in the final EA. And has there been another one since then that has changed the numbers? Will require some diggig by both of us to find the truth as to what it really is.

But even if it was the numbers you quote and the amount of FH predicted in 2023 being 6. Gets to 66 out of the cape. Then add about 18-20 out of VSFB. I will be surprised if it is more than 20. That is 86. Which gets to the more likely number range for what will happen in 2023 until Starship launch rates start ramping up significantly.

ADDED:
https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/environmental/nepa_docs/SpaceX_Falcon_Program_Final_EA_and_FONSI.pdf (https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/environmental/nepa_docs/SpaceX_Falcon_Program_Final_EA_and_FONSI.pdf)

This seems to indicate that the FONSI would support SpaceX being able to expand the total aggregate launches to more than the 70 listed of 10 FH and 60 F9 or 70 F9 and 0 FH. Note is that in this attached draft that 70 value is based on estimates for 39A that was 10 FH and 10 F9 but this year is already past 14 F9 launches on 39A. So that likely there is some restriction on the FH numbers (maybe but maybe not) and an estimate of an aggregate amount of 70 for which the analysis included for which the EA was completed.

Also in addition to this active EA there is also now an EA for Starship on 39A but I have not found yet. Will have to look for it.

All of this does indeed support the 100 number for 2023 as possible without really any new EAs.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 09/15/2022 12:19 am

But even if it was the numbers you quote and the amount of FH predicted in 2023 being 6. Gets to 66 out of the cape.

I thought the 6 was in the next year from now but 2 or 3 of those could be in 2022. However, maybe there are more for late 2023 so it is still 6 for 2023?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: jpo234 on 09/15/2022 09:41 am

But even if it was the numbers you quote and the amount of FH predicted in 2023 being 6. Gets to 66 out of the cape.

I thought the 6 was in the next year from now but 2 or 3 of those could be in 2022. However, maybe there are more for late 2023 so it is still 6 for 2023?
Here is the quote:
Quote
SpaceX’s Tom Ochinero: trying to get to a little over 60 launches this year, and 100 next year. Includes 6 Falcon Heavy launches in next 12 months.

That's different from 6 FH launches in 2023...

See https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1569703705527599104
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 09/16/2022 04:47 am
I was curious how many launches are needed to complete Starlink shell 4 so I counted the planes. Half of shell 4 is completely operational now. In the other half:

* 6 full planes
* 18 targeted planes
* 1 half targeted plane (only 13 satellites are on the way)
* Remaining planes: 11.5

Number of remaining launches assuming 54 satellites per launch and 20 satellites per plane: 4.25. 5 launches are needed to complete the shell. G4-37 in October is the last launch.
i am thinking as to how big the starlink v1.5 group 4 subconstellation is? Both group 1 and 4 were proposed to have 1584 sats but group 1 ended up having 1725 sats.

Now considering 4-37 as the last serial no. Of group 4 and counting all auched manifested (by 54 on each florida and 53 on each california launch) we are only left with 57 more sats to be launched.

Now here's the problem till 4-37, we have 6 yet to be known missions (4-24,4-28,4-30,4-31,4-32,4-33) if you launch them the sum will go to ~1986 far more that proposed 1584!!!!

Is spacex allowed to launch 400 more sats than its proposal??
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: AmigaClone on 09/16/2022 07:49 am
I was curious how many launches are needed to complete Starlink shell 4 so I counted the planes. Half of shell 4 is completely operational now. In the other half:

* 6 full planes
* 18 targeted planes
* 1 half targeted plane (only 13 satellites are on the way)
* Remaining planes: 11.5

Number of remaining launches assuming 54 satellites per launch and 20 satellites per plane: 4.25. 5 launches are needed to complete the shell. G4-37 in October is the last launch.
i am thinking as to how big the starlink v1.5 group 4 subconstellation is? Both group 1 and 4 were proposed to have 1584 sats but group 1 ended up having 1725 sats.

Now considering 4-37 as the last serial no. Of group 4 and counting all auched manifested (by 54 on each florida and 53 on each california launch) we are only left with 57 more sats to be launched.

Now here's the problem till 4-37, we have 6 yet to be known missions (4-24,4-28,4-30,4-31,4-32,4-33) if you launch them the sum will go to ~1986 far more that proposed 1584!!!!

Is spacex allowed to launch 400 more sats than its proposal??

SpaceX like other operators of constellations is allowed to launch some on-orbit spares. I seem to recall something like 2 spares per plane (144 total on-orbit spares for Group 4).

At this time, SpaceX has 1263 total working Group 4 Starlink satellites. That means another 321 Starlinks would need to be launched to meet the proposed number, not counting any on-orbit spares for Group 4.

Basically, six or seven more Starlink launches would complete Group 4 according to the proposal. Another two or three launches would put the on-orbit spares in place. Note that the number of rideshares in the remaining V1.5 launches for Group 4 could lead to a tenth Starlink V1.5 Group 4 to complete the group with the planned number of spares.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: scr00chy on 09/16/2022 08:33 am
Both group 1 and 4 were proposed to have 1584 sats but group 1 ended up having 1725 sats.


Huh? There are only 1516 Group 1 sats in orbit. And only 1462 of them are an active part of the constellation.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 09/16/2022 09:08 am
Both group 1 and 4 were proposed to have 1584 sats but group 1 ended up having 1725 sats.


Huh? There are only 1516 Group 1 sats in orbit. And only 1462 of them are an active part of the constellation.
you are dealing with present I dealed 1725 in past june 2021. 26 may 2021 was the last date of group 1 launch.
25*60 sat launch+2*58 sat launch+1*57 sat launch+1*52 sat launch=1725 sats in group 1 launched.

SpaceX like other operators of constellations is allowed to launch some on-orbit spares. I seem to recall something like 2 spares per plane (144 total on-orbit spares for Group 4).

At this time, SpaceX has 1263 total working Group 4 Starlink satellites. That means another 321 Starlinks would need to be launched to meet the proposed number, not counting any on-orbit spares for Group 4.

Basically, six or seven more Starlink launches would complete Group 4 according to the proposal. Another two or three launches would put the on-orbit spares in place. Note that the number of rideshares in the remaining V1.5 launches for Group 4 could lead to a tenth Starlink V1.5 Group 4 to complete the group with the planned number of spares.
so how many spares were there in group 1???
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: soltasto on 09/16/2022 09:59 am
Both group 1 and 4 were proposed to have 1584 sats but group 1 ended up having 1725 sats.


Huh? There are only 1516 Group 1 sats in orbit. And only 1462 of them are an active part of the constellation.
you are dealing with present I dealed 1725 in past june 2021. 26 may 2021 was the last date of group 1 launch.
25*60 sat launch+2*58 sat launch+1*57 sat launch+1*52 sat launch=1725 sats in group 1 launched.

By that time many Starlink v1.0 satellites were in the process of getting deorbited or were deorbited already.
The number of satellites in the constellation (at the allowed altitudes and inclinations) that is present in the FCC documents is what they can effectively use for communication with ground users, satellites that have to be placed in specific orbital slots to keep global coverage. Those are not the total number of satellites they get to launch, as they are allowed to launch infinitely more for the replenish process.

By the way, currently SpaceX decided to use les capacity for the Group 1 shell: As you may find on https://starlink.sx/ Group 1 has 72 shells of 18 active satellites plus spares, a number that was changed from 20 active satellites plus spares to reach the market faster and is apparently good enough.

Chinakpradhan, I also noticed that you made this change to 1725 on wikipedia without any real source but your calculation, which is not correct. I advise you to undo that change as that is not what is written in the source document.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 09/16/2022 01:06 pm
I have attempted to clarify wikipedia.

It seems Chinakpradhan was interpreting the "satellites" heading to mean "satellites launched". Whereas, at least some of us think the more natural interpretation is "authorised initial deployment number of satellites".

I therefore reverted to 1584 and changed the heading to "authorised initial deployment number of satellites" to try to avoid any such confusion.

This appears to me to be a good faith misinterpretation.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 09/16/2022 04:53 pm
I have attempted to clarify wikipedia.

It seems Chinakpradhan was interpreting the "satellites" heading to mean "satellites launched". Whereas, at least some of us think the more natural interpretation is "authorised initial deployment number of satellites".

I therefore reverted to 1584 and changed the heading to "authorised initial deployment number of satellites" to try to avoid any such confusion.

This appears to me to be a good faith misinterpretation.
i dont want to discuss about wikipedia here at nsf but its true, i interpreted the "satellites" heading to mean "satellites launched" (more clearly i thought it as authorised number of satellites)(sorry for that). Based on that only i wrote half completion as, "3 March 2022 with Group 4-9". So what the actual half completion?? I need it for my and the wikipedia database.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 09/16/2022 05:47 pm
Mostly, confirmation 👍 of known information:
SFN, Live coverage: SpaceX scrubs Starlink launch attempt for third day in a row (https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/09/15/falcon-9-starlink-4-34-live-coverage/), September 15
Quote
The Starlink 4-34 mission will be the third of as many as six Falcon 9 missions on SpaceX’s schedule this month. Tom Ochinero, SpaceX’s vice president of commercial sales, said Tuesday at the World Satellite Business Week conference in Paris that the company aims to complete more than 60 launches this year, with the goal of 100 rocket missions in 2023, continuing a dramatic uptick in SpaceX’s launch cadence.
<snip>
SpaceX began flying 54 Starlink satellites on dedicated Falcon 9 flights last month, one more spacecraft than the company typically launched on previous missions. SpaceX has experimented with different engine throttle settings and other minor changes to stretch the Falcon 9’s performance.

September launches:
Starlink 4-20
Starlink 4-2
Starlink 4-34
Starlink 4-35
Starlink 4-36
Starlink 4-29?

Apparently, 54 Starlink satellites per Group 4 launch is the new normal. 🛰
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 09/16/2022 06:08 pm
Tom Ochinero, SpaceX’s vice president of commercial sales, said Tuesday

September launches:
Starlink 4-20
Starlink 4-2
Starlink 4-34
Starlink 4-35
Starlink 4-36
Starlink 4-29?


We learned Wed 14th of SDA T&T tranche 1 flight 1 delay from 29th Oct to mid Dec. So I am not sure this helps in figuring out whether 4-29 may or may not be brought forward into that slot. OTOH people in the know may have known more earlier?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/20/2022 10:07 pm
SLC-40 is going to have to keep up a packed pace to get in these Starlink flights before the next Crew flight and with SLS looking for an opportunity.

I will be very impressed if SpaceX can carry out 4 flights from SLC between Sept 18 and Oct 5.

I wouldn't mind a FH getting a confirmed date (soon).  It's been too long, far too long!

Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 09/21/2022 01:11 pm
Nextspaceflight
https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/?search=SpaceX

has booster B1073.4 for 4-35
and B1062.10 for 4-36

This seems somewhat out of normal rotation. Is something wrong/planned or whatever for B1051, B1060 & B1061 ?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: crandles57 on 09/21/2022 03:23 pm
SLC-40 is going to have to keep up a packed pace to get in these Starlink flights before the next Crew flight and with SLS looking for an opportunity.

I will be very impressed if SpaceX can carry out 4 flights from SLC between Sept 18 and Oct 5.

Another possibility for fitting in 4-35 and 4-36 and still doing Galaxy 33 & 34 on 5th October would be if Artemis launch delays Crew-5 so ASOG can do the Galaxy landing & collection.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: gemmy0I on 09/21/2022 10:29 pm
Nextspaceflight
https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/?search=SpaceX

has booster B1073.4 for 4-35
and B1062.10 for 4-36

This seems somewhat out of normal rotation. Is something wrong/planned or whatever for B1051, B1060 & B1061 ?
* 1051 and 1060 are two of the three leading-edge boosters (both currently at 13 flights, next will be 14th), and these have always taken longer to refurbish due to additional inspections - i.e. they are not part of the normal rotation. 1058.14 flew recently on Sep. 10, so presumably 1051 and 1060 will follow "soon" and fly whenever they feel they're ready (the timing and sequence of which is not strongly predictable from public information).

* 1061 was moved to the west coast last month and to my knowledge is still there, remaining as one of the (now) three boosters in "normal rotation" for the west coast (1061, 1063, and 1071).

Apart from these, 1073.4 and 1062.10 are indeed the next up in the normal East-coast rotation. 1073 is the "oldest", having last flown on Aug. 9; and 1062 is next, having last flown Aug. 19.

Going forward, the next in the eastern rotation should be 1069.3 (last flown Aug. 27), 1052.8 (last flown Sep. 4), and 1067.7 (last flown Sep. 18); after which the rotation should repeat with 1073.5, 1062.11, etc. The three leading-edge boosters (1051, 1058, and 1060) should continue to interrupt the normal rotation unpredictably on an "as ready" basis.
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/24/2022 04:28 pm

https://twitter.com/russianspaceweb/status/1573702585357328384

Quote
Hungary decided to fly its astronaut with the US-based Axiom space, instead of previous plans to utilize Russian #Soyuz. The mission is expected in 2025-2026, according to TASS, quoting Hungarian foreign minister.

Sounds like more Axiom Dragon flights after Ax-4, unless there’s going to be larger gaps between Axiom flights?
Title: Re: SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 09/26/2022 05:43 pm
Kennedy LC-39A:
NET October 3            Crew-5
NET last third of Oct  USSF-44  (no ASDS use)

Canaveral SLC-40:
September 30             Starlink 4-36
October 5/6                 Galaxy 33 and 34
October 14                  Eutelsat Hotbird 13F
NET ~October 20       Starlink 4-37
<something else circa October 30?>

Vandenberg SLC-4E:
early October?            Starlink 4-29
<another Starlink at the end of October?>