SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread

[mandrewa]

Starlink v1.0 L16 discussion

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.

[Jansen]

Starlink v1.0 L16 discussion

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.

[Jansen]

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.

[gongora]

The payload I'd really like an update on is SARah.  If that's delayed at all then 1063 should come to Florida.

[Jakusb]

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.

[gongora]

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?

[Jansen]

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.

[steveleach]

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.

[wannamoonbase]

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.   

[Jansen]

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

Probably in the first half of 2021. 

[pb2000]

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!

[Jakusb]

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.

[Jansen]

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.

[gemmy0I]

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...

[mandrewa]

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.

[Jakusb]

B1064-B1066 are part of the next Falcon Heavy launch.

Is this confirmed somewhere or assumed?

[Elthiryel]

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/

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.

[Jakusb]

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/

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.

[TJL]

Can a side booster from a Falcon Heavy be used for a standard Falcon 9 launch?

[whitelancer64]

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.