SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread

[niwax]

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.

[ZachS09]

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.

[AstroWare]

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.

[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.

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.

[whitelancer64]

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....

[Jakusb]

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.

[AstroWare]

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.

[AstroWare]

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...

[Elthiryel]

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:

“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.

[AstroWare]

Awesome, thanks! Someday they will recover a center core ...  Lol

[Jansen]

Awesome, thanks! Someday they will recover a center core ...  Lol

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2020/09/spacex-manifest-falcon-heavy-arrives-mcgregor/

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.

[Jansen]

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.

[Alexphysics]

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.

[soltasto]

Possible Starlink polar launch in December:

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.

[Jansen]

Possible Starlink polar launch in December:

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.

[gemmy0I]

Possible Starlink polar launch in December:

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.)

[Jansen]

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.

[Confusador]

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)

[Jansen]

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.

[klod]

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.