SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread

[gongora]

Thread for discussing the upcoming SpaceX launch manifest.  Updates can go in the SpaceX Manifest Updates Thread 5

[Orbiter]

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.

[Jansen]

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.

[Jansen]

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)

[Orbiter]

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.

[Jansen]

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.

[Orbiter]

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.

[Jansen]

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.

[Jansen]

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.

[AndrewRG10]

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.

[smoliarm]

...

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.

[Jansen]

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.

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

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

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.

[Jansen]

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:

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.

[friendly3]

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).

[Jansen]

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.

[dlapine]

So seven projected flights in November alone? That seems like it's pushing some boundaries.

[gongora]

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.

[Jansen]

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.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

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.

[Jansen]

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.