SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread

[wannamoonbase]

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!

[crandles57]

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 ?

[crandles57]

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.

[gemmy0I]

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.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/russianspaceweb/status/1573702585357328384

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?

[zubenelgenubi]

Kennedy LC-39A:
NET October 3 4 5    Crew-5
NET October 21        USSF-44  (no ASDS use)
November 18            SpX-26
December                  USSF-67

Canaveral SLC-40:
September 30 TBD  Starlink 4-36
October 7/8              Galaxy 33 and 34
October 14                Eutelsat Hotbird 13F
NET ~October 20     Starlink 4-36
~end of October      Starlink 4-37
<something else circa October 30?>
November 5              Galaxy 31 and 32

Vandenberg SLC-4E:
early October 3         Starlink 4-29
<another Starlink at the end of October?>
NET late October      Starlink 4-31

Edited multiple times.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/brycespacetech/status/1575220556550619142

In Q2, @SpaceX led the global launch market, launching nearly 160,000 kilograms of upmass across 16 launches. 

Download the Q2 Bryce Briefing: https://bit.ly/2xwKd6D

#BryceBriefing #Space #Launch #SpaceX

[GWR64]

2022-10-05  1200/-4   F9   1077   S   CCtCap Crew-5   LEO   .   C-39A   .   .
2022-10-06  1907/-4   F9   1060-14   .   Galaxy 33/34   GTO   .   C-40   .   .
2022-10-13*2325/-4   F9   1069-3   .   Hotbird 13F   GTO   4500   C-40   .   .

8.5 days gap between Crew-5 and Hotbird 13F, does that work with ASDS "Just Read the Instructions"?

[scr00chy]

2022-10-05  1200/-4   F9   1077   S   CCtCap Crew-5   LEO   .   C-39A   .   .
2022-10-06  1907/-4   F9   1060-14   .   Galaxy 33/34   GTO   .   C-40   .   .
2022-10-13*2325/-4   F9   1069-3   .   Hotbird 13F   GTO   4500   C-40   .   .

8.5 days gap between Crew-5 and Hotbird 13F, does that work with ASDS "Just Read the Instructions"?

Yes, it's doable.

[Comga]

2022-10-03  1656/-7   F9   1071-5   S   Starlink 4-29   LEO   ~16k   V   .   .
2022-10-05  1200/-4   F9   1077   S   CCtCap Crew-5   LEO   .   C-39A   .   .
2022-10-06  1907/-4   F9   1060-14   .   Galaxy 33/34   GTO   .   C-40   .   .
2022-10-13*2325/-4   F9   1069-3   .   Hotbird 13F   GTO   4500   C-40   .   .

(snip)

1 When was the last time, was there ever a time, when there were four launches on the manifest with dates and times?

2 The first entry needs to be updated to 2022-10-04 16:48/-7

3 Launching three days in a row!  (we hope) "Firing on all cylinders" Wow!

edit:  Jinxed it!

If launch of Crew-5 stays on track for October 5, we will stand down from tomorrow's launch attempt of the Starlink mission
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) October 3, 2022
https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1577072088241737733

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/10/for-most-science-missions-nasa-is-down-to-a-single-launch-provider/

SpaceX has been bidding against itself for NASA’s science missions for awhile
"NASA is not able to share the number of bids."

by Eric Berger - Oct 4, 2022 1:10pm GMT

On Friday NASA closed the bidding process to select a launch vehicle for an upcoming Earth science mission to measure changes in sea level, Sentinel-6B. The mission is expected to launch into low Earth orbit about four years from now, and the space agency is finalizing its choice of a rocket.

With ULA’s legacy rockers sold out - until Vulcan, New Glenn or something else, is proven:

at present, there are no other bidders for NASA's medium and large science missions beyond SpaceX and its fleet of Falcon rockets.

[Robotbeat]

I’m incredibly suspicious that there’s some true legal requirement that NASA can’t share the number of bids. At some point “bUT iT’s pRoPrIetArY” needs to give way to basic transparency for the taxpayer.

[DanClemmensen]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/10/for-most-science-missions-nasa-is-down-to-a-single-launch-provider/

SpaceX has been bidding against itself for NASA’s science missions for awhile
"NASA is not able to share the number of bids."

by Eric Berger - Oct 4, 2022 1:10pm GMT

On Friday NASA closed the bidding process to select a launch vehicle for an upcoming Earth science mission to measure changes in sea level, Sentinel-6B. The mission is expected to launch into low Earth orbit about four years from now, and the space agency is finalizing its choice of a rocket.

With ULA’s legacy rockers sold out - until Vulcan, New Glenn or something else, is proven:

at present, there are no other bidders for NASA's medium and large science missions beyond SpaceX and its fleet of Falcon rockets.

The article is not as clear as it could be: There is only one bidder, SpaceX. That's because an LV must have flown at least once prior to the bid to be eligible to be bid. Vulcan, New Glenn, and Starship do not qualify. The remaining Antares (2), Atlas V (20) and Delta IV heavy (2), have already been committed to customers and cannot be bid for new missions since no more will be built. For any payload above 1.5 tonne, it's F9, FH, or nothing.

[freddo411]

I’m incredibly suspicious that there’s some true legal requirement that NASA can’t share the number of bids. At some point “bUT iT’s pRoPrIetArY” needs to give way to basic transparency for the taxpayer.

Yeah.   I smell BS too.

I can think of zero reason to withhold the number of bids.

[crandles57]

I’m incredibly suspicious that there’s some true legal requirement that NASA can’t share the number of bids. At some point “bUT iT’s pRoPrIetArY” needs to give way to basic transparency for the taxpayer.

Yeah.   I smell BS too.

I can think of zero reason to withhold the number of bids.

Suspicious?

Or is it more a case of SpaceX is offering reasonable prices despite the monopoly position so NASA feels it appropriate to decide 'let's not rock the boat'. If SpaceX was offering really high prices, then NASA would soon find ways to leak the number of bids and other tactics to embarrass SpaceX. So it seems to me that NASA not saying how many bids received suggests they are not too unhappy about the situation and prices being offered by SpaceX.

So perhaps it is an indicator that all is well rather than suspicious?

[gongora]

It's how NASA has been handling contracts in general, not just SpaceX launch contracts.

[Robotbeat]

It's how NASA has been handling contracts in general, not just SpaceX launch contracts.

Agreed. It has nothing to do with SpaceX, just NASA becoming increasingly resistant to share information for fear of getting yelled at.

[Robotbeat]

I’m incredibly suspicious that there’s some true legal requirement that NASA can’t share the number of bids. At some point “bUT iT’s pRoPrIetArY” needs to give way to basic transparency for the taxpayer.

Yeah.   I smell BS too.

I can think of zero reason to withhold the number of bids.

This decision has nothing to do with SpaceX. This is on NASA.

[DanClemmensen]

From another thread:

At the risk of repeating a movie line... it's not entirely true. I'm still hearing a 5th crew capsule is under construction at Hawthorne. Whether they decide to move ahead with full build of it could be different of course but I suspect they'd like to have an extra one around that is just not long from finished so they can put it in the fleet in a "just in case" scenario.

We'll see though, not the same certification requirements for crew or cargo so re-certification may be harder past 5 flights for crew capsules than cargo. All of this is of course not really related to Crew-5...

Sorry about the off-topic. Replying at
   https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52191.0

I have exact;y zero inside information. The latest I know of is:
   https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/exclusive-spacex-ending-production-flagship-crew-capsule-executive-2022-03-28/

The capsule under construction, C211(?), appears to be a Cargo Dragon.

[Alexphysics]

From another thread:

At the risk of repeating a movie line... it's not entirely true. I'm still hearing a 5th crew capsule is under construction at Hawthorne. Whether they decide to move ahead with full build of it could be different of course but I suspect they'd like to have an extra one around that is just not long from finished so they can put it in the fleet in a "just in case" scenario.

We'll see though, not the same certification requirements for crew or cargo so re-certification may be harder past 5 flights for crew capsules than cargo. All of this is of course not really related to Crew-5...

Sorry about the off-topic. Replying at
   https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=52191.0

I have exact;y zero inside information. The latest I know of is:
   https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/exclusive-spacex-ending-production-flagship-crew-capsule-executive-2022-03-28/

The capsule under construction, C211(?), appears to be a Cargo Dragon.

Yes there's also another cargo dragon under construction, the 3rd in the fleet.