SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread

[jpo234]

Some context for the manifest thread:  SpaceX has four Crew Dragons, rated for a service life of five missions each, for a total of 20 missions. Crew-5 will be the  eighth mission. Leaving 12 available. But the current manifest has at least 14 additional missions already: Crew-6 through 14, Axiom-2 through 4, and two Polaris missions.

This implies that SpaceX must either build another Crew Dragon or get certified for more than 5 missions per capsule.

Is that certification just a NASA thing for NASA flights? In other words: At least the Polaris and possibly the Axiom flights are not affected?

[r8ix]

Some context for the manifest thread:  SpaceX has four Crew Dragons, rated for a service life of five missions each, for a total of 20 missions. Crew-5 will be the  eighth mission. Leaving 12 available. But the current manifest has at least 14 additional missions already: Crew-6 through 14, Axiom-2 through 4, and two Polaris missions.

This implies that SpaceX must either build another Crew Dragon or get certified for more than 5 missions per capsule.

Is that certification just a NASA thing for NASA flights? In other words: At least the Polaris and possibly the Axiom flights are not affected?

True, but those flights still count against the totals for NASA...

[jpo234]

Some context for the manifest thread:  SpaceX has four Crew Dragons, rated for a service life of five missions each, for a total of 20 missions. Crew-5 will be the  eighth mission. Leaving 12 available. But the current manifest has at least 14 additional missions already: Crew-6 through 14, Axiom-2 through 4, and two Polaris missions.

This implies that SpaceX must either build another Crew Dragon or get certified for more than 5 missions per capsule.

Is that certification just a NASA thing for NASA flights? In other words: At least the Polaris and possibly the Axiom flights are not affected?

True, but those flights still count against the totals for NASA...

Obviously the non-NASA flights would have to be number 6+.

[r8ix]

True, but those flights still count against the totals for NASA...

Obviously the non-NASA flights would have to be number 6+.

Too late for that.

[crandles57]

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

Only jinxed it into 3 missions in 32 hours. So what was the reason they couldn't do 3 in 3 days?       

[zubenelgenubi]

SFN, After a three-year wait, SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy could launch again later this month, October 5

Tom Ochinero, SpaceX’s vice president of commercial sales, said last month the company plans six Falcon Heavy missions over the next 12 months, among a busy schedule of Falcon 9 missions flying at an average rate of more than once per week. [USSF-44 is the first of six.]
<snip>
Viasat said last week that its first of three Viasat 3-series internet broadband satellites, booked to launch on a Falcon Heavy toward geosynchronous orbit, is scheduled to lift off before the end of the year. But industry sources said the first Viasat 3 launch, already delayed by supply chain issues that affected satellite and payload manufacturing, could delay into early 2023.
<snip>
The Space Force said its USSF-67 mission, which the military says will launch into geosynchronous orbit like USSF-44, is currently scheduled for January.
<snip>
Another Space Force satellite delivery mission booked on a Falcon Heavy, codenamed USSF-52, is now planned to launch in the second quarter of 2023 — between April 1 and June 30.
<snip>
The other Falcon Heavy missions slated for launch in the next 12 months include the heavyweight Jupiter 3 commercial broadband satellite for EchoStar and Hughes Network Systems later in 2023.

[Psyche pending July 2023]
<snip>
SpaceX now has a backlog of up to 13 Falcon Heavy rocket missions.
<snip>

[ZachF]

Unless I’ve counted wrong, this next launch should tie SpaceX with ULA at 154 consecutive successes.

[scr00chy]

Unless I’ve counted wrong, this next launch should tie SpaceX with ULA at 154 consecutive successes.

They're at 154 already by my count.

[gongora]

Unless I’ve counted wrong, this next launch should tie SpaceX with ULA at 154 consecutive successes.

They're at 154 already by my count.

Are you counting IFA?

[striver]

154 consecutive successful launches. Also need to take into account that this also includes a suborbital launch (Crew Dragon in-flight abort test) and this count starts after the explosion at the launch pad before the Amos-6 mission. So 153 orbital launches.

[Tommyboy]

Unless I’ve counted wrong, this next launch should tie SpaceX with ULA at 154 consecutive successes.

They're at 154 already by my count.

Are you counting IFA?

By ULA's standards that was a successful launch; The customer was satisfied with what they got out of the launch.

[scr00chy]

Unless I’ve counted wrong, this next launch should tie SpaceX with ULA at 154 consecutive successes.

They're at 154 already by my count.

Are you counting IFA?

I believe so.

[gongora]

I don't get why this one shows a boat but the FH and the maybe RTLS F9 above don't.  If the boat was for fairings then it should be on all 3.  Either typo or doing some tests on reentry?

[lenny97]

So this is what an expendable F9 FCC permit looks like now (it's been so long).  One of several expendable launches coming up.

1708-EX-ST-2022   

SpaceX Mission 1802 from LC-40 at CCAFS or LC-39A at KSC, and the experimental recovery operation following the Falcon 9 launch...
The first stage booster is expendable...
North  27  54  50   West  71  48  9 Boat

NET mid-November

Curiously, it says specifically:

The first stage booster is expendable with a soft water landing."

[gongora]

Curiously, it says specifically:

The first stage booster is expendable with a soft water landing."

The FH permit says that too for the center core

[lenny97]

Curiously, it says specifically:

The first stage booster is expendable with a soft water landing."

The FH permit says that too for the center core

Kinda misleading, i don't think that those "landings" will be SOFT.


I don't even know if we can call them "landings" ahahah

[crandles57]

I guess with the same wording as F Heavy we shouldn't read too much into it.

Landing sounds better than crash. Water is better than mid air disintegration which could spread debris over large area. Soft seems dubious but sounds better than hard that might also suggest splintering over large area.

The start date of 15 Nov sounds a bit late for Galaxy 31 & 32 (5 Nov) or for Eutelsat 10B (11 Nov) or for Hakuto-R (9-15 Nov if that isn't with Eutelsat 10B) 2 O3B sats can't be expendable if they were considering 3 sats on one launch.

Perhaps they know about at least a slight delay to Galaxy 3132 or 10B. 

[FutureSpaceTourist]

With the completion of the Intelsat mission today, SpaceX is now tied with ULA on 154 successful consecutive orbital missions.

(Note: I’m including Zuma on the basis that even if, as rumoured, deployment failed that was not a SpaceX issue & the F9 performed correctly.)

[abaddon]

IIRC SpaceX confirmed the Falcon 9 performed as designed with regards to Zuma.

[AmigaClone]

With the completion of the Intelsat mission today, SpaceX is now tied with ULA on 154 successful consecutive orbital missions.

(Note: I’m including Zuma on the basis that even if, as rumoured, deployment failed that was not a SpaceX issue & the F9 performed correctly.)

IIRC SpaceX confirmed the Falcon 9 performed as designed with regards to Zuma.

Note: SpaceX took slightly less than six years as opposed to the nearly sixteen years by ULA to accumulate 154 consecutive successful orbital launches. That total includes 8 crewed launches by SpaceX vs 0 crewed launches by ULA.