Author Topic: Possible SpaceX manifest for 2014 (Read 37801 times)

spectre9 · « **on:** 11/02/2013 06:47 am »

I thought it would be good to have this discussion before we start voting on polls in a couple of months.

I don't really know what's going on beyond the next couple of launches.

If there are 3 launches this year does that mean that there will be one more next year as they will be looking to get Thaicom off early?

Could be as many as 11? That sounds a bit excessive. One more with a Falcon Heavy demo?

How many NASA Dragons? Spx-3, Spx-4 and Spx-5 are all expected?

If anybody thinks they have an accurate picture please get involved in this discussion. I'm just basing it off what I can glean from what's posted in the U.S. manifest here http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184

guckyfan · « **Reply #1 on:** 11/02/2013 07:00 am »

I am curious about the effect the pad abort and maxQ-abort tests of Dragonrider have on the availability of pad 40. If each takes on 30 days slot there would be only 10 left in Florida. Any delay by weather or range availability would reduce it further, so 8 or nine from Florida seem to be max.

Unless the two tests could be moved to Vandenberg, but NASA would not like that I imagine.

Or could they increase the capacity by adding payload processing facilities?

spectre9 · « **Reply #2 on:** 11/02/2013 07:39 am »

Thanks guckyfan. Seems to be added complexity that I didn't think of in my opening post.

I assume the Falcon Heavy test will be from VAFB but will it launch next year?

I don't think I've heard word that any of the cores for FH have been produced.

Does anybody know how many unflown F9 1.1 have been built to date? Finished/tested. Those still in production still count I guess but it's not like SpaceX has a giant warehouse where they can store 20 cores. Maybe they do? I don't know.

Plenty of speculation. Hopefully we can sort through it and clear things up

douglas100 · « **Reply #3 on:** 11/02/2013 08:48 am »

Quote from: guckyfan on 11/02/2013 07:00 am

I am curious about the effect the pad abort and maxQ-abort tests of Dragonrider have on the availability of pad 40. If each takes on 30 days slot there would be only 10 left in Florida. Any delay by weather or range availability would reduce it further, so 8 or nine from Florida seem to be max...

I'm not sure if the maxQ test is scheduled for next year. But since it appears it will use a "standard F9" it would be processed pretty similarly to a normal orbital launch. I agree that would impact on the launch schedule of other customers.

But the pad abort test is different. It (apparently) won't use the pad nor an F9. An F9 for another flight could be processed in the hangar while the Dragon is being set up for the test. There are safety and manpower implications in doing that but in seems possible. So the impact of the pad test on the launch manifest may be less severe.

guckyfan · « **Reply #4 on:** 11/02/2013 08:57 am »

Quote from: douglas100 on 11/02/2013 08:48 am

But the pad abort test is different. It (apparently) won't use the pad nor an F9. An F9 for another flight could be processed in the hangar while the Dragon is being set up for the test. There are safety and manpower implications in doing that but in seems possible. So the impact of the pad test on the launch manifest may be less severe.

Right, but it would block the payload processing facility unless they have another one by then. So the influence will depend on time needed for payload processing vs. launch vehicle processing. If the time limit is a fixed 4 weeks it is probably the launch vehicle as payload processing will vary.

smoliarm · « **Reply #5 on:** 11/02/2013 09:41 am »

Quote from: douglas100 on 11/02/2013 08:48 am

...
I'm not sure if the maxQ test is scheduled for next year.

As I understand, this is the last milestone of CCiCap - "In-Flight Abort Test", and it was originally scheduled for Apr 2014. Does somebody know how sequestration affected this date?

Quote

But the pad abort test is different. It (apparently) won't use the pad nor an F9. ...

If the test objective is just the Super Draco performance under abort conditions, than the pad is not necessary. But what if they want to make test as close as possible to real pad-abort scenario? I.e., is it necessary to test the interaction of Dragon with pad equipment? If yes - they would need to set up the test on the real pad.

Jcc · « **Reply #6 on:** 11/02/2013 01:57 pm »

Quote from: smoliarm on 11/02/2013 09:41 am

Quote from: douglas100 on 11/02/2013 08:48 am
...
I'm not sure if the maxQ test is scheduled for next year.
As I understand, this is the last milestone of CCiCap - "In-Flight Abort Test", and it was originally scheduled for Apr 2014. Does somebody know how sequestration affected this date?

Quote
But the pad abort test is different. It (apparently) won't use the pad nor an F9. ...
If the test objective is just the Super Draco performance under abort conditions, than the pad is not necessary. But what if they want to make test as close as possible to real pad-abort scenario? I.e., is it necessary to test the interaction of Dragon with pad equipment? If yes - they would need to set up the test on the real pad.

Do you suppose there is enough room in the hangar to be processing a F9 for the next satellite launch at the same time they process the Dragon for the pad abort test, and perform the test?

Avron · « **Reply #7 on:** 11/02/2013 02:29 pm »

Quote from: Jcc on 11/02/2013 01:57 pm

Quote from: smoliarm on 11/02/2013 09:41 am
Quote from: douglas100 on 11/02/2013 08:48 am
...
I'm not sure if the maxQ test is scheduled for next year.
As I understand, this is the last milestone of CCiCap - "In-Flight Abort Test", and it was originally scheduled for Apr 2014. Does somebody know how sequestration affected this date?

Quote
But the pad abort test is different. It (apparently) won't use the pad nor an F9. ...
If the test objective is just the Super Draco performance under abort conditions, than the pad is not necessary. But what if they want to make test as close as possible to real pad-abort scenario? I.e., is it necessary to test the interaction of Dragon with pad equipment? If yes - they would need to set up the test on the real pad.
Do you suppose there is enough room in the hangar to be processing a F9 for the next satellite launch at the same time they process the Dragon for the pad abort test, and perform the test?

I understand from PADRAT that spacex has acquired a new building at the cape.. no word on what yet.. so maybe there will be enough space for pre processing in the area.

Prober · « **Reply #8 on:** 11/02/2013 02:39 pm »

Quote from: spectre9 on 11/02/2013 07:39 am

Thanks guckyfan. Seems to be added complexity that I didn't think of in my opening post.

I assume the Falcon Heavy test will be from VAFB but will it launch next year?

I don't think I've heard word that any of the cores for FH have been produced.

Does anybody know how many unflown F9 1.1 have been built to date? Finished/tested. Those still in production still count I guess but it's not like SpaceX has a giant warehouse where they can store 20 cores. Maybe they do? I don't know.

Plenty of speculation. Hopefully we can sort through it and clear things up

this thread is getting too wild with hope.

Coming back to earth a bit...Keep in mind Ver 1.1 has had only one launch atm. The launcher clearly is being tested. Wouldn't it be stupid to stockplile 20 cores while in a testing phase?

Robotbeat · « **Reply #9 on:** 11/02/2013 02:48 pm »

No way they'll do 11. Just too many. 5-7, though, is possible. I actually think 5-6 is a good number. Although I'll have to look at the status of vehicles with respect to McGregor, etc, before I nail down my estimate at the end of the year.

Orbiter · « **Reply #10 on:** 11/02/2013 02:54 pm »

Here's what I think -- note, if you hate highly speculative schedules without evidence, you may want to skip this.

January 2014, Thaicom 6.
Late-February 2014, CRS3.
Late-March 2014, Orbcomm G2.
May 2014, CRS4
June 2014, AsiaSat 8
August 2014, Orbcomm G2
October 2014, CRS5
November 2014, Falcon Heavy Demo

Robotbeat · « **Reply #11 on:** 11/02/2013 03:19 pm »

We haven't seen any Falcon Heavy hardware, yet, have we? I'm not looking for a Falcon Heavy launch until probably 2015.

oldAtlas_Eguy · « **Reply #12 on:** 11/02/2013 05:41 pm »

Quote from: Orbiter on 11/02/2013 02:54 pm

Here's what I think -- note, if you hate highly speculative schedules without evidence, you may want to skip this.

January 2014, Thaicom 6.
Late-February 2014, CRS3.
Late-March 2014, Orbcomm G2.
May 2014, CRS4
June 2014, AsiaSat 8
August 2014, Orbcomm G2
October 2014, CRS5
November 2014, Falcon Heavy Demo

BTW FH is at VAFB SLC-4W so another SLC-40 launch could occur almost at the same time (a week apart) in November followed by another possible December (a very maybe launch), which puts the count at up to as many as 10.

Then there is the question about the VAFB launch of CONAE. Is it after FH in 2015 or before FH in 2014. Any information as to the satellite delivery schedule (readiness for launch)?

A total of 10 means 1 1st stage produced and tested per month (12) and slightly less than 1 US per month (10).

douglas100 · « **Reply #13 on:** 11/02/2013 06:30 pm »

A couple of comments about the replies about abort test implications:

From guckyfan:

Quote

Right, but it would block the payload processing facility unless they have another one by then. So the influence will depend on time needed for payload processing vs. launch vehicle processing. If the time limit is a fixed 4 weeks it is probably the launch vehicle as payload processing will vary.

There already are other payload processing facilities available, i.e. Astrotech. You could imagine a scenario where the usual crew work the F9 in the hangar, another crew prepares the Dragon in the hangar annex and the customer for the F9 elects to process their payload at Astrotech. The abort test could be carried out during the F9 launch campaign, although obviously the SLC-40 facilities would have to evacuated for the test. Whether this is feasible or desirable I don't know.

From smoliarm:

Quote

If the test objective is just the Super Draco performance under abort conditions, then the pad is not necessary. But what if they want to make test as close as possible to real pad-abort scenario? I.e., is it necessary to test the interaction of Dragon with pad equipment? If yes - they would need to set up the test on the real pad.

I think I read somewhere on this forum that the Dragon would be launched from a purpose built structure outside the hangar. Anyway, the actual pad is only required right at the end of the F9 launch campaign. Of course the F9 in the hangar would be in some danger if something went wrong with the Dragon at lift off. This might be enough to make the whole idea a non starter.

GalacticIntruder · « **Reply #14 on:** 11/02/2013 07:44 pm »

When it comes to satellite launches at the Cape, they have bitten off more they can chew. Now they are behind for 2013, and they cannot catch up for 2014. Things will just snowball. A Pad shutdown will just make it worse. They should do 9 launches in 2014, but they need 15 to climb out of their hole.

SpaceX does a lot of design, engineering, and manufacturing (and talking) but not not a lot of launching.

The Cape is a bottleneck, and 2014 is Cape heavy, so no solution in sight.

2014

Thaicom--early Jan
Orbcom 1-Feb
CRS3-March
Orbcom2-Apr
CRS-4-June
AsiaSat-July
AsiaSat-Sept
CRS-5-Nov
Conae-Vandenberg

Notables missing for 2014: I predict no FH launch, and No Discovr, No CRS6.

2015 could help because they have more Vandy launches to help split the work load.

Roy_H · « **Reply #15 on:** 11/02/2013 07:58 pm »

As of today, this is the manifest.

NET December 22 - Thaicom 6 - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40 (or January)

2014
February 11 - Dragon SpX-3 (CRS3), CUNYSAT 1, Hermes 2, LMRSat, TechCube 1, All-Star-THEIA, FIREBIRD A, FIREBIRD B, Ho‘oponopono 2 - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
NET March - Orbcomm G2 (x8) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
April 29 - Dragon SpX-4 (CRS4) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
April - AsiaSat 8 - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40 (or Proton)
NLT June - Orbcomm G2 (x9) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
NET 2nd quarter - Demo Flight - Falcon Heavy - Vandenberg SLC-4E
September 12 - Dragon SpX-5 (CRS5) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
December 5 - Dragon SpX-6 (CRS6) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
December - Turkmensat - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40 (or Ariane 5 ECA)
TBD - Space Systems/Loral payload - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
TBD - AsiaSat 6 (Thaicom 7) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40 (or Proton)

So only CONAE(Argentina) seems to have disappeared vs SpaceX launch manifest

2015
January 13 - DSCOVR (Triana), Sunjammer (Solar Sail Demonstration) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
February - Satmex 7, ABS 3A - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40

No reason to expect that Spacex wouldn't try to meet this objective. But past experience has shown that much slippage can occure.

I see both Asiasats listed as (or Proton). Am I to take it that these will move to Proton if SpaceX slips much more?

So this shows 12 flights for 2014 (January for Thiacom), and being ever the optimist, I think SpaceX will get into high gear and launch all except Spx-6 which will get pushed into 2015.

Oh, and what is Firebird? Is that a mistake and should be removed from the list?

spectre9 · « **Reply #16 on:** 11/02/2013 09:24 pm »

12 does sound a bit "out there".

Even 9 sounds quite ambitious but we have to remember the big gap SpaceX had this year shouldn't be happening again.

I think it could be 6-8? A launch every 6 weeks or so.

But what if there's a failure in there? If SpaceX ramps up the launch rate the chance of an "anomaly" happening is going to go up.

smoliarm · « **Reply #17 on:** 11/02/2013 09:30 pm »

Quote from: Roy_H on 11/02/2013 07:58 pm

...

I see both Asiasats listed as (or Proton). Am I to take it that these will move to Proton if SpaceX slips much more?

Yes, they booked Protons in case SpaceX cannot meet the deadlines which were set as NLT Q1 for AsiaSat 6 (Thaicom 7) and NLT May 2014 for AsiaSat 8.
However, SES also set initially a deadline for SES-8 - May 2013, and booked Ariane as an alternative, but it looks like they decided to stay with Spacex. So, I mean may be AsiaSat also will not be too hard about deadlines.

Quote

Oh, and what is Firebird? Is that a mistake and should be removed from the list?

No mistake, Firebird is one of secondary payloads riding along with CRS-3 Dragon.

aero · « **Reply #18 on:** 11/02/2013 11:59 pm »

From the looks of those launch numbers, Elon is really going to want some success with reusability. I do think SpaceX has the rocket inventory for that many launches, but watching all those boosters dropping into the ocean would give Elon some major heartburn.

Not to mention that it would tie up factory floor space and labor for continued high rate F-9 production that I bet Elon wants use for tooling up for Raptor production. Of course SpaceX will (I hope) continue F-9 production but at a lower rate once F-9R is proven.

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #19 on:** 11/03/2013 02:06 pm »

My gut feeling is that there will be no more than six flights from SLC-40 and an indeterminate number from SLC-4W (dependent on the number of available payloads).

From what I've seen the bottleneck for satellites isn't going to be production, it's going to be launch slots and how rapidly they can turn around the pads.