Possible SpaceX manifest for 2014

[spectre9]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...
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?

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]

...
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?

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]

...
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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

From guckyfan:

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

...

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.

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]

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]

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.

[Lars_J]

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.

Yep, and the SES-Thaicom window will give us a good idea of an upper limit for the pad turn around. (They are unlikely to get worse at it after that first time)

[Lars_J]

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 healthy backlog is the sign of a healthy company. And no, things will not just "snowball"... If customers are unhappy with delays, they will walk (there are alternatives, you may have heard of them), and SpaceX can respond by adjusting their prices/contracts. This is an open market.

Given that we have just had the first launch of what they consider their "operational" LV, 2014 should allow them to bite into their backlog. The delay between SES and Thaicom will be very informative about what kind of launch rate we can expect going forward.

[beancounter]

Seems to be several posters demonstrating a lot of pessimism surrounding SpaceX  and their backlog.  I would like to understand their reasons for this other than a backlog.  Anyone care to comment - Prober, GIntruder?

[guckyfan]

Seems to be several posters demonstrating a lot of pessimism surrounding SpaceX  and their backlog.  I would like to understand their reasons for this other than a backlog.  Anyone care to comment - Prober, GIntruder?

That scepticism has a long history.

They will never get Falcon 9 to fly.

They will never get commercial customers for Falcon 9, too unreliable.

They will not get to reusable launch vehicles in the next 20 years, if ever.

They will not get beyond 3 or 4 launches a year based on their launch history.

[spectre9]

I'm at the point where I want to focus on the positives.

The new Merlin 1D octaweb cluster works in flight, the payload fairing works in flight.

That's about all they really need to start the next phase which is pushing the payload performance of v1.1. The sat they launched was small. They now have to prove they can put a big one where the customer wants it to go.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Seems to be several posters demonstrating a lot of pessimism surrounding SpaceX  and their backlog.  I would like to understand their reasons for this other than a backlog.  Anyone care to comment - Prober, GIntruder?

My scepticism is based purely on past experience. SpaceX inevitably takes longer to achieve its goals than its own marketing claims and does so at a much lower flight rate. They might get up to 12 launches/year by 2015 but not next year. They will still be honing their procedures and ironing out unexpected wrinkles in their plans.

[Prober]

Seems to be several posters demonstrating a lot of pessimism surrounding SpaceX  and their backlog.  I would like to understand their reasons for this other than a backlog.  Anyone care to comment - Prober, GIntruder?

Don't put a label on my posting 

I call it as it see it.   The problems with SpaceX might not be with the HW, but with the management.  Re-read the fine collection of threads on this site and make up your own mind.....enjoy!

[newpylong]

Why is skepticism labelled as pessimism here and on other threads it's normal? Just because this is SpaceX?

I would say people are optimistic but are assessing based on recent history and the reality of the situation.

[John.bender]

I understand the skepticism as we have seen delays in the past and continue to. But what I also see is something fantastic happening. Commercialization of space is beginning, costs have the potential to significantly decline and a company that is totally thinking out side of the box and possibly changing the way we think about space. Guckyfan listed 5 reasons to be pessimistic and some have proved to be unfounded. As we check off each of those reasons the environment changes in a significant way. Great reason to be optimistic as we have a company here that has broken down many barriers. 

[Robotbeat]

Why is skepticism labelled as pessimism here and on other threads it's normal? Just because this is SpaceX?

I would say people are optimistic but are assessing based on recent history and the reality of the situation.

One gets the feeling from lots of people that they sort of have an ax to grind against SpaceX, not that they're just being conservative about expectations from SpaceX. It's possible to have a realistic perspective on their likely launch rate while still rooting for them (not at the expense of other folks like Orbital or ULA, etc).

[Lurker Steve]

Seems to be several posters demonstrating a lot of pessimism surrounding SpaceX  and their backlog.  I would like to understand their reasons for this other than a backlog.  Anyone care to comment - Prober, GIntruder?

Don't put a label on my posting 

I call it as it see it.   The problems with SpaceX might not be with the HW, but with the management.  Re-read the fine collection of threads on this site and make up your own mind.....enjoy!

Most of my Pessimism with SpaceX comes from the fact that I see their management making the exact same claims and mistakes as my upper management does. This management style does not lead to faster / cheaper development. It only leads to burnt-out engineering staffs and unhappy customers.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Most of my Pessimism with SpaceX comes from the fact that I see their management making the exact same claims and mistakes as my upper management does. This management style does not lead to faster / cheaper development. It only leads to burnt-out engineering staffs and unhappy customers.

Like what?

[newpylong]

Why is skepticism labelled as pessimism here and on other threads it's normal? Just because this is SpaceX?

I would say people are optimistic but are assessing based on recent history and the reality of the situation.

One gets the feeling from lots of people that they sort of have an ax to grind against SpaceX, not that they're just being conservative about expectations from SpaceX. It's possible to have a realistic perspective on their likely launch rate while still rooting for them (not at the expense of other folks like Orbital or ULA, etc).

Perhaps, but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as the crowd with an ax to grind with the rocket that will not be named.

Your last sentence is one that I wish were more true. I want nothing more than SpaceX to succeed and watching their progress has given our space industry a breath of fresh air. However, I have also enjoyed seeing Orbital getting onto the scene and I still love seeing ULA, Proton or ESA launch. Of course, I wish NASA the best with their flagship programs no matter what the obstacles may be.

Long story, there are a lot of great things going on, and one's gain does not need to be another's demise.

[Robotbeat]

I wasn't saying that SpaceX can succeed totally without affecting other launch providers, merely saying you can cheer for all the players... that in a fair competition, the best would win (without being all fan-boi about wanting others to fail so yours can win).

[mr. mark]

Most of my Pessimism with SpaceX comes from the fact that I see their management making the exact same claims and mistakes as my upper management does. This management style does not lead to faster / cheaper development. It only leads to burnt-out engineering staffs and unhappy customers.

Like what?

The biggest mistake you can make in your business is to look through the lens of another business. Every individual business case has it's own particular needs and circumstances. What works for one may not work for another. So saying your upper management mistakes may affect another business case in the same way may be completely off base.

[Mangala]

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

As this is my first post in this so interresting forum, i'd like first to salute all members and to ask to forgive my poor english.

Roy, is this a guess manifest or an official one by spacex, if so, where did you take it from?

[Ben the Space Brit]

Roy, is this a guess manifest or an official one by spacex, if so, where did you take it from?

It's a compilation of launch dates for next year from a variety of sources. Things change but this should be seen as what the guys on the ground at VAFB and CCAFS are expecting for next year, all going well.

[Mangala]

Ok thanks!
So a prevision of four dragon cargo for ISS, the last one in December, i call that an ambitious plan. Hope all will go well.

[oiorionsbelt]

snip:

NLT June - Orbcomm G2 (x9) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40

Now theres an acronym you don't see too often in a launch manifest.

[Lurker Steve]

snip:

NLT June - Orbcomm G2 (x9) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40

Now theres an acronym you don't see too often in a launch manifest.

Does that mean they finally stop waiting for SpaceX if they don't get a ride before June ?

[spectre9]

The implication that I've always gotten is Orbcomm is willing to wait forever and doesn't care about black spots 

[Robotbeat]

There's a lot of /infrastructure/ that is relying on SpaceX right now.

ISS logistics (especially downmass), global sat phone constellation, and global M2M constellation. The last two are important in subtle ways to the world economy. To Iridium and Orbcomm, especially, but lots of applications rely on those constellations, and once those constellations are upgraded and improved, more will follow. And as SpaceX (and others) succeed in lowering costs while expanding access, new companies will sprout up to produce more infrastructure that others will build applications on, such as Skybox's near-real-time high resolution imagery or Kymeta's lower-latency global satellite broadband internet constellation. These are just examples and just the beginning.

With sufficiently advanced technology (i.e. tens or hundreds of thousands of channels per satellite) and a big enough constellation, one can imagine global cellphone conglomerates opting to use a massive constellation of large, LEO or MEO satellites to provide coverage (especially in non-urban areas) as a lower cost option than upkeep and rental of millions cell towers worldwide. This sort of thing would be far more likely if launch costs were much lower.

[beancounter]

There's a lot of /infrastructure/ that is relying on SpaceX right now.

Yes there certainly is.  But that does provide an indication as to customers' assessments of SpaceX's potential and I don't think they'll be disappointed.  That assessment hasn't changed in any way recently even with a virtually new launch vehicle and that's a telling point IMO.

I know it's been a long wait for them to get to get to this point but I think that the next flight will see the start of a rate of approx. one a month for SpaceX.  They have the vehicle that provides them and their customers with the required performance and they seem to have sorted out their production so they can ramp up to meet demand.

They're an exciting company to be watching given that they are not prepared to simply rest on the laurals but continue to push onward to the goal of reusable vehicles and the company mission.

[TrevorMonty]

At time of writing SES8 had just slipped from 22Nov to 25Nov, sounds like it is more to do with backlogs at the pad, than F9 or SpaceX. There is a lot riding on this launch especially the issues with 2nd not starting for second burn. If there are any problems that stop this mission being a success, I expect some of SpaceX customers will switch launch providers. Here is hoping it is 100% successful/boring.

With SpaceX there is always something interesting going. The next 12 months  looking very exciting, new GH , 1st stage recovery on varies missions, Dragon2 launch abort tests, FH launch (2015 more likely), Raptor testing/development and most important of all lots of (hopefully boring) commercial launches. 

[beancounter]

At time of writing SES8 had just slipped from 22Nov to 25Nov, sounds like it is more to do with backlogs at the pad, than F9 or SpaceX. There is a lot riding on this launch especially the issues with 2nd not starting for second burn. If there are any problems that stop this mission being a success, I expect some of SpaceX customers will switch launch providers. Here is hoping it is 100% successful/boring.

With SpaceX there is always something interesting going. The next 12 months  looking very exciting, new GH , 1st stage recovery on varies missions, Dragon2 launch abort tests, FH launch (2015 more likely), Raptor testing/development and most important of all lots of (hopefully boring) commercial launches.

As well, it seems they want to give their launch crew a bit more rest.  Probably that crew does lots of other stuff besides just launch vehicle ops.

In answer to Prober, I have no issue with them manufacturing V1.1 vehicles in advance even after only one launch.  I'd say they had it fitted out with mobs of sensors and the data they had provided additional confidence over and above their design and ground testing.  After all, they were producing Merlin 1Ds well before finishing their qualification IIRC.

[grahamhewett]

If SpaceX launch Thaicom 6 in december, does anyone think they might do another launch in January before the CRS3 flight? The next one in the list is: FIREBIRD B, Ho‘oponopono 2 - would it be feasible to launch it in Jan?

To keep up with their launch backlog for 2014, missing out January would put more pressure on the rest of the year. Of course the processing flow of the stages might preclude swapping the order.

cheers
Graham

[mlindner]

If SpaceX launch Thaicom 6 in december, does anyone think they might do another launch in January before the CRS3 flight? The next one in the list is: FIREBIRD B, Ho‘oponopono 2 - would it be feasible to launch it in Jan?

To keep up with their launch backlog for 2014, missing out January would put more pressure on the rest of the year. Of course the processing flow of the stages might preclude swapping the order.

cheers
Graham

Shotwell already mentioned this I seem to remember. She said there was going to be nothing in January and then there would be a constant cadence of flights after that.

I think it was the ISPCS talk at 19m04s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GT9Crl1ZOg#t=19m04s

[TrevorMonty]

If their website manifest is still valid, I count 14 for 2014. Plus LAS testing for Dragon. 15 launches in 11months, they are going to be busy.

[guckyfan]

If their website manifest is still valid, I count 14 for 2014. Plus LAS testing for Dragon. 15 launches in 11months, they are going to be busy.

One of them the Heay test launch from Vandenberg. I think all the others go from Florida. 14 launches in 11 Months is certainly ambitious.

[mlindner]

If their website manifest is still valid, I count 14 for 2014. Plus LAS testing for Dragon. 15 launches in 11months, they are going to be busy.

One of them the Heay test launch from Vandenberg. I think all the others go from Florida. 14 launches in 11 Months is certainly ambitious.

Well CRS-3 is set for February 22nd. So that will be 14 launches in roughly 10 months or 1 launch roughly every 22 days. Seems like a rather tough launch rate.

[guckyfan]

Well CRS-3 is set for February 22nd. So that will be 14 launches in roughly 10 months or 1 launch roughly every 22 days. Seems like a rather tough launch rate.

Why would you not count in February? That's the time when CRS-3 is prepared.

[smoliarm]

If their website manifest is still valid, I count 14 for 2014. Plus LAS testing for Dragon. 15 launches in 11months, they are going to be busy.

Their manifest is still OK, it is your reading.
Note that the column "Year*" has asterisk, and the footnote says:
"*Year indicates vehicle arrival at launch site."

So, it's not a launch.

[smoliarm]

...

Well CRS-3 is set for February 22nd. So that will be 14 launches in roughly 10 months or 1 launch roughly every 22 days. Seems like a rather tough launch rate.

CRS-3 is set for February 11th.
As for 14 launches --
3 of them are already rescheduled for 2015, and another 2 are likely to do the same soon.

[Comga]

salo's list is currently

2014
February 22 -    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 -                AsiaSat 8 - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40 (or Proton)
May -                AsiaSat 6 (Thaicom 7) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
June 6 -            Dragon SpX-4 (CRS4) - 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)
NET December - Orbcomm G2 (x9) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
TBD - Space Systems/Loral payload - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40

(salo lists launch dates.  The SpaceX manifiest list "hardware at launch site".)
So CRS/SpX-3 in February.
Nine more from SLC-40 in ten months including one in December, one that may launch on another rocket in December, one NET December, and one TBD.
So perhaps 7 in  a bit over 10 months.  One every 45 days.
Still a pretty high pace.
When was the last time a rocket was launched at that cadence?

[aga]

When was the last time a rocket was launched at that cadence?

soyuz does cca 15 launches every year... and proton does cca 10 launches (and even ariane 5 launches about 6 times every year)
this year soyuz launched 13 times so far... (proton 8 times, atlas 7)

[smoliarm]

When was the last time a rocket was launched at that cadence?

soyuz does cca 15 launches every year... and proton does cca 10 launches (and even ariane 5 launches about 6 times every year)
this year soyuz launched 13 times so far... (proton 8 times, atlas 7)

I'm not sure it's worthwhile to compare launch rates of Falcon with that of Soyuz or Proton.
Soyuz has multiple launch pads @ multiple sites, the pad processing (/testing) can be done in parallel. Therefore, their total Flights-Per-Year reflects production rate (approximately), nothing else.

But with SpaceX - the situation is different. Their production rate is more or less known: from the pictures of their factory floor one can see that they can produce 1 F9 core per month. Also, we know they can produce Merlins at corresponding rate (IIRC, they say 5 M1D per week currently).
As I understand, the pad processing time is the key factor for their launch rate in 2014. For this year, they do not have payloads for Vandenberg, so it is one launch pad & one testing stand.
For F9 v1.1 they have demonstrated so far
*** for the pad flow
Cassiope - 73 days (Sep 29, 2013 - Jul 18, 2013)
SES-8     - 68 days (Nov 25, 2013 - Sep 18, 2013)

*** for McGregor testing
SES-8     - 62 days (Sep 14, 2013 - Jul 14, 2013)

Of course, these are *first tries*, the rate WILL improve, we just do not know by how much.
(actually, for McGregor testing - it's the second try)
So, to the original question
>>When was the last time a rocket was launched at that cadence?
I would add "from the same pad"

[TrevorMonty]

With only a single pad, it will not take much for launch dates to start slipping. A CRS launch could easily be delayed by ISS issues which will effect next launch/launches.

[Lurker Steve]

With only a single pad, it will not take much for launch dates to start slipping. A CRS launch could easily be delayed by ISS issues which will effect next launch/launches.

It's not the pad. It's the integration building. Rockets spend very little time at the pad.

[smoliarm]

With only a single pad, it will not take much for launch dates to start slipping. A CRS launch could easily be delayed by ISS issues which will effect next launch/launches.

It's not the pad. It's the integration building. Rockets spend very little time at the pad.

Do they have a second "integration building" at LC40 ?
If *no*, could we use this term (pad) - to refer to whole flow of pre-launch process - pleease

[guckyfan]

With only a single pad, it will not take much for launch dates to start slipping. A CRS launch could easily be delayed by ISS issues which will effect next launch/launches.

It's not the pad. It's the integration building. Rockets spend very little time at the pad.

Do they have a second "integration building" at LC40 ?
If *no*, could we use this term (pad) - to refer to whole flow of pre-launch process - pleease

Wasn't there recently a mention they want to upgrade the Pad for Falcon Heavy? In that case they would build a second integration building for the Heavy and a Heavy strongarm too. That setup could process two launch vehicles in parallel effectively doubling the Pad capacity, right?

[smoliarm]

...
Wasn't there recently a mention they want to upgrade the Pad for Falcon Heavy? In that case they would build a second integration building for the Heavy and a Heavy strongarm too. That setup could process two launch vehicles in parallel effectively doubling the Pad capacity, right?

No, it won't double the pad capacity - with respect to 2014.

[Robotbeat]

My guess is probably 6 launches in 2014 proper. But we shall see. I would put 6 launches per year as the point when there can be no question that SpaceX is a serious launch provider capable of delivering. Though they have to surpass at least 10 before they start eclipsing ULA as the dominant domestic launch provider.

Obviously they aren't going to do 14 launches in 2014. And if they do 8 or 9, I'd be VERY surprised (actually, astounded... I really don't think it'll happen). I'm fairly confident Falcon Heavy won't launch in 2014, but it might be pretty much the main thing happening at the Vandenberg pad all year, so I suppose it /might/ be possible (though if we haven't seen any Heavy-specific parts by the end of December 2013, I'd say not to expect a 2014 Falcon Heavy launch).

...but I'm not going to vote in the poll until the very end of December.

Remember, as of today (Sunday), they STILL haven't demonstrated more than 2 launches in a calendar year. It takes a lot of work and time to ramp up to a launch rate comparable to Soyuz. But 6 launches is possible, though by no means certain.

What will really be exciting is all the Dragon and Grasshopper work they'll be doing. If they do manage to recover a stage this year (by vertical landing on a pad), it will be tremendously awesome.

[Avron]

My guess is probably 6 launches in 2014 proper. But we shall see. I would put 6 launches per year as the point when there can be no question that SpaceX is a serious launch provider capable of delivering. Though they have to surpass at least 10 before they start eclipsing ULA as the dominant domestic launch provider.

Obviously they aren't going to do 14 launches in 2014. And if they do 8 or 9, I'd be VERY surprised. I'm fairly confident Falcon Heavy won't launch in 2014.

...but I'm not going to vote in the poll until the very end of December.

Remember, as of today (Sunday), they STILL haven't demonstrated more than 2 launches in a calendar year. It takes a lot of work and time to ramp up to a launch rate comparable to Soyuz. But 6 launches is possible, though by no means certain.

What will really be exciting is all the Dragon and Grasshopper work they'll be doing. If they do manage to recover a stage this year (by vertical landing on a pad), it will be tremendously awesome.

I think that these two launches before the end of 2014, will be telling as how quick they can get the launch rate up. Looks like the pads have been the constraint in the later half of the year. However, I do not know how may  stages are in work or storage other than the pics out of the factory. The factory does seem to have been enlarged going by some captions and pics from spacex. We also know that the shuttle pad under dispute may have an impact on plans, but hopefully we will hear from the GAO soon..  Agreed 2014 could well be "tremendously awesome."

[TrevorMonty]

2015 launch of FH means there is higher probability of recovering the boosters/1st stages.

[Sohl]

Robotbeat:

My guess is probably 6 launches in 2014 proper. But we shall see.

That's pretty close to my early estimate: 7 launches in 2014. If you allow me a range, I'd say 7 plus or minus 2 with maybe 80% confidence.

I'm still waiting to see if my 2013 estimate of 3 (or my pessimistic re-estimate of 2 made in June) pans out. 

[deltaV]

Here are the SpaceX Canaveral launches planned between now and the end of 2014 according to Salo's schedule:
NET December 20 2013 - Thaicom 6 - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40 (or January)
February 22 - 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 - AsiaSat 8 - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
May - AsiaSat 6 (Thaicom 7) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
June 6 - Dragon SpX-4 (CRS4) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
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)
NET December - Orbcomm G2 (x9) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
TBD - Space Systems/Loral payload - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40

There's one SpaceX Vandenberg launch planned:
NET 2nd quarter - Demo Flight - Falcon Heavy - Vandenberg SLC-4E

My current guess is that the December launches will slip into 2015 so we'll see about 6 Cape launches and 1 Vandenberg launch next year.

[TrevorMonty]

Could any of Dec14 launches be brought forward into Oct or Nov? Both these months a presently empty.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Could any of Dec14 launches be brought forward into Oct or Nov? Both these months a presently empty.

There are lots of issues that control that. For example, the schedule for delivery of the spacecraft and other activity on the Eastern Range as well as maintenance cycles for both the pad and range. There are likely many others.

[JBF]

Don't forget you have the in flight abort test somewhere in there.

[TrevorMonty]

Can the abort test be done at Vandenburg?.

[JBF]

Can the abort test be done at Vandenburg?.

At first glance I'd say no.  Everything about that rocket will be set up for an ISS orbit. So the abort software you want to test will be expecting an eastward trajectory. 

But you can always change the software.  In the end it would need NASA approval for that type of test deviation.

 

[Danderman]

Here are the SpaceX Canaveral launches planned between now and the end of 2014 according to Salo's schedule:
NET December 20 2013 - Thaicom 6 - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40 (or January)
February 22 - 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 - AsiaSat 8 - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
May - AsiaSat 6 (Thaicom 7) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
June 6 - Dragon SpX-4 (CRS4) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
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)
NET December - Orbcomm G2 (x9) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
TBD - Space Systems/Loral payload - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40

There's one SpaceX Vandenberg launch planned:
NET 2nd quarter - Demo Flight - Falcon Heavy - Vandenberg SLC-4E

My current guess is that the December launches will slip into 2015 so we'll see about 6 Cape launches and 1 Vandenberg launch next year.

According to this thread:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30543.0

Triana goes up in November 2014 from the Cape.

[Jason1701]

What is Ho‘oponopono 2?

[corrodedNut]

What is Ho‘oponopono 2?

http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/ho-oponopono.htm

[deltaV]

According to this thread:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30543.0

Triana goes up in November 2014 from the Cape.

Salo has that launch in Jan 2015. Given the habit of schedules to slip rightwards I'm inclined to believe the later date.

[smoliarm]

...

According to this thread:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30543.0

Triana goes up in November 2014 from the Cape.

According to recent news from NASA:
"DSCOVR Mission Moves Forward to 2015 Launch"
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/dscovr-mission-moves-forward-to-2015-launch/#.UqDQKeL_lu4

[arachnitect]

...

According to this thread:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30543.0

Triana goes up in November 2014 from the Cape.

According to recent news from NASA:
"DSCOVR Mission Moves Forward to 2015 Launch"
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/dscovr-mission-moves-forward-to-2015-launch/#.UqDQKeL_lu4

That link says fiscal 2015, which means calendar 2014 is still possible

Slip to calendar 2015 is a cynical but probably safe bet.
U.S. launch schedule page says Jan 2015. Don't know where that's from, but I believe it.

[Jason1701]

What is Ho‘oponopono 2?

http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/ho-oponopono.htm

Thanks. I thought it was a separate launch.

[Danderman]

...

According to this thread:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30543.0

Triana goes up in November 2014 from the Cape.

According to recent news from NASA:
"DSCOVR Mission Moves Forward to 2015 Launch"
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/dscovr-mission-moves-forward-to-2015-launch/#.UqDQKeL_lu4

That link says fiscal 2015, which means calendar 2014 is still possible

Slip to calendar 2015 is a cynical but probably safe bet.
U.S. launch schedule page says Jan 2015. Don't know where that's from, but I believe it.

"Early fiscal 2015" = 4th Quarter 2014 or 1st Quarter 2015