Author Topic: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 4 (Read 424671 times)

catdlr · « **Reply #340 on:** 09/03/2016 05:26 am »

SpaceX to shift Florida launches to new pad after explosion

https://www.yahoo.com/news/spacex-shift-florida-launches-pad-explosion-003208139--finance.html?ref=gs

Quote

With its launch pad likely facing major repairs, SpaceX said it would use a second Florida site, called 39A, which is located a few miles north at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center and was used for space shuttle missions.

The pad is on schedule to be operational in November, SpaceX said. The company had planned to use the pad for the first time later this year for a test flight of its new Falcon Heavy rocket.

Ilikeboosterrockets · « **Reply #341 on:** 09/05/2016 04:19 pm »

Spaceflightnow has the Iridium NEXT launch from Vandenberg scheduled for September 20?

gongora · « **Reply #342 on:** 09/05/2016 04:41 pm »

Quote from: Ilikeboosterrockets on 09/05/2016 04:19 pm

Spaceflightnow has the Iridium NEXT launch from Vandenberg scheduled for September 20?

He just hasn't bothered changing his dates yet (no one knows when they will start flying again).

starhawk92 · « **Reply #343 on:** 09/06/2016 03:30 pm »

Quote from: Ilikeboosterrockets on 09/05/2016 04:19 pm

Spaceflightnow has the Iridium NEXT launch from Vandenberg scheduled for September 20?

As do we here, but the entire manifest should be considered volatile until we get concrete info from SpaceX.

Comga · « **Reply #344 on:** 09/06/2016 04:20 pm »

Quote from: starhawk92 on 09/06/2016 03:30 pm

Quote from: Ilikeboosterrockets on 09/05/2016 04:19 pm
Spaceflightnow has the Iridium NEXT launch from Vandenberg scheduled for September 20?

As do we here, but the entire manifest should be considered volatile until we get concrete info from SpaceX.

"volatile" is an understatement.
The on-pad loss of AMOS-6 and the damaging of LC-40 are of such magnitude that everything on the manifest is of much greater uncertainty than before. Even Red Dragon 2018, constrained to the Mars launch windows, it a much longer shot.
It hardly pays to mark a few things "TBD" when that is generally true. It even implies that that things not marked TBD are more certain than they are, as in ilikeboosterrockets' post.
And we won't know anything about the schedule until SpaceX issues some definitive statements.
But everyone following this thread knows that. No one is buying airplane tickets based on this manifest.

starhawk92 · « **Reply #345 on:** 09/15/2016 02:25 pm »

Made a couple of changes based on recent comments by Shotwell.

The emphasis on November is interesting. The fact she made her comments after the ULA chief started talking about a year until they might fly again seems like good PR. However, November -- is the thought to keep the CRS schedule moving as it is a NASA contract with ISS implications? Just thinking out loud.

Comga · « **Reply #346 on:** 09/15/2016 02:50 pm »

It doesn't seem to make sense to muck with the manifest in advance of real news from SpaceX, a customer, or the range. We all know that the dates and launch order currently shown cannot be relied on.
I would guess that the CRS schedule would just slip one mission, with CRS-10 going when CRS-11 was scheduled in February of 2017, and so on, but that's just a guess, and we have higher thresholds for compiling this manifest.

launchwatcher · « **Reply #347 on:** 09/15/2016 07:26 pm »

Quote from: starhawk92 on 09/15/2016 02:25 pm

Made a couple of changes based on recent comments by Shotwell.

The emphasis on November is interesting. The fact she made her comments after the ULA chief started talking about a year until they might fly again seems like good PR. However, November -- is the thought to keep the CRS schedule moving as it is a NASA contract with ISS implications? Just thinking out loud.

On Reddit, Tory said he was misquoted/misunderstood: https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/51tkae/spacex_could_be_grounded_for_912_months_ula_chief/d7fn0x7

catdlr · « **Reply #348 on:** 09/16/2016 10:09 pm »

SpaceX faces a more crowded rocket launch market, even when it returns to flight

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-spacex-competitors-20160914-snap-story.html

meberbs · « **Reply #349 on:** 09/19/2016 01:51 am »

We can safely say Iridium Flight 2 will be NET February due to the insurance mandated delay unless I missed something and the 2 satellites planned for Russian launch will be ready next month.

I agree with others that there is no need to do too much to the schedule (possibly including what I just mentioned) until return to flight is solidified.

starhawk92 · « **Reply #350 on:** 09/21/2016 01:42 pm »

Wildfire near Vandenberg has already affected ULA. Noted here since pad and payload operations for SpaceX are called out for risk.

Wildfire near Vandenberg AFB

edkyle99 · « **Reply #351 on:** 09/21/2016 02:39 pm »

Quote from: starhawk92 on 09/21/2016 01:42 pm

Wildfire near Vandenberg has already affected ULA. Noted here since pad and payload operations for SpaceX are called out for risk.

Wildfire near Vandenberg AFB

Yes. The fire appears to have gotten closer to SLC 4 than it did SLC 3, so far.

- Ed Kyle

gongora · « **Reply #352 on:** 10/03/2016 04:06 pm »

Tweet from Marcia Smith @SpcPlcyOnline

Quote

Hertz: SpaceX has told NASA that CRS-10 will be in Jan (was Nov), CRS-11, w/NICER, is Mar (was Feb). But depends on when they fix F9 prob,

DOCinCT · « **Reply #353 on:** 10/03/2016 09:14 pm »

Quote from: gongora on 10/03/2016 04:06 pm

Tweet from Marcia Smith @SpcPlcyOnline
Quote
Hertz: SpaceX has told NASA that CRS-10 will be in Jan (was Nov), CRS-11, w/NICER, is Mar (was Feb). But depends on when they fix F9 prob,

Are either of these people credible? Is there an official SpaceX announcement or statement?

gongora · « **Reply #354 on:** 10/03/2016 09:29 pm »

Quote from: DOCinCT on 10/03/2016 09:14 pm

Quote from: gongora on 10/03/2016 04:06 pm
Tweet from Marcia Smith @SpcPlcyOnline
Quote
Hertz: SpaceX has told NASA that CRS-10 will be in Jan (was Nov), CRS-11, w/NICER, is Mar (was Feb). But depends on when they fix F9 prob,
Are either of these people credible? Is there an official SpaceX announcement or statement?

1. Yes (Paul Hertz is with NASA) 2. No

gongora · « **Reply #355 on:** 10/05/2016 02:08 am »

Tweets from Peter B. de Selding:

Quote

SpaceX President Shotwell(1): 'We do anticipate being back in flight this yr w/ a couple of flights.'
SpaceX's Shotwell(2): None of our failures were related to changes to rocket. It's OK to fail in demos, not OK to fail on customer missions.
Shotwell(3): Goal is still to fly 1st Commercial Crew Dragon next year.
Shotwell(4): First Falcon Heavy should fly by mid- next year. We'll need at least one more landing pad
Shotwell(5): Are we 100% sure June 2015 failure was due to strut? No. Are we 99.9% sure? Yes. You look at preponderance of evidence.
Shotwell(6): Our satellite Internet constellation 'is still pretty TBD.' Ground terminal cost remains challenge as it has been for others.

So if they actually launched two flights this year, they'd start 2017 about 5 payloads behind, and would need to be launching twice a month just to stay that far behind, or more than twice a month to start catching up. Sounds like a significant slip for Crew Dragon is coming.

Edit: This would have been from Gwynne's speech at APSCC 2016 in Malaysia.

gongora · « **Reply #356 on:** 10/10/2016 09:19 pm »

Tweet from Peter B. de Selding

Quote

SpaceX manifest: Round & round it goes, where it stops... EchoStar-23 is latest customer said to be maneuvering for F9 return-to-flight slot

ZachS09 · « **Reply #357 on:** 10/10/2016 11:29 pm »

Will Core #23 still be used for SES-10, or will it be switched to EchoStar 23 just because SpaceX wants to start reusage?

gongora · « **Reply #358 on:** 10/11/2016 12:15 am »

Quote from: ZachS09 on 10/10/2016 11:29 pm

Will Core #23 still be used for SES-10, or will it be switched to EchoStar 23 just because SpaceX wants to start reusage?

SpaceX can't just switch a used core to a random customer. They should have plenty of new cores being constructed.

mn · « **Reply #359 on:** 10/11/2016 03:03 am »

Quote from: gongora on 10/11/2016 12:15 am

SpaceX can't just switch a used core to a random customer. They should have plenty of new cores being constructed.

Why not? The cores are identical, not custom made to a particular mission.

(obviously you have to deal with satisfying two customers who both want to fly first, but that is a business issue, nothing to do with the core)