SpaceX Falcon 9 : GPS III-3 : Cape Canaveral : June 30, 2020

[crandles57]

So
https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/12/17/air-force-requirements-will-keep-spacex-from-recovering-falcon-9-booster-after-gps-launch/
saying

The third GPS 3-series spacecraft is assigned to fly on a Falcon 9 rocket from Cape Canaveral in December 2019, the Air Force said.

is definitely wrong?

That comment applied to the first launch.

Actually that comment was just about 3rd  launch schedule and nothing about recovery.

[gongora]

So
https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/12/17/air-force-requirements-will-keep-spacex-from-recovering-falcon-9-booster-after-gps-launch/
saying

The third GPS 3-series spacecraft is assigned to fly on a Falcon 9 rocket from Cape Canaveral in December 2019, the Air Force said.

is definitely wrong?

I didn't notice that before, he usually has decent info on dates.  I wouldn't trust the dates in GAO documents as anything but a NET.

[gongora]

Raytheon Tweaking OCX Following First GPS III Launch

While Block 0 is exceeding the requirements set by the Air Force, Bill Sullivan, Raytheon’s vice president for OCX, said the company is addressing defects and bugs in both the earlier block as well as ensuring they don’t affect Block 1, which is still in development.

Sullivan declined to say what tweaks were made but noted some changes are intended to fix bugs that were discovered and others are done at the Air Force’s request. A couple of weeks ago, the company finished a number of fixes in anticipation of the second GPS III launch this July and more updates will likely occur ahead of the third satellite’s launch in December, he added.

[Marine_Mustang]

SpaceX on track for US Air Force Falcon 9 mission later this year:

Reading between the lines, the US Air Force has effectively confirmed that GPS III Space Vehicle 03 (SV03) – the third GPS III satellite built by Lockheed Martin – is ready for launch aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, scheduled no earlier than December 2019.

So, given the award price of $96,500,490 quoted earlier in this thread, is it safe to assume another expendable Falcon 9 block 5 launch?

Edit: Here's the original source for the Teslarati article: https://www.gpsworld.com/lockheed-delivers-gps-iii-ground-system-upgrade-sv03-ready-for-launch/

[whitelancer64]

SpaceX on track for US Air Force Falcon 9 mission later this year:

Reading between the lines, the US Air Force has effectively confirmed that GPS III Space Vehicle 03 (SV03) – the third GPS III satellite built by Lockheed Martin – is ready for launch aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, scheduled no earlier than December 2019.

So, given the award price of $96,500,490 quoted earlier in this thread, is it safe to assume another expendable Falcon 9 block 5 launch?

Edit: Here's the original source for the Teslarati article: https://www.gpsworld.com/lockheed-delivers-gps-iii-ground-system-upgrade-sv03-ready-for-launch/

I wouldn't assume that based on price alone.

[Marine_Mustang]

SpaceX on track for US Air Force Falcon 9 mission later this year:

Reading between the lines, the US Air Force has effectively confirmed that GPS III Space Vehicle 03 (SV03) – the third GPS III satellite built by Lockheed Martin – is ready for launch aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, scheduled no earlier than December 2019.

So, given the award price of $96,500,490 quoted earlier in this thread, is it safe to assume another expendable Falcon 9 block 5 launch?

Edit: Here's the original source for the Teslarati article: https://www.gpsworld.com/lockheed-delivers-gps-iii-ground-system-upgrade-sv03-ready-for-launch/

I wouldn't assume that based on price alone.

My thinking is that the Air Force says "We paid full price for an expendable launch, so that's what you'll deliver." Whether that full price is strictly for an expendable launch, or just the first launch of a new booster without regard to what happens after stage separation is the question, in my opinion.

[Kabloona]

SpaceX on track for US Air Force Falcon 9 mission later this year:

Reading between the lines, the US Air Force has effectively confirmed that GPS III Space Vehicle 03 (SV03) – the third GPS III satellite built by Lockheed Martin – is ready for launch aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, scheduled no earlier than December 2019.

So, given the award price of $96,500,490 quoted earlier in this thread, is it safe to assume another expendable Falcon 9 block 5 launch?

It's worth recalling that this contract award was made over 2 years ago, when the CRS-7 and AMOS-6 failures were still fresh in the Air Force's mind, and F9 had less than half as many flights as it does now (30-ish vs. 70+) so SpaceX would naturally have made a conservative proposal, with all usable margin allocated to the payload. USAF was not going to be price-sensitive below $100 million anyway, because they were already saving $50+ million over ULA. After that, it's all about mission assurance.

https://www.universetoday.com/134630/spacex-outbids-ula-military-gps-contract-igniting-fierce-launch-competition/

[niwax]

SpaceX on track for US Air Force Falcon 9 mission later this year:

Reading between the lines, the US Air Force has effectively confirmed that GPS III Space Vehicle 03 (SV03) – the third GPS III satellite built by Lockheed Martin – is ready for launch aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, scheduled no earlier than December 2019.

So, given the award price of $96,500,490 quoted earlier in this thread, is it safe to assume another expendable Falcon 9 block 5 launch?

Edit: Here's the original source for the Teslarati article: https://www.gpsworld.com/lockheed-delivers-gps-iii-ground-system-upgrade-sv03-ready-for-launch/

I wouldn't assume that based on price alone.

My thinking is that the Air Force says "We paid full price for an expendable launch, so that's what you'll deliver." Whether that full price is strictly for an expendable launch, or just the first launch of a new booster without regard to what happens after stage separation is the question, in my opinion.

How is mission assurance defined? A far drone ship would probably give more spare dv than an expendable when this launch was commissioned.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/emrekelly/status/1163897322872459267

Update from SMC: #SpaceX Falcon 9 now slated to launch GPS III SV03 in January. Eastern Range.

(📷: @LockheedMartin)

[gongora]

GPS-III launches, source "Global Positioning System Program Status" Lt Col Ken McDougall 11/20/2019

https://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/meetings/2019-11/mcdougall.pdf

•
SV03 ready for shipment to Cape Canaveral; Launch forecast Mar 2020
•
SV04 declared Available for Launch 10 Sep 19; Launch forecast 3Q 2020

[Nehkara]

Los Angeles Air Force Base, Home of Space and Missile Systems Center posted this update on Facebook:


The New Year brings a lot of new missions on the horizon for the Space and Missile Systems Center.

It's an exciting time to be in SMC’s Enterprise and Production Corps. We're expecting eight to 10 National Security Space Launch (NSSL) missions and nine small launch missions to occur in 2020.

One of SMC’s launch partners is Space Exploration Technology, Inc. (“SpaceX”). They've also been a busy beehive of activity lately, getting ready for this year’s launch of GPS III SV-03 (aka “Columbus”).

Released photos show the completed assembly of the aft end of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 first stage booster with its nine Merlin engines in the familiar Octaweb pattern at the company’s headquarters, located a couple of miles down the street from SMC at 1 Rocket Road in neighboring Hawthorne, Calif.

The booster has already shipped to the company’s test facility in McGregor, Texas for static test firing before making its way to Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. Meanwhile, the payload fairing for GPS III SV-03 is already at the Cape, eagerly awaiting final preparations and sporting the official GPS mission emblem and U.S. roundel, the national insignia typically used on military aircraft.

Falcon 9 is a two-stage-to-orbit medium lift launch vehicle designed and manufactured by SpaceX. It is powered by the company’s Merlin engines, also built in-house at the Hawthorne facility, which uses liquid oxygen (LOX) and rocket-grade kerosene (RP-1) as propellants.

SMC’s Enterprise and Production Corps are managing the upcoming mission of GPS III SV-03 “Columbus,” targeting launch toward the end of the first quarter of 2020. (All photos courtesy SpaceX)

[ZachS09]

Is there a chance of this being expendable like the first GPS-III mission, or can they get away with a drone ship landing this time around?

[Comga]

The Air Force author seems pretty convinced that the photos from the Hawthorne factory are of “the booster” but our list of Falcon cores doesn’t have a serial number.
Should we rely on the author and assume that it’s the next first stage off the line?

[Stefan.Christoff.19]

Los Angeles Air Force Base, Home of Space and Missile Systems Center posted this update on Facebook:


The New Year brings a lot of new missions on the horizon for the Space and Missile Systems Center.

It's an exciting time to be in SMC’s Enterprise and Production Corps. We're expecting eight to 10 National Security Space Launch (NSSL) missions and nine small launch missions to occur in 2020.

One of SMC’s launch partners is Space Exploration Technology, Inc. (“SpaceX”). They've also been a busy beehive of activity lately, getting ready for this year’s launch of GPS III SV-03 (aka “Columbus”).

Released photos show the completed assembly of the aft end of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 first stage booster with its nine Merlin engines in the familiar Octaweb pattern at the company’s headquarters, located a couple of miles down the street from SMC at 1 Rocket Road in neighboring Hawthorne, Calif.

The booster has already shipped to the company’s test facility in McGregor, Texas for static test firing before making its way to Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. Meanwhile, the payload fairing for GPS III SV-03 is already at the Cape, eagerly awaiting final preparations and sporting the official GPS mission emblem and U.S. roundel, the national insignia typically used on military aircraft.

Falcon 9 is a two-stage-to-orbit medium lift launch vehicle designed and manufactured by SpaceX. It is powered by the company’s Merlin engines, also built in-house at the Hawthorne facility, which uses liquid oxygen (LOX) and rocket-grade kerosene (RP-1) as propellants.

SMC’s Enterprise and Production Corps are managing the upcoming mission of GPS III SV-03 “Columbus,” targeting launch toward the end of the first quarter of 2020. (All photos courtesy SpaceX)

emphasis mine

I just posted in the schedule thread that we have not seen this booster on the road. I'm assuming it's 1060, but they have not always come out sequentially.

[woods170]

Is there a chance of this being expendable like the first GPS-III mission, or can they get away with a drone ship landing this time around?

Expendable.

[Alexphysics]

Is there a chance of this being expendable like the first GPS-III mission, or can they get away with a drone ship landing this time around?

Expendable.

So why does it have the leg top covers installed on it? B1054 didn't have those but this one clearly has them.

[ZachS09]

Is there a chance of this being expendable like the first GPS-III mission, or can they get away with a drone ship landing this time around?

Expendable.

Is there a source for that? I kind of don't believe the mission being expendable.

[Draggendrop]

SpaceX may be it's own victum of quick iterative launcher improvements.

At this point in time,F9 Block 5 has demonstrated that 4 reuse cases for Starlink launches can be a minimum and will probably be exceeded in short order.

With this in mind...The thought of an expendable for GPS-III is bordering on stupidity. SpaceX will loose at least 3 reuse cases via this silliness.
 
I am sure that there is a valid reason for this, such as maximum performance from a stated 2017 version...in a 2017 contractual agreement, but now this situation is a major hindrance to future cost savings.
 
I hope that future agreements include reuse or a very large fee for expendable...because loosing one of these contracts opens up at least 3 and probably more use cases for increased overall civilian income and/or reduced launch cost for SpaceX/Starlink.
 
Expendible is bordering on plain nuts. Continued expendable launches will not create a favourable future working environment.  Just my opinion.

[Nomadd]

SpaceX may be it's own victum of quick iterative launcher improvements.

At this point in time,F9 Block 5 has demonstrated that 4 reuse cases for Starlink launches can be a minimum and will probably be exceeded in short order.

With this in mind...The thought of an expendable for GPS-III is bordering on stupidity. SpaceX will loose at least 3 reuse cases via this silliness.
 
I am sure that there is a valid reason for this, such as maximum performance from a stated 2017 version...in a 2017 contractual agreement, but now this situation is a major hindrance to future cost savings.
 
I hope that future agreements include reuse or a very large fee for expendable...because loosing one of these contracts opens up at least 3 and probably more use cases for increased overall civilian income and/or reduced launch cost for SpaceX/Starlink.
 
Expendible is bordering on plain nuts. Continued expendable launches will not create a favourable future working environment.  Just my opinion.

Why do you have a problem with the AF buying a booster? If SpaceX sets the price right, they won't lose any money replacing it. The AF wasting money isn't SpaceX's problem.

[thirtyone]

The Air Force author seems pretty convinced that the photos from the Hawthorne factory are of “the booster” but our list of Falcon cores doesn’t have a serial number.
Should we rely on the author and assume that it’s the next first stage off the line?

Don't know if this makes you trust more or not, but this was posted on FB originally, and in reply to a question about ITAR/intellectual property, the air force base account replied:

SpaceX provided, as well as cleared these photos for us to post on our FB page.