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

[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.

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.

--------------------------
True...SpaceX will not loose money on the booster production. SpaceX will loose the ability to gain tha profits of 3 reuse cases...and that will exceed the profit form an expendabel cost to manufacture and more importantly...could hinder launch cadence via wait time for a new booster.

[wannamoonbase]

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.

--------------------------
True...SpaceX will not loose money on the booster production. SpaceX will loose the ability to gain tha profits of 3 reuse cases...and that will exceed the profit form an expendabel cost to manufacture and more importantly...could hinder launch cadence via wait time for a new booster.

I disagree.  As far as we know there are no payloads waiting for a booster.  SpaceX has more capacity than customers.  Yes it's sad they just aren't using am existing reused booster or adding to the fleet. 

But if the USAF is making it profitable and the contract was signed for this service then go for it.

[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.

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.

--------------------------
True...SpaceX will not loose money on the booster production. SpaceX will loose the ability to gain tha profits of 3 reuse cases...and that will exceed the profit form an expendabel cost to manufacture and more importantly...could hinder launch cadence via wait time for a new booster.

I disagree.  As far as we know there are no payloads waiting for a booster.  SpaceX has more capacity than customers.  Yes it's sad they just aren't using am existing reused booster or adding to the fleet. 

But if the USAF is making it profitable and the contract was signed for this service then go for it.

---------------------

I disagree...There is a payload in waiting...a mess of Starlink launches. These launches still require booster checkout time. With approximately 20 Starlink launches this year...boosters will be in demand.

[Draggendrop]

I may have opened a can of worms...which was not the intent.

My intent was to display my dislike of the probable use of an expendable booster for this GPS-III launch and probably a few more, from the view of a "business owner".

The rational is to increase profitability, when an opportunity exists,in an acceptable manner.

SpaceX has 2 outside major projects being Starlink and SH/SS as well as the Mars mission. This requires a very large amount of financial input that in itself requires a well run business with an eye to maximizing profitability...which in this case, would probably be reinvested into SpaceX projects.

While I acknowledge that a signed agreement is in place, one from a few years ago, and will be carried out at profit...from the perspective of 2020...this is now not good enough. A venue exists for maximizing profitability and it should be taken into account for future agreements.

One should not be content with just making "profit A" when a larger "profit B" is attainable.This launch will proceed as contracted but I still have the option of an opinion that this is not maximizing profitability and I dislike this "wasted opportunity".

I do not like to count "chickens before they hatch". Every venue for profitability must be explored to reduce the launch costs for Starlink...and the contractual modification for reuseability should be of concern moving forward. I am sure that SpaceX has it's own booster list which contains downtime and associated costs as well as desirability for prime missions. This would lead me to think that one can never have enough veteran boosters on hand.
 
I now appear to be off topic in this thread and will try to stay in line with GPS III-3 discussion only.

[noogie]

I disagree...There is a payload in waiting...a mess of Starlink launches. These launches still require booster checkout time. With approximately 20 Starlink launches this year...boosters will be in demand.

Things may be more complicated than that.
They may be ingratiating themselves with the airforce brass - which might also help them get the air force in as an anchor customer for Starlink - loss leading (not quite but you get the idea) is of course a well known concept.
The situation I suspect is multi-faceted with not only this costs calculation but having bagging rights as a US military supplier may help them in other ways by securing sales elsewhere (like how the unofficial endorsement that they got from NASA with COTs helped them get sales in the wider market)

[ulm_atms]

I know your talking about increase profitability by not expending the booster...and you are correct, but of all launch buyers, DOD launches cost the most and probably have the most profit of anyone.  Sure, they expend the booster...but they make a huge slug of profit from all the other services required by the DOD. 

TLDR; Net profit is net profit and DOD launches probably have the most compared to anyone else.

[Coastal Ron]

While I acknowledge that a signed agreement is in place, one from a few years ago, and will be carried out at profit...from the perspective of 2020...this is now not good enough. A venue exists for maximizing profitability and it should be taken into account for future agreements.

One should not be content with just making "profit A" when a larger "profit B" is attainable.

We have to remember that SpaceX created the reusable rocket category, and they are still the exclusive provider of reusable rockets. From the perspective of the USAF it is still the early days of rocket reusability, and they would prefer their important payloads to not be guinea pigs. And SpaceX is fine with that.

SpaceX is playing it smart by giving their customers a choice, and letting them get comfortable with reusability at their own pace. And the USAF is onboard with reusability, but despite the number of launches SpaceX has done with previously flown stages, it truly is still the early days of reusability - there are still many unknowns left to discover.

So for GPS III-3, SpaceX will take less of a profit (I'm assuming) on this launch in order to help persuade the USAF to use a previously flown stage on a future flight.

[intelati]

While I acknowledge that a signed agreement is in place, one from a few years ago, and will be carried out at profit...from the perspective of 2020...this is now not good enough. A venue exists for maximizing profitability and it should be taken into account for future agreements.

One should not be content with just making "profit A" when a larger "profit B" is attainable.

We have to remember that SpaceX created the reusable rocket category, and they are still the exclusive provider of reusable rockets. From the perspective of the USAF it is still the early days of rocket reusability, and they would prefer their important payloads to not be guinea pigs. And SpaceX is fine with that.

SpaceX is playing it smart by giving their customers a choice, and letting them get comfortable with reusability at their own pace. And the USAF is onboard with reusability, but despite the number of launches SpaceX has done with previously flown stages, it truly is still the early days of reusability - there are still many unknowns left to discover.

So for GPS III-3, SpaceX will take less of a profit (I'm assuming) on this launch in order to help persuade the USAF to use a previously flown stage on a future flight.

And the GPS launches are high profile.

One can argue that they are some of the most valuable launches.

[snotis]

And the GPS launches are high profile.

One can argue that they are some of the most valuable launches.

At some point (hopefully relatively soon) flying on flight-proven boosters will be seen as less risky than flying on a completely new one - even if you are expending it.

[Draggendrop]

And the GPS launches are high profile.

One can argue that they are some of the most valuable launches.

True...but the high profile launch is being done with a new booster...4400kg to MEO. Is there a technical reason why the booster  could not be landed on an ASDS....besides the AF wanting to expend all fuel, which is their contractual right.

edit...I messed up the quote from intelati...please reference the posts above...ooops
zubenelgenubi: repaired quote
edit...Thanx

[Draggendrop]

While I acknowledge that a signed agreement is in place, one from a few years ago, and will be carried out at profit...from the perspective of 2020...this is now not good enough. A venue exists for maximizing profitability and it should be taken into account for future agreements.

One should not be content with just making "profit A" when a larger "profit B" is attainable.

We have to remember that SpaceX created the reusable rocket category, and they are still the exclusive provider of reusable rockets. From the perspective of the USAF it is still the early days of rocket reusability, and they would prefer their important payloads to not be guinea pigs. And SpaceX is fine with that.

SpaceX is playing it smart by giving their customers a choice, and letting them get comfortable with reusability at their own pace. And the USAF is onboard with reusability, but despite the number of launches SpaceX has done with previously flown stages, it truly is still the early days of reusability - there are still many unknowns left to discover.

So for GPS III-3, SpaceX will take less of a profit (I'm assuming) on this launch in order to help persuade the USAF to use a previously flown stage on a future flight.

-----------------------------------------------
Yes...quite true. At the same time, this launch will still be of a new booster and the AF will have their reliability in their eyes. It is the "expendable" after separation that is an issue. The payload is approximately 4400 kg to MEO. It may be early in the AF's eyes to reuse a booster but as you have stated...they are given the option and have accepted a new booster with certain capabilities that were available in 2017. It is the expending of a new booster that is sad.

---------------------------

As posters above have stated...it is complicated and generally contains a few forms of "give and take" for future considerations..which is also smart business.

From the first post on this thread...

"Space Exploration Technologies Corp., Hawthorne, California, has been awarded a $96,500,490 firm-fixed-price contract for launch services to deliver a GPS III satellite to its intended orbit. Contractor will provide launch vehicle production, mission integration, launch operations, spaceflight worthiness and mission unique activities for a GPS III mission. /snip/"

This appears to be an all inclusive contract at $96,500,490. If correct, a profit "A" will be derived and as stated above...these are the most lucrative contracts. My point was profit "A" would be exceeded if it were not expendable and profit "B", "C" and "D" were allowed to happen...or...if we take the profits from a booster used on 4 civilian missions.

I see that you all have valid points and it appears to be "playing ball" for future prospects.
I'm just grumpy and hate to see a "wasted opportunity".

[ZachS09]

I thought GPS-III 2 was 3,705 kg. I don't think EVERY GPS-III sat is 4,400 kg.

[Draggendrop]

I thought GPS-III 2 was 3,705 kg. I don't think EVERY GPS-III sat is 4,400 kg.

The launch mass I stated was an estimated launch mass...which deviates quite a bit depending on where one searches for it, metric or imperial. Some examples are...

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43418.0
NSF    4400 kg

https://www.losangeles.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Article/343728/gps-iii/
Launch weight:  8,115 lb   On-Orbit weight:  4,764 lb

https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/gps-iii-military-satellite/
snip...It will weigh around 3,680kg at launch ...snip

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_Block_III
Launch mass   3,880 kg (8,553 lb)[1]
Dry mass   2,269 kg (5,003 lb)[1]

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/navstar-3.htm
Mass:   4400 kg

If you have accurate launch/orbit mass for the first couple and this one...please post them as I am curious as well. Thanx.

[Alexphysics]

Why are y'all still talking about this being expendable? The booster has recovery hardware on it that the booster for the first GPS mission didn't have at all  : /

[Draggendrop]

Why are y'all still talking about this being expendable? The booster has recovery hardware on it that the booster for the first GPS mission didn't have at all  : /

What image would you be referring to wrt recovery hardware?
 
This appears to be a bit of a "grey area" for the last couple of pages.

We have a few images of an octaweb and a booster, that may have slipped transit views and we have a guess on core numbering and are unsure of date of manufacture. There is also discussion for either outcome.

I hope that this launch is not expendable and have voiced my opinion as if it may be the case. If you are correct, then I have vented steam over a non issue...and I am still happy with that. Can you confirm, from a good source, that this launch will be recoverable? //a source other than the FB image would be nice. Thanx.

[Alexphysics]

Why are y'all still talking about this being expendable? The booster has recovery hardware on it that the booster for the first GPS mission didn't have at all  : /

What image would you be referring to wrt recovery hardware?
 
This appears to be a bit of a "grey area" for the last couple of pages.

We have a few images of an octaweb and a booster, that may have slipped transit views and we have a guess on core numbering and are unsure of date of manufacture. There is also discussion for either outcome.

I hope that this launch is not expendable and have voiced my opinion as if it may be the case. If you are correct, then I have vented steam over a non issue...and I am still happy with that. Can you confirm, from a good source, that this launch will be recoverable? //a source other than the FB image would be nice. Thanx.

The image of the booster. You can clearly see it has the covers that go at the tip of the legs already installed. The legs would then be installed at the launch site as usual. B1054 didn't have anything at all. The fact this booster does in fact have anything to begin with is a strong indication there.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Here's a cropped and enlarged image of the leg fairings on the first stage.

[ZachS09]

There were some expendable Block 3 boosters that actually had markings where the landing legs would usually be.

First is EchoStar 23.
Second is Intelsat 35e.

[Draggendrop]

The image that was posted was from Los Angeles Air Force Base Space and Missile Systems Center's Facebook post dated 9th of January 2020
https://www.facebook.com/SpaceandMissileSystemsCenter
-----
snip/ 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./snip
-----
The released images and post do not state that this is the booster for GPS III-3, just that these are images of a Falcon 9 first stage. The author then states that the booster for this mission had already been shipped to McGregor. The author of the FB post appears to have asked for images after the booster was shipped. SpaceX may have supplied it's most recent at the time...at Hawthorne.

I appreciate the FB images being posted...These may be the mission booster but I would not consider them as taken from the mission booster until stated as such.

Note... I also enlarged and cropped the image and noticed the top landing leg covers. This FB post has not verified the booster as the mission booster and why would upper leg covers being installed infer landing leg installation. The covers may still be in place for aerodynamics or an item to remain in place for sealing.

More data will be available soon enough..preferably before rollout.

This is why I was hoping for a better source than this particular FB post.

[Alexphysics]

The covers may still be in place for aerodynamics or an item to remain in place for sealing.

Then why B1054 didn't have them?