SpaceX FH : USSF-52 (X-37B OTV-7) : KSC LC-39A : 28/29 December 2023 01:07 UTC

[realnouns]

This contradicts the “next national security launch” statement from October.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/10/04/payload-issue-delays-spacexs-next-falcon-heavy-launch-to-early-2022/

The Space Systems Command spokesperson said the USSF-52 mission, the next national security launch on a Falcon Heavy, is scheduled for the second quarter of 2022.

From where was it learned that the order has been reversed?

Full quote in the article reads "The Space Systems Command spokesperson said the USSF-52 mission, the next national security launch on a Falcon Heavy after USSF-44, is scheduled for the second quarter of 2022."

[scr00chy]

This contradicts the “next national security launch” statement from October.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/10/04/payload-issue-delays-spacexs-next-falcon-heavy-launch-to-early-2022/

The Space Systems Command spokesperson said the USSF-52 mission, the next national security launch on a Falcon Heavy, is scheduled for the second quarter of 2022.

From where was it learned that the order has been reversed?

Years ago, the order was USSF-52, then USSF-44. Then at some point, they swapped the order. Last we heard was USSF-44 in early 2022 and USSF-52 in Q2 2022. The full quote from the October article is:

The Space Systems Command spokesperson said the USSF-52 mission, the next national security launch on a Falcon Heavy after USSF-44, is scheduled for the second quarter of 2022.

That's the latest,  but with additional delays since then and the fact that USSF-52 was originally supposed to launch first anyway, I assume it's possible USSF-52 could end up launching first if the payload is ready before USSF-44.

Would be nice to get some updated launch dates, though.

[Alexphysics]

Last I heard the plan was still to have -52 launch after -44 and there's reasons as to why that is the case. With -44 not being able to launch until May at the very earliest, I'd say, as a complete guess on my part let that be clear, that -52 might not be until at least July. I wouldn't even be surprised if they move it after Psyche if -44 keeps being delayed.

[zubenelgenubi]

I wouldn't even be surprised if they move it after Psyche if -44 keeps being delayed.

Yes, spacecraft with interplanetary launch windows take priority.

[Conexion Espacial]

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1498494197183041538

[russianhalo117]

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1498494197183041538

That is a normal wartime (Cold War) response given the current situation and global theatres picture.

[zubenelgenubi]

Cross-post re: next two Falcon Heavy launches:

https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
[March 9 update]

<snip>
2nd Quarter • Falcon Heavy • USSF 44
Launch time: TBD
Launch site: LC-39A, Kennedy Space Center, Florida
...
Mid-2022 • Falcon Heavy • USSF 52
Launch time: TBD
Launch site: LC-39A, Kennedy Space Center, Florida

USSF-52 launching before or after Psyche?

[baldusi]

Cross-post re: next two Falcon Heavy launches:

https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/
[March 9 update]

<snip>
2nd Quarter • Falcon Heavy • USSF 44
Launch time: TBD
Launch site: LC-39A, Kennedy Space Center, Florida
...
Mid-2022 • Falcon Heavy • USSF 52
Launch time: TBD
Launch site: LC-39A, Kennedy Space Center, Florida

USSF-52 launching before or after Psyche?

Psyche is planetary. They will probably get top pad priority.

[Conexion Espacial]

NextSpaceFlight show this launch for October 2022

[zubenelgenubi]

SFN Launch Schedule update, March 25 (one of many):
USSF-52 launches in October 2022 from Kennedy LC-39A.

[Conexion Espacial]

NextSpaceFlight indicates the following configuration for the Falcon Heavy boosters:
B1064: Side Booster
B1070: Center Core
B1065: Side Booster

[Comga]

NextSpaceFlight indicates the following configuration for the Falcon Heavy boosters:
B1064: Side Booster
B1070: Center Core
B1065: Side Booster

Furthermore it says, in the nomenclature from the Manifest:
B1064: Side Booster  1064-2 ?
B1070: Center Core   1070-1 X
B1065: Side Booster  1065-2 ?

We may have known all this but it helps to be explicit.

B1070
One and done
How 20th century

[AstroWare]

NextSpaceFlight indicates the following configuration for the Falcon Heavy boosters:
B1064: Side Booster
B1070: Center Core
B1065: Side Booster

Furthermore it says, in the nomenclature from the Manifest:
B1064: Side Booster  1064-2 ?
B1070: Center Core   1070-1 X
B1065: Side Booster  1065-2 ?

We may have known all this but it helps to be explicit.

B1070
One and done
How 20th century

Maybe that makes sense...

It may be cheaper to build a FH core without recovery hardware at all then what they save by installing it, (performing reusable missions) , then removing it, and launching it expendable.

[alugobi]

Or the customer wanted a new one for center core.  We don't know. 

In any event, the cost of those connectors and fasteners is likely to be negligible overall.  SX don't nickel and dime themselves. 

[Zed_Noir]

.....
B1070
One and done
How 20th century

No, it just means the Falcon upper stage isn't big enough to enable downrange recovery for the center core for high energy launches.

Yes, saying the Falcon Heavy, the world's more powerful operational launcher is under performing is amusing. 

[rpapo]

.....
B1070
One and done
How 20th century

No, it just means the Falcon upper stage isn't big enough to enable downrange recovery for the center core for high energy launches.

Yes, saying the Falcon Heavy, the world's more powerful operational launcher is under performing is amusing. 

Weren't there people who claimed there was no point to having the Falcon Heavy?  That it was too big for any currently foreseeable payloads?  I expect to see this same thing happen within a couple of years of Starship being available for launches.  Build it bigger, somebody will make a payload for it.  Just ask the ghost of the AN-225...

[DanClemmensen]

.....
B1070
One and done
How 20th century

No, it just means the Falcon upper stage isn't big enough to enable downrange recovery for the center core for high energy launches.

Yes, saying the Falcon Heavy, the world's more powerful operational launcher is under performing is amusing. 

Weren't there people who claimed there was no point to having the Falcon Heavy?  That it was too big for any currently foreseeable payloads?  I expect to see this same thing happen within a couple of years of Starship being available for launches.  Build it bigger, somebody will make a payload for it.  Just ask the ghost of the AN-225...

Of course there is a need for larger payloads. Otherwise, why would Congress NASA be building the SLS block 1B? 

[scr00chy]

Does the indefinite USSF-44 delay mean that USSF-52 will launch first, possibly with the boosters that were originally meant to fly first on USSF-44?

[Zed_Noir]

Does the indefinite USSF-44 delay mean that USSF-52 will launch first, possibly with the boosters that were originally meant to fly first on USSF-44?

You are presuming that USSF-52 encounters no schedule shift to the right.

Maybe the center expendable core for USSF-44 will be shifted to another launch.

[Stan-1967]

Weren't there people who claimed there was no point to having the Falcon Heavy?  That it was too big for any currently foreseeable payloads?  I expect to see this same thing happen within a couple of years of Starship being available for launches.  Build it bigger, somebody will make a payload for it.  Just ask the ghost of the AN-225...

I don’t know about that.  There were more people pointing out that the evolution of F9 single stick into y to be current version pretty much absorbed the primary market of +6t to GTO.  What market was left for FH?   It was pointed out by many that FH center core expendable was the most interesting configuration.   I think that had turned out to be the correct take.  There is no mass market for FH,  but it can excel in high value payloads to BEO