SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread

[Tomness]

I believe Starlink launches to LEO are volume constrained, not mass constrained. There is additional margin there that can be used for polar  orbits, but I don’t think those figures are available publicly.

Elon said they were mass constrained at a press conference when they started launching the Starlink flights.

I thought he said they could do 2 or 3 more but scrifice recovery which they don't want to do. So leads to will they do Starlink with FH with extended fairing if they can recover all the boosters and the fairings

[gongora]

I believe Starlink launches to LEO are volume constrained, not mass constrained. There is additional margin there that can be used for polar  orbits, but I don’t think those figures are available publicly.

Elon said they were mass constrained at a press conference when they started launching the Starlink flights.

That can also be confirmed by reducing the number of Starlinks per flight when they have rideshare partners.

Those were definitely a volume issue. Skysats only weigh 110 kg and Blacksky around 50kg each.

Each Starlink is ~260kg.

The Blacksky rideshare was to a slightly higher orbit.

[Jansen]

I thought he said they could do 2 or 3 more but scrifice recovery which they don't want to do. So leads to will they do Starlink with FH with extended fairing if they can recover all the boosters and the fairings

The extended fairing won’t be available for at least six months, probably at least 9 months for an available FH slot based on production and refurbishment.

[Alexphysics]

The constrain for Starlink is mass. 60 satellites means over 15 metric tons to a medium inclination LEO, it is right there in the edge of maximum performance for Falcon 9 with downrange booster recovery withput partial nor full boostback burn. If you add a dogleg then the performance drops and they won't be able to carry those 60 Starlinks. I invite you to try it out on a website that I think it's very good for this which is flightclub. I tried to send 60 Starlinks with the dogleg maneuver into a polar orbit with similar deployment orbit as normal Starlinks and I couldn't. I even tried to deploy them in a 150km circular orbit and it's directly impossible. I started "removing" payload and at around 13 tons there was enough margins for both the landing of the booster and the orbital insertion of the second stage.

[Robotbeat]

I believe Starlink launches to LEO are volume constrained, not mass constrained. There is additional margin there that can be used for polar  orbits, but I don’t think those figures are available publicly.

Elon said they were mass constrained at a press conference when they started launching the Starlink flights.

I thought he said they could do 2 or 3 more but scrifice recovery which they don't want to do. So leads to will they do Starlink with FH with extended fairing if they can recover all the boosters and the fairings

Ha! Yeah, what if they do a Falcon Heavy flight from Vandenberg like they were originally planning to do... That'd be interesting. Would need new launch mount but wouldn't need a droneship as all RTLS. Could use an extended fairing, even.

...I highly doubt they'd do something like that, tho. F9 is such a workhorse for Starlink right now. Keeping the same basic configuration is such a win for them operationally. I'm betting they'll just do polar F9 launches from Florida and take the slight payload hit.

(Also, fairly certain it'd cost way too much to modify the pad for FH ops now. ...unless the Air Force wants them to do it anyway!)

[Arb]

...what if they do a Falcon Heavy flight from Vandenberg like they were originally planning to do... That'd be interesting. Would need new launch mount but wouldn't need a droneship as all RTLS. Could use an extended fairing, even.
...

My bold.

Vandenberg only has one landing pad, at the mo...

[Jansen]

Falcon 9s usually return to the HIF after a static fire and roll out on launch day.

B1049.7 has been sitting out at SLC-40 since Thursday. It didn’t return to the HIF after the SF abort and troubleshooting, and it is still out at the pad after today’s successful test.

This leads me to believe that another booster is already in the HIF and undergoing integration for the next launch.

If they have a three day head start, the next launch could be as early as six days after the Starlink launch tomorrow and set a new pad turnaround record. The only snag would be the Thanksgiving holiday.

Likeliest candidate is NROL-108 on B1059.5 if the payload issues are resolved.

B1051.7 is the only other booster that would be remotely available. A launch on Nov 28 would mean a new booster turnaround record of 41 days. Possible payloads are SXM-7 or Starlink v1.0 L16.

The possibility exists that NROL-108 is seriously delayed, in which case B1059.5 would launch one of the above payloads.

[gongora]

A Starlink flight with the payload integrated has no reason to go back to the HIF after static fire unless something is really wrong.

[AndrewRG10]

Falcon 9s usually return to the HIF after a static fire and roll out on launch day.

Not missions which static fire with payload on top.

B1051.7 is the only other booster that would be remotely available. A launch on Nov 28 would mean a new booster turnaround record of 41 days. Possible payloads are SXM-7 or Starlink v1.0 L16.

Not SXM-7. B1049 and B1051 are destined to fly Starlink the rest of their life. I dunno why you keep insisting they will take on commercial payloads. Elon has stated in the past all flight leaders will fly Starlink. And I haven't heard that'll change. And remember B1060 landed late October so much more likely for it to take on the next GTO satellite in December.

[launchwatcher]

...what if they do a Falcon Heavy flight from Vandenberg like they were originally planning to do... That'd be interesting. Would need new launch mount but wouldn't need a droneship as all RTLS. Could use an extended fairing, even.
...

My bold.

Vandenberg only has one landing pad, at the mo...

At the moment.   Wouldn't take long to clear, level, and pave a couple more.

(RTLS for FH center core seems unlikely, though..)

[Jakusb]

What about 1063-2 launching a Starlink mission? Polar orbit as suggested.
This could mean a quick follow up launch at VAFB.
I believe this would make several statements made more understandable.

[TJL]

Sorry if this has been asked previously...is it the customers choice whether or not to use a previously flown booster to launch their payload or does SpaceX have a say? Thank you.

[Tomness]

Sorry if this has been asked previously...is it the customers choice whether or not to use a previously flown booster to launch their payload or does SpaceX have a say? Thank you.

Yeah they get a choice it's like 10% discounts and better schedule assurance or new booster at reg prices and behind nasa and dod

[Jansen]

Sorry if this has been asked previously...is it the customers choice whether or not to use a previously flown booster to launch their payload or does SpaceX have a say? Thank you.

Generally, the contract is structured as a service. If you want additional things like a new booster, the ability to select which booster, extra time in the SPIF, etc.  you can pay for it.

SpaceX generally selects the booster based on availability. If they fail to have a booster available there are penalties involved. Same for failure to reach orbit.

NASA and NSSL launches are always a priority as they pay for that privilege.

[Lar]

...what if they do a Falcon Heavy flight from Vandenberg like they were originally planning to do... That'd be interesting. Would need new launch mount but wouldn't need a droneship as all RTLS. Could use an extended fairing, even.
...

My bold.

Vandenberg only has one landing pad, at the mo...

At the moment.   Wouldn't take long to clear, level, and pave a couple more.

Even at California real estate prices, new pads have to be cheaper than commissioning a new ASDS.

(RTLS for FH center core seems unlikely, though..)

Seem to recall seeing an analysis that the center core RTLS makes the mission basically not much better than an F9

[Jansen]

B1049.7 was the first time a booster has flown 7 times and the 100th Falcon 9 launch, but also the first time SpaceX had four launches in a month.

It was also the 22nd SpaceX launch of 2020, breaking the previous record of 21 launches in 2018.

Looking ahead, we could see up to four launches in December as well. Two will probably be in the first week, and the last two in mid/late December.

A lot depends on things with NROL-108 and booster refurbishment. The first launch of 2021 will probably be Transporter-1, currently targeting January 14.

[scr00chy]

It was also the 22nd SpaceX launch of 2020, breaking the previous record of 21 launches in 2018.

Technically, it was the 23rd launch if you count the abort test. 22nd orbital launch, though.

Also, it broke the record for the most launches in one calendar quarter (7).

[gongora]

I'll be a bit surprised if there are more than 3 flights in December, and I would guess one of the GTO flights happens before Transporter-1 in January.

[rockets4life97]

The number of Starlink flights flown this year (14) is impressive. The 2020 manifest was fairly sparse without them.

Looking ahead to 2021, I count 26 potential non-Starlink flights (possibly more if December flights slip a month). Even assuming a quarter or more of these slip to 2022, I think we could be regularly seeing 3 to 4 launches a month if the Starlink launch cadence continues on pace. 

[Jansen]

I'll be a bit surprised if there are more than 3 flights in December, and I would guess one of the GTO flights happens before Transporter-1 in January.

B1060.4 looks likely for Turksat 5A, won’t surprise me if it slips to early January due to the transport issues you highlighted.