SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread

[realnouns]

I'm seeing a Florida F9 First Stage deficiency in the works.  Right now it's looking like this:

40 - Feb 17 - Inmarsat 6 - 1077.3
40 - ~Feb 25 - open - ####.#
40 - Mar 6 - SES-18/19 - ####.#

39A - Feb 26 - Crew 6 - 1078.1
39A - Mar 10 - CRS 27 - ####.#
39A - ~Mar 24 - open - ####.#
39A - Apr 8 - ViaSat - heavy

if you assume Starlink 6-1 slots into SLC-40 on ~Feb 25 with it's previously mentioned booster 1076.3.  Then what boosters do CRS-27 and SES-18/19 use?  Unassigned boosters with assumed turnaround and next ready date as follows:

1058.16 - 75d - Mar 2
1067.10 - 45d - Mar 12
1060.16 - 75d - Mar 19
1069.6  - 45d - Mar 19
1073.7  - 45d - Mar 23
1062.13 - 45d - Mar 29

Of course SpaceX may decide to push the limits on turnaround times but assumptions above seem reasonable.  I could imagine them reassigning B1076.3 to CRS-27, and using 1058.16 for Starlink 6-1.  Then I guess 1067.10 to SES-18/19...  If SpaceX keeps up a 6-7 launch per month pace (say every 4.5d) from Florida, ALL with 45d avg turnarounds, they would need 10 boosters in rotation.  Right now they have 8 (assuming 1052 conversion underway), with a 9th (1078) being brought in for Crew 6.  Two of those nine have flown 15 times and are averaging ~75d turnarounds over last 4 missions.  I could see them needing 2-3 new F9 in the first half of this year, plus a center core for EchoStar.

On a 1070's+ booster they can do a normal 21 day turnaround. If the booster needs more than normal work then those days are added to the 21. At average of 45 days they are loping. Expect a rate of 30 days average if they need to launch more often. This will include the boosters that need more work or other challenges delaying the turnaround like lack of work space. They could do 6 at East coast and 2 at west coast for 8 in a month. Making for the year an average per month of some value >7 per month. But even if they have some months at 4 or 5 then those handfull of months at 8 will raise the total of Falcon launches in the 70's to 80's.

Out of 14 reflights of a 1070's+ booster, only once has it flown in less than 41 days (SARah 1 @ 34d).  Average 60d turnaround.  I hope that in their time of need, they'll up the cadence.

Also, of note, in my previous writeup, I didn't mention that 1076 is expected to be converted to FH Side for EchoStar in May.  That will put additional strain on F9 supply.  I stick by my previous statement that more F9 first stages are needed if they want to keep up their Florida launch rate.

[meekGee]

I'm seeing a Florida F9 First Stage deficiency in the works.  Right now it's looking like this:

40 - Feb 17 - Inmarsat 6 - 1077.3
40 - ~Feb 25 - open - ####.#
40 - Mar 6 - SES-18/19 - ####.#

39A - Feb 26 - Crew 6 - 1078.1
39A - Mar 10 - CRS 27 - ####.#
39A - ~Mar 24 - open - ####.#
39A - Apr 8 - ViaSat - heavy

if you assume Starlink 6-1 slots into SLC-40 on ~Feb 25 with it's previously mentioned booster 1076.3.  Then what boosters do CRS-27 and SES-18/19 use?  Unassigned boosters with assumed turnaround and next ready date as follows:

1058.16 - 75d - Mar 2
1067.10 - 45d - Mar 12
1060.16 - 75d - Mar 19
1069.6  - 45d - Mar 19
1073.7  - 45d - Mar 23
1062.13 - 45d - Mar 29

Of course SpaceX may decide to push the limits on turnaround times but assumptions above seem reasonable.  I could imagine them reassigning B1076.3 to CRS-27, and using 1058.16 for Starlink 6-1.  Then I guess 1067.10 to SES-18/19...  If SpaceX keeps up a 6-7 launch per month pace (say every 4.5d) from Florida, ALL with 45d avg turnarounds, they would need 10 boosters in rotation.  Right now they have 8 (assuming 1052 conversion underway), with a 9th (1078) being brought in for Crew 6.  Two of those nine have flown 15 times and are averaging ~75d turnarounds over last 4 missions.  I could see them needing 2-3 new F9 in the first half of this year, plus a center core for EchoStar.

On a 1070's+ booster they can do a normal 21 day turnaround. If the booster needs more than normal work then those days are added to the 21. At average of 45 days they are loping. Expect a rate of 30 days average if they need to launch more often. This will include the boosters that need more work or other challenges delaying the turnaround like lack of work space. They could do 6 at East coast and 2 at west coast for 8 in a month. Making for the year an average per month of some value >7 per month. But even if they have some months at 4 or 5 then those handfull of months at 8 will raise the total of Falcon launches in the 70's to 80's.

Out of 14 reflights of a 1070's+ booster, only once has it flown in less than 41 days (SARah 1 @ 34d).  Average 60d turnaround.  I hope that in their time of need, they'll up the cadence.

Also, of note, in my previous writeup, I didn't mention that 1076 is expected to be converted to FH Side for EchoStar in May.  That will put additional strain on F9 supply.  I stick by my previous statement that more F9 first stages are needed if they want to keep up their Florida launch rate.

I don't understand the methodology.

Looking at the de-facto reflight period is only showing the current time between flights divided by the fleet size.  It's clearly an upper bound on turn-around time but not a very strong one, since the fleet size will always be larger than what's strictly necessary.

Since the production line exists, fleet size is probably a function of minimum production rate...  And the desire not to have an unreasonably large and idle fleet.

I bet the fleet size will stop increasing when at about twice of what is necessary to maintain the flight rate.

[crandles57]

I6-f2 is planned for 31 days so this looks to be possible.

Keeping up that rate may be harder than just doing it once, but if more employees are made available to the refurbishment team as needed then it looks like it should be possible to get considerable reduction even if not 45 days down to 30.

March 6 and March 10 are only 4 and 2 days earlier than your calculated Mar 2 and March 12 availability dates so just need a 41 and 43 day turnaround. B1067 has done both of those numbers so not restricted to just B1070+ boosters. 10% reduction in time from 45 days seems entirely plausible and while it might leave availability tight if number of boosters continued to only be 9 but combined with just one extra booster it might be sufficient.

Reducing 45 days to 30 days sounds a bit too hopeful to me but might be possible if there has been a lot of slack in the system or the team size has/will be increased.

[zubenelgenubi]

Still unchanged, as of this post; my bolds:
Ben Cooper's Launch Photography Viewing Guide, updated February 12:

The next SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch the Inmarsat 6 F2 satellite from pad 40 on February 17 at 10:58 p.m. EST. A Falcon 9 from pad 40 will launch a Starlink batch on late February TBD. A Falcon 9 from pad 39A will launch four astronauts to the ISS on Crew-6 on February 26 at 2:07 a.m. EST. And a Falcon 9 from pad 40 will launch the next pair of O3b mPOWER satellites for SES on late February.

[ATPTourFan]

Yes, that seems like the 5/6 day SLC-40 cadence now. 17 Feb, 28 Feb, 6 March. Rinse, repeat.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1625534745596641296

SpaceX nearly matched the upmass of the rest of the world in launch during Q4 of 2022, and that includes the launch of NASA's Space Launch System rocket.

brycetech.com/briefing

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1625536488422404097

This year should average around 400 tons of useful mass to orbit per quarter

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1625643762604216324

1600 tons would require ~90-100 Falcon 9 Starlink launches! SpaceX has dozens of non-Starlink Falcon launches scheduled this year, so I'm pretty sure this estimate assumes there will be several Starship Starlink launches in 2023...

[wannamoonbase]

If February had 30 or 31 days it would be a lot easier to fit 8 launches in.  It seems that it will be a tight fit if there are 8 flights this month.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1626664710769631235

Here's a mind-bending statistic for those who have followed the US launch industry for awhile: SpaceX has launched 21 rockets since ULA's last launch on Nov. 10 2022.

It’s 22 now with Inmarsat … !

[crandles57]

After 2 launches in quick succession seems a good time to note the rate.

12 launches in 49 days, 1 every 4.08 days
That is a rate of 89.4 in 2023

To reach 100 in the year would require 88 in 316 days 1 every 3.59 days or a rate of 101.6 per annum

This is a 13.7% increase from the rate so far this year.

13.7% perhaps doesn't sound a lot when 89.4 is compared to 2022 rate of 61 a 46.5% improvement and there is also a pad or maybe even 2 to come into use for Starship launches.

[DanClemmensen]

After 2 launches in quick succession seems a good time to note the rate.

12 launches in 49 days, 1 every 4.08 days
That is a rate of 89.4 in 2023

To reach 100 in the year would require 88 in 316 days 1 every 3.59 days or a rate of 101.6 per annum

This is a 13.7% increase from the rate so far this year.

13.7% perhaps doesn't sound a lot when 89.4 is compared to 2022 rate of 61 a 46.5% improvement and there is also a pad or maybe even 2 to come into use for Starship launches.

Call it twice a week from now until New Years. But remember the various constraints at pad 39A (conflicting launches, Falcon Heavy conversion) and no-launch periods on heavy air travel days. So statistically they need a typical rate of once a week from each Florida pad plus launches from Vandenberg because delays are inevitable in the real world. 100 in 2023 might actually be achievable, but each "normal" launch or recovery-zone weather delay cuts into their margin.

[Comga]

After 2 launches in quick succession seems a good time to note the rate.

12 launches in 49 days, 1 every 4.08 days
That is a rate of 89.4 in 2023

To reach 100 in the year would require 88 in 316 days 1 every 3.59 days or a rate of 101.6 per annum

This is a 13.7% increase from the rate so far this year.

13.7% perhaps doesn't sound a lot when 89.4 is compared to 2022 rate of 61 a 46.5% improvement and there is also a pad or maybe even 2 to come into use for Starship launches.

Call it twice a week from now until New Years. But remember the various constraints at pad 39A (conflicting launches, Falcon Heavy conversion) and no-launch periods on heavy air travel days. So statistically they need a typical rate of once a week from each Florida pad plus launches from Vandenberg because delays are inevitable in the real world. 100 in 2023 might actually be achievable, but each "normal" launch or recovery-zone weather delay cuts into their margin.

So, yes, depending on how you slice and extrapolate the recent pace, SpaceX may or may not hit Musk's 100 flight target in 2023.  (Both of which 1.00E+2 flights and 1.00 years are pretty arbitrary)
My metric is based on the last ten flights, against crandles' 12, so the results are slightly different.
The pace for the last ten is 94 per year, or one every 3.9 days.
This graph was posted at the start of the year, but a month and a half in shows continuing strong progress. 
A blue arrow has been casually drawn from the recent pace datum to around 100 at the end of the year.  It is not an unreasonable extrapolation.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1628021840865030146

Maj. Gen. Stephen Purdy shows this chart of increasing launch activities in his opening talk at the Space Mobility conference. The projected 42 launches from Vandenberg this year is “insane,” he says.

I guess SpaceX may be aiming for 25 to 30 out of those 42?

[zubenelgenubi]

Will there be a Starlink launch from LC-39A between Cargo Dragon SpX-27 and ViaSat-3 Americas (circa March 20)?

[GewoonLukas_]

Will there be a Starlink launch from LC-39A between Cargo Dragon SpX-27 and ViaSat-3 Americas (circa March 20)?

Probably not considering the pad turnaround with USSF-44 and USSF-67 was about 4 weeks.

[zubenelgenubi]

Looking ahead at March; I've included some of my deductions and inferences, marking them with question marks:

Launched in March:
Mar 2     KSC LC-39A         JRTI       Crew-6
Mar 3     Vand SLC-4E       OCISLY   Starlink 2-7
Mar 9     CCSFS SLC-40    LZ-1        OneWeb Flight 17
Mar 15   KSC LC-39A        ASOG     SpX-27
Mar 17   Vand SLC-4E      OCISLY   Starlink 2-8
Mar 17   CCSFS SLC-40   JRTI       SES-18/19
Mar 24   CCSFS SLC-40   ASOG     Starlink 5-5
Mar 29   CCSFS SLC-40   JRTI       Starlink 5-10

Scheduled to launch in March:
Apr 2 NET late Mar 30 31   Vand SLC-4E       LZ-4       1st SDA launch

Beyond March:
Apr 7              CCSFS SLC-40   ASOG   Intelsat 40e/TEMPO
Apr 9 NET 2   Vand SLC-4E      LZ-4    Transporter-7
Apr 18 8         KSC LC-39A        all 3 1st stages expended   ViaSat-3 Americas

Extensive edits through March.

[wannamoonbase]

Looking ahead at March; I've included some of my deductions and inferences, marking them with question marks:
Mar 1                       Vand SLC-4E      OCISLY   Starlink 2-7
Mar 2                       KSC LC-39A       JRTI        Crew-6
Mar 9                       CCSFS SLC-40   LZ-1        OneWeb Flight 17
Mar 12                     KSC LC-39A       ASDS      SpX-27
Mar 18                     CCSFS SLC-40   ASDS      SES-18/19
NET mid Mar          Vand SLC-4E      OCISLY   Starlink 2-8
NET Mar 22            Vand SLC-4E       LZ-4       1st SDA launch
NET late Mar          CCSFS SLC-40    ASDS     Starlink 5-5
NET end of? Mar   CCSFS SLC-40    ASDS     Starlink 6-2?

Beyond March:
Apr 7   CCSFS SLC-40   ASDS    Intelsat 40e/TEMPO
Apr 8   KSC LC-39A       all 3 1st stages expended   ViaSat-3 Americas

Extensive edits through March.

It would likely be on the manifest by now, but SLC40 looks like it could fit in a Starlink between yesterday and the 9th.  Say Saturday the 4th.

[Zed_Noir]

Looking ahead at March; I've included some of my deductions and inferences, marking them with question marks:
Mar 1                       Vand SLC-4E      OCISLY   Starlink 2-7
Mar 2                       KSC LC-39A       JRTI        Crew-6
Mar 9                       CCSFS SLC-40   LZ-1        OneWeb Flight 17
Mar 12                     KSC LC-39A       ASDS      SpX-27
Mar 18                     CCSFS SLC-40   ASDS      SES-18/19
NET mid Mar          Vand SLC-4E      OCISLY   Starlink 2-8
NET Mar 22            Vand SLC-4E       LZ-4       1st SDA launch
NET late Mar          CCSFS SLC-40    ASDS     Starlink 5-5
NET end of? Mar   CCSFS SLC-40    ASDS     Starlink 6-2?

Beyond March:
Apr 7   CCSFS SLC-40   ASDS    Intelsat 40e/TEMPO
Apr 8   KSC LC-39A       all 3 1st stages expended   ViaSat-3 Americas

Extensive edits through March.

It would likely be on the manifest by now, but SLC40 looks like it could fit in a Starlink between yesterday and the 9th.  Say Saturday the 4th.

Don't think so. No landing barge available. One ASDS is supporting the Crew-6 launch. The other ASDS is coming back after recovering the booster from the Starlink 6-1 launch on February 27th.

[mandrewa]

SpaceX launches nominally scheduled for March & the beginning of April:

Pad 39A
ISS Crew-6 (March 2) 39A
ISS Cargo Dragon-27 (March 12) 39A
Viasat-3 (Falcon Heavy) (NET April 8 ) 39A

Pad 4E
Starlink 2-7 (March 1) 4E
Starlink 2-8 (NET March) 4E
SDA Tranche 0 Flight 1 (NET March) 4E
Sarah 2/3 (NET April) 4E

Pad 40
OneWeb Flight 17 (March 9) 40
SES-18 & SES-19 (March 18) 40
WorldView Legion Flight 1 (NET March) 40
Starlink 6-2 (NET March) 40
Intelsat 40e/TEMPO (NET April 7) 40
O3b mPower 3/4 (NET April) 40

Pad unknown
Nusantara Lima (NET March)
Transporter-7 (NET April 1)
Starlink 2-2 (NET March)
Starlink 5-5 (NET late March)
Starlink 5-10 (NET March)
Starlink 6-3 (NET March)

Pad BC
Starship Launch #1 (NET March 15) BC

[crandles57]

Do we know of delays to USSF-36?

https://www.losangeles.spaceforce.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2531179/united-states-space-force-awards-four-task-orders-valued-at-385-million-in-supp/
says second quarter of FY23 which is Q1 of 2023 calendar year