SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread

[Comga]

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).

And set a new record for the most launches, 25, within one calendar year.
(That record was set two days ago, but instead of publishing the graph then, it seemed a good bet to wait for yesterday's launch. )

Note in passing:  A few days ago marked 15 years for me on NSF. 
Lifetime member.  Almost a post a day.  It's been real fun.  Thank you to all.
Most liked post: Telling of my conversation with Buzz Aldrin after the CRS-10 launch (with my hardware onboard). 
Worst post: Completely garbling orbital mechanics (Hint: Stop posting when your fever goes over 101 F.  Rule: Stop everything when it goes over 102.  But everyone has an excuse.)

[zubenelgenubi]

Hypothesis: Might we see first stage 1051 make a seventh flight in December, launching Starlink v1.0 Flight 16?

SpaceX appears to prefer to launch gaggles of Starlinks on the most-used boosters, saving less-used boosters for external customers?  So, not an option for SXM-7 or Turksat 5A.

SpaceX has had a month and a half to refurbish 1051, as of this posting.  It could be ready in December.

1058, 1059, 1061, are 1062 already spoken for.

As a follow-on hypothesis, might we see a fourth flight for first stage 1060, launching SXM-7 in December, when that booster becomes available?  1060 is likely the only other currently-at-the-Cape booster that would be refurbished before the end of December.

EDIT: Not quite, but the reality of assigning 1051 to SXM-7 is more exciting from an operational point of view.

[Jansen]

There are only two boosters will be available in December that are not assigned.

B1051.7 - Reprocessing (early Dec)
B1060.4 - Reprocessing (mid Dec)

Paying customers take priority over Starlink launches.

Right now you have SXM-7, Turksat 5A, and Transporter-1 as commercial customers that are supposed to launch in December. So that’s already only 2 boosters for 3 launches.

The next batch of boosters won’t be available until mid-late January.

Due to the current political situation and the amount of prestige that Turkey has placed, Turksat 5A is unlikely to be delayed.

It’s possible that B1051.7 will launch Starlink v1.0 L16 in December.

It’s been a week since that post, and a lot still depends on what’s going on with NROL-108. If it’s a major delay, it could open up a launch opportunity for SXM-7.

B1051.7 should be ready for launch by the Dec 2-7 timeframe from SLC-40, if NROL-108 doesn’t go up.

[gemmy0I]

As a follow-on hypothesis, might we see a fourth flight for first stage 1060, launching SXM-7 in December, when that booster becomes available?  1060 is likely the only other currently-at-the-Cape booster that would be refurbished before the end of December.

Agreed. 1060 isn't presently spoken for and should be ready "any day now" per the usual ~1-month refurbishment timeframe. Should be a comfortable turnaround for a hypothetical SXM-7 mission around the second week of December. Second week of December would also be a comfortable pad turnaround for SLC-40. The SXM-7 payload itself arrived at the Cape October 13 so, based on the typical workflow for commercial comsats, it should definitely be ready to launch then unless there are payload-side complications.

The big question, in my mind, is what happens if Turksat 5A is also ready to launch in December. The only remaining non-spoken-for booster that could conceivably be ready in time (assuming, as always, that neither 1052 nor 1053 make a surprise single-stick appearance) is 1051.7. But it would definitely be very surprising to see anything other than a Starlink payload go on the second .7, given historical patterns.

Part of me's wondering if they might borrow 1062 for a mission or two between now and the next GPS flight in July. The general assumption has been that it's "reserved" for GPS flights (at least through its .2) as a certification case study, similar to how 1061.2 is for Crew-2. But IIRC the public statements about 1062 haven't been as precise as those regarding 1061 - we know that the booster is planned to fly GPS III SV05, but not necessarily on its second flight.

If they do end up using 1062 for non-GPS missions between now and July, I feel like they'd prefer to fly SXM-7 on it, and leave 1060.4 for Turksat-5A. That way they can avoid having a high-visibility defense payload (GPS) flying on a booster previously occupied by a foreign government payload from a country that hasn't been especially friendly with the U.S. of late. Not that there is likely a risk in practice - it's hard to imagine a plausible scenario where a payload customer could stealthily affect a booster so as to compromise the security of a subsequent payload - but I can see there being optics concerns. The usual anti-SpaceX forces in Congress would no doubt make much hay over "critical national defense payloads sharing rockets with a frenemy nation with ties to Russia". 

What I find fascinating is that the NRO - whose top-secret payloads genuinely do have far greater security concerns than GPS satellites (which, while having some classified/sensitive components, are generally publicized and not restricted from being seen "on-camera" during launch webcasts and publicity photos; plus they're part of a constellation with redundancy such that the loss of one satellite wouldn't devastate the network) - seems far less concerned about the previous flights of its boosters. NROL-108 is supposed to be flying on B1059.5, which flew a foreign government Earth observation satellite on its previous flight. Clearly the NRO feels its security concerns are adequately addressed by whatever procedures and inspections SpaceX has in place, independent of the booster's previous passengers. But perhaps it's just a matter of a smaller (and less scrutinized, due to its secrecy) agency having less red tape.

[Jansen]

I’m getting indications that B1051.7 might launch as a quick turnaround Starlink opportunity before NROL-108. No confirmation yet.

[Jansen]

SFN's article on Sentinel-6 mentions that F9 1st stage B1063 will be reserved for the launch of DART next July.

We have a discussion about it in the DART thread:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47871.msg2157386#msg2157386

SpaceX has it tentatively planned for DART, but it is not necessarily exclusively reserved and will probably be available for other launches. It is also a backup launcher for Crew-2.

[lrk]

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.

You are suggesting a Starlink launch out of VAFB?  That would require the deployment of an ASDS to the west coast, since Starlink missions aren't capable of RTLS.  Unless they were to fly a partial stack of Starlinks, that is. 

[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.

You are suggesting a Starlink launch out of VAFB?  That would require the deployment of an ASDS to the west coast, since Starlink missions aren't capable of RTLS.  Unless they were to fly a partial stack of Starlinks, that is.

Indeed, maybe a half Starlink with some rideshares?
If only they could land down range, but that would be in Mexico.
Or maybe they ship 1063 to cape for a mission in januari/februari.
Time will tell.

[guckyfan]

Polar orbit has a minimum of 43 Starlink sats per plane. Should not Falcon be able to launch that number with RTLS? Fewer planes means long drift times. Maybe better and faster to target each of 10 planes directly.

[r8ix]

Does anybody know of a shared public calendar (iCal or google Cal) with the SpaceX launches kept ?

[DreamyPickle]

Polar orbit has a minimum of 43 Starlink sats per plane. Should not Falcon be able to launch that number with RTLS?

Where is that number from?

[Jakusb]

Does anybody know of a shared public calendar (iCal or google Cal) with the SpaceX launches kept ?

No, but I use SpaceXNow App. Works nice. But iCal would be a nice added function for them.

[guckyfan]

Polar orbit has a minimum of 43 Starlink sats per plane. Should not Falcon be able to launch that number with RTLS?

Where is that number from?

From the SpaceX proposed modification of the constellation.

Inclination 97.6°, altitude 560 km, 4 planes 43 sats, 6 planes 58 sats.

If they fill all 10 planes with 43 sats, they can fill 6 planes up to 58 at a slower pace.

[r8ix]

Does anybody know of a shared public calendar (iCal or google Cal) with the SpaceX launches kept ?

No, but I use SpaceXNow App. Works nice. But iCal would be a nice added function for them.

Y, I've got that one, but it'd be really nice to have something that automatically keeps my calendar updated...

[Jansen]

Does anybody know of a shared public calendar (iCal or google Cal) with the SpaceX launches kept ?

Try this one:
https://nextspaceflight.com/calendar/

[Jansen]

Polar orbit has a minimum of 43 Starlink sats per plane. Should not Falcon be able to launch that number with RTLS?

Where is that number from?

There is a larger proposal to modify the majority of SpaceX’s constellation. The urgent request for the polar shell is just a part of it.

[r8ix]

Does anybody know of a shared public calendar (iCal or google Cal) with the SpaceX launches kept ?

Try this one:
https://nextspaceflight.com/calendar/

Thanks! That one's pretty good, just wish there were a way to limit it to SpaceX...

[Jansen]

Apparently the problem with NROL-108 will take longer to resolve than expected.

As a result B1051.7 will launch SXM-7 instead of a Starlink mission as there is now a sufficient gap. The next flight after that will tentatively be NROL-108 on B1059.5 if the issues are resolved, then Turksat 5A on B1060.4 in late December/early January.

[gongora]

Apparently the problem with NROL-108 will take longer to resolve than expected.

As a result B1051.7 will launch SXM-7 instead of a Starlink mission as there is now a sufficient gap. The next flight after that will tentatively be NROL-108 on B1059.5 if the issues are resolved, then Turksat 5A on B1060.4 in late December/early January.

You state a lot of assumptions like they're facts.

[Jansen]

You state a lot of assumptions like they're facts.

Should be confirmation soon from the usual sources.