SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Should this section  (not this thread) host the upcoming soon Starship Orbital launch operations and preceding actions?

The start of a thread should probably not start until SpaceX starts stacking the SH and possibly not until the SS is scheduled to be stacked on top. Since the thread if made available for discussion would likely get overrun. It is suggested that this thread for the orbital flight be an Updates only thread. With any discussion being offloaded to the Starship section multitude of threads.

The reason I am posting this is that in even the last month the orbital flight went from a probable in 2021 to now a highly likely in just 2 months from now. Such a thread in this section was not even a consideration until recently.

I don't anticipate a thread start until ~Mid June though. So there is time for a discussion on this subject.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

May 20 SLC-40 (11 days)
B1063.2 Starlink v1.0 L28

We'll soon see if SpaceX fits a 4th Starlink launch in May between Flight 26 and SXM-8, from SLC-40--also if they launch B1063 in Florida.

[Jansen]

May 20 SLC-40 (11 days)
B1063.2 Starlink v1.0 L28

We'll soon see if SpaceX fits a 4th Starlink launch in May between Flight 26 and SXM-8, from SLC-40--also if they launch B1063 in Florida.

Like I said in the main post, there are a few assumptions made. But the only two boosters available before June 1 would be B1061 and B1063.

[ZachF]

So far this year SpaceX has put up ~61% of the world's adjusted tonnage to orbit, and ~57% of the world's people

SpaceX is on track to put up ~500,000kg of adjusted tonnage this year, equal to ULA's 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 totals combined.

Thanks a lot for sharing!
Could you tell (briefly) how do you calculate DV-adjusted tonnage?

Basically, it uses the rocket equation, and an ISP of 320 (typical of hypergolic orbit raising rockets) and applies it based on the the delta-V difference between it's achieved orbit, and the DV it would take to get to 185km, 28deg LEO. It is launcher and launch site independent, ie a 5500kg GTO-1800 orbit will count the same value no matter where it was launched from out what it was launched on.

When a satellite is dropped off in GTO, it will need to raise itself to geostationary, and most satellites still use hypergolic rockets to do this. The typical 5500kg Falcon 9 GTO-1800 payload will mass ~3,100kg once it lifts itself to geostationary with a 320 ISP rocket. If it was lifted to GTO-1500, it would only need to mass 5000kg to hit an on-orbit mass mass of 3100kg.

Roughly, the multipliers end up looking like this:

e^((DV difference)/3136)

~1.067 LEO-ISSS
~1.250 SSO
~2.219 GTO-1800
~2.442 GTO-1500
~2.730 TLI
~3.940 Direct Geo

So, under my DV adjustment system:

A Delta IV heavy lifting a 6000kg payload to direct GEO counts as a ~23,640kg DV-adj payload
An Ariane 5 lifting 9,500kg to GTO-1500 counts as a ~23,200kg DV-adj payload
A Falcon 9 lifting a 15,600kg Starlink payload counts as a ~16,570kg DV-adj payload
A Falcon 9 lifting 5,500kg to GTO-1800 counts as a ~12,200kg DV-adjusted payload
And a Saturn V lifting 44,000kg to TLI counts as a ~120,000kg DV-adjusted payload

etc, etc...

You'll also notice that using my geosat numbers above, a ~5500kg payload to GTO-1800, a ~5000kg payload to GTO-1500, and a ~3100kg to direct GEO, will all have the same value, as they will have the same on-orbit mass using a 320 ISP orbit-raising motor.

[ZachF]

So far this year SpaceX has put up ~61% of the world's adjusted tonnage to orbit, and ~57% of the world's people

SpaceX is on track to put up ~500,000kg of adjusted tonnage this year, equal to ULA's 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 totals combined.

Awesome table, I'd love to know where you get the data from.  I'd been unsuccessfully looking for something like that a few years ago when I was trying to compare payload capacity of a single starship flying once a month per year to the yearly world demand for launch capacity.

I've been compiling it on excel for myself for several years.

Here is the file, be aware that it's still a bit incomplete. Bolded "APV" (AA) is the DV adjusted payload value. Also breaks it down by satellite.

[dcp123]

May 20 SLC-40 (11 days)
B1063.2 Starlink v1.0 L28

We'll soon see if SpaceX fits a 4th Starlink launch in May between Flight 26 and SXM-8, from SLC-40--also if they launch B1063 in Florida.

Like I said in the main post, there are a few assumptions made. But the only two boosters available before June 1 would be B1061 and B1063.

That's why my thinking is that if SpaceX has promised to make best efforts to give Sirius XM a launch on June 1, they must be planning to use 1063 for that launch. 

- If they're holding B1063 out of StarLink launches to keep it available for SXM-8, that would explain why no launches have yet been scheduled on B1063 since it was shipped east.
- They can't be completely certain that they'll be done refurbishing B1060 by then.  That would be pretty close to a record turnaround.
- B1061 would only be slightly better.
- B1049, B1051, and B1058 would all require a record turnaround to be available on June 1.  They're not in contention.
- SpaceX has only twice turned a first stage around in less than 60 days before a launch of anything other than a StarLink flight.
- The shortest turnaround before an non-StarLink flight was 49 days and that was before a rideshare flight (no extremely expensive cargo was on board).
- B1063 is the only first stage known to exist that should require no refurbishment between now and June 1.

The only real alternatives I see are either that they've already given up on a June 1 launch or that B1068 will soon be in Brownsville for testing prior to use for SXM-8 and neither of those seem very likely.

Edited to add:  But of course, I could be dead wrong.

[wannamoonbase]

It seems possible that Starlink L28 waits still after the commercial launch rush at the start of June.

Seems it would need to be announced very soon to clear the pads and ASDS fleet before June 1. 

If that does happen then the fully booster fleet will be ready in June.  They could have the hardware for 7 or 8 flights at 1 per week.  Rolling right into the FH launch.

And that FH launch will take 39A out for a bit to change over. 

June and July are going to be fun!

[dcp123]

It seems possible that Starlink L28 waits still after the commercial launch rush at the start of June.

Seems it would need to be announced very soon to clear the pads and ASDS fleet before June 1. 

If that does happen then the fully booster fleet will be ready in June.  They could have the hardware for 7 or 8 flights at 1 per week.  Rolling right into the FH launch.

And that FH launch will take 39A out for a bit to change over. 

June and July are going to be fun!

Agreed.

I don't think it's really possible to launch Starlink L28 in May, Sirius XM-8 on June 1 and CRS-22 on June 3.  Barring a B1068 being rolled out ASAP, L28 or SXM-8 would have to use B1060. For reasons explained above, I don't think that can be SXM-8 on a 33-day turnaround.  If B1060 matched the previous record 27-day turnaround, the earliest L28 could launch on B1060 would be May 26.  If all the stars alligned perfectly, it might be possible to launch L28 on B1060 from pad 39A on May 26, land it on an ASDS, launch SXM-8 on B1063 from pad 40 on June 1, land it on the other ASDS, and launch CRS-22 on B1067 from pad 39A on June 3, and land it on the first ASDS, but SpaceX would have to be crazy to plan around that and I doubt NASA or Sirius would be thrilled by scheduling that might put their launch dates in question.

But once SXM-8 and CRS-22 are launched, B1060, B1049, B1051 and B1058 if it launched on May 15, as planned, could all be finished refurbishing and ready for use sometime in June in roughly that order and B1063 (assuming it carries SXM-8 on or about June 1) and B1067 could become available in July.  They may be constrained by the combination of weather and pad and ASDS availabilty for the next couple months.

[Jansen]

I don't think it's really possible to launch Starlink L28 in May, Sirius XM-8 on June 1 and CRS-22 on June 3.  Barring a B1068 being rolled out ASAP, L28 or SXM-8 would have to use B1060. For reasons explained above, I don't think that can be SXM-8 on a 33-day turnaround.  If B1060 matched the previous record 27-day turnaround, the earliest L28 could launch on B1060 would be May 26.

You’ve started out with the premise that SXM-8 will launch on B1063, and constructed all of your supporting arguments in reverse.

Instead of B1060’s previous turnaround of 27 days supporting its use on SXM-8, you argue that since it has only done it once before, it’s unlikely to do so again.

You keep insisting that SXM wants B1063 for some reason, even though SXM-7 flew on B1051-7 and the company has no issues with high number reuse. In fact, with the way the contract is structured as a service, I doubt SXM has paid for booster selection at all.

SXM-8 might fly on B1063, but doubtfully for the reasons you listed.

[dcp123]

I don't think it's really possible to launch Starlink L28 in May, Sirius XM-8 on June 1 and CRS-22 on June 3.  Barring a B1068 being rolled out ASAP, L28 or SXM-8 would have to use B1060. For reasons explained above, I don't think that can be SXM-8 on a 33-day turnaround.  If B1060 matched the previous record 27-day turnaround, the earliest L28 could launch on B1060 would be May 26.

You’ve started out with the premise that SXM-8 will launch on B1063, and constructed all of your supporting arguments in reverse.

Instead of B1060’s previous turnaround of 27 days supporting its use on SXM-8, you argue that since it has only done it once before, it’s unlikely to do so again.

You keep insisting that SXM wants B1063 for some reason, even though SXM-7 flew on B1051-7 and the company has no issues with high number reuse. In fact, with the way the contract is structured as a service, I doubt SXM has paid for booster selection at all.

SXM-8 might fly on B1063, but doubtfully for the reasons you listed.

You say that I "keep insisting that SXM wants B1063 for some reason..."  My reasons aren't mysterious.  I listed at least seven of them in my May 10 comment.  You're welcome to disagree with them and I did even admit that I could be dead wrong in them, but please don't pretend that I just asserted that SXM-8 had to go on B1063 without giving any explanation of my reasoning.

I also did consider the possibility of Starlink L28 launching on B1063 and SXM-8 launching on B1060, but that goes against all of the points in my May 10 comment whope solving only one of the problems identified in my comment earlier today.

None of my points related even slightly to the number of reuses of any of the rockets.  Apparently, that is a concern of yours.  It is not a concern of mine.

To date only one non-Starlink cargo has launched on a particularly short turnaround.  Now, I have to concede that the prior launch in question was of SXM-7 after a 56-day turnaround, but launching SXM-8 on B1060 on June 1 would be a 33-day turnaround, which is quite a bit less than 56 days.  My concern with a commercial launch on a short turnaround is less that the paying customers will think that SpaceX may miss things during such a rushed turnaround, although I think that is a concern, and more that turnaround times are not that predictable and, without another rocket siting around ready to go, SpaceX can't promise a launch on June 1 on a rocket that just flew on 29 April.  I suspect most customers would rather have a date a bit more certain than "June 1 if there are no difficulties in the refurbishment."

But, keeping in mind that my point was the improbability of Starlink L28 occuring in May, let's consider how launching SXM-8 on something other than B1063 changes things.  For SXM-8 to launch on June 1, the only other potentially available first stage would be B1060.  That would have to be a 33-day turnaround, which would be the third-shortest turnaround ever for a Falcon 9.  Paid commercial launches clearly get priority over Starlink launches.  Would SpaceX really be so confident of B1060's readiness on June 1 that it would make the agreed launch date of SXM-8 dependent on that readiness just so SpaceX could launch another Starlink flight in May?  Would SXM be fine with that or would it ask SpaceX to delay its Starlink flight a couple of weeks to let SXM be launched on a rocket that is presumably certain to be ready on June 1.

You either didn't read it didn't understand the reasons I gave on 10 May for my opinion that, if SXM launches on 1 June it will probably be on B1063, then you assumed a basis for my opinion that I never hinted at and did not consider, you never set out what you expect to launch on which rocket and when as an alternative to the scenarios I described, and then you wrapped it all in a layer of rudeness.

You can do better.  Try harder to consider other people's points, set out the reasons for any disagreements, and do it all politely.  Simply saying that I'm wrong and that SXM is fine with highly reused rockets, which I never suggested they weren't, isn't making a point.  It's just shouting incoherently.

[Jansen]

Sorry I hurt your feelings.

I never said you were wrong. I pointed out the flaws in your logic. Sorry you took it the wrong way.

[Jansen]

Confirmed in bold, rest is estimated

B1049 - Starlink v1.0 L25
B1051 - Starlink v1.0 L27
B1058 - Available now Starlink L26?
B1060 - Reprocessing - June 1 (32 days)
B1063 - Available now Starlink L28?

B1061 - Reserved Inspiration4?
B1062 - Reserved GPS III SV05
B1067 - Reserved CRS-22 June 3


May 09 SLC-40
B1051.10 - Starlink v1.0 L27

May 14 LC-39A (10 days pad turnaround)
B1058 (37 days last launch) Starlink v1.0 L26

May 20 SLC-40 (11 days)
B1063.2 Starlink v1.0 L28

June 1 SLC-40 (12 days)
B1060.8? (32 days)- SXM-8

June 3 LC-39A (20 days)
B1067.1 - CRS-22

June 17 SLC-40 (16 days)
B1062.2 - GPS III SV05


Best estimation based on booster processing and availability.

Assumptions are that B1061 will be used for Inspiration4 and NASA workflow will again require long lead time for CRS-22. Also that B1063 will be put into rotation for Starlink, but that might not happen. If so, L28 gets bumped to June.

Now that B1063.2 has been confirmed for L28, the two most likely options for SXM-8 are B1060 and B1061 if it is not reserved for Inspiration4.

I’m thinking SXM-8 might be delayed a few days to 04 June. Seems too tight with pad turnaround and ASDS availability.

[wannamoonbase]

SXM-8 sliding to after CRS would make sense and help take pressure off the ASDS fleet.

Really great to see 63 get an assignment.  June is really stacking up to be a busy month.  They can probably so as many as the ASDS will support.

[Jansen]

SXM-8 sliding to after CRS would make sense and help take pressure off the ASDS fleet.

Really great to see 63 get an assignment.  June is really stacking up to be a busy month.  They can probably so as many as the ASDS will support.

I suspect there is an issue with the SXM-8 launch, hence inserting L28. Twelve days is pretty much the full LV integration workflow. If they had L28 planned it would likely have been sooner.

Might see five F9 launches in June!

[Orbiter]

You know I'm curious to see which booster gets assigned for Crew-3 if B1067 is being reserved for Inspiration4. Will be interesting to see if a new booster pops up at McGregor soon.

[cwr]

You know I'm curious to see which booster gets assigned for Crew-3 if B1067 is being reserved for Inspiration4. Will be interesting to see if a new booster pops up at McGregor soon.

I can't point to a specific reference but my recollection is that during one of
the press conferences for crew 2 it was mentioned that 1061.3 would be used for Inspiration 4.

Again I can't quote a reference but my notes say that 1067.1 is for CRS-22
and 1067.2 is for Crew 3.

Carl

[gongora]

Jared Isaacman tweeted a couple days ago that 1067 is likely going to fly Inspiration 4.  That's the most current information.

[Jansen]

https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/status/1393402386845208579

It doesn’t sound like he knows for sure, and I don’t know he has much input into it either.

[ZachF]

There have been a lot of launches since my last post, so here is an updated scorecard.

With ~38% of the year over, SpaceX has launched 56% of the world's adjusted tonnage to orbit.

Falcon is on pace to beat the one-year adjusted record for an LV family, and SpaceX could be close to beating the 1988 Record the USSR set for largest tonnage sent by a single entity. The US on the whole will very likely beat the all-time tonnage record for a country this year too... big doings!

I think this year will also beat 1985 for the most adjusted tonnage sent to orbit too.

I also attached a chart of LV payload history (Adjusted tonnage to orbit again)

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

July seems to be without any scheduled launches now. Unless Transporter 2 slips into July from June that is. Such that other than for weather which can be good or bad like an on/off switch in the month of July. So there could be 5-6 launches or just 2. SpaceX is likely to fill up the month with Starlink launches as long as the weather is good. Weather for the Florida east coast in July through September is as always a big It can be completely at ease with an occasional rain showers/thunderstorms lasting barely a half day or it can be riddled with multiple Tropical storms. Such that a long enough period with good enough weather in order to launch can be a usual occurrence to that of a rare occurrence.

SpaceX's plan should be to maximize use of the good weather opportunities.

ADDED:
Situation on Boosters and pads going into June.
Boosters available for use likely by:
1060.8 -  26 May
1049.10 - 18 June
1051.11 - 14 June
1058.9 - 12 June
There is still in my mind at least as to whether 1063 is really at the Cape vs still being in VAFB. We will know soon if it shows up on L28 on 26 May.
If it is at the Cape then
1063.3 - 23 June
Also with a launch on June 3 with 1067.1 it would be available again by the last day of June or the 1st of July.

Next is pad availability launch dates:
40 - available after 27 June. But not available before the June 17th  date for GPS III. At least currently with GPS III scheduled for 17 June.
39A - available after 13 June.
Such that pads and boosters are available for 3 additional launch opportunities in June besides the 2 scheduled on June 3 and 17th.

Somewhere in one of those launch opportunity dates is probably the SXM launch with the other 2 being Starlink. Note is that Transporter 2 is likely only to launch from 40. So a late June very early July date is consistent with the current 40 availabilities.

Such that it is likely that at least 1 Starlink launch (L29) occuring in June and possibly 2 (L30).

Going into July there should not be any problems with booster availabilities to support as many as 5 launches in the month of July.