SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread

[zubenelgenubi]

Could this be Transporter 4?

Given the fact that Ben Cooper lists Transporter 4 as being early April and doesn't mention LZ landing, I'd say it's most likely the case that one is T-4.

April; no mention of early April on his website, most recent update dated Feb 24.

A Falcon 9 from pad 40 will launch the Transporter-4 smallsat rideshare mission on April.

Nextspaceflight lists as "NET April."

[scr00chy]

https://techcrunch.com/2022/02/28/nasa-extends-spacexs-commercial-crew-contract-by-three-missions-for-900-million

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-awards-spacex-additional-crew-flights-to-space-station

NASA has awarded three additional missions to Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, California, for crew transportation services to the International Space Station as part of its Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract. The CCtCap modification, following the agency’s notice of intent to procure the flights in December 2021, brings the total missions for SpaceX to nine and allows NASA to maintain an uninterrupted U.S. capability for human access to the space station.

This is a firm fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract modification for the Crew-7, Crew-8, and Crew-9 missions, bringing the total contract value to $3,490,872,904. The period of performance runs through March 31, 2028. The current sole source modification does not preclude NASA from seeking additional contract modifications in the future for additional transportation services as needed.

In 2014, NASA awarded the CCtCap contracts to Boeing and SpaceX through a public-private partnership as part of the agency’s Commercial Crew Program. Under CCtCap, NASA certifies that a provider’s space transportation system meets the agency’s requirements prior to flying missions with astronauts.

SpaceX was certified by NASA for crew transportation in November 2020, and currently its third crew rotation mission for the agency is in orbit. As part of the missions, SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 rocket transport up to four astronauts along with critical cargo to the space station.

For information about NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, visit: https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew.

Guessing based on recent contract totals, looks like maybe around $755 million for the three flights?

The original contract was 2.6B so that would suggest 900M difference. Or were there some adjustments made to the contract before this? I seem to recall something about additional parachute testing that NASA ended up paying for, but I'm not sure where to look for this information.

[gongora]

Guessing based on recent contract totals, looks like maybe around $755 million for the three flights?

The original contract was 2.6B so that would suggest 900M difference. Or were there some adjustments made to the contract before this? I seem to recall something about additional parachute testing that NASA ended up paying for, but I'm not sure where to look for this information.

Last total I see for the contract in FPDS (early February) is $2.735B.  Unless NASA actually says the amount of this extension it's hard to figure out the real number.

[soltasto]

Guessing based on recent contract totals, looks like maybe around $755 million for the three flights?

The number I came up with is $755,125,510.00

[vaporcobra]

Guessing based on recent contract totals, looks like maybe around $755 million for the three flights?

Just for reference, that equates to about $63M per seat instead of the ~$55M NASA is paying for the first six.

[realnouns]

0168-EX-ST-2022

This application uses information from previous grant 1994-EX-ST-2021. This STA is necessary to authorize launch vehicle communications for Mission 1724 Starlink Group 4-12 from Cape Canaveral FL at LC-40 CCAFS or LC-39a at KSC, and the experimental recovery operation following the Falcon 9 launch. Includes sub-orbital first stage, and orbital second stage.

ASDS North  32  37  20   West  75  49  44

0447-EX-ST-2022

This application uses information from previous grant 0155-EX-ST-2022. This STA is necessary to authorize launch vehicle communications for Mission 1739 Starlink Group 4-14 from Cape Canaveral FL at LC-40 CCAFS or LC-39a at KSC, and the experimental recovery operation following the Falcon 9 launch. Includes sub-orbital first stage, and orbital second stage.

ASDS    North  32  37  20   West  75  49  44

Starlink 4-12 & 4-14 FCC applications indicate a return to northeast trajectories

[zubenelgenubi]

Starlink 4-13 not yet announced.  Perhaps it will be the next Vandenberg Starlink, which is not expected until NET May?

0447-EX-ST-2022

This application uses information from previous grant 0155-EX-ST-2022. This STA is necessary to authorize launch vehicle communications for Mission 1739 Starlink Group 4-14 from Cape Canaveral FL at LC-40 CCAFS or LC-39a at KSC, and the experimental recovery operation following the Falcon 9 launch. Includes sub-orbital first stage, and orbital second stage. Trajectory data will be provided directly to NTIA, USAF, and NASA. All downrange Earth stations are receive-only. The recovery portion is limited to two functions: 1) pre-launch checkout test of the command uplink from an onshore station at launch site, and 2) command of landed stage from recovery boat. Launch licensing authority is FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation.

ASDS    North  32  37  20   West  75  49  44

[Orbiter]

0450-EX-ST-2022, Mission 1581   NET Apr. 22
From Florida
ASDS  North  27  46  48  West  73  38  10

Looks like a GTO mission - Nilesat-301 perhaps?

[zubenelgenubi]

0450-EX-ST-2022, Mission 1581   NET Apr. 22
From Florida
ASDS  North  27  46  48  West  73  38  10

Looks like a GTO mission - Nilesat-301 perhaps?

Or SES-22.

[Alexphysics]

With landing at that place it could be any GTO sat or even the O3b mPOWER mission 1 which is supposedly not expendable and needs low inclination so a launch straight out to the east would also be needed.

[zubenelgenubi]

With landing at that place it could be any GTO sat or even the O3b mPOWER mission 1 which is supposedly not expendable and needs low inclination so a launch straight out to the east would also be needed.

Nilesat-301, SES-22, and the first mPower launch are the only Falcon 9 launches that fit the bill for April/second annual quarter, according to our current NSF launch schedule.

The first two will be overseas deliveries from Thales Alenia, and the third will be delivered from Boeing.

If there are no corporate announcements, then watching for heavy cargo aircraft landing at one of the Space Coast airports would be an option.

[jpo234]

Guessing based on recent contract totals, looks like maybe around $755 million for the three flights?

Just for reference, that equates to about $63M per seat instead of the ~$55M NASA is paying for the first six.

That's pretty close to the inflation adjustment from 2014.

[Alexphysics]

Transporter mission schedules

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1501307339651141637

[ZachS09]

Can SpaceX launch other payloads besides Starlink?

There’s too many Starlink missions for me to count, unless there’s a demand to get all those sats up in record time.

How many Starlink missions do they have planned anyway?

[wannamoonbase]

Can SpaceX launch other payloads besides Starlink?

There’s too many Starlink missions for me to count, unless there’s a demand to get all those sats up in record time.

How many Starlink missions do they have planned anyway?

If Starship was delayed or to never come on line the F9 would be flying endless missions to build, renew and replenish Starlink.

They can fly 50 times a year for many years to come in that case. 

One fact that many people miss is that yes Starlink was created as a service to make money to fund Mars ambitions.  However, an unmentioned purpose is to keep the F9 busy.  It has long been studied that reuseable rockets only make sense at a higher flight rate.  Elon knew that and that's why they launched Starlink after they had booster reuse established.  Both reasons compliment and require each other.

[Robotbeat]

It’s not quite necessary for F9 to launch 50 times per year, though. Probably viable at just 10-15 per year.

If Starship is delayed, I could see SpaceX attempting fully reuse again. Falcon 9 is such a dang workhorse. Multiple stages have more than 10 flights already, no reason they couldn’t do 20-30 launches per core. They’ve done 10 launches in 10 weeks and there might be sufficient demand for over 100 launches per year.

But I think they’ll get Starship going soon.

[wannamoonbase]

It’s not quite necessary for F9 to launch 50 times per year, though. Probably viable at just 10-15 per year.

If Starship is delayed, I could see SpaceX attempting fully reuse again. Falcon 9 is such a dang workhorse. Multiple stages have more than 10 flights already, no reason they couldn’t do 20-30 launches per core. They’ve done 10 launches in 10 weeks and there might be sufficient demand for over 100 launches per year.

But I think they’ll get Starship going soon.

They could do 10-15 flights a year and would only need 3 cores to do.  Wouldn't that be something to see?

I've wondered what a fully reuseable vehicle would look like that is smaller than Starship.  They could combine the Merlin with the stainless steel construction and have something flying quickly.  Whether Merlin or Raptor, it would be interesting vehicle.   (Maybe Blue Origin will spend a decade developing that capability)

But like you said, Starship will be flying soon enough. 

[jpo234]

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1505879400641871872

Notable: Important space officials in Germany say the best course for Europe, in the near term, would be to move six stranded Galileo satellites, which had been due to fly on Soyuz, to three Falcon 9 rockets.

[Asteroza]

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1505879400641871872

Notable: Important space officials in Germany say the best course for Europe, in the near term, would be to move six stranded Galileo satellites, which had been due to fly on Soyuz, to three Falcon 9 rockets.

Considering the likely fate of Sentinel 1-B, Sentinel 1-C and 1-D launch may be moved up, necessitating a SpaceX launch as well...

[baldusi]

[...]

Notable: Important space officials in Germany say the best course for Europe, in the near term, would be to move six stranded Galileo satellites, which had been due to fly on Soyuz, to three Falcon 9 rockets.

Considering the likely fate of Sentinel 1-B, Sentinel 1-C and 1-D launch may be moved up, necessitating a SpaceX launch as well...

I'm wondering if the current circumstances won't be used by many users to "Oh! Regrettably we are forced to launch on F9", which was probably what they would have chosen had they be free to do so.