SpaceX Manifest Discussion Thread

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1549078643673927683

Falcon 9 has completed 31 missions so far this year, delivering ~351 metric tons to orbit – carrying astronauts & research to the @space_station, deploying Starlink to provide global high-speed internet, as well as many other critical payloads for our commercial & gov customers

[alugobi]

Latest article by Eric Berger.

[scr00chy]

It looks like there is currently no LC-39A launch scheduled for August.

- Is there another Starlink launch we don't know about?
- Is 4-26 actually launching from LC-39A instead of SLC-40, as was reported?
- Is more than one O3b mPOWER mission expected to launch in August? (the first one is reportedly planned for August from SLC-40)
- Is SpaceX planning on doing maintenance on the pad or something?
- Is this intended to minimize disruptions to the Starship pad build-up?

EDIT: Never mind, I somehow missed that Starlink 4-27 is NET August. I suspect that's the mission that will launch from LC-39A after Starlink 4-25.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1550162624964329473

Sirangelo: supply chain issues impacting commercial cargo missions. [NG-18 has slipped two months because of this.] Also worried launch activity at LC-39A is reaching “overload stage” affecting commercial cargo and crew.

Not quite sure how to interpret this. He’s saying that too many non-NASA SpaceX launches at 39A is/may cause delays to SpaceX ISS launches?

[DanClemmensen]

Sirangelo: supply chain issues impacting commercial cargo missions. [NG-18 has slipped two months because of this.] Also worried launch activity at LC-39A is reaching “overload stage” affecting commercial cargo and crew.

Not quite sure how to interpret this. He’s saying that too many non-NASA SpaceX launches at 39A is/may cause delays to SpaceX ISS launches?

How hard or how expensive is it for SpaceX to shift non-Dragon missions to SLC-40?

[scr00chy]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1550162624964329473

Sirangelo: supply chain issues impacting commercial cargo missions. [NG-18 has slipped two months because of this.] Also worried launch activity at LC-39A is reaching “overload stage” affecting commercial cargo and crew.

Not quite sure how to interpret this. He’s saying that too many non-NASA SpaceX launches at 39A is/may cause delays to SpaceX ISS launches?

Clarification:

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1550170367871811585

[FutureSpaceTourist]

I thought SpaceX put other missions in the schedule gaps so as to not impact ISS?

I guess may get a bit more interesting with critical FH launches, but there aren’t many of those. With the pretty quick pad turnaround times, not sure it’s a big deal.

[Comga]

Tracking Falcon 9 launches since the inaugural flight
One metric is the number of launches in the last 12 months
SpaceX just drove that to 44
Because there was a lack of launches in Q3 2021, this number should keep growing for next two months.
Another is the recent rate, calculated as the year divided by the average of the last ten launch intervals.
The latter has again come up just shy of 80.
(Amazing  Had to expand the Y scaling to fit it in.)

[AC in NC]

Another is the recent rate, calculated as the year divided by the average of the last ten launch intervals.
The latter has again come up just shy of 80.

Stretching the point to near-breaking:

They just dropped the 6-launch in a month window from 28 days (April) to 17 days (July).  If you tack 3 days onto the 17 before starting the next 6-launch burst and kept that pace, it's 110/yr

[r8ix]

Another is the recent rate, calculated as the year divided by the average of the last ten launch intervals.
The latter has again come up just shy of 80.

Stretching the point to near-breaking:

They just dropped the 6-launch in a month window from 28 days (April) to 17 days (July).  If you tack 3 days onto the 17 before starting the next 6-launch burst and kept that pace, it's 110/yr

And now we've got to wait about 9 days, and it seems like forever...

[AmigaClone]

Another is the recent rate, calculated as the year divided by the average of the last ten launch intervals.
The latter has again come up just shy of 80.

Stretching the point to near-breaking:

They just dropped the 6-launch in a month window from 28 days (April) to 17 days (July).  If you tack 3 days onto the 17 before starting the next 6-launch burst and kept that pace, it's 110/yr

I can see five factors that would prevent that rate.
   1) Limits listed in 'https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/environmental/nepa_docs/SpaceX_Falcon_Program_Final_EA_and_FONSI.pdf'.
         For 2022 that indicates 10 FH and 10 F9 at LC 39A and 44 F9 at SLC 40.
         For 2023-2025 that indicates 10 FH and 10 F9 at LC 39A and 50 F9 launches at SLC 40.
       
   2) Extra time needed to prepare LC 39A for a crewed launch.
   3) Extra time needed to prepare LC 39A for a Falcon Heavy launch.
   4) Other launch providers at Cape Canaveral.
   5) Weather

[Robotbeat]

Another is the recent rate, calculated as the year divided by the average of the last ten launch intervals.
The latter has again come up just shy of 80.

Stretching the point to near-breaking:

They just dropped the 6-launch in a month window from 28 days (April) to 17 days (July).  If you tack 3 days onto the 17 before starting the next 6-launch burst and kept that pace, it's 110/yr

I can see five factors that would prevent that rate.
   1) Limits listed in 'https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/environmental/nepa_docs/SpaceX_Falcon_Program_Final_EA_and_FONSI.pdf'.
         For 2022 that indicates 10 FH and 10 F9 at LC 39A and 44 F9 at SLC 40.
         For 2023-2025 that indicates 10 FH and 10 F9 at LC 39A and 50 F9 launches at SLC 40.
       
   2) Extra time needed to prepare LC 39A for a crewed launch.
   3) Extra time needed to prepare LC 39A for a Falcon Heavy launch.
   4) Other launch providers at Cape Canaveral.
   5) Weather

They can update that. Also, SLC-4E.

[wannamoonbase]

Another is the recent rate, calculated as the year divided by the average of the last ten launch intervals.
The latter has again come up just shy of 80.

Stretching the point to near-breaking:

They just dropped the 6-launch in a month window from 28 days (April) to 17 days (July).  If you tack 3 days onto the 17 before starting the next 6-launch burst and kept that pace, it's 110/yr

I can see five factors that would prevent that rate.
   1) Limits listed in 'https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/environmental/nepa_docs/SpaceX_Falcon_Program_Final_EA_and_FONSI.pdf'.
         For 2022 that indicates 10 FH and 10 F9 at LC 39A and 44 F9 at SLC 40.
         For 2023-2025 that indicates 10 FH and 10 F9 at LC 39A and 50 F9 launches at SLC 40.
       
   2) Extra time needed to prepare LC 39A for a crewed launch.
   3) Extra time needed to prepare LC 39A for a Falcon Heavy launch.
   4) Other launch providers at Cape Canaveral.
   5) Weather

They can update that. Also, SLC-4E.

Also add, ASDS cycle times.

The east coast flights for sure are further down range.

Then somewhere in this discussion there is the maximum production rate of second stages and MVACs. 

60-70 seems very plausible now.  100 is an exciting idea but a lot of limitations come up.

[rsdavis9]

And the "worst" part is that the falcon launches are now boring to watch.
I was keeping up pretty well with just watching them in the background while I worked.
The last 3 launches I just gave up! I just watch the 10 second video of the launch(and/or landing) on twitter now.

[crandles57]

Also add, ASDS cycle times.

The east coast flights for sure are further down range.

Then somewhere in this discussion there is the maximum production rate of second stages and MVACs. 

60-70 seems very plausible now.  100 is an exciting idea but a lot of limitations come up.

So what would fit within all those limitations?

8 day record turnaround might be possible for gap between 2 launches but it may not be a sustainable rate. 11 days sustainable rate? That would allow 33 per pad. 66 from Florida might strictly require 6 to be FH but I don't see it being difficult to get agreement to flying a F9 instead of a FH.

So that gets us to 99 though I haven't really dealt with all the limits mentioned. While it may be possible for other launch providers to fit into the gaps it is likely there will be some delays to fit to launch windows and weather delays. Probably drops it below 90. 30 launches from VSFB might still be a stretch due to demand for launches from there.

If we drop it to 80, that then does not seem like much of a stretch for second stage or MVAC production (compared to having done 22 in 4 months)?

Plausible?

[schaban]

There are approx 10-20% RTLS flights
Also seems SpaceX works on reducing turnaround with partial boost backs
On the other hand if booster turnaround is 1 months that is harder limit to overcome
8 boosters in a fleet?
No more than 96 launches per year

[realnouns]

Also demand for that many flights is a consideration.  Pretty soon SpaceX will have the currently approved Starlink network complete.  What will they be delivering to orbit with F9/FH if the 2nd Gen Starlink will fly exclusively on Starship?

[crandles57]

There are approx 10-20% RTLS flights
Also seems SpaceX works on reducing turnaround with partial boost backs
On the other hand if booster turnaround is 1 months that is harder limit to overcome
8 boosters in a fleet?
No more than 96 launches per year

Seems like an easy one to me. lots of FH built fairly recently but then launches delayed so if needed they can build more f9 cores and increase fleet size if needed.

1049 to be expended next flight but even excluding that and FH cores, this still leaves
51, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 67, 69, 71, 73, 77
11 in fleet which can be expanded as needed doesn't seem a problem to do more launches.

[AmigaClone]

Also demand for that many flights is a consideration.  Pretty soon SpaceX will have the currently approved Starlink network complete.  What will they be delivering to orbit with F9/FH if the 2nd Gen Starlink will fly exclusively on Starship?

As of today 26 July 2022 14:40 SpaceX has approval for two phases totaling 11926 Starlink satellites.

Phase 1 is nearly 60% complete and will require roughly 36 launches totaling 1732 satellites to complete.

Phase 2 is has not been started. It will require roughly 3750 satellites to be launched by November 2024. Depending on the Starlink version that would involve 75 F9 Starlink 1.5 launches or between 50 and 75 Starlink 2.0 Starship launches (using between 50 and 80 satellites per Starship).

One possible limit on haw many F9 launches are needed in a year would be the number of Starlinks manufactured a month even if some of the shells are initially filled with Starlink 1.5.

[gongora]

Also demand for that many flights is a consideration.  Pretty soon SpaceX will have the currently approved Starlink network complete.  What will they be delivering to orbit with F9/FH if the 2nd Gen Starlink will fly exclusively on Starship?

As of today 26 July 2022 14:40 SpaceX has approval for two phases totaling 11926 Starlink satellites.

Phase 1 is nearly 60% complete and will require roughly 36 launches totaling 1732 satellites to complete.

Phase 2 is has not been started. It will require roughly 3750 satellites to be launched by November 2024. Depending on the Starlink version that would involve 75 F9 Starlink 1.5 launches or between 50 and 75 Starlink 2.0 Starship launches (using between 50 and 80 satellites per Starship).

One possible limit on haw many F9 launches are needed in a year would be the number of Starlinks manufactured a month even if some of the shells are initially filled with Starlink 1.5.

SpaceX doesn't talk about the V-band constellation (7k sats) at all anymore.  It's most likely dead.