SpaceX F9 : OneWeb F15 (40x) : KSC LC-39A : 8 December 2022 (22:27 UTC)

[wannamoonbase]

What is One Web's launch inclination? (Added) Found the inclination 87 degrees. This is definitely best served by VSFB.

This determines which launch site. If it is an inclination that is best served by VSFB. An RTLS mission type with an adapted Soyuz dispenser. Which is very possible in a period of 6 months or less from now. Such that RTLS launches out of VSFB they could easily double the launches per month without much affect to the existing launch plans.

All of this is such that it would be possible for One Web to do ~4 to 5 launches with SpaceX if they are using VSFB and RTLS.

RTLS out of VSFB would be the least interruption to SpaceX launch plans.  As you said they could double the amount of flights on the west coast without too much effort.

[alexterrell]

Good move by both SpaceX and OneWeb.

I don't think SpaceX really had a choice. If they'd refused, they would have invited the Government's antitrust business into the space industry. They would probably insist on a strict seperation of the launcher business from the Starlink business, as happens in Telecoms, Rail, and many other businesses.

Refusing would maybe be similar to Microsoft withdrawing office products from the Apple platforms in the early 2000s, and killing Apple. (which of course they didn't).

[abaddon]

I don't think SpaceX really had a choice. If they'd refused, they would have invited the Government's antitrust business into the space industry.

Nonsense, SpaceX is nowhere near a monopoly and would have been well within their rights to claim their launch manifest solidly booked with commercial, governmental, and internal launches for the foreseeable future.

The fact they did not is predictable (and was predicted by many here) because it's simply good business.

[wannamoonbase]

I don't think SpaceX really had a choice. If they'd refused, they would have invited the Government's antitrust business into the space industry.

Nonsense, SpaceX is nowhere near a monopoly and would have been well within their rights to claim their launch manifest solidly booked with commercial, governmental, and internal launches for the foreseeable future.

The fact they did not is predictable (and was predicted by many here) because it's simply good business.

I think if you look ahead a few years to where Starlink is rolling out at a very high rate (globally) there could be anti-trust accusations from Blue Origin, Oneweb and others.  Whether creditable or not, it's easy to accuse.  Launching competitors satellites is a good step.

I agree that it's mostly a business decision and if they do them from VSFB then they are using under utilized assets.

Maybe the next step is for SpaceX to offer launches to Blue Origins constellation, LOL.

[Robotbeat]

For SpaceX this vital extra revenue because they are bleeding money between Starlink build out and SS development. For Elon its a great way to stick it to Rogozin.


Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

Musk’s leaked bipolar email notwithstanding, I wouldn’t say it’s vital. SpaceX is doing extremely well with Starlink and would have no trouble raising more money, BUT substantial (and non-dilutive) income is always helpful.

[Jim]

Edit: But I was wrong.  SpaceX did a polar launch from the Eastern Range in August of 2020.

They did one a month ago

[DanClemmensen]

What is One Web's launch inclination? (Added) Found the inclination 87 degrees. This is definitely best served by VSFB.

This determines which launch site. If it is an inclination that is best served by VSFB. An RTLS mission type with an adapted Soyuz dispenser. Which is very possible in a period of 6 months or less from now. Such that RTLS launches out of VSFB they could easily double the launches per month without much affect to the existing launch plans.

All of this is such that it would be possible for One Web to do ~4 to 5 launches with SpaceX if they are using VSFB and RTLS.

OneWeb's launch inclination is 86.4 degrees.  I believe they have to go out of Vandenberg.  There are at least four launches on SpaceX's manifest for Vandenberg this year already.

Edit: But I was wrong.  SpaceX did a polar launch from the Eastern Range in August of 2020.

I assume a polar launch from Florida must dog-leg. Is this correct? If so, what is the difference in F9 max payload between Florida and Vandenberg?

[Barley]

I have often wondered the trade off point for SpaceX on a RTLS versus ASDS.  The quicker turnaround time of the booster and the expense of running the SpaceX Navy must be worth several million at least.

The RTLS flights are so much more exciting, for some reason, maybe the ground tracking cameras.

Starlink does not use RTLS.  This data point strongly suggests that RTLS is not worth it if you can use the extra mass to orbit from ASDS.

[Nomadd]

I have often wondered the trade off point for SpaceX on a RTLS versus ASDS.  The quicker turnaround time of the booster and the expense of running the SpaceX Navy must be worth several million at least.

The RTLS flights are so much more exciting, for some reason, maybe the ground tracking cameras.

Starlink does not use RTLS.  This data point strongly suggests that RTLS is not worth it if you can use the extra mass to orbit from ASDS.

It's worth it if you need to speed your launch rate up. It also reduces the risk of losing a booster and weather delays at recovery sites.
 And only populating 2 planes per launch might get birds on station sooner.
 Too many unknown factors to really say. I always wondered about ASDS count myself. One of those things unexpectedly going down for two months could really screw the schedule.

[jimvela]

I have often wondered the trade off point for SpaceX on a RTLS versus ASDS.  The quicker turnaround time of the booster and the expense of running the SpaceX Navy must be worth several million at least.

The RTLS flights are so much more exciting, for some reason, maybe the ground tracking cameras.

Starlink does not use RTLS.  This data point strongly suggests that RTLS is not worth it if you can use the extra mass to orbit from ASDS.

It's worth it if you need to speed your launch rate up. It also reduces the risk of losing a booster and weather delays at recovery sites.
 And only populating 2 planes per launch might get birds on station sooner.
 Too many unknown factors to really say. I always wondered about ASDS count myself. One of those things unexpectedly going down for two months could really screw the schedule.

If they were to have an ASDS go out of service for a while and then start launching RTLS for a while until they got the ASDS back up, then we'd have our answer.

Fascinating question.

[ZachS09]

With the OneWeb deal signed, does SpaceX still consider Starlink their biggest priority?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I would say the initial One Web launches would be RTLS because they are using the existing dispenser adapted to F9. Later launches as in 12 to 18 months from now they could have a larger dispenser made by the same company RUAG Space now called Beyond Gravity that made the ones they have now. Beyond Gravity is a Sweden based company. But by then SpaceX launch planners would be able to adjust asset usages to make it possible to use ASDS and possibility even launch 50/50 from VSFB and the cape. But more likely in the 3 year point (2024) Airanespace would do the launches that they owe One Web.

Can you image the launch of a new generation replacement of a 900 sat One Web constellation on Starship! 4 launches and they are done.

[jimvela]

With the OneWeb deal signed, does SpaceX still consider Starlink their biggest priority?

That wouldn't mean there isn't room for other launches in the manifest- which makes business sense overall.

That fitting in these launches sticks a finger in they eye of certain other parties... well that's a bonus.

[Comga]

I have often wondered the trade off point for SpaceX on a RTLS versus ASDS.  The quicker turnaround time of the booster and the expense of running the SpaceX Navy must be worth several million at least.

The RTLS flights are so much more exciting, for some reason, maybe the ground tracking cameras.

Starlink does not use RTLS.  This data point strongly suggests that RTLS is not worth it if you can use the extra mass to orbit from ASDS.

But OneWeb is not starting from scratch where they can maximize the number if satellites per launch subject to the payload mass and volume limits.
They are probably going to use the existing dispensers from Ruag.
The total load would be around 5-6 tons (metric).
If that can be done with RTLS, so much the better.

edit: What oldAtlasE_guy said….

Launching to 87 degrees from the Cape just requires less dogleg than launching to SSO, which is >90 degrees inclination.

(While launching to 87 degrees from VSFB makes sense, I know a number of people who would love to watch more RTLS launches from the Cape. The last one was spectacular from south Florida.)

[abaddon]

With the OneWeb deal signed, does SpaceX still consider Starlink their biggest priority?

Who said anything about Starlink being SpaceX's biggest priority?  I'd say it's much more the reverse; SpaceX fits Starlink payloads in gaps in their manifest.  The fact that there are lots of gaps in their manifest makes for a lot of Starlink opportunities.

[scr00chy]

OneWeb sats are manufactured on Merritt Island, so it might make sense to launch them all from SLC-40 which is literally right next door and can launch to the required inclination. It would be much simpler this way logistics-wise, compared to having to truck the sats to California.

[Elvis in Space]

OneWeb sats are manufactured on Merritt Island... would be much simpler this way logistics-wise, compared to having to truck the sats to California.

It can't be any more difficult than shipping to South America. I expect that one is a break-even at worst.

[ZachS09]

With the OneWeb deal signed, does SpaceX still consider Starlink their biggest priority?

Who said anything about Starlink being SpaceX's biggest priority?  I'd say it's much more the reverse; SpaceX fits Starlink payloads in gaps in their manifest.  The fact that there are lots of gaps in their manifest makes for a lot of Starlink opportunities.

It just seemed that way to me given there were so many Starlinks launched in the last three years. More than I could count.

[wannamoonbase]

I have often wondered the trade off point for SpaceX on a RTLS versus ASDS.  The quicker turnaround time of the booster and the expense of running the SpaceX Navy must be worth several million at least.

The RTLS flights are so much more exciting, for some reason, maybe the ground tracking cameras.

Starlink does not use RTLS.  This data point strongly suggests that RTLS is not worth it if you can use the extra mass to orbit from ASDS.

But OneWeb is not starting from scratch where they can maximize the number if satellites per launch subject to the payload mass and volume limits.
They are probably going to use the existing dispensers from Ruag.
The total load would be around 5-6 tons (metric).
If that can be done with RTLS, so much the better.

edit: What oldAtlasE_guy said….

Launching to 87 degrees from the Cape just requires less dogleg than launching to SSO, which is >90 degrees inclination.

(While launching to 87 degrees from VSFB makes sense, I know a number of people who would love to watch more RTLS launches from the Cape. The last one was spectacular from south Florida.)

Bingo, if Oneweb was starting over they would put up as much mass as possible.  But with 6 launches left and a short schedule adapting the current dispenser for F9 seems the most logical route.

I was just remembering that Iridium flew out of VSFB, with the busy eastern manifest, I think SpaceX will do the same for Oneweb.

[Barley]

I have often wondered the trade off point for SpaceX on a RTLS versus ASDS.  The quicker turnaround time of the booster and the expense of running the SpaceX Navy must be worth several million at least.

The RTLS flights are so much more exciting, for some reason, maybe the ground tracking cameras.

Starlink does not use RTLS.  This data point strongly suggests that RTLS is not worth it if you can use the extra mass to orbit from ASDS.

It's worth it if you need to speed your launch rate up. It also reduces the risk of losing a booster and weather delays at recovery sites.
 And only populating 2 planes per launch might get birds on station sooner.
 Too many unknown factors to really say. I always wondered about ASDS count myself. One of those things unexpectedly going down for two months could really screw the schedule.

SpaceX was faced with exactly that choice a year or two ago.  They decided to pay for "A Shortfall of Gravitas".  It is highly likely they considered the factors you mentioned and RTLS came out second best.

I would expect RTLS to be used only as a short-term expediency or for missions that are not designed around Falcon 9's current capabilities.  In the medium-term I would expect most missions to be redesigned around Falcon 9's capabilities, which include ASDS using as many drone ships as are needed.