Why doesn't SpaceX add more Transporter missions?

[WmThomas]

As of February 17, 2024, it appears one can't book a rideshare on a Spacex Transporter SSO mission before October of 2025

https://rideshare.spacex.com/search?orbitClassification=2&launchDate=2024-06-17&payloadMass=50

That's a one-and-half year backlog.

Now, I imagine it's nice for SpaceX to be assured full loads on these missions. Wrangling all the small payloads and dealing with late cancellations must be a pain.

But it sure seems like they have enough business to speed up the pace of the Transporter missions. So I'm puzzled that they haven't ramped up the cadence.

I don't see how having 4 or 5 Transporter missions a year would be much harder than the current 3-a-year pace.

I'm eager to hear you all's thoughts. Thanks.

[DeimosDream]

They did… they announced Bandwagon missions to mid inclination orbits back in August.

The new flights appear not to have sold out yet. If you want to fly to 45-degrees you can fly as early as November 2024.

I believe the idea was to simultaneously allow payloads that don't require a specific orbit to fly earlier and to also address demand for mid inclination flights. We just haven't yet seen the market adjust to the new capability yet which may explain why SpaceX is ramping up flight rates slowly.

[WmThomas]

They did… they announced Bandwagon missions to mid inclination orbits back in August.

The new flights appear not to have sold out yet. If you want to fly to 45-degrees you can fly as early as November 2024.

Yes, I'm aware of Bandwagon. And it appears to be selling OK, but it has shorter lead times than the SSO Transporter.

But my question was about the SSO Transporter missions particularly. Bandwagon is, for many satellites, not a substitute for the SSO orbit of Transporter.

I mean, if they have added Bandwagon missions on spec, presuming they could get some new small-sat rideshare business, why haven't they added a Transporter Mission or two per year going forward since it seems pretty clear they could fill those up, too?

[matthewkantar]

Is it possible that keeping them overbooked means they fly with fewer cancellations?

[Jim]

As of February 17, 2024, it appears one can't book a rideshare on a Spacex Transporter SSO mission before October of 2025

That's a one-and-half year backlog.

No, that doesn't necessarily mean there is a backlog.

[Jim]

why haven't they added a Transporter Mission or two per year going forward since it seems pretty clear they could fill those up, too?

Again, jumping to a conclusion.  Where is the data to support your claim?

[WmThomas]

why haven't they added a Transporter Mission or two per year going forward since it seems pretty clear they could fill those up, too?

Again, jumping to a conclusion.  Where is the data to support your claim?

See the link in my original post. It shows that if one wants to launch a 50-KG satellite to SSO, there are no slots available via SpaceX before late 2025.

[Jim]

why haven't they added a Transporter Mission or two per year going forward since it seems pretty clear they could fill those up, too?

Again, jumping to a conclusion.  Where is the data to support your claim?

See the link in my original post. It shows that if one wants to launch a 50-KG satellite to SSO, there are no slots available via SpaceX before late 2025.

That is one payload.  Show that there are 1 or 2 launches worth.

[StraumliBlight]

As of February 17, 2024, it appears one can't book a rideshare on a Spacex Transporter SSO mission before October of 2025

That's a one-and-half year backlog.

No, that doesn't necessarily mean there is a backlog.

Rocket Lab specifically mention SpaceX's 2 year backlog as a reason to launch with them.

https://twitter.com/SpaceEquities/status/1757826079337615727

[Jim]

What is the integration timeline?

[WmThomas]

Rocket Lab specifically mention SpaceX's 2 year backlog as a reason to launch with them.

https://twitter.com/SpaceEquities/status/1757826079337615727

Thanks for sharing that quote. I had seen it, too. But, it doesn't make sense as stated.

The effect that RL cites is due to there being regularly scheduled and relatively frequent flights. So, if you cancel from one flight, you can book on a later one.

But a one-and-half year backlog isn't needed for that. Indeed, such a backlog means that if you cancel off a Transporter mission in Q2 2024, you won't be able to rebook even within a year's time. That's not good for business.

Of course, if SpaceX can't fill the Transporter missions well enough, those missions wouldn't make economic sense for them. But they could have plenty-full missions with enough cadence that there would still be some openings say, six to nine months from now.

[WmThomas]

What is the integration timeline?

Good question, Jim. It's surely less than 1.5 years, since they are accepting payloads for November 2024 launch on Bandwagon, which puts a max timeline of 9 months. But since Bandwagon is just flying twice this year, that's surely more time than the integration timeline requires.

Here's what the Payload Users' Guide for SpaceX Rideshare missions https://storage.googleapis.com/rideshare-static/Rideshare_Payload_Users_Guide.pdfPayload Users' Guide for SpaceX Rideshare missions says:

"9.6.1 Launch Scheduling

SpaceX will advise the Customer approximately sixty days prior to the start of the Launch Period, of the Launch Date.
The above-referenced dates will be determined by SpaceX in its sole discretion."

Elsewhere in that user guide, SpaceX says that they will handle all the satellite integration to the launch vehicle.

So it sounds like the integration timeline is 60 days max.

But, you are the old pro. So doubtless you understand these things better than I do.

[Jim]

Elsewhere in that user guide, SpaceX says that they will handle all the satellite integration to the launch vehicle.

SpaceX works with aggregators who do most of the payload integration onto adapters.  SpaceX just does the large piece integration.
 

[WmThomas]

SpaceX works with aggregators who do most of the payload integration onto adapters.  SpaceX just does the large piece integration.

Yes, I know. That's why I wrote "integration to vehicle." Sorry if that was too terse.

But that integration to the launch vehicle is what is most of the integration lead time required.

How long the outside integration takes isn't really SpaceX's business.

[Jim]

SpaceX works with aggregators who do most of the payload integration onto adapters.  SpaceX just does the large piece integration.

Yes, I know. That's why I wrote "integration to vehicle." Sorry if that was too terse.

But that integration to the launch vehicle is what is most of the integration lead time required.

How long the outside integration takes isn't really SpaceX's business.

No, it is the total time including both.  If a payload wants to fly, it has to deal with both. 

[TrevorMonty]

Is it possible that keeping them overbooked means they fly with fewer cancellations?

Does customer still pay for slot even if the satellite isn't ready?.

[AmigaClone]

Is it possible that keeping them overbooked means they fly with fewer cancellations?

Does customer still pay for slot even if the satellite isn't ready?.

I suspect the answer to that question is a definite "maybe". How much (or even if) a customer might have pay to switch their satellite to a later launch date would likely depend on the exact wording of their launch contract.

[Anguy]

I believe, if they switch, they must pay 10% fine