SpaceX F9 : Starlink group 6-51 : KSC LC-39A : 17 April 2024 (21:26 UTC)

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/SpaceOffshore/status/1781438292329980223

Gav Cornwell
@SpaceOffshore
Bob delivers both fairing halves from Starlink 6-51! 🤑

[realnouns]

Bob returned to PC on Apr 19 @ 5:38pm ET

[shiro]

Some reusability stats for this launch (Starlink Group 6-51):

Booster B1077.12 turnaround time:
37 days 22 hours 21 minutes
(its previous mission was Starlink Group 6-43 on Mar 10, 2024 UTC).

FYI: median turnaround time for Falcon 9 / Heavy boosters is currently 43.90 days *
* – based on the last 30 launches, excluding new first stages.

Launchpad LC-39A turnaround time:
9 days 22 hours 10 minutes
(the previous launch from this pad was Bandwagon-1 on Apr 7, 2024 UTC).

FYI: median turnaround time for LC-39A is currently 17.64 days *
* – based on the last 30 launches.

The same type of stats for previous SpaceX launches may be found on this spreadsheet online.

[Comga]

It's in the orbital section of Jonathan's space report and it achieved orbital velocity.  So that is well good enough for me.

If it was orbital, if it achieved orbital velocity at orbital altitude above the atmosphere, it wouldn't have reentered.   You would also be able to find it on Space Track with an International Designation, etc., but you can't.  Also, if it was an orbital attempt, it failed.

Unlike Starlink 6-51, which was a successful orbital launch!

 - Ed Kyle

Your OPINION is noted
JCM’s CALCULATION shows that the semimajor axis of IFT-3’s exceeded Rearth plus some margin like our favorite 100km, making it a successful orbital launch as designed.
To do otherwise is to call OFT-1 and -2, and the upcoming CFT and all Starliner launches orbital failures by design.

Yeah, it’s Tyler’s list and he can put what he wants in it, but my sincere suggestion is that we take this argument, and all the record keeping, launch, landing, and reuse, OUT of the launch specific threads and give it their own.  Some of those already exist and don’t need replicating elsewhere.

[edkyle99]

It's in the orbital section of Jonathan's space report and it achieved orbital velocity.  So that is well good enough for me.

If it was orbital, if it achieved orbital velocity at orbital altitude above the atmosphere, it wouldn't have reentered.   You would also be able to find it on Space Track with an International Designation, etc., but you can't.  Also, if it was an orbital attempt, it failed.

Unlike Starlink 6-51, which was a successful orbital launch!

 - Ed Kyle

Your OPINION is noted
JCM’s CALCULATION shows that the semimajor axis of IFT-3’s exceeded Rearth plus some margin like our favorite 100km, making it a successful orbital launch as designed.
To do otherwise is to call OFT-1 and -2, and the upcoming CFT and all Starliner launches orbital failures by design.

JCM wrote in his Space Report that the "orbit" achieved had a negative perigee:  -50 x 234 km x 26.5 deg. He also wrote that "[t]he Ship flight was not fully in orbit and so did not receive a US Space Force catalog number
or an international launch designation.

 - Ed Kyle

[realnouns]

Signet Warhorse III + JRTI + B1077 returned to PC on Apr 20 @ ~2am

Gav Cornwell
@SpaceOffshore
JRTI departs for Starlink 6-53!  - A super rapid turnaround.

Not certain what the record is for the time between delivering a F9 and departing for the next but 8 hrs and 15 mins must be close!

https://twitter.com/SpaceOffshore/status/1781764723710525538