While we've had this scheduled before and it hasn't worked out, NextSpaceflight is saying we get two launches in under three hours tonight. The weather is looking better for both of these than it has in a week. Chances of weather being acceptable is 80% for the first launch and 90% for the second.
What this doesn't show is that of the remaining launches in 2023, there's these two and a third set for Saturday from Vandenberg at 10:17 PM EST. SpaceX says the Vandenberg launch is the first flight of a new booster, which is getting to be a rare event.
Tonight's second launch, Starlink Group 6-36, will be the 12th flight for the first stage booster supporting this mission, which previously launched CRS-24, Eutelsat HOTBIRD 13F, OneWeb 1, SES-18 and SES-19, and seven Starlink missions. The first launch, the Falcon Heavy USSF-52 mission is flying the same two side boosters for the fifth time. These two boosters previously supported USSF-44, USSF-67, Hughes JUPTER 3, and NASA’s Psyche mission.
SpaceX is becoming close to a Scheduled Service!
ReplyDeleteClose? They are a scheduled service. If nothing else, they're closer than anybody else.
DeleteUnless Mr. Weatherman says "no go" they have a stellar record of launching when it is scheduled. The boosters are just that reliable. I was at the Cape when Bangabandu-1 was Postponed, it was due to a software error on the part of hte ground equipment and it was reprogrammed and flew the next day.
DeleteI think of *scheduled* as a specific repeated time of departure, lots of ships sailed the Atlantic between Britain & America in the 1700’s and 1800’s for example, but the Black Ball Line became the first to always cross at a certain time, irrespective of cargo or passengers (or lack thereof).
DeleteThe problem is that SpaceX doesn’t really have a fixed destination, though I suppose they could always launch to a propellant depot on Mondays at 8:50am.
There are just too many problems with "scheduled" in that sense. Do you send an empty ship across the Atlantic? Hard to know, but I bet it's still cheaper than launching a rocket if you could compare actual costs in ounces of gold or something. Do they launch in a hurricane? Tropical storm? We've seen several rockets hit by lightning from launching in questionable weather. Some have had a command destruct invoked.
DeleteThen there's the matter of the rocket being ready but not the payload - like yesterday's USSF-52. The first reference I have for that launch was last April. The payload was late.
There aren't enough launch facilities in the country to accommodate that. As it is, they bounce between two pads on the Cape and soon to be two in Vandy. They'd need an extra pad somewhere for that.
SpaceX has an option on a future, not built yet launch area on the Cape. And then there's the pad that will be available once BO goes out of business, eventually. So there could be 2 pads more at the Cape for a total of 4.
DeleteStill not enough, especially once Starship comes on line.
Again, Legacy Aerospace can't handle SpaceX's anything, this time being need for pads and launch cadence.
Now that SpaceX has two towers at the Cape configured for Crew Dragon, it will take some of the pressure off if one pad is configured for Falcon Heavy (a configuration which takes some time to do and undo, which is why FH slows up launches at SLS40 (I believe it's 40...)
For a specific “schedule” the advantage to the Black Ball line back in the 1800’s is that prospective users would probably look at the their service *first* before considering other shippers. Warehouse space is pricey(ish), if you can depend on a hull being available to ship at a certain date you can get your merchandise storage time & costs down, and the teamsters of the time probably would give you a break on their charges as well if you could *guarantee* you will need their services at a specific time and place.
DeleteBut, maybe we aren’t there yet, SpaceX is pretty much the only game in town until the Chinese and (maybe) European’s start competing with the same tech.
Just got in from watching the launch. While they launched toward the NE, the worst trajectory for us, it was spectacular to watch from the yard.
ReplyDeleteThe booster boost-back burns to return to the Cape to land were gorgeous to watch, and the core stage had a bit of the "Space Jellyfish" effect from the full moon. The entry burns (about a minute before the actual landing) were bright and long, but turned off well up in the sky before the boosters landed. Landing is below the horizon for us, but we could see the clouds lighting up for the landing, separated by a few seconds - as usual.
The sound from their sonic booms didn't carry as well tonight as some launches. Just barely noticeable.
Hate to answer myself, but just want to point out that this is the Falcon Heavy launch I'm referring to, for those who don't immediately recognize that.
DeleteSo does SpaceX count a Falcon Heavy as 1 launch or 3? Because, technically if they didn't count a FH as 3 launches, by counting them as 3 each SpaceX would be over the 100 launch mark by the end of the year.
DeletePedantism, yes, but if BO can call going slightly above the Karman line a space launch, then SpaceX can do this, right?
But SpaceX doesn't play those reindeer games, they're much more reality based than any other big launch company (some of the smaller ones, like Stokes, are more reality based than BO or ULA.)
Hmmm... if Bezos/Blue Origins buys ULA, would that make it BOULA?
I think what they've said before is they count them as one launch for their yearly total, but they count the three Falcon 9 cores toward a separately tracked total number of Falcon launches and the two recovered boosters toward the successful Falcon 9 landings.
DeleteA little complicated, but it's honest.
When the went over the 200th Falcon 9 mission back in May, I remember noting that they had 200 launches in six years, eight months, or four months less than seven years, while the next closest US launch company, ULA had 97 successful Atlas V launches in 20 years.
I should have added, remember they've recovered well over 200 Falcon 9s, which means they've landed and recovered more rockets than anyone in the world has ever launched.
DeleteWhen I was standing out in the yard watching this, I remember thinking how when I was a kid, this was science fiction. It was just sci-fi a lot more recently than 50 years ago.
They did manage both launches. The SpaceX website has the Starlink video if you scroll past the USSF mission.
ReplyDelete