TEXT HERE
If the width is a big problem I could scrunch it down a little more but I like having two spaces between most of the columns so it is easier to read.
Quote from: gongora on 06/21/2017 05:28 pmIf the width is a big problem I could scrunch it down a little more but I like having two spaces between most of the columns so it is easier to read.It occurs to me that if you abbreviate the launch site as K for Kennedy (LC39A), C for Canaveral (LC40), V for Vandenberg and B for Boca Chica, you could save three extra characters in width :-)
Quote from: rosbif73 on 06/22/2017 11:35 amQuote from: gongora on 06/21/2017 05:28 pmIf the width is a big problem I could scrunch it down a little more but I like having two spaces between most of the columns so it is easier to read.It occurs to me that if you abbreviate the launch site as K for Kennedy (LC39A), C for Canaveral (LC40), V for Vandenberg and B for Boca Chica, you could save three extra characters in width :-)It doesn't save much because future flights would be listed like K/C, C/B, K/C/B. Unless you add E for launching East from somewhere.
...I now leave the rest of you to discuss the merits of one or the other format, [table] or fixed-width text. Unsurprisingly, I think I prefer the [table]-based format, but perhaps there are easy improvements to it, too.
I'm not sure how to say this as respectfully as possible: bleck! It is now much less readable for me. On my laptop (Chrome on a MacBook) I have plenty of screen width and it only uses a very little of the space. The font is very small and blocky. When I enlarge the page the font is large and blocky.I very much appreciate all the great work on maintaining this list. I'm trying to provide feedback on the new format. Please, please, don't take this as a lack of gratitude for the diligent and consistent effort!
I can tell you one thing it looks terrible on Tapatalk on my iPhone 6S+. The text looks far too big and even somewhat hard to look at when colours are used.
Since the manifest table is a table and all, I wondered how it would render on screens large and small if the manifest table were actually posted as a [table]. So, I reworked it (including learning things like [td][hr][/td] won't even preview and plain [hr] between rows actually renders but splits the table into multiple tables, breaking the column alignment).This is a copy of the current first post, coded as a table. (I put just the LV column in bold, as I thought as a rendered table it needed something to help visually break up/anchor the line.) Obviously reposted unquoted for "test as you post" fidelity. Since the preview is not the same width as a post in thread, and since I can't see what it looks like on my phone without it being posted, here goes nothing.Any comments, questions, or rapid mod edits/deletion if rendering this post messes up the thread display? (Hey, it looked great in preview. )
2017-06-25 1325/-7 F9 1036 S Iridium NEXT (Flight 2) PLR 9600 V-4E 38 2017-06-23 1510/-4 F9 1029.2 S BulgariaSat-1 GTO 3669 C-39A 372017-06-03 1707/-4 F9 1035 L CRS 11 LEO ~9k C-39A 36 2017-05-15 1921/-4 F9 1034 X Inmarsat 5 F4 GTO 6086 C-39A 35 2017-05-01 0715/-4 F9 1032 L NROL-76 LEO ? C-39A 34 2017-03-30 1827/-4 F9 1021.2 S SES-10 GTO 5282 C-39A 33 2017-03-16 0200/-4 F9 1030 X Echostar 23 GTO ~5500 C-39A 32 2017-02-19 0939/-5 F9 1031 L CRS 10 LEO ~9k C-39A 31 2017-01-14 0954/-8 F9 1029 S Iridium NEXT (Flight 1) PLR 9600 V-4E 30 2016-09-01 0907/-4 F9 N/A AMOS-6(destroyed in pad test) GTO 5500 C-40 29 2016-08-14 0126/-4 F9 S JCSAT-16 GTO ~4600 C-40 28 2016-07-18 0045/-4 F9 L CRS-9 LEO ~9k C-40 27 2016-06-15 1029/-4 F9 S Eutelsat 117W B & ABS-2A GTO 4200 C-40 26 2016-05-27 1740/-4 F9 1023 S Thaicom 8 GTO 3025 C-40 25 2016-05-06 0121/-4 F9 1022 S JCSAT-14 GTO 4696 C-40 24 2016-04-08 1643/-4 F9 1021 S CRS-8 LEO ~9k C-40 23 2016-03-04 1835/-5 F9 S SES-9 GTO 5271 C-40 22 2016-01-17 1042/-8 F9 S Jason-3 LEO 553 V-4E 21 2015-12-22 F9 1019 L ORBCOMM OG2 Launch 2 LEO 1892 C-40 20
The list of past launches is growing. The old policy was to trim past launches after a year on the list.However, this is such a nice display I would like to see it retained.How about putting it at the bottom of the list?
I use that list to find the mission threads, so I hate to remove the old ones.
Only quibble would be to see the Heavy core numbers in the main table - three rows?
A minor nitpick: It would be nice to have the original flight of a later re-used core updated so that the reuse was evident, e.g., 1029.1
Quote from: toren on 06/26/2017 06:59 pmA minor nitpick: It would be nice to have the original flight of a later re-used core updated so that the reuse was evident, e.g., 1029.1I'd vote for this as well. Apart from that, it's perfect!
In the "previous missions" list (second post of the manifest thread), how would you feel about putting in some sort of break between calendar years? Not too sure how best to do it, but I've demonstrated it with an added dash. Can't seem to get the table to just recognize an empty row. Would look like: ...
I just noticed that the past missions list doesn't have any of the F1 launches or the pad abort.
Is there an actual master file of all SpX launches (F1, F9, pad abort)? Heck, throw in the Texas reusability 'launches' as well! Would be a cool timeline to see in one consolidated file!Also, does anyone have an accurate accounting of which LVs were v0, v1.1, FT, Blk 3, Blk 4, etc?Thanks!
Quote from: deruch on 10/19/2017 01:22 pmI just noticed that the past missions list doesn't have any of the F1 launches or the pad abort. I don't think the pad abort belongs on that list. (I'm not sure the in-flight abort will really belong on that list.)
Love how you deemed the GovSat expended core 'unsuccessful'. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43418.msg1702572#msg1702572
Quote from: AncientU on 01/31/2018 11:43 pmLove how you deemed the GovSat expended core 'unsuccessful'. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43418.msg1702572#msg1702572Nah, @Gongora just mis-color the X from green to orange in the return column. With X signifying a landing on water instead of being expended with the color to indicate the fate of the core. @Gongora should take my table legend revision suggestion. Otherwise he will have to come up a way of classifying the fate of the core from the GovSat-1 flight.
so green X is going to be a successfully expended stage (it was destroyed) and red X is going to be a failed expended stage (it was recovered completely and thus it was a completely failed destruction) and yellow X is partial failure to expend (some of it was recovered)
I was always unsure of whether to make the "X" green before because I thought it was redundant. Now I guess I need to go back and color them in.
I have liked the black X's since it makes it easy to see them as separate from landings, however I fully approve of the yellow X to highlight this absurd situation, and that does by extension imply the other X's should be green. (Or maybe make them blue, though that adds something to the legend.)
Quote from: meberbs on 02/01/2018 03:08 pmI have liked the black X's since it makes it easy to see them as separate from landings, however I fully approve of the yellow X to highlight this absurd situation, and that does by extension imply the other X's should be green. (Or maybe make them blue, though that adds something to the legend.)If it is to highlight it's absurd situation, I would stick with my suggestion on the launch party and put a in place of the X
Shouldn't Zuma be green? The launch was successful from SpaceX's perspective. The loss of payload occurred after SpaceX's portion of the mission was over.
Quote from: rockets4life97 on 02/04/2018 11:12 amShouldn't Zuma be green? The launch was successful from SpaceX's perspective. The loss of payload occurred after SpaceX's portion of the mission was over.Which loss of payload? There has been no confirmed loss of payload.
How can an expendable return (Govsat) be unsuccessful?
Quote from: Norm38 on 02/07/2018 03:03 pmHow can an expendable return (Govsat) be unsuccessful? Because they tried to expend the booster, and failed...
Pursuant to that, it's too early to put any notional StarLink launches on, no? Or is it?
On the leading post, for GovSat, you marked a yellow "X" as the landing disposition - an "unsuccessful expendable" - meaning they failed to expend it since it wouldn't sink?If on purpose, that's awesome.
Quote from: meekGee on 02/12/2018 02:39 amOn the leading post, for GovSat, you marked a yellow "X" as the landing disposition - an "unsuccessful expendable" - meaning they failed to expend it since it wouldn't sink?If on purpose, that's awesome.You're a little behind. But now we have to decide what to do to denote that the booster they didn't intend to recover ended up having to be destroyed... blinking yellow X
Agree about the abbreviation order, it should be consistent, and side/center/side is better than center/side/side or side/side/center
So[1] should the chart be extended/expanded with a new column to track fairings?
If each of the five components: core, left boooster, right booster, left fairing half, right fairing half, has three potential states: expended, failed recovery, successful recovery, there are 243 combinations. That is less than the 256 ASCII characters, so each outcome can be denoted, albeit cryptically, with a single character. Now if we add in the characters of the Klingon alphabet.....Let’s not get carried away here.
So you are saying we could use ASCII if we use 2 or 3 colors. I am afraid that you are not kidding, launchwatcherI was“Things should be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler.”
This formatting discussion is interesting and all, but c'mon... This is so .. 1994? We are bot limited to 80 chars width, and welcome to the world of HTML and styled tables, everyone! (And the site's markup language even has table support)
One great addition would be the version/block of each F9/FH core. Could that be squeezed into this format? Local LV CoreRet- . . Mass . Mis-Est. Date, Time/UTC. S/N Blockurn Payload(s) Orb (kg) Site sion------------------- --- --------- --- ---------------------------- --- ----- ----- ----2018-05-04F91046 5SBangabandhu-1GTO3.7kC-39A56
Quote from: dglow on 04/13/2018 10:11 pmOne great addition would be the version/block of each F9/FH core. Could that be squeezed into this format? Local LV CoreRet- . . Mass . Mis-Est. Date, Time/UTC. S/N Blockurn Payload(s) Orb (kg) Site sion------------------- --- --------- --- ---------------------------- --- ----- ----- ----2018-05-04F91046 5SBangabandhu-1GTO3.7kC-39A56Yeah, but then for Banghabandu-1 and future missions do we list them as Block 5 or Version 7?
One great addition would be the version/block of each F9/FH core. Could that be squeezed into this format?Perhaps something like this: Local LV CoreRet- . . Mass . Mis-Est. Date, Time/UTC. S/N Blockurn Payload(s) Orb (kg) Site sion------------------- --- --------- --- ---------------------------- --- ----- ----- ----2018-01-07*2000/-5F91043.1 4LZumaLEO?C-40(48)2018-01-31 1625/-5F91032.2 3XGovSat-1 (SES-16)GTO4230C-40492018-02-06 1545/-5HRNR* 232LSLFH Demo/Tesla RoadsterESC~1.2kC-39A(50)
That said, block number is not an independent value. It can be inferred from the core number. A separate table (core number => block number / version number) could be available to those of us more obsessed with this level of detail. No changes would be required to the existing manifest table.Similarly, the core number in the existing manifest table could be a link to detailed information specific to that core number - block number / version number, build date, flight list, upgrades, trivia, final disposition, etc.
I think a separate table with more detail would be better, maybe in the Launch Log thread (or just refer to the table in the r/spacex wiki). You also need F9 Version in addition to Block (it would end up like F9 1.0, F9 1.2.4).
Minor nit...Some reflown cores did not get their 1st flights upgraded to XXXX.1 status. (mostly the block 5 team; 1045.1 vs 1046)
... do we still consider the FH center core to be a successful landing?
Looks like CRS-17 is now ASDS; also, do we still consider the FH center core to be a successful landing?
Quote from: pb2000 on 04/23/2019 06:30 pmLooks like CRS-17 is now ASDS; also, do we still consider the FH center core to be a successful landing?I would say the landing was successful but recovery was not. The question is what do we want to keep track of.
It's important to track booster loss from all causes, in my view. Until it actually launches again, it's not truly recovered. (ok I kid but yeah, if we can lose them at sea, it's a trackable thing)Adding a whole new column for an edge case seems problematic. New code letter? Asterisk?
(H2) Arabsat 6A - Serial Numbers: Side1:1052.1 Center:1055.1 Side2: 1053.1. Center booster landed on ASDS and then fell over while being towed back to port.(H3) STP-2 - Serial Numbers: Side1:1052.2 Center:1057.1 Side2: 1053.2
It would be very cool to add a special marker for crewed missions. We're now at three crewed missions outside the main NASA commercial crew program and there's no obvious way to distinguish them.Maybe an unicode symbol 🧑🚀👩🚀
Hello All,Can we put a red strikethrough like this 1051-12 on the "Core S/N" column when the core is either retired or damaged or lost?That will help show the active cores without adding any new columns. It is also consistent with the other used of red in the manifest, in showing a departure from the "norm".Thank you!
There are now several announced launch series with indeterminate dates, like Crew-8 thru -14, Polaris 2& 3, OneWeb, and more. Could there be some compact notation, like “6xF9” to indicate the extent of the backlog and the fluidity of the scheduling?
Quote from: Comga on 06/03/2022 10:54 pmThere are now several announced launch series with indeterminate dates, like Crew-8 thru -14, Polaris 2& 3, OneWeb, and more. Could there be some compact notation, like “6xF9” to indicate the extent of the backlog and the fluidity of the scheduling? What about the current list doesn't suffice?
I'm thinking about dropping the green color for successful landings/missions, it really doesn't add much.
Can you scavenge one more character space for it?
Quote from: Comga on 12/31/2022 07:01 pmCan you scavenge one more character space for it?The - prefixing every COSPAR number seems superfluous?
[Edit2: Can I suggest adding different colours to the vehicles (at least, for the non-F9 launches) to make FH and S pop a bit more. Maybe also colour for the F9 launches of Dragon crew.]
Quote from: Paul451 on 01/01/2023 04:03 pm[Edit2: Can I suggest adding different colours to the vehicles (at least, for the non-F9 launches) to make FH and S pop a bit more. Maybe also colour for the F9 launches of Dragon crew.]If you're going to use colour, please be aware that a significant proportion1 of your audience will have a red/green colour vision deficiency (i.e. "colour blind"), so you should avoid using red and green to mean different things
If we’re bumping up this old thread, how ‘bout adding a simple line counter to track overall numbers of launches. When SpaceX was launching 10 - 12 times a year or less, it wasn’t hard to keep track. But as the years add up and launches/year get into the dozens, it’s really hard to manually count lines.Alternately, allow whomever is maintaining the manifest to attach an updated .csv file or something to the first post in the thread so those of us interested in stats can do the counting ourselves..
Quote from: Herb Schaltegger on 01/02/2023 02:07 pmIf we’re bumping up this old thread, how ‘bout adding a simple line counter to track overall numbers of launches. When SpaceX was launching 10 - 12 times a year or less, it wasn’t hard to keep track. But as the years add up and launches/year get into the dozens, it’s really hard to manually count lines.Alternately, allow whomever is maintaining the manifest to attach an updated .csv file or something to the first post in the thread so those of us interested in stats can do the counting ourselves.."whomever"!?!This is mantained by our esteemed gongora, to whom much appreciation is due.Whomever, indeed
Ugh, I can't fit the past flights in a single post anymore (too many characters). Definitely not adding colors to any more columns, that's like 20 characters per column per line.
Currently it's not generated from a data file, it's just manually edited.
Quote from: gongora on 01/05/2023 04:41 pmCurrently it's not generated from a data file, it's just manually edited.[stares in silent horror]
How much harder is it to edit a text file than a spreadsheet?
Quote from: meekGee on 01/08/2023 01:14 pmHow much harder is it to edit a text file than a spreadsheet?Have you tried doing complex tables in BBCode?
A simple conversion of Excel to BBCode probably doesn't help me at all unless I changed the functionality of the table
The conversion needs to include formatting information, not just data. Otherwise I'm better off maintaining my current routine.
Quote from: gongora on 01/10/2023 06:58 pmThe conversion needs to include formatting information, not just data. Otherwise I'm better off maintaining my current routine.Sure, but that’s easyThe formatting can be in hidden columns that print the hypertext coding, and ate copied down en mass with a drag.For instance, you could augment the (table column stop, table column start) before and after the mission name with the green color that was extra work to addAfter a launch, you cut the row with the dashes, and insert it under the launched mission.Then you just drag-copy the format with the green color start and stop.
“To a man with a hammer,Every problem looks like a nail.I have Excel!”