Author Topic: The SpaceX Launch Log  (Read 45442 times)

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4647
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1472
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #40 on: 01/15/2017 05:30 AM »
RTF at last :)

Quote
Falcon 9 Flight 30 - Iridium NEXT (not verified)
payload mass: 10 x 800 kilograms, orbit: 780 km x 780 km, 86.4 [99]
delivered orbit:618 x 627 km x 86.66 [103]
  S) 2017-01-03, Scrub due to a minor GSE issue [101]
  F) 2017-01-05, Successful static fire (no payload) [100]
  L) 2017-01-14, Successful launch (the one with the live rocketcam S1 landing) [102]
  BR) 2017-01-14, Successful landing at JRTI (1 engine landing burn) [102]


Cartman,  The Iridium flight has a number 29 stamped on the core.  Is the Falcon Flight 30 suppose to be different than the core number?  source: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41751.msg1630497#msg1630497
« Last Edit: 01/15/2017 05:30 AM by catdlr »
Tony De La Rosa

Offline cartman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Greece
  • Liked: 458
  • Likes Given: 2066
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #41 on: 01/15/2017 09:41 AM »
Cores are named at the factory and flights can happen out of the order they were produced. In any case I think it is a good idea to start tracking these numbers, so i will start adding them to each flight

edit: core number added. do we have any good sources for the previous cores?

Quote
Falcon 9 Flight 30 - Iridium NEXT-1 (not verified)
payload mass: 9,600 kilograms (10x860kg + 1000kg dispenser)[99] orbit: 780 km x 780 km, 86.4 [104]
delivered orbit:618 x 627 km x 86.66 [103]
core number: 29 [105]
  S) 2017-01-03, Scrub due to a minor GSE issue [101]
  F) 2017-01-05, Successful static fire (no payload) [100]
  L) 2017-01-14, Successful launch (the one with the live rocketcam S1 landing) [102]
  BR) 2017-01-14, Successful landing at JRTI (1 engine landing burn) [102]

RTF at last :)

Quote
Falcon 9 Flight 30 - Iridium NEXT (not verified)
payload mass: 10 x 800 kilograms, orbit: 780 km x 780 km, 86.4 [99]
delivered orbit:618 x 627 km x 86.66 [103]
  S) 2017-01-03, Scrub due to a minor GSE issue [101]
  F) 2017-01-05, Successful static fire (no payload) [100]
  L) 2017-01-14, Successful launch (the one with the live rocketcam S1 landing) [102]
  BR) 2017-01-14, Successful landing at JRTI (1 engine landing burn) [102]


Cartman,  The Iridium flight has a number 29 stamped on the core.  Is the Falcon Flight 30 suppose to be different than the core number?  source: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41751.msg1630497#msg1630497
« Last Edit: 01/15/2017 10:19 AM by cartman »

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 685
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 285
  • Likes Given: 1048
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #42 on: 01/15/2017 10:46 AM »
This was the 29th FLIGHT of F9, the 28th successful.
Looks like they did not count the September "anomaly". (It never made it to launch date.)

Offline cartman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Greece
  • Liked: 458
  • Likes Given: 2066
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #43 on: 01/15/2017 11:11 AM »
ok so what do we do with AMOS-6? one solution would be to leave it there without a number:

flight 28 jcsat 16
n/a - amos-6
flight 29 iridium next-1

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 685
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 285
  • Likes Given: 1048
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #44 on: 01/15/2017 11:18 AM »
That's what I did in my own xls.

Offline cartman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Greece
  • Liked: 458
  • Likes Given: 2066
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #45 on: 01/15/2017 11:20 AM »
We are in agreement, first post updated

Quote
Falcon 9 Flight 28 - JCSAT-16 (not verified)
payload mass: 4,600 kilograms, orbit: geosynchronous [94]
delivered orbit:  184 x 35912 km x 20.85 [96]
  F) 2016-08-11, Successful static fire (no payload) [92] [93]
  L) 2016-08-14, Successful launch (the one with the first GTO 1 engine landing burn) [95]
  BR) 2016-08-14, Successful landing at OCISLY (1 engine landing burn) [95]

Falcon 9 Flight n/a - AMOS-6 (not verified)
payload mass: 5,500 kilograms, orbit: geosynchronous [97]
  S) 2016-09-01, Failure during prop loading for static fire, loss of payload (the one where the static fire went kaboom) [97]

Falcon 9 Flight 29 - Iridium NEXT-1 (not verified)
payload mass: 9,600 kilograms (10x860kg + 1000kg dispenser)[99] orbit: 780 km x 780 km, 86.4 [104]
delivered orbit:618 x 627 km x 86.66 [103]
  S) 2017-01-03, Scrub due to a minor GSE issue [101]
  F) 2017-01-05, Successful static fire (no payload) [100]
  L) 2017-01-14, Successful launch (the one with the live rocketcam S1 landing) [102]
  BR) 2017-01-14, Successful landing at JRTI (1 engine landing burn) [102]
« Last Edit: 01/15/2017 11:20 AM by cartman »

Offline old_sellsword

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Liked: 463
  • Likes Given: 428
The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #46 on: 01/15/2017 11:28 AM »
ok so what do we do with AMOS-6? one solution would be to leave it there without a number:

flight 28 jcsat 16
n/a - amos-6
flight 29 iridium next-1

SpaceX gave Amos-6 flight number F9-029, and they're not reusing it even though it never left the pad. My vote would be to give it flight number 29, however this isn't my thread :)

Also, here's a list of known serial numbers that flew missions:

1019 - Orbcomm 2
1021 - CRS-8
1022 - JCSAT-14
1023 - Thaicom 8
1029 - Iridium-1
« Last Edit: 01/15/2017 11:29 AM by old_sellsword »

Offline cartman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Greece
  • Liked: 458
  • Likes Given: 2066
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #47 on: 01/15/2017 11:49 AM »
I think you have a point here... Most sites covering SpaceX launches have iridium as nr 30. So i will go back to the previous arrangement. I will leave it at that until we have an official source or we see the number on the Echostar core next week.
Quote
Falcon 9 Flight 30 - Iridium NEXT-1 RTF Mission (not verified)
payload mass: 9,600 kilograms (10x860kg + 1000kg dispenser)[99] orbit: 780 km x 780 km, 86.4 [104]
delivered orbit:618 x 627 km x 86.66 [103]
core number: 1029
  S) 2017-01-03, Scrub due to a minor GSE issue [101]
  F) 2017-01-05, Successful static fire (no payload) [100]
  L) 2017-01-14, Successful launch (the one with the live rocketcam S1 landing) [102]
  BR) 2017-01-14, Successful landing at JRTI (1 engine landing burn) [102]
« Last Edit: 01/15/2017 11:52 AM by cartman »

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3030
  • Liked: 532
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #48 on: 01/23/2017 12:27 AM »
Maybe this should be put into Wikipedia.
Forum posts tend to be more prone to bit rot after some years pass.

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2519
  • Liked: 1714
  • Likes Given: 656
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #49 on: 01/23/2017 04:14 PM »
Maybe this should be put into Wikipedia.
Forum posts tend to be more prone to bit rot after some years pass.
Wikipedia tries not to publish "original research" which are not reflections of primary source documents.  It is an encyclopedia, not a research journal.
I think it would be easier if NSF would periodically post a data-heavy article with the flight history to date -- maybe once a year, as a year-in-review sort of thing -- and then a WIkipedia article could draw from that as its source and maintain an archived master list.

(I'm a Wikimedia Foundation engineer, but not anything special on Wikipedia. We try to keep code editing and content editing separate. So appropriately discount my advice and feel free to consult a real editor or admin, etc.)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27025
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6915
  • Likes Given: 4879
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #50 on: 01/23/2017 04:18 PM »
This is just a compilation of other sources, not "original research." Additionally, Wikipedia is nice because it keeps a full history of revisions.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline cartman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Greece
  • Liked: 458
  • Likes Given: 2066
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #51 on: 01/23/2017 06:29 PM »
I try to have a source for everything, so I guess this would be a good start for a wikipedia article.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8619
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5370
  • Likes Given: 3553
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #52 on: 01/23/2017 10:59 PM »
Maybe this should be put into Wikipedia.
Forum posts tend to be more prone to bit rot after some years pass.
Wikipedia tries not to publish "original research" which are not reflections of primary source documents.  It is an encyclopedia, not a research journal.
I think it would be easier if NSF would periodically post a data-heavy article with the flight history to date -- maybe once a year, as a year-in-review sort of thing -- and then a WIkipedia article could draw from that as its source and maintain an archived master list.

(I'm a Wikimedia Foundation engineer, but not anything special on Wikipedia. We try to keep code editing and content editing separate. So appropriately discount my advice and feel free to consult a real editor or admin, etc.)

I'm a current admin on the English Wikipedia but way out of practice, much less active than formerly. Used to hold multiple roles on multiple other wikis including being a steward, and a 'crat, checkuser, etc on Commons and Meta.

Normally forum postings aren't considered reliable enough to be used as sources, and many WP editors would balk if they were routinely cited, especially in more controversial areas. This possibly might be an exception but sourcing articles rather than forum postings is likely to generate less attempts to delete material by overzealous editors.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline cartman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Greece
  • Liked: 458
  • Likes Given: 2066
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #53 on: 02/19/2017 11:21 PM »
First post updated for today's launch

Quote
Falcon 9 Flight 31 - CRS-10 (not verified)
payload mass: Dragon + 2,490 kilograms to ISS including SAGE-III, STP-H5, orbit: LEO [105]
delivered orbit: 363 x 209km  x 51.63 [106]
core number: 1031
  F) 2017-02-12, Successful static fire [105]
  C) 2017-02-18, Scrub at T-13sec due to an issue with an upper stage engine actuator [105]
  L) 2017-07-19, Successful launch (the one with the first 39A launch)[105]
  BR) 2017-07-19, Successful landing at LZ1[105]

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1988
  • US
  • Liked: 1389
  • Likes Given: 998
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #54 on: 02/20/2017 12:03 AM »
First post updated for today's launch

Quote
Falcon 9 Flight 31 - CRS-10 (not verified)
payload mass: Dragon + 2,490 kilograms to ISS including SAGE-III, STP-H5, orbit: LEO [105]
delivered orbit: 363 x 209km  x 51.63 [106]
core number: 1031
  F) 2017-02-12, Successful static fire [105]
  C) 2017-02-18, Scrub at T-13sec due to an issue with an upper stage engine actuator [105]
  L) 2017-07-19, Successful launch (the one with the first 39A launch)[105]
  BR) 2017-07-19, Successful landing at LZ1[105]

You have some typos in the dates (2017-07-19).  Also the flight numbering issue pops up again, it was Flight 32 on the paperwork and got pulled ahead of Flight 31 (Echostar).

Offline old_sellsword

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 582
  • Liked: 463
  • Likes Given: 428
The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #55 on: 02/20/2017 12:31 AM »
First post updated for today's launch

Quote
Falcon 9 Flight 31 - CRS-10 (not verified)
payload mass: Dragon + 2,490 kilograms to ISS including SAGE-III, STP-H5, orbit: LEO [105]
delivered orbit: 363 x 209km  x 51.63 [106]
core number: 1031
  F) 2017-02-12, Successful static fire [105]
  C) 2017-02-18, Scrub at T-13sec due to an issue with an upper stage engine actuator [105]
  L) 2017-07-19, Successful launch (the one with the first 39A launch)[105]
  BR) 2017-07-19, Successful landing at LZ1[105]

You have some typos in the dates (2017-07-19).  Also the flight numbering issue pops up again, it was Flight 32 on the paperwork and got pulled ahead of Flight 31 (Echostar).

The rest of the Launch Log uses sequential flight ordering (ie. Jason 3 = Flight 21), not the SpaceX flight numbering scheme (ie. Jason 3 = F9-19). Therefore this launch would indeed be Flight 31 (but F9-32) as long as we're still counting Amos-6.
« Last Edit: 02/20/2017 12:55 AM by old_sellsword »

Offline cartman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Greece
  • Liked: 458
  • Likes Given: 2066
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #56 on: 02/20/2017 06:33 AM »
Dates fixed, this was a late night update :)


Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2519
  • Liked: 1714
  • Likes Given: 656
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #57 on: 02/20/2017 11:33 PM »
"the one with the extremely low cloud cover"?

Of course, 39A was the historic part.  But the bit that will stick in my memory is the awkward two broadcast minutes of sound and no visible rocket after the falcon disappeared into the clouds.

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3452
  • California
  • Liked: 2691
  • Likes Given: 1702
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #58 on: 02/21/2017 11:56 PM »
"the one with the extremely low cloud cover"?

Of course, 39A was the historic part.  But the bit that will stick in my memory is the awkward two broadcast minutes of sound and no visible rocket after the falcon disappeared into the clouds.

Indeed. Did someone forget the rocket cams were available?

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2519
  • Liked: 1714
  • Likes Given: 656
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #59 on: 02/22/2017 01:00 AM »
On the technical broadcast they quickly cut to the "signal lost" CGI, so I think they didn't have rocketcam available.  Probably new pad plus large source of ionized hot gas caused some interesting reception issues.

Theory #2 is that rocketcam multiplexing is done by the rocket on a schedule fixed before flight, and it wasn't expected that they'd need rocketcam so soon.  So this theory would say rocketcam's schedule had it transmitting either itar-controlled areas of the rocket or boring ones like the inside of the lox tank, and so it wasn't appropriate to cut to them.

I like the first theory better.

Tags: