Falcon 9 Flight 43 - Iridium NEXT-3payload mass: 9,600 kilograms (10 x 860kg + 1000kg dispenser) [99] orbit: 780 km x 780 km, 86.4° [104]delivered orbit: 612 x 627 km x 86.68° [147]core number: B1041 - Droneship landing - Pad SLC-4E F) 2017-10-05, Successful static fire [145] L) 2017-10-09, Successful launch (the one with the impressive plume interaction between S1 and S2) [146] BR) 2017-10-09, Successful landing on JRTI [146]
Falcon 9 Flight 44 - SES 11/Echostar 105payload mass: 5,200 kilograms, orbit: GTO [149]delivered orbit: 309 x 40519 km x 27.89° [150]core number: B1031.2 - Droneship landing - Pad 39A F) 2017-10-02, Successful static fire (5 second burn) [148] D) 2017-10-07, Mission delay in order to resolve an issue with a first stage engine [149] L) 2017-10-11, Successful launch (the one with the sparks and glowing gridfins on reentry) [149] BR) 2017-10-11, Successful landing on OCISLY [149]
Here is my first try to visualize Falcon-9 flight history.Vertical axis represents sequential flight number, so that any unlabeled point can be identified with table of launches.On the graph I labeled only failures and some "firsts" which seem significant.Suggestions and corrections are greatly welcome Edit: corrected typo on the graph
It's an interesting graph, but the vertical axis does not really add any additional information, since we already know that the flight number increases as you go right.
Quote from: JBF on 10/26/2017 03:55 pmIt's an interesting graph, but the vertical axis does not really add any additional information, since we already know that the flight number increases as you go right.As flight rate increases, vertical spacing is necessary to prevent it from just turning into a big blob. It also gives space for textual descriptions of special events. Unless you prefer a line, I'm not sure what the alternative is? It also makes comparisons with other launches possible; I have my own spreadsheet which compares flight rates of a subset of similar EELV class launchers (although it's a little out of date right now) in a similar way.
Quote from: abaddon on 10/26/2017 05:25 pmQuote from: JBF on 10/26/2017 03:55 pmIt's an interesting graph, but the vertical axis does not really add any additional information, since we already know that the flight number increases as you go right.As flight rate increases, vertical spacing is necessary to prevent it from just turning into a big blob. It also gives space for textual descriptions of special events. Unless you prefer a line, I'm not sure what the alternative is? It also makes comparisons with other launches possible; I have my own spreadsheet which compares flight rates of a subset of similar EELV class launchers (although it's a little out of date right now) in a similar way.I'd probably log the horizontal line and then use the vertical for something else, say successful landings or perhaps time between launches.
...I'd probably log the horizontal line and then use the vertical for something else, say successful landings or perhaps time between launches.
Falcon 9 flight 03 - COTS Demo flight 2 F) 2012-04-30, Successful static fire [#] C) 2012-05-19, High pressure reading in engine 5 chamber due to a faulty check valve T-0:01[42] L) 2012-05-22, Successful launch [#]
Since I don't have the launch dates, I went to grab them from the launch log, and I noticed that incomplete entry way back at COTS-2+. Well, we can't have that, now, can we? QuoteFalcon 9 flight 03 - COTS Demo flight 2 F) 2012-04-30, Successful static fire [#] C) 2012-05-19, High pressure reading in engine 5 chamber due to a faulty check valve T-0:01[42] L) 2012-05-22, Successful launch [#]Not sure whether article or thread links are preferred, so have one of each, choose your own adventure style, for the static fire and launch.<links>
Good idea ClayJar, but your data is incomplete. Falcon 9 flight 03 - COTS Demo flight 2+payload mass: Dragon + 620 kilograms delivered to ISS, orbit: LEO [5]S) 2012-04-30, Improperly set criteria limit (overly restrictive redline on second stage engine position) at T-0:47 [1]F) 2012-04-30, Successful static fire[1]D) 2012-05-04, Delay for ongoing Dragon Rendezvous/Prox. software testing and ISS VV schedule [2]C) 2012-05-19, Scub at T-0:00.5 due to high pressure reading in center engine chamber due to a faulty check valve [3]L) 2012-05-22, Successful launch (the one with the first commercial vehicle to visit the ISS) [4][1] https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/05/falcon-9s-merlin-engines-for-may-7-target/[2] https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/05/iss-schedule-dragon-launch-19-may-future-manifest-outlook/[3] https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/05/spacex-falcon-9-send-dragon-to-iss/[4] https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/05/spacexs-dragon-achieving-milestones-falcon-9-ride/[5] https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649910main_cots2_presskit_051412.pdf
Falcon 9 flight 03 - COTS Demo flight 2+payload mass: Dragon + 620 kilograms delivered to ISS, orbit: LEO [155]core number: Unknown - Expendable - Pad 40 S) 2012-04-30, Improperly set criteria limit (overly restrictive redline on second stage engine position) at T-0:47 [151] F) 2012-04-30, Successful static fire [151] D) 2012-05-04, Delay for ongoing Dragon Rendezvous/Prox. software testing and ISS VV schedule [152] C) 2012-05-19, Scrub at T-0:00.5 due to high pressure reading in center engine chamber due to a faulty check valve [42][153] L) 2012-05-22, Successful launch (the one with the first commercial vehicle to visit the ISS) [154]
Out of curiosity, I wanted to bodge the data to see what the Falcon 9 graph would look like in an "alternate history" where the two failures didn't happen (perhaps replacing the stand down periods with the average of the cadence of the missions just before and after each). It wouldn't exactly reflect reality, but it would make an interesting altered data set, and I wanted to see what the curve fit would look like.
Congratulations SpaceX for another routine looking launch, topped off by smoking the bullseye in a 12 ft swell.
SPACEX: No rocket damage link to Razaksat delayBy Rob Coppinger on April 22, 2009 12:19 AMSpace Exploration Technologies has responded to Hyperbola's enquiry about the last minute announcement of the delay to the company's first commercial launch with its Falcon 1 rocket, scheduled for 20 April, and denied there is any damage to the rocket:We are re-evaluating predicted launch vehicle environments on the satellite to ensure all systems are ready to support a successful launch. As for this being a "late" find, flushing out this type of potential issue is exactly why we do pre-launch tests and checkouts. Contrary to other reports, there is no damage to the launch vehicle (all prelaunch checks were accomplished successfully, including the successful static test fire of the vehicle last Wednesday). We are evaluating the extent of the delay, and I will let you know as soon as we have a new date for both RazakSAT and Falcon 9.(From http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2009/04/spacex-no-rocket-damage-link-t.html via the Wayback Machine)