SpaceX Booster List

[niwax]

I was slightly bored so I got inspired by spacexstats and made this:

https://spacex.niwax.de

It's a list of all Falcon cores with their missions as listed in the r/spacex API. It shows flown missions, types of landing and the Core Toastiness Indicator (patent pending).

[Nomadd]

 Nice. But, the Merlin numbers on the F1s are a little confusing.

[niwax]

Nice. But, the Merlin numbers on the F1s are a little confusing.

According to the API, these are the names for the corresponding cores. I'm not sure there are specific names for cores from this era, so I'd add add an exception to make them unnamed unless you have their actual names.

[IanThePineapple]

I like it, but where did you get the core number and mission relationships for 1004-1009? They're labelled as "10**" on the /r/SpaceX wiki. I'm also wondering about F9R Dev2, which should be labelled as 1009 according to your list.

Other than that, I really like the setup!

[niwax]

I like it, but where did you get the core number and mission relationships for 1004-1009? They're labelled as "10**" on the /r/SpaceX wiki. I'm also wondering about F9R Dev2, which should be labelled as 1009 according to your list.

I'd guess they replaced the unknown numbers to allow for unique IDs in the API. I've added a note and replaced the names for F1.

[niwax]

Future launches with known boosters have been added and the project has moved to Github Pages from the slightly dodgy freehoster I used to park my domain.

[Comga]

I was slightly bored so I got inspired by spacexstats and made this:

https://spacex.niwax.de

It's a list of all Falcon cores with their missions as listed in the r/spacex API. It shows flown missions, types of landing and the Core Toastiness Indicator (patent pending).

This is a nice list, and good looking.
Would you consider adding, perhaps as hypertext for the booster number, the current location?  We know of several like the one turned into a monument in Hawthorne, and several for which future missions are anticipated.  The future missions indicators you do have are good information.

Some of the earlier boosters, like the "B1003*" for Cassiope, were not so much "expended" as lost in testing.  That particular booster was never going to be recovered, but they did try to "land" it, albeit on the ocean surface.

The target orbit for B1018, CRS-7, wasn't "0 km x 0 km by 52 deg".  The target was the target, something like 220 km x 220 km by 51.6 deg.  It just failed.

B1050 wasn't "expended". It was a landing failure after a mission success.  You might need another color for that kind of failure.

But overall, still more pleasant to read than the reddit list or the one here on NSF.

[niwax]

Thanks for the feedback. I have improved the tooltips to show "unknown" instead of zeroes for orbits and masses.
I have also added indicators for the introduction of new blocks. You can really see them ramping up reuse with every iteration.

As to specifics about missions, the data is pulled from the r/spacex api which itself uses data from their wiki. If you have improvements such as the CRS7 orbit, please contribute! It'll help my site as well as others like spacexstats. For the same reason, I can't easily add more details about the circumstances about retirement, the API only records whether the booster was destroyed or not.

[Lar]

But overall, still more pleasant to read than the reddit list or the one here on NSF.

What do you see as the improvements? What, if anything, could be transferred over to the list here to make it "more pleasant to read" ?

[jee_c2]

Hi niwax! I improved a bit the page (placed, positioned the booster mission tags according to the launch date). Can I commit on GitHub, or should I send it in a diff file in email?
Nice page, BTW.

[niwax]

Hi niwax! I improved a bit the page (placed, positioned the booster mission tags according to the launch date). Can I commit on GitHub, or should I send it in a diff file in email?
Nice page, BTW.

If you want, you can just commit to a second branch and I'll take a look at it later.

[jee_c2]

Ok, I will.

[OxCartMark]

If you want to make a SpaceX booster list I think it would be a good bet to just list every one of us that post here.  Easier too.

[niwax]

With some input from jee_c2, indications for turnaround times have been added. Block 5 is really starting to look routine now.

[crandles57]

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/03/falcon-heavy-starlink-headline-spacexs-manifest/

give a few more planned reuses information.

Hope this is appropriate place to ask:

Does it seem odd that
B1047 last landed 15 Nov 2018  no planned reuse yet.
B1046 last landed  3 Dec 2018   no planned reuse yet.
B1049 last landed 11 Jan 2019  no planned reuse yet.

yet later landing boosters do have planned reuse e.g.
B1048 last landed 22 Feb 2019 planned reuse June  Abort test
B1051 last landed 2 Mar 2019 planned reuse mid May RCM

Starlink and AMOS-17 may use two of those 3 long refurbishment period older boosters but why is RCM having to wait for 1051 to be refurbished rather than one of those older 3?

Is this a possible indicator that one of these older B5 boosters needs lots of refurbishment despite having only flown 2 or 3 times?

Any thoughts on this or on other factors that might be more important than first landed is next to be reused logic. e.g. minimising E coast to/from W coast transport seems sensible.
Are there different payload adaptors that suit particular missions or would this not affect which booster is allocated to which mission?

[su27k]

Starlink and AMOS-17 may use two of those 3 long refurbishment period older boosters but why is RCM having to wait for 1051 to be refurbished rather than one of those older 3?

It's implied in the article that RCM contracted for 2nd flight of a booster, the older ones already flew 2 or more times, so doesn't fit the contract.

[crandles57]

Is it implied in the article?

B1050 failed.... This was problematic, as the second flight of that booster was slated to be the Radarsat mission.

Consequently, the mission was delayed until another first stage became available. It is now understood that B1051 has been assigned to fly Radarsat, although this is subject to change.

If article had said 'until another first stage that had only been flown once became available' that would clearly imply it. The "second" is possibly redundant, replaceable with next but that is just slightly more informative word than next that could have been chosen without contract implication. To me, it seems quite an interpretational jump to believe this implies second flight is contracted.

You could well be right that this is reason, I am just not seeing it implied in article.

Would RCM impose this delay on itself to avoid perceived extra risk with third flight rather than second flight? Presumably contract could have been amended to allow third flight rather than second to reduce delay once B1050 landing failed. Maybe once there is gap in satellite record preventing cross calibration between satellites, then calibration will be harder and there is no particular rush to minimise size of gap in satellite record. So may as well minimise launch risk.

[niwax]

I finally go around to updating the site. jee_c2 on the forum gave some great input and added some nice visual add-ons. There has also been an upgrade to the backend since v3 of the r/spacex API is being deprecated which has led to some stale data in the visualization.

There has also been the slight issue that SpaceXs fantastic success with high reuse boosters means we'll run out of space soon. At least I made sure the lines will wrap correctly. It's a nice problem to have

[ZachS09]

The list needs to be updated saying that B1055 was destroyed despite it making a successful ASDS landing.

[Crispy]

I finally go around to updating the site. jee_c2 on the forum gave some great input and added some nice visual add-ons. There has also been an upgrade to the backend since v3 of the r/spacex API is being deprecated which has led to some stale data in the visualization.

There has also been the slight issue that SpaceXs fantastic success with high reuse boosters means we'll run out of space soon. At least I made sure the lines will wrap correctly. It's a nice problem to have

You'll have to use a smaller font once turnarounds get shorter than 30 days too