SpaceX Mission Paperwork (FCC/FAA/etc. permits/licenses)

[gongora]

Someone suggested having a thread to track the FCC filings, we'll give that a try.

SpaceX just filed revised permit requests for three of their upcoming flights to change the emission designators/modulating signals on the second stages of the launch vehicles.

Old:
Emission Designator   Modulating Signal
3M22F1D   2.777 Mbps

New:
Emission Designator   Modulating Signal
4M14F1D   3.571 Mbps

This is for missions
1418 from SLC-40 (now NET 4/30)  Old : 0210-EX-ST-2018  New : 0677-EX-ST-2018
1465 from SLC-40 (NET 4/30)  Old : 0355-EX-ST-2018  New : 0678-EX-ST-2018
1420 from Vandenberg (Iridium 6)  Old : 0354-EX-ST-2018  New : 0679-EX-ST-2018

[gongora]

At this point it really looks like the TESS mission does not have any FCC permits.

[Michael Baylor]

At this point it really looks like the TESS mission does not have any FCC permits.

I am confident that is the TESS landing permit. The coordinates of the ASDS are not a GTO trajectory and are much closer to shore. However, it is possible that TESS does not need an FCC launch license.

File number: 0211-EX-ST-2018       
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=82665&RequestTimeout=1000

Edit: I just realized I posted the wrong permit.
This is the correct one for the TESS recovery.

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=82387&RequestTimeout=1000

[soltasto]

TESS is mission under the LSP, so it may be kinda different. JAson-3 got all the licences tho IIRC.

The Emission Designator changed because they increased the bandwidth of the signal from 3.22MHz to 4.14MHz.

The other 3 numbers mean:

Modulation Type: [F] Angle-modulated, straight FM
Modulation Nature: [1] Digital, on-off or quantized, no modulation
Information Type: [D] Data, telemetry, telecommand

[gongora]

M1380 TESS Launch Hazard Areas based on issued NOTMAR. Planned droneship position included.

Considering to the launch azimuth, I still remain with the assignment to M1380, which has ASDS recovery position 302km downrange according to 0136-EX-ST-2018 (although 0135-EX-ST-2018 incorrectly mentions 39a for M1380).

My problem with that theory is, what mission would Bangabandhu-1 be if it's not 1380?  There isn't another permit for a flight from LC-39A.

[Raul]

My problem with that theory is, what mission would Bangabandhu-1 be if it's not 1380?  There isn't another permit for a flight from LC-39A.

I fully understand you, incorrectly stated pad is quite confusing.

However, planned recovery position lies exactly on the embedded groundtrack line through the center of the hazard areas, which is a sufficient confirmation for me now.
But even earlier, I think there was a reason to stay with the M1380 assignment in connection with TESS, going to be inserted by Falcon 9 into 200/270000km/28.5° orbit. Inclination is similar like FHDemo-Tesla initial coast orbit 29°, thus has similar launch azimuth - little more northward compare to GTO missions.
In addition, M1380 recovery position is only 302km downrange, which well corresponds to very light 362kg cargo (probably a high lofted trajectory).
Sure, it should be finally confirmed by real SAT-AIS position of recovery fleet.


As you can see in General Map (last changes for review here), Bangabandhu-1 ASDS position is there with assignment to M1418 for a weeks.

I consider M1418 to be Bangabandhu-1 mission with 3700kg GEO communication satellite on Spacebus-4000B2 configuration, mainly because M1418 ASDS position is in area of other GTO launches - 611km downrange. There isn't another permit for booster recovery operation of such mission.
Falcon9 has already launched similarly heavy Spacebus-4000B2 - that was Koreasat 5A, inserted to 285/50185km/22.0° GTO orbit, with booster ASDS recovery 625km downrange in same area.
Ok, block 5 has somewhat higher performance. However, SpaceX would also want to reliably recover this block 5 booster for thorough post-flight checks, because it's first one - it could mean that there will be not too much shortened entry burn, or/and not so aggressive landing burn.

As you know, SpaceX has recently released a new revision of the FCC application for launch vehicle communications of M1418, including shifted Operation Start Date to 04/30/2018, which is consistent with the Bangaband-1 postponement from 24 Apr to 4 May.
This mission was probably originally intended for complex 40, which maybe would explain a incorrectly mentioned pad. It could also be simply wrong information from previous grant 1732-EX-ST-2017 (Hispasat 30W-6). Surprisingly, even in newly revised application, pad 40 is still listed there.

[vaporcobra]

Mission 1397 had its preflight ground testing license granted today.

Quick side note: I feel like this thread needs to be stickied if it's actually going to get used. It finds its way to the second page of the Mission section in just a couple days at SpaceX's current rate of activity.

[gongora]

Mission 1397 had its preflight ground testing license granted today.

Quick side note: I feel like this thread needs to be stickied if it's actually going to get used. It finds its way to the second page of the Mission section in just a couple days at SpaceX's current rate of activity.

I wasn't sure whether to pin this thread since we already have a few in the Missions section.  I have a lot of threads linked right under the SpaceX manifest table and in the fourth post of that thread.

It will be interesting to compare the permits to the flights over the next month or so.

[gongora]

Ok, now I am completely and thoroughly confused.  I hope this is just a typo:

Experimental first-stage recovery operation for Falcon 9 launch of SpaceX Mission 1380.
Operation Start Date:   06/17/2018

The launch permit for 1397 was also posted (SLC-40 NET 6/17).

[vaporcobra]

Ok, now I am completely and thoroughly confused.  I hope this is just a typo:

Experimental first-stage recovery operation for Falcon 9 launch of SpaceX Mission 1380.
Operation Start Date:   06/17/2018

The launch permit for 1397 was also posted (SLC-40 NET 6/17).

Oh god... I don't even know. I'll admit my eye twitched once or twice at "pad 40" in the 1397 preflight grant. SpaceX, please

And fair enough, Missions' pinned section is rather busy. It'll be useful to have the permits all (theoretically) in one thread for comparisons, though, as you mention

[Michael Baylor]

New recovery permit as well.

Surely this is an error? It lists Mission 1380 which is either TESS or Banga yet is NET June 17th. It seems to me that it should be Mission 1397 which also is NET June 17th.

Edit: Oh wait! The permit matches the ASDS location for the original TESS landing permit. Maybe this is a backup in case TESS is postponed to June due to Insight?

Edit 2: But the permit is valid for six months, and I cannot find any other changes unless I am missing something.

[Kabloona]

Those permit applications have been rife with cut-and-paste errors almost from day one. It makes you wonder if anyone at FCC even reads them.

[Michael Baylor]

Those permit applications have been rife with cut-and-paste errors almost from day one. It makes you wonder if anyone at FCC even reads them.

Yeah, ok my current bet with what happened is this permit was suppose to be based off of the TESS recovery permit (they usually reference a past one), but instead they amended the TESS recovery permit and changed nothing but the NET.

[Kabloona]

Those permit applications have been rife with cut-and-paste errors almost from day one. It makes you wonder if anyone at FCC even reads them.

Yeah, ok my current bet with what happened is this permit was suppose to be based off of the TESS recovery permit (they usually reference a past one), but instead they amended the TESS recovery permit and changed nothing but the NET.

That would be par for the course with these things. I started tracking the ASDS coordinates when they first began posting these permit applications and couldn't believe how many cut-and-paste errors there were. It seemed like someone spent roughly 5 minutes on average per application changing mission details from the last application.

It seems the job of writing these applications ranks right up there with keeping the supply room stocked.

[Herb Schaltegger]

Those permit applications have been rife with cut-and-paste errors almost from day one. It makes you wonder if anyone at FCC even reads them.

Bureaucratic agencies are ailing badly right now - many hundreds of federal appointments are vacant over the last couple years, much government administrative experience has been lost due to personnel retirement and attrition. This comment is pushing close to politics, and for that I apologize, but it's quite obvious no one in Washington has much interest in creating a smoothly and effectively functional government.

[gongora]

Those permit applications have been rife with cut-and-paste errors almost from day one. It makes you wonder if anyone at FCC even reads them.

Bureaucratic agencies are ailing badly right now - many hundreds of federal appointments are vacant over the last couple years, much government administrative experience has been lost due to personnel retirement and attrition. This comment is pushing close to politics, and for that I apologize, but it's quite obvious no one in Washington has much interest in creating a smoothly and effectively functional government.

Political appointees in Washington don't type the mission numbers on the applications.  That's done by SpaceX.  And yes, pushing too close to politics (completely offtopic for this thread.)

[the_other_Doug]

Those permit applications have been rife with cut-and-paste errors almost from day one. It makes you wonder if anyone at FCC even reads them.

With great ease of cut-and-paste comes great responsibility -- to review the result!

That said, I can recall one poster to these fora (not a very frequent one, thank goodness) who viciously attacked a truly excellent space history website because, out of hundreds of thousands of pages on it, this guy found one copy/paste error.  That poster claimed that this invalidated any and all information found on that site, without any questions answered or quarter given.  After all, if they were so clumsy as to have committed a copy/paste error, well, they cannot be trusted to know their own names.

I am now looking forward to seeing the same guy viciously attack both SpaceX and the FCC over this obvious copy/paste error.  Unless, of course, the guy was being a troll and, while pretending to attack this space history site, was looking for an excuse to attack me personally... which I strongly suspect.

My point is, we are all human, and going ballistic (in this forum, it's important to note I mean that figuratively and not literally) over copy/paste errors is indicative that such people are completely bogged down in an underlying agenda.

[Herb Schaltegger]

Those permit applications have been rife with cut-and-paste errors almost from day one. It makes you wonder if anyone at FCC even reads them.

Bureaucratic agencies are ailing badly right now - many hundreds of federal appointments are vacant over the last couple years, much government administrative experience has been lost due to personnel retirement and attrition. This comment is pushing close to politics, and for that I apologize, but it's quite obvious no one in Washington has much interest in creating a smoothly and effectively functional government.

Political appointees in Washington don't type the mission numbers on the applications.  That's done by SpaceX.  And yes, pushing too close to politics (completely offtopic for this thread.)

Thing is, those appointees are the bosses of the people doing the work, a lot of whom are either worried, demoralized or simply uncertain of the future. Based on personal experience, this sort of environment is not conducive to good, detail-oriented work or the proper quality assurance process for work done by others.

You can believe that or not, as you choose to.

[Kabloona]

...we are all human, and going ballistic (in this forum, it's important to note I mean that figuratively and not literally) over copy/paste errors is indicative that such people are completely bogged down in an underlying agenda.

For the record, I regret raising the issue and will now suggest a return to regularly scheduled programming. 

[Lar]

Those permit applications have been rife with cut-and-paste errors almost from day one.

That's on SpaceX and it's a bit embarrassing for them, I think. Yea, probably enough about the topic.