Author Topic: The SpaceX Launch Log  (Read 167683 times)

Offline cartman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Greece
  • Liked: 527
  • Likes Given: 10549
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #100 on: 10/10/2017 08:11 am »
Updated for Iridium NEXT-3

Quote
Falcon 9 Flight 43 - Iridium NEXT-3
payload 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]


Offline cartman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Greece
  • Liked: 527
  • Likes Given: 10549
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #101 on: 10/12/2017 10:32 am »
Updated for SES/11 Echostar 105
Quote
Falcon 9 Flight 44 - SES 11/Echostar 105
payload 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]

Online smoliarm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 832
  • Moscow, Russia
  • Liked: 719
  • Likes Given: 612
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #102 on: 10/26/2017 11:13 am »
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
« Last Edit: 10/26/2017 03:17 pm by smoliarm »

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #103 on: 10/26/2017 03:40 pm »
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

Nice.  Would be nice to have some way to distinguish between failed landing attempts, few as there have been, and expended cores (i.e. no landing attempted).  Maybe a yellow ring around failed attempts?  Or a black slash/X through expended launches? 
« Last Edit: 10/26/2017 03:40 pm by deruch »
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #104 on: 10/26/2017 03:55 pm »
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.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline cartman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Greece
  • Liked: 527
  • Likes Given: 10549
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #105 on: 10/26/2017 03:55 pm »
Wow, that's a very pretty graph. Thanks for posting it! One thing it shows is that the more SpaceX launches the faster they get. Let's see what happens when they catch up to their manifest.

Online abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 3944
  • Likes Given: 5371
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #106 on: 10/26/2017 05:25 pm »
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.
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.
« Last Edit: 10/26/2017 05:28 pm by abaddon »

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #107 on: 10/26/2017 05:48 pm »
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.
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.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Online smoliarm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 832
  • Moscow, Russia
  • Liked: 719
  • Likes Given: 612
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #108 on: 10/26/2017 10:56 pm »
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.
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 agree, there are different ways to present launch cadence (or any other sequential events) on a graph.
This particular type (*Flight Number vs Date*) is useful to show the actual Flight Rate, as it appears as SLOPE - increasing or decreasing.
Below is another example: comparison of launch rate for Atlas 5 with Falcon 9.
In this particular graph I used [Number of days since the first flight] instead of regular [Date of launch]
But the graph type remains the same - # of flights vs Date.

In my view, this graph illustrates
first:
higher flight rate for Falcons - which was achieved in shorter time compared to Atlas;
second:
both data sets (for Falcon and for Atlas) are in reasonably good agreement with polynomial least-square fits (thin curves).
These approximations show that SpaceX did achieve HIGHER flight rate DESPITE failures and associated long "no-flight" periods.
third:
So far there is a good indication of potential for even higher launch cadence. I would not bet on "30 Falcon launches in 2018", but this graph at least hints that such rate is actually feasible.

Quote
...I'd probably log the horizontal line and then use the vertical for something else, say successful landings or perhaps time between launches.
- that's coming  :)
« Last Edit: 10/26/2017 10:57 pm by smoliarm »

Offline ClayJar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
  • Baton Rouge, LA, USA
  • Liked: 1281
  • Likes Given: 127
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #109 on: 10/27/2017 02:46 pm »
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.  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?  ;D
Quote
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 [#]

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.

Static Fire links:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/05/falcon-9s-merlin-engines-for-may-7-target/ (NSF article the day after)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28764.msg893862#msg893862 (SpaceX's tweet confirming success, with photo)

Launch links:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/05/spacexs-dragon-achieving-milestones-falcon-9-ride/ (NSF article on the launch, etc.)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28942.msg901491#msg901491 (Launch thread at the moment of launch.)

Offline cartman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Greece
  • Liked: 527
  • Likes Given: 10549
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #110 on: 10/28/2017 10:19 am »
Thanks again ClayJar! i will update the log once I get back to a desktop computer as I am traveling right now

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2422
  • California
  • Liked: 2006
  • Likes Given: 5634
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #111 on: 10/29/2017 05:22 pm »
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?  ;D
Quote
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 [#]

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
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline ClayJar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
  • Baton Rouge, LA, USA
  • Liked: 1281
  • Likes Given: 127
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #112 on: 10/29/2017 08:00 pm »
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

The delay I'll grant you, but I hadn't considered the first an unsuccessful static fire, since it was just a recycle during the window that ended in a a successful static fire.  It looks like flights 2 and 6 (COTS-1 and CASSIOPE) did have same-day entries for unsuccessful and successful static fires; and flights 1, 2, 7, 11, and perhaps 22 had same-day entries relating to launch recycles.

I suppose way back then, we got more information about the particulars of static fire attempts.  With no webcasts and only third-party static fire observations, marking successful static fire campaigns without additional notations may simply be due to less information being available these days, and if so, having the recycle on COTS-2+ would not be illogical.

Offline cartman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Greece
  • Liked: 527
  • Likes Given: 10549
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #113 on: 10/29/2017 11:48 pm »
I'm back at my desktop computer so i made a few changes and added everything to the log. As always, i would like to thank you for your great work!

Quote
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]

« Last Edit: 10/29/2017 11:54 pm by cartman »

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13469
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11867
  • Likes Given: 11110
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #114 on: 10/29/2017 11:53 pm »
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. 

Please share this whenever you are done "bodging" as it sounds very fascinating (not sure where best, maybe a new thread?)
« Last Edit: 10/30/2017 07:34 pm by Lar »
"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 cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #115 on: 10/30/2017 07:17 pm »
So is koreasat-5a "the one which landed with its pants on fire"?  Or just "the toasty one"?

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13469
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11867
  • Likes Given: 11110
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #116 on: 10/30/2017 07:31 pm »
"toastiest yet" maybe, there have been other toasty ones...
"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 cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #117 on: 10/30/2017 08:03 pm »
Congratulations SpaceX for another routine looking launch, topped off by smoking the bullseye in a 12 ft swell.

Inspired by this, perhaps "the one that smoked the bullseye"?  That pre-relight shot of the ASDS deck smoking was quite memorable (to me at least).

Offline ClayJar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
  • Baton Rouge, LA, USA
  • Liked: 1281
  • Likes Given: 127
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #118 on: 10/30/2017 08:27 pm »
Okay, I saw that the "Falcon 9 flight 01 - Test flight 1" entry was also marked incomplete, and since I was all the way at the top of the log, I couldn't help but see the Falcon 1 flights sitting up there without any of the love they deserve.  Well, I couldn't leave it at that, could I?  ;D

I had to rewrite URLs, use Google searches of NSF article titles, and even pull up the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine to try to collect as many details as I could find.  I just relived several years of history by running through untold hundreds of posts, but there may bits that were not posted about (either because SpaceX never mentioned them or because nobody got around to saying it in textual form here).  For the RazakSAT flight, I had to sleuth out exactly when the static fire occurred, as nobody mentioned the date.  Finally found it in a dead link, thankfully.  I don't have dates for the first two Falcon 1 static fire attempts at Vandenberg, but I can infer they were sometime in May 2005, according to the successful static fire link.

All dates should be SpaceX HQ time, meaning some events may have been tomorrow on Omelek, but given the decade-old references, I could at least have consistency that way.


Falcon 1 flight 01 - FalconSAT-2
  S) 2005-05-?? (Vandenberg SLC-3W), Igniter sensor failure
http://www.spacex.com/news/2005/february-2005-may-2005
  S) 2005-05-?? (Vandenberg SLC-3W), Incorrectly closed helium ground supply valve
http://www.spacex.com/news/2005/february-2005-may-2005
  F) 2005-05-27 (Vandenberg SLC-3W), Successful Static Fire
https://spaceflightnow.com/falcon/050527frf/
  C) 2005-11-26, Manual vent valve incorrectly set to vent
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=918.msg10654#msg10654
  C) 2005-12-19, Draining tank during weather hold, valve caused vacuum, deforming the tank
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1043.msg12801#msg12801
  S) 2006-02-09, Various technical issues
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1431.msg19956#msg19956
  F) 2006-02-10, Successful Static Fire
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1431.msg20078#msg20078
  LF) 2006-03-25, Launch failure (the one with a corroded nut)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3533.msg52550#msg52550


Falcon 1 flight 02 - DemoFlight 2
  D) 2007-01-19, Second stage TVC pitch actuator issue
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5101.msg104272#msg104272
  D) 2007-02-07, Delay due to range availability
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5101.msg109976#msg109976
  D) 2007-03-07, Installing upgraded TVC boards
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5101.msg117933#msg117933
  F) 2007-03-15, Successful static fire
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5101.msg121395#msg121395
  C) 2007-03-19, Aborted during range source telemetry switchover
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5101.msg122306#msg122306
  C) 2007-03-20, Abort on chamber pressure 1% low
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=7169.msg122640#msg122640
  LF) 2007-03-20, Launch failure (the one with too much slosh)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=7169.msg1037430#msg1037430


Falcon 1 flight 03 - Trailblazer, NanoSail-D, PRESat, Explorers
  D) 2008-06-23, Range availability after finding weld defect
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13179.msg292907#msg292907 (Range availability)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13179.msg293795#msg293795 (Weld defect)
  F) 2008-06-25, Successful Static Fire
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13179.msg293428#msg293428
  C) 2008-08-02, Parameter about 1% out of range (turbopump purge pressure)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13939.msg303651#msg303651
  LF) 2008-08-02, Launch failure (the one that hit itself for lack of a few seconds' delay)
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/09/live-space-xs-falcon-i-to-make-fourth-attempt-for-success/ (Flight 4 article has summary of Flight 3 issue)


Falcon 1 flight 04 - RatSat
  F) 2008-09-20, Successful Static Fire
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13507.msg316895#msg316895
  D) 2008-09-23, Replacing a 2nd stage LOX supply line component
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13507.msg317354#msg317354
  L) 2008-09-28, Successful launch (the one that finally made it to orbit)
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/09/live-space-xs-falcon-i-to-make-fourth-attempt-for-success/


Falcon 1 flight 05 - RazakSAT
  F) 2009-04-15, Successful static fire
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16054.msg393844#msg393844 (post's link is dead, original blog entry copied below)
  D) 2009-04-20, Delay for "Potential impact of predicted vehicle environments on the satellite"
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16054.msg393169#msg393169
  L) 2009-07-13, Successful launch (the one that orbited the first real satellite)
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/07/live-falcon-1-razaksat-for-malaysias-atsb/


Falcon 9 flight 01 - Test flight 1
  S) 2010-03-09, Abort at spin start T-0:02[44]
  X) 2010-03-11, Weather Scrub of Static Fire Attempt
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20799.msg559044#msg559044
  F) 2010-03-13, Successful Static Fire
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20799.msg559800#msg559800
  C) 2010-06-04, Out of range engine parameter, sensor error T-0:01[43]
  L) 2010-06-04, Successful launch (the one with the rolling second stage) [144]


Quote
SPACEX: No rocket damage link to Razaksat delay
By Rob Coppinger on April 22, 2009 12:19 AM

Space 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)

Feel free to check my work and provide updates or more info as appropriate.  I'm sure I could've missed things, since I only spent about eight hours putting this all together.  ;D

Offline cartman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Greece
  • Liked: 527
  • Likes Given: 10549
Re: The SpaceX Launch Log
« Reply #119 on: 10/30/2017 08:54 pm »
Wow, I cannot thank ClayJar enough for the great work he did here! As for today's launch, I think i like "the one which landed with its pants on fire" the most. Log will be updated in ~12 hours

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0