SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 4

[gongora]

I seem to recall a since deleted post in this thread recently where someone copied entries from another schedule (Salo's?) that had it as August 1 at the time.  That's probably where starhawk92 picked up the date.  But it was never actually announced anywhere as August 1.

[smoliarm]

Correction for:

2017-03     FHeavy                   US Air Force (STP-2)          MEO          LC39A
2017-03     FHeavy                   ELaNa XV                      LEO  60x18   LC39A

- these two lines are the same launch: "ELaNa XV" is just one of piggyback payloads for STP-2.
See, e.g., slide 3 in this LSP presentation:
http://mstl.atl.calpoly.edu/~workshop/archive/2016/Spring/Day%201/Session%203/3_ScottHigginbotham.pdf

[smoliarm]

FWIW,
Florida’s Space Coast Office of Tourism has
Aug 17, 2016
as launch date for JCSAT-16
http://www.visitspacecoast.com/event/falcon-9-spacex-jcsat-16/18248/

[ZachS09]

Could Core #23 be used for the EchoStar 23 mission, which is scheduled between September and November?

I ask that because SpaceX plans on reflying #23 between September and October.

[gongora]

We don't have any information on what the payload will be for the reuse flight, and at this point randomly speculating on what it may be based on the last set of highly speculative dates thrown out in a press conference doesn't seem terribly useful.  Even if we know a date range it doesn't have to be a payload that was originally scheduled to fly that month.

[Comga]

Could Core #23 be used for the EchoStar 23 mission, which is scheduled between September and November?

I ask that because SpaceX plans on reflying #23 between September and October.

I agree with gongora
"Could" is a question for another discussion thread.  It is not a discussion of the manifest, which we are trying to piece together from statements by SpaceX, the range, the customers, and others in positions to know launch date projections.
When SpaceX announces the second launch of core #23, it will be included on the list.

[starhawk92]

This appears to be the FCC transmitter application for the JCSAT-16 stage recovery operations:

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=72213&RequestTimeout=1000

Drone ship coordinates:

          North  28  6  11    West  74  34  0

For the last several GTO launches, since SES-9, the drone ship coordinates have varied little, within a few miles, so it seems SpaceX has got the GTO recovery trajectory dialed in, with only slight variations, probably for varying payload mass.

Reposted here by myself from the JCSAT-16 update thread; application has a start date of 7/15/2016, in support of the launch date suggested upthread.

[Urx]

NET DATE    BOOST(Core)  1S Tgt      PAYLOAD(S)                    ORB  MASS    PAD
----------  -----------  ------      -----------------------       ---  ------  ----
2016-04-08  F9(23)       OCISLY      Dragon (CRS-8) [3]            LEO  10000   LC40
2016-07-18  F9(27)       RTLS        Dragon (CRS-9) [7]            LEO  10000   LC40
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016-11-11  F9           RTLS        Dragon (CRS-10)               LEO  10000   LC40
2017-02     F9           RTLS        Dragon (CRS-11)               LEO  10000   LC40
2017-06     F9           RTLS        Dragon (CRS-12)               LEO  10000   LC40
2017-09     F9                       Dragon (CRS-13)               LEO  10000   LC40
2018-02     F9                       Dragon (CRS-14)               LEO  10000   LC40
2018-04     F9                       Dragon (CRS-15)               LEO  10000   LC40
2018-08     F9                       Dragon (CRS-16)               LEO  10000   LC40
2018-10     F9                       Dragon (CRS-17)               LEO  10000   LC40
2018-12     F9                       Dragon (CRS-18)               LEO  10000   LC40
2019-05     F9                       Dragon (CRS-19)               LEO  10000   LC40
2019        F9                       Dragon (CRS-20)               LEO  10000   LC40

MASS: kilograms

I don't understand why is mass always 10 t? According to http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14694.msg324965#msg324965 the dry mass is 4200, and the projected upmass of CRS missions 9-15 can be found in Table 3 of https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY16/IG-16-025.pdf. So the only missing number is the fuel?

[starhawk92]

Urx,

Never really thought about it that much -- kinda assumed the payloads were fluid and could change right up to the last minute.  I appreciate you providing a reference and will try to get the information integrated soon.

Thanks and welcome!

[gongora]

Do we have any more recent references for Dragon mass?

[Comga]

I don't understand why is mass always 10 t? According to http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14694.msg324965#msg324965 the dry mass is 4200, and the projected upmass of CRS missions 9-15 can be found in Table 3 of https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY16/IG-16-025.pdf. So the only missing number is the fuel?

What, specifically is your question?
Is it why the list has a one and four zeros when there must be variations of hundreds of kilograms?
Is it the 10 mT number itself, and you think it should be less?
The table you cite has the same value for SpX-12 through SpX-15, 3,310 kg, a number higher than achieved to date.  This seems to assume that NASA gets more efficient at packing and hits precisely some theoretical maximum for each launch. 
This is why I suggested a more general and rounded number, like "10 T" until SpaceX announces a total mass value.

[starhawk92]

Comga,

Do your number mean the mass of the Dragon itself is somewhere around 6600 kg?  Or are there other "pieces" to the total?

[russianhalo117]

I don't understand why is mass always 10 t? According to http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14694.msg324965#msg324965 the dry mass is 4200, and the projected upmass of CRS missions 9-15 can be found in Table 3 of https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY16/IG-16-025.pdf. So the only missing number is the fuel?

What, specifically is your question?
Is it why the list has a one and four zeros when there must be variations of hundreds of kilograms?
Is it the 10 mT number itself, and you think it should be less?
The table you cite has the same value for SpX-12 through SpX-15, 3,310 kg, a number higher than achieved to date.  This seems to assume that NASA gets more efficient at packing and hits precisely some theoretical maximum for each launch. 
This is why I suggested a more general and rounded number, like "10 T" until SpaceX announces a total mass value.

the NASA OIG Presentation leaves out Gaseous Consumables and The Wet mass of the Dragon When the Wet mass and Gasses are added the 10T is fairly accurate, but is capable of going as high as 14T based on previous data from SpaceX briefings and designed max mission duration.

[Comga]

Comga,

Does your number mean the mass of the Dragon itself is somewhere around 6600 kg?  Or are there other "pieces" to the total?

I have no idea, and did not mean to imply that.
The future upmass seems to assume an ideal packing
russianhalo117 states that total mass could go as high as 14 T.
My conclusion is that we really don't know the total mass, for past or future launches, so the manifest should list an approximate round number.
Just like not putting in a specific date while there remains a range of possibilities, my preference is to keep the list free of guesses.  They don't serve a purpose other than to start debates.

PS The Amos-6 launch could list an NET date of 2016-08-22 based on this post which is based on this tweet from Peter B. de Selding.

[gongora]

PS The Amos-6 launch could list an NET date of 2016-08-22 based on this post which is based on this tweet from Peter B. de Selding.

We've seen a few hints that JCSAT-16 will be closer to mid-August than the beginning of August, so Amos 6 is likely to move to the right a bit.

[starhawk92]

PS The Amos-6 launch could list an NET date of 2016-08-22 based on this post which is based on this tweet from Peter B. de Selding.

That puts JCSAT-16 and AMOS-6 five days apart.  The NSF forums may explode with the forthcoming debate, hold on to your hats!!

[Comga]

PS The Amos-6 launch could list an NET date of 2016-08-22 based on this post which is based on this tweet from Peter B. de Selding.

That puts JCSAT-16 and AMOS-6 five days apart.  The NSF forums may explode with the forthcoming debate, hold on to your hats!!

Only if we believe the 8/17 date for JCSAT-16 and assume there is no slip of AMOS-6 from that NET date.
Do you still believe that's the launch date for JCSAT-16?

Either way, it is the information we have.

[tleski]

FWIW,
Florida’s Space Coast Office of Tourism has
Aug 17, 2016
as launch date for JCSAT-16
http://www.visitspacecoast.com/event/falcon-9-spacex-jcsat-16/18248/

I would not take the dates posted on that site seriously. They have CRS-11 (or CRS-II as it is in its original spelling) scheduled for August 15, just 2 days before JCSAT-16.
link to the  CRS-11 launch page

[Comga]

FWIW,
Florida’s Space Coast Office of Tourism has
Aug 17, 2016
as launch date for JCSAT-16
http://www.visitspacecoast.com/event/falcon-9-spacex-jcsat-16/18248/

I would not take the dates posted on that site seriously. They have CRS-11 (or CRS-II as it is in its original spelling) scheduled for August 15, just 2 days before JCSAT-16.
link to the  CRS-11 launch page

At least they are not charging for the privilege of watching a launch that won't happen:

Falcon 9 - SpaceX CRS II- Rocket Launch
Dates:  August 15, 2016
Time: TBD
Admission:  Free viewing from designated Public Viewing Areas

Funny.  Just noticed their date is moved back from 8/17 to 8/15.
I'm with telski and don't trust this site

[Urx]

the NASA OIG Presentation leaves out Gaseous Consumables and The Wet mass of the Dragon When the Wet mass and Gasses are added the 10T is fairly accurate, but is capable of going as high as 14T based on previous data from SpaceX briefings and designed max mission duration.

I'm trying to wrap my head around getting from 4200 kg dry to ~10000 kg wet. Given the density of the propellants that would mean 4-6 cubicmeters of fuel?