SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 4

[neoforce]

Do we have an answer to reconcile the Core number (29) on the chart being for AMOS vs the SpaceX instagram picture showing Iridium next was core number 29? 

NET DATE    BOOST(Core)  1S Tgt      PAYLOAD(S)                    ORB  MASS    PAD
----------  -----------  ------      -----------------------       ---  ------  ----

2016-09-03  F9(29)       PAD         AMOS-6 [9]                    GTO  5500    LC40
2017-01-14  F9(30)       JRTI        Iridium NEXT (Flight 1) [10]  PLR  800x10  LC4E

[old_sellsword]

Do we have an answer to reconcile the Core number (29) on the chart being for AMOS vs the SpaceX instagram picture showing Iridium next was core number 29? 

NET DATE    BOOST(Core)  1S Tgt      PAYLOAD(S)                    ORB  MASS    PAD
----------  -----------  ------      -----------------------       ---  ------  ----

2016-09-03  F9(29)       PAD         AMOS-6 [9]                    GTO  5500    LC40
2017-01-14  F9(30)       JRTI        Iridium NEXT (Flight 1) [10]  PLR  800x10  LC4E

Those are flight numbers in the chart, not first stage serial numbers.

[toruonu]

Those are flight numbers in the chart, not first stage serial numbers.

Could have fooled me considering that it says BOOST i.e. booster and then in parentheses Core implying the core # to me. Not flight #

[neoforce]

Those are flight numbers in the chart, not first stage serial numbers.

Could have fooled me considering that it says BOOST i.e. booster and then in parentheses Core implying the core # to me. Not flight #

I agree. Look at the top of the chart:

NET DATE    BOOST(Core)  1S Tgt      PAYLOAD(S)                    ORB  MASS    PAD
----------  -----------  ------      -----------------------       ---  ------  ----
2016-01-17  F9(19)       JRTI        Jason-3 [1]                   LEO  553     LC4E
2016-03-04  F9(22)       OCISLY      SES-9 [2]                     GTO  5300    LC40

Jason 3 was flight 21, but on Core 19.  They were juggling cores around the time of the CRS7 failure

And the upcoming SES flight is listed as (23-1)

Pretty sure these are core numbers.  Hence my question about if 30 is correct for the latest flight, now that SpaceX is putting big numbers on the stages.

[rockets4life97]

The answer is pretty simple. The top thread thought it was tracking core numbers, but the information used was incorrect. In reality it was tracking mission numbers.

Before SpaceX started painting the core number on the first stage booster it was hard to determine what each core number was. They often got switched around such that mission number and core serial number didn't align. Add in addition cores made for other purposes (grasshopper etc.) and the mission and core serial number likely often wouldn't line up anyway.

[gongora]

There are two different sets of numbers for boosters.  SpaceX has been using booster id numbers in public that were based on the flight, while internally they were using serial numbers (and the two numbers are quite different).  We only have the serial numbers for a small number of the boosters, mostly recent ones.  That is why the manifest table has been using the publicly known numbers based on the (first) flight of the booster.  For all of the people just now paying attention to Falcon flight numbers it's nice that you're interested but there are several years of history you're ignoring when you just start griping about the table not matching a number you saw painted on the last booster.  If we keep getting serial numbers on every flight then starhawk92 will probably switch over to using them, since the older flights without serial numbers will be archived out of the manifest table anyway.

[old_sellsword]

Pretty sure these are core numbers.

They're not, they're the F9-XX numbers, which are not tied to any particular first stages.

Jason 3 was flight 21, but on Core 19.

We have no idea what serial number Jason-3's first stage was. Jason-3 was Falcon 9 Flight 21 (sequential). However SpaceX gives all their missions their own flight numbers (F9-XX), and occasionally they launch out of order. That is what is being listed in the table under BOOST.

And the upcoming SES flight is listed as (23-1)

That's starhawk's way of tracking reflights through these SpaceX mission numbers. It'll be confusing since SES-10 will be F9-23-1 and F9-34 (or something), however it's the only way to track all of SpaceX's reflights without serial numbers.

[neoforce]

All this talk about core numbers that i started a few posts ago...

I missed the fact that earlier today Starhawk was already thinking of this, having a discussion over in the SpaceX Reusuable Rockets Section about recovery of the current core, starting here:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42052.msg1630964#msg1630964

Since he does so much work on the manifest in post one of this thread, I'll be happy to leave the decision on how to manage this up to him.

[bulkmail]

2020-05     TBD                      Red Dragon-2 (Mars Surface)
2020-06     TBD                      Red Dragon-3 (Mars Surface)
2022-08     TBD                      Interplanetary Transport System (ITS)
2024-09     TBD                      Red Dragon-5 (Mars Surface)
2026-11     TBD                      Red Dragon-6 (Mars Surface)
2029-01     TBD                      Red Dragon-7 (Mars Surface)

I'm surprised SpaceX isn't ending the Red Dragon program once ITS is operational. What's the source for the existence of red dragon missions 2-7?

Red Dragon(s) in 2020 - http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/mars_presentation.pdf (page47) - albeit not specifying one or two.
But in the same presentation it looks like from 2022 onwards it's only ITS. So, what's the source for Red Dragon 5-7? Maybe the inevitable delay of ITS...

[bulkmail]

2017-08     F9                       CCTCAP In-Flgt Abrt Test
2017-11     F9           RTLS        CCTCAP DM1                   
2018-05     F9           RTLS        CCTCAP DM2

In-flight abort is CCiCap, not CCtCap?
Also, isn't there a separate forum thread for the In-flight abort? Currently all three link to the thread about DM1.
Also, isn't the order DM1, then In-flight abort (reusing DM1 Dragon), then DM2?

At US launch manifest there are listed 12 "Boeing/SpaceX" crew missions to ISS (after the two demos of each company) - and we now they are 6 Boeing and 6 SpaceX. Two per year from 2019H2 to 2024H1. So, I think it's safe to assume (best guess) that they will be taking turns and as SpaceX demo is first, then is Boeing, then SpaceX is first for normal mission, then Boeing, etc.?
Also there are listed the CRS2 flights as "Dragon/Cygnus/DreamChaser". The first is right after the last Dragon CRS1 and the DreamChaser demo, so it's safe to assume that is Cygnus, then SpaceX, then first DreamChaser nomal mission, then taking turns (if number of flights is the same for each of the three).

[smoliarm]

Peter B. de Selding, spaceintelreport:
https://www.spaceintelreport.com/iridium-next-launch

“The way I look at it, even if they only get 10 launches off I think I have a good shot at getting my five” because of the less-crowded manifest at Vandenberg, Desch said. “We have 20 or more satellites in the factory and ready — enough for two launches. We are really only gated now by the rockets.”

With the sense of urgency now much reduced, Iridium can turn its attention to whether the 60-day periods between the second and seven launch might be reduced.

“Even with all the activities that they [Thales Alenia Space] have to do, there is some margin” in the schedule, Desch said. “There is no formal agreement on this but it’s possible that launches three and four could occur with less than 60 days’ spacing, say around 45 days.”

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

A couple of items.

The Iridium launch was booster serial number 1029 which probably means AMOS 6 was actually #1030. We are going to have to going forward track boosters by their labeled serial # and not the first flight number since the order of serial number to flight number could be quite different due to 2 very active pads where launch order could move back and forth due to slips.

Also not very likely to have more than 2 flights in Feb: CRS and SES-10. Formosat/SHERPA is not yet shipped so not likely to be in Feb. So at most keep those three listed for -02 and move the rest to -03.

[meberbs]

A couple of items.

The Iridium launch was booster serial number 1029 which probably means AMOS 6 was actually #1030. We are going to have to going forward track boosters by their labeled serial # and not the first flight number since the order of serial number to flight number could be quite different due to 2 very active pads where launch order could move back and forth due to slips.

Also not very likely to have more than 2 flights in Feb: CRS and SES-10. Formosat/SHERPA is not yet shipped so not likely to be in Feb. So at most keep those three listed for -02 and move the rest to -03.

Why would you assume AMOS 6 was B1030? Check out the reddit list of known cores serial numbers. For some reason, probably a change in naming convention at some point, core numbers had typically been 2 behind flight numbers. They are now 1 behind, most likely due to a FH test article.

I think it is a little premature to move February flights based on our guesswork, especially because we don't even know for sure if CRS-10 is next up after EchoStar, let alone the actual planned flight order after that.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

A couple of items.

The Iridium launch was booster serial number 1029 which probably means AMOS 6 was actually #1030. We are going to have to going forward track boosters by their labeled serial # and not the first flight number since the order of serial number to flight number could be quite different due to 2 very active pads where launch order could move back and forth due to slips.

Also not very likely to have more than 2 flights in Feb: CRS and SES-10. Formosat/SHERPA is not yet shipped so not likely to be in Feb. So at most keep those three listed for -02 and move the rest to -03.

Why would you assume AMOS 6 was B1030? Check out the reddit list of known cores serial numbers. For some reason, probably a change in naming convention at some point, core numbers had typically been 2 behind flight numbers. They are now 1 behind, most likely due to a FH test article.

I think it is a little premature to move February flights based on our guesswork, especially because we don't even know for sure if CRS-10 is next up after EchoStar, let alone the actual planned flight order after that.

The month of launch is not a big deal but the tracking of boosters by serial # and not flight is. As more and more boosters are reused it will become more and more difficult to track which one was from from which flight without using the the tail numbers. So translating the tail number to when it first flew is an excess action and should be short circuited to just tracking the actual tail number.

[old_sellsword]

A couple of items.

The Iridium launch was booster serial number 1029 which probably means AMOS 6 was actually #1030. We are going to have to going forward track boosters by their labeled serial # and not the first flight number since the order of serial number to flight number could be quite different due to 2 very active pads where launch order could move back and forth due to slips.

Also not very likely to have more than 2 flights in Feb: CRS and SES-10. Formosat/SHERPA is not yet shipped so not likely to be in Feb. So at most keep those three listed for -02 and move the rest to -03.

Why would you assume AMOS 6 was B1030? Check out the reddit list of known cores serial numbers. For some reason, probably a change in naming convention at some point, core numbers had typically been 2 behind flight numbers. They are now 1 behind, most likely due to a FH test article.

I think it is a little premature to move February flights based on our guesswork, especially because we don't even know for sure if CRS-10 is next up after EchoStar, let alone the actual planned flight order after that.

The month of launch is not a big deal but the tracking of boosters by serial # and not flight is. As more and more boosters are reused it will become more and more difficult to track which one was from from which flight without using the the tail numbers. So translating the tail number to when it first flew is an excess action and should be short circuited to just tracking the actual tail number.

Right, tracking with serial numbers is great going forwards. But we can't go back and assume serial numbers for past boosters. Until a good number of the old flights get bumped out of the manifest table, I think it'd be best to stick with the current system.

[starhawk92]

If someone wants to go to Reddit and prove which flight numbers boosted which craft, I'm all ears to putting the information in the charts.  Will the numbers be repainted after each re-entry?

Until then, I feel we can track what we are looking (reuse) with the current setup.

[DOCinCT]

2020-05     TBD                      Red Dragon-2 (Mars Surface)
2020-06     TBD                      Red Dragon-3 (Mars Surface)
2022-08     TBD                      Interplanetary Transport System (ITS)
2024-09     TBD                      Red Dragon-5 (Mars Surface)
2026-11     TBD                      Red Dragon-6 (Mars Surface)
2029-01     TBD                      Red Dragon-7 (Mars Surface)

I'm surprised SpaceX isn't ending the Red Dragon program once ITS is operational. What's the source for the existence of red dragon missions 2-7?

Red Dragon(s) in 2020 - http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/mars_presentation.pdf (page47) - albeit not specifying one or two.
But in the same presentation it looks like from 2022 onwards it's only ITS. So, what's the source for Red Dragon 5-7? Maybe the inevitable delay of ITS...

If we go by the presentation that Elon gave, not just the PDF, then "2026 if things go really well" for first manned mission.  This could be a misstatement as the windows are 2024 and 2027.
He did say in the Tech Crunch conference call "the goal is 2024, but that plan is definitely not etched in stone."

[starhawk92]

Reflight Returns!!  The SES-10 mission thread has links saying we may get our first reflight of an F9 on Feb 22!!

Moved everything but Formosat et. al. to NET 2017-03 (in case they do another launch from Vandenberg in February) as the SES-10 announcement pretty much sews up the February plans.

Also, the Jason-3 mission has rolled off the manifest since it has been a year, have a look back:
Json-3 Updates / Discussion
 

[kevin-rf]

You spelled Jason-3 as Json-3, third to last word.

[gongora]

Updates needed in manifest table...

First stage Target:
  Formosat 5/SHERPA is unknown at this point
  Iridium NEXT should probably all be JRTI unless we hear different from SpaceX.  We don't know if it could RTLS.
  Inmarsat 5 F4 is not RTLS, either OCISLY or expendable
  NROL-76 is unknown unless someone figured out the payload
  Bangabandhu should be OCISLY
 
Need links to discussion thread:
  Koreasat 5A http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40947.0
  Inmarsat 5 F4 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41560.0
  Intelsat 35e https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41426.0
  PSN-6 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40516.0
  STP-2 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30544.0
  SWOT https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41678.0