SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 4

[gongora]

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?

You are correct, the in-flight abort is CCiCap, and should be after DM1.

We don't have separate threads for in-flight abort or DM2 yet, and aren't really using the DM1 mission thread right now.  Most of the CCTCap and Dragon 2 discussion is going on in these threads:
   Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
   SpaceX Dragon 2 Updates and Discussion - Thread 2
and also
   Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis
   SpaceX CCtCAP Milestones

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).

It's not safe to assume anything about the timing or order of CCtCap or CRS-2 flights yet.

[gongora]

Couple more updates for the manifest:

Inmarsat 5 F4 mass should be 6100kg

Iridium Flight 2 Discussion thread is here http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42097.0

[John Alan]

Ecostar 23 stage 1 is to be expended... No attempt to have OCISLY catch it... is now planned... 

Sources...
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40374.msg1633626#msg1633626

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/822926184719609856

[starhawk92]

What would be the proper term for the BOOST column?  "EXPEND"?  "SPLASH"? 

Update coming later today with a bunch of gongora-goodies.

[jpo234]

What would be the proper term for the BOOST column?  "EXPEND"?  "SPLASH"? 

Update coming later today with a bunch of gongora-goodies.

ATLANTIC

[Johnnyhinbos]

WASTED

[Comga]

WASTED

That goes well with my tag line but a proper term might be "ditch" as in what the pilot with an airplane does if he can't make it back to land while over water.

[envy887]

What would be the proper term for the BOOST column?  "EXPEND"?  "SPLASH"? 

Update coming later today with a bunch of gongora-goodies.

Don't you mean the "1S Tgt" column? The "BOOST" column should list the booster/flight number as always.

IMO "1S Tgt" should be "NONE" or "N/A", since the 1st stage isn't targeting anything.

[CraigLieb]

What would be the proper term for the BOOST column?  "EXPEND"?  "SPLASH"? 

Update coming later today with a bunch of gongora-goodies.

Fish habitat module?

[Johnnyhinbos]

What would be the proper term for the BOOST column?  "EXPEND"?  "SPLASH"? 

Update coming later today with a bunch of gongora-goodies.

Fish habitat module?

(The official term is FAD - Fish Aggregation Device)

[gongora]

Please keep this thread somewhat on topic.

[Comga]

Cross posting

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/824371954559836160

In talk on COSMIC-2, NOAA says Falcon Heavy demo launch scheduled for 2nd Q; STP-2 mission (with COSMIC-2) planned for Sept. 30. #AMS2017

[starhawk92]

Bumped Echostar as per mission thread; clearly CRS-10 and the reflight core under SES-10 are going to be impacted.  Have not moved CRS-10 as I have not seen a formal revision date, and I wonder if CRS-10 might "preempt" Echostar since it's got supplies for the manned ISS?

[BrianNH]

EXPEND would be better that DITCH IMO

[Comga]

Bumped Echostar as per mission thread; clearly CRS-10 and the reflight core under SES-10 are going to be impacted.  Have not moved CRS-10 as I have not seen a formal revision date, and I wonder if CRS-10 might "preempt" Echostar since it's got supplies for the manned ISS?

SpX-10 is officially NET 2/15 and it will not bump Echostar to be the first from LC-39A according to statements from NASA people. The ISS is in good shape from a supply standpoint according to the ISS threads.

[gongora]

Bumped Echostar as per mission thread; clearly CRS-10 and the reflight core under SES-10 are going to be impacted.  Have not moved CRS-10 as I have not seen a formal revision date, and I wonder if CRS-10 might "preempt" Echostar since it's got supplies for the manned ISS?

Guess that really was a possibility.  (I assumed going first from the pad would be seen as higher risk by NASA.)

Yes - and per the above (which is an update as it's very relevant) - there's a growing word (as in people seeing decision notes, so this is getting rather real) that Dragon has pulled rank to go first. Nobody puts baby in the corner!

[soltasto]

SpaceX submitted three new applications to the FCC, two regarding the F9-35 launch (Where did 34 go?) and one regarding F9 and FH systems tests at MCGregor.

F9-35 GTO launch: FCC link

This STA is necessary to authorize launch vehicle communications for F9-35, a commercial GTO launch from Complex 39a, Kennedy Space Center. Application includes sub-orbital first stage, and orbital second stage. Trajectory data to be provided directly to NTIA, USAF, and NASA. All downrange Earth stations are receive-only. Launch licensing authority is FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation.

F9-35 ASDS recovery: FCC link

This STA covers the experimental first-stage recovery operation, following a Falcon 9 launch from Cape Canaveral. This request is limited to the TC uplink, transmitting from an offshore boat/autonomous drone ship and/or onshore station at CCAFS. This includes pre-launch check-out operations at Port Canaveral and/or CCAFS as pre-coordinated with the launch Range. Launch vehicle flight communications for this mission are covered by a separate STA. The requested expiration date is 6 months following the grant date or upon completion of the experimental recovery operation, whichever occurs first.

Landing coordinates: North  28  13  48   West  73  40  51

F9 & FH LV systems test: FCC link

This STA is required for testing of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicle systems from the SpaceX Rocket Development and Test Facility in McGregor, Texas.

[gongora]

SpaceX submitted three new applications to the FCC, two regarding the F9-35 launch (Where did 34 go?) and one regarding F9 and FH systems tests at MCGregor...

Maybe F9-34 will be Formosat-5/SHERPA?  If they're sending out ASDS it implies that F9-35 is not Inmarsat 5 F4, which I though would be next in line.  Still several options to choose from such as Koreasat 5A (this might be at the top of the list), Bulgariasat 1.

The McGregor application is very similar to one they recently did for Hawthorne.

[gongora]

SpaceX submitted three new applications to the FCC, two regarding the F9-35 launch (Where did 34 go?) and one regarding F9 and FH systems tests at MCGregor...

Maybe F9-34 will be Formosat-5/SHERPA?  If they're sending out ASDS it implies that F9-35 is not Inmarsat 5 F4, which I though would be next in line.  Still several options to choose from such as Koreasat 5A (this might be at the top of the list), Bulgariasat 1.

The McGregor application is very similar to one they recently did for Hawthorne.

On Reddit, Soltasto mentioned the NRO launch as a possibility for F9-34, and that could very well be the case if it has schedule priority over the commsats.  It looks like ULA doesn't get FCC permits for their national security launches, so SpaceX probably wouldn't need to either.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Bautz: two astrophysics payloads, NICER and ISS-CREAM, going to ISS on SpX-11 and 12 in April & June (if SpX-10 launches in Feb…) #apsapril

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/825702745659150336