SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 4

[jpo234]

You could use separate lines for the side and center cores on Falcon Heavy flights, which would give more space and allow for indicating separate targets.

NET DATE    BOOST(Core)  1S Tgt      PAYLOAD(S)                    ORB  MASS    PAD
----------  -----------  ------      -----------------------       ---  ------  ----
2017-05     FHeavy                   Falcon Heavy Demo Flight                   LC39A
            (Cntr 25-1)  OCISLY
            (Side XX-X)  LZ-1
            (Side YY-Y)  LZ-1

Also, consider captializing 'Pad' and 'Ditch' as they aren't acronyms and readers won't attempt to interpret them as such.

Good thinking. Here's what I would suggest, based on that format (changes in red):

NET DATE    BOOST(Core)  1S Tgt      PAYLOAD(S)                    ORB  MASS    PAD
----------  -----------  ------      -----------------------       ---  ------  ----
2017-05     FHeavy(1)                Falcon Heavy Demo Flight                   LC39A
            (C 25-1)     OCISLY
            (L XX-X)     LZ-1
            (R YY-Y)     LZ-1

Is there a definition what's the front of the FH? Otherwise L/R depends on your view point. It could even be Front and Back.

[Zardar]

Is there a definition what's the front of the FH? Otherwise L/R depends on your view point. It could even be Front and Back.

Its a rocket-ship! Don't use left and right, use Port and Starboard. Port side would be the side nearest the gantry?

[groknull]

Is there a definition what's the front of the FH? Otherwise L/R depends on your view point. It could even be Front and Back.

Its a rocket-ship! Don't use left and right, use Port and Starboard. Port side would be the side nearest the gantry?

Yes, but that is a coincidence*.

Per the Falcon User's Guide, pages 12 & 13 (rev 2), the Falcon uses a right handed coordinate system with +X along the vehicle axis, and +Z on the opposite side from the transporter-erector.  For ships (and aircraft), +Z is "down", so -Y is Port and +Y is Starboard.

At LC-39A, the gantry is indeed to Port.


*[Maybe not - others, with more launch vehicle involvement than I, would be able to say if gantry placement on -Y is a convention.]

[rockets4life97]

The NROL flight is expected in March. That has been the date for awhile and I expect they get priority.

It would require a couple of 2 week turnarounds back to back, so maybe not.

Yes NROL flight now Mar 1, from Vandenberg. So don't see a clash with SpaceX Vandenberg manifest:

ULA:

The Atlas V launch carrying the NROL-79 satellite for the National Reconnaissance Office is confirmed on the Western Range for March 1.

I was describing a SpaceX NROL flight, not a ULA one. This is the SpaceX Manifest thread.

[Comga]

You could use separate lines for the side and center cores on Falcon Heavy flights, which would give more space and allow for indicating separate targets.

NET DATE    BOOST(Core)  1S Tgt      PAYLOAD(S)                    ORB  MASS    PAD
----------  -----------  ------      -----------------------       ---  ------  ----
2017-05     FHeavy                   Falcon Heavy Demo Flight                   LC39A
            (Cntr 25-1)  OCISLY
            (Side XX-X)  LZ-1
            (Side YY-Y)  LZ-1

Also, consider not captializing 'Pad' and 'Ditch' as they aren't acronyms and readers won't attempt to interpret them as such.

Good thinking. Here's what I would suggest, based on that format (changes in red):

NET DATE    BOOST(Core)  1S Tgt      PAYLOAD(S)                    ORB  MASS    PAD
----------  -----------  ------      -----------------------       ---  ------  ----
2017-05     FHeavy(1)                Falcon Heavy Demo Flight                   LC39A
            (C 25-1)     OCISLY
            (L XX-X)     LZ-1
            (R YY-Y)     LZ-1

My suggestion is to pile all that stuff on one line.  It will mess with the column formatting but conserve space

NET DATE    BOOST(Core)  1S Tgt      PAYLOAD(S)                    ORB  MASS    PAD
----------  -----------  ------      -----------------------       ---  ------  ----
2017-05     FHeavy[1]               Falcon Heavy Demo Flight                   LC39A
            Ctr 25-1     OCISLY     L XX-X LZ-1    R YY-Y  LZ-1

edit: Formatting, and thanks for showing the [ pre ] tag
edit 2:  That's pretty much how you have it on the manifest now. 

[dglow]

Are fewer lines better than labeling consistency? It's a scrolling web page, and completed missions are occasionally purged off the top, so we won't be running out of space. 

As for the Left/Right Port/Starboard debate, that's exactly why I didn't go there. Use Center, Side, Side or C, S, S. We understand the side boosters to be interchangeable, and we have booster numbers for identifying particular articles - that should be enough.

[old_sellsword]

Are fewer lines better than labeling consistency? It's a scrolling web page, and completed missions are occasionally purged off the top, so we won't be running out of space. 

As for the Left/Right Port/Starboard debate, that's exactly why I didn't go there. Use Center, Side, Side or C, S, S. We understand the side boosters to be interchangeable, and we have booster numbers for identifying particular articles - that should be enough.

My only problem with not differentiating between the side boosters is that the left one will be facing backwards compared to the center core and the right side booster, so they won't be in identical configurations. There's a very well defined coordinate system in the Falcon 9 User's Guide (below), and I'm sure there will be one in the Falcon Heavy User's Guide as well.

[Raul]

New FCC application for F9-34 - a commercial GTO launch from Complex 39a.

Similarly like for EchoStar-23, there is no application for first-stage recovery operation - at least not yet.

[gongora]

New FCC application for F9-34 - a commercial GTO launch from Complex 39a.

Similarly like for EchoStar-23, there is no application for first-stage recovery operation - at least not yet.

At least two more expendable launches coming up soon, Intelsat 35e (6mt) and Inmarsat 5 F4 (6.1mt)

[ZachS09]

Isn't there an F9-33?

You can't just go from 32 to 34.

[old_sellsword]

Isn't there an F9-33?

You can't just go from 32 to 34.

Actually they could if they wanted to. But they didn't, F9-33 is here.

[meberbs]

Isn't there an F9-33?

You can't just go from 32 to 34.

Actually they could if they wanted to. But they didn't, F9-33 is here.

This reminds me, the manifest in this thread lists the flight number for CRS-10 as F9-31, but the application data indicates this would be F9-32, and Echostar 23 will still be on F9-31 despite the order switch. We have had similar before where the Jason-3 launch was out of order when you look at flight number.

(Using booster serial numbers will help with this type of confusion once the old launches with unknown serial numbers have fallen off, but lets not repeat that conversation)

[starhawk92]

meberbs,

If at the last minute SpaceX for whatever reason rolls the TEL back to the HIF and swaps cores with Echostar, what is the F9-?? since the serial numbers have changed as well?

I think I remember that due to the interchangeable nature of the Falcon, we were going to track reuse by order of flight and not by FCC application designation . . . ?  Hopefully someone else remember this?

[meberbs]

I don't see why the flight number would change, cores aren't tied to flight number (until after first flight because we are currently tracking re-use by original flight number) So if they swapped with the core for SES-10, then the number in the table would change to 23-1, but with Echostar would be no change (CRS-10 stays as F9-32). It would be more clear to track by serial number but some previous (and recovered) cores we don't know the serial number for.

We have used official flight number in the past: Jason-3 was F9-19 even though it came in between F9-21 and F9-22. If we decided to move away from this, I missed when that decision happened.

NET DATE    BOOST(Core)  1S Tgt      PAYLOAD(S)                    ORB  MASS    PAD
----------  -----------  ------      -----------------------       ---  ------  ----
2016-01-17  F9(19)       JRTI        Jason-3 [1]                   LEO  553     LC4E

[Jakusb]

I don't see why the flight number would change, cores aren't tied to flight number (until after first flight because we are currently tracking re-use by original flight number) So if they swapped with the core for SES-10, then the number in the table would change to 23-1, but with Echostar would be no change (CRS-10 stays as F9-32). It would be more clear to track by serial number but some previous (and recovered) cores we don't know the serial number for.

We have used official flight number in the past: Jason-3 was F9-19 even though it came in between F9-21 and F9-22. If we decided to move away from this, I missed when that decision happened.

NET DATE    BOOST(Core)  1S Tgt      PAYLOAD(S)                    ORB  MASS    PAD
----------  -----------  ------      -----------------------       ---  ------  ----
2016-01-17  F9(19)       JRTI        Jason-3 [1]                   LEO  553     LC4E

Flight numbers are arbitrary (until now). Core numbers are not, although still unknown for several past flights.
On the other hand. The last flown core had it's core number very clearly painted between it's legs. So if SpaceX keeps doing that, we would, from now on, always know which core was used for which flight.

[starhawk92]

meberbs,

I guess the point is that you are going by the FCC application, not by the actual flight order.  Yes, serial numbers will help, but we don't know if they will still be readable/repainted after three or four re-entries.  I am noting them as we (meaning the NSF community) start to find them regularly.

For example, we know the serial number of the core at McGregor, but nobody knows which flight it will be used for until it moves.  So, not really any better off with that information, because we saw them move before as well.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Cross-posting:

Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust  10 min
 Iridium says the launch of its next ten satellites will slip to mid-June because of a backlog in SpaceX’s manifest: http://bit.ly/2kpGL5S

[gongora]

Tweet from Peter B. de Selding:

Customer on @SpaceflightInc 's Sherpa tug awaiting @SpaceX launch: Our best guess at this point is a 2018 launch.

Space Intel Report: US policy on India’s rockets: Dead man walking

[gongora]

Spaceflight Now's Launch Schedule is showing this flight in April.

Intelsat 35e scheduled for April

[Chris Bergin]

Do we have a SES-10 thread up yet?

https://twitter.com/SES_Satellites/status/832602692287680512