Author Topic: SpaceX Manifest Updates and Discussion Thread 4 (Read 315538 times)

gongora · « **Reply #620 on:** 04/06/2017 03:02 AM »

New FCC Permit application for pre-launch testing of mission 1334 (commercial mission). Anyone have a clue about this new numbering scheme? Looks like the order of mission numbers on the permits right now is:
F9-33 (SES-10)
1363 (NROL-76)
F9-34 (Inmarsat 5 F4)
(CRS-11)
F9-35 (Bulgariasat 1)
1372 (Intelsat 35e)
1334 (SES-11?)

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #621 on:** 04/06/2017 12:33 PM »

Just a random shot in the dark - Could the new launch references be internal SpaceX accounting references for the whole operation from contract signed to payload release including LV construction?

gongora · « **Reply #622 on:** 04/07/2017 01:50 PM »

NROL-76 delay:

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/07/2017 01:44 PM

Yep, we've been waiting for the new date to become documented and now it is via L2 KSC/Cape scheduling.

NET April 30, same window.

Static Fire on April 26.

No reasons given, so likely the payload (which isn't talkative as we're talking about a NROL bird).

gongora · « **Reply #623 on:** 04/07/2017 02:17 PM »

Inmarsat 5 F4 delay:

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/07/2017 01:52 PM

L2 has an updated (post NROL-76) NET of May 15. Window opens at 1920 Eastern.

Ronsmytheiii · « **Reply #624 on:** 04/08/2017 04:05 PM »

Not sure which one, but an instagram post from a USAF airman is intriguing:

Quote

Work Flow at Space X's Vertical Processing Facility. Delivered an experiment to load into their Falcon 9 rocket for launch in June

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #625 on:** 04/09/2017 01:14 AM »

We're waiting for photos, but Gary for L2 McGregor is reporting FH side booster on the test stand!

gongora · « **Reply #626 on:** 04/13/2017 11:38 PM »

Quote from: gongora on 04/06/2017 03:02 AM

New FCC Permit application for pre-launch testing of mission 1334 (commercial mission).
1334 (SES-11?)

1334 is ASDS landing

jak Kennedy · « **Reply #627 on:** 04/15/2017 02:22 PM »

Been looking for a link to the manifest table. Could someone post it please. I would love to see a launch in May :-)

AnalogMan · « **Reply #628 on:** 04/15/2017 02:33 PM »

Quote from: jak Kennedy on 04/15/2017 02:22 PM

Been looking for a link to the manifest table. Could someone post it please. I would love to see a launch in May :-)

First post of this thread (it is regularly updated as new info becomes available)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40231.msg1528569#msg1528569

dror · « **Reply #629 on:** 04/15/2017 03:25 PM »

From the table:

2017-03-30 F9 23-1 B1021 OCIS SES-10 [12] GTO 5300 LC39A
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017-04-30 F9 33 RTLS NROL-76 [18] LC39A
2017-05-15 F9 EXPD Inmarsat 5-F4 [21] GTO 6100 LC39A
2017-05-14 F9 RTLS Dragon (CRS-11) [20] LEO 10000 LC39A
2017-05-20 F9 EXPD Intelsat 35e [17] GTO ~6000 LC39A
2017-05 F9 OCIS BulgariaSat-1 GTO 3669. LC39A
2017-05 F9 OCIS SES-11/Echostar 105 [15] GTO 5400 LC39A

There's a big (one month) gap and then two launchs within two days, or three in one week or five within two weeks ?!

What can we actually expect?

old_sellsword · « **Reply #630 on:** 04/15/2017 03:40 PM »

Quote from: dror on 04/15/2017 03:25 PM

What can we actually expect?

Expect Inmarsat-5 F4 to get pushed back a little, CRS-11 and Intelsat-35e to get pushed back a lot, and everything after that is a rough outline at best.

meberbs · « **Reply #631 on:** 04/15/2017 03:48 PM »

Quote from: old_sellsword on 04/15/2017 03:40 PM

Quote from: dror on 04/15/2017 03:25 PM
What can we actually expect?

Expect Inmarsat-5 F4 to get pushed back a little, CRS-11 and Intelsat-35e to get pushed back a lot, and everything after that is a rough outline at best.

Not sure why we should expect Inmarsat to get pushed back at this point other than typical last minute delays due to things like weather. SpaceX just demonstrated a 2 week turn around, and the current 1 month turn around is likely a payload issue.

For reference, the table has these unrealistic dates because they are the last available official information. CRS-11 requires coordination with NASA, and will probably get adjusted after the Cygnus launch. I assume everything after that will end up rearranged based on that.

The Roadie · « **Reply #632 on:** 04/16/2017 07:41 PM »

New booster seen this morning exiting Hawthorne final integration and parked on Jack Northrup.

Pics in the FB thread, credit John Hart: https://www.facebook.com/groups/spacexgroup/permalink/10155308608491318/

Trying to get a more aggressive photographer on the scene who won't be intimidated by security dudes exceeding their authority to request no pics. Feh. Public street - snap away!

Bumps and depressions in the interstage area might reveal if it's a normal core or a "special" one.

Navier–Stokes · « **Reply #633 on:** 04/17/2017 04:15 PM »

From the OA-7 pre-launch news conference:

Quote from: ChrisGebhardt on 04/17/2017 03:18 PM

CRS-11 for SpaceX on 31 May with berthing on June 3.

FutureSpaceTourist · « **Reply #634 on:** 04/21/2017 01:50 PM »

SpaceIL won't be flying this year (and thus potentially not at all unless Google moves the lunar x-prize deadline again):

Quote

A Spaceflight executive tells Quartz that SpaceIL’s rocket is still in the launch queue but will be unable to launch before 2018, effectively scotching SpaceIL’s chance at the contest barring a last-minute extension to the deadline.

https://qz.com/962696/spaceil-the-israeli-team-competing-for-the-google-lunar-xprize-wont-make-it-to-the-starting-line/

deruch · « **Reply #635 on:** 04/27/2017 03:32 AM »

Quote from: gongora on 04/06/2017 03:02 AM

New FCC Permit application for pre-launch testing of mission 1334 (commercial mission). Anyone have a clue about this new numbering scheme? Looks like the order of mission numbers on the permits right now is:
F9-33 (SES-10)
1363 (NROL-76)
F9-34 (Inmarsat 5 F4)
(CRS-11)
F9-35 (Bulgariasat 1)
1372 (Intelsat 35e)
1334 (SES-11?)

The new numbering scheme is a result of minor miscommunication due to SpaceX switching around launch order for their missions and thereby using "F9-35" for 2 applications to the FCC. As a result of a request for clarification by the FCC due to SpaceX applying for 2 STAs for what looked (to the FCC) like the same mission (the 2nd was because flight order had changed making a new mission F9-35), SpaceX changed to using unique mission identifiers regardless of launch order.

https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=187984&x=.

Quote from: FCC clarification request

To: Christopher Wilkins
From: Doug Young
Date: February 17, 2017
Subject: Request for Info - 0206-EX-ST-2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
This application and 0120-EX-ST-2017 both state that they are for launch vehicle communications for the same mission (F9-35). Explain.
...

https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=188552&x=.

Quote from: SpaceX reply

From: Christopher Wilkins
To: Doug Young
Date: March 03, 2017
Subject: Request for Info - 0206-EX-ST-2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
This application has been updated to use a unique mission identifier (1363 for this mission) which SpaceX will be using to identify all subsequent missions.

This is motivated by the potential issue brought up in this correspondence, where the previous method of flight numbering resulted in a duplication of usage in the STA applications when the customer for a particular flight of the launch vehicle were swapped.

I don't know whether this naming schema is being used outside applications to the FCC. But it would seem perfectly in character for SpaceX to find themselves using a unique naming scheme for each government body they have to apply to for launch approvals.

FutureSpaceTourist · « **Reply #636 on:** 04/27/2017 12:03 PM »

Cross-posting:

Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/27/2017 12:03 PM

Quote
Peter B. de Selding‏ @pbdes 5m5 minutes ago

@IridiumComm: Our 2d group of 10 2d-gen sats to launch June 29 w/ @SpaceX. @Intelsat: We expect late-June launch of IS-35e w/ @SpaceX.

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/857564394749919237

Edit to add launch time:

Quote

Matt Desch‏ @IridiumBoss 1m1 minute ago

Announced Iridium NEXT launch #2 date this morning: Thurs, June 29, 1:04pm pdt. Will start sending sats to VAFB soon. T minus 9 weeks!

https://twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/857570216687128576

gongora · « **Reply #637 on:** 05/02/2017 01:30 AM »

Changes needed on the manifest:
CRS-11 -> 5/31
Bulgariasat 1 -> mid June
Intelsat 35e -> late June
Iridium flight 2 -> 6/29
Remove SHERPA from the Formosat 5 flight

gongora · « **Reply #638 on:** 05/02/2017 03:49 PM »

A post on Reddit shows recent updates to the SpaceX manifest on the company web site. For the added missions, we already have most of them on our manifest, the only one I'm not sure about is "Airbus Defense and Space" launching from Vandenberg.

Some missions were removed from the company manifest. DragonLab is finally removed, as well as Intelsat FH launch.

soltasto · « **Reply #639 on:** 05/02/2017 05:00 PM »

Quote from: gongora on 05/02/2017 03:49 PM

A post on Reddit shows recent updates to the SpaceX manifest on the company web site. For the added missions, we already have most of them on our manifest, the only one I'm not sure about is "Airbus Defense and Space" launching from Vandenberg.

Some missions were removed from the company manifest. DragonLab is finally removed, as well as Intelsat FH launch.

The SARah satellites are built by Airbus Defense and Space, so the launch could be contracted for it.