SpaceX Manifest Now Completely Impossible to Follow

SpaceX_Manifest_AlphabeticalSpaceX’s manifest has never been very understandable. Missions were listed by year, with an asterisk clarifying that this was the year when hardware arrived at the launch site.

Now the company has restructured the manifest alphabetically, not by year.

Fortunately, has a list of planned SpaceX missions for 2015 as part of its launch schedule. What they have at the moment are 14 missions, would be a major increase on the six flights the company conducted in 2014. The schedule shows the first test of Falcon Heavy occurring in the third quarter.

The table below excerpts the SpaceX mission from’s launch schedule.

1.Jan. 6
Falcon 9CRS 5CCAFSISS resupply; first-stage barge landing attempt
2.Jan. 29Falcon 9DSCOVRCCAFSDeep Space Climate Observatory headed for L1 Lagrangian point 930,000 miles from Earth
3.FebruaryFalcon 9Eutelsat 115 West B & ABS 3ACCAFSCommunications satellites
4.1st QuarterFalcon 9Orbcomm OG2CCAFSCommunications satellite
5.March 31
Falcon 9Jason 3VAFBOcean altimeter mission
6.April 8Falcon 9CRS 6CCAFSISS resupply mission
7.June 13
Falcon 9CRS 7CCAFSISS resupply mission
8.Second QuarterFalcon 9SES 9CCAFSCommunications satellite
9.3rd Quarter
Falcon 9Amos 6CCAFSCommunications satellite
10.3rd QuarterFalcon HeavyDemo FlightKSCFirst Falcon Heavy flight; first SpaceX launch from Pad 39-A
11.Sept. 2
Falcon 9CRS 8CCAFSISS resupply mission
12.Fourth Quarter
Falcon 9Eutelsat 117 West B & ABS 2ACCAFSCommunications satellites
13.Late 2015
 Falcon 9JCSAT 14CCAFSCommunications satellites
14.Dec. 9
Falcon 9CRS 9CCAFSISS resupply mission

  • Jeff Smith

    My fluid dynamics professor always said “if you can’t solve the problem you have, change the problem into one you can.” If SpaceX can’t meet the schedule they have (specific launches of specific payloads on specific dates), they simply need to change it into one they can (an alphabetical list with no dates at all)!
    Hurray, my professor was right!!!!!

  • Solartear

    Doug, CRS 9 has a NOTES as “Communications satellite”

  • therealdmt

    Originally the list was to their benefit, showing an impressive launch manifest quickly filling up.

    This sent two messages:
    1) We’re a new company, but we’re legit
    2) [Considering that our prices are INSANE!] (Crazy Eddie reference there, for those who can relate;) Hurry up and reserve you’re slot NOW!

    Recently, publishing their launch manifest with dates has turned into a negative, a source for critics to, well, criticize them as launch dates have repeatedly slipped. The story has changed somewhat from their innovation, legitimacy and disruptiveness to their shortcomings.

    Smart move on their part to move the dates to a matter between themselves and their customers. To bad for me though, as I liked to know what to look forward to. Perhaps they can compromise and do something like list their next few upcoming missions in order, rather than attaching specific dates to them.

  • Chad Overton

    How come the Pad Abort and Launch Accent Abort tests arent listed? Any idea when those are occuring?

  • Douglas Messier

    I’m now hearing January and March. They’e not really launches per se.

  • windbourne

    The interesting ones are 5 and 6.
    1 week apart?

    I believe that they CAN hit 14 or more.
    The question is, will they?

    In fact, I think that they can launch 1 / week iff they get the re-use going.

  • windbourne

    well, pad abort is not a launch, but I do not think that you can claim that the launch accent abort is not a launch. Esp. when we declare OSC’s failed rocket to have launched.

  • windbourne

    I wonder if that is true.
    Part of me suspects that they are simply tired of getting heat for ‘breaking promises’, when they constantly say that each time, is NET.

  • DavidR2014

    IIRC BEAM was scheduled to fly in the trunk of CRS 8. Sept 2nd… can’t wait.

  • Douglas Messier

    I’ll add it to the list as soon as SpaceX officially tells us when it’s going to be.

    More about intent. As near as we know, Orbital was intending to put Cygnus into orbit. If the SpaceX in-flight abort fails and the Dragon ends up in orbit, we’ll call that an unintentionally successful launch.

    It’s good you guys brought that up. It makes the schedule look all the more ambitious if they’re shoehorning abort tests in the middle of all that activity.

  • Douglas Messier

    It seems like the use of NET is a fairly recent addition. Did it start with Dragon and Cygnus launches? I seem to recall everyone else used to set dates and stipulate backup launch windows.

  • Hug Doug

    5 is at Vandenberg, 6 is at Canaveral.
    keep in mind that reuse won’t happen for a few more years yet.

  • windbourne

    Oops. Missed that one. Thank.

  • windbourne

    I recall NET on their F1’s manifest.

  • Roncie Weatherington

    Besides the embarrassment of missing a launch date and time, there is the thought that putting out as little info as possible until the last minute could help thwart a potential terrorist threat against SpaceX. We all know somebody is out their trying to do it, no matter who is launching.

  • Hug Doug

    it looks like SpaceFlightNow is only listing launches with solid dates (a very reasonable thing to do). there are a few more launches that could be done from Vandenberg they are not including, so i’m hoping we’ll see a few launches from there. that will increase SpaceX’s overall launch rate while keeping Canaveral free for other launches.

    there is a “US Launch Schedule” on nasaspaceflight’s forums,

    here are the SpaceX launches listed for 2015 —

    1. January 6 – Dragon SpX-5 (CRS5) – Falcon 9 v1.1 – Canaveral SLC-40 – 11:18

    2. January 29 – DSCOVR (Triana) – Falcon 9 v1.1 – Canaveral SLC-40 – 23:35

    3. February – Eutelsat 115 West B (Satmex 7), ABS 3A – Falcon 9 v1.1 – Canaveral SLC-40

    4. March 31 – Jason-3 – Falcon 9 v1.1 – Vandenberg SLC-4E

    5. April 8 – Dragon SpX-6 (CRS6) – Falcon 9 v1.1 – Canaveral SLC-40

    6. June 13 – Dragon SpX-7 (CRS7) – Falcon 9 v1.1 – Canaveral SLC-40

    7. 1st half – TürkmenÄlem 52.00E (MonacoSat) – Falcon 9 v1.1 – Canaveral SLC-40

    8. 2nd quarter – SES-9 – Falcon 9 v1.1 – Canaveral SLC-40

    9. NET 1st quarter midyear – Orbcomm G2 (x11) – Falcon 9 v1.1 – Canaveral SLC-40

    10. 3rd quarter – Demo Flight – Falcon Heavy – Kennedy LC-39A

    11. August – AMOS 6 – Falcon 9 v1.1 – Canaveral SLC-40 (or 3rd quarter)

    12. August – STP-02: DSX, FORMOSAT 7A/7B/7C/7D/7E/7F, GPIM, OTB, FalconSat 6, NPSat 1, Oculus-ASR, Prox 1, LightSail B, Cubesats, Ballast – Falcon Heavy – Kennedy LC-39A (or April 2016)

    13. September 2 – Dragon SpX-8 (CRS8), BEAM (Bigelow Expandable Activity Module) – Falcon 9 v1.1 – Canaveral SLC-40

    14. September – SAOCOM-1A – Falcon 9 v1.1 – Vandenberg SLC-4E

    15. 2nd half – JCSat-14 – Falcon 9 v1.1 – Canaveral SLC-40

    16. 4th quarter – Eutelsat 117 West B (Satmex 9), ABS 2A – Falcon 9 v1.1 – Canaveral SLC-40

    17. late – Iridium Next Flight 1 (x10) – Falcon 9 v1.1 – Vandenberg SLC-4E

    18. late – Iridium Next Flight 2 (x10) – Falcon 9 v1.1 – Vandenberg SLC-4E

    19. December 9 – Dragon SpX-9 (CRS9) – Falcon 9 v1.1 – Canaveral SLC-40

    20. TBD – FORMOSAT 5 – Falcon 9 v1.1 – Vandenberg SLC-4E

    now, obviously, some of these are going to slip. anything with “late” or “TBD” i’d suspect would probably bump to 2016. CRS-9 almost certainly to 2016. the 2nd Falcon Heavy flight will very likely be in 2016, etc.

    overall, i’d say that SpaceX is in a strong position to have a full launch schedule at Canaveral while Vandenberg is finally pitching in its weight, so I’d say that they’ve got a strong chance of making 14 flights in 2015.

  • windbourne

    Yeah, I am a big believer in getting multiple space stations going. We need them to support multiple launch companies.

  • Terry Rawnsley

    I liked the Crazy Eddie reference.

  • savuporo

    Nope. The old launch manifests since 2007 are easily available through web archive. No NET anywhere*/

  • windbourne

    Yeah, but they also put a disclaimer on these that says that the schedule is not the launch, but when they expect the vehicle to arrive at the launch site.
    IOW, that is the equivalence of NET.

  • mattmcc80

    I’m not sure BEAM offers much for Bigelow that they don’t already know from Genesis I/II, so I don’t think it necessarily brings “multiple space stations” to reality any faster. From where I sit, BEAM is about allowing NASA to test, on its own terms, the viability of Bigelow’s inflatable modules (which is amusing, given where they got the technology in the first place)

    What’s holding Bigelow back from launching a station isn’t more research, it’s a domestic crew vehicle.

  • Jeff Smith

    A perceived NASA stamp of approval would help with the advertising campaign. (“Successfully used by NASA on the International Space Station.”)

  • windbourne

    In addition, I suspect that NASA will be happy to put 2 or more on BA, but only after they test it.

  • delphinus100

    Agreed. BEAM isn’t so much for engineering (though it’s nice to have on-site eyeballs checking it out, too),as for credibility in the eyes of NASA, and thereby, the eyes of others…

  • windbourne

    That is not entirely true.
    BA NEEDS NASA’s stamp of approval. Without it, they will find it hard to get customers. BUT, if they do BEAM for say 1-2 years, and get NASA to sign off that this is solid, then NASA will likely put 1-2 ppl on it for say several years. That will make it much easier to get others involved.

    Oddly, one of the big issues with the ISS is that it is noisy. Very Noisy. It is thought that BA’s will be like being in a normal house, if not a bit muted. That will make it easier on the crew. In addition, if this is muted enough, it means that crews can do shift rotations. That would be a huge plus for them.

  • mattmcc80

    I’d certainly agree a NASA ‘endorsement’ would help them, but they haven’t done too bad without one, having MOUs from at least seven countries already. Of course, that’s far from binding contracts, but it’s not a bad start for a company that hasn’t even built a BA-330 flight article yet.

  • Paul451

    having MOUs from at least seven countries already.

    No. This claim goes back to a single Space.Com article, the author of which won’t answer questions about it (I’ve tried), but seems to go back to a misunderstood comment from Robert Bigelow himself saying they’re in “discussion” with six countries. Bigelow PR also won’t answer questions about it (I’ve tried that too).

    I’ve only found three definitive MOU’s. One with the UK and one with Spaceport Florida, both just mutual promotion agreements (“We’ll promote you to our clients, you promote us to your clients”). The third is with the UAE, details unknown.

  • windbourne

    BINGO. We have a winner.

    I have no doubt that they will land customers if they get it up in space, AND have NASA backing. But otherwise???????

  • Vladislaw

    Bigelow upgraded their website and it now includes the following:

    “Bigelow Aerospace’s historic first commercial space station will open up extraordinary opportunities for countries across the globe. Nations such as Japan, Canada, Brazil, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Sweden could secure the future of their human spaceflight programs and dramatically increase the size of their astronaut corps. Smaller countries with no human spaceflight experience such as Singapore or the United Arab Emirates could take their first bold steps into space in a rapid and affordable fashion. The benefits to participating nations are many and varied. Developing an astronaut corps and conducting operations aboard a space station can dramatically transform a nation’s image (both internally and externally). The creation of jobs and lucrative economic opportunities via microgravity research, development, and manufacturing can inspire a new cadre of domestic scientists and engineers while attracting the best and brightest minds from around the world to a country’s universities and companies.”

    They list the same names that were in the SpaceDOTcom article.

  • Paul451

    However, that page doesn’t talk about actual agreements. It just uses them as examples. [Looks like Australia’s been dropped and Canada has been added.]

    OTOH, the article (repeated by mattmcc80 and wikipedia and a bunch of articles blindly repeating the article) talks about MOUs.

    I think Robert Bigelow has a list of nations he uses in interviews, purely as examples of the sort of nations which could benefit from BA Stations, and Leonard David confused one of those lists with Bigelow’s MOUs. Then that article became a “source” for other articles, which reinforced the idea that it’s a well-known fact in the industry.

    I can only find evidence of three actual agreements, UK-ATC, Space Florida, and UAE-EIAST.

  • Vladislaw

    The commercial space federation also copied the space dot com article where Bigelow sits on the executive membership. I just can not imagine it being posted there if it is a bogus claim. More likely everyone is just not talking.

  • windbourne

    I really think that nasa testing beam will help BA. But what will all the difference in the world is when they put up a space station and then show that they are serious about going to the moon. At that point, just about every small nation will work hard to get an astronaut program started. All will look at south and north poles as examples.

  • Christopher Lee

    so, two years later, how do you think they’re holding up?