Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Telemetry Correlation #638

Closed
spacexdash opened this issue Jan 8, 2021 · 8 comments
Closed

Telemetry Correlation #638

spacexdash opened this issue Jan 8, 2021 · 8 comments

Comments

@spacexdash
Copy link
Contributor

spacexdash commented Jan 8, 2021

Hi -

I see from this issue #352 that there was a suggestion to use launch dashboard api for first stage telemetry which is a great API - so completely agree data should live with them.

My concern is that there's no easy way for developers to actually reconcile between the two API's. This basic query gives an example of the problem we face

curl http://api.launchdashboard.space/v2/launches/spacex/ | jq

I am observing miss matching flight numbers which is not ideal because we can't use that as a key. Furthermore, i also observe a missmatch between mission identifiers which means we can't use that as key either.

Some examples

NROL-108 flight number 112 vs 117
starlink-11 flight_number 102 vs 105
Saocom-1b flight_number 101 vs 104

Suggestion that they should match

Can i suggest that we look to support their 'launch_library_2_id' key as a new property to the launch schema. Or alternatively, we could utilize the links array and provide a URL to the telemetry data? Ideally, a new field would be best to allow greatest control over what what developers can do with the key. I see this as the best way to ensure consistency across the API's without both repos having to reconcile and fix miss-matches as a going concern.

Also happy to raise this ticket against them, but i fear it will keep happening.

Thanks for your great work.

@spacexdash
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi - just wondering if you had any thoughts on this? I have done a bit more research and it seems there's a wealth of API's supporting launchlibrary2id. For example, flightclub.io, launch dashboard IO and spaceflightnewsapi. I was chatting with the maintianers on discord (they have a 'The Space Devs' server where they colloborate across APIs) and they didn't take issue with another API supporting their identifier.

@jakewmeyer
Copy link
Member

All for adding a launch library v2 id 👍

@spacexdash
Copy link
Contributor Author

Awesome - let me know if i can assist in anyway.

@jakewmeyer
Copy link
Member

Got this knocked out over the weekend, going forward the next launch up should be automatically matched with the corresponding launch library v2 launch, and the field launch_library_id was added to launches.

Only think I haven't done is backfilling the existing launches, but that might take a bit, since a good amount need to be manually matched.

@spacexdash
Copy link
Contributor Author

That's awesome! Yep understand backfilling will take some time. Thank you very much.

@ItsCalebJones
Copy link
Contributor

ItsCalebJones commented Jan 30, 2021

Hey there! I'm a dev with TheSpaceDevs here's a gist of a POC I had for syncing SpaceX API and LL2 IDs - could be helpful. The Launch object is a LL object from the launch endpoint - can simply iterate through SpaceX launches.

https://gist.github.com/ItsCalebJones/1c38922507808b52dc744bc7593568df

@jakewmeyer
Copy link
Member

@ItsCalebJones I'll probably switch to your approach, time deltas are much easier to match with vs. my current implementation matching the mission names 👍

@ItsCalebJones
Copy link
Contributor

time deltas are much easier to match with 👍

Absolutely - it worked really well for past missions and even found a date that ya'll had entered incorrectly awhile ago. Anyways we're adding a r_spacex_api_id field to Launch Library - is there an issue tracking this feature request?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants