Author Topic: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - CASSIOPE - Sept. 29 - LAUNCH UPDATES  (Read 237744 times)

Offline Ric Capucho

  • Member
  • Posts: 58
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 17
What? Now you're gonna tell me that Buenos Aires isn't the capital of Brazil?

Of course not.  That's Rio de Janeiro.
The joke. You killed the joke.

Oh no he didn't.

Ric

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Please SpaceX, we need that retro-burn video to keep this on topic! Please.........  :-[

Good point  ;)
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline cambrianera

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 234
Please SpaceX, we need that retro-burn video to keep this on topic! Please.........  :-[
Haha, much needed, for sure  (time lapse from launch day   :D  :)   :(   :'(   )
Oh to be young again. . .

Offline gwiz

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
  • Cornwall
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 1
Some of the payloads identified at last.  A is CASSIOPE and D, E and F are the POPACS.

Offline Sesquipedalian

  • Whee!
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 629
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 513
What? Now you're gonna tell me that Buenos Aires isn't the capital of Brazil?

Of course not.  That's Rio de Janeiro.
The joke. You killed the joke.

Oh no he didn't.

Ric

Glad somebody caught that. ;)

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
Stay on topic. There is a party thread and a general discussion thread. This is neither.

Offline gwiz

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
  • Cornwall
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 1
The remaining payloads are now identified: According to Space-Track, B is CUSat 1 and C is DANDE.  They also give CUSat 2 as attached to the Falcon stage and H to V as debris.

Offline jcm

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Jonathan McDowell
  • Somerville, Massachusetts, USA
    • Jonathan's Space Report
  • Liked: 357
  • Likes Given: 297
The remaining payloads are now identified: According to Space-Track, B is CUSat 1 and C is DANDE.  They also give CUSat 2 as attached to the Falcon stage and H to V as debris.


Some of the confusion of posters earlier in this thread is because the objects SpaceTrack are now calling A to G
are NOT the objects they were calling A to G a week ago. The orbital parameters didn't change because
of drag or inaccurate data, they changed because they now refer to completely different objects.

As far as I can tell, the old A, C, E, F and G are no longer being tracked.  The old D is now being called J.
The old B was a mix of objects including the new B but also including elsets that belong to debris objects.

The new A, C, D, E, F do not have elsets prior to Oct 7 or so.
The POPACS objects D, E, F still seem to be jumping around and it may be another few days before they sort out which is which.

« Last Edit: 10/12/2013 07:32 PM by jcm »
-----------------------------

Jonathan McDowell
http://planet4589.org

Offline justineet

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 18
The remaining payloads are now identified: According to Space-Track, B is CUSat 1 and C is DANDE.  They also give CUSat 2 as attached to the Falcon stage and H to V as debris.

Only one of the 2 CUSats was launched. One of them was not launched because it was damaged during ground testing.

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1887
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA -- previously in Ann Arbor, MI
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 188
The remaining payloads are now identified: According to Space-Track, B is CUSat 1 and C is DANDE.  They also give CUSat 2 as attached to the Falcon stage and H to V as debris.


Some of the confusion of posters earlier in this thread is because the objects SpaceTrack are now calling A to G
are NOT the objects they were calling A to G a week ago. The orbital parameters didn't change because
of drag or inaccurate data, they changed because they now refer to completely different objects.

As far as I can tell, the old A, C, E, F and G are no longer being tracked.  The old D is now being called J.
The old B was a mix of objects including the new B but also including elsets that belong to debris objects.

The new A, C, D, E, F do not have elsets prior to Oct 7 or so.
The POPACS objects D, E, F still seem to be jumping around and it may be another few days before they sort out which is which.

Moving letter labels for orbital elements is normal. The letter labels are not fixed and are re-assigned based on arbitrary ordering.
Internal combustion engine in space. It's just a Bad Idea.TM - Robotbeat

Offline jcm

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Jonathan McDowell
  • Somerville, Massachusetts, USA
    • Jonathan's Space Report
  • Liked: 357
  • Likes Given: 297
The remaining payloads are now identified: According to Space-Track, B is CUSat 1 and C is DANDE.  They also give CUSat 2 as attached to the Falcon stage and H to V as debris.


Some of the confusion of posters earlier in this thread is because the objects SpaceTrack are now calling A to G
are NOT the objects they were calling A to G a week ago. The orbital parameters didn't change because
of drag or inaccurate data, they changed because they now refer to completely different objects.

As far as I can tell, the old A, C, E, F and G are no longer being tracked.  The old D is now being called J.
The old B was a mix of objects including the new B but also including elsets that belong to debris objects.

The new A, C, D, E, F do not have elsets prior to Oct 7 or so.
The POPACS objects D, E, F still seem to be jumping around and it may be another few days before they sort out which is which.

Moving letter labels for orbital elements is normal. The letter labels are not fixed and are re-assigned based on arbitrary ordering.

It's normal since around the late 1980s, yes. It's bloody annoying though and from a data integrity point of view it's a Bad Idea. And I'm not entirely convinced it's consistent with the powers delegated to USAF from COSPAR to reassign these (in principle, the letter labels belong to the international COSPAR organization, part of the ICSU, an NGO. I imagine in principle COSPAR could decide to take back that authority someday if USAF do things with the labels that are too silly).

Changing IDs of the cataloged numbers is also "normal" too - I mean that 39268 became 39276 and 39265 ceased to exist and the number reassigned to a different object. And that's also very annoying, because it means the numbers DON'T MEAN ANYTHING.  You can't have any confidence that two elsets with the same catalog number refer to the same object.

Again, that's something that started in the 1980s or so, when the aesthetics of the current state of the catalog became more important that the data integrity of the historical database.


« Last Edit: 10/12/2013 11:13 PM by jcm »
-----------------------------

Jonathan McDowell
http://planet4589.org

Offline gwiz

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
  • Cornwall
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 1
Today's news from Space-Track is that six new object have been catalogued.  Four have orbits consistent with the expected POPACS spacers.  The other two could be from the second stage event.

Offline Blackjax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 33
Has anyone examined the possibility that the items being tracked are not accidental debris, but are actually small classified payloads to test something or other for the government? 


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31343
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9624
  • Likes Given: 299
Has anyone examined the possibility that the items being tracked are not accidental debris, but are actually small classified payloads to test something or other for the government? 



there were no such payloads

Offline Blackjax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 33
Has anyone examined the possibility that the items being tracked are not accidental debris, but are actually small classified payloads to test something or other for the government? 



there were no such payloads

Could I persuade you to share your basis for this assertion?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31343
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9624
  • Likes Given: 299
Has anyone examined the possibility that the items being tracked are not accidental debris, but are actually small classified payloads to test something or other for the government? 



there were no such payloads

Could I persuade you to share your basis for this assertion?


NRO and gov't openly announces all of its launches. 

Offline mdo

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 169
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Changing IDs of the cataloged numbers is also "normal" too - I mean that 39268 became 39276 and 39265 ceased to exist and the number reassigned to a different object. And that's also very annoying, because it means the numbers DON'T MEAN ANYTHING.  You can't have any confidence that two elsets with the same catalog number refer to the same object.

Thanks for the insight. So, the 5-digit catalog ID is not a primary key in the database sense and consequently referential integrity is NOT a given when following individual objects across different epochs.

Prior to posting the dual-epoch-table a few days ago and in an attempt to ensure consistency I had checked the additions and updates of the change report (SSR parts 4 and 5). Back then there was no log of modified catalog numbers and only a single entry about object G now being considered the rocket body. In the meantime the SSR lists a number of name changes, however, as we have seen that does not help much when IDs are reassigned. BTW, Celestrak seems to use yet different names for some objects. Furthermore, the various TLE tables/reports seem to get updated each on their own schedule and therefore can be out of sync. So much about the lessons learned.
      
Now, most readers presumably don't care about those details and simply want to know what the status is. So, below is a snapshot of 27 objects currently associated with launch 2013-055 (but this time without reference to previous epochs of objects with the same catalog ID).

catID   label       obj.  peri x apo [km]
39247*  F9 R/B DEB   W?   715    732?
39265   CASSIOPE     A    325   1486
39266   CUSAT 1      B    325   1483
39267   DANDE        C    325   1485
39268   POPACS 1     D    325   1480
39269   POPACS 2     E    324   1482
39270   POPACS 3     F    325   1481
39271   CUSAT 2/F9   G    319   1488
39272   F9 Deb       H    253    756
39273   F9 Deb       J    197    301
39274   F9 Deb       K    433   1283
39275   F9 Deb       L    406    649
39276   F9 Deb       M    403   1180
39277   F9 Deb       N    460   1398
39278   F9 Deb       P    468   1393
39279   F9 Deb       Q    429   1173
39280   F9 Deb       R    325   1472
39281   F9 Deb       S    239    466
39282   F9 Deb       T    301    545
39283   F9 Deb       U    492    630
39284   F9 Deb       V    380    803
39288   F9 Deb       W    404   1398
39289   F9 Deb       X    354    699
39290   F9 Deb       Y    325   1473
39291   F9 Deb       Z    322   1484
39292   F9 Deb       AA   323   1474
39293   F9 Deb       AB   325   1472


*) some objects like 39247 show up in the satellite catalog but are missing in other TLE views

Table is subject to change and non-binding.  :)

EDIT: annotated 39247
« Last Edit: 10/13/2013 11:27 PM by mdo »

Offline jcm

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Jonathan McDowell
  • Somerville, Massachusetts, USA
    • Jonathan's Space Report
  • Liked: 357
  • Likes Given: 297
Changing IDs of the cataloged numbers is also "normal" too - I mean that 39268 became 39276 and 39265 ceased to exist and the number reassigned to a different object. And that's also very annoying, because it means the numbers DON'T MEAN ANYTHING.  You can't have any confidence that two elsets with the same catalog number refer to the same object.

Thanks for the insight. So, the 5-digit catalog ID is not a primary key in the database sense and consequently referential integrity is NOT a given when following individual objects across different epochs.


Sadly, this is correct. There are two forms of this: accidental mis-tagging (e.g. when two GEO satellites pass close to each other and they get confused as to which is which - understandable and excusable) - and this deliberate re-tagging, which is bad.

Quote
 
So much about the lessons learned.


welcome to my world... :-)

Quote
      
catID   label       obj.  peri x apo [km]
39247*  F9 R/B DEB   W?   715    732?
 

*) some objects like 39247 show up in the satellite catalog but are missing in other TLE views
 

I had missed this.  39247 was originally reserved for 2013-047B, the Minotaur 5th stage for LADEE.
They have apparently decided that they aren't ever going to find it (it's in a deep orbit) and are reusing the
number. However:
  - they haven't renamed 2013-047C yet - expect it to become 047B in a while.
 -  the SATCAT apogee/perigee data show a  700 km x 70 deg orbit, not related to either the CASSIOPE or LADEE
launches (possibly a 1969-082 debris object?), and there are no TLEs.
 - They have another 2013-055W.
So looks like another foulup.
« Last Edit: 10/14/2013 05:45 AM by jcm »
-----------------------------

Jonathan McDowell
http://planet4589.org

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1887
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA -- previously in Ann Arbor, MI
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 188
Why does CUSAT 2 keep coming up? It never even launched. Can we assume that object is also "F9 Deb"?
« Last Edit: 10/14/2013 03:00 PM by mlindner »
Internal combustion engine in space. It's just a Bad Idea.TM - Robotbeat

Offline jcm

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Jonathan McDowell
  • Somerville, Massachusetts, USA
    • Jonathan's Space Report
  • Liked: 357
  • Likes Given: 297
Why does CUSAT 2 keep coming up? It never even launched. Can we assume that object is also "F9 Deb"?

It's the Falcon 9 second stage.  Somehow STRATCOM thinks that CUSAT 2 was attached to it. I am sure they'll fix it soon.
-----------------------------

Jonathan McDowell
http://planet4589.org

Tags: