It should be the 50th Atlas V launch. Regardless of fan clubs or not, it's shown itself to be a very reliable launch vehicle that launches on time more often than not. All the best to them.
Quote from: vapour_nudge on 09/09/2014 12:38 pmIt should be the 50th Atlas V launch. Regardless of fan clubs or not, it's shown itself to be a very reliable launch vehicle that launches on time more often than not. All the best to them.By coincidence the tail number of this mission's Atlas is AV-050.
Quote from: Kim Keller on 09/09/2014 01:32 pmQuote from: vapour_nudge on 09/09/2014 12:38 pmIt should be the 50th Atlas V launch. Regardless of fan clubs or not, it's shown itself to be a very reliable launch vehicle that launches on time more often than not. All the best to them.By coincidence the tail number of this mission's Atlas is AV-050.Without an emoticon, people will think you are serious.
Quote from: WHAP on 09/10/2014 03:51 amQuote from: Kim Keller on 09/09/2014 01:32 pmQuote from: vapour_nudge on 09/09/2014 12:38 pmIt should be the 50th Atlas V launch. Regardless of fan clubs or not, it's shown itself to be a very reliable launch vehicle that launches on time more often than not. All the best to them.By coincidence the tail number of this mission's Atlas is AV-050.Without an emoticon, people will think you are serious. As Atlas-V tail numbers are not sequential to the launch order, it is indeed by coincidence. See Atlas-V launch list for serial numbers: http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/atlas-5.htm
Launch time has been slightly refined to 1:21 - 1:39 pm Eastern.Someone may double check this, but it seems that this one is heading to orbital plane E - the last of 6 planes that has yet to receive a block IIF satellite.
But I'm thinking freely without any GPS constellation sustainment master plan... Some overriding consideration might exist.USAF is amazingly transparent about it's GPS plans, but we need to keep in mind that unless otherwise decided everything internal about GPS is classified.Train of though... :Highest priority is keeping up with 24+3 constellation requirements (that means some orbital planes should have 5 birds minimum, some 4 birds minimum).Second priority is being ready for M-Code IOC/FOC.Preparations for L5 IOC/FOC comes later (number of IIF+future IIIA).The E plane has two IIA satellites which will have to be replaced.
WBC: The M-code-capable military receiver (MGUE) modules in development have successfully acquired and tracked M-code during live-sky tests, and we have many more tests scheduled. MGUE is expected to begin fielding by 2017, at which point at least 18 M-code-capable GPS satellites are expected to be on orbit, providing global four-in-view coverage of full M-code capabilities.
We ought to have a general GPS thread somewhere instead of having this discussion piecemeal in the launch threads. Did you read the interview with Colonel Cooley in GPS World? There's an interesting quote in there about getting to 18 M-Code capable SVs (e.g. IOC) by 2017 to support MGUE. As I think everyone has been saying, this year has been about launching for capability, not just sustainment.EDIT: Also new to me... GPS III and OCX have been pushed back to the second half of 2016. I knew they weren't making this year, but... QuoteWBC: The M-code-capable military receiver (MGUE) modules in development have successfully acquired and tracked M-code during live-sky tests, and we have many more tests scheduled. MGUE is expected to begin fielding by 2017, at which point at least 18 M-code-capable GPS satellites are expected to be on orbit, providing global four-in-view coverage of full M-code capabilities.http://gpsworld.com/latest-words-from-the-acquisition-guru-of-the-worlds-gold-standard-for-pnt/-Bob
I am exactly focused on finding a balance between preparations for M-Code/L2C IOC (3 capable/properly spaced birds in all 6 orbital planes) with constellation sustainment (before the first IIIA can be launched, all IIA birds will have to be retired, as OCX is needed to control IIIA birds and OCX can`t control IIA birds).
The solution announced during the week at the National Space Symposium (NSS, April 16–19) by General William Shelton, the four-star chief of Air Force Space Command, is to fund the current LADO operator, Braxton Technologies, to build in this support for the IIAs. This is significant for several reasons: One, of course, is that it solves the IIA C2 issues, it does it now, and at a relatively modest cost, and it utilizes more of the capabilities of the Braxton Technologies’ LADO software. Additionally it provides a true backup capability for assets on orbit that become increasingly valuable as the number of available launch slots for GPS decreases.
Quote from: macpacheco on 09/25/2014 07:09 amI am exactly focused on finding a balance between preparations for M-Code/L2C IOC (3 capable/properly spaced birds in all 6 orbital planes) with constellation sustainment (before the first IIIA can be launched, all IIA birds will have to be retired, as OCX is needed to control IIIA birds and OCX can`t control IIA birds).Didn't the Air Force announce a contract to get the disposal software to control the IIA SVs after the OCX transition? I *think* I remember something about that... <few minutes of googling later>Hmm. From 2012:QuoteThe solution announced during the week at the National Space Symposium (NSS, April 16–19) by General William Shelton, the four-star chief of Air Force Space Command, is to fund the current LADO operator, Braxton Technologies, to build in this support for the IIAs. This is significant for several reasons: One, of course, is that it solves the IIA C2 issues, it does it now, and at a relatively modest cost, and it utilizes more of the capabilities of the Braxton Technologies’ LADO software. Additionally it provides a true backup capability for assets on orbit that become increasingly valuable as the number of available launch slots for GPS decreases.http://gpsworld.com/the-system-gps-iii-endures-bad-press-iias-an-ocx-concern/Has anyone heard anything about this since?-Bob
It never ceases to amaze me how little the US govt cares about spending a dozen million dollars. Pocket change, since it doesn't come from the pocket of those that make the decisions.
Quote from: macpacheco on 09/25/2014 07:55 pmIt never ceases to amaze me how little the US govt cares about spending a dozen million dollars. Pocket change, since it doesn't come from the pocket of those that make the decisions.Because it saves money in the long run.
Quote from: Jim on 09/25/2014 09:26 pmQuote from: macpacheco on 09/25/2014 07:55 pmIt never ceases to amaze me how little the US govt cares about spending a dozen million dollars. Pocket change, since it doesn't come from the pocket of those that make the decisions.Because it saves money in the long run.No it doesn't.
Quote from: macpacheco on 09/26/2014 06:22 amQuote from: Jim on 09/25/2014 09:26 pmQuote from: macpacheco on 09/25/2014 07:55 pmIt never ceases to amaze me how little the US govt cares about spending a dozen million dollars. Pocket change, since it doesn't come from the pocket of those that make the decisions.Because it saves money in the long run.No it doesn't.You don't have the information nor do you know enough about the requirements to make such a claim and your past claims have been grossly wrong.
1. You understand a LOT about launch systems. However you have yet to show understanding of the many GPS segments and their components. I have studied this stuff. It's not rocket science. I don't need to convince you. But you are know not to bother to explain things.If you disagree with me and care to make a stand, correct my statements. Otherwise, AFAIK you don't know enough about the GPS system to actually impress anybody.2. I have my politically charged opinions and hunches, that doesn't make me a crazy person. I don't earn a living from rocketry and space.3. My core area of expertise is computing hardware/software and telecommunications. GPS is far closer to computer hardware than rocketry. Its much closer to my alley than you think.4. The only good reason for this GPS IIA support for OCX is that the company that proposed it is a smaller shop that USAF wants to throw a bone towards, perhaps they could do for GPS what SpaceX is doing for space launches, reducing cost and having more heart in it. That would actually be a good reason to spend a few dozen million dollars (getting a competent and competitive supplier that can do stuff much more cost effectively than LM or Boeing, also GPS system suppliers).
Booklet:http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Mission_Booklets/AV/av_gpsiif8_mob.pdf
From the mission book: 11,047 x 141,047 nmi x 55.0 deg (20,459 x 261,219 km x 55.0 deg)? Really? Is this correct?
That was built in the last few years.
William Graham's excellent feature article for this mission:http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/10/ula-atlas-v-gps-iif-8-launch/
ULA:Everything is progressing toward the launch of the ULA Atlas V rocket with the U.S. Air Force’s GPS IIF-8 satellite.The countdown is underway and the team is not working any technical issues at this time.
Good launch! I noticed something sticking out from the fairing - see picture below - Is this normal? If so I must have missed it before.
I didn't catch the exact launch time in the format 1721:00.XXXUTC. Did the commentator mentioned it?