Author Topic: Planet Labs earth imaging satellites (Read 124692 times)

jongoff · « **Reply #60 on:** 02/13/2014 07:02 pm »

Quote from: Danderman on 02/13/2014 05:45 pm

Getting back to the issue of populating the planes, I would imagine that by deploying the satellites in sequence over 48 hours, they would be more or less distributed evenly around the globe.

I don't think that works. The deployers only impart a pretty limited dV (something like 0.5-1m/s), which means you' have to deploy them over a ~160-300 day timeframe to get them evenly distributed around the globe, unless I made a math error.

~Jon

gosnold · « **Reply #61 on:** 02/14/2014 07:44 pm »

Why do they launch it by two? They will stay on the same orbit and provide no additional passes.

Olaf · « **Reply #62 on:** 02/15/2014 11:07 am »

According to http://planet4589.org/space/jsr/latest.html all 16 Flock1 satellites from the first batch are now deployed and the MPEP could be back into Kibo for the next round.

InfraNut2 · « **Reply #63 on:** 02/15/2014 11:24 am »

NanoRacks @NanoRacks ·tweeted almost 1hr ago:

NanoRacks confirms two more successful deployments, bringing to 16 the number of #Cubesats deployed from #ISS so far this cycle.

Quote from: Olaf on 02/15/2014 11:07 am

According to http://planet4589.org/space/jsr/latest.html all 16 Flock1 satellites from the first batch are now deployed and the MPEP could be back into Kibo for the next round.

The linked report said 12 (not 16) had been deployed, excepting the 4 cubesats in deployer 4 and 5 that failed earlier as we know.

Luckily NanoRacks+JAXA now has resolved that problem and we are 16 for 16.

edit: tweet time + source quote for 2 failed deployers being known:

Quote from: ISS Daily Summary Report – 02/13/14

Cube Satellite (CubeSat) Deploys: After the failure to launch satellites from 2 NanoRacks CubeSat Deployers (NRCSDs) yesterday, Payload Operations Integration Center (POIC) console teams were able to confirm from photographs taken by Flight Engineer (FE)-6 Wakata that the push-pin assemblies on all NRCSDs located on the Japanese Experiment Module Remote Manipulator System (JEMRMS) were in good condition. Two additional satellites were subsequently launched today. Additional launches are planned for tomorrow and over the weekend, including attempts to launch again from the two deployers which failed to launch their satellites yesterday.

Olaf · « **Reply #64 on:** 02/15/2014 11:45 am »

Quote from: InfraNut2 on 02/15/2014 11:24 am

The linked report said 12 (not 16) had been deployed, excepting the 4 cubesats in deployer 4 and 5 that failed earlier as we know.

The text is not up-to-date, but the table below shows all 16 deployed.

InfraNut2 · « **Reply #65 on:** 02/15/2014 12:12 pm »

Quote from: Olaf on 02/15/2014 11:45 am

Quote from: InfraNut2 on 02/15/2014 11:24 am
The linked report said 12 (not 16) had been deployed, excepting the 4 cubesats in deployer 4 and 5 that failed earlier as we know.
The text is not up-to-date, but the table below shows all 16 deployed.

This table shows (among other stuff) a complete overview of the launch times of the whole first batch of 16 sats. Neat!

I did not originally notice the table at the bottom; I stopped reading as soon as there was non-cubesat stuff.

Thanks Olaf for the reference and pointing out the table and especially to Jonathan McDowell for the original report!

I'll take the chance to quote the relevant lines, hoping Jonathan won't mind:

Date UT Name Launch Vehicle Site Mission INTL. Feb 11 0831 Dove-5 (F1-1) ) - ISS, LEO Imaging 98-067DG Dove-6 (F1-2) ) Imaging 98-067DH Feb 11 1241 Dove-7 (F1-3) ) - ISS, LEO Imaging 98-067DJ Dove-8 (F1-4) ) Imaging 98-067DK Feb 12 0830 Dove-9 (F1-5) ) - ISS, LEO Imaging 98-067DL Dove-10 (F1-6) ) Imaging 98-067DM Feb 13 0820 Dove-11 (F1-11)) - ISS, LEO Imaging 98-067DN Dove-12 (F1-12)) Imaging 98-067DP Feb 14 0415 Dove-13 (F1-13)) - ISS, LEO Imaging 98-067DQ Dove-14 (F1-14)) Imaging 98-067DR Feb 14 1145 Dove-15 (F1-15)) - ISS, LEO Imaging 98-067DS Dove-16 (F1-16)) Imaging 98-067DT Feb 15 0700 Dove-17 (F1-7) ) - ISS, LEO Imaging 98-067DU Dove-18 (F1-8) ) Imaging 98-067DV Feb 15 1055 Dove-19 (F1-9 ) - ISS, LEO Imaging 98-067DW Dove-20 (F1-10)) Imaging 98-067DY

baldusi · « **Reply #66 on:** 02/15/2014 01:57 pm »

I love it. Launch Vehicle: LEO, Site: LEO. Now did you counted them on the Antares flight? If so, you're double counting. Which is fine, but have you counted Huygens launched from Cassini in site Saturn Orbit?

InfraNut2 · « **Reply #67 on:** 02/15/2014 03:20 pm »

Nice pic from Koichi.

Koichi Wakata @Astro_Wakata · 10 min ago:

Congratulations to the entire ops team on the series of successful deployment of the first set of the CubeSats! http://pic.twitter.com/tEQPZzIsSS

Danderman · « **Reply #68 on:** 02/15/2014 05:21 pm »

You can see the Nanoracks logo in the last image.

jcm · « **Reply #69 on:** 02/15/2014 05:31 pm »

Quote from: Olaf on 02/15/2014 11:45 am

Quote from: InfraNut2 on 02/15/2014 11:24 am
The linked report said 12 (not 16) had been deployed, excepting the 4 cubesats in deployer 4 and 5 that failed earlier as we know.
The text is not up-to-date, but the table below shows all 16 deployed.

I was a little too sleepy at 6am this morning to update the text! Should read consistently now.
I'm not 100 percent sure about the Dove satellite numbers - the Flock1-nn names are assigned in order of position
on the deployer per pericynthion's data, but I am for now assuming that the Dove numbers are assigned in order of ejection based on a somewhat ambigious tweet from @planetlabs.

The last two sats hadn't been tracked by NORAD yet last time I checked.

jcm · « **Reply #70 on:** 02/15/2014 05:38 pm »

Quote from: baldusi on 02/15/2014 01:57 pm

I love it. Launch Vehicle: LEO, Site: LEO. Now did you counted them on the Antares flight? If so, you're double counting. Which is fine, but have you counted Huygens launched from Cassini in site Saturn Orbit?

Launch vehicle - 'None'. Site - ISS, LEO. Or perhaps - launch vehicle: JEM-RMS/NanoRacks Deployer? I think it's fair in the sense that this is the first time they have been outside their parent spacecraft.

In my internal database I don't count them as a separate launch, they are part of the Antares launch, but
I do record date/time where available for mission 'phases': transfer from Cygnus to Kibo, deployer transfer from Kibo to MPEP,
MPEP on JEM-RMS, cubesat ejected from MPEP/deployers, and it's that last time that is my 'separation time' in the
satellite catalog (a version of the catalog I hope to release later this year).

Also, I track a spacecraft mass for Cygnus from which I subtract the masses of the cubesats, so that I don't double count the total mass launched.

I really hope Nanoracks decide to publicize the ejection times in future - if they do this for assorted customers
where (unlike PlanetLabs) I don't have contacts, I'm going to be stuck watching ISS ustream 24 hr per day to find
out what is going on.

jcm · « **Reply #71 on:** 02/15/2014 05:39 pm »

Quote from: InfraNut2 on 02/15/2014 12:12 pm

Quote from: Olaf on 02/15/2014 11:45 am
Quote from: InfraNut2 on 02/15/2014 11:24 am
The linked report said 12 (not 16) had been deployed, excepting the 4 cubesats in deployer 4 and 5 that failed earlier as we know.
The text is not up-to-date, but the table below shows all 16 deployed.

This table shows (among other stuff) a complete overview of the launch times of the whole first batch of 16 sats. Neat!

I did not originally notice the table at the bottom; I stopped reading as soon as there was non-cubesat stuff.

Thanks Olaf for the reference and pointing out the table and especially to Jonathan McDowell for the original report!

I'll take the chance to quote the relevant lines, hoping Jonathan won't mind:

No worries, always fine to extract from the JSR as long as you say where you got it from.

- Jonathan

Danderman · « **Reply #72 on:** 02/15/2014 06:15 pm »

Quote from: jcm on 02/15/2014 05:38 pm

I really hope Nanoracks decide to publicize the ejection times in future - if they do this for assorted customers
where (unlike PlanetLabs) I don't have contacts, I'm going to be stuck watching ISS ustream 24 hr per day to find
out what is going on.

You are assuming that Nanoracks knows the ejection times. In fact, it doesn't seem that even the ISS crew knows the exact ejection times, since this is handled from the ground, AFAIK.

pericynthion · « **Reply #73 on:** 02/15/2014 10:35 pm »

I don't think Jonathan makes many assumptions

Of course Nanoracks knows the deployment times.

In terms of naming the Planet Labs spacecraft, the Dove-N series (currently Dove-1 through -4) is reserved for experimental / tech demo missions, while the Flock series is for operational constellations. So although they are Dove-class, the Flock-1 satellites don't have a Dove- number. Dove-5 will be the next experimental sat sometime this year.

jcm · « **Reply #74 on:** 02/17/2014 06:18 am »

Quote from: pericynthion on 02/15/2014 10:35 pm

I don't think Jonathan makes many assumptions Of course Nanoracks knows the deployment times.

In terms of naming the Planet Labs spacecraft, the Dove-N series (currently Dove-1 through -4) is reserved for experimental / tech demo missions, while the Flock series is for operational constellations. So although they are Dove-class, the Flock-1 satellites don't have a Dove- number. Dove-5 will be the next experimental sat sometime this year.

Thanks Henry - that's what I had understood. Note however that there is an (official??) tweet from @planetlabs claiming that is not the case. https://twitter.com/planetlabs/status/434518478934908928 I assume that's just wrong, but it does confuse the issue a bit

Quote

@planet4589 sats are Dove-5, Dove-6, Dove-7... and the constellation is Flock 1.

cheers, Jonathan

pericynthion · « **Reply #75 on:** 02/17/2014 06:23 am »

Yeah, that tweet is... unclear. I'll see if I can get it corrected.

jcm · « **Reply #76 on:** 02/17/2014 06:55 am »

Quote from: pericynthion on 02/17/2014 06:23 am

Yeah, that tweet is... unclear. I'll see if I can get it corrected.

:-)

Personally I find the Flock 1-nn names a bit ugly. I'd suggest naming the operational ones
Columba-1, -2, etc. (Columba is Latin for dove and it's a constellation) but people would just misspell it as Columbia.

pericynthion · « **Reply #77 on:** 02/17/2014 06:58 am »

Personally I just stick with the hexadecimal hardware IDs. Less ambiguous

jcm · « **Reply #78 on:** 02/17/2014 09:22 am »

Quote from: pericynthion on 02/17/2014 06:58 am

Personally I just stick with the hexadecimal hardware IDs. Less ambiguous

Well yes, internal production numbers are always best as the ur-identifier
I don't think '03' or 'ff' is going to be unambiguous as a global (outside PLabs) identifier, though.
I'm happy to put 'PlanetLabs 0x03' in my 'prelaunch name' database field though - I track multiple names
for each sat, usually at least a 'prelaunch name' and a 'postlaunch name as registered with the UN Office of Outer Space Affairs', sometimes as many as three additional 'name used by owner' values too, and then arb many 'name changed to x
at time t' entries (the worst I have seen is Eutelsat who rename their sats every time they relocate them)

But my public satcat.txt file has just the 'pre' (manufacturer hardware name) and 'post' (postlaunch owner name)
fields which tends to be the minimum to identify a sat unambiguously.

baldusi · « **Reply #79 on:** 02/17/2014 01:00 pm »

Don't they have a MAC number anywhere? Those are supposed to be unique.