Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - CASSIOPE - GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD (2)  (Read 377148 times)

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3629
  • 92129
  • Liked: 1146
  • Likes Given: 360
Does anyone know what the actual payload mass was for the Cassiope launch? what was it?

If not, I've searched and found the satellite masses but not the mass of any ancillary parts.
Cassiope - 481 kg
CU Sat - 40.82 kg
DANDE - 50 kg
DOPACS - 4.5 kg

Does anyone know what the mass of the payload adapter? What was it?

I know the trajectory of the first stage up to MECO pretty well from repeatedly viewing the launch (available on livestream), pausing and recording the data as it is given. Using this stage 1 trajectory I conclude that the F9.1 could not reach LEO with 13,150 kg though it can with other trajectories. I'm trying to simulate the boost-back so knowing the payload would help determine the fuel available for that function.
Cassiope went to a 300 x 1,500 km x 80 deg orbit from Vandenberg AFB.  The 13.15 tonne figure is given for a 185 km x 28.5 deg orbit from Cape Canaveral, where extra delta-v is provided by the Earth's rotation.  Payload from Vandenberg toward a near-polar orbit will be much less - and the higher altitude will take away even more lifting capability.  Falcon 9 v1.1 is probably only able to lift 9 tonnes or less to the Cassiope orbit, assuming that the advertised capabilities are accurate.

 - Ed Kyle

Thanks Ed - of course that was my mistake.  Using Cassiope numbers from a FLA  launch site proves nothing.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Don't you also incur a penalty for Cassiope's use of a single upper stage burn vs. double upper stage burn trajectory.

Though to be fair, if the payload needs the extra boost, there is no reason they would not use a two burn profile.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline rpapo

Don't you also incur a penalty for Cassiope's use of a single upper stage burn vs. double upper stage burn trajectory.

Though to be fair, if the payload needs the extra boost, there is no reason they would not use a two burn profile.
The problem with having the Falcon second stage do three burns (LEO injection, raise apogee to GEO, raise perigee to GEO also) is the 5-6 hours spent between the second and third orbit.  Some of the engine lines froze in the CASSIOPE mission in less than an hour.  The SES launch handled the half-hour wait fine, but 5-6 hours is a lot longer.  On top of that is the issue of keeping the LOX tank stable during that time. 

If I'm not mistaken, those considerations were why they invented the current technique, the one used in the SES launch.
Following the space program since before Apollo 8.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428

The problem with having the Falcon second stage do three burns (LEO injection, raise apogee to GEO, raise perigee to GEO also) is the 5-6 hours spent between the second and third orbit.  Some of the engine lines froze in the CASSIOPE mission in less than an hour.  The SES launch handled the half-hour wait fine, but 5-6 hours is a lot longer.  On top of that is the issue of keeping the LOX tank stable during that time. 

If I'm not mistaken, those considerations were why they invented the current technique, the one used in the SES launch.

They did not invent any technical.  They just performed the standard  two burn protocol for launching commercial comsats, which has been used by Atlas, Delta and Ariane for more than 40 years.  The 3 burn protocol is a DOD standard for some of its spacecraft (which don't have perigee boost systems).
« Last Edit: 12/17/2013 01:47 pm by Jim »

Offline rpapo

I know they didn't invent this technique for this mission, and that the technique has been around for a very long time.  But it wasn't there in the beginning (the 60s), and that was where I was coming from.  I wasn't fully aware of the current technique until I saw it happening with the SES launch.  It flew beneath my personal radar in the years since Apollo.  I wasn't paying attention to the techniques of GEO satellite launching, being distracted by moon launches, space shuttles and interplanetary probes...
Following the space program since before Apollo 8.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Don't you also incur a penalty for Cassiope's use of a single upper stage burn vs. double upper stage burn trajectory.

Though to be fair, if the payload needs the extra boost, there is no reason they would not use a two burn profile.
In this case - a 300 x 1,500 km elliptical low earth orbit - the penalty isn't substantial assuming insertion is done at perigee.  A two-burn mission would have a bigger advantage if the goal was a 1,500 km circular orbit.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
I know they didn't invent this technique for this mission, and that the technique has been around for a very long time.  But it wasn't there in the beginning (the 60s), and that was where I was coming from.  I wasn't fully aware of the current technique until I saw it happening with the SES launch.  It flew beneath my personal radar in the years since Apollo.  I wasn't paying attention to the techniques of GEO satellite launching, being distracted by moon launches, space shuttles and interplanetary probes...

The "techniques of GEO satellite launching" were developed from "moon launches, space shuttles and interplanetary probes" in the 60's.  The two burns were done for Surveyor in 1967 by Atlas Centaur and for Apollo 8 in 1968.

Offline rpapo

The "techniques of GEO satellite launching" were developed from "moon launches, space shuttles and interplanetary probes" in the 60's.  The two burns were done for Surveyor in 1967 by Atlas Centaur and for Apollo 8 in 1968.
That's not the same thing, and you know it.  Both of those launches were translunar injection, which is not the same thing as coming up with a streamlined, efficient technique for launching a satellite to geosynchronous orbit.  They didn't get really creative with trajectories and orbits until a few years later.  The 70s saw a huge improvement in the imagination and capability of the trajectory designers, with the Voyager and Pioneer probes, and it hasn't stopped since.  I don't know that anybody in the 60s would have ever dreamed of what they have been doing around Saturn these past ten years with the Cassini probe, or what they did in the 90s with the Galileo probe around Jupiter.

But this is getting rather off-topic...
« Last Edit: 12/17/2013 04:11 pm by rpapo »
Following the space program since before Apollo 8.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
The "techniques of GEO satellite launching" were developed from "moon launches, space shuttles and interplanetary probes" in the 60's.  The two burns were done for Surveyor in 1967 by Atlas Centaur and for Apollo 8 in 1968.
That's not the same thing, and you know it.  Both of those launches were translunar injection, which is not the same thing as coming up with a streamlined, efficient technique for launching a satellite to geosynchronous orbit.

Wrong, it is the exact same thing and I do know that.  TLI is just a little more velocity than a SSTO injection.  The same processes are used in designing the trajectory for both.  There is no "streamlined, efficient technique for launching a satellite to geosynchronous orbit"

bi- elliptic transfer orbit and SSTO are old (1934 was when the bi- elliptic transfer orbit was published)
« Last Edit: 12/17/2013 06:15 pm by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
   I don't know that anybody in the 60s would have ever dreamed of what they have been doing around Saturn these past ten years with the Cassini probe, or what they did in the 90s with the Galileo probe around Jupiter.



Yes, they did.  The sling shot maneuver was proposed in 1961 and used by Mariner 10 in 1973 (which means it was designed in the 60's).

Offline rpapo

While I will agree that there is no essential difference between the second burn of Falcon and that of the other rockets you referred to, what I was originally referring to was the notion (long ago) that the final insertion into GTO would be handled by that last stage, making a third burn in total.  That is the burn I was referring to as presenting the freezing or pressurization difficulties.

I don't know when somebody got the bright idea of having the final kick motor on the satellite itself, as a sort of final stage, using hypergolics or something else that keeps well.  The satellite needed it anyway, for station-keeping.  But I strongly suspect that they didn't think right away of starting off with an apogee 50% higher than GEO so that the essential energy level of the orbit starts off more or less the same as the target orbit.

Though I'm not sure exactly what the benefit of that is (Less time in the radiation belts? Easier to raise the perigee?).  After all, delta V is delta V.  It has to use propellant to increase the perigee, and then some more to decrease the apogee.
« Last Edit: 12/17/2013 06:26 pm by rpapo »
Following the space program since before Apollo 8.

Offline rpapo

Yes, they did.  The sling shot maneuver was proposed in 1961 and used by Mariner 10 in 1973 (which means it was designed in the 60's).
Slingshot after slingshot after slingshot, for years on end?  They had many years, many dozens of orbits of the Cassini probe all laid out ahead of time.  I remember seeing it on their web site in 2004.  How many times to see Titan, how many to see Iapetus, etc, and exactly when.  They had all the course corrections laid out already.

Even more fun, they used their slingshots very wisely to change the plane of the orbit, sometimes radically, to do tricks like those pictures of Saturn's poles we've been seeing on the internet lately.
« Last Edit: 12/17/2013 06:28 pm by rpapo »
Following the space program since before Apollo 8.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428

I don't know when somebody got the bright idea of having the final kick motor on the satellite itself, as a sort of final stage, using hypergolics or something else that keeps well.  The satellite needed it anyway, for station-keeping.  But I strongly suspect that they didn't think right away of starting off with an apogee 50% higher than GEO so that the essential energy level of the orbit starts off more or less the same as the target orbit.


Since day 1 (going back to Syncom 1, the first GSO satellite).  All the Delta and Atlas spacecraft going to GSO had the kick motor in them.  All commercial comsats have kick motors or boost systems.  Only the DOD spacecraft on Titan IIIC, 34D and IV using Transstage, IUS, and Centaur and Delta IV Heavy have relied on the launch vehicle for final injection into GSO, which is the exception vs the rule.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Yes, they did.  The sling shot maneuver was proposed in 1961 and used by Mariner 10 in 1973 (which means it was designed in the 60's).
Slingshot after slingshot after slingshot, for years on end?

You wouldn't believe the designs of missions than never made it past the paper stage.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
While I will agree that there is no essential difference between the second burn of Falcon and that of the other rockets you referred to, what I was originally referring to was the notion (long ago) that the final insertion into GTO would be handled by that last stage, making a third burn in total.  That is the burn I was referring to as presenting the freezing or pressurization difficulties.

Not really any problem.  Titan IV Centaur did it every time.  Same goes for Delta IV Heavy east coast missions.

Offline rpapo

Since day 1 (going back to Syncom 1, the first GSO satellite).  All the Delta and Atlas spacecraft going to GSO had the kick motor in them.  All commercial comsats have kick motors or boost systems.  Only the DOD spacecraft on Titan IIIC, 34D and IV using Transstage, IUS, and Centaur and Delta IV Heavy have relied on the launch vehicle for final injection into GSO, which is the exception vs the rule.
Which begs the question: given that using a kick motor that is part of the satellite is more efficient and practical, why would the DOD use the final stage that way at all?  Not arguing here.  Just curious and learning stuff...
Following the space program since before Apollo 8.

Offline Chris Bergin

Remember to keep on topic on these threads. Nothing uninteresting about the posts, but when you see splinter discussion, start a new thread, link both threads in those threads. Then everyone's happy.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428

Which begs the question: given that using a kick motor that is part of the satellite is more efficient and practical, why would the DOD use the final stage that way at all?  Not arguing here.  Just curious and learning stuff...

Legacy.  Because they designed the rocket first (Titan IIIC) and then they were to use the IUS and Centaur on the shuttle.


Sorry about the splinter.  I will leave it to rpapo if he wants to continue.
« Last Edit: 12/17/2013 06:40 pm by Jim »

Online Galactic Penguin SST

So I recently bumped into references to CASSIOPE again lately in this area of NSF and I suddenly remembered - what the heck happened to that hexagon box that no-one cared which launched as the primary passenger on the 1st F9-v1.1? I looked around and unfortunately can't find much (there's nothing new on CSA's website, or at least from what I could find).

However the ionosphere research experiment package has been working nicely since late 2013 till now, although I can't find any related scientific findings from it. You can see some of the images from it at https://eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/c-missions/cassiope.

The Ka-band store-dump communication package experiment has also been working, and in a technical presentation last August MDA reported that it was used operationally to increase the data transfer rate of the ionosphere research experiment from 4 Mbps to 340 Mbps! They concluded that a larger version of it can be able to support 2.4 Gbps data transfer rate.  :)
Astronomy & spaceflight geek penguin. In a relationship w/ Space Shuttle Discovery. Current Priority: Chasing the Chinese Spaceflight Wonder Egg & A Certain Chinese Mars Rover

Offline eeergo

Some old-thread bumping to report that the ePOP instrument in Cassiope has been added as a new member of ESA's Swarm mission constellation (callsign Echo, after the three main satellites Alpha, Bravo and Charlie).


http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Swarm/Swarm_trio_becomes_a_quartet


Update comes with an excellent video of an auroral overflight from Cassiope's vantage point!
-DaviD-

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0