Author Topic: SpaceX Mission Paperwork (FCC/FAA/etc. permits/licenses) (Read 396192 times)

strawwalker · « **Reply #100 on:** 02/21/2019 08:50 pm »

0276-EX-ST-2019 LV comms
0279-EX-ST-2019 LV recovery

A couple of new STA requests from SLC-40 starting April 26, mission number 1488. Thought it could be for Amos-17 but the ASDS location is northeast (and 600+ km).

gongora · « **Reply #101 on:** 02/21/2019 09:04 pm »

Quote from: strawwalker on 02/21/2019 08:50 pm

0276-EX-ST-2019 LV comms
0279-EX-ST-2019 LV recovery

A couple of new STA requests from SLC-40 starting April 26, mission number 1488. Thought it could be for Amos-17 but the ASDS location is northeast (and 600+ km).

That's puzzling.

cppetrie · « **Reply #102 on:** 02/21/2019 09:24 pm »

Quote from: gongora on 02/21/2019 09:04 pm

Quote from: strawwalker on 02/21/2019 08:50 pm
0276-EX-ST-2019 LV comms
0279-EX-ST-2019 LV recovery

A couple of new STA requests from SLC-40 starting April 26, mission number 1488. Thought it could be for Amos-17 but the ASDS location is northeast (and 600+ km).

That's puzzling.

Could it be for previously unannounced flight such as a full load of Starlink test sats?

Alexphysics · « **Reply #103 on:** 02/21/2019 09:27 pm »

I think it may be for Starlink too but I wonder why a downrange landing with no boostback burn (which is what one could guess from that distance of about 620km from the launchpad). Will they fill the entire fairing to the top with sats so the payload will be very heavy? Or what?

smoliarm · « **Reply #104 on:** 02/21/2019 09:58 pm »

Quote from: Alexphysics on 02/21/2019 09:27 pm

I think it may be for Starlink too but I wonder why a downrange landing with no boostback burn (which is what one could guess from that distance of about 620km from the launchpad). Will they fill the entire fairing to the top with sats so the payload will be very heavy? Or what?

- Rideshare.
Spaceflight said they bought multiple options with Falcons...

gongora · « **Reply #105 on:** 02/21/2019 10:07 pm »

Quote from: smoliarm on 02/21/2019 09:58 pm

Quote from: Alexphysics on 02/21/2019 09:27 pm
I think it may be for Starlink too but I wonder why a downrange landing with no boostback burn (which is what one could guess from that distance of about 620km from the launchpad). Will they fill the entire fairing to the top with sats so the payload will be very heavy? Or what?
- Rideshare.
Spaceflight said they bought multiple options with Falcons...

There's no way it's another SHERPA flight.

soltasto · « **Reply #106 on:** 02/21/2019 10:27 pm »

Inclination should about 55-56 degrees if my very inaccurate measurements are right. Which is a very strage inclination. It is higher than the ISS orbit, and lower than a Molniya orbit. AFAIK Starling will also be different at 53°. Anybody knows any satellite launched to that inclination?

Alexphysics · « **Reply #107 on:** 02/21/2019 10:35 pm »

Quote from: soltasto on 02/21/2019 10:27 pm

Inclination should about 55-56 degrees if my very inaccurate measurements are right. Which is a very strage inclination. It is higher than the ISS orbit, and lower than a Molniya orbit. AFAIK Starling will also be different at 53°. Anybody knows any satellite launched to that inclination?

My *quick* calculation gives something similar at 54-55 degrees. GPS sats are usually inserted on orbits with a similar inclination but we would have known if it were a GPS sat. All I can think of apart from Starlink is a secret military sat to a Molnya-like orbit. That would explain the need for a downrange landing with no boostback. Any LEO orbit would at least allow a partial boostback burn like on Iridium missions...

soltasto · « **Reply #108 on:** 02/21/2019 10:41 pm »

Yeah, figured right now too that GPS satellites have that inclination, but the time frame is very strange.

ZUMA 2?

vaporcobra · « **Reply #109 on:** 02/22/2019 06:45 am »

FWIW, Zuma was launched with an inclination of ~51 degrees.

smoliarm · « **Reply #110 on:** 02/22/2019 10:08 am »

Quote from: gongora on 02/21/2019 10:07 pm

Quote from: smoliarm on 02/21/2019 09:58 pm
Quote from: Alexphysics on 02/21/2019 09:27 pm
I think it may be for Starlink too but I wonder why a downrange landing with no boostback burn (which is what one could guess from that distance of about 620km from the launchpad). Will they fill the entire fairing to the top with sats so the payload will be very heavy? Or what?
- Rideshare.
Spaceflight said they bought multiple options with Falcons...

There's no way it's another SHERPA flight.

I agree. Actually, I was thinking not about a launch fully dedicated to Spaceflights Sherpa, but rather about something like yesterday launch. However, this also seems doubtful as there is no candidate for primary PL in manifest.

So, this "mission number 1488" is either something un-announced like Zuma, or -
it is in-flight abort test which may happen in April per Elon tweet. Of course here we have to suppose that SpaceX plans to try booster recovery despite the odds.

strawwalker · « **Reply #111 on:** 02/22/2019 01:57 pm »

Quote from: smoliarm on 02/22/2019 10:08 am

So, this "mission number 1488" is either something un-announced like Zuma, or -
it is in-flight abort test which may happen in April per Elon tweet. Of course here we have to suppose that SpaceX plans to try booster recovery despite the odds.

IFA seems really unlikely to me. I don't think Elon's recent tweet about the probable destruction of 1048 during IFA should be taken as any indication that it might survive. The IFA licensing Draft Environmental Assessment stated the chance of something other than a break-up within seconds of Dragon separation as less than 1 percent. (maybe better chances if they are allowed to relight?) I'm not sure the ASDS position makes much sense for that, either. If they did relight, they would still only have three engines, a lot of fuel, and unfriendly aerodynamic conditions.

Things can change, of course. Maybe this is that, but I would bet on something Zuma-esque

gongora · « **Reply #112 on:** 02/22/2019 07:39 pm »

Fairing re-rad operations at SLC-40 for commercial payload, mission 1431 NET May 13. AMOS-17?
0282-EX-ST-2019

strawwalker · « **Reply #113 on:** 03/01/2019 02:58 pm »

Quote from: gongora on 02/21/2019 03:50 pm

This appears to be DM-1 related. Interesting that they listed another ground station in Alaska.

0266-EX-ST-2019
Quote
Adding a single frequency for commanding to spacecraft for upcoming mission to the International Space Station. This STA extends the frequencies in the experimental license: 0176-EX-CM-2018.

Was approved today, just in time. Also it looks like they added 3 more boat transmitters to the application after the initial application. One on a barge in port, and the other two at 30.68889, -76.75000 which is about 115 km south of the ASDS position and about 450 km from Port Canaveral

gongora · « **Reply #114 on:** 03/13/2019 01:44 am »

SpaceX will need new/revised FAA licenses for Arabsat 6A and Starlink 1 flights.

strawwalker · « **Reply #115 on:** 03/27/2019 06:04 pm »

0546-EX-ST-2019 Recovery Ops for STP-2. ASDS position 28.48583 N, 80.23028 W which is ~39 km from launch site.

gongora · « **Reply #116 on:** 03/29/2019 12:40 am »

Quote from: gongora on 02/22/2019 07:39 pm

Fairing re-rad operations at SLC-40 for commercial payload, mission 1431 NET May 13. AMOS-17?
0282-EX-ST-2019

Launch communications for 1431: 0551-EX-ST-2019
Net May 20 from SLC-40

gongora · « **Reply #117 on:** 03/31/2019 08:06 pm »

0556-EX-ST-2019
Adds two new ground stations to the list for Dragon communications in advance of CRS-17.
Kodiak Alaska North 57 27 18 West 152 22 25
Inarajan Guam North 13 16 56 East 144 45 19

Alexphysics · « **Reply #118 on:** 03/31/2019 08:17 pm »

Kinda weird there is not a landing communications permit for Amos-17, I hope it is not expendable.

Roy_H · « **Reply #119 on:** 03/31/2019 09:43 pm »

Quote from: Alexphysics on 03/31/2019 08:17 pm

Kinda weird there is not a landing communications permit for Amos-17, I hope it is not expendable.

Don't know when, but they are changing to a one permit does all format, so it may already be covered.