NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX Falcon Missions Section => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 07/30/2013 07:10 pm
-
Discussion Thread for RCM RADARSAT Constellation mission.
NSF Threads for RCM RADARSAT Constellation : Discussion (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32492.0) / Updates (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48225.0)
NSF Articles for RCM RADARSAT Constellation :
Successful launch June 12, 2019 at 0717 PDT (1417 UTC) on reused Falcon 9 (booster 1051.2) from Vandenberg. Successful RTLS landing at LZ-4. Mass is 1430kg for each of the three satellites plus a custom deployer. Orbit is 600km SSO.
[ Edit Oct. 23, 2017: Most of the references to this mission (http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/satellites/radarsat/default.asp) still have it launching in the second half of 2018. Except for that one comment from DLR (http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10081/151_read-23370/#/gallery/27659) that they were calibrating the transponders leading up to launch in 2019. The mass is generally listed as about 1400kg (total?), except for that one (http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/pdf/eng/publications/radarsat-constellation-eng.pdf) saying it's 1600kg. ]
http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/satellites/radarsat/default.asp (http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/satellites/radarsat/default.asp)
Very short presser, so beefed it up with the history etc.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/07/spacex-falcon-9-radarsat-constellation/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/07/spacex-falcon-9-radarsat-constellation/)
Other SpaceX resources on NASASpaceflight:
SpaceX News Articles (Recent) (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/spacex/)
SpaceX News Articles from 2006 (Including numerous exclusive Elon interviews) (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21862.0)
SpaceX Dragon Articles (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/dragon/)
SpaceX Missions Section (with Launch Manifest and info on past and future missions) (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=55.0)
L2 SpaceX Section (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=60.0)
-
What exactly does "reservation contract" mean? I don't recall seeing that language in other recent announcements. Is it different than an "agreement to launch?"
-
What exactly does "reservation contract" mean? I don't recall seeing that language in other recent announcements. Is it different than an "agreement to launch?"
It's like a MOU. Clearly customers want to see this new rocket have some successes before putting money down.
-
Very short presser, so beefed it up with the history etc.
Given CASSIOPE's history gotta give props to SpaceX sales dpt ;)
-
What exactly does "reservation contract" mean? I don't recall seeing that language in other recent announcements. Is it different than an "agreement to launch?"
It's like a MOU. Clearly customers want to see this new rocket have some successes before putting money down.
Thanks. It sounded like less than full commitment to me.
-
Now that I'm posting on the correct thread...
A great win-win day for Canada & SpaceX. Too cool. Congrats.
And this holds hope for even more good news for both Canada's space industry, and SpaceX's manifest:
"While the baseline mission for this evolution in Canada’s Earth Observation capability revolves around three satellites, the constellation is designed to be scalable to six satellites."
-
In the correct forum...
Does SpaceX have a suitable standard multiple payload dispenser in development or will a one off hardware solution for deploying three satellites need to be devised for this mission?
-
They should gain experience and hardware with the up coming Orbcomm and Iridium launches. Both will involve multiple launches with multiple payload adapters.
-
Does SpaceX have a suitable standard multiple payload dispenser in development or will a one off hardware solution for deploying three satellites need to be devised for this mission?
SpaceX have a deal with Spaceflight Inc. to supply a Seconday Payload System for the Falcon 9, but this I believe is for small secondary sats only. Whether they will outsource the payload dispenser for this mission as well is anyone's guess.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/06/spacex-deal-falcon-9s-secondary-payload-manifest/
-
They should gain experience and hardware with the up coming Orbcomm and Iridium launches. Both will involve multiple launches with multiple payload adapters.
The FH demo flight will have multiple payloads as well.
-
Does SpaceX have a suitable standard multiple payload dispenser in development or will a one off hardware solution for deploying three satellites need to be devised for this mission?
Presumably something is in development as they have two dual GEO satellite launches scheduled for circa 2014-2015 on F9, SpaceX Signs Launch Agreements with Asia Broadcast Satellite and Satmex (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28328.0):
Together with Satmex, our co-launch partner, we embark upon an innovative prospect of dual launching four medium-powered satellites on two launches on the Falcon 9.
-
Does SpaceX have a suitable standard multiple payload dispenser in development or will a one off hardware solution for deploying three satellites need to be devised for this mission?
Presumably something is in development as they have two dual GEO satellite launches scheduled for circa 2014-2015 on F9, SpaceX Signs Launch Agreements with Asia Broadcast Satellite and Satmex (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28328.0):
Together with Satmex, our co-launch partner, we embark upon an innovative prospect of dual launching four medium-powered satellites on two launches on the Falcon 9.
No dual adapter is needed for those spacecraft. They are made to stack on each other
-
No dual adapter is needed for those spacecraft. They are made to stack on each other
Interesting, thanks. Anyone know if these RCM sats are also "stackable"?
-
A few days ago, the RCM mission has disappeared from the SpaceX launch manifest website (http://www.spacex.com/missions).
Just a web site mistake or was the launch contract (or even the RCM mission itself) cancelled?
-
A few days ago, the RCM mission has disappeared from the SpaceX launch manifest website (http://www.spacex.com/missions).
Just a web site mistake or was the launch contract (or even the RCM mission itself) cancelled?
I see a launch described as RADARSAT in the Customer column
-
A few days ago, the RCM mission has disappeared from the SpaceX launch manifest website (http://www.spacex.com/missions).
Just a web site mistake or was the launch contract (or even the RCM mission itself) cancelled?
I see a launch described as RADARSAT in the Customer column
Ah, my mistake: i saw the MDA entry disappear, but did not notice the Radarsat entry appearing
-
Is there an argument for changing the thread title, as presumably this will not be on a v1.1 but a FT?
-
Is there an argument for changing the thread title, as presumably this will not be on a v1.1 but a FT?
Als per request of SpaceX, it should simply be Falcon9 of F9 for short. After Jason3 there is only one version.
Edit: not sure about short F9 part, but seems logical
-
Great spot by GWH, this mission will use a flight proven booster:
And another one, Canadian eh:
https://spaceq.ca/radarsat-constellation-mission-to-fly-on-refurbished-spacex-falcon-9-rocket/
-
Tweet from Peter B. de Selding (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/943096392435884032):
Maxar @sslmda CEO Howard L. Lance to CNBC: All 3 Canadian govt Radarsat Constellation Mission sats (~ 475kg each) to launch on single previously flown @spacex Falcon 9 in 2018.
-
Tweet from Peter B. de Selding (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/943096392435884032):
Maxar @sslmda CEO Howard L. Lance to CNBC: All 3 Canadian govt Radarsat Constellation Mission sats (~ 475kg each) to launch on single previously flown @spacex Falcon 9 in 2018.
Wow, if they're that light and flying on a Block 4, it'll likely RTLS
-
Tweet from Peter B. de Selding (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/943096392435884032):
Maxar @sslmda CEO Howard L. Lance to CNBC: All 3 Canadian govt Radarsat Constellation Mission sats (~ 475kg each) to launch on single previously flown @spacex Falcon 9 in 2018.
Wow, if they're that light and flying on a Block 4, it'll likely RTLS
Not likely to be Block 4 in the second half of 2018.
-
This video shows the custom RUAG dispenser for the mission.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWu2fjevhFg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWu2fjevhFg)
-
Screen grabs. The dispenser firsts tilts the satellites and then separates them. Ruag have had 100% success with their adaptors.
-
Tweet from MDA_SatSystems: (https://twitter.com/MDA_SatSystems/status/955531262483095552)
#MDA was delighted to host @SherryRomanado, @Gabriel_SMarie, and @MarjBoutinSweet at our #Montreal facility on 19-Jan to show off the @csa_asc #RADARSAT Constellation Mission satellites being built.
-
I'm wondering a bit about the mass of the sats which is in some sources as well as in this Thread specified with ~475kg.
At the CSA website the "Total mass at launch" is given with 1602kg. And the sats are based on the Canadian SmallSat Bus which has a mass of 760kg only for the bus...
1602kg per sat would give around 4800kg for all three which make a F9 launch more logical than an F9 launch with a payload weight less than 1500kg in total.
http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/pdf/eng/publications/radarsat-constellation-eng.pdf
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/r/rcm
-
I'm wondering a bit about the mass of the sats which is in some sources as well as in this Thread specified with ~475kg.
At the CSA website the "Total mass at launch" is given with 1602kg. And the sats are based on the Canadian SmallSat Bus which has a mass of 760kg only for the bus...
1602kg per sat would give around 4800kg for all three which make a F9 launch more logical than an F9 launch with a payload weight less than 1500kg in total.
http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/pdf/eng/publications/radarsat-constellation-eng.pdf
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/r/rcm
It looks to me like the mass of each satellite is around 1400 kg. This is just based on web searches and trying to interpret various presentations etc. There is one very old CBC article that seems to suggest 1200 kg/sat more definitively (i.e., vs total launch mass for all three: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mda-awarded-contract-to-design-satellite-fleet-1.721135). Most sources just list a mass without mentioning per sat or not... but generally they are comparing Radarsat 1, 2, and now RCM... seems most logical to me to compare the individual satellites, but hard to say really, because when comparing something like revisit time, they will often say daily, but that is for the constellation...
-
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/r/rcm
Just read this link more thoroughly, originally posted by rocket-chris. It seems rather specific that the mass is 1400 kg/spacecraft and also specifies the bus mass and payload mass separately, both of which mass more than the 475 kg figure that has also been mentioned. Search for "mass" on the page.
-
I hope that 3t includes the container...
Tweet from RUAGSpace (https://twitter.com/RuagSpace/status/969148714936864769):
Over 3 metric tons rolled away from our #Linköping facility,
carrying the heaviest piece of hardware ever developed there. Container held a major structure for a dispenser that will launch three spacecrafts simultaneously this year. Safe travels to sunny @California #HeavyLoad
(I'm guessing this is for RCM)
-
(I'm guessing this is for RCM)
It says "RCM Dispenser" on the container, so I think you are correct!
-
Looks like it's 1400 kg per spacecraft plus the dispenser. I'm guessing that means this mission will lift probably between 6200 and 8200 kg (depending on how much of that 3 metric tons is the payload adapter).
-
Pretty cool video posted by the CSA about the Radarsat integration process, filmed inside the MDA factory : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbxMC2tX4fQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbxMC2tX4fQ)
-
Attended a presentation by Daniel De Lisle (CSA) on June 6 where he stated that the current "focus date" for launch is November 7th, one week into the contracted one month launch period. Should be able to at least say NET November.
-
This news report says late November.
https://globalnews.ca/video/4290161/spacex-launches-canadian-surveillance-satellites
I'm not really believing that all of the SpaceX Vandenberg payloads saying they'll launch this year are actually going to launch this year. It will be interesting to see if SpaceX can step up their West Coast launch rate.
-
From the WSBW Earth Observation segment:
At #WSBW Earth observation track, Wayne Hoyle of MDA says the Radarsat Constellation Mission spacecraft should be ready to ship to the launch site at the end of this month; working with SpaceX to set a launch date.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1040146506286870529
-
Just got news that RCM mission has now been officially delayed to February.
There's also a new blog post on the Canadian Space Agency website about the mission status:
http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/blog/2018/10/16/radarsat-constellation-a-major-milestone-reached.asp?utm_source=website&utm_medium=banner-txt&utm_campaign=rcm&utm_content=major-milestone&utm_term=home-page
edit/gongora: linked blog has "Launch window: Week of February 18, 2019"
-
Here is a CBC article about the mission. It’s actually pretty good. No insurance was one interesting bit of information.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/satellite-constellation-radarsat-space-agency-canada-falcon-spacex-1.4895428
-
So I spoke with Michel Doyon, Manager, Flight Operations at the Canadian Space Agency today and the RCM flight is going to be delayed again. How long I don't know. He said RCM was supposed to use the NASA CRS-16 mission booster (B1050) which had the grid fin issue and "softly" landed in the water.
Discussions between MDA, who contracted for the launch, and SpaceX are ongoing. Has anyone heard anything on a possible new launch date? Also which booster might it use? A previously flown own or new? I understand from other threads here that the B1050 booster is not likely to fly again??
Thanks
-
So I spoke with Michel Doyon, Manager, Flight Operations at the Canadian Space Agency today and the RCM flight is going to be delayed again. How long I don't know. He said RCM was supposed to use the NASA CRS-16 mission booster (B1050) which had the grid fin issue and "softly" landed in the water.
Discussions between MDA, who contracted for the launch, and SpaceX are ongoing. Has anyone heard anything on a possible new launch date? Also which booster might it use? A previously flown own or new? I understand from other threads here that the B1050 booster is not likely to fly again??
Thanks
That's weird because they have B1052 and B1053 out there and could use it :/
They could always fly B1046 for a fourth time :)
-
So I spoke with Michel Doyon, Manager, Flight Operations at the Canadian Space Agency today and the RCM flight is going to be delayed again. How long I don't know. He said RCM was supposed to use the NASA CRS-16 mission booster (B1050) which had the grid fin issue and "softly" landed in the water.
Discussions between MDA, who contracted for the launch, and SpaceX are ongoing. Has anyone heard anything on a possible new launch date? Also which booster might it use? A previously flown own or new? I understand from other threads here that the B1050 booster is not likely to fly again??
Thanks
That's weird because they have B1052 and B1053 out there and could use it :/
They could always fly B1046 for a fourth time :)
Maybe it's a cost issue. They were getting a good deal on the proven booster.
-
So I spoke with Michel Doyon, Manager, Flight Operations at the Canadian Space Agency today and the RCM flight is going to be delayed again. How long I don't know. He said RCM was supposed to use the NASA CRS-16 mission booster (B1050) which had the grid fin issue and "softly" landed in the water.
Discussions between MDA, who contracted for the launch, and SpaceX are ongoing. Has anyone heard anything on a possible new launch date? Also which booster might it use? A previously flown own or new? I understand from other threads here that the B1050 booster is not likely to fly again??
Thanks
That's weird because they have B1052 and B1053 out there and could use it :/
They could always fly B1046 for a fourth time :)
Maybe it's a cost issue. They were getting a good deal on the proven booster.
No. Cost has nothing to do with it.
Remanifesting of Booster Cores will be in order if sticking with a reused core.
-
Maybe it's a cost issue. They were getting a good deal on the proven booster.
No. Cost has nothing to do with it.
Remanifesting of Booster Cores will be in order if sticking with a reused core.
Given that for block 4 they would sometimes take into account what mission was flown the first time, I'm not sure I would expect them to step away from that. Do you have a source?
-
So I spoke with Michel Doyon, Manager, Flight Operations at the Canadian Space Agency today and the RCM flight is going to be delayed again. How long I don't know. He said RCM was supposed to use the NASA CRS-16 mission booster (B1050) which had the grid fin issue and "softly" landed in the water.
Discussions between MDA, who contracted for the launch, and SpaceX are ongoing. Has anyone heard anything on a possible new launch date? Also which booster might it use? A previously flown own or new? I understand from other threads here that the B1050 booster is not likely to fly again??
Thanks
That's weird because they have B1052 and B1053 out there and could use it :/
They could always fly B1046 for a fourth time :)
Maybe it's a cost issue. They were getting a good deal on the proven booster.
No. Cost has nothing to do with it.
Remanifesting of Booster Cores will be in order if sticking with a reused core.
Good to know 1050 was supposed to go West.
We still have 1052 and 1053, and very maybe 1055 (although getting more and more doubtful)...
One will have to go West, unless they are getting comfortable with flying cores a 3rd time.
In that case we have available 1047 and 1049.
In case they dare flying a core for 4th time, 1046 will have had plenty of time to get checked out.
My money is on either 1052 or 1053 being re-assigned to West coast duty...
-
So I spoke with Michel Doyon, Manager, Flight Operations at the Canadian Space Agency today and the RCM flight is going to be delayed again. How long I don't know. He said RCM was supposed to use the NASA CRS-16 mission booster (B1050) which had the grid fin issue and "softly" landed in the water.
Discussions between MDA, who contracted for the launch, and SpaceX are ongoing. Has anyone heard anything on a possible new launch date? Also which booster might it use? A previously flown own or new? I understand from other threads here that the B1050 booster is not likely to fly again??
Thanks
That's weird because they have B1052 and B1053 out there and could use it :/
They could always fly B1046 for a fourth time :)
Maybe it's a cost issue. They were getting a good deal on the proven booster.
If cost was a big issue, they would get probably an even better deal if flying 1046 a fourth time.. ;)
Edit: If 1050 caused a delay, it would indicate that there is no obvious other solution than waiting for 1052 to launch CRS-17 frist? Or possibly 1051? If they really want a once-flown core..
-
B1047.3 would be a candidate?
-
As much as I detest using CBC as a spaceflight news source, they seemed to have confirmed that a launch in February is no longer in the cards, even going so far as to say "postponed ... indefinitely".
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/spacex-musk-radarsat-constellation-mission-falcon9-1.4977512
I'm guessing the indefinite bit, means they are going back into the queue to wait for a new or gently used booster.
-
http://www.spaceflightfans.cn/event/falcon-9-rocket-launch-radarsat?instance_id=2321
Falcon 9 • Radarsat C-1/2/3
...
[February 15, 2019] Vandenberg news, no earlier than March 9, if the core level is confirmed as B1046.4, it is the fourth flight of the same core level.
-
http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/uscom-man.txt
has Mar 6th
spaceflightfans seems down.
-
http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/uscom-man.txt
has Mar 6th
spaceflightfans seems down.
Yes, but the source for that might also be spaceflightfans? I don't think March 6th is accurate. SpaceX has not opened media accreditation yet, and they typically would have done so by now.
-
http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/uscom-man.txt
has Mar 6th
spaceflightfans seems down.
That's my website. I got the date from here, which got it from spaceflightfans! Now, I had thought it was 6 March, but going back to the post and the website, it says 9 March. Looks like I copied the date wrong. I'll change it to 9 March, although I don't put much faith in that date, since its from a Chinese web site with out any sources. Bing translation
"Vandenberg news, not earlier than March 9 (? ), if the core level is confirmed as B1046.4, it is the 4th flight of the same core class."
-
Agree that Chinese information on US launches is not that reliable. It's unlikely that Radarsat will launch on a 3rd or even 4th flight - there should have been boosters already available for that. Teslarati / Eric Ralph speculated that CSA has a contract for a low-worn booster for their billion dollars satellites.
What a difference a day of bad weather can make. On 6 March 2018, SpaceX could not recover B1044 (Hispasat). One spare booster missing, and this propagated through a year of launch schedule up to Radarsat, where no replacement was available for the crash-landed B1050.
-
Agree that Chinese information on US launches is not that reliable. It's unlikely that Radarsat will launch on a 3rd or even 4th flight - there should have been boosters already available for that. Teslarati / Eric Ralph speculated that CSA has a contract for a low-worn booster for their billion dollars satellites.
...
First, the launch contract for RSM was signed quite a bit ago, in 2013 (https://www.spacex.com/press/2013/07/30/spacex-awarded-launch-reservation-contract-largest-canadian-space-program).
At that time there was no Falcon 9 v1.1 flying, let aside Falcon 9 FT with any of its *blocks*. Also, even the concept of "low-warn booster" pricing did not exist, it emerged couple years later. Also, the contract was originally made for the launch in 2018, five years in advance. Therefore, I suspect its language had a fair amount of freedom for both provider and buyer. And finally, in 2013 the advertised price for launch with Falcon 9 was $54 M, it was very inexpensive option at the time.
Second, as I recall RSM satellites are not that expensive, they do not belong to a "billion dollars satellites" class. The whole project cost may be something around that number (in Canadian $), but it includes R&D money, the cost of ground infrastructure and other "items", which are not satellites. If we are considering launch failure and evaluating possible losses - we are calculating REPLACEMENT cost, and it is typically much lower than the cost of the whole project.
Specifically, eoportal.org gives $110 M Cdn as a price tag for all three sats:
"Sept. 4, 2013: The Magellan Aerospace Corporation (Magellan) was awarded a contract of $110 million Cdn. From MDA for the manufacture of the three RCM spacecraft."
(the hyperlink to the source at eoportal does not work, here is the correct one (https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/magellan-aerospace-awarded-110-million-contract-for-radarsat-constellation-manufacture-512876591.html))
The bottom line, IMHO:
There is no ground for speculations about "low-worn booster" thing existing in contract. It may be right, it may be wrong - we just do not know, and we have no evidence to support.
Hopefully this will change - eventually :)
-
Agree that Chinese information on US launches is not that reliable. It's unlikely that Radarsat will launch on a 3rd or even 4th flight - there should have been boosters already available for that. Teslarati / Eric Ralph speculated that CSA has a contract for a low-worn booster for their billion dollars satellites.
...
First, the launch contract for RSM was signed quite a bit ago, in 2013 (http://"https://www.spacex.com/press/2013/07/30/spacex-awarded-launch-reservation-contract-largest-canadian-space-program").
At that time there was no Falcon 9 v1.1 flying, let aside Falcon 9 FT with any of its *blocks*. Also, even the concept of "low-warn booster" pricing did not exist, it emerged couple years later. Also, the contract was originally made for the launch in 2018, five years in advance. Therefore, I suspect its language had a fair amount of freedom for both provider and buyer. And finally, in 2013 the advertised price for launch with Falcon 9 was $54 M, it was very inexpensive option at the time.
Second, as I recall RSM satellites are not that expensive, they do not belong to a "billion dollars satellites" class. The whole project cost may be something around that number (in Canadian $), but it includes R&D money, the cost of ground infrastructure and other "items", which are not satellites. If we are considering launch failure and evaluating possible losses - we are calculating REPLACEMENT cost, and it is typically much lower than the cost of the whole project.
Specifically, eoportal.org gives $110 M Cdn as a price tag for all three sats:
"Sept. 4, 2013: The Magellan Aerospace Corporation (Magellan) was awarded a contract of $110 million Cdn. From MDA for the manufacture of the three RCM spacecraft."
(the hyperlink to the source at eoportal does not work, here is the correct one (http://"https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/magellan-aerospace-awarded-110-million-contract-for-radarsat-constellation-manufacture-512876591.html"))
The bottom line, IMHO:
There is no ground for speculations about "low-worn booster" thing existing in contract. It may be right, it may be wrong - we just do not know, and we have no evidence to support.
Hopefully this will change - eventually :)
Link is still wrong (extra chars). This should be correct:
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/magellan-aerospace-awarded-110-million-contract-for-radarsat-constellation-manufacture-512876591.html
-
Right, the number of (more than) a billion dollars refers to the whole Radarsat project, including operation; see CBC article (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/satellite-constellation-radarsat-space-agency-canada-falcon-spacex-1.4895428).
Eric Ralphs speculation on boosters: https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-next-west-coast-launch-indefinitely-postponed-failed-falcon-9-landing/
Although each rocket SpaceX builds can be quite different from each other in terms of general quirks and bugs, the only obvious difference between B1050 and any other flight-proven Falcon 9 booster in SpaceX’s fleet was its low-energy CRS-16 trajectory, something that would have enabled a uniquely gentle reentry and landing shortly after launch. In other words, likely out of heaps of caution and conservatism if it is the case, customers CSA and MDA may have requested (or contractually demanded) that SpaceX launch the Radarsat constellation on a flight-proven Falcon 9 with as little wear and tear as possible, in which case B1050 would have been hard to beat.
There is no ground for speculations about "low-worn booster" thing existing in contract. It may be right, it may be wrong - we just do not know, and we have no evidence to support.
The evidence is that the launch has been "indefinitely postponed (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/spacex-musk-radarsat-constellation-mission-falcon9-1.4977512)" after the B1050 landing failure, though there should be some boosters available (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_first-stage_boosters):
- B1046, third landing on 3 December 2018
- B1048, second landing on 8 October 2018
- B1049, third landing on 11 January, 2019
-
@PM3
Well yes - this is exactly what I call "no ground for speculation".
So, your first quote gives in my opinion a clear example of what a called (second quote) "may be right, may be wrong".
Let's see on this particular example where are the boundaries between facts and speculations:
FACTS:
*** B1050 landing failure is a fact;
*** The RSM launch was postponed (just "postponed", the "indefinitely postponed" - it is a CBC news type assessment, not a fact)
*** these two facts are obviously linked as cause and consequence.
That's it for facts.
Other things are speculative, or even wrong, including this one: "...though there should be some boosters available..."
- no, all these boosters DO NOT have status "available" - not anymore, not after the landing failure - just because they are of the SAME TYPE, and may have the SAME PROBLEM. They WILL be available, but after SpaceX finds the root cause and the applies the corrective actions - to prevent this type of failure in future.
Let's assume they find a DESIGN FLAW in the B1050 incident, which is not very unlikely as they had so far 12 attempts with 10 successes and two failures. In this case they have to DESIGN the new pump system, TEST it and APPLY this modification to all cores in inventory. That's quite a time, that would definitely justify launches being "indefinitely postponed".
But that's a worst case, after all - 10 successes it's a good line.
So, a PRODUCTION FLAW is more likely in my view. But even in this case SpaceX need SOME TIME to return the status "available" to the cores in inventory. Indeed, first they need to check these cores for the same (or similar) flaws. Second, they need to decide if this production screw-up is 100% preventable OR they better add some redundancy to the system. And this justifies some launch delays just as well.
So, both these "scenarios" induce delays - just like in the speculation about low-worn booster requirement.
The only difference is that the two listed above - they are typical for this industry.
Basically there are two plausible explanation for a launch delay:
1. either customer does want low-worn booster
2. or SpaceX does not want to loose another booster
- and as I said, we have no ground/evidence to chose the right one.
-
Why would they only postpone Radarsat because of the risk of another hydraulic pump failure, but still launch Iridium (11 January), Nusantara Satu (planned for 22 February) and DM1 (planned for 2 March)? Would they give that low priority to the Canadian Space Agency compared to the other customers?
Note that B1044 - which was equipped (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Hispasat_30W-6_Mission_%2839951085264%29.jpg) with landing legs and grid fins - was expended to serve the customer. They could haved saved it by just waiting for better weather.
-
Why would they only postpone Radarsat because of the risk of another hydraulic pump failure, but still launch Iridium (11 January), Nusantara Satu (planned for 22 February) and DM1 (planned for 2 March)?
Because:
Both Iridium and Nusantara Satu are ASDS-type landings. The hydraulic pump failure occurred on a RTLS-type mission, which has different flight profile and different landing profile. So, it is not unreasonable to suggest this failure mode does not apply to ASDS. Yes, this is speculation - un-grounded - just like your variant. We both do not know the necessary facts (and never will).
In contrast, your last example, SpX-DM1, does not belong to the group for sure, because it's a high profile mission where the schedule - when set - does have very high priority. In other words, SpaceX will definitely prefer to risk the booster landing over another launch delay.
It seems to me you still missing the point (or, likely, I did not do good job with explaining it):
I am NOT trying to say my explanation is right, nor his explanation is wrong - no.
Neither I am trying to say my explanation is better than his.
I gave my variant just to show that his is not the only one.
-
FYI,
This was in one of my recent newsletters; "A document acquired by SpaceQ through the governments' Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) program, shows that the Launch Services Agreement was amended giving SpaceX the option to select a new or flight proven Falcon 9 first stage booster for the mission. SpaceX would likely want to use a flight proven booster to save costs."
The same document said the Canadian Space Agency was ok using a flight proven booster. The question is, are they willing to use a booster for the third or fourth time.
As for the Magellan contract, that was only for three bus's. The RCM program cost is over CAN$1B, making it the most expensive procurement in the last 15 years. It is very important to the government and they want these satellites safely in orbit, now.
I've been in contact with MDA many times on the possible launch date, they aren't saying a thing.
-
Why would they only postpone Radarsat because of the risk of another hydraulic pump failure, but still launch Iridium (11 January), Nusantara Satu (planned for 22 February) and DM1 (planned for 2 March)?
Because:
Both Iridium and Nusantara Satu are ASDS-type landings. The hydraulic pump failure occurred on a RTLS-type mission, which has different flight profile and different landing profile. So, it is not unreasonable to suggest this failure mode does not apply to ASDS. Yes, this is speculation - un-grounded - just like your variant. We both do not know the necessary facts (and never will).
In contrast, your last example, SpX-DM1, does not belong to the group for sure, because it's a high profile mission where the schedule - when set - does have very high priority. In other words, SpaceX will definitely prefer to risk the booster landing over another launch delay.
It seems to me you still missing the point (or, likely, I did not do good job with explaining it):
I am NOT trying to say my explanation is right, nor his explanation is wrong - no.
Neither I am trying to say my explanation is better than his.
I gave my variant just to show that his is not the only one.
Maybe I am missing something but what exactly are you trying to get at here, as your post seems pretty circular and doesn’t really come to any clear conclusion? Getting to the end of your post I find myself little wiser of which point you’re trying to make then when I started reading it.
-
http://www.spaceflightfans.cn/event/falcon-9-rocket-launch-radarsat?instance_id=2321
Falcon 9 • Radarsat C-1/2/3
...
[February 15, 2019] Vandenberg news, no earlier than March 9, if the core level is confirmed as B1046.4, it is the fourth flight of the same core level.
Today this was reverted to NET March, with the comment (via Google Translate):
[February 22, 2019] The news was incorrect and the task is not earlier than March.
-
Why would they only postpone Radarsat because of the risk of another hydraulic pump failure, but still launch Iridium (11 January), Nusantara Satu (planned for 22 February) and DM1 (planned for 2 March)?
Because:
Both Iridium and Nusantara Satu are ASDS-type landings. The hydraulic pump failure occurred on a RTLS-type mission, which has different flight profile and different landing profile. So, it is not unreasonable to suggest this failure mode does not apply to ASDS. Yes, this is speculation - un-grounded - just like your variant. We both do not know the necessary facts (and never will).
In contrast, your last example, SpX-DM1, does not belong to the group for sure, because it's a high profile mission where the schedule - when set - does have very high priority. In other words, SpaceX will definitely prefer to risk the booster landing over another launch delay.
It seems to me you still missing the point (or, likely, I did not do good job with explaining it):
I am NOT trying to say my explanation is right, nor his explanation is wrong - no.
Neither I am trying to say my explanation is better than his.
I gave my variant just to show that his is not the only one.
Most ridiculous argument I have read. That the grid fin hydraulic pump would be guaranteed to fail or not depending on the direction the booster was flying???
The fact is NASA and other customers don't care if the booster lands or not, they are just concerned that their payload gets to the desired orbit.
-
Why would they only postpone Radarsat because of the risk of another hydraulic pump failure, but still launch Iridium (11 January), Nusantara Satu (planned for 22 February) and DM1 (planned for 2 March)?
Because:
Both Iridium and Nusantara Satu are ASDS-type landings. The hydraulic pump failure occurred on a RTLS-type mission, which has different flight profile and different landing profile. So, it is not unreasonable to suggest this failure mode does not apply to ASDS. Yes, this is speculation - un-grounded - just like your variant. We both do not know the necessary facts (and never will).
In contrast, your last example, SpX-DM1, does not belong to the group for sure, because it's a high profile mission where the schedule - when set - does have very high priority. In other words, SpaceX will definitely prefer to risk the booster landing over another launch delay.
It seems to me you still missing the point (or, likely, I did not do good job with explaining it):
I am NOT trying to say my explanation is right, nor his explanation is wrong - no.
Neither I am trying to say my explanation is better than his.
I gave my variant just to show that his is not the only one.
Most ridiculous argument I have read. That the grid fin hydraulic pump would be guaranteed to fail or not depending on the direction the booster was flying???
The fact is NASA and other customers don't care if the booster lands or not, they are just concerned that their payload gets to the desired orbit.
Anyway, according to the post DM-1 press conference, they have fixed the problem with the stalling hydraulic pump by adding a small pressure relief valve.
-
SFN shows (https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/) Radarsat mission slated for 2nd quarter now.
-
The Canadian Space Agency just called me to confirm the launch window is now May 16-22.
-
That's a big jump to the right. But it doesn't look like there is any other schedule impact as the only other SpaceX Vandy launch this year is NET December.
-
Also displayed at
http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/satellites/radarsat/what-is-rcm.asp
Launch window: May 16-22, 2019
Status: Awaiting launch
-
NSF says RCM will launch on B1051:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/03/falcon-heavy-starlink-headline-spacexs-manifest/
-
Canadian Space Agency, What is the RCM?
Launch window: May 16-22, 2019
Status: Awaiting launch
http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/satellites/radarsat/what-is-rcm.asp
-
Is it safe to assume DIDO-1 will launch as a secondary payload on this?
I'm basing that on how DIDO-1 launch date has been moving along with Radarsat launch in the US Launch Schedule thread.
-
Is it safe to assume DIDO-1 will launch as a secondary payload on this?
I'm basing that on how DIDO-1 launch date has been moving along with Radarsat launch in the US Launch Schedule thread.
I would be surprised if there were any secondary payloads on this mission. I haven't seen any information about DIDO 1.
-
RCM spacecraft are prepared for vibration testing in the MDA facilities. (Credit: Canadian Space Agency)
-
RCM spacecraft are prepared for vibration testing in the MDA facilities. (Credit: Canadian Space Agency)
That's an old photo, right? I mean, the sats should be at VAFB now.
-
RCM spacecraft are prepared for vibration testing in the MDA facilities. (Credit: Canadian Space Agency)
That's an old photo, right? I mean, the sats should be at VAFB now.
For sure. That image is from 2017. It is missing the SAR antenna and solar arrays in this picture. Also, there was a post on the CSA blog late last year about them being delivered to California for launch prep.
-
Opportunity to witness the launch of the RADARSAT Constellation Mission in California
From: Canadian Space Agency
Media advisory
Longueuil, Quebec, April 16, 2019 — The satellites of the RADARSAT Constellation Mission (RCM) are scheduled to launch into space at the end of May or early June 2019, aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
Media representatives are invited to witness the launch in person. As the launch site is on an American air force base, each guest must be cleared by U.S. Air Force security to attend the launch.
To begin the accreditation process, media representatives who are interested must send an email to the Canadian Space Agency's Media Relations Office at [email protected] no later than April 18, 2019, at noon (ET).
What:
Witness the launch of the RCM
Date:
End of May or early June 2019 (exact launch date TBC)
Where:
Vandenberg Air Force Base, California
Link:
To learn more about the RCM
- 30 -
Contacts
Canadian Space Agency
Media Relations Office
Telephone: 450-926-4370
Website: http://asc-csa.gc.ca
Email: [email protected]
Follow us on social media
(h/t to @CanadaInSpace)
-
Spaceflight Now schedule (https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/) shows this slated for June. Also, Teslarati says (https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-9-second-california-launch/) "word on the ground is that mid-to-late June is now a more likely target".
-
https://twitter.com/csa_asc/status/1124316488695975936
40 days ‘til lift off! 🇨🇦’s RADARSAT Constellation Mission is scheduled to launch on June 11 from Vandenberg, California. Stay tuned for more information about the mission! http://asc-csa.gc.ca/RCM . 🛰️🛰️🛰️ Photo: CSA/@MDA_maxar #RCM #EO #EarthObservation #CDNSpace
-
Media accreditation is open.
https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1125544526259662848
-
SpaceX’s next West Coast Falcon 9 landing could be decided by baby seals
By Eric Ralph Posted on May 7, 2019
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-confirms-falcon-9-launch-date-radarsat/
-
From https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/r/rcm
Orbit: Sun-synchronous circular orbit (dawn-dusk mission), nominal altitude = 592.7 km, inclination = 97.74º, period = 96.4 minutes. The three spacecraft will be spaced at equal distances on the same orbital plane (120º apart) with a repeat cycle of 179 orbits/12days. The orbit selection allows revisiting the same area for coherent change detection every four days, which should enable a whole suite of interferometric applications.
The satellites will be equally spaced in the same orbital plane, following each other with a time separation of ~32 minutes. While the ground track of each satellite is slightly shifted due to the Earth rotation, this orbital configuration provides the required ground coverage over the Canadian maritime zones using the medium resolution ScanSAR mode.
Orbital tube of 100 m in radius.
Following from the above, the accompanying table lists Local Time of Descending Node (LTDN) as 06:00 +/- 15 minutes.
SSO launches from Vandenberg are to the south--the first equatorial crossing on the way to orbit would be a not-quite descending node.
Does this imply a launch circa 07:00 Pacific Daylight Time (remember, USA Daylight Savings Time), which leads to an equivalent time of circa 1400 UTC?
EDIT 6/2:
The launch time is approximately 10:17 a.m. E(D)T = 7:17 a.m. PDT = 1417 UTC!
-
SpaceX’s next West Coast Falcon 9 landing could be decided by baby seals
By Eric Ralph Posted on May 7, 2019
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-confirms-falcon-9-launch-date-radarsat/
If they decide not to land because of the seals, I'm going to predict that SpaceX will do another near-shore drone ship landing (between 25 and 40 kilometers downrange).
But rest assured, it'll still be spectacular, given that you can still see the booster land from a high hill.
-
If they decide not to land because of the seals, I'm going to predict that SpaceX will do another near-shore drone ship landing (between 25 and 40 kilometers downrange).
But rest assured, it'll still be spectacular, given that you can still see the booster land from a high hill.
Is there an advantage to that given they still have to tow it back to long beach? At least at the cape they are closer to the port.
-
They can't land close to the Long Beach port because, as seen in this snapshot of Raul's SpaceX Map:
#1 - It wouldn't be safe for the booster to fly over the Channel Islands National Park to its ASDS location.
#2 - The Falcon 9 is travelling south-southwest, so that would mean that more fuel needed for the boostback burn.
Sorry for my sloppy drawing.
-
They can't land close to the Long Beach port because, as seen in this snapshot of Raul's SpaceX Map:
#1 - It wouldn't be safe for the booster to fly over the Channel Islands National Park to its ASDS location
#2 - The Falcon 9 is travelling south-southwest, so that would mean that more fuel needed for the boostback burn.
Sorry for my sloppy drawing.
So you're saying they will put the asds where your blue blob is? Originally it sounded like you were suggesting a position where the landing would be visible from the launch site.
-
They can't land close to the Long Beach port because, as seen in this snapshot of Raul's SpaceX Map:
#1 - It wouldn't be safe for the booster to fly over the Channel Islands National Park to its ASDS location
#2 - The Falcon 9 is travelling south-southwest, so that would mean that more fuel needed for the boostback burn.
Sorry for my sloppy drawing.
So you're saying they will put the asds where your blue blob is? Originally it sounded like you were suggesting a position where the landing would be visible from the launch site.
No. I was trying to make a point of why your opinion of landing close to the port would be a bad idea, hence why I drew the blue blob. I used the SSO-A drone ship location as an example of what to expect if RCM does a similar 3-burn trajectory.
I did the question mark as a way of saying, "Is it worth putting the drone ship there?"
-
Ok but draw a circle centered at the Port and with radius of sso-a distance. What is the advantage of putting the asds near the launch site vs anywhere else within that circle? If you can get any closer to the port and since you have plenty of fuel due to light payload.
-
Ok but draw a circle centered at the Port and with radius of sso-a distance. What is the advantage of putting the asds near the launch site vs anywhere else within that circle? If you can get any closer to the port and since you have plenty of fuel due to light payload.
It was my first time plotting predictions using Paint. No excuse.
-
Ok but draw a circle centered at the Port and with radius of sso-a distance. What is the advantage of putting the asds near the launch site vs anywhere else within that circle? If you can get any closer to the port and since you have plenty of fuel due to light payload.
Probably surface and airspace access restrictions and overflight rules? Maybe easier comms & telemetry downlink if it doesn't go under the horizon to the launch pad?
-
So how far downrange is it at time of boostback burn? If it is further downrange, is it easier to change to a different ground track direction than it is to change to exactly the reverse of the ground track it was following? Seems like that might be less effort needed and maybe these issues need to be considered before deciding whether the blue blob position might be reasonable or not?
Tossing it just past directly vertical is one way to reverse the ground track direction and I think that is gernerally what they do. It may be possible to change the direction using a plane that is slanted to the vertical. Not sure if SpaceX has done this or if they might want to widen their experience.
-
Using the SSO-A mission as an example again, the Falcon 9 should be just left of San Miguel Island.
-
So how far downrange is it at time of boostback burn? If it is further downrange, is it easier to change to a different ground track direction than it is to change to exactly the reverse of the ground track it was following? Seems like that might be less effort needed and maybe these issues need to be considered before deciding whether the blue blob position might be reasonable or not?
Tossing it just past directly vertical is one way to reverse the ground track direction and I think that is gernerally what they do. It may be possible to change the direction using a plane that is slanted to the vertical. Not sure if SpaceX has done this or if they might want to widen their experience.
The booster has plenty of performance for a RTLS, so it's not really "easier" for a performance standpoint to to one or the other. Once it relights the engines for boostback, the only (small) difference is burn time. They are undoubtedly optimizing for something other than booster performance.
-
https://twitter.com/canadainspace/status/1129438840828157952
Transporting the RADARSAT Constellation Mission to the Launch Site is Not as Easy as You Might Think wp.me/p8gxCj-3ya #cdnspace #RCM #MDA #RADARSAT #RADARSATConstellationMission
https://vimeo.com/314603588
-
An RCM spacecraft en route to Vandenberg Air Force Base
2019-04-24 – One of the RCM spacecraft leaves SSL in California, where it has been stored since October 2018, in preparation for launch from the Vandenberg Air Force Base. The RADARSAT Constellation is Canada’s new generation of Earth observation satellites. The three identical satellites work together to bring solutions to key challenges for Canadians. (Credit: MDA, a Maxar company)
-
I know there had been some question in the past as to whether the 1400 kg mass figure refers to a single sat or the three together. An infographic posted on CSA'a RADARSAT page (http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/satellites/radarsat/what-is-rcm.asp) a few days ago explicitly states "1430 kg each".
Text version:
The RADARSAT Constellation Mission (RCM) is Canada's new generation of Earth observation satellites. Three identical satellites work together to bring solutions to important challenges for Canadians. They monitor the environment, oceans and ice; detect ships; and support emergency teams during natural disasters. The satellites will be launched aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket in spring 2019. Approximately 250,000 images per year will be used, that is 50 times more than the first generation of RADARSAT. The bus (the body) of each satellite is 3.6 m high, about the height of two average men, by 1.1 m wide. The antenna is 6.98 m wide. The total mass of each of the three satellites at launch is 1,430 kg (approximately the weight of a black rhino). The RCM will orbit Earth at an altitude of 600 km. The satellites will move at 27,200 km/h and take about 96 minutes to circle the globe.
-
I know there had been some question in the past as to whether the 1400 kg mass figure refers to a single sat or the three together. An infographic posted ... a few days ago explicitly states "1430 kg each".
I knew that had to be the case but it's nice they finally said it outright.
-
How much more mass could the deployer be? 1430kg x 3 = 4290kg so maybe total mass to orbit could be somewhere close to 5000kg? What do you think?
-
How much more mass could the deployer be? 1430kg x 3 = 4290kg so maybe total mass to orbit could be somewhere close to 5000kg? What do you think?
Yes, total mass to orbit of ~ 5000 kg sounds about right.
This flight seems to have plenty of extra performance:
NASA LSP calculator gives 8300 kg for Falcon 9 Full Thrust with RTLS for the orbit of 600 km at 98°.
Therefore, the dispenser can be even heavier than 700 kg - IF it is cheaper.
-
Therefore, the dispenser can be even heavier than 700 kg - IF it is cheaper.
Ruag said the dispenser was the heaviest piece of hardware ever developed at their Linköping facility (see way upthread)... so it could be a heavy-ish dispenser.
-
Hmm, so is the static fire info incorrect, or is the launch date in the advisory outdated? Or did SpaceX manage to move the SF to the left?
-
Hmm, so is the static fire info incorrect, or is the launch date in the advisory outdated? Or did SpaceX manage to move the SF left?
A bit of a mystery. Canadian side still seems to be working with June 11...
-
Hmm, so is the static fire info incorrect, or is the launch date in the advisory outdated? Or did SpaceX manage to move the SF to the left?
Moved to discussion as this above wasn't an update.
We still have the timeline as moved to the right to the dates we used.
-
Launch dates are always fluid, but with CSA holding to June 11 on its NET for RADARSAT, we're going to class that as the NET and see what happens with the Static Fire date, which at one point was June 12, thus some confusion. A wait and see situation, but NET June 11 launch date.
-
Do we know if the booster will be landing at LZ-4?
Or will it need the drone ship using any of these methods:
Near-shore (as seen in Spaceflight SSO-A)
Highly lofted (as seen in FORMOSAT 5)
Regular partial boostback (as seen in Iridium-NEXT and Jason 3)
-
Do we know if the booster will be landing at LZ-4?
Or will it need the drone ship using any of these methods:
Near-shore (as seen in Spaceflight SSO-A)
Highly lofted (as seen in FORMOSAT 5)
Regular partial boostback (as seen in Iridium-NEXT and Jason 3)
Landing at LZ-4 is expected given the FCC permits. If they are going to change the landing method, we'll know.
-
I might drive out to see this launch. There are very few F9 launches manifested for Vandenberg, looks like no more until 2020.
Howeer, the forecast is showing cloudy for both Tuesday (22th) and Wednesday.
-
SpaceX Falcon 9 and $1B satellite trio set for first California launch in months
By Eric Ralph Posted on June 5, 2019
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-readies-falcon-9-radarsat-california-launch/
-
I know the sats individually weigh around 475 kg, but was wondering what the weight of the dispenser was?
-
I know the sats individually weigh around 475 kg, but was wondering what the weight of the dispenser was?
The individual sats are 1430kg. The dispenser is probably fairly heavy for its size, it tilts the satellites away from each other for deployment.
-
Posting this for the image...
https://twitter.com/MDA_maxar/status/1136786523377025025 (https://twitter.com/MDA_maxar/status/1136786523377025025)
Toronto Star article
Next generation Canadian satellites set to launch next week in California
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/06/04/next-generation-canadian-satellites-set-to-launch-next-week-in-california.html (https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/06/04/next-generation-canadian-satellites-set-to-launch-next-week-in-california.html)
snip
"The three satellites will be launched into orbit from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket.
The satellites, which will use radar to locate ships, monitor ecosystems and keep an eye on the Arctic, among other tasks, are part of a government-owned mission.
The trio will replace the RADARSAT-2 satellite, which has been in orbit since 2007. It was designed to last seven years, but is still operating while Constellation has been delayed."
snip
"They will be operated from a control centre at the Canadian Space Agency just south of Montreal with a back-up control facility in Ottawa."
Image caption...
MDA's President Mike Greenley is seen in front of one of three RADARSAT Constellation Mission spacecrafts being built for the Canadian Space Agency on Tuesday January 30, 2018. The trio will replace the RADARSAT-2 satellite, which has been in orbit since 2007. RYAN REMIORZ / THE CANADIAN PRESS FILE PHOTO
-
https://twitter.com/NRCan/status/1136363591651745792 (https://twitter.com/NRCan/status/1136363591651745792)
I just posted this as an alternate live stream of the launch.
(I would imagine most will be on the SpaceX feed...but it is a backup)
-
I might drive out to see this launch. There are very few F9 launches manifested for Vandenberg, looks like no more until 2020.
Howeer, the forecast is showing cloudy for both Tuesday (22th) and Wednesday.
This is an LZ-4 landing mission. Roadblocks will be in place on Floradale Ave at both West Ocean Ave and West Central Ave.
-
This is an LZ-4 landing mission. Roadblocks will be in place on Floradale Ave at both West Ocean Ave and West Central Ave.
For the last F9 launch (and landing) I was on Ocean Ave, and they pushed us back to Union Sugar Avenue, not Floradale (quite a bit further east). Hopefully they will reconsider this policy, once landings become routine and considered safe (it is, indeed, objectively safe, since a failure means the rocket crashes in the ocean). For all other launches I have attended from South Base pads, you could drive all the way up to the South Base gate (at Arguello/13th) and park in the parking lot.
Weather Underground says it will be partly cloudy on Wednesday. 55 F and 3mph wind at 7 a.m. Since it is June, I worry about the area being socked in by fog at that time of the morning.
-
It looks like to me that the static fire is with payload. Is this the first time (for non SpaceX) since the Amos 6 disaster in 2016?
-
It looks like to me that the static fire is with payload. Is this the first time (for non SpaceX) since the Amos 6 disaster in 2016?
When I look at the picture in the update thread I don't see a payload attached?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48225.msg1954688#msg1954688
-
It looks like to me that the static fire is with payload. Is this the first time (for non SpaceX) since the Amos 6 disaster in 2016?
When I look at the picture in the update thread I don't see a payload attached?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48225.msg1954688#msg1954688
Sure looks like someting is on top of the interstage.
-
Sure looks like someting is on top of the interstage.
Of course second stage is attached but if the fairing was attached it would be taller than the TE.
-
It looks like to me that the static fire is with payload. Is this the first time (for non SpaceX) since the Amos 6 disaster in 2016?
When I look at the picture in the update thread I don't see a payload attached?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48225.msg1954688#msg1954688
Sure looks like someting is on top of the interstage.
Static fires are done with the second stage attached.
-
Well, just got this disappointing news from the 30th Space Wing Public Affairs Office (via Brian Webb, dated to 6/6):
"The roadblock normally established at 13th Street on Ocean Avenue will be relocated to Floradale Avenue and Ocean Avenue. A secondary roadblock will also be established at Floradale Avenue and Central Avenue. Additional temporary traffic control measures may be implemented on local roadways to safely expedite expected traffic."
That pushes the roadblock an additional 2-3 miles east of the previous (SAOCOM 1A in October 2018) roadblock at Ocean and Union Sugar Ave. This has gotten ridiculous.
The distance from the SLC-4 launch site to the South Gate (the aforementioned Ocean and 13th) is 3.8 miles, normally I have been able to observe F9 launches from there. Even during the SAOCOM 1A launch+landing I was 4.5 miles away at Ocean Ave and Union Sugar Ave (4.7 miles to the landing pad). If they are really pushing everything back to Ocean and Floradale, that makes it 6.7 miles (7.0 miles to landing pad).
This reeks of bureaucratic ignorance and disinterest. In KSC, the press site is 3.0 miles from F9/FHeavy launches. I'm not sure how close people can get to the landing zones, but the landings are probably safer than launches (if they fail they end up in the drink, as we have seen).
Oh, and for reference, if you are going to see an Atlas V launch at the South Gate, you are only 2.5 miles from the pad.
-
Nice animation...
https://twitter.com/csa_asc/status/1137705976491102208 (https://twitter.com/csa_asc/status/1137705976491102208)
-
Nice animation...
Too bad it showed it launching from Florida rather than California...
-
Well, just got this disappointing news from the 30th Space Wing Public Affairs Office (via Brian Webb, dated to 6/6):
"The roadblock normally established at 13th Street on Ocean Avenue will be relocated to Floradale Avenue and Ocean Avenue. A secondary roadblock will also be established at Floradale Avenue and Central Avenue. Additional temporary traffic control measures may be implemented on local roadways to safely expedite expected traffic."
That pushes the roadblock an additional 2-3 miles east of the previous (SAOCOM 1A in October 2018) roadblock at Ocean and Union Sugar Ave. This has gotten ridiculous.
The distance from the SLC-4 launch site to the South Gate (the aforementioned Ocean and 13th) is 3.8 miles, normally I have been able to observe F9 launches from there. Even during the SAOCOM 1A launch+landing I was 4.5 miles away at Ocean Ave and Union Sugar Ave (4.7 miles to the landing pad). If they are really pushing everything back to Ocean and Floradale, that makes it 6.7 miles (7.0 miles to landing pad).
This reeks of bureaucratic ignorance and disinterest. In KSC, the press site is 3.0 miles from F9/FHeavy launches. I'm not sure how close people can get to the landing zones, but the landings are probably safer than launches (if they fail they end up in the drink, as we have seen).
Oh, and for reference, if you are going to see an Atlas V launch at the South Gate, you are only 2.5 miles from the pad.
Bummer. I have been thinking about driving up from OC to see a Vandy launch but was waiting for RTLS for some sonic boom love. Under the above scenario, where you do think the "best" viewing location left would be?
-
Well, just got this disappointing news from the 30th Space Wing Public Affairs Office (via Brian Webb, dated to 6/6):
"The roadblock normally established at 13th Street on Ocean Avenue will be relocated to Floradale Avenue and Ocean Avenue. A secondary roadblock will also be established at Floradale Avenue and Central Avenue. Additional temporary traffic control measures may be implemented on local roadways to safely expedite expected traffic."
That pushes the roadblock an additional 2-3 miles east of the previous (SAOCOM 1A in October 2018) roadblock at Ocean and Union Sugar Ave. This has gotten ridiculous.
The distance from the SLC-4 launch site to the South Gate (the aforementioned Ocean and 13th) is 3.8 miles, normally I have been able to observe F9 launches from there. Even during the SAOCOM 1A launch+landing I was 4.5 miles away at Ocean Ave and Union Sugar Ave (4.7 miles to the landing pad). If they are really pushing everything back to Ocean and Floradale, that makes it 6.7 miles (7.0 miles to landing pad).
This reeks of bureaucratic ignorance and disinterest. In KSC, the press site is 3.0 miles from F9/FHeavy launches. I'm not sure how close people can get to the landing zones, but the landings are probably safer than launches (if they fail they end up in the drink, as we have seen).
Oh, and for reference, if you are going to see an Atlas V launch at the South Gate, you are only 2.5 miles from the pad.
Bummer. I have been thinking about driving up from OC to see a Vandy launch but was waiting for RTLS for some sonic boom love. Under the above scenario, where you do think the "best" viewing location left would be?
I'm thinking of trying Providence Landing Park. It won't be as sonically awesome given the distance, but you can almost see the pad from there.
699 Mercury Ave, Lompoc, CA 93436 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Providence+Landing+Park/@34.6915294,-120.4723957,17z/data=!4m12!1m6!3m5!1s0x80ec190fc80bf4a9:0xbd77ae69cc78fb16!2sProvidence+Landing+Park!8m2!3d34.691525!4d-120.470207!3m4!1s0x80ec190fc80bf4a9:0xbd77ae69cc78fb16!8m2!3d34.691525!4d-120.470207)
-
A local article about the launch provides some ideas about viewing locations.
https://www.noozhawk.com/article/spacex_rocket_launch_anding_at_vandenberg_air_force_base_20190608 (https://www.noozhawk.com/article/spacex_rocket_launch_anding_at_vandenberg_air_force_base_20190608)
While access to Vandenberg is restricted, the public can view the launch from the Hawk’s Nest on Azalea Lane off of Highway 1, a mile south of Vandenberg’s main gate.
The viewing site will open at 6 a.m. and close after the conclusion of the landing of the first stage.
Other locations around the Lompoc Valley also offer views of the launch and landing site, which is visible when looking south of Ocean Avenue (Highway 246).
Popular viewing sites include along Ocean and Central avenues west of Lompoc, the peak of Harris Grade Road, and near the intersection of Moonglow and Stardust roads in Vandenberg Village.
However, law enforcement officers will establish a wider roadblock for this launch, which is expected to draw large crowds to the area.
A roadblock normally established at 13th Street on Ocean Avenue instead will be relocated to the east, at the intersection of Ocean and Floradale avenues.
A secondary roadblock will also be established at Floradale and Central avenues.
Drivers may see additional temporary traffic control measures implemented on local roadways to safely expedite expected traffic.
-
Sure looks like someting is on top of the interstage.
Maybe that's the dispenser.
-
Sure looks like someting is on top of the interstage.
Maybe that's the dispenser.
No, the dispenser is part of the payload. It was the second stage.
-
A local article about the launch provides some ideas about viewing locations.
https://www.noozhawk.com/article/spacex_rocket_launch_anding_at_vandenberg_air_force_base_20190608 (https://www.noozhawk.com/article/spacex_rocket_launch_anding_at_vandenberg_air_force_base_20190608)
Sorry, there just aren't good viewing locations open to the public (i.e. off-base) for launches from South Base pads. Ocean Avenue is the closest you can get. If I recall, the Hawk's Nest is over ten miles away!
Recall that the sound diminishes with the square of distance. Viewing F9 at 7 miles or more away is nowhere near as dramatic as being 4 miles out.
Personally, I'm not going to drive 3 hours to see that. I'll wait until they roll back this stupid policy, whenever they realize that a landing booster stage is not any real threat to the public.
-
Personally, I'm not going to drive 3 hours to see that. I'll wait until they roll back this stupid policy, whenever they realize that a landing booster stage is not any real threat to the public.
It's the reentering booster that presents the threat to the nearby public; the booster has to make it to a much lower altitude on its way to landing before that risk diminishes. And some public are allowed, i.e., residents and workers, of which there are not large numbers.
-
I wasn't paying attention, this is the first RTLS landing at Vandy isn't it?
From this Twitter image, the landing pad is real close to the launch pad. That's a true spaceport right there.
https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1138111227257872385
-
I wasn't paying attention, this is the first RTLS landing at Vandy isn't it?
SAOCOM 1A on 7th October last year landed at LZ4 (Vandenberg)
-
It's the reentering booster that presents the threat to the nearby public; the booster has to make it to a much lower altitude on its way to landing before that risk diminishes. And some public are allowed, i.e., residents and workers, of which there are not large numbers.
Without seeing the 3-sigma chart to confirm this, I would say that is hard to believe. During reentry it is still well out into the Pacific to the south. Maybe a minor risk to the oil rigs. As an engineer, I have a pretty good spidey-sense of when decisions are being made by ninny bureaucrats rather than on the basis of engineering data.
-
It's the reentering booster that presents the threat to the nearby public; the booster has to make it to a much lower altitude on its way to landing before that risk diminishes. And some public are allowed, i.e., residents and workers, of which there are not large numbers.
Without seeing the 3-sigma chart to confirm this, I would say that is hard to believe. During reentry it is still well out into the Pacific to the south. Maybe a minor risk to the oil rigs. As an engineer, I have a pretty good spidey-sense of when decisions are being made by ninny bureaucrats rather than on the basis of engineering data.
Also, the east coast failed landing attempt demonstrated that they have the booster stay out over the ocean until they get closer and know everything is working.
-
Perhaps the other part of the equation is noise - I was on Ocean Ave for Saocom 1A, the sonic booms were quite loud. Pushing the roadblocks further away may be required by an analysis of the acceptable decibel levels, rather than because of risk to the public of an exploding booster.
-
It's the reentering booster that presents the threat to the nearby public; the booster has to make it to a much lower altitude on its way to landing before that risk diminishes. And some public are allowed, i.e., residents and workers, of which there are not large numbers.
Without seeing the 3-sigma chart to confirm this, I would say that is hard to believe. During reentry it is still well out into the Pacific to the south. Maybe a minor risk to the oil rigs. As an engineer, I have a pretty good spidey-sense of when decisions are being made by ninny bureaucrats rather than on the basis of engineering data.
Reentry at Vandenberg is over land. Local oil platforms are affected. 14 CFR 417 has requirements that can only be met with a risk-based approach to public safety for such missions. The updated CFR is in its NPRM period - the new Part 450 has some interesting tidbits that will come into play if they survive as written.
-
Hoot, I do appreciate your partial explanation here, with some details on the CFR. But this only deepens the mystery by saying it reenters over land. Either 1. this mission's trajectory is non-standard and certainly non-intuitive to me or 2. "over land" refers to the southern area of the South Base and Jalama Beach area.
I believe this is the draft of Part 450 (starts on p. 477): https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/SLR2_NPRM.pdf
-
Hoot, I do appreciate your partial explanation here, with some details on the CFR. But this only deepens the mystery by saying it reenters over land. Either 1. this mission's trajectory is non-standard and certainly non-intuitive to me or 2. "over land" refers to the southern area of the South Base and Jalama Beach area.
It's the second mission of its type and, same as the first, the boostback and reentry occur over land. Any description of it being over the water is only true of a different profile at another range. ;) The other thing to keep in mind is the altitude involved; if you were a passenger on stage 1, you'd receive astronaut wings from any country in the world that has such an award. This is about failure at high altitudes not about landing area goofs.
-
I wasn't paying attention, this is the first RTLS landing at Vandy isn't it?
SAOCOM 1A on 7th October last year landed at LZ4 (Vandenberg)
Though it will be the first daytime landing.
-
I wasn't paying attention, this is the first RTLS landing at Vandy isn't it?
SAOCOM 1A on 7th October last year landed at LZ4 (Vandenberg)
Though it will be the first daytime landing.
At Vandenberg. There have been multiple daytime landings at Cape Canaveral.
-
Hoot, I do appreciate your partial explanation here, with some details on the CFR. But this only deepens the mystery by saying it reenters over land. Either 1. this mission's trajectory is non-standard and certainly non-intuitive to me or 2. "over land" refers to the southern area of the South Base and Jalama Beach area.
It's the second mission of its type and, same as the first, the boostback and reentry occur over land. Any description of it being over the water is only true of a different profile at another range. ;) The other thing to keep in mind is the altitude involved; if you were a passenger on stage 1, you'd receive astronaut wings from any country in the world that has such an award. This is about failure at high altitudes not about landing area goofs.
You must be using different definitions that many of us are visualizing, because the boostback burn, the first relight of the first stage that cancels its downrange velocity and lofts it back towards the launch pad, occurs well out to sea, not "over land".
We have seen that the reentry burn also occurs well out to sea.
We have evidence and tracking that shows the landing burn starts out to sea. That's why the failed CRS landing came to rest off the coast. It did not "fly" it's IIP, the instantaneous impact point, across the beach and onto the landing pad.
-
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1138588935087460353 (https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1138588935087460353)
-
... Pushing the roadblocks further away may be required by an analysis of the acceptable decibel levels, rather than because of risk to the public of an exploding booster.
I suspect the explanation is much more mundane - the authorities probably want to avoid having the entire section of Ocean between 13th and Floradale becoming a parking lot given the level of interest in this launch. Key sentence from the noozhawk article above: "Drivers may see additional temporary traffic control measures implemented on local roadways to safely expedite expected traffic."
-
FEATURE ARTICLE: SpaceX Falcon 9 set to loft three Canadian radar satellites -
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/06/spacex-falcon-9-set-to-loft-three-canadian-radar-satellites/
- By William Graham
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1138633811649056773
Small error to note: B1051 landed on OCISLY. Therefore, this booster is NOT the first to fly return-to-launch-site missions on both the East and West Coasts. However, if it weren't for the grid fin failure, B1050 would have had the honor.
-
It's the second mission of its type and, same as the first, the boostback and reentry occur over land. Any description of it being over the water is only true of a different profile at another range. ;) The other thing to keep in mind is the altitude involved; if you were a passenger on stage 1, you'd receive astronaut wings from any country in the world that has such an award. This is about failure at high altitudes not about landing area goofs.
I'm sorry but this has just gotten out-of-hand. No, no way a sun synchronous launch from Vandenberg has a boost back phase over land. Just stop. Its not even a close call
-
It's the second mission of its type and, same as the first, the boostback and reentry occur over land.
You may have seen some badly scaled diagrams made by people in KSP, etc, showing how boostback works, and the scale is so bad that is looks like boostback occurs near land, when in fact it happens far out to sea.
The hazard map illustrates clearly why no part of the boostback burn will occur over land. The launch azimuth is south-south-west-ish, directly over water, and the booster will fly back along the same path. The boostback burn will occur in the green corridor showing the flight path.
https://tinyurl.com/y3do88f2 (Thanks to Raul for the hazard map.)
This SpaceX graphic below has a better scale, showing the boostback burn well downrange, over water. (Ignore the right side of the graphic showing landing on the barge, which won't happen on this mission.)
(https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/16892430560_f87dff78c0_o_1.jpg)
-
https://twitter.com/Astro_DavidS/status/1138790809262743552 (https://twitter.com/Astro_DavidS/status/1138790809262743552)
-
SpaceX providing useful information in their stream - lower right corner...
"LIVE PAD VIEWS"
"FALCON 9 IS VERTICAL. PROMISE."
-
Marine fog is a common thing at VAFB. Many rockets have punched through the fog on their way up over the years, but this is likely the first time a rocket has punched back through returning to VAFB for landing. (There may have been one or two that came back unplanned, out of control!)
- Ed Kyle
-
https://twitter.com/TheFavoritist/status/1138818616231702529 (https://twitter.com/TheFavoritist/status/1138818616231702529)
-
https://twitter.com/SSC_CA/status/1138810165036277767 (https://twitter.com/SSC_CA/status/1138810165036277767)
-
https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/1138828317082214400 (https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/1138828317082214400)
-
Congratulations to SpaceX and CSA for the successful launch!
Nice shot of Falcon 9 blasting through the fog.
-
https://twitter.com/MDA_maxar/status/1138829162813296640 (https://twitter.com/MDA_maxar/status/1138829162813296640)
-
https://twitter.com/_TomCross_/status/1138830281266229248 (https://twitter.com/_TomCross_/status/1138830281266229248)
sonic boom...and a fog replay.
-
https://twitter.com/NOAASatellites/status/1138833364583034881 (https://twitter.com/NOAASatellites/status/1138833364583034881)
-
In this #GOESWest view, you can see the streak @SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket left behind as it hoisted three Canadian satellites into orbit from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California this morning. More imagery: http://go.usa.gov/xmJQ9
Since that's clearly not the direction the rocket takes off, I'm guessing that's the hot fog from the first 10-20 seconds drifting inland?
-
I missed this image from yesterday...
https://twitter.com/MDA_maxar/status/1138573379806617601 (https://twitter.com/MDA_maxar/status/1138573379806617601)
-
Glad to see the launch went smoothly. Did anyone go out and try to see it on Ocean Ave? I'd be interested if there was any visibility, and confirm that the roadblock was at Floradale.
-
In this #GOESWest view, you can see the streak @SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket left behind as it hoisted three Canadian satellites into orbit from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California this morning. More imagery: http://go.usa.gov/xmJQ9
Since that's clearly not the direction the rocket takes off, I'm guessing that's the hot fog from the first 10-20 seconds drifting inland?
That's the launch. It is an oblique angle view that places land behind the launch vehicle during its early climb.
- Ed Kyle
-
I'm thinking of trying Providence Landing Park. It won't be as sonically awesome given the distance, but you can almost see the pad from there.
699 Mercury Ave, Lompoc, CA 93436 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Providence+Landing+Park/@34.6915294,-120.4723957,17z/data=!4m12!1m6!3m5!1s0x80ec190fc80bf4a9:0xbd77ae69cc78fb16!2sProvidence+Landing+Park!8m2!3d34.691525!4d-120.470207!3m4!1s0x80ec190fc80bf4a9:0xbd77ae69cc78fb16!8m2!3d34.691525!4d-120.470207)
Curious if you or anyone else gave this a whirl and what the experience was like?
Thanks!
-
https://twitter.com/AlteredJamie/status/1138829273026965504 (https://twitter.com/AlteredJamie/status/1138829273026965504)
-
Not the greatest images, having been shot from nearly 16 miles away from the pad as the Falcon flies. But unlike everyone on base, on the coast, along Ocean Avenue, or on Harris Grade Road I at least got to see everything from T+20 seconds to L-20 seconds as the booster cleared and descended back in the strong coastal marine layer.
-
Is there a source that tells what the mass of the dispenser is? I know the total payload mass is more than 4,290 kilograms.
-
I'm surprised that the Falcon 9 model they were using in the webcast was so inaccurate. The SpaceX logo is not placed/sized correctly, there is no Falcon 9 logo, the interstage is not the correct size, and the grid fins are placed below the interstage.
You would expect them to have better models on their own webcast than I have on my desk (Oli model).
-
I'm surprised that the Falcon 9 model they were using in the webcast was so inaccurate. The SpaceX logo is not placed/sized correctly, there is no Falcon 9 logo, the interstage is not the correct size, and the grid fins are placed below the interstage.
You would expect them to have better models on their own webcast than I have on my desk (Oli model).
They need too get in touch with Oli Braun...
https://twitter.com/oli_braun/status/1103003366785994752
-
It's the second mission of its type and, same as the first, the boostback and reentry occur over land. Any description of it being over the water is only true of a different profile at another range. ;) The other thing to keep in mind is the altitude involved; if you were a passenger on stage 1, you'd receive astronaut wings from any country in the world that has such an award. This is about failure at high altitudes not about landing area goofs.
I'm sorry but this has just gotten out-of-hand. No, no way a sun synchronous launch from Vandenberg has a boost back phase over land. Just stop. Its not even a close call
Those decades of learning the business, the hundreds of times of counting down to the uncertainty of T-0 and flight, all just a dream. Even this morning, thinking that I was at my own console workstation watching telemetered data and making flight calls, seeing the payoff of all the collaborative efforts of the many people involved in such an enterprise, including my own, turns out to be just an overactive imagination, according to the internet. I should really see someone about this delusion - my working life has been a sham. But then who's been paying me? Man, now I'm really confused. I tell you though, if I were to dream it all over again there'd be less meetings.
-
14 CFR 417 has requirements that can only be met with a risk-based approach to public safety for such missions. The updated CFR is in its NPRM period - the new Part 450 has some interesting tidbits that will come into play if they survive as written.
Wow thanks for this. Now I have a lot of reading to do.....
-
I'm surprised that the Falcon 9 model they were using in the webcast was so inaccurate. The SpaceX logo is not placed/sized correctly, there is no Falcon 9 logo, the interstage is not the correct size, and the grid fins are placed below the interstage.
You would expect them to have better models on their own webcast than I have on my desk (Oli model).
I'm pretty sure that was a very last minute addition upon realizing just how bad the pea soup was out there. They very likely snatched it off somebody's desk -- or ran down to the gift shop.
-
I'm thinking of trying Providence Landing Park. It won't be as sonically awesome given the distance, but you can almost see the pad from there.
699 Mercury Ave, Lompoc, CA 93436 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Providence+Landing+Park/@34.6915294,-120.4723957,17z/data=!4m12!1m6!3m5!1s0x80ec190fc80bf4a9:0xbd77ae69cc78fb16!2sProvidence+Landing+Park!8m2!3d34.691525!4d-120.470207!3m4!1s0x80ec190fc80bf4a9:0xbd77ae69cc78fb16!8m2!3d34.691525!4d-120.470207)
Curious if you or anyone else gave this a whirl and what the experience was like?
Thanks!
My buddy wanted to be close for the sonic goodness which is my normal preference so we ended up at the corner of Ocean and Floradale. The launch was much quieter than from Ocean and Union Sugar which is my favorite spot but was unaccessible today. The fog was so dense, we could not see anything. Not even a hint of glow (which is why I wanted to go to Providence Park in hopes of being out of the marine layer and seeing the rocket punch through the clouds.) The sonic boom was still glorious.
Next foggy day I'll try Providence ...
-
Those decades of learning the business, the hundreds of times of counting down to the uncertainty of T-0 and flight, all just a dream.
It appears so. Landing burn over land? Agreed. Boostback and re-entry burn over land? No way. There is no land for thousands of miles in the direction the F9 took off today. Check the images attached to the following post, and tell us where the land downrange from the launch site is. Or stop trolling.
Launch Hazard Areas for M1349 RADARSAT Constellation Mission (https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?hl=en&mid=17sTdDuaLN-EJeuALqkvhM2hULM5lvIKZ&ll=32.122896987421996%2C-121.25001614999996&z=7) based on issued NOTAMs.
Stage2 Reentry Debris Area east of Hawaii after the first orbit in window between 15:54 and 16:30 UTC.
-
Those decades of learning the business, the hundreds of times of counting down to the uncertainty of T-0 and flight, all just a dream.
It appears so. Landing burn over land? Agreed. Boostback and re-entry burn over land? No way. There is no land for thousands of miles in the direction the F9 took off today. Check the images attached to the following post, and tell us where the land downrange from the launch site is. Or stop trolling.
Launch Hazard Areas for M1349 RADARSAT Constellation Mission (https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?hl=en&mid=17sTdDuaLN-EJeuALqkvhM2hULM5lvIKZ&ll=32.122896987421996%2C-121.25001614999996&z=7) based on issued NOTAMs.
Stage2 Reentry Debris Area east of Hawaii after the first orbit in window between 15:54 and 16:30 UTC.
The original conversation is getting lost as we were talking about the risk to public in the landing area. The risk comes not from where the booster's nominal position is in flight but where it's impact point will be at the end of its thrust. The physical boostback and cutoff are indeed over water but the impact point of the booster finishes over land at MECO-2. I guess that's the part that's not intuitively obvious. Any failure of stage 1 just prior to MECO-2 and all times after puts debris on land, the extent of which depends on such factors to include the method of failure, its altitude, and winds. I was pointing folks to 14 CFR for more info but this discussion seems to have gone in different direction.
-
Those decades of learning the business, the hundreds of times of counting down to the uncertainty of T-0 and flight, all just a dream.
It appears so. Landing burn over land? Agreed. Boostback and re-entry burn over land? No way. There is no land for thousands of miles in the direction the F9 took off today. Check the images attached to the following post, and tell us where the land downrange from the launch site is. Or stop trolling.
Launch Hazard Areas for M1349 RADARSAT Constellation Mission (https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?hl=en&mid=17sTdDuaLN-EJeuALqkvhM2hULM5lvIKZ&ll=32.122896987421996%2C-121.25001614999996&z=7) based on issued NOTAMs.
Stage2 Reentry Debris Area east of Hawaii after the first orbit in window between 15:54 and 16:30 UTC.
The original conversation is getting lost as we were talking about the risk to public in the landing area. The risk comes not from where the booster's nominal position is in flight but where it's impact point will be at the end of its thrust. The physical boostback and cutoff are indeed over water but the impact point of the booster finishes over land at MECO-2. I guess that's the part that's not intuitively obvious. Any failure of stage 1 just prior to MECO-2 and all times after puts debris on land, the extent of which depends on such factors to include the method of failure, its altitude, and winds. I was pointing folks to 14 CFR for more info but this discussion seems to have gone in different direction.
There was alot of discussion (aka shouting match) about the impact point before the landing burn here:
I guess this footage should end the debate of whether or not a stage will overshoot or undershoot it’s landing spot if the engines fail to light for the landing burn. (But who am I kidding, of course it won’t)
Yes, the video clearly shows the stage coming in at an angle and overshooting the ASDS. For those who missed it, the great "overshoot vs. undershoot" debate started here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44778.msg1788585#msg1788585
...and lasted several pages, so is worth revisiting in light of the new video. Hopefully all debaters will view the video and some will see the error of their ways. Meanwhile, you may bask in the knowledge that you were indeed correct. ;D
-
It would be more "fun" to discuss why the F9 did a 180 degree roll during ascent ;)
My favorite explanation would be something like "they routinely adjust the flight parameters during routine launches to acquire data from different subsets within the vehicles design flight-envelope to refine models and continuously improve our understanding of the vehicle and how it behaves..."
but Elon probably had the better answer on Twitter ;)
-
It would be more "fun" to discuss why the F9 did a 180 degree roll during ascent ;)
I was wondering about that too! Seemed to roll more for the gravity turn than usual. Maybe an optimal orientation for the payload during ascent? Or maybe just for the cameras?
-
More boring, but maybe I'll learn something:
I thought the roll programs that most (if not all) launches do is to align their gyro packages with the inclination of the desired orbit. The packages launch at a fixed alignment which (I think) is predicated by the TEL alignment.
Have a good one,
Mike
-
The 180 degree roll seems to be standard practice at Vandenberg, check the Iridium-5 mission at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp0TW8vkCLg for example, around 22:00-23:00. You can clearly see the booster rolling if you focus on the decals on the faring.
-
More boring, but maybe I'll learn something:
I thought the roll programs that most (if not all) launches do is to align their gyro packages with the inclination of the desired orbit. The packages launch at a fixed alignment which (I think) is predicated by the TEL alignment.
Have a good one,
Mike
That would make much more sense. Now I feel dumb :p
-
Falcon 9 has a modern guidance system, it doesn't need to do the old-school roll program before pitching. If it needs to roll, it is because of the payload. The payload may not be able to take certain orientations, structurally.
And when F9 flies with a crew Dragon, I assume it will roll so as to orient the astronauts into a certain angle, either for reasons of comfort or reasons of field-of-view (so they can see the horizon out the window).
-
Is there a source that tells what the mass of the dispenser is? I know the total payload mass is more than 4,290 kilograms.
Don't think that has been published. Ruag said it was their heaviest product developed at their Linkoping facility...
-
Falcon 9 has a modern guidance system, it doesn't need to do the old-school roll program before pitching. If it needs to roll, it is because of the payload. The payload may not be able to take certain orientations, structurally.
And when F9 flies with a crew Dragon, I assume it will roll so as to orient the astronauts into a certain angle, either for reasons of comfort or reasons of field-of-view (so they can see the horizon out the window).
The payload has no idea where "down" is, the line to the center of the Earth. It only feels the acceleration vector.
But the Falcon is pushed from behind, as are all rockets.
In inertial space, that puts the thrust vector down the axis.
The exception is when there are aerodynamic loads from the sides
(Or during strong rotational motions which they don't do before stage separation.)
It's hard to see where and when significant lateral forces are induced.
-
In inertial space, that puts the thrust vector down the axis.
The exception is when there are aerodynamic loads from the sides
(Or during strong rotational motions which they don't do before stage separation.)
It's hard to see where and when significant lateral forces are induced.
For F9 the payload is required to take +/- 2 g's lateral, I don't know if in reality that applies 360 degrees around.
In any case that is just one possibility relating to the payload. The point is that whatever it is, it is probably stemming from the payload. Another possibility is that they wanted the payload to be oriented a certain way at fairing separation.
-
Is there a source that tells what the mass of the dispenser is? I know the total payload mass is more than 4,290 kilograms.
Don't think that has been published. Ruag said it was their heaviest product developed at their Linkoping facility...
Could a reason for it not being published involve the Canadian government keeping it classified? After all, the government owns the RCM sats instead of MDA being the owner.
-
https://twitter.com/PeterGuggenbach/status/1139185911147704321
https://twitter.com/RuagSpace/status/1139502322374062080
-
Makes you wonder who charged the Canadians more...
Ruag, for their fancy high tech triple mount...
Or SpaceX for getting it all there on a used, but nice, booster based F9 rocket...
:o ??? ::)
-
Full-res versions: (embedded in the tweet, just change the suffix from :large to :orig)
I saw this image
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=48225.0;attach=1564722;image)
and had a flashback to this scene
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIBRmqQzEcA