Why do you dump the fuel when the stage is doomed anyway? Btw, looking at the picture - any guesstimate how much fuel is that?

Quote from: OneSpeed on 06/19/2022 04:47 amQuote from: gongora on 06/19/2022 04:45 amAnyone want to explain what this "parking orbit" has to do with launching a Globalstar sat? Looks like the mission profile could be:1. Direct injection into a 533 x 533km orbit (1:34:51 period)2. Release payload 'X'3. SES2 to raise apogee to a 533 x 1200km (ΔV about 174 m/s)4. SES3 to circularise at 1200 x 1200km (ΔV about 170 m/s)5. Release Globalstar.If the two orbits were the same inclination, then SES2 and SES3 would be equally long, but SES3 is twice the length.The most straightforward explanation is the SES3 also includes an inclination change, in addition to circularizing. So the two orbits have slightly different inclinations.EDIT: SES3 was about twice as long as SES2, and should have provided twice the delta-V. If we assume SES2 was in-plane, then SES3 provided about 340 m/s, where only 170 m/s of that was needed to circularize. So the sideward delta-V was about sqrt(340^2-170^2), or about 290 m/s. Orbital speed at that altitude is about 7256 m/s, so the change in inclination should be about atan(290/7256), or about 2.3 degrees. According to Alexphysics the launch azimuth indicated a 54^{o} orbit, whereas GlobalStar uses 52^{o}. So this is consistent with the mystery orbit being 533x533x54^{o}.This makes our best guess:1. Direct injection into a 533 x 533km x 54^{o} orbit (1:34:51 period)2. Release payload 'X'3. SES2 to raise apogee to a 533 x 1200km x 54^{o} (ΔV about 174 m/s)4. SES3 to circularize/plane change at 1200 x 1200km x 52^{o} (ΔV about 170 m/s for circularization, 290 m/s for plane change, 340 m/s total)5. Release Globalstar.6: SES4 for the second stage disposal burn. At least 300 m/s to get to a 100 x 1200km or lower orbit.

Quote from: gongora on 06/19/2022 04:45 amAnyone want to explain what this "parking orbit" has to do with launching a Globalstar sat? Looks like the mission profile could be:1. Direct injection into a 533 x 533km orbit (1:34:51 period)2. Release payload 'X'3. SES2 to raise apogee to a 533 x 1200km (ΔV about 174 m/s)4. SES3 to circularise at 1200 x 1200km (ΔV about 170 m/s)5. Release Globalstar.

Anyone want to explain what this "parking orbit" has to do with launching a Globalstar sat?

A remarkable achievement by #SpaceX Truly seems like we are on the way to ‘airliner like operations’ for spaceflight.

Falcon 9 heads to orbit with Globalstar FM15 early this morning, capping off an impressive sprint of three launches in about 36 hours with SpaceX launching two missions from Florida and one from California.See more of my newest photos → johnkrausphotos.com/New

Maybe everyone is overthinking the info available?The Globalstar quote above referencing launching the spare also says current and future subscribers “and other customers”What if DOD / SDA or similar wants to test using commercial sat comms and is paying to launch this spare.They would be the customer making it secretive and also paying for a direct insertion.So there is a government client but it’s a commercial spare payload.

Quote from: LouScheffer on 06/19/2022 12:01 pmQuote from: OneSpeed on 06/19/2022 04:47 amQuote from: gongora on 06/19/2022 04:45 amAnyone want to explain what this "parking orbit" has to do with launching a Globalstar sat? Looks like the mission profile could be:1. Direct injection into a 533 x 533km orbit (1:34:51 period)2. Release payload 'X'3. SES2 to raise apogee to a 533 x 1200km (ΔV about 174 m/s)4. SES3 to circularise at 1200 x 1200km (ΔV about 170 m/s)5. Release Globalstar.If the two orbits were the same inclination, then SES2 and SES3 would be equally long, but SES3 is twice the length.The most straightforward explanation is the SES3 also includes an inclination change, in addition to circularizing. So the two orbits have slightly different inclinations.EDIT: SES3 was about twice as long as SES2, and should have provided twice the delta-V. If we assume SES2 was in-plane, then SES3 provided about 340 m/s, where only 170 m/s of that was needed to circularize. So the sideward delta-V was about sqrt(340^2-170^2), or about 290 m/s. Orbital speed at that altitude is about 7256 m/s, so the change in inclination should be about atan(290/7256), or about 2.3 degrees. According to Alexphysics the launch azimuth indicated a 54^{o} orbit, whereas GlobalStar uses 52^{o}. So this is consistent with the mystery orbit being 533x533x54^{o}.This makes our best guess:1. Direct injection into a 533 x 533km x 54^{o} orbit (1:34:51 period)2. Release payload 'X'3. SES2 to raise apogee to a 533 x 1200km x 54^{o} (ΔV about 174 m/s)4. SES3 to circularize/plane change at 1200 x 1200km x 52^{o} (ΔV about 170 m/s for circularization, 290 m/s for plane change, 340 m/s total)5. Release Globalstar.6: SES4 for the second stage disposal burn. At least 300 m/s to get to a 100 x 1200km or lower orbit.This might explain why, when I saw the SES-3 burn earlier today, the direction of the burn was at an approximate 30-45 degree angle to the flight path.

Looks like the same deployer for Starlink on the Transporter missionshttps://twitter.com/GewoonLukas_/status/1538395956848349185

I also had a look at the trajectory over Europe after SECO-1 (around the time the secret payload might have been deployed). Seems to be almost identical to an ordinary Starlink launch, except with a circular orbit already nearly at operational height (about 540km). Starlink-3287 flew over Europe in the exact same trajectory with an almost identical orbit at the exact same time (verified on Heavens Above and CelesTrak). Maybe this could help us develop rough viewing opportunities for the secret payload. Other nearby sats include Starlink-1183 (1-2 minutes later) and Starlink-2446 (2-3 minutes earlier).

Everyone keeps mentioning the deployment structure at the top of the T2 stack. It was also on the T3 stack, the flight that had four payloads show up later.

In a previous post (link below), the structure that we can see at the top of the stack is similar, but not identical to the structure we saw in Transporter-2, which had some Starlinks on it that can be seen deploying at the T+1:28:53 mark - this implies that *something* was up on this structure, and deployed before the Globalstar payload. But the Starlinks that are being deployed now need the stage to be spun in order to deploy - is it feasible that if there were some kind of Starlink says on this mission that the stage could be spun up to deploy them, then spun down to allow for the 3rd firing of the 2nd stage to get Globalstar to where it needs to be

It's certainly feasible to spin up and spin down the stage for a deployment, but was the stage spinning in the T2 Starlink deployment you linked?

Quote from: daveglo on 06/19/2022 02:10 pmQuote from: LouScheffer on 06/19/2022 12:01 pmQuote from: OneSpeed on 06/19/2022 04:47 amLooks like the mission profile could be:1. Direct injection into a 533 x 533km orbit (1:34:51 period)2. Release payload 'X'3. SES2 to raise apogee to a 533 x 1200km (ΔV about 174 m/s)4. SES3 to circularise at 1200 x 1200km (ΔV about 170 m/s)5. Release Globalstar.If the two orbits were the same inclination, then SES2 and SES3 would be equally long, but SES3 is twice the length.The most straightforward explanation is the SES3 also includes an inclination change, in addition to circularizing. So the two orbits have slightly different inclinations.EDIT: SES3 was about twice as long as SES2, and should have provided twice the delta-V. If we assume SES2 was in-plane, then SES3 provided about 340 m/s, where only 170 m/s of that was needed to circularize. So the sideward delta-V was about sqrt(340^2-170^2), or about 290 m/s. Orbital speed at that altitude is about 7256 m/s, so the change in inclination should be about atan(290/7256), or about 2.3 degrees. According to Alexphysics the launch azimuth indicated a 54^{o} orbit, whereas GlobalStar uses 52^{o}. So this is consistent with the mystery orbit being 533x533x54^{o}.This makes our best guess:1. Direct injection into a 533 x 533km x 54^{o} orbit (1:34:51 period)2. Release payload 'X'3. SES2 to raise apogee to a 533 x 1200km x 54^{o} (ΔV about 174 m/s)4. SES3 to circularize/plane change at 1200 x 1200km x 52^{o} (ΔV about 170 m/s for circularization, 290 m/s for plane change, 340 m/s total)5. Release Globalstar.6: SES4 for the second stage disposal burn. At least 300 m/s to get to a 100 x 1200km or lower orbit.This might explain why, when I saw the SES-3 burn earlier today, the direction of the burn was at an approximate 30-45 degree angle to the flight path.(My bolding above)290 m/s “sideways” vs 190 m/s prograde is very close to a 60 degree angle to the flight path. Are there effects that would cause it to appear to be “an appropriately 30-45 degree angle to the flight path”?Also, if these suppositions are correct, wouldn’t the constrain pretty tightly the drop-off orbit for our mystery payload(s)?After all that secrecy….

Quote from: LouScheffer on 06/19/2022 12:01 pmQuote from: OneSpeed on 06/19/2022 04:47 amLooks like the mission profile could be:1. Direct injection into a 533 x 533km orbit (1:34:51 period)2. Release payload 'X'3. SES2 to raise apogee to a 533 x 1200km (ΔV about 174 m/s)4. SES3 to circularise at 1200 x 1200km (ΔV about 170 m/s)5. Release Globalstar.If the two orbits were the same inclination, then SES2 and SES3 would be equally long, but SES3 is twice the length.The most straightforward explanation is the SES3 also includes an inclination change, in addition to circularizing. So the two orbits have slightly different inclinations.EDIT: SES3 was about twice as long as SES2, and should have provided twice the delta-V. If we assume SES2 was in-plane, then SES3 provided about 340 m/s, where only 170 m/s of that was needed to circularize. So the sideward delta-V was about sqrt(340^2-170^2), or about 290 m/s. Orbital speed at that altitude is about 7256 m/s, so the change in inclination should be about atan(290/7256), or about 2.3 degrees. According to Alexphysics the launch azimuth indicated a 54^{o} orbit, whereas GlobalStar uses 52^{o}. So this is consistent with the mystery orbit being 533x533x54^{o}.This makes our best guess:1. Direct injection into a 533 x 533km x 54^{o} orbit (1:34:51 period)2. Release payload 'X'3. SES2 to raise apogee to a 533 x 1200km x 54^{o} (ΔV about 174 m/s)4. SES3 to circularize/plane change at 1200 x 1200km x 52^{o} (ΔV about 170 m/s for circularization, 290 m/s for plane change, 340 m/s total)5. Release Globalstar.6: SES4 for the second stage disposal burn. At least 300 m/s to get to a 100 x 1200km or lower orbit.This might explain why, when I saw the SES-3 burn earlier today, the direction of the burn was at an approximate 30-45 degree angle to the flight path.

Quote from: OneSpeed on 06/19/2022 04:47 amLooks like the mission profile could be:1. Direct injection into a 533 x 533km orbit (1:34:51 period)2. Release payload 'X'3. SES2 to raise apogee to a 533 x 1200km (ΔV about 174 m/s)4. SES3 to circularise at 1200 x 1200km (ΔV about 170 m/s)5. Release Globalstar.If the two orbits were the same inclination, then SES2 and SES3 would be equally long, but SES3 is twice the length.The most straightforward explanation is the SES3 also includes an inclination change, in addition to circularizing. So the two orbits have slightly different inclinations.EDIT: SES3 was about twice as long as SES2, and should have provided twice the delta-V. If we assume SES2 was in-plane, then SES3 provided about 340 m/s, where only 170 m/s of that was needed to circularize. So the sideward delta-V was about sqrt(340^2-170^2), or about 290 m/s. Orbital speed at that altitude is about 7256 m/s, so the change in inclination should be about atan(290/7256), or about 2.3 degrees. According to Alexphysics the launch azimuth indicated a 54^{o} orbit, whereas GlobalStar uses 52^{o}. So this is consistent with the mystery orbit being 533x533x54^{o}.This makes our best guess:1. Direct injection into a 533 x 533km x 54^{o} orbit (1:34:51 period)2. Release payload 'X'3. SES2 to raise apogee to a 533 x 1200km x 54^{o} (ΔV about 174 m/s)4. SES3 to circularize/plane change at 1200 x 1200km x 52^{o} (ΔV about 170 m/s for circularization, 290 m/s for plane change, 340 m/s total)5. Release Globalstar.6: SES4 for the second stage disposal burn. At least 300 m/s to get to a 100 x 1200km or lower orbit.

Looks like the mission profile could be:1. Direct injection into a 533 x 533km orbit (1:34:51 period)2. Release payload 'X'3. SES2 to raise apogee to a 533 x 1200km (ΔV about 174 m/s)4. SES3 to circularise at 1200 x 1200km (ΔV about 170 m/s)5. Release Globalstar.

Quote from: Comga on 06/19/2022 03:21 pmQuote from: daveglo on 06/19/2022 02:10 pmQuote from: LouScheffer on 06/19/2022 12:01 pmQuote from: OneSpeed on 06/19/2022 04:47 amLooks like the mission profile could be:1. Direct injection into a 533 x 533km orbit (1:34:51 period)2. Release payload 'X'3. SES2 to raise apogee to a 533 x 1200km (ΔV about 174 m/s)4. SES3 to circularise at 1200 x 1200km (ΔV about 170 m/s)5. Release Globalstar.If the two orbits were the same inclination, then SES2 and SES3 would be equally long, but SES3 is twice the length.The most straightforward explanation is the SES3 also includes an inclination change, in addition to circularizing. So the two orbits have slightly different inclinations.EDIT: SES3 was about twice as long as SES2, and should have provided twice the delta-V. If we assume SES2 was in-plane, then SES3 provided about 340 m/s, where only 170 m/s of that was needed to circularize. So the sideward delta-V was about sqrt(340^2-170^2), or about 290 m/s. Orbital speed at that altitude is about 7256 m/s, so the change in inclination should be about atan(290/7256), or about 2.3 degrees. According to Alexphysics the launch azimuth indicated a 54^{o} orbit, whereas GlobalStar uses 52^{o}. So this is consistent with the mystery orbit being 533x533x54^{o}.This makes our best guess:1. Direct injection into a 533 x 533km x 54^{o} orbit (1:34:51 period)2. Release payload 'X'3. SES2 to raise apogee to a 533 x 1200km x 54^{o} (ΔV about 174 m/s)4. SES3 to circularize/plane change at 1200 x 1200km x 52^{o} (ΔV about 170 m/s for circularization, 290 m/s for plane change, 340 m/s total)5. Release Globalstar.6: SES4 for the second stage disposal burn. At least 300 m/s to get to a 100 x 1200km or lower orbit.This might explain why, when I saw the SES-3 burn earlier today, the direction of the burn was at an approximate 30-45 degree angle to the flight path.(My bolding above)290 m/s “sideways” vs 190 m/s prograde is very close to a 60 degree angle to the flight path. Are there effects that would cause it to appear to be “an appropriately 30-45 degree angle to the flight path”?Also, if these suppositions are correct, wouldn’t the constrain pretty tightly the drop-off orbit for our mystery payload(s)?After all that secrecy….