Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 7, 2017 : DISCUSSION  (Read 280570 times)

Offline vaporcobra

https://twitter.com/DutchSpace/status/1189250317310976000

The source video(s) :) The infrared view embarassingly appears to be a camera pointed at a screen.

Offline whitelancer64

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1999734/x-37b-breaks-record-lands-after-780-days-in-orbit/

 “This mission successfully hosted Air Force Research Laboratory experiments, among others, as well as providing a ride for small satellites.”

NPR has mentioned this tweet from Jonathan McDowell criticizing the smallsat portion of the mission:

Quote from: Jonathan McDowell
The statement that this @usairforce X-37 flight deployed small satellites is alarming, since the US has not reported those deployments in its UN Registration Convention submissions. This would be the first time that either the USA or Russia has blatantly flouted the Convention.


*SNIP*

I’m not convinced that this is actually the case, but nevertheless thought the allegation to be worth mentioning here.

It's worth noting that submitting satellites to the UN registry is entirely voluntary.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2019 07:55 pm by whitelancer64 »
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15681
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 9194
  • Likes Given: 1438
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #502 on: 10/29/2019 09:07 pm »
It's worth noting that submitting satellites to the UN registry is entirely voluntary.
In this coming age of million-sat constellations and thrill-seeking commercial people-launch outfits, how long before something or someone runs into one of these unannounced satellites?

 - Ed Kyle

Offline vaporcobra

This discussion is probably better situated in a/the discussion thread ;)

Offline whitelancer64

It's worth noting that submitting satellites to the UN registry is entirely voluntary.
In this coming age of million-sat constellations and thrill-seeking commercial people-launch outfits, how long before something or someone runs into one of these unannounced satellites?

 - Ed Kyle

Not reported to the UN registry =/= unnanounced.

It's just a list of satellites, probes, etc. that have been launched provided to the UN by the UN member nations launching them.

UNOOSA doesn't track satellites or anything like that either.

For being voluntary, it's actually doing pretty well to have 88% of launched things submitted to it.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 40385
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 34329
  • Likes Given: 12593
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #505 on: 10/30/2019 05:27 am »
Under the terms of the 1976 Registration Convention the US signed, the US must report all satellites that it launches. Not reporting satellites is a violation of the convention. This makes people like Jonathan upset, but there is really nothing that Jonathan or the UN can do about it.

https://www.spacelegalissues.com/the-1976-registration-convention/

"Each State of registry shall furnish to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, as soon as practicable, the following information concerning each space object carried on its registry:

(a) Name of launching State or States;
(b) An appropriate designator of the space object or its registration number;
(c) Date and territory or location of launch;
(d) Basic orbital parameters, including: (i) Nodal period; (ii) Inclination; (iii) Apogee; (iv) Perigee;
(e) General function of the space object."

Legal definition of "shall".

"when drafting a legal document, the term shall is used to indicate that something must be done, as opposed to the term may which simply means that something is allowed (ie that it can be done, but does not have to be done)"

https://www.translegal.com/legal-english-dictionary/shall
« Last Edit: 10/30/2019 05:38 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14961
  • UK
  • Liked: 4326
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #506 on: 10/30/2019 07:10 am »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14961
  • UK
  • Liked: 4326
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #507 on: 10/30/2019 07:14 am »
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1999734/x-37b-breaks-record-lands-after-780-days-in-orbit/

 “This mission successfully hosted Air Force Research Laboratory experiments, among others, as well as providing a ride for small satellites.”

NPR has mentioned this tweet from Jonathan McDowell criticizing the smallsat portion of the mission:

Quote from: Jonathan McDowell
The statement that this @usairforce X-37 flight deployed small satellites is alarming, since the US has not reported those deployments in its UN Registration Convention submissions. This would be the first time that either the USA or Russia has blatantly flouted the Convention.



Source: https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1188513737571033089

I’m not convinced that this is actually the case, but nevertheless thought the allegation to be worth mentioning here.

I already mentioned about the small satellite deployment in the discussion thread at the time landing where this should probably go.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14961
  • UK
  • Liked: 4326
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #508 on: 10/30/2019 08:05 pm »

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1495
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 576
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #509 on: 10/30/2019 08:31 pm »
Seems like he has a Hopper and an MK-1 model behind him (amongst others).

Online Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3123
  • Liked: 1209
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #510 on: 10/30/2019 11:18 pm »
It could have released and retrieved the smallsats (inspectors?), which would mean you would need definitive proof of their deployment for a convention violation. Since they are supposed to register objects, you can't weasel out it just because you deployed well after initial primary bus launch.

Offline WulfTheSaxon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 184
    • #geekpolitics on DALnet
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 1038
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 : X-37B OTV-5 : September 2017 : DISCUSSION
« Reply #511 on: 10/31/2019 05:36 pm »
Under the terms of the 1976 Registration Convention the US signed, the US must report all satellites that it launches. Not reporting satellites is a violation of the convention. This makes people like Jonathan upset, but there is really nothing that Jonathan or the UN can do about it.

https://www.spacelegalissues.com/the-1976-registration-convention/

"Each State of registry shall furnish to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, as soon as practicable, the following information concerning each space object carried on its registry:

(a) Name of launching State or States;
(b) An appropriate designator of the space object or its registration number;
(c) Date and territory or location of launch;
(d) Basic orbital parameters, including: (i) Nodal period; (ii) Inclination; (iii) Apogee; (iv) Perigee;
(e) General function of the space object."

Legal definition of "shall".

"when drafting a legal document, the term shall is used to indicate that something must be done, as opposed to the term may which simply means that something is allowed (ie that it can be done, but does not have to be done)"

https://www.translegal.com/legal-english-dictionary/shall

It also says this: “The contents of each registry and the conditions under which it is maintained shall be determined by the State of registry concerned.”

Perhaps the US decided that it wasn’t necessary to report separate entries for multiple satellites with orbital parameters that may be identical at the level of precision provided in the registry.



On another note, it occurs to me that there’s a whole list of unregistered objects on McDowell’s own website – including this note:

Quote
[Note: Prior to 1981 all Intelsat launches were registered by the US.
Since then no state has registered Intelsat launches. Of the 118
unregistered US satellites, 28 are Intelsat satellites, 5 are Space
Shuttle missions, 2 are space station modules, 3 are civilian
satellites,  67 are commercial satellites, 6 are unclassified military
satellites, and 7 are classified military satellites.]

So, what’s up with the allegation that this would be “the first time that either the USA or Russia has blatantly flouted the Convention”?

Tags:
 

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