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?"
Very short presser, so beefed it up with the history etc.
Quote from: Space Junkie on 07/30/2013 07:22 pmWhat 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Helodriver on 07/31/2013 09:29 amDoes 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:QuoteTogether 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
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?
Quote from: Skyrocket on 12/14/2015 07:55 pmA 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
Is there an argument for changing the thread title, as presumably this will not be on a v1.1 but a FT?
And another one, Canadian eh:https://spaceq.ca/radarsat-constellation-mission-to-fly-on-refurbished-spacex-falcon-9-rocket/
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:QuoteMaxar @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.
Quote from: gongora on 12/19/2017 02:04 pmTweet from Peter B. de Selding:QuoteMaxar @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
#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.pdfhttps://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/r/rcm
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)
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.
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
Quote from: SolSystem on 12/22/2018 07:56 pmSo 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??ThanksThat's weird because they have B1052 and B1053 out there and could use it :/They could always fly B1046 for a fourth time
Quote from: Alexphysics on 12/22/2018 08:09 pmQuote from: SolSystem on 12/22/2018 07:56 pmSo 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??ThanksThat'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.
Quote from: SolSystem on 12/22/2018 08:26 pmMaybe 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.
Quote from: SolSystem on 12/22/2018 08:26 pmQuote from: Alexphysics on 12/22/2018 08:09 pmQuote from: SolSystem on 12/22/2018 07:56 pmSo 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??ThanksThat'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.
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.txthas Mar 6thspaceflightfans seems down.
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....
Quote from: PM3 on 02/18/2019 12:12 amAgree 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.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)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
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.
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)?
QuoteWhy 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.
http://www.spaceflightfans.cn/event/falcon-9-rocket-launch-radarsat?instance_id=2321Quote from: Google TranslateFalcon 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.
[February 22, 2019] The news was incorrect and the task is not earlier than March.
Quote from: smoliarm on 02/18/2019 03:58 pmQuoteWhy 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.
Launch window: May 16-22, 2019Status: Awaiting launch
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.
RCM spacecraft are prepared for vibration testing in the MDA facilities. (Credit: Canadian Space Agency)
Quote from: jacqmans on 03/26/2019 10:25 am 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.
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
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.
SpaceX’s next West Coast Falcon 9 landing could be decided by baby sealsBy Eric Ralph Posted on May 7, 2019https://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.
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.
Quote from: ZachS09 on 05/08/2019 11:32 amThey 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.
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.
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.
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
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".
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?
Therefore, the dispenser can be even heavier than 700 kg - IF it is cheaper.
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?
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?
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)
I know the sats individually weigh around 475 kg, but was wondering what the weight of the dispenser was?
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.
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?
Quote from: Roy_H on 06/08/2019 04:35 pmIt 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.
Quote from: gongora on 06/08/2019 04:42 pmQuote from: Roy_H on 06/08/2019 04:35 pmIt 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#msg1954688Sure looks like someting is on top of the interstage.
Nice animation...
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.
Quote from: DaveJes1979 on 06/09/2019 03:00 amWell, 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?
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.
Quote from: Scylla on 06/08/2019 04:53 pmSure looks like someting is on top of the interstage.Maybe that's the dispenser.
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
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.
https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1138111227257872385
I wasn't paying attention, this is the first RTLS landing at Vandy isn't it?
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.
Quote from: hootowls on 06/10/2019 07:23 pmIt'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.
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.
Quote from: Norm38 on 06/11/2019 01:26 pmI 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)
Quote from: vanoord on 06/11/2019 01:33 pmQuote from: Norm38 on 06/11/2019 01:26 pmI 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.
Quote from: DaveJes1979 on 06/11/2019 09:06 pmHoot, 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.
... 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.
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
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.
It's the second mission of its type and, same as the first, the boostback and reentry occur over land.
Quote from: NOAA SatellitesIn 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
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
Quote from: Draggendrop on 06/12/2019 03:43 pmQuote from: NOAA SatellitesIn 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/xmJQ9Since 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'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
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).
Quote from: hootowls on 06/11/2019 09:47 pmIt'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
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.
Quote from: mme on 06/10/2019 04:04 pmI'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 93436Curious if you or anyone else gave this a whirl and what the experience was like?Thanks!
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.
Launch Hazard Areas for M1349 RADARSAT Constellation Mission based on issued NOTAMs.Stage2 Reentry Debris Area east of Hawaii after the first orbit in window between 15:54 and 16:30 UTC.
Quote from: hootowls on 06/12/2019 08:14 pmThose 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.Quote from: Raul on 06/10/2019 11:49 amLaunch Hazard Areas for M1349 RADARSAT Constellation Mission based on issued NOTAMs.Stage2 Reentry Debris Area east of Hawaii after the first orbit in window between 15:54 and 16:30 UTC.
Quote from: Tommyboy on 06/12/2019 09:03 pmQuote from: hootowls on 06/12/2019 08:14 pmThose 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.Quote from: Raul on 06/10/2019 11:49 amLaunch Hazard Areas for M1349 RADARSAT Constellation Mission 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.
Quote from: Lars-J on 03/11/2018 12:20 amI 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.
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)
It would be more "fun" to discuss why the F9 did a 180 degree roll during ascent
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
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.
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).
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.
Quote from: ZachS09 on 06/12/2019 06:32 pmIs 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...
Full-res versions: (embedded in the tweet, just change the suffix from :large to :orig)