NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX Falcon Missions Section => Topic started by: Galactic Penguin SST on 11/12/2014 04:30 pm

Title: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 11/12/2014 04:30 pm
Remember, these should be the first ever geostationary orbit comsats to be dropped off in low Earth orbit and climb to 35800 km by themselves.  ;)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Nov. 12, 2014
– Boeing has successfully mated two 702SP (small platform) satellites in a stacked configuration in preparation for the first-ever conjoined satellite launch. The milestone is a significant step towards the early 2015 launch of the satellites ABS-3A and Eutelsat 115 West B, the first-ever all-electric propulsion satellites scheduled to enter service.
The 702SP, designed by Boeing Network & Space Systems satellite businesses and Phantom Works, features an all-electric propulsion system and a joint configuration for a dual-manifest launch. By eliminating chemical propulsion and using only electric propulsion, the 702SP platform offers a significant mass advantage that translates to increased revenue-generating payload performance and launch vehicle savings to customers.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2014-11-12-Boeing-Stacks-Two-Satellites-to-Launch-as-a-Pair (http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2014-11-12-Boeing-Stacks-Two-Satellites-to-Launch-as-a-Pair)



Other threads for ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B:
SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - SLC-40 - March 1 2015 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36798.0)
The Eutel me when you're ready to Party Thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36784.0)
SpaceX Signs Launch Agreements with Asia Broadcast Satellite and Satmex (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28328.0)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Targeteer on 11/12/2014 06:09 pm
Using the individuals in the background as reference. the term "small platform" is definitely relative :)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: cartman on 11/12/2014 06:15 pm
Do we know how much these 2 satellites weigh?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: guckyfan on 11/12/2014 06:31 pm
I did not see the info in that article that they will be delivered to LEO and go to GEO by themselves from there.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: nadreck on 11/12/2014 06:34 pm
Using the individuals in the background as reference. the term "small platform" is definitely relative :)

Notice the picture angle and the difference in depth between the people and the satellite, we do not know the zoom setting so it is hard to get an accurate scale.

EDIT, the posts for the cordon however are probably 1.05 or 1.1 meters high, that would make each satellite 3.5meters tall if I presume that the 2nd to furthest post is at the same distance
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 11/12/2014 06:43 pm
I did not see the info in that article that they will be delivered to LEO and go to GEO by themselves from there.

Perhaps Galactic Penguin means they will be dropped off in GTO and do the circularization by themselves. But I can't imagine why they would be dropped off in "LEO."
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: abaddon on 11/12/2014 06:44 pm
Perhaps Galactic Penguin means they will be dropped off in GTO and do the circularization by themselves. But I can't imagine why they would be dropped off in "LEO."

Because they are too heavy for F9 to lift beyond LEO?

I thought there was going to be a single sat launch coming up where that was going to happen (a ~6t bird), but I wasn't thinking it would be this one.  A reference would be appreciated if anyone can find one...
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/12/2014 06:47 pm
But I can't imagine why they would be dropped off in "LEO."

Because the F9 is more efficient at getting mass into LEO than Delta IV and Atlas V and solar electric is more efficient thanDelta IV and Atlas V LH2 stages in getting stuff to GSO.  These spacecraft were designed specifically to do this and be stacked.

This is one of those paradigm shifts.   

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/news/speeches/2011/cooning_120913.page
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/702SP.page
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/12/2014 07:00 pm
I thought they where heading to a high, but not quite GTO orbit, but as high as the US can push it. But I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 11/12/2014 07:25 pm
I thought they where heading to a high, but not quite GTO orbit, but as high as the US can push it. But I could be wrong.

That was my understanding as well. You'd typically want to boost the sats as high as feasible, if only to shorten the amount of time it takes them thrusting while making repeated Van Allen belt passages. I wouldn't call their targeted orbit "LEO".
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: [email protected] on 11/12/2014 07:52 pm
...German Wikipedia states that a 802SP satellite typically weigths 1800kg, so 3600kg + ? should be very well within the capacity to manage a GTO. 
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: GalacticIntruder on 11/12/2014 07:55 pm
I see. Read it wrong. Who writes space articles in Imperial units?  Very annoying.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/12/2014 11:49 pm
I see. Read it wrong. Who writes space articles in Imperial units?  Very annoying.

@!?# Stephen Clark...  ;)
Which side of the pond is his target audience again? US audiences, so yes, he will use imperial units.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: RonM on 11/13/2014 12:18 am
I see. Read it wrong. Who writes space articles in Imperial units?  Very annoying.

@!?# Stephen Clark...  ;)
Which side of the pond is his target audience again? US audiences, so yes, he will use imperial units.

We don't use Imperial Units, we use U.S. Customary Units.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units)

Personally, I'd prefer SI metric.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 11/13/2014 12:21 am
...German Wikipedia states that a 802SP satellite typically weigths 1800kg, so 3600kg + ? should be very well within the capacity to manage a GTO.

Not sure if that's a typo or you referenced the wrong bird, but the satellite type should be the 702SP, not 802SP.   

EDIT: given nimbostratus' post below, I guess it was just a typo.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: nimbostratus on 11/13/2014 02:50 am
...German Wikipedia states that a 802SP satellite typically weigths 1800kg, so 3600kg + ? should be very well within the capacity to manage a GTO.

There is no model 802sp in Boeing's satellite family.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/13/2014 08:24 am
The only negative to electric propulsion is it takes months to place them GEO. Compared to weeks for chemical propulsion. The reduced launch costs and extend life should offset the short term revenue loss.

Another plus of electric propulsion is the dual use of solar panels. Larger the they are quicker delivery time and more power for payload when operational.

I expect these commercial electric satellite buses to also be used for planetary missions.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: toruonu on 11/13/2014 08:50 am
Can someone point to a doc with regardsto how the new electric satellites work with regard to propulsion. Is it a form of ion drive with electricity providing the large momentum for the charged particles or is it using some magnetic fields to adjust itself and accelerate and what kind of limitations that has in usability at random points in the satellites orbits.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: nimbostratus on 11/13/2014 09:13 am
Can someone point to a doc with regardsto how the new electric satellites work with regard to propulsion. Is it a form of ion drive with electricity providing the large momentum for the charged particles or is it using some magnetic fields to adjust itself and accelerate and what kind of limitations that has in usability at random points in the satellites orbits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: hopalong on 11/13/2014 09:22 am
...German Wikipedia states that a 802SP satellite typically weigths 1800kg, so 3600kg + ? should be very well within the capacity to manage a GTO.

Not sure if that's a typo or you referenced the wrong bird, but the satellite type should be the 702SP, not 802SP.   

EDIT: given nimbostratus' post below, I guess it was just a typo.

A typo, here is the German wiki - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_702 giving the 702SP mass as 1.8 Tonnes. Mind you, I could not see a reference to the mass of the 702SP in the Boeing bumf.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: toruonu on 11/13/2014 11:20 am
Can someone point to a doc with regardsto how the new electric satellites work with regard to propulsion. Is it a form of ion drive with electricity providing the large momentum for the charged particles or is it using some magnetic fields to adjust itself and accelerate and what kind of limitations that has in usability at random points in the satellites orbits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

Ok, so it's as I expected an ion drive. That does mean that it's still got a limited lifetime depending on the total amount of gas that's packed for the thrusters, but it's nice to see the concept finally making it to real-life usage :) The main reason I was confused was the discussion on Van Allen belts transitions that I somehow remember seeing a bit upthread (or maybe I've been browsing around too much and got confused).
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: BrianNH on 11/13/2014 12:36 pm
I can't look at that picture without seeing a gigantic pair of binoculars and wondering if it is secretly an NRO payload.

 :D
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/13/2014 12:51 pm
I expect these commercial electric satellite buses to also be used for planetary missions.

No, not the same environment.  It is a bad idea.  See Mars Observer
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/13/2014 12:53 pm

Ok, so it's as I expected an ion drive. That does mean that it's still got a limited lifetime depending on the total amount of gas that's packed for the thrusters, but it's nice to see the concept finally making it to real-life usage.

This is not the first "real-life usage".  There are many comsats using it.  This will be the first usage for intentional GTO to GSO circularization.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/13/2014 12:56 pm

So they will go to near GTO and perigee raise/circularize themselves. Like I said, not "LEO."

I mistook their original intentions when they announced these spacecraft a few years ago.

Looks like these spacecraft are going after Orbital's niche.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm38 on 11/13/2014 05:48 pm
No, not the same environment.  It is a bad idea.  See Mars Observer

Are you speaking just generally, as in "interplanetary isn't the same as GEO"?  From JPL data, 10 year radiation dose in GEO is 100krad, while in Mars orbit it may only be 5krad.  So anything rad hardened for GEO is good enough for a lot of the solar system.

And Mars Observer failed due to a leaky valve in the hypergolic propulsion system which an all solar-electric craft doesn't have.  But it seems that valve could have leaked just as easily in LEO as on its way to Mars.

Is there something specific that rules the 702SP bus out for wider usage?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/13/2014 05:59 pm
No, not the same environment.  It is a bad idea.  See Mars Observer

Are you speaking just generally, as in "interplanetary isn't the same as GEO"?  From JPL data, 10 year radiation dose in GEO is 100krad, while in Mars orbit it may only be 5krad.  So anything rad hardened for GEO is good enough for a lot of the solar system.

And Mars Observer failed due to a leaky valve in the hypergolic propulsion system which an all solar-electric craft doesn't have.  But it seems that valve could have leaked just as easily in LEO as on its way to Mars.

Is there something specific that rules the 702SP bus out for wider usage?

It has nothing to do with radiation.  It is the thermal environment and attitude determination. 

GEOsats have one side always facing earth and two sides always facing deep space. 
They also rely on using earth sensors for pointing.
And no, the leak would not have happened on a GEOsat because it would have been used within days of launch.  It wasn't made to keep the tanks isolated that long.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/13/2014 07:12 pm
It's a question of how much cost/risk you take.

Both in dependence on EP and on reuse for other purposes - e.g. solar system planetary missions.

The paradigm shift underway is highly subjective and driven by volume and market forces, but not commanded by them. What commands is the need to deliver on reliable on orbit service over a reasonable expectation of service life.

At the moment, GSO sat economics are the "life blood" - there's an attempt for EO/LEO to develop speculative products for growth, some which may appropriate/erode significant GSO market as well. But nothing suggests enough cost recovery to qualify such LEO/GSO buses for long cruise, deep space, or other planetary environments in order to address a larger market.

It is a substantial additional cost to do so. When costs are already a pressure point in market growth. To qualify a planetary mission, might be 3x GSO or 8x LEO. Or more.

As to LEO or GEO for EP to GSO - tradeoff is lifetime/risk. Also payload growth margin. Expect that the limiting factor is the number of payloads successfully contracted for and entering service. As experience is gained by vendors/providers, numbers will grow gradually, supporting those providers.

If they over do it, like launching too many, too "low", too short lived ... then we'll find a new bound both on capabilities supplied, as well as a new market "floor" for commercial sat business. If the volume integrated at market price points exceeds same in past, and the supplied services from those sats are cash positive, then the market size may be said to have grown.

Whoever/however that would be accomplished, if it is, would be a historic accomplishment in and of itself.

And that's what the paradigm shift is after, where many have failed. Historically resistant to such growth. 
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/13/2014 07:32 pm
I expect these commercial electric satellite buses to also be used for planetary missions.

No, not the same environment.  It is a bad idea.  See Mars Observer
This bugs me. Reread Mars Observer review board findings.

It was a failure of FBC thinking. Presuming that such a bus could function as such. And intentionally not having the budget to support such additional need, so we could show almost a COTs approach to planetary. Gambling.

It is possible to qualify such busses. This will increase costs greatly. You could improve development, testing, and qualification processes eventually to bring down these additional costs as a structural cost issue. Would it cover all of the necessary requirements of science missions, and the operational requirements to get them there?

None of this would make such busses more commercially viable. All of this would increase cost/risk/time.

So you'd have to "front load" costs, at a time you're shedding them, under the theory of long term gain for infrequently flown planetary missions. There would also be the doubt that it would still be insufficent for science missions - look at the current issues with this comet lander - none of that would remotely be faced by a commercial geosat. We've a long way to go before that, if ever, becomes likely.

add:
But I don't think Mars Observer is a good model for this. As EP upscales, its thermal requirements and other issues for cruise are nothing like the hypers and the antique Tiros bus mentioned. Not to say its a slam dunk like the FBC mentality which I was very wary of at the time. So I think its a bad one to quote because the actual elements are way obsolete.

Big issue for SEP grander use will be PV life/degradation/weight/efficiency. But with more PV usage on earth power generation, there's a large market for PV improvement that is already bringing down PV space issues across the board.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/13/2014 09:57 pm
But I don't think Mars Observer is a good model for this. As EP upscales, its thermal requirements and other issues for cruise are nothing like the hypers and the antique Tiros bus mentioned.

It used a RCA Satcom bus, the appendage articulation was from the Tiros bus.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/13/2014 10:32 pm
But I don't think Mars Observer is a good model for this. As EP upscales, its thermal requirements and other issues for cruise are nothing like the hypers and the antique Tiros bus mentioned.

It used a RCA Satcom bus, the appendage articulation was from the Tiros bus.
If I recall correctly, it was Tiros, then RELAY, then eventually Satcom, then the last series of Tiros was built on the Satcom bus. They were related, have to go back to an octogenarian friend to get his read on this.

All out of David Sarnoff Labs at RCA.

Think the point stands, if not even more reinforced.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 11/14/2014 12:53 am

If I recall correctly, it was Tiros, then RELAY, then eventually Satcom, then the last series of Tiros was built on the Satcom bus.


TIROS as in DMSP and NOAA buses.
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sat/lockheed_tiros-n.htm

The MO bus was the  Satcom-K/LM4000 bus
http://www.skyrocket.de/space/doc_sat/lockheed_4000.htm
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/14/2014 03:12 am
Note that the Indians successfully used their I-1K GEO satellite bus for their Mars Orbiter Mission. They learned from the Mars Orbiter and other unsuccessful missions to implement their mission cost effectively in a very short time. The same could probably be done with Boeing's 702SP bus, but it would need to be modified for deep space operations.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: mr. mark on 11/14/2014 03:25 am
I see. Read it wrong. Who writes space articles in Imperial units?  Very annoying.
Spaceflightnow.com is more geared toward a non scientific US average joe audience. Similar to space.com
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: StarryKnight on 11/14/2014 08:39 pm

If I recall correctly, it was Tiros, then RELAY, then eventually Satcom, then the last series of Tiros was built on the Satcom bus.


TIROS as in DMSP and NOAA buses.
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sat/lockheed_tiros-n.htm

The MO bus was the  Satcom-K/LM4000 bus
http://www.skyrocket.de/space/doc_sat/lockheed_4000.htm
Actually the bus was more like the Series 5000 bus, which had liquid apogee engines (i.e. 100 lbf oxidizer & hydrazine engines) for large orbit adjustments (orbit raising in GTO; Mars Orbit Insertion for Mars Observer).  The Series 4000s had solid fuel Apogee Kick Motors.

Avionics were based TIROS/DMSP buses, which had more autonomy since they were LEOs with just a few ground passes per day. The RCA/GE/MM/LM satcoms of those days didn't have as sufficient autonomy since they were meant to be in continuous ground contact (except short portions during the GTO phase of the mission).
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: DrLucky on 11/17/2014 03:06 pm
Hi folks,

I'm trying to educate myself more about electric propulsion spacecraft like these two sats.  This discussion has been pretty informative so far, but I feel like some of it is going over my head.  I thought I'd scrape together what I can find out about the Boeing 702 bus and the propulsion used, and then hope those of you more familiar with the systems to point me to more documents / facts I've missed. 

As always, I welcome correction!

When we speak of "electric propulsion", we generally mean ion propulsion - there's an inert reaction mass electrically propelled at high velocity.  In the case of 702SP, I think it's a(n) XIPS or Xenon-ion propulsion system.

So the Boeing 702 is a family of busses.  I'm assuming that a given bus provides structure, avionics, propulsion, and power in a range of configurations, and the customer then specifies the equipment (reflectors, receivers, etc) that they require.  Anything I'm missing here?

Given the descriptions here: http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/702/702SP.page I'm assuming that the 702SP is at the small end of the 702 family (it's extending the range of power down to 3kW)

It seems like the 702SP is unique in the 702 family as being all-electric propulsion?

I tried finding out masses of previous 702 family sats.  I've come up with the Anik F1 (at 3015 kg dry / 4700 kg total) and Anik F2 (at 3489 kg dry / 5950 kg total).  The Galaxies seem similar.  The NSS-8, lost at launch, 5920 kg launch mass, is listed as over 17kW end-of-life power generation, so I'm assuming that's the top end mass of the 702 family bus. (the above article describes 702 as ranging from 3-18kW)

It's harder to get masses on these new sats, but satbeam.com lists the ABS-3A as 1800kg launch mass with no dry mass, and doesn't give a figure for E115WB.

The Boeing document gives "5 kg / year" as the reaction mass consumed per year of operation, presumably for station-keeping.  Given a spacecraft life of 15 years, that means at least 75kg, bare minimum. 

I then dug into what that 5 kg / year buys - this Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget gives 50-55 m/s as the yearly delta-v budget for station-keeping in GEO.  I assume this varies by longitude, due to gravitational anomalies, but I wasn't able to find comparison numbers. 

These numbers give very roughly 2000s ISP (one sig fig, at best), which seems to be the right ballpark for ion propulsion.  I've seen "experimental" figures of 210 km/s and 100 km/s thrown about.

Okay, so now, how much propellant (is that the right term?) does it take to get to GEO from LEO? 
I've seen a number of figures for delta-v from an inclined LEO to GEO: The Wikipedia page gives 2 km/s in the "high thrust" section and 6 km/s in the section for low-thrust.  That difference I understand, but then there's a chart farther down which gives 3.8 km/s LEO-GEO.  This seems like a better figure (for actual practice), since I've seen people describing GTO as 1600 m/s from GEO, which this chart echoes.

Using the rough 2000s ISP figure above, that would require about 320 kg (all right - one sig fig? 300kg!) of Xe for the 3.8 km/s insertion, or about 480kg (500) for a 6 km/s, less-efficient burn.

One open question of mine - how many N of thrust are we talking about?  The figure of 4-6 months to enter service has been used, but clearly that's not with a 100% duty cycle on the thrusters, so I've no way to spitball the actual thrust.  Well, except to say that by my (now very crowded) back-of-the-envelope, if you did thrust for 4 months, the 6 km/s burn would be around 1 N.

At any rate, we seem to be talking about an 1800kg spacecraft which is probably less than 500kg xenon, or a 28% PMF.  Anik F2 is about 40% PMF.  It launched on an Ariane 5G+,and was delivered to GTO (according to http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ariane5.html), so it was required to do a 1600m/s job rather than 3.8 or 6.0 km/s.

So if you can wait 4-6 months, and the sat doesn't get cooked by the radiation belts, it seem like a win.  Are there other considerations I'm missing?  I'm assuming that this doesn't scale up as well, since presumably you'd need outsized solar panels to power larger sats during the thrust phase, which would lead to wasting payload on power that's unneeded on station.  Or will the sat industry just absorb this, make different trades, and put higher-power beams on the sats?

Okay, now for a few other things raised in this thread - XIPS for interplanetary missions was raised, and shot down with Mars Observer as an example.  I'm trying to clearly understand this argument.  My grok was that it wasn't an argument against XIPS itself (it wasn't the electric propulsion which failed on that mission), but rather that a GEO bus (ie: 702SP) hasn't been designed for interplanetary missions, so the services offered by the bus would be at best inappropriate for the mission, or at worst fail in some LOM way because it wasn't designed for the environment?

I recall following Deep Space 1, which was testing a number of techs, including a XIPS called NSTAR.  I believe that engine is also in use on Dawn.  It had 3100s ISP and about 0.1N thrust.  So, presumably, on the right spacecraft, XIPS can be very effective. Or is there info about problems with NSTAR that I'm unaware of?

So, to sum up, I'd love feedback on the following points:
* these spacecraft are about 1800 kg launch mass
* they're perhaps 1300 kg dry mass? (more likely 1600kg+)
* ISP for the thrusters is in the 2000 - 3000s range? (3400-3500s depending on throttle)
* LEO -> GEO for this type of craft is 6 km/s?  (perhaps, but mission is likely GTO->GEO at ~2kps)
* Thrust for the 702SP is a few Newtons? (4 thrusters at 165mN each, possibly operating in concert depending on configuration)
* The argument against 702SP for interplanetary missions is because the bus is inappropriate, not the thruster?

Wouldn't mind hearing what the thruster unit(s) actually are.

Thanks for hearing me out!

Edit: most questions answered.

Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 11/17/2014 04:19 pm
DrLucky, here are specs for the 702SP and NSTAR ion thrusters:

http://www2.l-3com.com/eti/product_lines_electric_propulsion.htm

The 25 cm thruster for the 702SP is listed at 3400-3500 seconds Isp and 79-165 mN thrust.
The 702SP carries four of these thrusters according to this source:

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/boeing702/



As for transfer time, according to this article it will take 6-8 months for the transfer from parking orbit to GEO:

http://www.spacenews.com/article/satellite-telecom/39853news-from-satellite-2014-boeing-electric-satellite-backlog-poised-to

Delta V required for this mission was discussed upthread, but some of the posts apparently got lost. To recap, F9 advertised performance to GEO is 4850 kg, and it looks like the dual-payload stack will be in that ballpark, so it's reasonable to expect F9 to put the stack in near-GTO orbit. In that case the satellites will need to supply on the order of 2000 m/sec, certainly not the 6000 m/sec you mentioned for a LEO to GEO transfer.

Given those numbers, I get a ballpark range of 100-150 kg xenon needed for orbit transfer.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: DrLucky on 11/17/2014 05:19 pm
Thanks, Kabloona.

I dug up a little more on the NSTAR (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/ion/past/90s/nstar.htm).  It appears that for DS1, the system dry mass was about 50kg, including 20 kg or so for the propellant feed and tank.  That was for 82kg of propellant.

Interesting that while the NSTAR loses a lot of Isp when operated below max power, the 25cm XIPS can throttle to about 50% without major loss.

That link gives the mass of the 25cm thruster, proper, as 16kg or so, and the power processor (one per thruster pair) as about 21kg. Not sure how the cables and plumbing break down - if that's in addition, for example, but it seems that it's pretty close to being in line with the NSTAR.  Obviously, Xe tankage will be much larger, given the job it has to do.

At 640mN, depending on the plan, the thrusters might need to be on for the full 6 months.

I'm trying to reconcile that with the other stats for the 702SP, though: it advertises 3-8kW of power, yet 4 x 25cm XIPS would be 18kW.  Either I'm misunderstanding something, or they're not running continuously and the bus has substantial energy storage capability.  But batteries are heavy.

With an Isp of 3400s, the propellant estimates I had above are actually high; it's probably more like 300kg of Xe to do the GEO insertion at 6 km/s plus the 75kg stationkeeping budget.


Thanks for the added info!

Edit: apparently I need better reading skills.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 11/17/2014 05:25 pm

With an Isp of 3400s, the propellant estimates I had above are actually high; it's probably more like 300kg of Xe to do the GEO insertion at 6 km/s

No, read my post again. 6 km/s is from LEO, but this stack will NOT be dropped off in LEO, contrary to the misstatements in this thread.  ::)

It will be dropped in a high elliptical orbit near GTO, if not GTO itself. Thus the transfer delta V required to reach GEO will more likely be around 2 km/s, in which case you're looking at around 100 kg xenon.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 11/17/2014 06:21 pm
I'm trying to reconcile that with the other stats for the 702SP, though: it advertises 3-8kW of power, yet 4 x 25cm XIPS would be 18kW.  Either I'm misunderstanding something, or they're not running continuously and the bus has substantial energy storage capability.  But batteries are heavy.
More likely, the four thrusters point two or more directions. (Think North, South, East, West for station keeping) So at any one time it is unlikely more than one will be used. 18 kW / 4 = 4.5 kW. That is well with in the 8 kW power budget.

During eclipse season the satellite requires batteries to keep i running at full broadcast power. So it will have large batteries it can tap.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 11/17/2014 07:02 pm
Speaking of long orbit transfer times, that may be one reason Boeing has not sold more 702SP's:

Quote
Despite their advantages, and notwithstanding Boeing’s pending contract, electric satellites have yet to fully catch on with commercial operators. A key reason is that these companies are often unwilling to wait six to eight months — as opposed to a week — after a satellite’s launch for it to begin generating revenue, said David W. Thompson, chief executive of manufacturer Orbital Sciences Corp. of Dulles, Va.

Speaking at the conference, Thompson said Orbital’s new GeoStar-3 satellite product, which offers a 60 percent increase in power and a one-third increase in payload mass compared with the GeoStar-2, will use electric power for in-orbit station keeping but not for orbit-raising.

A different electric-power propulsion system, the SPT-140, being offered by manufacturer Space Systems/Loral promises to gets satellites to geostationary orbit a bit more quickly than Boeing’s system — but still slower than some operators would prefer.

Satellite operators are also concerned that should they wish to move their in-orbit satellites from one slot to another during the satellites’ 15- to 20-year service lives, the maneuver would take much longer with electric propulsion.

Space Systems/Loral President John Celli said the industry is most likely to settle on a hybrid solution that saves some of the launch mass of a satellite through electric propulsion but retains conventional chemical propellant to speed the arrival of the satellite to final operating position.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/satellite-telecom/39853news-from-satellite-2014-boeing-electric-satellite-backlog-poised-to
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: DrLucky on 11/17/2014 07:19 pm

With an Isp of 3400s, the propellant estimates I had above are actually high; it's probably more like 300kg of Xe to do the GEO insertion at 6 km/s

No, read my post again. 6 km/s is from LEO, but this stack will NOT be dropped off in LEO, contrary to the misstatements in this thread.  ::)

It will be dropped in a high elliptical orbit near GTO, if not GTO itself. Thus the transfer delta V required to reach GEO will more likely be around 2 km/s, in which case you're looking at around 100 kg xenon.

Wow.  Sorry.  Considering how long I spent going through the material you linked and the subsequent rabbit holes, I have no idea how I missed the last part of your post.  2 km/s makes all the discrepancies go away: no requirement for constant thrust over the 6-8 months, etc.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 11/17/2014 09:07 pm
2 km/s makes all the discrepancies go away: no requirement for constant thrust over the 6-8 months, etc.

Glad to hear the mission now has a chance of success.  ;)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: DrLucky on 11/17/2014 11:30 pm

During eclipse season the satellite requires batteries to keep i running at full broadcast power. So it will have large batteries it can tap.

Well, maximum eclipse is ~72 minutes, so at 8kW it would only need 9600Wh plus fudge factor.  That'd be about, say, 50kg of battery (W.A.G: assuming satellite batteries are around 200Wh/kg.  Might be much lower due to rad hardening, etc).  But that'd only get you perhaps an hour of 18kW full thrust.  And still, on average, an 8kW platform can't run 18kW of thrusters at better than 45% duty, regardless of battery size.

I like your "not using all the thrusters" suggestion better.

Another alternative is that 8kW is the end-of-life power guaranteed by the bus to the payload.  Actual time-of-launch full power might be considerably higher. ie: bus might produce 9.6kW end-of-life and deliver 8kW to payload (eg: stored power for daily station-keeping); and power at launch would be higher still.

At any rate, as Kabloona pointed out (twice  :P ), the mission is likely GTO->GEO so the 6-8 month boost can be much lower duty cycle.

~~~

As an aside, I hope no one takes my tone as one where I'm finding fault with the mission or bus - this is like the problem solving I do as  day job:  The facts are the facts; what I "know" is, sadly, less than factual.   When I find a discrepancy with what I "know", I just bang my head against it until I "know" different things.  Once my understanding seems to jell with the plans of hundreds of talented engineers and their 9-figure project, I assume I can relax a bit. 

I usually do this whilst lurking, but the knowledge gap for me here is so vast that I thought I'd provoke some instruction :)

Also - thanks for the mention of GEO eclipse.  Of course that happens; I just never thought about it before.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Adonis1 on 01/12/2015 08:23 pm
Boeing Completes All-Electric ABS 3A and Eutelsat 115 West B Satellites.

 Boeing has completed production of two all-electric propulsion satellites: the ABS 3A satellite for Asia Broadcast Satellite and the Eutelsat 115 West B satellite for Eutelsat. The Boeing 702SP (small platform) satellites have a lower price tag, significantly lower weight, and provide more options for movement to different orbital positions, according to the satellite manufacturer.

Boeing technology allows two all-electric satellites to be stacked and launched together. The ABS 3A and the Eutelsat 115 West B satellite are scheduled to launch on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket in February.

satellitetoday.com (http://www.satellitetoday.com/technology/2015/01/12/boeing-completes-all-electric-abs-3a-and-eutelsat-115-west-b-satellites/)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Rhyolite on 01/13/2015 07:08 pm
Any updates on the expected launch window after the last SpaceX launch?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/13/2015 11:08 pm
All I know is the launch date is on February 17. :-\
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: toruonu on 01/13/2015 11:21 pm
Well this is starting to look as quite a packed schedule

10-01 -> CRS-5
29-01 -> DSCOVR
17-02 -> ABS-3A & Eutelsat 115WB

So a launch every 19 days...
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Avron on 01/13/2015 11:23 pm
All I know is the launch date is on February 17. :-\
but no confirmation at the  Eutelsat site other than first quarter

looks like they are stacked to go https://twitter.com/Eutelsat_SA/status/553618823086370817/photo/1
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/13/2015 11:40 pm
Can't wait for the party thread, you can just feel the electricity in the ether!
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Lar on 01/15/2015 07:03 pm
I'm not sure we have the capacity to support two simultaneous launch party thread campaigns here...

But things will get interesting when the cadence gets to the point that a slip doesn't  bump everything else, it just means an ordering shuffle...
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: CraigLieb on 01/15/2015 07:50 pm
I'm not sure we have the capacity to support two simultaneous launch party thread campaigns here...

But things will get interesting when the cadence gets to the point that a slip doesn't  bump everything else, it just means an ordering shuffle...
When the time comes, we may have generic party thread names that are more seasonal, or take into account the entire recipe of what is being launched. So if this was the current party thread had to cover this launch it might be "DISCOVR the WestB Wing"
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: AncientU on 01/15/2015 10:50 pm
Well this is starting to look as quite a packed schedule

10-01 -> CRS-5
29-01 -> DSCOVR
17-02 -> ABS-3A & Eutelsat 115WB

So a launch every 19 days...

Looks like DSCOVR going up on 31st... 17 days or a slip of the pair.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jarnis on 01/16/2015 08:54 am
I'm not sure we have the capacity to support two simultaneous launch party thread campaigns here...

But things will get interesting when the cadence gets to the point that a slip doesn't  bump everything else, it just means an ordering shuffle...

What are you going to do when SpaceX has four pads and potentially launches two or three rockets on the same week? Or, heavens, same day?

Better get those parallel ops sorted quickly!

 ;D
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 01/18/2015 10:03 pm
Well this is starting to look as quite a packed schedule

10-01 -> CRS-5
29-01 -> DSCOVR
17-02 -> ABS-3A & Eutelsat 115WB
So a launch every 19 days...

Looks like DSCOVR going up on 31st... 17 days or a slip of the pair.

From the DSCOVR Update thread

Feb 8 NET. (snip)

Feb 8 to Feb 17 is only nine days.
Any signs this launch is also moving to the right?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Saltvann on 01/18/2015 10:13 pm
Any signs this launch is also moving to the right?

None yet, but it's highly likely.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: toruonu on 01/19/2015 05:59 am
Especially now that DSCOVR is NET Feb 8. That would leave only 9 days between launches ... Maybe SpaceX can do it, but ....
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 01/19/2015 06:10 am
For those still hanging out on February 17 - forget about it. It was already set for late February even before CRS-5 launched:

Peter B. de Selding @pbdes
Eutelsat: Our all-electric Boeing-built Eutelsat 115 West B sat on track for late-Feb launch on SpaceX Falcon 9, with twin ABS-owned sat.

Peter B. de Selding @pbdes
Eutelsat: Despite SpaceX launch delays, our scheduled w/ them has not moved much in past 2 years. We're now 3rd on their manifest this yr.

These are from Jan. 9.

In other news, have they been delivered to the Cape yet? Boeing reported a few days ago that testing was complete....
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/19/2015 06:15 am
Hey, 17th is in the second half of February... ;) JK.

Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: woods170 on 01/19/2015 06:53 am
Source telling me this launchdate is "on the move, heading into March".
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 01/21/2015 11:11 pm
Source telling me this launchdate is "on the move, heading into March".
At least that's just into the next month.  It could have said "heading into summer" or not mentioned any new date.
Our 2015 launch poll consensus doesn't point to even one per month, and the next CRS mission is in April, so March actually sounds good.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: catdlr on 01/27/2015 09:33 pm
Stacked Boeing’s Satellites Tested for the Rigors of Space

Published on Jan 27, 2015
In December of 2014 Boeing received a patent to conjoin two satellites that will be launched as a pair and then separated in space. The new product line is the first-ever stack and test of the world’s first all-electric propulsion satellites (Boeing 702SP).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-lYHj0XtSQ
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 01/28/2015 03:40 am
Yikes!  Seeing those shaking side-to-side was enough to put me on edge.  I bet all the engineers let out a big sigh of relief when it was over.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 01/28/2015 03:44 am
Stacked Boeing’s Satellites Tested for the Rigors of Space

Published on Jan 27, 2015
In December of 2014 Boeing received a patent to conjoin two satellites that will be launched as a pair and then separated in space. The new product line is the first-ever stack and test of the world’s first all-electric propulsion satellites (Boeing 702SP).

Once again, I don't get it.

Satellites were stacked for a 1990 launch.  They were "conjoined" and went through tests like the vibe test seen in the video.  The rocket took them to a high orbit, the lower satellite released the upper satellite, the second stage lowered the orbit and released the lower satellite.  Somewhat more complex than two satellites heading to GEO.

It is not clear what can be patented here.

edit: spelling, 
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: QuantumG on 01/28/2015 03:47 am
It's not what is being patented, it's how. Without reading the patent, you can't tell if the method is novel. Sometimes I gotta wonder if people think only one mousetrap has ever been patented.

Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 01/28/2015 03:56 am
It's not what is being patented, it's how. Without reading the patent, you can't tell if the method is novel. Sometimes I gotta wonder if people think only one mousetrap has ever been patented.

Point taken.
Boeing's description points to the "conjoining" and releasing, but your statement is valid.
Given that there are many ways already developed to hold and release satellites, it would be interesting to see a new, patentable one and one that may be specific to "conjoining" two satellites, as opposed to a satellite and an upper stage.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: AnalogMan on 01/28/2015 11:23 am
Copy of Boeing's patent for a "Multiple Space Vehicle Launch System" (US 8915472)  is attached for those who want to read it.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm38 on 01/28/2015 01:49 pm
In this article I found this:
Quote
Russia’s Proton heavy-lift rocket has deployed two satellites at a time with no support structure, but Boeing said its invention differs from that insofar as its two satellites are interchangeable between the top and bottom positions.

“The primary difference is that while the Proton may have stacked, the satellites were not both all-electric propulsion system or hybrid-system satellites,” Boeing said in a Jan. 12 statement explaining its patent. “It’s not clear that the Russians patented what they did, but as we know it, theirs was not all-electric propulsion or a hybrid, in which case Boeing has the original patent.”
- See more at: http://spacenews.com/boeing-wins-u-s-patent-for-stacking-electric-satellites-on-rocket/#sthash.XvMlqPCa.dpuf

I'm not sure why propulsion system would be material for a patent to stack satellites, but interchangeability certainly would.  I see how SEP making the satellites lighter better enables them to be stacked.  But beyond that...

The same article also notes that the satellite carrier for Ariane 5 masses 700kg, so quite a savings there.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: mheney on 01/28/2015 01:50 pm
Looks like they're patenting a method wherein  the launch loads of the upper satellite are borne by the lower satellite, eliminating the need for a framework structure to mount the upper payload to.

I'm not seeing how this is not obvious.

"Well, we can either build a separate mount for the top one, or we can make the bottom one strong enough to hold it on its own."   The latter half of that is patentable?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm38 on 01/28/2015 02:13 pm
^^^ As I posted above you, it's not that just the bottom one is strong enough, it's that they're both strong enough to support the other.  And they seem to be claiming that SEP is what makes the pair light enough to make that possible.  IE, if they were chemically fueled, they'd be too heavy to make this work.  (And too heavy to launch a pair on this class of rocket)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Skyrocket on 01/28/2015 02:50 pm
^^^ As I posted above you, it's not that just the bottom one is strong enough, it's that they're both strong enough to support the other.  And they seem to be claiming that SEP is what makes the pair light enough to make that possible.  IE, if they were chemically fueled, they'd be too heavy to make this work.  (And too heavy to launch a pair on this class of rocket)

Both DSCS-II and DSCS-III satellites have been stacked this way decades ago, without using SEP. And the Russian Yamal-100 and -200 satellites were also designed this way.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/28/2015 03:01 pm
STSS-DEMO
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: averagespacejoe on 01/28/2015 03:06 pm
I would imagine we won't hear any solid dates until after DSCOVR launches but do we have any idea yet where Eutelsat is planning to settle into the manifest. Seems like late Feb at the earliest, but early March not out of the realm of possibilities.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: llanitedave on 01/28/2015 03:32 pm
The patent is good until somebody bothers to challenge it.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Mader Levap on 01/28/2015 04:12 pm
Yet another example of worthless patent. Corporate America at finest.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 01/28/2015 05:07 pm
No image but there is this from the old Astronautix.com

1990 Feb 14 - - 16:15 GMT. LV Configuration: Delta 6920-8 / Delta s/n 192. Launch Site: Cape Canaveral . Launch Complex: LC17B.
RME (USA 52) Spacecraft: RME. Payload: LACE / RME. Mass: 1,040 kg.
Relay Mirror Experiment; also known as Losat-R. RME validated stabilization, tracking, and pointing technologies for Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) missions through a credible demonstration of a space-based relay mirror system. The Wideband Angular Vibration Experiment (WAVE) measured low-level angular vibrations affecting performance of acquisition, tracking, and pointing systems. The experiment demonstrated that a laser beam can be accurately relayed from the earth to an orbiting satellite 450 kilometers away and then back to a 3-meter target on the ground. It achieved relay beam pointing accuracy which was 16 times better than the technical requirement. WAVE demonstrated the capability to discern platform disturbance amplitudes of a few nanoradians at discrete frequencies and is therefore a candidate to fulfill similar requirements for future ATP experiments.

LACE (USA 51) Spacecraft: LACE. Payload: LACE / RME. Mass: 1,430 kg.
Low-power Atmospheric Compensation Experiment for SDIO. Research and exploration of the upper atmosphere and outer space. The McDonnell Douglas Corporation has provided the following information for its launch of the Losat spacecraft on 14 Feb 1990: LACE spacecraft (Losat-L), launch time 1615:00.626 GMT, ETR L aunch Complex 17. Programmed orbital parameters 95.6 min, apogee 551 km, inc. 43.1 deg. Evaluate laser beam distortion in space
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 01/28/2015 05:13 pm
It's not what is being patented, it's how. Without reading the patent, you can't tell if the method is novel. (snip)

Actually, having read the patent application, (thanks AnalogMan) it is specifically the what that is being patented.
Boeing acknowledges and references previous stacked satellites and the 1969 Marmon clamp patent.
IANAPL*, but they seem to be claiming that this is unique because they are identical electric and/or electric hybrid propulsion satellites.
 
*Patent Lawyer
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: JasonAW3 on 01/28/2015 05:18 pm
In this article I found this:
Quote
Russia’s Proton heavy-lift rocket has deployed two satellites at a time with no support structure, but Boeing said its invention differs from that insofar as its two satellites are interchangeable between the top and bottom positions.

“The primary difference is that while the Proton may have stacked, the satellites were not both all-electric propulsion system or hybrid-system satellites,” Boeing said in a Jan. 12 statement explaining its patent. “It’s not clear that the Russians patented what they did, but as we know it, theirs was not all-electric propulsion or a hybrid, in which case Boeing has the original patent.”
- See more at: http://spacenews.com/boeing-wins-u-s-patent-for-stacking-electric-satellites-on-rocket/#sthash.XvMlqPCa.dpuf

I'm not sure why propulsion system would be material for a patent to stack satellites, but interchangeability certainly would.  I see how SEP making the satellites lighter better enables them to be stacked.  But beyond that...

The same article also notes that the satellite carrier for Ariane 5 masses 700kg, so quite a savings there.

Could ber using ion drives on top and bottom of each sat, and simply use like charges from the magnetic systems, between them to push the two sats apart, without using fuel.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm38 on 01/28/2015 05:47 pm
Both DSCS-II and DSCS-III satellites have been stacked this way decades ago, without using SEP. And the Russian Yamal-100 and -200 satellites were also designed this way.

Hmmm,  they have a prior artwork problem then.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/28/2015 06:52 pm
"The difference between our approach and earlier patented approaches is that we will all be wearing orange shirts with purple jackets during the launch phase..."

:D
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 01/28/2015 07:32 pm
I believe both spacecraft are at the launch site. Saw two identical containers on site.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/29/2015 12:53 am
It's not what is being patented, it's how. Without reading the patent, you can't tell if the method is novel. (snip)

Actually, having read the patent application, (thanks AnalogMan) it is specifically the what that is being patented.
Boeing acknowledges and references previous stacked satellites and the 1969 Marmon clamp patent.
IANAPL*, but they seem to be claiming that this is unique because they are identical electric and/or electric hybrid propulsion satellites.
 
*Patent Lawyer
Reminds me of all the "do a regular thing ...but with a computer" patents out there. "Do a thing that is fairly common historically, just with this technology that has become more popular lately."
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Ford Mustang on 01/29/2015 07:51 pm
Let's try to keep this on updates and not about two party threads, shall we?  Thanks.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 01/29/2015 11:07 pm
Not to dis on Boeing for the patent, I seen my fair share of "interesting" patents but is the heart of this patent that they built the two spacecraft around two hollow tubes that also serve as the launch mount?

It seems to me that this structure is unique. Have any of the above listed examples been built in a similar manor? They all look like more like stacked boxes to me...
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm38 on 01/30/2015 04:00 pm
This payload is horizontally integrated like all the others, correct?
Well I can see how one satellite can sit horizontally inside the fairing without touching the fairing, but two stacked together?

Is there some temporary vertical support (while F9 is horizontal), that then is removed or drops down once the vehicle is tipped up?  Or is the whole structure really that stiff/strong as to hang suspended supported only on one edge?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: swervin on 01/31/2015 02:41 am
Any word on this launch occurring in Feb still? Obviously, DSCOVR is next, but wondering if anyone has heard even rough planning dates? Chris?

Cheers,
Splinter
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 01/31/2015 02:50 pm
Is there some temporary vertical support (while F9 is horizontal), that then is removed or drops down once the vehicle is tipped up?  Or is the whole structure really that stiff/strong as to hang suspended supported only on one edge?

There can't be any temporary support because the payload is encapsulated in the fairing vertically, then the stack is rotated horizontal for mating with the rocket, so the payload has to be stiff enough to support itself through the payload adapter (base) alone.

If the payload needed temporary support while horizontal, how would you get the temporary support out of the closed fairing, and how would you get someone up to the top of the rocket to remove it after erection? Plus, if the payload needed temporary support that was removed before launch, it would likely not withstand lateral loads during ascent when the rocket pitches over near horizontal.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 01/31/2015 10:54 pm
Is there some temporary vertical support (while F9 is horizontal), that then is removed or drops down once the vehicle is tipped up?  Or is the whole structure really that stiff/strong as to hang suspended supported only on one edge?
<snip>
Plus, if the payload needed temporary support that was removed before launch, it would likely not withstand lateral loads during ascent when the rocket pitches over near horizontal.

At that point, the rocket is still thrusting quite a bit, so while it certainly feels some horizontal acceleration, when combined with the axial acceleration due to thrust it shouldn't be a big issue.  Otherwise, how would any payload that needs vertical integration ever survive pitch-over?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 01/31/2015 11:03 pm
Is there some temporary vertical support (while F9 is horizontal), that then is removed or drops down once the vehicle is tipped up?  Or is the whole structure really that stiff/strong as to hang suspended supported only on one edge?
<snip>
Plus, if the payload needed temporary support that was removed before launch, it would likely not withstand lateral loads during ascent when the rocket pitches over near horizontal.

At that point, the rocket is still thrusting quite a bit, so while it certainly feels some horizontal acceleration, when combined with the axial acceleration due to thrust it shouldn't be a big issue.  Otherwise, how would any payload that needs vertical integration ever survive pitch-over?

There are lots of payloads that are not designed for horizontal integration. Like all DOD payloads. Pitch-over while flying does not exert significant horizontal loads on the payload. It is a gentle curve that eventually lands in orbit. If that exerted horizontal loads then you'd hear astronauts on the ISS complaining about how there is still gravity pulling them toward the earth. The payload only ever knows that it is being pushed upward with lots of vibration.

Imagine a ball at the end of a rope. You can get the rope going around in a circle only by pulling on it at certain angles and velocities. The ball is only ever being pulled on by the rope, it is never accelerating to the side.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 02/01/2015 05:32 pm

Is there some temporary vertical support (while F9 is horizontal), that then is removed or drops down once the vehicle is tipped up?  Or is the whole structure really that stiff/strong as to hang suspended supported only on one edge?
<snip>
Plus, if the payload needed temporary support that was removed before launch, it would likely not withstand lateral loads during ascent when the rocket pitches over near horizontal.

At that point, the rocket is still thrusting quite a bit, so while it certainly feels some horizontal acceleration, when combined with the axial acceleration due to thrust it shouldn't be a big issue.  Otherwise, how would any payload that needs vertical integration ever survive pitch-over?

There are lots of payloads that are not designed for horizontal integration. Like all DOD payloads. Pitch-over while flying does not exert significant horizontal loads on the payload. It is a gentle curve that eventually lands in orbit. If that exerted horizontal loads then you'd hear astronauts on the ISS complaining about how there is still gravity pulling them toward the earth. The payload only ever knows that it is being pushed upward with lots of vibration.

Imagine a ball at the end of a rope. You can get the rope going around in a circle only by pulling on it at certain angles and velocities. The ball is only ever being pulled on by the rope, it is never accelerating to the side.

That's an over-simplification. Vibrations during launch can produce significant side motion, and the payloads need to be able to support that. As much as lying on their side, fully fueled? Perhaps not, but still significant.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jason1701 on 02/01/2015 09:29 pm

Is there some temporary vertical support (while F9 is horizontal), that then is removed or drops down once the vehicle is tipped up?  Or is the whole structure really that stiff/strong as to hang suspended supported only on one edge?
<snip>
Plus, if the payload needed temporary support that was removed before launch, it would likely not withstand lateral loads during ascent when the rocket pitches over near horizontal.

At that point, the rocket is still thrusting quite a bit, so while it certainly feels some horizontal acceleration, when combined with the axial acceleration due to thrust it shouldn't be a big issue.  Otherwise, how would any payload that needs vertical integration ever survive pitch-over?

There are lots of payloads that are not designed for horizontal integration. Like all DOD payloads. Pitch-over while flying does not exert significant horizontal loads on the payload. It is a gentle curve that eventually lands in orbit. If that exerted horizontal loads then you'd hear astronauts on the ISS complaining about how there is still gravity pulling them toward the earth. The payload only ever knows that it is being pushed upward with lots of vibration.

Imagine a ball at the end of a rope. You can get the rope going around in a circle only by pulling on it at certain angles and velocities. The ball is only ever being pulled on by the rope, it is never accelerating to the side.

That's an over-simplification. Vibrations during launch can produce significant side motion, and the payloads need to be able to support that. As much as lying on their side, fully fueled? Perhaps not, but still significant.

Lateral loads in flight are typically more than 1 g. Page 168 of the Atlas V User's Guide (http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/AtlasVUsersGuide2010.pdf) says that spacecraft flying on any version of an Atlas V should be designed for a limit lateral load of 2 g.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: gospacex on 02/01/2015 09:52 pm
This payload is horizontally integrated like all the others, correct?
Well I can see how one satellite can sit horizontally inside the fairing without touching the fairing, but two stacked together?

Is there some temporary vertical support (while F9 is horizontal), that then is removed or drops down once the vehicle is tipped up?  Or is the whole structure really that stiff/strong as to hang suspended supported only on one edge?

I think vibrational environment during launch is such that you need to be able to withstand at least about 1g of lateral acceleration anyway.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: intrepidpursuit on 02/02/2015 02:03 pm

Is there some temporary vertical support (while F9 is horizontal), that then is removed or drops down once the vehicle is tipped up?  Or is the whole structure really that stiff/strong as to hang suspended supported only on one edge?
<snip>
Plus, if the payload needed temporary support that was removed before launch, it would likely not withstand lateral loads during ascent when the rocket pitches over near horizontal.

At that point, the rocket is still thrusting quite a bit, so while it certainly feels some horizontal acceleration, when combined with the axial acceleration due to thrust it shouldn't be a big issue.  Otherwise, how would any payload that needs vertical integration ever survive pitch-over?

There are lots of payloads that are not designed for horizontal integration. Like all DOD payloads. Pitch-over while flying does not exert significant horizontal loads on the payload. It is a gentle curve that eventually lands in orbit. If that exerted horizontal loads then you'd hear astronauts on the ISS complaining about how there is still gravity pulling them toward the earth. The payload only ever knows that it is being pushed upward with lots of vibration.

Imagine a ball at the end of a rope. You can get the rope going around in a circle only by pulling on it at certain angles and velocities. The ball is only ever being pulled on by the rope, it is never accelerating to the side.

That's an over-simplification. Vibrations during launch can produce significant side motion, and the payloads need to be able to support that. As much as lying on their side, fully fueled? Perhaps not, but still significant.

Lateral loads in flight are typically more than 1 g. Page 168 of the Atlas V User's Guide (http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/AtlasVUsersGuide2010.pdf) says that spacecraft flying on any version of an Atlas V should be designed for a limit lateral load of 2 g.

So we are implying that DOD payloads are installed upright for... fun? What would be a correct forum to take this conversation to?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 02/02/2015 04:51 pm

Is there some temporary vertical support (while F9 is horizontal), that then is removed or drops down once the vehicle is tipped up?  Or is the whole structure really that stiff/strong as to hang suspended supported only on one edge?
<snip>
Plus, if the payload needed temporary support that was removed before launch, it would likely not withstand lateral loads during ascent when the rocket pitches over near horizontal.

At that point, the rocket is still thrusting quite a bit, so while it certainly feels some horizontal acceleration, when combined with the axial acceleration due to thrust it shouldn't be a big issue.  Otherwise, how would any payload that needs vertical integration ever survive pitch-over?

There are lots of payloads that are not designed for horizontal integration. Like all DOD payloads. Pitch-over while flying does not exert significant horizontal loads on the payload. It is a gentle curve that eventually lands in orbit. If that exerted horizontal loads then you'd hear astronauts on the ISS complaining about how there is still gravity pulling them toward the earth. The payload only ever knows that it is being pushed upward with lots of vibration.

Imagine a ball at the end of a rope. You can get the rope going around in a circle only by pulling on it at certain angles and velocities. The ball is only ever being pulled on by the rope, it is never accelerating to the side.

That's an over-simplification. Vibrations during launch can produce significant side motion, and the payloads need to be able to support that. As much as lying on their side, fully fueled? Perhaps not, but still significant.

Lateral loads in flight are typically more than 1 g. Page 168 of the Atlas V User's Guide (http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/AtlasVUsersGuide2010.pdf) says that spacecraft flying on any version of an Atlas V should be designed for a limit lateral load of 2 g.

So we are implying that DOD payloads are installed upright for... fun? What would be a correct forum to take this conversation to?

Its not the magnitude of latteral loads but the durration. During flight duration is measured in seconds or fractions of seconds for loads up to 2gs. In horizontal processing lateral loads duration is measured in days. This long duration can cause deformities of structures or other problems with sensors not designed to take long durration lateral loads without the shipping braces.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: jamesh9000 on 02/03/2015 08:20 am
SpaceX's FCC application is showing a NET of 28th Feb now:

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=initial&application_seq=64219&RequestTimeout=1000 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=initial&application_seq=64219&RequestTimeout=1000)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 02/05/2015 08:18 am
From Boeing, taken on January 15: (https://www.flickr.com/photos/theboeingcompany/16441248461/)

World’s 1st #Boeing all-electric propulsion satellites shipped to FL for launch @Eutelsat_SA.

Jim should know whether this is in the Astrotech facility or the ex-Titan facility (don't think this is at the SLC-40 hangar).
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: gospacex on 02/05/2015 09:12 am
So we are implying that DOD payloads are installed upright for... fun?

Orientation affects more things than just loads. Access doors locations, fluid loading ports locations, etc... I suppose "vertically integrated" DOD payloads physically can be rotated to horizontal without breaking, but preflight prep on them may become impossible to perform.

It's likely not a huge problem to design a new spacecraft so that it can be integrated either horizontally or vertically.

It may be hard or even impossible to adapt an already existing s/c for orientation it wasn't designed for.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 02/05/2015 12:01 pm

It's likely not a huge problem to design a new spacecraft so that it can be integrated either horizontally or vertically.


not true.  There are legitimate reasons for vertical integration only
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: symbios on 02/05/2015 12:36 pm
I can understand why there would be trouble to do horizontal integration on a LV designed for vertical.

But the other way around I assumed it was a issue regarding infrastructure...?

What is the problem with vertical integration on a F9 except for infrastructure?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: JasonAW3 on 02/05/2015 01:04 pm

It's likely not a huge problem to design a new spacecraft so that it can be integrated either horizontally or vertically.


not true.  There are legitimate reasons for vertical integration only

Jim,

     That's something I've always wondered about.  Why is it better to sometimes verticaly integrate and sometimes horizontally integrate?  I imagine that in some cases it may have to do with fluids or easier access to some equipment prior to launch, but I never really was sure.

     Would you mind clueing me in on this?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Sohl on 02/05/2015 01:11 pm

It's likely not a huge problem to design a new spacecraft so that it can be integrated either horizontally or vertically.


not true.  There are legitimate reasons for vertical integration only

Jim,

     That's something I've always wondered about.  Why is it better to sometimes verticaly integrate and sometimes horizontally integrate?  I imagine that in some cases it may have to do with fluids or easier access to some equipment prior to launch, but I never really was sure.

     Would you mind clueing me in on this?

Just a guess, but I could imagine that the load paths and torques on certain articulated/actuated components might not make the transition from horizontal to vertical very well.  E.g. some part on a big fold-up solar panel could warp slightly when horizontal and then not be reliable after vertical launch when it needs to deploy.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Semmel on 02/05/2015 01:16 pm
Jim,

     That's something I've always wondered about.  Why is it better to sometimes verticaly integrate and sometimes horizontally integrate?  I imagine that in some cases it may have to do with fluids or easier access to some equipment prior to launch, but I never really was sure.

     Would you mind clueing me in on this?

There is a whole thread on this topic.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27147.0
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: JasonAW3 on 02/05/2015 01:18 pm
Jim,

     That's something I've always wondered about.  Why is it better to sometimes verticaly integrate and sometimes horizontally integrate?  I imagine that in some cases it may have to do with fluids or easier access to some equipment prior to launch, but I never really was sure.

     Would you mind clueing me in on this?

There is a whole thread on this topic.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27147.0

Hey, thanks!  that's something I've been curious about for a while.  I've kind of thought that horizontal integration would put unneeded stresses on the craft structure, but I never quite understood it.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: JasonAW3 on 02/05/2015 02:13 pm
Ok,

      Read thread.  So, essentially, the main rerasons for horizontal versus vertical integration, is simply due to economics?  Hmmm.  I thought it would be a more technical reason.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 02/05/2015 02:17 pm
Ok,

      Read thread.  So, essentially, the main rerasons for horizontal versus vertical integration, is simply due to economics?  Hmmm.  I thought it would be a more technical reason.

No, read the thread

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27147.msg1012450#msg1012450
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 02/05/2015 02:19 pm
So Jim, do you know where these two satellites are being processed (see the photo on the last page)? What options do SpaceX offer for payload processing at this time?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 02/05/2015 02:20 pm
So Jim, do you know where these two satellites are being processed (see the photo on the last page)? What options do SpaceX offer for payload processing at this time?

They are at the SPIF, but that photo was taken at the factory
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: JasonAW3 on 02/05/2015 06:12 pm
Ok,

      Read thread.  So, essentially, the main rerasons for horizontal versus vertical integration, is simply due to economics?  Hmmm.  I thought it would be a more technical reason.

No, read the thread

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27147.msg1012450#msg1012450

Ok, so essentially, some payloads could have critical systems knocked out of alignment if integrated horizontally, while others may get warped or distorted if kept vertical for an extended period of time. Also, there is a varying degree of accessibility to payload systems depending on how the payload is integrated, horizontally or verticaly, depending on how the payload was initially constructed or configured.  I may have oversimplified it a bit, but...

     That sound about right?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: llanitedave on 02/05/2015 06:21 pm
Those all sound like individual design issues to me.  They aren't fundamental, they simply have the assumption of vertical integration designed into them.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 02/05/2015 06:28 pm
Those all sound like individual design issues to me.  They aren't fundamental, they simply have the assumption of vertical integration designed into them.

There are fundamental reasons
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: llanitedave on 02/05/2015 06:32 pm
Could you elaborate?  (I know that's like asking Calvin Coolidge to say more than two words.)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: mme on 02/05/2015 06:48 pm
Those all sound like individual design issues to me.  They aren't fundamental, they simply have the assumption of vertical integration designed into them.
But that "assumption" may have benefits for the design, like reducing the total mass of the total payload.  Or reducing the dry mass of the satellite, which means more propellent which means a longer service life.  So it may be possible to design any given satellite for horizontal integration, but it may be better for the mission to design for vertical integration.  There may even be hard limits where designing for horizontal integration means the payload is too large for the rocket intended to launch it.

I am being admittedly "hand wavey" since I don't really know what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Mongo62 on 02/05/2015 06:57 pm
One possibility would apply to optical/infrared spy satellites with very large mirrors. In the interests of keeping mass down, the mirrors would probably be extremely thin, with support structure to hold its shape. But in order for the mirror support system to work correctly, the mirror might not be allowed to deviate more than a specific angle from horizontal. Tilting it completely sideways (as would happen with horizontal integration) might throw the alignment of the mirror support structure out of the recoverable range -- not to mention possibly wrecking the mirror's optical figure by forces being imposed at a 90 degree angle to what it was designed for.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/05/2015 07:07 pm
No more of this horizontal vs vertical discussion on this mission specific thread please. That's an order.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: NovaSilisko on 02/07/2015 06:00 pm
Per the DSCOVR press event, it was stated this launch is planned for February 27/28, and will not have legs.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 02/07/2015 06:00 pm
February 27th, according to DSCOVR presser.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 02/07/2015 06:24 pm
February 27th, according to DSCOVR presser.

Yes, Net 27th and Hans says "No legs"
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: mvpel on 02/07/2015 06:27 pm
Regarding the 27th date, if I may...

YESSS!!! ;D Our flight home from our annual trip to visit the grandparents in Naples, Florida is the 28th, so it looks like we'll be making the four-hour drive to the Cape on the 27th instead of hoping for a glimpse out of an airplane window on the far side of the state. Hopefully the launch time won't make an eight-hour round trip more of a nuisance than it already is.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: saliva_sweet on 02/07/2015 06:47 pm
Most likely late 27th EDT / early 28th UTC. Because the FCC licence says NET 28th.

edit: license application rather
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: SVBarnard on 02/07/2015 07:21 pm
Per the DSCOVR press event, it was stated this launch is planned for February 27/28, and will not have legs.

Why is there no boostback planned for this one? Is it cause of a heavy payload, not enough fuel margins left over?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jarnis on 02/07/2015 08:14 pm
Per the DSCOVR press event, it was stated this launch is planned for February 27/28, and will not have legs.

Why is there no boostback planned for this one? Is it cause of a heavy payload, not enough fuel margins left over?

GTO, fairly heavy load, no margin.

(They want that extra Merlin performance and fuel densification to give back that margin so GTO launches can also recover the first stage, but it isn't in use yet)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Prober on 02/07/2015 09:29 pm
Regarding the 27th date, if I may...

YESSS!!! ;D Our flight home from our annual trip to visit the grandparents in Naples, Florida is the 28th, so it looks like we'll be making the four-hour drive to the Cape on the 27th instead of hoping for a glimpse out of an airplane window on the far side of the state. Hopefully the launch time won't make an eight-hour round trip more of a nuisance than it already is.

like your thinking ....try this...build in a little slip and plan for 2 for one.  This launch and the launch abort.

Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: wannamoonbase on 02/07/2015 10:20 pm
Dual main payload manifest, another SpaceX skill builder.

They are certianly building a resume.  Hope the flight rate keeps going well this year.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: MarekCyzio on 02/07/2015 11:03 pm
Dual main payload manifest, another SpaceX skill builder.

They are certianly building a resume.  Hope the flight rate keeps going well this year.

Will second stage release both satellites at the same time and they will then later separate, or one will be released first? From what I remeber this is not a typical dual payload, but some new Boeing solution?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 02/08/2015 03:22 am
Most likely late 27th EDT / early 28th UTC. Because the FCC licence says NET 28th.

edit: license application rather

Here it (https://twitter.com/TrevorMahlmann/status/564260727926837248) states that it should be around 11:00 pm Eastern, which would be on the 28th GMT.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 02/08/2015 11:51 am
Dual main payload manifest, another SpaceX skill builder.


Not really.  Spacex did not combine the payloads.  Boeing did.  From Spacex's POV, it is one payload. 
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 02/09/2015 02:52 am
Reddit user /u/silicon_holler posted the attached picture (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2v9bmy/saw_this_on_i10_in_houston_on_26_is_this_a_falcon/), taken on the side of the I-10 freeway in Houston on Feb. 6th.  Likely the Eutelsat 1st stage on the way to the Cape.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: averagespacejoe on 02/11/2015 11:08 pm
It's time to get out of the dugout Eutelsat you are next up to bat.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: sublimemarsupial on 02/11/2015 11:14 pm
Dual main payload manifest, another SpaceX skill builder.


Not really.  Spacex did not combine the payloads.  Boeing did.  From Spacex's POV, it is one payload.

Not really. Still two payload deploy events. Why does it matter who stacked them?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 02/11/2015 11:16 pm
Dual main payload manifest, another SpaceX skill builder.


Not really.  Spacex did not combine the payloads.  Boeing did.  From Spacex's POV, it is one payload.

Not really. Still two payload deploy events. Why does it matter who stacked them?

Maybe in this case the two satellites will be deployed as one stack and then Boeing/the customers would separate the two by themselves?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/12/2015 12:04 am
This is now the discussion thread. I'll set up update and party threads tomorrow.

I just had a PM suggesting a title. My reaction was "already??" ;D So yeah, PM me your suggestions and I'll pick one.

EDIT: Oh we have a winner already. Party Thread tomorrow. Title has been decided.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Star One on 02/12/2015 06:31 am
I'd be surprised if this does actually launch in February, though Space X sees successful launches they don't at the moment seem to be going up on the first attempt.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 02/12/2015 06:48 am
I'd be surprised if this does actually launch in February, though Space X sees successful launches they don't at the moment seem to be going up on the first attempt.

Maybe more importantly, they currently lack an FAA launch license for this launch.   :o

Hope the check is in the mail. :-X
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Launch Fan on 02/12/2015 12:08 pm
Eutelsat are saying the SpaceX launch of Eutelsat 115WB sat could slip a few days, to early March.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/12/2015 12:15 pm
Eutelsat are saying the SpaceX launch of Eutelsat 115WB sat could slip a few days, to early March.

Barring future developments, I'd say that is more likely than not.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: baldusi on 02/12/2015 12:21 pm
Eutelsat are saying the SpaceX launch of Eutelsat 115WB sat could slip a few days, to early March.
I wouldn't expect it otherwise. And I'm expecting at least one scrub.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 02/12/2015 02:06 pm
Dual main payload manifest, another SpaceX skill builder.


Not really.  Spacex did not combine the payloads.  Boeing did.  From Spacex's POV, it is one payload.

Not really. Still two payload deploy events. Why does it matter who stacked them?

Yes, really.   It is treated as one payload for integration.  There aren't two ICD's.  The two spacecraft are one element from all aspects of payload integration, both analytically and physically.   Two deployment events is a relatively minor consideration.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: king1999 on 02/12/2015 02:35 pm


Dual main payload manifest, another SpaceX skill builder.


Not really.  Spacex did not combine the payloads.  Boeing did.  From Spacex's POV, it is one payload.

Not really. Still two payload deploy events. Why does it matter who stacked them?

Yes, really.   It is treated as one payload for integration.  There aren't two ICD's.  The two spacecraft are one element from all aspects of payload integration, both analytically and physically.   Two deployment events is a relatively minor consideration.
The question is: does the separation of the two spacecraft happen before or after second stage separation? If it is before, I would consider they are two units. If it is after, I would think they are one unit from SpaceX control standpoint.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 02/12/2015 03:19 pm
"The next Falcon 9 was rolling out from the SpaceX facility in 'downtown' CCAFS toward the pad facilities this morning."

https://twitter.com/wikkit/status/565876795883266048
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/12/2015 03:21 pm
"The next Falcon 9 was rolling out from the SpaceX facility in 'downtown' CCAFS toward the pad facilities this morning."

https://twitter.com/wikkit/status/565876795883266048

Definitely going to be pushing this as hard as they can. Who can blame them with a launch manifest backlog like theirs?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: kevinof on 02/12/2015 03:29 pm
Wow. It's a production line of launches.

"The next Falcon 9 was rolling out from the SpaceX facility in 'downtown' CCAFS toward the pad facilities this morning."

https://twitter.com/wikkit/status/565876795883266048

Definitely going to be pushing this as hard as they can. Who can blame them with a launch manifest backlog like theirs?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: nadreck on 02/12/2015 03:58 pm
My hope would be that they would manage to keep the manifest steady or even growing if they can maintain the current cadence (based solely on the last two launches ;-) )

Wow. It's a production line of launches.

"The next Falcon 9 was rolling out from the SpaceX facility in 'downtown' CCAFS toward the pad facilities this morning."

https://twitter.com/wikkit/status/565876795883266048

Definitely going to be pushing this as hard as they can. Who can blame them with a launch manifest backlog like theirs?

Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Norm38 on 02/12/2015 04:26 pm
I'm not familiar with that other facility (though I'm sure it's been mentioned here).  Can they do actual processing / prep work there, same as the hangar, to get a jump start?  Or is it mainly just a warehouse?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: abaddon on 02/12/2015 05:15 pm
F9 1.1 is supposed to be "more complete" arriving at the site than 1.0 was.  One big obvious thing that does need to be done is adding legs, but this flight won't have legs.  So it is unclear how much work needs to be done to get the rocket ready for flight.

In any case, if had to guess, it's just a warehouse where stage(s) can be stored on-site.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 02/12/2015 05:30 pm
New launch date is on March 1st. I don't know why.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: macpacheco on 02/12/2015 05:56 pm
"The next Falcon 9 was rolling out from the SpaceX facility in 'downtown' CCAFS toward the pad facilities this morning."

https://twitter.com/wikkit/status/565876795883266048
You mean from temporary staging into processing facilities ? Thanks.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Razer on 02/12/2015 07:38 pm
Et voila, now we're pretty sure this mission is programmed while in early March and not late February.

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/565858093771526144 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/565858093771526144)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: abaddon on 02/12/2015 07:41 pm
"Could slip" is not "has slipped".
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Razer on 02/12/2015 08:08 pm
Yes nothing is official, but when Peter.B give this type of information is that the probabilities are important
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: macpacheco on 02/12/2015 08:22 pm
New launch date is on March 1st. I don't know why.
The only time SpaceX managed to turn the pad around quickly they had payloads and rockets ahead of time to work at them concurrently.
If the rocket for this launch just arrived at the processing facility, it's unlikely they can get it ready for a static fire in less than two weeks (but I would love soooo much to be wrong).
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Confusador on 02/12/2015 08:57 pm
New launch date is on March 1st. I don't know why.
The only time SpaceX managed to turn the pad around quickly they had payloads and rockets ahead of time to work at them concurrently.
If the rocket for this launch just arrived at the processing facility, it's unlikely they can get it ready for a static fire in less than two weeks (but I would love soooo much to be wrong).

It just arrived at the pad, it's been at the Cape for a while, presumably in Hangar AO.  I don't know about the payloads, but as far as the rocket this is the same scenario as their previous short turnarounds.

Edit: On reflection, we know that  the payload was at the SPIF a week ago. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36065.msg1326188#msg1326188)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 02/12/2015 08:59 pm
New launch date is on March 1st. I don't know why.
The only time SpaceX managed to turn the pad around quickly they had payloads and rockets ahead of time to work at them concurrently.
If the rocket for this launch just arrived at the processing facility, it's unlikely they can get it ready for a static fire in less than two weeks (but I would love soooo much to be wrong).

It just arrived at the pad, it's been at the Cape for a while, presumably in Hangar AO.  I don't know about the payloads, but as far as the rocket this is the same scenario as their previous short turnarounds.

Yep. As long as the payload is ready, they could match (or better) the current shortest launch gap.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: macpacheco on 02/12/2015 09:02 pm
Yep. As long as the payload is ready, they could match (or better) the current shortest launch gap.
They don't need the payload to do the static fire, correct ?
Or do they attach the payload to check for somethings, detach it, then do the static fire ?
AFAIK only Dragons are attached during static fire. Has there been any exception ?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Razer on 02/12/2015 09:36 pm
Yep. As long as the payload is ready, they could match (or better) the current shortest launch gap.
They don't need the payload to do the static fire, correct ?
Or do they attach the payload to check for somethings, detach it, then do the static fire ?
AFAIK only Dragons are attached during static fire. Has there been any exception ?

Indeed, SpaceX is not necessarily using the payload for the static fire.
As against only the static fire test CRS-1 was done without the spacecraft.

CRS-1:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I7loLnDYyU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I7loLnDYyU)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: MechE31 on 02/13/2015 12:57 am
Yep. As long as the payload is ready, they could match (or better) the current shortest launch gap.
They don't need the payload to do the static fire, correct ?
Or do they attach the payload to check for somethings, detach it, then do the static fire ?
AFAIK only Dragons are attached during static fire. Has there been any exception ?


I know that Orbcomm was attached for SF. Not sure if there were additional ones.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: macpacheco on 02/13/2015 01:31 am
So the logic is no need for any payload to be attached for static fire. They might attach it to save time.
Hoping for a static fire date quickly, my bet is 15 launches this year. Go SpaceX !
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/13/2015 10:57 am
Just remember that SpaceX performance isn't the only driver for launch date. Range infrastructure maintenance and/or rest days can also interfere as can something else (including suddenly-pulled leftward, suborbital and classified) coming up for which the Eastern Range's services are required.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Brovane on 02/13/2015 11:44 am
Just remember that SpaceX performance isn't the only driver for launch date. Range infrastructure maintenance and/or rest days can also interfere as can something else (including suddenly-pulled leftward, suborbital and classified) coming up for which the Eastern Range's services are required.

This type of thing I assume is one reason why SpaceX want's it's own launch facility to itself.   ;D
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: newpylong on 02/13/2015 02:42 pm
New launch date is on March 1st. I don't know why.
The only time SpaceX managed to turn the pad around quickly they had payloads and rockets ahead of time to work at them concurrently.
If the rocket for this launch just arrived at the processing facility, it's unlikely they can get it ready for a static fire in less than two weeks (but I would love soooo much to be wrong).

It just arrived at the pad, it's been at the Cape for a while, presumably in Hangar AO.  I don't know about the payloads, but as far as the rocket this is the same scenario as their previous short turnarounds.

Yep. As long as the payload is ready, they could match (or better) the current shortest launch gap.

Also depends on pad damage.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 02/14/2015 02:06 pm
Looks like Patrick AFB's website (http://www.patrick.af.mil/) is showing a launch time of February 27 at 11:01 pm Eastern (04:01 UTC February 28), although I guess it will move a few days to the right pretty soon.  ;)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 02/14/2015 02:58 pm
Looks like Patrick AFB's website (http://www.patrick.af.mil/) is showing a launch time of February 27 at 11:01 pm Eastern (04:01 UTC February 28), although I guess it will move a few days to the right pretty soon.  ;)

What do you mean?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 02/14/2015 03:07 pm
He means it's probably going to slip, as has already been posted:

https://mobile.twitter.com/pbdes/status/565858093771526144

Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 02/14/2015 03:56 pm
Do we know (reliably) whether the F9 is going to be finless?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: MTom on 02/14/2015 05:19 pm
Do we know (reliably) whether the F9 is going to be finless?

You mean the question is being legless means being finless too?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 02/14/2015 05:42 pm
We got info from Musk that the legs "weigh less than a Tesla"; someone should ask him how much the grid fins weigh (in Tesla units, if he must).

I'd expect that the fins would be omitted for cost and time reasons -- unless there was some portion of the grid fins' performance they thought they could squeeze out some additional testing on.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: AncientU on 02/14/2015 06:38 pm
Looks like Patrick AFB's website (http://www.patrick.af.mil/) is showing a launch time of February 27 at 11:01 pm Eastern (04:01 UTC February 28), although I guess it will move a few days to the right pretty soon.  ;)

The GTO launch profile allows for lengthy windows as I recall... anyone yet know the window durations for this launch?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 02/14/2015 06:46 pm
Do we know (reliably) whether the F9 is going to be finless?

You mean the question is being legless means being finless too?

Yes.

I'm hoping at least they can do more experimentation on the atmospheric flight section of the flight, which is the least explored till now.

But it means they have to do a reentry burn, and I don't know if they intend to keep the propellant.

IIRC, the second F91.1 flight (was it SES?) performed reentry with very little reentry burn (As opposed to the first (CASSIOPE) which did it with plenty.

And since we know grid fins are deployed during reentry, I'd like to think they have more control during this phase.

So as usual, hoping, and not knowing...
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/14/2015 07:05 pm
Update thread now live:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36798.0
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: tp1024 on 02/14/2015 07:19 pm

But it means they have to do a reentry burn, and I don't know if they intend to keep the propellant.

IIRC, the second F91.1 flight (was it SES?) performed reentry with very little reentry burn (As opposed to the first (CASSIOPE) which did it with plenty.

As far as I know, SpaceX does need to keep a fuel reserve in the 1st stage to compensate for possible engine losses. So there will be some fuel left in any case, provided that all goes well with the launch.

But SpaceX has yet to test the ultimate limit of how much aerodynamic stress the stage can take. (Especially with the fins providing some better control over the flight.) This flight would be as good an opportunity as any for that purpose.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: macpacheco on 02/14/2015 07:49 pm
Do we know (reliably) whether the F9 is going to be finless?

You mean the question is being legless means being finless too?

Yes.

I'm hoping at least they can do more experimentation on the atmospheric flight section of the flight, which is the least explored till now.

But it means they have to do a reentry burn, and I don't know if they intend to keep the propellant.

IIRC, the second F91.1 flight (was it SES?) performed reentry with very little reentry burn (As opposed to the first (CASSIOPE) which did it with plenty.

And since we know grid fins are deployed during reentry, I'd like to think they have more control during this phase.

So as usual, hoping, and not knowing...
An interesting experiment is to see how hard they can push re-entry while maintaining structural integrity. Just flip the stage backwards and as small as possible a re-entry burn. Specially interesting since the stage doesn't have fuel to land anyways. Can anybody state if cold gas thrusters are standard in all F9R moving forward (even if legless and finless) ?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 02/14/2015 08:27 pm

As far as I know, SpaceX does need to keep a fuel reserve in the 1st stage to compensate for possible engine losses. So there will be some fuel left in any case, provided that all goes well with the launch.


No, that is not true.  The other engines burn the propellant that the shutdown engine would have burned.  Any reserve is in the second stage.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 02/14/2015 08:34 pm

Do we know (reliably) whether the F9 is going to be finless?

You mean the question is being legless means being finless too?

Yes.

I'm hoping at least they can do more experimentation on the atmospheric flight section of the flight, which is the least explored till now.

But it means they have to do a reentry burn, and I don't know if they intend to keep the propellant.

IIRC, the second F91.1 flight (was it SES?) performed reentry with very little reentry burn (As opposed to the first (CASSIOPE) which did it with plenty.

And since we know grid fins are deployed during reentry, I'd like to think they have more control during this phase.

So as usual, hoping, and not knowing...
An interesting experiment is to see how hard they can push re-entry while maintaining structural integrity. Just flip the stage backwards and as small as possible a re-entry burn. Specially interesting since the stage doesn't have fuel to land anyways. Can anybody state if cold gas thrusters are standard in all F9R moving forward (even if legless and finless) ?

Yes, they (gas thrusters) appear to be standard and flown with all v1.1. Even GTO flights have performed some limited reuse testing, and I would expect them to continue that.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: rpapo on 02/14/2015 08:57 pm

As far as I know, SpaceX does need to keep a fuel reserve in the 1st stage to compensate for possible engine losses. So there will be some fuel left in any case, provided that all goes well with the launch.


No, that is not true.  The other engines burn the propellant that the shutdown engine would have burned.  Any reserve is in the second stage.
Seconding Jim here.  Remember what happened on CRS-1?  The one engine shut down, and because of that the second stage didn't have enough reserve to place ORBCOMM in its desired orbit without any chance of accidentally intersecting the ISS orbit.  Hence the decision by NASA to deny that second burn.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Zardar on 02/14/2015 09:12 pm
As far as I know, SpaceX does need to keep a fuel reserve in the 1st stage to compensate for possible engine losses. So there will be some fuel left in any case, provided that all goes well with the launch.

Its probably more accurate that they keep some reserve to cope with the possible overall engine system underperformance, rather than just outright loss of a single engine.
If the performance (e.g. ISP)  is nominal or better, and assuming MECO occurs once the first stage has reached the desired speed/position, rather than when the gauge hits "E", then there will always be some extra propellant remaining. The stage will have a fairly good estimate of how well the engines are running, given the acceleration it's getting and the throttle settings/flow rate it's using to maintain the thrust.

Also, the engines aren't run dry, as sucking the last bit of thrust out of the stage isn't much good if your rear end explodes due to the turbopumps overspinning on fumes and RUD'ing. (or, less dramatically, some engines stalling before the others, causing asymmetric thrust, and putting you in a bad attitude for separation) So, there's sufficient margin to absolutely, totally guarantee a clean, predictable MECO.

So, if you were to relax the minimum lower limit a bit once the second stage is on its way, you almost certainly have enough juice left to restart the engines. But for how long they will safely fire for,  well that's another question!

Worst case, if you were aiming for max payload to GTO, with no "extra" margin available to guarantee a successful second burn of the first stage, you won't be able to predict 100% before liftoff if you will have enough dregs left in the tanks. However, the stage will probably know itself after MECO, and it can decide whether to go for the re entry burn or not, and for how long.
But this would be just a bonus experiment to get some more re-entry data points, certainly not something worth showing legs for or having a barge waiting. And given the low likelihood of any success, it might not even be worth the effort & risk of implementing and testing that extra logic into the flight software.


Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: macpacheco on 02/14/2015 09:27 pm

As far as I know, SpaceX does need to keep a fuel reserve in the 1st stage to compensate for possible engine losses. So there will be some fuel left in any case, provided that all goes well with the launch.


No, that is not true.  The other engines burn the propellant that the shutdown engine would have burned.  Any reserve is in the second stage.
That depends. Missions planned to re-entry and land have substantial fuel reserves for those activities. In case of an engine loss it has been speculated (and never disproven in discussions) that the first stage automatically cancels reuse and reallocates that fuel to make up for performance loss.
Of course if the engine failure is late enough in the first stage burn, it might might just be a matter of delaying engine throttle down, and SpaceX might even have the ability to go over 100% thrust in emergencies. The last argument is highly speculative, but corroborated by Elon and Gwynne past statements and the upcoming uprating of M1D.
15% fuel reserves in the first stage is nothing to sneeze at (DSCOVR recovery scenario).
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 02/15/2015 02:58 am

As far as I know, SpaceX does need to keep a fuel reserve in the 1st stage to compensate for possible engine losses. So there will be some fuel left in any case, provided that all goes well with the launch.


No, that is not true.  The other engines burn the propellant that the shutdown engine would have burned.  Any reserve is in the second stage.
Every flight that attempts recovery already leaves fuel in the first stage, even  though it might save a sick second stage. That's a fact.

The only question is whether a flight that does not attempt recovery will do that too.

It depends on margins, that's all.

I'd say this though - even when recovery is not experimental, if there's an underperforming first stage, then the first line of defense is to give up the recovery fuel in order to save the payload.  But if that's true, then clearly they plan to leave a margin of unused fuel....
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Okie_Steve on 02/16/2015 08:00 pm
As Jim and other have stated for a long time, SOP for most launches *IS* to run the first stage to 'E' and keep any extra propellant (margin) in the second stage. SpaceX clearly does not do that when testing reusability which is a calculated risk that the second stage will not under perform too much - which they must believe is worth taking to get the test data. However, what would be the purpose of leaving margin in the first stage if there is no such test planned?

I think a much more interesting question is how close to 'E' are they willing to go with 9 engines firing and an upper stage and
payload still attached as opposed to how close to 'E' are they willing to go with 3 engines firing after separation - and how long/far they want to be from the upper stage before they might push that limit to gather test data from a stage that is guaranteed to be destroyed. Also, how much margin reduction would the grid fins be worth - possibly with reduced hydraulic fluid - to gather data on a faster more precise re-entry?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 02/16/2015 09:15 pm

As far as I know, SpaceX does need to keep a fuel reserve in the 1st stage to compensate for possible engine losses. So there will be some fuel left in any case, provided that all goes well with the launch.


No, that is not true.  The other engines burn the propellant that the shutdown engine would have burned.  Any reserve is in the second stage.
Every flight that attempts recovery already leaves fuel in the first stage, even  though it might save a sick second stage. That's a fact.

The only question is whether a flight that does not attempt recovery will do that too.

It depends on margins, that's all.

I'd say this though - even when recovery is not experimental, if there's an underperforming first stage, then the first line of defense is to give up the recovery fuel in order to save the payload.  But if that's true, then clearly they plan to leave a margin of unused fuel....


Either way, with or without recovery, there isn't propellant saved for an engine out case in the first stage.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 02/16/2015 09:24 pm

As far as I know, SpaceX does need to keep a fuel reserve in the 1st stage to compensate for possible engine losses. So there will be some fuel left in any case, provided that all goes well with the launch.


No, that is not true.  The other engines burn the propellant that the shutdown engine would have burned.  Any reserve is in the second stage.
Every flight that attempts recovery already leaves fuel in the first stage, even  though it might save a sick second stage. That's a fact.

The only question is whether a flight that does not attempt recovery will do that too.

It depends on margins, that's all.

I'd say this though - even when recovery is not experimental, if there's an underperforming first stage, then the first line of defense is to give up the recovery fuel in order to save the payload.  But if that's true, then clearly they plan to leave a margin of unused fuel....


Either way, with or without recovery, there isn't propellant saved for an engine out case in the first stage.

There is propellant saved for the return trip (boostback/reentry/landing) - that's a fact.

If there was a first-stage engine out event and the rocket lost dV due to the slower ascent, it has the option to use that propellant to make it better.

Are you saying they'll choose to return the first stage and leave the payload wanting?  I doubt it.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: guckyfan on 02/16/2015 09:26 pm
Either way, with or without recovery, there isn't propellant saved for an engine out case in the first stage.

Why would you think that?

With recovery there is propellant saved. In case of an early engine out they could decide to give up recovery and deliver first stage performance as planned. And the avionics of the first stage is certainly capable of performing such a task. In that case they can go to the limits of second stage performance to maximise payload and lose only reusability but deliver the payload.

Which is a good trade. That it has not been done that way in the past does not determine it will not be done in the future.

Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 02/16/2015 09:34 pm

Why would you think that?

With recovery there is propellant saved. In case of an early engine out they could decide to give up recovery and deliver first stage performance as planned. And the avionics of the first stage is certainly capable of performing such a task. In that case they can go to the limits of second stage performance to maximise payload and lose only reusability but deliver the payload.


That isn't propellant "saved for engine out", that is propellant "saved for recovery".  Again, there is really isn't any additional propellant needed in an engine out case, the other engines burn longer using the propellant not used by the non functioning engine.  Any velocity shortfalls due to the off nominal engine operations would likely be made up by the upper stage reserve, leaving the first stage recovery propellant untouched. Only in a real bad off nominal case would recovery propellant be used.  The point is that there is no propellant reserve in the first stage specifically for engine outs.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 02/16/2015 10:46 pm

Why would you think that?

With recovery there is propellant saved. In case of an early engine out they could decide to give up recovery and deliver first stage performance as planned. And the avionics of the first stage is certainly capable of performing such a task. In that case they can go to the limits of second stage performance to maximise payload and lose only reusability but deliver the payload.


That isn't propellant "saved for engine out", that is propellant "saved for recovery".  Again, there is really isn't any additional propellant needed in an engine out case, the other engines burn longer using the propellant not used by the non functioning engine.  Any velocity shortfalls due to the off nominal engine operations would likely be made up by the upper stage reserve, leaving the first stage recovery propellant untouched. Only in a real bad off nominal case would recovery propellant be used.  The point is that there is no propellant reserve in the first stage specifically for engine outs.

This is nitpicking.  There is propellant saved, period.  Nominally it is used for recovery, but it can be re-purposed for making up dV in case of an anomaly.

Loss of an engine results in a longer, lower-thrust first stage burn, and thus gravity losses, and thus loss of dV.  You say that likely the second stage will save the day, but we don't know that it can.  In the only known case so far, it was marginal.  The second stage saved the day, but there were not enough margins to execute the second burn.

Ideally, the first stage would be programmed to drop off the second stage so that it needs the same dV to complete the motion.  At that point, the first stage would evaluate whether it has enough propellant to come back home.

In practice, I don't know that the first stage is smart enough.  It might (in this revision) have two modes: nominal, and contingency.  In nominal mode it goes back home, in contingency mode it burns to exhaustion.

Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 02/16/2015 11:22 pm
It might (in this revision) have two modes: nominal, and contingency.  In nominal mode it goes back home, in contingency mode it burns to exhaustion.
Exhaustion, or until it has made up the DeltaV shortfall?

Assuming, it is a quick loss (Like happened on the last V1.0 flight), not a gradual tail off of engine performance (ISP) (like happened with the recent Delta IV RL-10 "leak"), as Jim said roughly the same amount of propellants will be consumed. So most likely it will not need much if any of the recovery propellants.

Of course, you now have a one in three chance that the engine was one of the three engines needed for recovery...

Number of angels angles dancing on the power head of a Merlin-1D I tell you.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 02/17/2015 12:00 am

This is nitpicking.  There is propellant saved, period.

No, it is not nitpicking.  When developing trajectories and working out margins and reserves, they are specifically assigned to certain factors, such as engine ISP short falls, propellant temp, day of launch winds, etc.  They are RSSed since all the bad things don't go wrong at the same time.  This reserve/margin would likely exist in the second stage because it is more efficient to hold it there vs the first stage.  That way the first stage only have nominal propellant amount and return propellant.  The only time return propellant is used is if it is less than a 3 sigma day (which likely more than just a booster engine out.)  What I am saying that the first stage can still return even with an engine out.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 02/17/2015 01:06 am
It might (in this revision) have two modes: nominal, and contingency.  In nominal mode it goes back home, in contingency mode it burns to exhaustion.
Exhaustion, or until it has made up the DeltaV shortfall?

Assuming, it is a quick loss (Like happened on the last V1.0 flight), not a gradual tail off of engine performance (ISP) (like happened with the recent Delta IV RL-10 "leak"), as Jim said roughly the same amount of propellants will be consumed. So most likely it will not need much if any of the recovery propellants.

Of course, you now have a one in three chance that the engine was one of the three engines needed for recovery...

Number of angels angles dancing on the power head of a Merlin-1D I tell you.

Right - so ideally, the stage is smart enough to do just what you (and I) say above.

The thing is, the stage then needs to adaptively figure out if it can make it back, and that may be tricky. You don't want to decide you can go back, only to run out of propellant 5 seconds early.

Since engine-outs are rare events, and since right now SpaceX are concentrating on the essentials, the obvious trade-off is to switch to expendable mode the minute you're off of the pre-planned action plan.  You use what extra propellant you gain in order to give the second stage as much dV as you can, and that's that.

Besides - some types of events will render the stage less reliable, and right now the fear of returning stages is so high that it's better to just let it go.  (As valuable as the failure analysis might have been)

In the future, sure.

 
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: averagespacejoe on 02/17/2015 03:37 am
I think SpaceX would do what is best for the customer. But then I am a crazy armchair space enthusiast with absurd theories about business decisions.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Antares on 02/17/2015 04:48 am
First stage times on a delta V target.  MECO doesn't happen until sensed depletion or that target is hit.  Stage recovery is a secondary objective.  If engine loss(es) for a planned recovery decrease(s) first stage performance, well, that stage is going ballistic at some point because primary mission success is the most important.

And the part about NASA denying second burn on F9-4, please.  F9 is programmed to make its own decisions.  If it had to burn more prop to put Dragon 3 where she needed to be, there was no real time call by anyone to decide what to do with the rest of the mission.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: modemeagle on 02/17/2015 11:02 am

This is nitpicking.  There is propellant saved, period.

No, it is not nitpicking.  When developing trajectories and working out margins and reserves, they are specifically assigned to certain factors, such as engine ISP short falls, propellant temp, day of launch winds, etc.  They are RSSed since all the bad things don't go wrong at the same time.  This reserve/margin would likely exist in the second stage because it is more efficient to hold it there vs the first stage.  That way the first stage only have nominal propellant amount and return propellant.  The only time return propellant is used is if it is less than a 3 sigma day (which likely more than just a booster engine out.)  What I am saying that the first stage can still return even with an engine out.

So here's a simple question.

The stage takes of and loses an engine early on. It flies ok, but there's a dV deficiency.  It is a heavy comsat, so we're not swimming in margins, and so at this point there's a very clear choice.  Continue burning the first stage and then you can't come back, or stage normally and lose the payload.

You can't say there's always margin in the second stage, because you always said that if the engine-out is early enough, then the rocket won't even be able to fly.  So clearly there's a zone where a decision has to be made.

Whether the spare propellant is called "RTLS spare" or "contingency spare" is just terminology.  If it can be used to save a mission, than that's what we're talking about.

This is the first time I agree and slightly disagree with Jim.  My simulations usually back up what Jim tells us.

SpaceX would not launch if it took 100% of the performance of SII to boost the payload to its orbit.  They would make sure there was a margin in case of under performance of SII and this would also cover an under performance of SI.  If there was an engine failure on SI the shortfall in delta-V from SI would be mostly gravity loses, which SII can handle without touching the boost back fuel. 

The part that I don't agree about is that due to the extended burn time and even though they are now have a lower SI MECO delta-v the stage has burned much longer and is now further down range.  This may not allow the stage enough delta-v for the full return trip and landing.  In this case they may need to consider having the barge out to sea to recover the booster.  They may have a reserve in their recovery reserve to cover this situation as well so I might be wrong about not making it back.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Carl G on 02/17/2015 11:24 pm
Long time members should know better than to derail a thread. This is about this mission. I've trimmed it back to a partly related discussion about boostbacks, but any more of that should be discussed on the relevant threads we have for that. This is a specific thread for a specific mission. Previous missions and general post removed.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Rhyolite on 02/19/2015 05:23 am
Eutelsat sent out invites today to the customers and guests that will attend the launch for the night of Feb 27th.  That suggests they think the date is going to hold.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: averagespacejoe on 02/21/2015 02:47 pm
Reddit seems more confident it will be March 1st now based on contacts at the AF, which is great for me because I have Sunday off.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Razer on 02/23/2015 08:37 am
The fire static test had to be done yesterday, are there has news about it ?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: bjornl on 02/23/2015 08:54 am
No, static fire is supposed to be today (23rd). Chris' original post in the update thread was updated.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Razer on 02/23/2015 09:03 am
No, static fire is supposed to be today (23rd). Chris' original post in the update thread was updated.

True, I had not seen this update thank you  ;)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/23/2015 12:33 pm
And as always, we're waiting for confirmation of the F9 leaving the barn to know for sure. Lots of factors, from flow to weather come into play. You never really know until they open the hanger door and encourage the F9 out of the barn with the promise of RP-1 treats ;D
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 02/23/2015 01:10 pm
I thought promises of TEA-TEB was the best treat for coaxing a Falcon out of the barn.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/23/2015 02:21 pm
TEA-TEB is like catnip to F9s.

Anyhoo, updated the update thread as Static Fire isn't today, it's now NET Tuesday I'm informed.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Skyrocket on 02/23/2015 02:33 pm
Does anyone know, which satellite is in the top position and which is in the bottom?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: BabaORileyUSA on 02/23/2015 06:03 pm
ABS-3A is on top, and the satellites will be deployed by the Falcon into a Super-synchronous Transfer Orbit (SSTO), meaning perigee will be a couple hundred kilometers and apogee will be WAY above GEO altitude.  The XIPS will be used to increase velocity from the initial SSTO, raising the perigee height to GEO altitude; then it will be used to reduce the velocity and lower the apogee to GEO altitude.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 02/23/2015 07:37 pm
Do we have the target orbital parameters yet?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: MarekCyzio on 02/23/2015 08:47 pm
Do we have the target orbital parameters yet?

L2 :)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 02/23/2015 11:39 pm

L2 :)

That's a little high for a comsat ;)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 02/23/2015 11:44 pm

L2 :)

That's a little high for a comsat ;)

Won't it be at the Earth center/equatorial surface 115oW L2?   :D
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jakusb on 02/24/2015 08:09 am


L2 :)

That's a little high for a comsat ;)

Won't it be at the Earth center/equatorial surface 115oW L2?   :D

ehm, not Lagrange 2, but L2 section of this forum has the info. :p
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: abaddon on 02/24/2015 02:48 pm
I might have missed it in the thread somewhere, but I couldn't find any reference to a launch time?  Are we expecting very early in the morning along the lines of some recent other GTO launches (the AsiaSats for example)?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 02/24/2015 03:22 pm
I might have missed it in the thread somewhere, but I couldn't find any reference to a launch time?  Are we expecting very early in the morning along the lines of some recent other GTO launches (the AsiaSats for example)?

Try looking in http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=calendar
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 02/24/2015 05:02 pm
@flatoday_jdean: 45th Space Wing confirms SpaceX targeting 10:49pm Sunday launch of @Eutelsat_SA and ABS satellites from Cape Canaveral. 45-min window.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: abaddon on 02/24/2015 06:10 pm
Blah, I will be in the air... and no, not near FL :(
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: MarekCyzio on 02/24/2015 06:21 pm
Looks like static fire is tomorrow:

"Our History Center will be closed tomorrow, Wednesday February 25th for SpaceX operations- sorry for the short notice and thanks for understanding!"

Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2015 06:43 pm
That's pretty good regardless, these few days of movement are natural in the flow.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 02/24/2015 11:24 pm
That's pretty good regardless, these few days of movement are natural in the flow.

Do we have a time for the Static Fire or is it just when SpaceX feels the time/weather is right...
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kim Keller on 02/25/2015 01:25 pm
That's pretty good regardless, these few days of movement are natural in the flow.

Do we have a time for the Static Fire or is it just when SpaceX feels the time/weather is right...

They generally target 1300L.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: obi-wan on 02/25/2015 03:35 pm
That's pretty good regardless, these few days of movement are natural in the flow.

Do we have a time for the Static Fire or is it just when SpaceX feels the time/weather is right...

They generally target 1300L.

Do they do a full propellant load for the static firing, or do they only partially fill the tanks? Do they replenish the TEA-TEB between static firing and launch? Since that would have to be a really hazardous operation, do they do TEA-TEB loading remotely, and is it at the pad? (Sorry for the geeky questions.)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 02/25/2015 03:51 pm
Full load and TEA-TEB is just another commodity that provided by the tail service masts.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: spacenut on 02/25/2015 04:44 pm
Is the static fire going to be today?  If so, what time?  Will it be on NASA TV?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Zaran on 02/25/2015 04:45 pm
Static Fire tests are not webcasted.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 02/25/2015 05:21 pm
Is the static fire going to be today?  If so, what time?  Will it be on NASA TV?

This is a commercial launch.  No NASA involvement hence no NASAtv coverage of anything (including launch).  The launch will be webcast by SpaceX starting 20 minutes before launch.  No static fire coverage.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 02/25/2015 08:28 pm
Is the static fire going to be today?  If so, what time?
That's what the UPDATES thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36798.msg1337591#msg1337591) is for. :-)

And the answer is "yes".
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Danderman on 02/26/2015 02:56 am
I am going to be in Florida after March 9, so what are the odds the launch will slip that late?

Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: CJ on 02/26/2015 04:13 am
Has anyone seen any pics or vids of this F9 (NASA TV maybe?) that are clear enough to show whether or not there are grid fins on her? I know she's legless, but I'm wondering if they're going to do some reentry testing. If the fins are on her, they surely are.   

Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: macpacheco on 02/26/2015 04:22 am
I am going to be in Florida after March 9, so what are the odds the launch will slip that late?
What are the odds of an 8+ day slip/scrubs... Damn low.
I'm betting this will fly no latter than March, 4th, including maybe a one day slip and multiple scrubs (but I'm knocking on wood for none of that).
Some only believe SpaceX can increase launch tempo after they proved it again and again. Others can see that SpaceX modus operandi is to continously increase launch tempo.
I believe we'll see repeated sub 3 week interval between launches at least 5x this year, perhaps as much as 10x.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/26/2015 04:23 am
macpacheco: Don't tempt the launch gods!
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: dodo on 02/26/2015 11:29 am
I was wondering what Eutelsat "electric propulsion" meant: presumably this is synonymous with "ion thruster". I found this on the internets,
    http://espace-ftp.cborg.info/epic_2014/d1_s1_1_EPIC_2014_Eutelsat_Electric_Propulsion_Perspectives.pdf
which mentions Xenon gas tanks, so that must be it.

(Layman here; possibly for the rest of you it's obvious that there is no other electric propulsion mechanism.)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: MarekCyzio on 02/26/2015 11:54 am
I am going to be in Florida after March 9, so what are the odds the launch will slip that late?

Atlas V launch is scheduled for 3/11, it is also a night launch; Atlas V flies with solids and it will produce more light than F9 = more spectacular launch. So please do not jinx F9 launch!
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 02/26/2015 12:03 pm
Has anyone seen any pics or vids of this F9 (NASA TV maybe?) that are clear enough to show whether or not there are grid fins on her? I know she's legless, but I'm wondering if they're going to do some reentry testing. If the fins are on her, they surely are.
The SpaceX mission patch does not show grid fins, for what it's worth.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Misha Vargas on 02/26/2015 12:19 pm
Has anyone seen any pics or vids of this F9 (NASA TV maybe?) that are clear enough to show whether or not there are grid fins on her? I know she's legless, but I'm wondering if they're going to do some reentry testing. If the fins are on her, they surely are.
The SpaceX mission patch does not show grid fins, for what it's worth.

Well, the DSCOVR patch showed a legless stage.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 02/26/2015 12:20 pm
I am going to be in Florida after March 9, so what are the odds the launch will slip that late?
Over on the SpaceX scrubs thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36507.0) you can read off the actual probability from the graph that saliva_sweet made.  The expected delay at L-4 seems to be about 4 days, but the 50% probability box goes up to 20 days.  So you've got a decent chance.  But the variance goes down very sharply starting at L-4 (probably correlating with static fire timing) so your chances of an 8-day delay decrease with every day that passes without a delay being announced.  By the time we make it to launch day the chances for a further delay pushing it as far as March 9 are very slim indeed.

But don't take my word for it, look at the actual probabilities in saliva_sweet's excellent graph for yourself! (It's linked at the bottom of the top post of that thread.) This post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36507.msg1331807.msg#1331807) explains how to read the box plot, if you need a refresher.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 02/26/2015 12:52 pm
I was wondering what Eutelsat "electric propulsion" meant: presumably this is synonymous with "ion thruster". I found this on the internets,
    http://espace-ftp.cborg.info/epic_2014/d1_s1_1_EPIC_2014_Eutelsat_Electric_Propulsion_Perspectives.pdf
which mentions Xenon gas tanks, so that must be it.

(Layman here; possibly for the rest of you it's obvious that there is no other electric propulsion mechanism.)

You can read more about the specific Xenon thrusters used on Boeing 702's  here:

http://www2.l-3com.com/eti/product_lines_electric_propulsion.htm
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kim Keller on 02/26/2015 01:14 pm
Atlas V launch is scheduled for 3/11, it is also a night launch; Atlas V flies with solids and it will produce more light than F9 = more spectacular launch. So please do not jinx F9 launch!

AV-053/MMS is set for 3.12.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 02/26/2015 08:17 pm
Has anyone seen any pics or vids of this F9 (NASA TV maybe?) that are clear enough to show whether or not there are grid fins on her? I know she's legless, but I'm wondering if they're going to do some reentry testing. If the fins are on her, they surely are.

Just saw this pic of the F9 being lowered after the static fire posted to reddit; originally from Instagram user thebadastronomer.  No grid fins.

Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 02/26/2015 08:23 pm
Has anyone seen any pics or vids of this F9 (NASA TV maybe?) that are clear enough to show whether or not there are grid fins on her? I know she's legless, but I'm wondering if they're going to do some reentry testing. If the fins are on her, they surely are.

Just saw this pic of the F9 being lowered after the static fire posted to reddit; originally from Instagram user thebadastronomer.  No grid fins.

This expendable version of the Falcon 9 v1.1 will fly for the seventh time including a Dragon CRS flight in its logged launches. The reusable version has flown four times; the most recent having been 15 days ago.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: CJ on 02/26/2015 08:36 pm
Has anyone seen any pics or vids of this F9 (NASA TV maybe?) that are clear enough to show whether or not there are grid fins on her? I know she's legless, but I'm wondering if they're going to do some reentry testing. If the fins are on her, they surely are.

Just saw this pic of the F9 being lowered after the static fire posted to reddit; originally from Instagram user thebadastronomer.  No grid fins.

Thank you!

Hrmmm... I wonder if they omitted the GN2 thrusters from stage 1 as well? I remember one expendable launch where the first stage was seen using those thrusters to reorient, and as far as I know, there's no purpose to the GN2 thrusters on stage 1 other than recovery (or tests). 
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 02/26/2015 08:51 pm
Has anyone seen any pics or vids of this F9 (NASA TV maybe?) that are clear enough to show whether or not there are grid fins on her? I know she's legless, but I'm wondering if they're going to do some reentry testing. If the fins are on her, they surely are.

Just saw this pic of the F9 being lowered after the static fire posted to reddit; originally from Instagram user thebadastronomer.  No grid fins.

This expendable version of the Falcon 9 v1.1 will fly for the seventh time including a Dragon CRS flight in its logged launches. The reusable version has flown four times; the most recent having been 15 days ago.

What CRS flight wasn't used for reuse testing?  The only CRS flights on F9 v1.1 have been -3, -4, & -5.  All of them have had legs, tried for soft touchdowns, and attempted recovery (some water based).  I would class them all as reusable.  True, -3 and -4 didn't have all of the mods on the most current reuse design but I wouldn't use that distinction to call them expendable.

edit: As Orbiter pointed out, CRS-4 didn't have legs.  See my response below for why I still feel CRS-4 wasn't an Expendable F9.  To get back on topic, any further replies to this comment should be made in the general falcon/dragon thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36815.0
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Orbiter on 02/26/2015 08:58 pm
Has anyone seen any pics or vids of this F9 (NASA TV maybe?) that are clear enough to show whether or not there are grid fins on her? I know she's legless, but I'm wondering if they're going to do some reentry testing. If the fins are on her, they surely are.

Just saw this pic of the F9 being lowered after the static fire posted to reddit; originally from Instagram user thebadastronomer.  No grid fins.

This expendable version of the Falcon 9 v1.1 will fly for the seventh time including a Dragon CRS flight in its logged launches. The reusable version has flown four times; the most recent having been 15 days ago.

What CRS flight wasn't used for reuse testing?  The only CRS flights on F9 v1.1 have been -3, -4, & -5.  All of them have had legs, tried for soft touchdowns, and attempted recovery (some water based).  I would class them all as reusable.  True, -3 and -4 didn't have all of the mods on the most current reuse design but I wouldn't use that distinction to call them expendable.

CRS-4 didn't have landing legs.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 02/26/2015 09:00 pm
Has anyone seen any pics or vids of this F9 (NASA TV maybe?) that are clear enough to show whether or not there are grid fins on her? I know she's legless, but I'm wondering if they're going to do some reentry testing. If the fins are on her, they surely are.
Just saw this pic of the F9 being lowered after the static fire posted to reddit; originally from Instagram user thebadastronomer.  No grid fins.
Ya know.....
A rocket without legs and grid fins looks sort of incomplete.  ;D
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 02/26/2015 09:14 pm
CRS-4 is why dividing F9 flights into "reusable" and "expendable" doesn't make much sense right now.  Technically, they were all "expended" and I'm willing to bet that the hardware wasn't 100% identical on *any* two of the flights.  Even the "expendable" CRS-4 had enough "reusability" baked in (if only to its avionics, although as mentioned above it must also have had the GN2 thrusters on the first stage) to attempt a landing.

Without more fine-grained details about exactly which hardware is on which flight (details that would probably be provided to a certification agency, but not to us in the public), I think it's a bit misleading to try to claim that there are (only) two different rocket configurations being flown.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 02/26/2015 09:39 pm
Has anyone seen any pics or vids of this F9 (NASA TV maybe?) that are clear enough to show whether or not there are grid fins on her? I know she's legless, but I'm wondering if they're going to do some reentry testing. If the fins are on her, they surely are.

Just saw this pic of the F9 being lowered after the static fire posted to reddit; originally from Instagram user thebadastronomer.  No grid fins.

This expendable version of the Falcon 9 v1.1 will fly for the seventh time including a Dragon CRS flight in its logged launches. The reusable version has flown four times; the most recent having been 15 days ago.

What CRS flight wasn't used for reuse testing?  The only CRS flights on F9 v1.1 have been -3, -4, & -5.  All of them have had legs, tried for soft touchdowns, and attempted recovery (some water based).  I would class them all as reusable.  True, -3 and -4 didn't have all of the mods on the most current reuse design but I wouldn't use that distinction to call them expendable.

CRS-4 didn't have landing legs.

Shoot.  I forgot that CRS-4 was the core that was switched with one of the Asiasat cores due to scheduling and therefore didn't have legs.  And that they didn't try to go recover it because they didn't expect it to survive tip-over.  But they still used it to test boost-back (boost-sideways really), reentry burn, atmospheric flight accuracy, and soft touchdown.  I agree it didn't have the hardware, but, IMHO, it wasn't an expended core.  It touched down in the water softly.

Edit:  Getting well off topic here.  If anyone wants to continue to debate/discuss the issue, post to the general Falcon/Dragon thread.    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36815.0
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 02/26/2015 09:46 pm
The cores aren't that different in "reusable" or "expendable" mode. There is not 2nd line of production. The model is refined, but those refinements are added to all cores going forward.

It would be more accurate to state that these cores were just F9(R)'s without legs/fins. The engines are still restartable. There is still RCS.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 02/26/2015 11:07 pm
Ya know.....
A rocket without legs and grid fins looks sort of incomplete.  ;D
Why, it's what all the popular rockets at the cape are wearing these days.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 02/26/2015 11:18 pm
Ya know.....
A rocket without legs and grid fins looks sort of incomplete.  ;D
Why, it's what all the popular rockets at the cape are wearing these days.
Won't it be fun when we can say "it's what *most* of the rockets at the cape are wearing"!

The calendar at spaceflightnow says there are 9 non-SpaceX launches from the Cape this year, so probably not this year (considering not all SpaceX launches have legs, either).  Maybe next year, though!
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Appable on 02/27/2015 04:57 am
Ya know.....
A rocket without legs and grid fins looks sort of incomplete.  ;D
Why, it's what all the popular rockets at the cape are wearing these days.

On that note, how many people do show up to Falcon 9 launches compared to other launches nearby, such as the Atlas V?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kim Keller on 02/27/2015 01:50 pm
On that note, how many people do show up to Falcon 9 launches compared to other launches nearby, such as the Atlas V?

The crowds seem the same size to me.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: laika_fr on 02/27/2015 09:46 pm
Weather forecast

Sunday could have been windy, nevertheless the trend is improving especially at night, 15-25 km/h, should not be a issue.

But we have a partial cloud cover and rain in the cards, so it's not exactly a walk in the park.
I'll give an update on that later, since it's unstable.

(http://s7.postimg.org/ngocmco9n/abs1.png)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 02/27/2015 09:56 pm
http://www.patrick.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070716-028.pdf

From Patrick AFB, 45th Weather Squadron:  70% GO on launch date, 80% GO on 24hr delay opportunity.  Though it looks like upper level winds could be an issue on both days as well.

Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: ZachS09 on 02/27/2015 11:45 pm
Even with the winds as a concern, the rocket could still launch on its first attempt. You never know.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: laika_fr on 02/28/2015 01:26 pm
Alright weather should be clear, maybe just keeping a eye on upper level winds.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/01/2015 02:12 am
Is it just me or does the fairing look /slightly/ shorter?

Did I miss an update?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/01/2015 02:15 am
Is it just me or does the fairing look /slightly/ shorter?

Did I miss an update?

From the picture of the fairing pair taken earlier....I don't think it's shorter than the ones before.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: swervin on 03/01/2015 03:00 am
Appears the rocket is vertical nearly 24 hrs prior to launch. Anyone know why so early? Secondly, I thought SpX's goal was 'roll out and launch' within XXmin? I thought it was something short like 90min, but I do not recall their initial stated goal, verbatim.

Splinter
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: king1999 on 03/01/2015 04:05 am
Appears the rocket is vertical nearly 24 hrs prior to launch. Anyone know why so early? Secondly, I thought SpX's goal was 'roll out and launch' within XXmin? I thought it was something short like 90min, but I do not recall their initial stated goal, verbatim.

Splinter
I guess they want the launch crew to get more sleep tonight.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 03/01/2015 04:11 am
Appears the rocket is vertical nearly 24 hrs prior to launch. Anyone know why so early? Secondly, I thought SpX's goal was 'roll out and launch' within XXmin? I thought it was something short like 90min, but I do not recall their initial stated goal, verbatim.

That goal was part of the "Operationally Responsive Space" mission that funded the early Falcon flights.  The ORS office is somewhat beleaguered these days ("For the past three years, the Air Force has zeroed out ORS in its budget, but the money was restored after Heinrich and others in the New Mexico delegation pushed for the funding." (http://www.abqjournal.com/547366/politics/air-force-budget-includes-ors-program-at-kirtland.html)) and it hasn't funded SpaceX since the Falcon 1 as far as I know.

So although I'm sure they could dust off and burnish their "quick roll out and launch" stats if they needed to, it's never been an issue for non-military launches and hasn't been a talking point for years now.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 03/01/2015 04:31 am
The earlier link in the update thread isn't working anymore:  https://vine.co/v/O2ELVPT5QEY

Or just go to https://vine.co/spacex
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/01/2015 06:34 am
Appears the rocket is vertical nearly 24 hrs prior to launch. Anyone know why so early? Secondly, I thought SpX's goal was 'roll out and launch' within XXmin? I thought it was something short like 90min, but I do not recall their initial stated goal, verbatim.

Splinter

My guess is that the payload have less stress when the Falcon is vertical. It is a stacked pair comsats after all.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: swervin on 03/01/2015 11:10 am
Appears the rocket is vertical nearly 24 hrs prior to launch. Anyone know why so early? Secondly, I thought SpX's goal was 'roll out and launch' within XXmin? I thought it was something short like 90min, but I do not recall their initial stated goal, verbatim.

That goal was part of the "Operationally Responsive Space" mission that funded the early Falcon flights.  The ORS office is somewhat beleaguered these days ("For the past three years, the Air Force has zeroed out ORS in its budget, but the money was restored after Heinrich and others in the New Mexico delegation pushed for the funding." (http://www.abqjournal.com/547366/politics/air-force-budget-includes-ors-program-at-kirtland.html)) and it hasn't funded SpaceX since the Falcon 1 as far as I know.

So although I'm sure they could dust off and burnish their "quick roll out and launch" stats if they needed to, it's never been an issue for non-military launches and hasn't been a talking point for years now.

Thanks, all! I appreciate the straight fwd and non-condescending replies which often permeate these threads. Go Falcon tonight!

Cheers,
Splinter
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 03/01/2015 12:34 pm
Appears the rocket is vertical nearly 24 hrs prior to launch. Anyone know why so early? Secondly, I thought SpX's goal was 'roll out and launch' within XXmin? I thought it was something short like 90min, but I do not recall their initial stated goal, verbatim.

Splinter

Because payloads have yet to be designed for quick roll out
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Semmel on 03/01/2015 04:32 pm
Appears the rocket is vertical nearly 24 hrs prior to launch. Anyone know why so early? Secondly, I thought SpX's goal was 'roll out and launch' within XXmin? I thought it was something short like 90min, but I do not recall their initial stated goal, verbatim.

Splinter

Because payloads have yet to be designed for quick roll out

Interesting.. How is the payload effected by operations after the (e.g. any) rocket goes to the pad? What is there to do on the payload after the fairing is sealed?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: rpapo on 03/01/2015 06:46 pm
Because payloads have yet to be designed for quick roll out
Could you enumerate some of the reasons for this?  Like time required to power up and check out the payload, perhaps?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: OxCartMark on 03/01/2015 06:58 pm
Because payloads have yet to be designed for quick roll out

Um, Why's that?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/01/2015 07:20 pm
Because payloads have yet to be designed for quick roll out

Um, Why's that?

I'm pretty sure that it is because there is no need for a 'fast roll out' capability for payloads. Commercial satellite launches have always have lead times in the months with even the pre-flighting phase of the spacecraft's journey typically taking weeks. This is even more true for crewed spaceflight where safety validation means that the pre-flight process can take months.

SpaceX are really pushing the envelope by trying to cycle two radically different types of payload through a single launch pad in just four weeks.

Fast turn-around times simply are not something any payload provider builds for. Indeed, I'm fairly sure that most customers would shy away from the idea, concerned that it would lead to corner-cutting and higher probability of a LOM, wasting tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars.

SpaceX's 'quick turn around' is an interesting aspiration but I cannot see them finding a commercial application in anything less than fifty years.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: AdrianW on 03/01/2015 08:11 pm
SpaceX's 'quick turn around' is an interesting aspiration but I cannot see them finding a commercial application in anything less than fifty years.
Uhm... 50 years is a very long time. 50 years ago, there hadn't even been a moon landing. Are you sure you want to make such far out predictions?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Dave G on 03/01/2015 08:18 pm
SpaceX are really pushing the envelope by trying to cycle two radically different types of payload through a single launch pad in just four weeks.

For the South Texas launch site, from the EIS (https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/documents_progress/spacex_texas_launch_site_environmental_impact_statement/media/FEIS_SpaceX_Texas_Launch_Site_Vol_I.pdf), the control center area will consist of:
Two launch control center buildings
Two payload processing facilities
• A Launch vehicle processing hangar

The control center area is about 2 miles from the launch site.

So moving forward, it looks like they're trying to pipeline things in parrallel. 
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 03/01/2015 08:54 pm
For an interesting read on an independent weather forecast for the launch today, read this reddit post (https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2x81fc/rspacex_eutelsat_115w_b_abs3a_official_launch/cp11r7d) by /u/cuweathernerd.  Very cool.  Of course, for official launch forecasts you can't beat the 45th.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 03/01/2015 09:00 pm
Is the flame trench "extension" shown in the pic jacqmans posted in the UPDATE thread a new addition to SLC-40?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36798.msg1339718#msg1339718
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 03/01/2015 09:40 pm
45th weather sqdn. still says 70% GO for this attempt.  Plus upper level winds have come down a bit as well.  Now calling for 80kts at 40,000ft. as the max.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 03/01/2015 10:00 pm
Is the flame trench "extension" shown in the pic jacqmans posted in the UPDATE thread a new addition to SLC-40?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36798.msg1339718#msg1339718 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36798.msg1339718#msg1339718)
That certainly is odd, to say the least.  A metallic, peaked roof, building-like frame at the end of the concrete flame trench.
It seems to have a solid ceiling but it is hard to envision a purpose for it.

edit: Clean up and simplify
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 03/01/2015 10:06 pm
That certainly is odd, to say the least.  A metallic, peaked roof, building-like frame at the end of the concrete flame trench.
It seems to have a solid ceiling but it is hard to envision a purpose for it.
It is also hard to imagine it surviving a launch. We may see if it does in less than five hours.

??? It's been there for like every single launch after F9-01.

Yes.  You got there before I had the chance to delete that part.  It is obviously rugged enough to take the exhaust. 
I still wonder as to its purpose.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 03/01/2015 10:08 pm
I still wonder as to its purpose.

Water spray/deluge for sound suppression. SLC-41 has something similar.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 03/01/2015 10:16 pm
I particularly like this "update":

Quote
Virtually no information will be provided by SpaceX during the countdown until going live at L-20min.

https://twitter.com/S101_Live/status/572139895411638272
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisC on 03/01/2015 10:30 pm
This was posted in the updates thread:

Feature article by William Graham!
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/spacex-falcon-9-debut-dual-satellite-mission/

... and I just wanted to say (here in the discussion thread) that it's a good article and I appreciate William Graham's clean writing style!
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 03/02/2015 12:05 am
Has anyone noticed if Fueling has begun yet...
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/02/2015 12:06 am
No SpaceX press kit?  I'm interested in resolving the substantially different target orbits presented by this site and by SFN.  SFN has a 20,000 km lower apogee, roughly.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: jimbowman on 03/02/2015 12:10 am
Do they think nobody cares because of the lack of landing attempt?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/02/2015 12:12 am
No SpaceX press kit?  I'm interested in resolving the substantially different target orbits presented by this site and by SFN.  SFN has a 20,000 km lower apogee, roughly.

 - Ed Kyle
Yeah, there was a press kit of some sort linked earlier.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 03/02/2015 12:12 am
this is as quiet as a church at 3 am Monday Morning... where is everyone... Mission Control, anyone there...

edit, I thought i heard an echo... echoo.....

there are 2196 over at Livestream waiting for a launch or information... Chris any idea how the NSF site is doing with hits...
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/02/2015 12:17 am
No SpaceX press kit?  I'm interested in resolving the substantially different target orbits presented by this site and by SFN.  SFN has a 20,000 km lower apogee, roughly.

 - Ed Kyle
Yeah, there was a press kit of some sort linked earlier.
Thanks.  Doesn't give an orbit though.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 03/02/2015 12:18 am
No SpaceX press kit?  I'm interested in resolving the substantially different target orbits presented by this site and by SFN.  SFN has a 20,000 km lower apogee, roughly.

 - Ed Kyle

No "press kit" but there is a factsheet:  http://www.spacex.com/press/2015/02/26/abseutelsat-1-launch

This is reminding me of when SpaceX switched from their full launch coverage, which was very much in the style of NASA's, to the "stripped down" version they are using now.  This makes 2 launches in a row with this type of barebones presskit.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the trend continue.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: averagespacejoe on 03/02/2015 12:18 am
You know it would probably behoove SpaceX to do a little bit more PR, never hurts, but I think the blame rests with Eutelsat and ABS not enough of these private outfits are showing off their fine payloads and giving us to the minute coverage. NASA launches are cool because they start nice and early with tons of videos. I know we jump on SpaceX for not giving us all the juicy details but they are a service provider and it is who is provided the service we should blame. Me thinks.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: northenarc on 03/02/2015 12:33 am
 It's funny, for commercial launches SpaceX has less coverage at this point than any other launch provider in the world except the Chinese. I've never seen a rollout video from them, but we get them for Russian spy sats.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/02/2015 12:41 am
No SpaceX press kit?  I'm interested in resolving the substantially different target orbits presented by this site and by SFN.  SFN has a 20,000 km lower apogee, roughly.

 - Ed Kyle

If the weights of the satellites listed in our site's article is accurate, the weight would be around 4160 kg which I think points to the 42000 km apogee orbit. Then again...  ::)
No SpaceX press kit?  I'm interested in resolving the substantially different target orbits presented by this site and by SFN.  SFN has a 20,000 km lower apogee, roughly.

 - Ed Kyle

No "press kit" but there is a factsheet:  http://www.spacex.com/press/2015/02/26/abseutelsat-1-launch

This is reminding me of when SpaceX switched from their full launch coverage, which was very much in the style of NASA's, to the "stripped down" version they are using now.  This makes 2 launches in a row with this type of barebones presskit.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the trend continue.

My guess is they have a barebone PR team....  :-X
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: just-nick on 03/02/2015 12:54 am
NASA does tons of coverage because outreach is part of it's mission (and, indeed, essential to the public awareness on which it depends for support). ULA depends entirely on government payloads so lots of coverage is a big deal for lobbying. Russia loves propaganda these days.

All of these guys have an incentive to get lots of video in front of people.

Eutelsat's customers aren't space nuts like us. SpaceX doesn't seem to be playing the "space industry as job creation" lobbying game so I'm guessing they aren't feeling the need for lots of glossy PR video.

Good businesses don't do things without a BUSINESS reason.

Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/02/2015 12:59 am
according to Musk Twiter launch is in 2h

+

Quote
Elon Musk@elonmusk  · 13 minutes ago

Next landing attempt will be 3rd launch from now. Tonight's flight and following one will not have enough propellant.

thats June 13, 2015 • Falcon 9 • SpaceX CRS 7  :'(

Nah, that's CRS-6 in mid-April. The next launch after this one is Turkmensat in late March.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: dorkmo on 03/02/2015 01:21 am
this will be spacex's heaviest launch to date wont it? wonder what was previous heaviest?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/02/2015 01:22 am
this will be spacex's heaviest launch to date wont it? wonder what was previous heaviest?
You mean heaviest to GTO or requiring the most performance? Because Dragon missions are heavier, technically...
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/02/2015 01:26 am
this will be spacex's heaviest launch to date wont it? wonder what was previous heaviest?
You mean heaviest to GTO or requiring the most performance? Because Dragon missions are heavier, technically...
...and even counting launches beyond LEO this one isn't the heaviest. These 2 satellites weighs just around 4150 kg combined thanks to using all-electric propulsion. Both AsiaSat 8 and 6 are heavier (I have them at around 4500 and 4400 kg). Even heavier ones are coming up soon - Turkmensat is around 4500 kg and SES-9 will break the 5 tonne barrier.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/02/2015 01:36 am

...

My guess is they have a barebone PR team....  :-X

Half in jest. Their PR is their CTO's twitter feed  :)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Mariusuiram on 03/02/2015 02:04 am
NASA does tons of coverage because outreach is part of it's mission (and, indeed, essential to the public awareness on which it depends for support). ULA depends entirely on government payloads so lots of coverage is a big deal for lobbying. Russia loves propaganda these days.

All of these guys have an incentive to get lots of video in front of people.

Eutelsat's customers aren't space nuts like us. SpaceX doesn't seem to be playing the "space industry as job creation" lobbying game so I'm guessing they aren't feeling the need for lots of glossy PR video.

Good businesses don't do things without a BUSINESS reason.

If they really are going to aim for a pace of ~2 launches per month, I won't complain that they cant dedicate the external Comms / PR effort on every single flight. I'm sure NASA flights will still get a bigger song and dance.

Anyone who would be involved in this effort is probably already focused on prepping for Turkmen or the LAS Test.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: DavidH on 03/02/2015 02:40 am
Wow. How many stations completely missed that they were in for final poll for launch?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Rvkpa on 03/02/2015 02:44 am
It was a good 1/3 of them, but they were fine by the T-10 min count!
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 03/02/2015 02:55 am
Looks like some exhaust recirculation at around when the vehicle went supersonic. Looks scary (like the engine compartment is on fire), but is normal.
Was watching it too.    It didn't seem to cause a problem, but I don't remember seeing it like this before. 
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: abaddon on 03/02/2015 02:57 am
Anyone got a screen grab of that?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: sanman on 03/02/2015 02:59 am
I remember on past missions, footage from the onboard cameras would often be plagued by condensation and frost, but this time there seems to have been none of that. Were there some improvements made to eliminate this problem?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: sanman on 03/02/2015 03:01 am
Also, what is that bluish photographic view of the engine? Is that IR/thermal, or something else? It reminds me of the maw of the Doomsday machine from an old Trek episode.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 03/02/2015 03:02 am
Anyone got a screen grab of that?

I got a few (you can rewind LiveStream...)

It was during quite a long stretch of the flight.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 03/02/2015 03:04 am
A beautiful launch!!!!  :)


Cool footage of the S2 LOX tank again - but I noticed two differences from last time:
 - Intentional blurring of side walls? (ITAR?) The baffles looked different
 - The LOX stayed nicely in place after engine cutoff instead of floating everywhere. The neat display of S2 RCS thruster firings also showed them firing a lot - intentional to see if they could control movement of LOX in microgravity to avoid sloshing?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: robertross on 03/02/2015 03:04 am
Also, what is that bluish photographic view of the engine? Is that IR/thermal, or something else? It reminds me of the maw of the Doomsday machine from an old Trek episode.

It is liquid oxygen (LOX) inside the first stage tank - the one they normally try and land
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 03/02/2015 03:05 am
Also, what is that bluish photographic view of the engine? Is that IR/thermal, or something else? It reminds me of the maw of the Doomsday machine from an old Trek episode.

It is liquid oxygen (LOX) inside the first stage tank - the one they normally try and land

No. This has always been the 2nd stage LOX tank.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: DavidH on 03/02/2015 03:05 am
Yeah, I've definitively seen that on multiple F9 launches. Always freaks me out, but it's been there every time. Whatever it is, it's nominal.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: macpacheco on 03/02/2015 03:06 am
Shall we say this was a picture perfect launch ?
A one day delay for a 18 day turnaround (from first announced launch date to actual launch date).
But the question is, can SpaceX keep up this pace ? A regular 3 week full turn around would mean 17 launches in 2015, making my 15 launch bet actually realistic.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: abaddon on 03/02/2015 03:06 am
Thanks.  I feel like we've seen that before but maybe not as much or as high.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisC on 03/02/2015 03:07 am
The animation that they went to after SECO-1 showed quick attitude control thruster firings, presumably from live telemetry.  Have we seen that before?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: JBF on 03/02/2015 03:07 am
Thanks.  I feel like we've seen that before but maybe not as much or as high.
Probably due to lighting conditions and camera angle.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 03/02/2015 03:08 am
The animation that they went to after SECO-1 showed quick attitude control thruster firings, presumably from live telemetry.  Have we seen that before?

Nope, this was the first time! More, please! (I wonder if those firings were intended to control LOX/fuel sloshing, it seemed much more controlled from inside the tank)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/02/2015 03:09 am
Shall we say this was a picture perfect launch ?...
Not until successful, on-target payload deployment. :)

But yeah, each good-looking launch without major delays improves the chances of greatly exceeding their 2014 launch rate.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: DavidH on 03/02/2015 03:09 am
Nope, this was the first time! More, please! (I wonder if those firings were intended to control LOX/fuel sloshing, it seemed much more controlled from inside the tank)
Agreed. First time I've seen RCS firings in animation.
The LOX also looked a lot less chaotic. Like it was staying consolidated at the bottom of the tank. Maybe intentional.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 03/02/2015 03:10 am
Yeah, I've definitively seen that on multiple F9 launches. Always freaks me out, but it's been there every time. Whatever it is, it's nominal.

Thanks, good to know.  I haven't noticed, but will sure be looking for it next time.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 03/02/2015 03:14 am
Yeah, I've definitively seen that on multiple F9 launches. Always freaks me out, but it's been there every time. Whatever it is, it's nominal.

Thanks, good to know.  I haven't noticed, but will sure be looking for it next time.

Yes, it is there on most (all?) launches, but most obvious during night launches. The stage is built to handle it. (remember it is designed to re-enter tail first)

At least the recirculation isn't as bad as this:  :o
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: meekGee on 03/02/2015 03:16 am
Yeah, I've definitively seen that on multiple F9 launches. Always freaks me out, but it's been there every time. Whatever it is, it's nominal.

Thanks, good to know.  I haven't noticed, but will sure be looking for it next time.

Yes, it is there on most (all?) launches, but most obvious during night launches. The stage is built to handle it. (remember it is designed to re-enter tail first)

At least the recirculation isn't as bad as this:  :o

It's one of the things I'm sure they'd love to see when they get a stage back.  We're all thinking about the lifetime of the Merlin, but stuff life that also has to be taken care of if you're going to reuse the stages tens of times - and it's a lot harder to model, and impossible to really test on the ground.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: king1999 on 03/02/2015 03:17 am
Anyone got a screen grab of that?

I got a few (you can rewind LiveStream...)

It was during quite a long stretch of the flight.

My heart almost stopped when I saw that flame around the engines, reminding me of the first falcon 1 flight. Scary moment.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: king1999 on 03/02/2015 03:20 am
Yeah, I've definitively seen that on multiple F9 launches. Always freaks me out, but it's been there every time. Whatever it is, it's nominal.

Thanks, good to know.  I haven't noticed, but will sure be looking for it next time.

Yes, it is there on most (all?) launches, but most obvious during night launches. The stage is built to handle it. (remember it is designed to re-enter tail first)

At least the recirculation isn't as bad as this:  :o
This time F9 recirculation was different. It looked like some small random yellow flames going up some of the engines.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: StephenB on 03/02/2015 03:23 am
The first stage burn was right about 3 minutes. I am curious how this compares with previous flights.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: NannerAirCraft on 03/02/2015 03:23 am
Wow. Complete failure of Pad.X tonight! I don't know how much longer they can stay operational at this rate.

(P.S. Congrats Spacex super smooth launch!)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: demorcef on 03/02/2015 03:24 am
I just saw the launch from Sarasota FL. It was a bright orangy flare like flame. Very cool!
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: DigitalMan on 03/02/2015 03:24 am

Yes, it is there on most (all?) launches, but most obvious during night launches. The stage is built to handle it. (remember it is designed to re-enter tail first)

At least the recirculation isn't as bad as this:  :o
This time F9 recirculation was different. It looked like some small random yellow flames going up some of the engines.

The view from FL (with binoculars) of previous 1st stages reentering looked like quite a baptism by fire.  This is nothing in comparison.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 03/02/2015 03:25 am
This time F9 recirculation was different. It looked like some small random yellow flames going up some of the engines.

Nope. Look at the last launch at a similar time - AsiaSat 6 (go to 18:55). If light conditions are the same, and the tracking camera stays on it, you'll see the same situation for every launch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39ninsyTRk8
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Helodriver on 03/02/2015 03:28 am
A beautiful launch!!!!  :)


Cool footage of the S2 LOX tank again - but I noticed two differences from last time:
 - Intentional blurring of side walls? (ITAR?) The baffles looked different
 - The LOX stayed nicely in place after engine cutoff instead of floating everywhere. The neat display of S2 RCS thruster firings also showed them firing a lot - intentional to see if they could control movement of LOX in microgravity to avoid sloshing?

I saw that too, definitely some intentional blurring around the circumference of the shot. Very noticeable where the filtering effect met the COPV tanks on the stage walls.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: CyclerPilot on 03/02/2015 03:32 am
That flame recirc scared me too, but none of guys and gals doing the audio mentioned it, so I figured it was nominal.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: CJ on 03/02/2015 03:33 am
Yeah, I've definitively seen that on multiple F9 launches. Always freaks me out, but it's been there every time. Whatever it is, it's nominal.

Thanks, good to know.  I haven't noticed, but will sure be looking for it next time.

Yes, it is there on most (all?) launches, but most obvious during night launches. The stage is built to handle it. (remember it is designed to re-enter tail first)

At least the recirculation isn't as bad as this:  :o

It's one of the things I'm sure they'd love to see when they get a stage back.  We're all thinking about the lifetime of the Merlin, but stuff life that also has to be taken care of if you're going to reuse the stages tens of times - and it's a lot harder to model, and impossible to really test on the ground.

Seeing that didn't do my blood pressure any good. And yep, that's one of the things it's hard or impossible to test in the ground. I hope they have a recovered first stage to examine soon, for this, and a whole lot of other reasons.

So far, it's been an very, very smooth launch; no holds, etc. The first sat has been deployed... and snow, second sat deployed!

Anyone know what SpaceX has to do now, regrading the second stage? I'm assuming it's going to do a maneuver to lower perigee enough to reenter. 
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 03/02/2015 03:36 am
A beautiful launch!!!!  :)


Cool footage of the S2 LOX tank again - but I noticed two differences from last time:
 - Intentional blurring of side walls? (ITAR?) The baffles looked different
 - The LOX stayed nicely in place after engine cutoff instead of floating everywhere. The neat display of S2 RCS thruster firings also showed them firing a lot - intentional to see if they could control movement of LOX in microgravity to avoid sloshing?

I saw that too, definitely some intentional blurring around the circumference of the shot. Very noticeable where the filtering effect met the COPV tanks on the stage walls.

I'm not convinced that's intentional. If there was any question about ITAR, the simple solution is to not webcast the view from inside the tank at all.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: MattMason on 03/02/2015 03:41 am
Yeah, I've definitively seen that on multiple F9 launches. Always freaks me out, but it's been there every time. Whatever it is, it's nominal.

Thanks, good to know.  I haven't noticed, but will sure be looking for it next time.

Yes, it is there on most (all?) launches, but most obvious during night launches. The stage is built to handle it. (remember it is designed to re-enter tail first)

At least the recirculation isn't as bad as this:  :o

I've always wondered what the heck that was all about on S-V launches. It's different on Falcon but yeah, just as weird and more visible at night. Thanks for noting what was going on.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: chalz on 03/02/2015 04:09 am
A beautiful launch!!!!  :)


Cool footage of the S2 LOX tank again - but I noticed two differences from last time:
 - Intentional blurring of side walls? (ITAR?) The baffles looked different
 - The LOX stayed nicely in place after engine cutoff instead of floating everywhere. The neat display of S2 RCS thruster firings also showed them firing a lot - intentional to see if they could control movement of LOX in microgravity to avoid sloshing?

I saw that too, definitely some intentional blurring around the circumference of the shot. Very noticeable where the filtering effect met the COPV tanks on the stage walls.

I'm not convinced that's intentional. If there was any question about ITAR, the simple solution is to not webcast the view from inside the tank at all.

The camera has a wider field of view compared to the DSCOVR launch, the blurring was present then just less noticeable because of that view. Perhaps they are looking through an aperture in the tank skin and on this flight the camera has been moved slightly further back from it. The border of the aperture is only a semi transparent material which causes the blurring.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 03/02/2015 04:13 am

...

My guess is they have a barebone PR team....  :-X

Half in jest. Their PR is their CTO's twitter feed  :)

Really not in jest at all.  Elon is off the hook on twitter right now.  He really knows what's up with stacking successes.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: CuddlyRocket on 03/02/2015 04:39 am
Re the interior LOX tank shots - where does the light captured by the camera come from?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: abaddon on 03/02/2015 04:40 am
Any orbital parameters for ABS & Eutelsat yet?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 03/02/2015 04:41 am
Re the interior LOX tank shots - where does the light captured by the camera come from?

Many digital cams now have built-in LED's around the lens.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: jcm on 03/02/2015 05:27 am
Any orbital parameters for ABS & Eutelsat yet?

Nothing on Space-Track as of just now (0130EST)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 03/02/2015 05:30 am
I felt sad for the stage that it was missing its legs... At a certain point in the launch tracking camera footage, the light made the covered leg attachment points really stand out, like some unfortunate pock marks.  :)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: chalz on 03/02/2015 09:02 am
...
The camera has a wider field of view compared to the DSCOVR launch, the blurring was present then just less noticeable because of that view. Perhaps they are looking through an aperture in the tank skin and on this flight the camera has been moved slightly further back from it. The border of the aperture is only a semi transparent material which causes the blurring.

Note to self: it's not a blurring from a partially opaque material, it's an imperfect reflection on the internal walls of a cylinder. The camera is looking through a peephole in the tank wall.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: sugmullun on 03/02/2015 09:56 am
I find it interesting..the difference in "behavior" of the liquid in the second stage video
and the liquids in earlier videos of various 1st stage engine cutoffs.
...or maybe I've just not watched enough videos...or just seeing something not there?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/02/2015 10:00 am
In other news, I am surprised that they didn't even air any customer videos from Eutelsat, ABS or Boeing this time - SpaceX certainly did for the first 4 GEO comsats they launched. (I don't think Orbcomm did a video last time though) I have seen rumors that some of their customers aren't too happy with the PR arrangement....  :-X

Well, IF the customers really did want to air their videos, I still believe in Occam's Razor and the reason is that:

No SpaceX press kit?  I'm interested in resolving the substantially different target orbits presented by this site and by SFN.  SFN has a 20,000 km lower apogee, roughly.

 - Ed Kyle

If the weights of the satellites listed in our site's article is accurate, the weight would be around 4160 kg which I think points to the 42000 km apogee orbit. Then again...  ::)
No SpaceX press kit?  I'm interested in resolving the substantially different target orbits presented by this site and by SFN.  SFN has a 20,000 km lower apogee, roughly.

 - Ed Kyle

No "press kit" but there is a factsheet:  http://www.spacex.com/press/2015/02/26/abseutelsat-1-launch

This is reminding me of when SpaceX switched from their full launch coverage, which was very much in the style of NASA's, to the "stripped down" version they are using now.  This makes 2 launches in a row with this type of barebones presskit.  I wouldn't be surprised to see the trend continue.

My guess is they have a barebone PR team....  :-X
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: guckyfan on 03/02/2015 10:01 am
I find it interesting..the difference in "behavior" of the liquid in the second stage video
and the liquids in earlier videos of various 1st stage engine cutoffs.
...or maybe I've just not watched enough videos...or just seeing something not there?

I absolutely see the same. No balls of liquid floating around like before. For whatever reason.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: mvpel on 03/02/2015 11:07 am
I find it interesting..the difference in "behavior" of the liquid in the second stage video
and the liquids in earlier videos of various 1st stage engine cutoffs.
...or maybe I've just not watched enough videos...or just seeing something not there?

I absolutely see the same. No balls of liquid floating around like before. For whatever reason.

The second stage needed to do a second burn, so presumably they're applying ullage thrust occasionally using the CNG thrusters in order to keep the fluids at the appropriate end of the tanks.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: MTom on 03/02/2015 11:38 am
I find it interesting..the difference in "behavior" of the liquid in the second stage video
and the liquids in earlier videos of various 1st stage engine cutoffs.
...or maybe I've just not watched enough videos...or just seeing something not there?

I absolutely see the same. No balls of liquid floating around like before. For whatever reason.

The second stage needed to do a second burn, so presumably they're applying ullage thrust occasionally using the CNG thrusters in order to keep the fluids at the appropriate end of the tanks.

Only a worthless achievement because this is only "trial and error" vs. "analyzing or ground testing".
 ;)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: e of pi on 03/02/2015 11:39 am
@StephenClark1
Source says Falcon 9 hit orbit with apogee near 63000 km, perigee 410 km, inclination 24.8 degrees. Right on target.
If that's correct, that'd be both impressive, and pretty high performance for this payload mass, no?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: docmordrid on 03/02/2015 11:44 am
Putting a finer point on it , William Grahams excellent article documents the mass as 4,159 kg and the SS transfer orbit as 408 x 63,928 km. It'd be interesting to see the final delta-v vs. the target.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/spacex-falcon-9-debut-dual-satellite-mission/
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: MattMason on 03/02/2015 01:02 pm
I felt sad for the stage that it was missing its legs... At a certain point in the launch tracking camera footage, the light made the covered leg attachment points really stand out, like some unfortunate pock marks.  :)

Aw...we know that SpaceX is a young company, but that rocket has a bad case of acne. :)

I was thinking those marks were part of that exhaust recirculation, but thanks for the clarification.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 03/02/2015 01:13 pm
I find it interesting..the difference in "behavior" of the liquid in the second stage video
and the liquids in earlier videos of various 1st stage engine cutoffs.
...or maybe I've just not watched enough videos...or just seeing something not there?

I absolutely see the same. No balls of liquid floating around like before. For whatever reason.

The second stage needed to do a second burn, so presumably they're applying ullage thrust occasionally using the CNG thrusters in order to keep the fluids at the appropriate end of the tanks.

Only a worthless achievement because this is only "trial and error" vs. "analyzing or ground testing".
 ;)

Not even an "achievement", just a standard industry practice.  Don't see why it is even brought up.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: JamesH on 03/02/2015 01:18 pm
I find it interesting..the difference in "behavior" of the liquid in the second stage video
and the liquids in earlier videos of various 1st stage engine cutoffs.
...or maybe I've just not watched enough videos...or just seeing something not there?

I absolutely see the same. No balls of liquid floating around like before. For whatever reason.

The second stage needed to do a second burn, so presumably they're applying ullage thrust occasionally using the CNG thrusters in order to keep the fluids at the appropriate end of the tanks.

Only a worthless achievement because this is only "trial and error" vs. "analyzing or ground testing".
 ;)

Not even an "achievement", just a standard industry practice.  Don't see why it is even brought up.

Because 99.9% of the people viewing this site are not in the industry.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Jim on 03/02/2015 01:19 pm
Don't need to be in the industry, it is in the history books
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 03/02/2015 01:40 pm
Settling burn is standard practice. (AKA ullage burn). If you're not familiar with the concept, Google is your friend.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Sohl on 03/02/2015 02:04 pm
I felt sad for the stage that it was missing its legs... At a certain point in the launch tracking camera footage, the light made the covered leg attachment points really stand out, like some unfortunate pock marks.  :)

Aw...we know that SpaceX is a young company, but that rocket has a bad case of acne. :)

I thought I saw a rocket cucumber.  ???   ::)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: saliva_sweet on 03/02/2015 02:23 pm
Settling burn is standard practice. (AKA ullage burn). If you're not familiar with the concept, Google is your friend.

I think most people knew about the ullage maneuver, but not that it would be applied constantly through the coast phase.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: guckyfan on 03/02/2015 02:32 pm
Settling burn is standard practice. (AKA ullage burn). If you're not familiar with the concept, Google is your friend.

Well, at least the concept of applying ullage burn over 20 minutes until relight of the second stage seems odd to me.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 03/02/2015 02:44 pm
Settling burn is standard practice. (AKA ullage burn). If you're not familiar with the concept, Google is your friend.

Well, at least the concept of applying ullage burn over 20 minutes until relight of the second stage seems odd to me.

Aren't you making an assumption there? The webcast ended shortly after SECO1.

Also, ACS thrusters may have a slight settling effect, so what looked like a settling burn after SECO1 may have been just attitude/roll control maintenance.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: guckyfan on 03/02/2015 03:09 pm
Settling burn is standard practice. (AKA ullage burn). If you're not familiar with the concept, Google is your friend.

Well, at least the concept of applying ullage burn over 20 minutes until relight of the second stage seems odd to me.

Aren't you making an assumption there? The webcast ended shortly after SECO1.

Also, ACS thrusters may have a slight settling effect, so what looked like a settling burn after SECO1 may have been just attitude/roll control maintenance.

Who is making an assumption? I was one of those who talked about the behaviour of LOX being different than in previous launches and got jumped at by ULLAGE.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: dcporter on 03/02/2015 03:12 pm
MTom baited Jim about SpaceX's research acumen, and unfortunately chose a very boring procedure with which to do so. Let's let this tangent die quietly and quickly.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: saliva_sweet on 03/02/2015 03:31 pm
Yeah, great discussion:

A: LOX is behaving interestingly in the video
B: Pfft. It's ullage, go read up on the wikipedia.
A: Ullage burn is surprisingly long, didn't even know that.
B: Who said it's ullage? Stop jumping to conclusions!
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 03/02/2015 03:51 pm
On to a different topic, then.

F9 Payload User's Guide shows a performance curve to GTO from the Cape, with a capacity of 4000 kg to 185 km x 60,000 km at 28.5 degrees.

Actual performance was 4,159 kg to 408 x 63,928 km. So the performance curve in the user's guide is pretty accurate, and SpaceX did slightly better than advertised.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: BabaORileyUSA on 03/02/2015 05:00 pm
< Actual performance was 4,159 kg to 408 x 63,928 km. So the performance curve in the user's guide is pretty accurate, and SpaceX did slightly better than advertised. >

Those are pre-launch predictions of nominal performance, not ACTUAL performance values.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 03/02/2015 05:09 pm
< Actual performance was 4,159 kg to 408 x 63,928 km. So the performance curve in the user's guide is pretty accurate, and SpaceX did slightly better than advertised. >

Those are pre-launch predictions of nominal performance, not ACTUAL performance values.

Ah, thank you for the correction. I took that from the paragraph in the William Graham article that implied the satellites had been injected into that *actual* orbit. SpaceX says they got *close* to that target orbit.

In any case, the GTO performance curve in the Payload Users Guide appears to be pretty accurate. I was just curious as to how up-to-date those curves are.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/02/2015 05:36 pm
Settling burn is standard practice. (AKA ullage burn). If you're not familiar with the concept, Google is your friend.

Well, at least the concept of applying ullage burn over 20 minutes until relight of the second stage seems odd to me.

I noticed the ullage burns on the animation SpaceX showed after SECO.  They actually showed the animated ullage bursts, and then interspersed the real images of the fuel tank.  But I hadn't recalled seeing that before on their telecast.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: king1999 on 03/02/2015 05:38 pm
< Actual performance was 4,159 kg to 408 x 63,928 km. So the performance curve in the user's guide is pretty accurate, and SpaceX did slightly better than advertised. >

Those are pre-launch predictions of nominal performance, not ACTUAL performance values.

Ah, thank you for the correction. I took that from the paragraph in the William Graham article that implied the satellites had been injected into that *actual* orbit. SpaceX says they got *close* to that target orbit.

In any case, the GTO performance curve in the Payload Users Guide appears to be pretty accurate. I was just curious as to how up-to-date those curves are.

https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/572259949302169600

Actual is 410 x 63000, very close to the prediction.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 03/02/2015 05:45 pm

https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/572259949302169600

Actual is 410 x 63000, very close to the prediction.

Thanks, I saw that quote too, but to be totally accurate, his source said it was "near" 63,000 km apogee, so we still don't know the exact parameters.

It was close to target. Good enough.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/02/2015 06:12 pm
On to a different topic, then.

F9 Payload User's Guide shows a performance curve to GTO from the Cape, with a capacity of 4000 kg to 185 km x 60,000 km at 28.5 degrees.

Actual performance was 4,159 kg to 408 x 63,928 km. So the performance curve in the user's guide is pretty accurate, and SpaceX did slightly better than advertised.
Actually, it did much better, since they also reduced the inclination.   The advertised orbit needs 1668 m/s to get to GEO.   The one they achieved, with 24.8 degree inclination, takes 1592 (or 1595 if it's really 410x63000).   To put that gain into context, GEO stationkeeping is about 50 m/s per year, so compared to the the manual, SpaceX put a heavier satellite into a better orbit that gives 1.5 years more lifetime.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: LastStarFighter on 03/02/2015 06:23 pm
On to a different topic, then.

F9 Payload User's Guide shows a performance curve to GTO from the Cape, with a capacity of 4000 kg to 185 km x 60,000 km at 28.5 degrees.

Actual performance was 4,159 kg to 408 x 63,928 km. So the performance curve in the user's guide is pretty accurate, and SpaceX did slightly better than advertised.
Actually, it did much better, since they also reduced the inclination.   The advertised orbit needs 1668 m/s to get to GEO.   The one they achieved, with 24.8 degree inclination, takes 1592 (or 1595 if it's really 410x63000).   To put that gain into context, GEO stationkeeping is about 50 m/s per year, so compared to the the manual, SpaceX put a heavier satellite into a better orbit that gives 1.5 years more lifetime.

Have they released a planners guide for the v1.1? Last time I saw one it was for the v1.0 so could you provide a link?

Only info I have seen for performance for the v1.1 (without recovery/legs) is on the NASA NLSII website. It says that the v1.1 should be able to deliver 4750 kg to GTO with 63000km apogee at 24.8 degrees. Sounds like they should have been able to give them even lower delta v to GEO. But I'm guessing that the NLSII numbers are for after the thrust/prop upgrades have occurred?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 03/02/2015 06:27 pm
Here's the guide for the "Block 2" vehicle.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/001/f9guide.pdf

The performance curves we're discussing are from that document and they appear to correlate well with this mission.

In terms of mass to orbit, the GTO curves indicate a capacity of around 3600-3700 kg to this orbit. The actual payload was around 4,100 kg, so the curves are low by about 10% on payload mass.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/02/2015 06:47 pm

Only info I have seen for performance for the v1.1 (without recovery/legs) is on the NASA NLSII website. It says that the v1.1 should be able to deliver 4750 kg to GTO with 63000km apogee at 24.8 degrees. Sounds like they should have been able to give them even lower delta v to GEO. But I'm guessing that the NLSII numbers are for after the thrust/prop upgrades have occurred?
A very crude guess says that going from 4186 kg to 4750 kg costs about 200 m/s.  Increased thrust will get closer to this spec by reducing gravity losses.  But increased thrust, combined with the sub-cooled fuel, can surely do this.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: LastStarFighter on 03/02/2015 06:48 pm
Here's the guide for the "Block 2" vehicle.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/001/f9guide.pdf

The performance curves we're discussing are from that document and they appear to correlate well with this mission.

In terms of mass to orbit, the GTO curves indicate a capacity of around 3600-3700 kg to this orbit. The actual payload was around 4,100 kg, so the curves are conservative by about 10% on payload mass.

I'm assuming F9 used all available energy since a plane change is required and F9 couldn't do all of it. So the fact that the resulting orbit closely matches the capacity shown in this User's Guide version (to within 10%) suggests that these curves are for current vehicle configuration.

That looks like the planners guide from 2009 for v1.0 with Merlin 1C's... Which would have a much lower capability than v1.1. NASA's NLS performance site has stated v1.1 performance numbers (I believe numbers on that site are required to be be the vehicle you are currently offering to NASA in NLSII). I think once SpaceX makes the planned mods to the vehicles we'll see the performance numbers more closely align with NLS.  Perhaps this is a discussion for a different thread. My apologies for the tangent.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 03/02/2015 06:52 pm
Yes, it does look like a guide for v 1.0, but the performance advertised therein is "only" about 10% lower than what they actually achieved on this mission with a v 1.1 rocket, and I didn't know whether to attribute that difference to estimating conservatism on the part of SpaceX or an actual difference in vehicle configuration.



Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: LastStarFighter on 03/02/2015 06:55 pm

Only info I have seen for performance for the v1.1 (without recovery/legs) is on the NASA NLSII website. It says that the v1.1 should be able to deliver 4750 kg to GTO with 63000km apogee at 24.8 degrees. Sounds like they should have been able to give them even lower delta v to GEO. But I'm guessing that the NLSII numbers are for after the thrust/prop upgrades have occurred?
A very crude guess says that going from 4186 kg to 4750 kg costs about 200 m/s.  Increased thrust will get closer to this spec by reducing gravity losses.  But increased thrust, combined with the sub-cooled fuel, can surely do this.

100% agree. I think as full throttle and densification come online (SES9 and beyond) they'll be at the advertised performance and we'll see these numbers match up. Looking forward to that because it means more landing attempts!
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: robertross on 03/02/2015 11:20 pm
Also, what is that bluish photographic view of the engine? Is that IR/thermal, or something else? It reminds me of the maw of the Doomsday machine from an old Trek episode.

It is liquid oxygen (LOX) inside the first stage tank - the one they normally try and land

No. This has always been the 2nd stage LOX tank.
I had it wrong the whole time then!
(smacks self).
thanks for the correction
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Mariusuiram on 03/03/2015 02:10 am
NORAD has finally released tracking TLEs for objects of this launch a few minutes ago:

40424/2015-010A: 432 x 63401 km x 24.71 deg.
40425/2015-010B: 400 x 63293 km x 24.86 deg.

Pulling this from the update thread to hopefully encourage more accurate discussion of performance. Object A falls short by ~500 km or 0.8%. I assume the higher apogee object would be the 2nd object released, but maybe my logic is reversed (does the stage shed velocity doing the 1st separation?).

And a question. My instinct is always that the slightly higher perigee than target is a good thing, but I believe its not, right?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/03/2015 02:18 am
NORAD has finally released tracking TLEs for objects of this launch a few minutes ago:

40424/2015-010A: 432 x 63401 km x 24.71 deg.
40425/2015-010B: 400 x 63293 km x 24.86 deg.

Pulling this from the update thread to hopefully encourage more accurate discussion of performance. Object A falls short by ~500 km or 0.8%. I assume the higher apogee object would be the 2nd object released, but maybe my logic is reversed (does the stage shed velocity doing the 1st separation?).

And a question. My instinct is always that the slightly higher perigee than target is a good thing, but I believe its not, right?
From these numbers, object A has 1592 m/s to GEO, and object B 1595 m/s. 
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: wbormann on 03/03/2015 02:39 am
NORAD has finally released tracking TLEs for objects of this launch a few minutes ago:

40424/2015-010A: 432 x 63401 km x 24.71 deg.
40425/2015-010B: 400 x 63293 km x 24.86 deg.

Pulling this from the update thread to hopefully encourage more accurate discussion of performance. Object A falls short by ~500 km or 0.8%. I assume the higher apogee object would be the 2nd object released, but maybe my logic is reversed (does the stage shed velocity doing the 1st separation?).

And a question. My instinct is always that the slightly higher perigee than target is a good thing, but I believe its not, right?

Right.  If I understand the mission, the target is a geosynchronous orbit.  So, engine burns will be at apogee;  the effect will be to gradually raise the orbit at perigee.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: just-nick on 03/03/2015 02:50 am
Settling burn is standard practice. (AKA ullage burn). If you're not familiar with the concept, Google is your friend.

Well, at least the concept of applying ullage burn over 20 minutes until relight of the second stage seems odd to me.

Aren't you making an assumption there? The webcast ended shortly after SECO1.

Also, ACS thrusters may have a slight settling effect, so what looked like a settling burn after SECO1 may have been just attitude/roll control maintenance.
Didn't some of the (early) Atlas-Centaur or Titan-Centaur flights do a low-trust ullage burn the entire coast period? But that was the early days of LH2, which is definitely an alien substance to play with...

Tangentially, does anyone know the configuration of the ACS on the Falcon 9 2nd stage? I dimly recall (my recollections are all dim tonight) from the old 1.0 payload planning guide that they were using 4x Dracos (presumably in some sort of canted configuration to give three axis control) and offered a "perigee raising" option with a long ACS burn at apogee. Looks like that is off the table, but I haven't seen what sort of system replaced the 1.0 version.

Cheers,

  --Nick
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 03/03/2015 03:27 am
Tangentially, does anyone know the configuration of the ACS on the Falcon 9 2nd stage? I dimly recall (my recollections are all dim tonight) from the old 1.0 payload planning guide that they were using 4x Dracos (presumably in some sort of canted configuration to give three axis control) and offered a "perigee raising" option with a long ACS burn at apogee. Looks like that is off the table, but I haven't seen what sort of system replaced the 1.0 version.

The v1.0 upper stage never flew with Draco's. It might have been planned as a Block II upgrade, who knows.

The v1.1 upper stage has Nitrogen(?) cold gas thrusters, there appears to be 12 (at least) placed in 4 groups around the M1D-Vac to provide complete attitude control and ullage. We actually got our first glimpses of their locations in the latest launch webcast. Look at this video, at the 35sec mark - A 3D representation of the upper stage is shown to the left, with lines indicating thruster firings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koBE9NKAC_c&t=36
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 03/03/2015 08:47 am
Right.  If I understand the mission, the target is a geosynchronous orbit.  So, engine burns will be at apogee;  the effect will be to gradually raise the orbit at perigee.

The process may be a bit different as the spacecraft are using low thrust/high-energy SEPs. Possibly thrusting for the entire way from perigee to apogee?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/03/2015 12:28 pm
Since this is a super sync transfer orbit, traditionally with hypergolics one would thrust at both apogee and perigee.

Thrust at perigee to lower the apogee and thrust at apogee to raise the perigee.

One would assume with low thrust SEP they would be thrusting almost continuously.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/03/2015 12:44 pm
FYI Jonathan McDowell just reported a third TLE has been released.

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/572751669689233409
Quote
Third object from Falcon9 launch, possibly the second stage rocket, tracked in 363 x 63109 km x 24.9 deg, just a little below the payloads
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: McDew on 03/03/2015 01:46 pm
So we have three objects with the following orbits:
40424/2015-010A: 432 x 63401 km x 24.71 deg.
40425/2015-010B: 400 x 63293 km x 24.86 deg.
40426/2015-010C: 406 x 63066 km x 24.84 deg
All objects are significantly lower than the target orbit altitude of 63,928km. Ranging from a 527km to 862 km shortfall.  All orbits appear to exceed the 3-sigma injection accuracies. Should this now be considered a partial failure?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/03/2015 01:54 pm
So we have three objects with the following orbits:
40424/2015-010A: 432 x 63401 km x 24.71 deg.
40425/2015-010B: 400 x 63293 km x 24.86 deg.
40426/2015-010C: 406 x 63066 km x 24.84 deg
All objects are significantly lower than the target orbit altitude of 63,928km. Ranging from a 527km to 862 km shortfall.  All orbits appear to exceed the 3-sigma injection accuracies. Should this now be considered a partial failure?

Usually the first tracking data from NORAD isn't exactly accurate (and it took almost 24 hours for the first TLE to appear). I guess when more TLEs come in it should reflect the real orbit.

Also, with such a high orbit isn't the delta-v within a few m/s of what it should be? Adding NORAD initial tracking inaccuracies, I don't think there's a problem, not even the non-clear-cut cases with dozens of m/s shortfall.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: OnWithTheShow on 03/03/2015 01:56 pm
I would think the slightly higher than target perigee and closer to GEO inclination would offset a lower than targeted apogee. But Im new to orbital mechanics.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 03/03/2015 02:08 pm
So we have three objects with the following orbits:
40424/2015-010A: 432 x 63401 km x 24.71 deg.
40425/2015-010B: 400 x 63293 km x 24.86 deg.
40426/2015-010C: 406 x 63066 km x 24.84 deg
All objects are significantly lower than the target orbit altitude of 63,928km. Ranging from a 527km to 862 km shortfall.  All orbits appear to exceed the 3-sigma injection accuracies. Should this now be considered a partial failure?

Run through calcs at www.satsig.net/orbit-research/delta-v-geo-injection-calculator.htm

Less than a kg difference in prop required for high ISP ion thruster transfer to Geo.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: avollhar on 03/03/2015 02:15 pm
All orbits appear to exceed the 3-sigma injection accuracies. Should this now be considered a partial failure?
Are the 3-sigma limits public somewhere? Could not find them right now..
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/03/2015 02:20 pm
So we have three objects with the following orbits:
40424/2015-010A: 432 x 63401 km x 24.71 deg.
40425/2015-010B: 400 x 63293 km x 24.86 deg.
40426/2015-010C: 406 x 63066 km x 24.84 deg
All objects are significantly lower than the target orbit altitude of 63,928km. Ranging from a 527km to 862 km shortfall.  All orbits appear to exceed the 3-sigma injection accuracies. Should this now be considered a partial failure?
Target orbit:  407.59 x 63928 @ 24.83 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1592.5 m/s
Achieved:      432       x 63401 @ 24.71 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1591.7 m/s  (0.8 m/s better than target)
Achieved       400       x 63293 @ 24.86 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1595.5 m/s  (probably the second stage)
Achieved       406       x 63066 @ 24.84 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1595.8 m/s  (3.3 m/s worse than target)

I don't know what the spec on injection error was, but these seem like very typical numbers.  I can't imagine 3.3 m/s is more than 3 sigma out.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 03/03/2015 03:09 pm
So we have three objects with the following orbits:
40424/2015-010A: 432 x 63401 km x 24.71 deg.
40425/2015-010B: 400 x 63293 km x 24.86 deg.
40426/2015-010C: 406 x 63066 km x 24.84 deg
All objects are significantly lower than the target orbit altitude of 63,928km. Ranging from a 527km to 862 km shortfall.  All orbits appear to exceed the 3-sigma injection accuracies. Should this now be considered a partial failure?

No, apogees of highly elliptical orbits are extremely sensitive to delta V, so small delta V difference will result in large variance in apogee. Therefore you have to judge insertion accuracy by delta V as Lou did above.

Also, the purpose of the high apogee is to give "leverage" to reduce the delta V needed for plane change. Final orbit will be lower. So variability in transfer orbit apogee is not that significant anyway.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: McDew on 03/03/2015 03:22 pm
Quoted apogee altitude injection accuracy values:
Atlas GTO = +/- 238 km
Atlas SSTO = +/- 475 km (estimated for 64,000 km, based upon 77k alt value of +/-586km in user's guide)
Proton GTO = +/-150 km
Proton SSTO = +/- 370km (65,000 km)
Falcon 9 GTO = +/- 130 km (user's guide)
Falcon 9 SSTO = ??? Should be less than Atlas and Proton, given lower GTO user's guide value.

[It is my view that] It is fairly obvious the mission exceeded what should be the injection accuracy.  Impact to mission is a separate discussion.

Edit/Lar: Change statement of fact to statement of opinion.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: pericynthion on 03/03/2015 03:40 pm
Also, the target orbit was probably not given in the same units + coordinate system as the NORAD tracking data (which is not, in itself, necessarily accurate to even 10s of km anyway).  Look up mean elements and osculating elements - that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/03/2015 03:42 pm
Someone reminded me that it may be difference between mean vs osculating elements as well - IIRC for such high orbits the figures do varies by hundreds of km.

IMHO if it was really off-3-sigmas the customers/insurers would make noise - that's how several borderline cases were discovered (Amos-3, Express AM-6).
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 03/03/2015 03:45 pm
Quoted apogee altitude injection accuracy values:
Atlas GTO = +/- 238 km
Atlas SSTO = +/- 475 km (estimated for 64,000 km, based upon 77k alt value of +/-586km in user's guide)
Proton GTO = +/-150 km
Proton SSTO = +/- 370km (65,000 km)
Falcon 9 GTO = +/- 130 km (user's guide)
Falcon 9 SSTO = ??? Should be less than Atlas and Proton, given lower GTO user's guide value.

It is fairly obvious the mission exceeded what should be the injection accuracy.  Impact to mission is a separate discussion.

That 130 km figure from the F9 user's guide is preceded by the following disclaimer: "Until verified by actual operations, SpaceX expects to achieve the following minimum target orbital insertion accuracy."

Obviously those were predictions before a GTO mission had been flown. And that user's guide has not been updated for some time. Presumably SpaceX will adjust their advertised accuracy based on actual experience, but don't expect that user's guide to reflect it. It hasn't even been updated to show the v1.1 F9.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: McDew on 03/03/2015 03:54 pm
Quoted apogee altitude injection accuracy values:
Atlas GTO = +/- 238 km
Atlas SSTO = +/- 475 km (estimated for 64,000 km, based upon 77k alt value of +/-586km in user's guide)
Proton GTO = +/-150 km
Proton SSTO = +/- 370km (65,000 km)
Falcon 9 GTO = +/- 130 km (user's guide)
Falcon 9 SSTO = ??? Should be less than Atlas and Proton, given lower GTO user's guide value.

It is fairly obvious the mission exceeded what should be the injection accuracy.  Impact to mission is a separate discussion.

That 130 km figure from the F9 user's guide is preceded by the following disclaimer: "Until verified by actual operations, SpaceX expects to achieve the following minimum target orbital insertion accuracy."

Obviously those were predictions before a GTO mission had been flown. And that user's guide has not been updated for some time. Presumably SpaceX will adjust their advertised accuracy based on actual experience, but don't expect that user's guide to reflect it. It hasn't even been updated to show the v1.1 F9.
[It is my view that] All previous missions have been very accurate (ie. no reason to change values).  So what happened on this mission to fall short [assuming that it did actually fall short rather than it just being my view that maybe it did]?

Edit/Lar: Change statement of fact to statement of opinion.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/03/2015 04:07 pm
Quoted apogee altitude injection accuracy values:
Atlas GTO = +/- 238 km
Atlas SSTO = +/- 475 km (estimated for 64,000 km, based upon 77k alt value of +/-586km in user's guide)
Proton GTO = +/-150 km
Proton SSTO = +/- 370km (65,000 km)
Falcon 9 GTO = +/- 130 km (user's guide)
Falcon 9 SSTO = ??? Should be less than Atlas and Proton, given lower GTO user's guide value.

It is fairly obvious the mission exceeded what should be the injection accuracy.  Impact to mission is a separate discussion.
This is not obvious at all, since inclination errors and apogee errors are tightly correlated in a way that largely cancels out.  Hence the metric the customer cares about is Delta-V to GEO.  The Atlas user's guide lists achieved (not spec) performance for 3 missions as (+2.2, -2.8, -2.8 m/s), or  -1.1 m/s +- 2.9 m/s std dev.  (See Table 2.3.3-2), so the accuracy on this mission (+0.8, -3.3) is very typical for an Atlas mission.

Of course the final authority on what defines an injection error, and how they are measured, is the contract between SpaceX, the satelllite owners, and their insurance companies.   I strongly suspect, but do not know for sure, that this is written in terms of delta-V to GEO.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: saliva_sweet on 03/03/2015 04:17 pm
Initial tracking results have always been off, I wish they had an error estimate. Also, the satellites may be thrusting by now. I wonder how that would affect orbit estimation from tracking data.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Sohl on 03/03/2015 04:25 pm
So we have three objects with the following orbits:
40424/2015-010A: 432 x 63401 km x 24.71 deg.
40425/2015-010B: 400 x 63293 km x 24.86 deg.
40426/2015-010C: 406 x 63066 km x 24.84 deg
All objects are significantly lower than the target orbit altitude of 63,928km. Ranging from a 527km to 862 km shortfall.  All orbits appear to exceed the 3-sigma injection accuracies. Should this now be considered a partial failure?

Needless concern trolling.   >:(   

Thanks Lou, Kabloona, et. al., for providing some useful perspective.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/03/2015 04:44 pm
Quoted apogee altitude injection accuracy values:
Atlas GTO = +/- 238 km
Atlas SSTO = +/- 475 km (estimated for 64,000 km, based upon 77k alt value of +/-586km in user's guide)
Proton GTO = +/-150 km
Proton SSTO = +/- 370km (65,000 km)
Falcon 9 GTO = +/- 130 km (user's guide)
Falcon 9 SSTO = ??? Should be less than Atlas and Proton, given lower GTO user's guide value.

It is fairly obvious the mission exceeded what should be the injection accuracy.  Impact to mission is a separate discussion.

Since SSTO error range is not given, since those +/- values aren't specified as to whether they are 1 sigma or 3 sigma, and since we don't know the final orbital elements with accuracy, how is your conclusion in any way obvious?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: McDew on 03/03/2015 04:52 pm
So we have three objects with the following orbits:
40424/2015-010A: 432 x 63401 km x 24.71 deg.
40425/2015-010B: 400 x 63293 km x 24.86 deg.
40426/2015-010C: 406 x 63066 km x 24.84 deg
All objects are significantly lower than the target orbit altitude of 63,928km. Ranging from a 527km to 862 km shortfall.  All orbits appear to exceed the 3-sigma injection accuracies. Should this now be considered a partial failure?

Needless concern trolling.   >:(   
Let the data stand on its own merit.  Given that it is a SSTO mission the error in the shortfall in apogee becomes minor when calculating the delta v to GSO.  Standard process is to write the injection accuracy requirement relative to the orbital elements (not delta v) which is what the SV manufacture needs to do their analyses.  Why the double standard?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: McDew on 03/03/2015 05:02 pm
Quoted apogee altitude injection accuracy values:
Atlas GTO = +/- 238 km
Atlas SSTO = +/- 475 km (estimated for 64,000 km, based upon 77k alt value of +/-586km in user's guide)
Proton GTO = +/-150 km
Proton SSTO = +/- 370km (65,000 km)
Falcon 9 GTO = +/- 130 km (user's guide)
Falcon 9 SSTO = ??? Should be less than Atlas and Proton, given lower GTO user's guide value.

It is fairly obvious the mission exceeded what should be the injection accuracy.  Impact to mission is a separate discussion.

Since SSTO error range is not given, since those +/- values aren't specified as to whether they are 1 sigma or 3 sigma, and since we don't know the final orbital elements with accuracy, how is your conclusion in any way obvious?
I was previously told it was 3-sigma.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/03/2015 05:32 pm
FYI, Chris will try to get some quotes about the orbital injection accuracy of this flight on L2.  ;)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: AJW on 03/03/2015 05:44 pm
It seems that if there are concerns, you would think that these would be raised by the customers.   Eutelsat is receiving telemetry and they are calling the launch successful.  ABS is also calling it a successful launch.

Quote
Cape Canaveral, Paris 2 March 2015 – Eutelsat Communications (NYSE Euronext Paris: ETL) announces the successful launch of the EUTELSAT 115 West B satellite. The 2.2-tonne all-electric satellite built by Boeing was lofted into orbit on 1 March at 10.50 EST (03.50 UTC). It separated from the Falcon 9 launcher after a 35-minute flight, with telemetry subsequently received and processed at Boeing’s mission control centre in El Segundo, California.

Speaking from Cape Canaveral, Michel de Rosen, Eutelsat Chairman and CEO, said: “We are delighted to see EUTELSAT 115 West B on its way into space and thank SpaceX for this successful launch."

http://news.eutelsat.com/pressreleases/eutelsat-115-west-b-launched-successfully-into-space-1123649
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: MP99 on 03/03/2015 08:48 pm


So we have three objects with the following orbits:
40424/2015-010A: 432 x 63401 km x 24.71 deg.
40425/2015-010B: 400 x 63293 km x 24.86 deg.
40426/2015-010C: 406 x 63066 km x 24.84 deg
All objects are significantly lower than the target orbit altitude of 63,928km. Ranging from a 527km to 862 km shortfall.  All orbits appear to exceed the 3-sigma injection accuracies. Should this now be considered a partial failure?
Target orbit:  407.59 x 63928 @ 24.83 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1592.5 m/s
Achieved:      432       x 63401 @ 24.71 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1591.7 m/s  (0.8 m/s better than target)
Achieved       400       x 63293 @ 24.86 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1595.5 m/s  (probably the second stage)
Achieved       406       x 63066 @ 24.84 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1595.8 m/s  (3.3 m/s worse than target)

I don't know what the spec on injection error was, but these seem like very typical numbers.  I can't imagine 3.3 m/s is more than 3 sigma out.

IIRC, the two sats separate as a single unit, then separate from each other?

Perhaps, then, the difference between the dV's of the two payloads is caused by the separation impulse - I'm guessing they separate via springs? OTOH, that would imply a separation speed of 2 m/s from their combined CoG, which seems too high?

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: lbiderman on 03/03/2015 09:02 pm


So we have three objects with the following orbits:
40424/2015-010A: 432 x 63401 km x 24.71 deg.
40425/2015-010B: 400 x 63293 km x 24.86 deg.
40426/2015-010C: 406 x 63066 km x 24.84 deg
All objects are significantly lower than the target orbit altitude of 63,928km. Ranging from a 527km to 862 km shortfall.  All orbits appear to exceed the 3-sigma injection accuracies. Should this now be considered a partial failure?
Target orbit:  407.59 x 63928 @ 24.83 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1592.5 m/s
Achieved:      432       x 63401 @ 24.71 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1591.7 m/s  (0.8 m/s better than target)
Achieved       400       x 63293 @ 24.86 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1595.5 m/s  (probably the second stage)
Achieved       406       x 63066 @ 24.84 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1595.8 m/s  (3.3 m/s worse than target)

I don't know what the spec on injection error was, but these seem like very typical numbers.  I can't imagine 3.3 m/s is more than 3 sigma out.

IIRC, the two sats separate as a single unit, then separate from each other?

Perhaps, then, the difference between the dV's of the two payloads is caused by the separation impulse - I'm guessing they separate via springs? OTOH, that would imply a separation speed of 2 m/s from their combined CoG, which seems too high?

Cheers, Martin

No, they separate individually from the upper stage.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: ElGuapoGuano1 on 03/03/2015 09:37 pm
Relevant to this discussion, I just saw this from my twitter feed. So take it for what it's worth.
Peter B. de Selding ‏@pbdes 
SpaceX Eutelsat/ABS sats launch was on target re orbital injection, customers say. ABS: Dropoff point will shorten our time to GEO arrival.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 03/03/2015 09:48 pm
ABS: Dropoff point will shorten our time to GEO arrival.

"Dropoff point" meaning the slightly low apogee?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: cscott on 03/03/2015 10:15 pm
ABS: Dropoff point will shorten our time to GEO arrival.

"Dropoff point" meaning the slightly low apogee?

I'm guessing that ABS is the "0.8m/s higher than target deltaV" object in LouScheffer's post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36065.msg1340922#msg1340922).  Eutelsat is probably the lower-energy object, which is still nominal just not "better than expected" like ABS.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 03/03/2015 10:30 pm
ABS: Dropoff point will shorten our time to GEO arrival.

"Dropoff point" meaning the slightly low apogee?

I'm guessing that ABS is the "0.8m/s higher than target deltaV" object in LouScheffer's post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36065.msg1340922#msg1340922).  Eutelsat is probably the lower-energy object, which is still nominal just not "better than expected" like ABS.

OK, so the perigee was high...
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 03/03/2015 11:03 pm
As this was the first deployment from Boeing's new dual-stacked architecture, it's also possible that there was some difference between expected release kick and actual.  This may be more relevant for the upper satellite though.  Could that also affect the sat in the lower slot?  That one's still just mated to the SpaceX payload mating adapter. 

Based on the delta-v calculations upthread, I don't believe that the injections/performance was anything other than nominal (either in respect to SpaceX or Boeing), but this first full-up usage of the system could also account for some of the divergence.  But really, McDew's concerns seem a bit overblown given the currently available information.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Lars-J on 03/03/2015 11:42 pm
ABS: Dropoff point will shorten our time to GEO arrival.

"Dropoff point" meaning the slightly low apogee?

Apogee isn't all that matters. The dropoff point is the orbit as a whole. Perigee and inclination can be just as important (or even moreso).
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: McDew on 03/04/2015 01:48 am
ABS: Dropoff point will shorten our time to GEO arrival.

"Dropoff point" meaning the slightly low apogee?

Apogee isn't all that matters. The dropoff point is the orbit as a whole. Perigee and inclination can be just as important (or even moreso).
Agreed.  For electric orbit raising duration, inclination is more sensitive for this transfer orbit.  They hit the inclination which shortened time to GEO.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Kabloona on 03/04/2015 02:11 am
They hit the inclination which shortened time to GEO.

So ABS is the object at 24.71 degrees, better than the target of 24.83, thus the shorter time to GEO.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/05/2015 12:42 am
Quoted apogee altitude injection accuracy values:
Atlas GTO = +/- 238 km
Atlas SSTO = +/- 475 km (estimated for 64,000 km, based upon 77k alt value of +/-586km in user's guide)
Proton GTO = +/-150 km
Proton SSTO = +/- 370km (65,000 km)
Falcon 9 GTO = +/- 130 km (user's guide)
Falcon 9 SSTO = ??? Should be less than Atlas and Proton, given lower GTO user's guide value.

[It is my view that] It is fairly obvious the mission exceeded what should be the injection accuracy.  Impact to mission is a separate discussion.

Edit/Lar: Change statement of fact to statement of opinion.

And, based on information in L2, the opinion was wrong.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: rower2000 on 03/05/2015 06:18 am
Quoted apogee altitude injection accuracy values:
Atlas GTO = +/- 238 km
Atlas SSTO = +/- 475 km (estimated for 64,000 km, based upon 77k alt value of +/-586km in user's guide)
Proton GTO = +/-150 km
Proton SSTO = +/- 370km (65,000 km)
Falcon 9 GTO = +/- 130 km (user's guide)
Falcon 9 SSTO = ??? Should be less than Atlas and Proton, given lower GTO user's guide value.

[It is my view that] It is fairly obvious the mission exceeded what should be the injection accuracy.  Impact to mission is a separate discussion.

Edit/Lar: Change statement of fact to statement of opinion.

And, based on information in L2, the opinion was wrong.
So there was a problem? Or do I have some language issues here - I always thought of "exceeding the accuracy" meaning better than published accuracy?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/05/2015 06:37 am
Quoted apogee altitude injection accuracy values:
Atlas GTO = +/- 238 km
Atlas SSTO = +/- 475 km (estimated for 64,000 km, based upon 77k alt value of +/-586km in user's guide)
Proton GTO = +/-150 km
Proton SSTO = +/- 370km (65,000 km)
Falcon 9 GTO = +/- 130 km (user's guide)
Falcon 9 SSTO = ??? Should be less than Atlas and Proton, given lower GTO user's guide value.

[It is my view that] It is fairly obvious the mission exceeded what should be the injection accuracy.  Impact to mission is a separate discussion.

Edit/Lar: Change statement of fact to statement of opinion.

And, based on information in L2, the opinion was wrong.
So there was a problem? Or do I have some language issues here - I always thought of "exceeding the accuracy" meaning better than published accuracy?

I can understand the confusion.  It stems from McDew's phrase, "the mission exceeded what should be the injection accuracy".  From the following sentence about impact on the mission, it's clear he meant the difference between the planned and actual orbits exceeded the expected error bounds.

Lee Jay's statement was that this was incorrect, based on L2 information.  That is, the L2 information says there wasn't actually a problem.  For more detail on what exactly that L2 information was, you'll need to join L2 or wait for the information to come out publicly.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2015 02:51 pm
I'll use what we know in the next article, but seen as some folk were bursting to say it, the performance was not only totally acceptable for the customers, the performance was actually above expectations (in that they had prop to spare).

Bottom line is the performance was great. No problem. Happy customers. Happy F9 S2. Happy everyone - apart from rivals....

Now on to the next mission....
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/05/2015 03:14 pm
So we have three objects with the following orbits:
40424/2015-010A: 432 x 63401 km x 24.71 deg.
40425/2015-010B: 400 x 63293 km x 24.86 deg.
40426/2015-010C: 406 x 63066 km x 24.84 deg
All objects are significantly lower than the target orbit altitude of 63,928km. Ranging from a 527km to 862 km shortfall.  All orbits appear to exceed the 3-sigma injection accuracies. Should this now be considered a partial failure?
Target orbit:  407.59 x 63928 @ 24.83 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1592.5 m/s
Achieved:      432       x 63401 @ 24.71 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1591.7 m/s  (0.8 m/s better than target)
Achieved       400       x 63293 @ 24.86 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1595.5 m/s  (probably the second stage)
Achieved       406       x 63066 @ 24.84 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1595.8 m/s  (3.3 m/s worse than target)

I don't know what the spec on injection error was, but these seem like very typical numbers.  I can't imagine 3.3 m/s is more than 3 sigma out.
And a tip of the hat to BowShock, who pointed out these you can do slightly better.
Not at my home computer to smash this out, but the retrograde burn can take out some inclination as well.  Law of cosines make small plane changes during in-plane burns cheap.  Fairly straightforward optimization that [...] should result in lower total dV.
Trying this out, changing the inclination of the second transfer orbit to 1.35 degrees saves another 8 m/s or so.  It's almost exactly the same for all the orbits above and so does not change the relative comparisons.  Every little bit helps!
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 03/05/2015 03:37 pm
So we have three objects with the following orbits:
40424/2015-010A: 432 x 63401 km x 24.71 deg.
40425/2015-010B: 400 x 63293 km x 24.86 deg.
40426/2015-010C: 406 x 63066 km x 24.84 deg
All objects are significantly lower than the target orbit altitude of 63,928km. Ranging from a 527km to 862 km shortfall.  All orbits appear to exceed the 3-sigma injection accuracies. Should this now be considered a partial failure?
Target orbit:  407.59 x 63928 @ 24.83 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1592.5 m/s
Achieved:      432       x 63401 @ 24.71 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1591.7 m/s  (0.8 m/s better than target)
Achieved       400       x 63293 @ 24.86 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1595.5 m/s  (probably the second stage)
Achieved       406       x 63066 @ 24.84 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1595.8 m/s  (3.3 m/s worse than target)

I don't know what the spec on injection error was, but these seem like very typical numbers.  I can't imagine 3.3 m/s is more than 3 sigma out.
And a tip of the hat to BowShock, who pointed out these you can do slightly better.
Not at my home computer to smash this out, but the retrograde burn can take out some inclination as well.  Law of cosines make small plane changes during in-plane burns cheap.  Fairly straightforward optimization that [...] should result in lower total dV.
Trying this out, changing the inclination of the second transfer orbit to 1.35 degrees saves another 8 m/s or so.  It's almost exactly the same for all the orbits above and so does not change the relative comparisons.  Every little bit helps!

Yeah, but you've got to remember to do it for your original target orbit too so the comparison is still fair.   ;)
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/05/2015 03:45 pm
Quoted apogee altitude injection accuracy values:
Atlas GTO = +/- 238 km
Atlas SSTO = +/- 475 km (estimated for 64,000 km, based upon 77k alt value of +/-586km in user's guide)
Proton GTO = +/-150 km
Proton SSTO = +/- 370km (65,000 km)
Falcon 9 GTO = +/- 130 km (user's guide)
Falcon 9 SSTO = ??? Should be less than Atlas and Proton, given lower GTO user's guide value.

[It is my view that] It is fairly obvious the mission exceeded what should be the injection accuracy.  Impact to mission is a separate discussion.

Edit/Lar: Change statement of fact to statement of opinion.
At least sometimes, the contractual specs are pretty loose.  For this Atlas launch, for example, the apogee was spec'ed to be somewhere in a 37,000 km range, and the inclination could be any reasonable value.
Quote
ILS says the satellite was delivered "right on the mark" of orbital data supplied by BSS, with a perigee of 167.1km compared with the mission requirement of 167km, an apogee of 122,343km (requirement 86,882-123,622km) and inclination of 26.25° (requirement 28.1° or less).
From http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-and-ils-look-into-superbird-orbit-mistake-182062/ .  Of course for this launch it did not turn out so well.  They forgot to allow for the influence of the moon on such a high apogee, they must not have ranged perigee on the first pass, and the perigee decayed to 100(!) km.  The satellite did un-intended aerobraking, used up a year or two of fuel to recover, and never worked quite right again....
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/05/2015 03:54 pm
So we have three objects with the following orbits:
40424/2015-010A: 432 x 63401 km x 24.71 deg.
40425/2015-010B: 400 x 63293 km x 24.86 deg.
40426/2015-010C: 406 x 63066 km x 24.84 deg
All objects are significantly lower than the target orbit altitude of 63,928km. Ranging from a 527km to 862 km shortfall.  All orbits appear to exceed the 3-sigma injection accuracies. Should this now be considered a partial failure?
Target orbit:  407.59 x 63928 @ 24.83 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1592.5 m/s
Achieved:      432       x 63401 @ 24.71 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1591.7 m/s  (0.8 m/s better than target)
Achieved       400       x 63293 @ 24.86 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1595.5 m/s  (probably the second stage)
Achieved       406       x 63066 @ 24.84 degrees  -> Delta V to GEO = 1595.8 m/s  (3.3 m/s worse than target)

I don't know what the spec on injection error was, but these seem like very typical numbers.  I can't imagine 3.3 m/s is more than 3 sigma out.
And a tip of the hat to BowShock, who pointed out these you can do slightly better.
Not at my home computer to smash this out, but the retrograde burn can take out some inclination as well.  Law of cosines make small plane changes during in-plane burns cheap.  Fairly straightforward optimization that [...] should result in lower total dV.
Trying this out, changing the inclination of the second transfer orbit to 1.35 degrees saves another 8 m/s or so.  It's almost exactly the same for all the orbits above and so does not change the relative comparisons.  Every little bit helps!

Yeah, but you've got to remember to do it for your original target orbit too so the comparison is still fair.   ;)
I did.  It's roughly 8.2 m/s for all 4 of the orbits shown above.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/05/2015 04:29 pm
Space-Track lists 2015-10A as ABS-3A, 2015-10B as Eutelsat 115 West B, and 2015-10C as the Falcon 9 second stage.  The tracked orbit listings have shifted a bit every day since the launch, with the perigees decreasing to about 360-365 km as of today.  It will be interesting to see how the orbits change when thrusting begins.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: ugordan on 03/09/2015 10:45 am
A rare decent video of the launch given the foggy conditions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EURv0B1GPHg

Includes a good view of something I saw in another pad camera view - something incandescent was chucked out of the flame trench. A brick? Or is it all solid concrete there?

EDIT: Also, look at those reflected shockwaves in the 2nd remote camera view, propagating through the fog.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: fthomassy on 03/09/2015 01:31 pm
... - something incandescent was chucked out of the flame trench. A brick? Or is it all solid concrete there?
Looks like propagation of igniting (exploding? deflagrating?) oxygen that settled in the trench during turbo chill.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/15/2015 06:36 pm
The satellites may have begun to maneuver.  ABS 3A perigee is now 449 km and Eutelsat 115 West B is 439 km, up from 362 and 363 km ten days ago.

As of March 15, 2015

ABS 3A:   449 x  63,530 km x 24.99 deg
Eutelsat 115 WB:  439 x 63,363 km x 24.99 deg
Falcon 9 Stg 2:  366 x 63,372 km x 25.03 deg

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/15/2015 07:24 pm
Has the apogee started to drop yet? Or are they working on reducing the inclination first?

The reason I ask is based on the early TLE's (which had error bars) it doesn't look like it has.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: deruch on 03/15/2015 11:01 pm
The satellites may have begun to maneuver.  ABS 3A perigee is now 449 km and Eutelsat 115 West B is 439 km, up from 362 and 363 km ten days ago.

As of March 15, 2015

ABS 3A:   449 x  63,530 km x 24.99 deg
Eutelsat 115 WB:  439 x 63,363 km x 24.99 deg
Falcon 9 Stg 2:  366 x 63,372 km x 25.03 deg

 - Ed Kyle

http://news.eutelsat.com/pressreleases/eutelsat-115-west-b-world-first-all-electric-satellite-begins-ascent-to-geostationary-orbit-1129357

EUTELSAT 115 West B, world first all-electric satellite, begins ascent to geostationary orbit
Press Release  •  Mar 12, 2015 09:27 GMT

Paris, 12 March 2015 – Eutelsat Communications (NYSE Euronext Paris: ETL) announces that the xenon-ion thrusters of the all-electric EUTELSAT 115 West B satellite have been powered up, enabling the ascent from supersynchronous transfer orbit to geostationary orbit to be initiated as planned on 12 March. Eutelsat’s new satellite was launched by SpaceX on 1 March.

The 2.2-tonne EUTELSAT 115 West B was prepped for electric propulsion orbit raising in the days following the launch by its prime contractor, Boeing, from its El Segundo facilities in California. Other key activities included full deployment of the satellite’s solar panels that was successfully carried out on 6 March, giving a total wingspan of 33 metres and enabling power to be generated for the electric orbit raising and activation of the communications payload later in the mission.

Orbit raising is scheduled to last for approximately eight months and will be followed by performance tests prior to the new satellite’s commercial entry into service in November 2015.

Equipped with 12 C-band and 34 Ku-band transponders connected to four service areas, EUTELSAT 115 West B will extend reach of the Americas to markets in Alaska and Canada, replacing the EUTELSAT 115 West A satellite that operates in inclined orbit at 114.9° West. It will focus in particular on serving clients providing data services, including broadband access, cellular backhaul, VSAT solutions and social connectivity.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 03/16/2015 03:15 pm
Has the apogee started to drop yet? Or are they working on reducing the inclination first?

The reason I ask is based on the early TLE's (which had error bars) it doesn't look like it has.
Without serious thought on continuous-thrust trajectories, I suspect apogee-lowering is one of the last tasks.  Removing inclination needs less delta-V when the apogee is high, so no sense reducing it until you need to.

Also, another initial objective might well be to raise perigee above the Van Allen belts, to reduce radiation exposure.

A paper on this is "ADVANTAGES OF A CONTINUOUS THRUST STRATEGY FROM A GEOSYNCHRONOUS TRANSFER ORBIT, USING HIGH SPECIFIC IMPULSE THRUSTERS" at http://issfd.org/ISSFD_1999/pdf/OC1_1.pdf .  It suggests it may even be preferable to increase the apogee during the initial stages, before reducing it later.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/20/2015 02:13 am
As of March 15, 2015
ABS 3A:   449 x  63,530 km x 24.99 deg
Eutelsat 115 WB:  439 x 63,363 km x 24.99 deg
Falcon 9 Stg 2:  366 x 63,372 km x 25.03 deg
As of March 19, 2015
ABS 3A:   1,532 x  62,330 km x 22.63 deg
Eutelsat 115 WB:  1,785 x 62,089 km x 23.59 deg
Falcon 9 Stg 2:  365 x 63,373 km x 25.07 deg

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/24/2015 05:34 pm
As of March 15, 2015
ABS 3A:   449 x  63,530 km x 24.99 deg
Eutelsat 115 WB:  439 x 63,363 km x 24.99 deg
Falcon 9 Stg 2:  366 x 63,372 km x 25.03 deg
As of March 19, 2015
ABS 3A:   1,532 x  62,330 km x 22.63 deg
Eutelsat 115 WB:  1,785 x 62,089 km x 23.59 deg
Falcon 9 Stg 2:  365 x 63,373 km x 25.07 deg
As of March 24, 2015.  Inclination change evident.
ABS 3A:  1,352 x 64,144 km x 20.66 deg
Eutelsat 115 WB:  1,221 x 64,035 km x 21.38 deg
Falcon 9 Stg 2:  365 x 63,373 km x 25.07 deg

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/02/2015 01:11 pm
As of March 15, 2015
ABS 3A:   449 x  63,530 km x 24.99 deg
Eutelsat 115 WB:  439 x 63,363 km x 24.99 deg
Falcon 9 Stg 2:  366 x 63,372 km x 25.03 deg
As of March 19, 2015
ABS 3A:   1,532 x  62,330 km x 22.63 deg
Eutelsat 115 WB:  1,785 x 62,089 km x 23.59 deg
Falcon 9 Stg 2:  365 x 63,373 km x 25.07 deg
As of March 24, 2015.  Inclination change evident.
ABS 3A:  1,352 x 64,144 km x 20.66 deg
Eutelsat 115 WB:  1,221 x 64,035 km x 21.38 deg
Falcon 9 Stg 2:  365 x 63,373 km x 25.07 deg
One month after launch, Eutelsat is at 3,072 x 61,868 km x 19.36 deg.  ABS 3A is at 1,139 x 64,561 km x 17.54 deg.  Interesting that the two satellites appear to be using different ascent profiles at this point, with ABS 3A focusing more on inclination reduction.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: rpapo on 04/02/2015 01:52 pm
One month after launch, Eutelsat is at 3,072 x 61,868 km x 19.36 deg.  ABS 3A is at 1,139 x 64,561 km x 17.54 deg.  Interesting that the two satellites appear to be using different ascent profiles at this point, with ABS 3A focusing more on inclination reduction.

 - Ed Kyle
Could this be deliberate attempt at gaining as much experience about electric drive as possible?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 04/02/2015 02:31 pm
As of March 15, 2015
ABS 3A:   449 x  63,530 km x 24.99 deg
Eutelsat 115 WB:  439 x 63,363 km x 24.99 deg
Falcon 9 Stg 2:  366 x 63,372 km x 25.03 deg
As of March 19, 2015
ABS 3A:   1,532 x  62,330 km x 22.63 deg
Eutelsat 115 WB:  1,785 x 62,089 km x 23.59 deg
Falcon 9 Stg 2:  365 x 63,373 km x 25.07 deg
As of March 24, 2015.  Inclination change evident.
ABS 3A:  1,352 x 64,144 km x 20.66 deg
Eutelsat 115 WB:  1,221 x 64,035 km x 21.38 deg
Falcon 9 Stg 2:  365 x 63,373 km x 25.07 deg
One month after launch, Eutelsat is at 3,072 x 61,868 km x 19.36 deg.  ABS 3A is at 1,139 x 64,561 km x 17.54 deg.  Interesting that the two satellites appear to be using different ascent profiles at this point, with ABS 3A focusing more on inclination reduction.

 - Ed Kyle
Conversely, you could say that Eutelsat has focused more on getting the perigee up and out of the (inner) Van Allen belt.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: baldusi on 04/02/2015 10:36 pm
As of March 15, 2015
ABS 3A:   449 x  63,530 km x 24.99 deg
Eutelsat 115 WB:  439 x 63,363 km x 24.99 deg
Falcon 9 Stg 2:  366 x 63,372 km x 25.03 deg
As of March 19, 2015
ABS 3A:   1,532 x  62,330 km x 22.63 deg
Eutelsat 115 WB:  1,785 x 62,089 km x 23.59 deg
Falcon 9 Stg 2:  365 x 63,373 km x 25.07 deg
As of March 24, 2015.  Inclination change evident.
ABS 3A:  1,352 x 64,144 km x 20.66 deg
Eutelsat 115 WB:  1,221 x 64,035 km x 21.38 deg
Falcon 9 Stg 2:  365 x 63,373 km x 25.07 deg
One month after launch, Eutelsat is at 3,072 x 61,868 km x 19.36 deg.  ABS 3A is at 1,139 x 64,561 km x 17.54 deg.  Interesting that the two satellites appear to be using different ascent profiles at this point, with ABS 3A focusing more on inclination reduction.

 - Ed Kyle
May be they are looking for different orbital slots and the precession needs are different?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/05/2015 05:43 pm
One month after launch, Eutelsat is at 3,072 x 61,868 km x 19.36 deg.  ABS 3A is at 1,139 x 64,561 km x 17.54 deg.  Interesting that the two satellites appear to be using different ascent profiles at this point, with ABS 3A focusing more on inclination reduction.

 - Ed Kyle

Could this be deliberate attempt at gaining as much experience about electric drive as possible?

Or maybe they're trying to manoeuvre the two satellites apart as soon as possible. Why? Maybe to avoid possible mutual interference due to RCS plumes.

That said, how far apart are ABS-3A and Eutelsat-115WB's target orbital slots?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/05/2015 07:19 pm
One month after launch, Eutelsat is at 3,072 x 61,868 km x 19.36 deg.  ABS 3A is at 1,139 x 64,561 km x 17.54 deg.  Interesting that the two satellites appear to be using different ascent profiles at this point, with ABS 3A focusing more on inclination reduction.

 - Ed Kyle
Could this be deliberate attempt at gaining as much experience about electric drive as possible?

Maybe Boeing, with the owners'/operators' permission, is testing two separate GTO to GEO mission profiles?
If no one has ever used "all-electric" to perform this before, maybe there are open questions about the details of how to best accomplish it?

"Best" might be different for differing payloads or requirements?
(I know best is a subjective term.)

A thought,
Zubenelgenubi
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Joffan on 04/05/2015 09:53 pm
One month after launch, Eutelsat is at 3,072 x 61,868 km x 19.36 deg.  ABS 3A is at 1,139 x 64,561 km x 17.54 deg.  Interesting that the two satellites appear to be using different ascent profiles at this point, with ABS 3A focusing more on inclination reduction.

 - Ed Kyle

Could this be deliberate attempt at gaining as much experience about electric drive as possible?

Or maybe they're trying to manoeuvre the two satellites apart as soon as possible. Why? Maybe to avoid possible mutual interference due to RCS plumes.

That said, how far apart are ABS-3A and Eutelsat-115WB's target orbital slots?

Quote from: Douglas Adams
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
The satellites are in no danger of affecting each other.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 04/06/2015 04:36 am
Quote from: Douglas Adams
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
The satellites are in no danger of affecting each other.
Very much so, and a wonderful quote.  I can hear the British accent of the original BBC radio comedy just reading this.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/17/2015 03:35 am
As of April 16, 2015
Falcon 9 second stage:   370 x 63,359 km x 25.32 deg
Eutelsat 115 West B:   3,322 x 64,258 km x 14.24 deg
ABS 3A:                       4,273 x 64,666 km x 12.43 deg

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Tonioroffo on 04/17/2015 09:44 am
Quote
Falcon 9 second stage:   370 x 63,359 km x 25.32 deg

What is the reason the 2nd stage is still out there?  Does it take that long to deorbit?
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: SwissCheese on 04/17/2015 10:05 am
Quote
Falcon 9 second stage:   370 x 63,359 km x 25.32 deg

What is the reason the 2nd stage is still out there?  Does it take that long to deorbit?

The perigee is rather high at 370 km, where the drag is quite low, and only happens during a short part of the orbit, so yes it will take a long time to deorbit.

This high perigee was probably chosen because of the electric propulsion used by the satellites launched: since the electric propulsion is raising their orbit rather slowly, they would have experienced a lot of drag using a usual perigee altitude for GTO launches (~185 km).

There are software available, where you can estimate the decay of satellites, but you have to know several parameters of the object (such as shape, weight, ...). Maybe someone here can give an estimation?

Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: eriblo on 04/17/2015 10:11 am
Quote
Falcon 9 second stage:   370 x 63,359 km x 25.32 deg

What is the reason the 2nd stage is still out there?  Does it take that long to deorbit?

The perigee is rather high at 370 km, where the drag is quite low, and only happens during a short part of the orbit, so yes it will take a long time to deorbit.

This high perigee was probably chosen because of the electric propulsion used by the satellites launched: since the electric propulsion is raising their orbit rather slowly, they would have experienced a lot of drag using a usual perigee altitude for GTO launches (~185 km).

There are software available, where you can estimate the decay of satellites, but you have to know several parameters of the object (such as shape, weight, ...). Maybe someone here can give an estimation?

Not an expert but a comparison: the ISS used to orbit lower than that (~350 km, constantly) and only lost about 2-3 km in altitude per month, despite the huge solar panels. You need to get lower before the drag becomes significant.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/17/2015 01:16 pm
If you look at Ed's 3/15 post you will see that the second stage was in 366 x 63,372 km x 25.03 deg orbit.
32 days later it is in a 370 x 63,359 km x 25.32 deg orbit.

So the apogee has dropped 13 km in 32 days, or a little under half a km a day (ignoring any lunar effects, notice the perigee went from 366 to 370 km). The average orbital altitude dropped only 8km or 1/4 km a day.

Really bad math say it will be up for the at least the next 80ish years give or take a few decades.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: LouScheffer on 04/17/2015 01:18 pm
Quote
Falcon 9 second stage:   370 x 63,359 km x 25.32 deg

What is the reason the 2nd stage is still out there?  Does it take that long to deorbit?
The rule is that you are supposed to leave the stage in an orbit that will decay in less than 25 years, so it does not remain a long-term hazard.  If I recall correctly, that means less than a (roughly)  400 km perigee for GTO orbits and typical second stage drag numbers.   The current perigee is not much less than 400 and so the stage may well be up there for another decade or so.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/17/2015 05:33 pm
Quote
Falcon 9 second stage:   370 x 63,359 km x 25.32 deg

What is the reason the 2nd stage is still out there?  Does it take that long to deorbit?
The rule is that you are supposed to leave the stage in an orbit that will decay in less than 25 years, so it does not remain a long-term hazard.  If I recall correctly, that means less than a (roughly)  400 km perigee for GTO orbits and typical second stage drag numbers.   The current perigee is not much less than 400 and so the stage may well be up there for another decade or so.

The amateur satellite-trackers will like the addition of another item to their observing lists?
Checking Heavens-above http://www.heavens-above.com/ (http://www.heavens-above.com/), I see only 5 Falcon 9 2nd stages still orbiting:
Dragon C1,
CASSIOPE,
AsiaSat 8,
DSCOVR,
and this flight's.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Tonioroffo on 04/18/2015 03:48 pm
Thanks all, for clearing that up.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/15/2015 03:55 am
As of May 12, 2015
Falcon 9 second stage:   386 x 63,327 km x 25.55 deg
Eutelsat 115 West B:   6,635 x 62,713 x 8.64 deg
ABS 3A:                       8,262 x 62,508 km x 7.16 deg

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Comga on 05/15/2015 05:37 am
As of March 15, 2015
ABS 3A:   449 x  63,530 km x 24.99 deg
Eutelsat 115 WB:  439 x 63,363 km x 24.99 deg
Falcon 9 Stg 2:  366 x 63,372 km x 25.03 deg

 - Ed Kyle

As of May 12, 2015
Falcon 9 second stage:   386 x 63,327 km x 25.55 deg
Eutelsat 115 West B:   6,635 x 62,713 x 8.64 deg
ABS 3A:                       8,262 x 62,508 km x 7.16 deg

 - Ed Kyle

So in 65 days the apogee of the second stage has come down by only 45 km?
And the perigee is going up, decreasing the drag through the exosphere by about a factor of two.
This stage could be up there for a very long time.
Are there any predictions of orbital lifetime for spent stages in GTO?



But the satellites are making nice progress towards GSO.
Title: Re: Falcon 9 v1.1 - ABS-3A/Eutelsat 115 West B - March 1, 2015 - DISCUSSION
Post by: Scylla on 09/13/2015 08:25 pm
Boeing: World’s First All-Electric Propulsion Satellite Begins Operations
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2015-09-10-Boeing-World-s-First-All-Electric-Propulsion-Satellite-Begins-Operations

EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Sept. 10, 2015 – The world’s first all-electric propulsion satellite, built by Boeing [NYSE: BA] for Bermuda-based ABS, is now operational after an on-orbit handover on August 31. The ABS-3A, a 702SP (small platform) satellite, expands ABS’ communications services in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

“The operational ABS-3A satellite and ABS-2A, launching in early 2016, will further strengthen and solidify our global expansion and offer flexible capacity to our growing fleet,” said Tom Choi, CEO of ABS. “We believe Boeing’s innovative portfolio can help us to affordably grow now and in the future.”

The ABS-3A spacecraft was the world’s first all-electric propulsion satellite to be built and launched – part of a stacked pair launched in March with a 702SP satellite built for Eutelsat, based in Paris. The spacecraft’s all-electric xenon-ion propulsion system contains a sufficient quantity of the inert, non-hazardous element xenon to extend the satellite’s operations beyond the expected spacecraft design life of 15 years.

“With a successful launch, testing and execution of orbit operations, we were able to deliver the first 702SP to ABS about one month earlier than planned,” said Mark Spiwak, president, Boeing Satellite Systems International. “The 702SP product line was designed to bring the latest technology into the hands of customers seeking adaptable and affordable solutions. In addition, the 702SP’s patented dual-launch capability helps customers share launch costs, which can significantly lower overall expenses for a satellite owner.”

Boeing is under contract to build a second 702SP satellite for ABS, designated ABS-2A, which will be delivered and launched early next year.

A unit of The Boeing Company, Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world’s largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Defense, Space & Security is a $31 billion business with 53,000 employees worldwide. Follow us on Twitter: @BoeingDefense.