Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon Heavy : Arabsat 6A : LC-39A : NET April 11, 2019 - DISCUSSION  (Read 204677 times)

Online Jakusb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 982
  • NL
  • Liked: 756
  • Likes Given: 430
And just as expected, a new booster has arrived at McGregor. Bump on the interstage indicates it is the next Falcon Heavy Center Core. This should be B1057.


https://www.instagram.com/p/BsFYkJCIr94/?fbclid=IwAR1q6VmSyRcteFXMm03jZPiiXneS1qbUxiuSwfO1AKX8eLDxh31LpRxjDa8

Edit: Changing the link. The content creator, Abby Garrett, took down the other post and edited her video to add credits to it citing lack of them either on facebook and reddit and because I don't want to get on another dicussion with her here too about what is the difference between taking credit of content and sharing something that someone made, I edit this post in respect to her decision. The screenshot with the arrow will stay the same as I'm on mobile and I don't really want to make this more annoying than it is.


And the most likely candidate for the center core for this mission.

Edit: link to updated source post by Abby Garrett: https://www.instagram.com/p/BsFkuNyI9jm/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=mxi898u6j12t
« Last Edit: 01/01/2019 10:41 am by Jakusb »

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4569
  • US
  • Liked: 4127
  • Likes Given: 2353
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2019-0006-0001
Quote
Volga-Dnepr Airlines LLC (Volga-Dnepr Airlines or "Volga-Dnepr") respectfully requests an emergency exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 40109(g) and 41703(c), and otherwise applicable provisions of the Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations, so as to permit Volga-Dnepr to operate one (1) one way cargo charter flight, utilizing Volga-Dneprs AN-124-100 aircraft to transport cargo between Moffett Field, California and NASA Shuttle Landing Facility, Titusville, Florida on around February 6- March 4, 2019 on behalf of Lockheed Martin.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4569
  • US
  • Liked: 4127
  • Likes Given: 2353
Politico.com
Quote
“The shutdown has spread into space. Lockheed Martin warned in a regulatory filing that furloughs threaten the launch of a commercial satellite for a Saudi Arabian customer, as well as some other SpaceX launches.” WSJ

Does anyone know where to find the mentioned regulatory filing?

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5458
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 2845
  • Likes Given: 1
AIUI, SpaceX has 5 year  launch licenses for F9 from Vandenberg (LEO) and  LC-40 (GTO), but not for FH or LC-39A. Both run out in 2023.

https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/licenses/
« Last Edit: 01/23/2019 03:27 pm by docmordrid »
DM

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2426
  • California
  • Liked: 1989
  • Likes Given: 5506
Politico.com
Quote
“The shutdown has spread into space. Lockheed Martin warned in a regulatory filing that furloughs threaten the launch of a commercial satellite for a Saudi Arabian customer, as well as some other SpaceX launches.” WSJ

Does anyone know where to find the mentioned regulatory filing?

My guess is that it was probably sourced from someone familiar with LM's Q4 and 2018 Year-End Earnings results.  Their conference call will be on Jan. 29th. 
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5040
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1384
  • Likes Given: 599
AIUI, SpaceX has 5 year  launch licenses for F9 from Vandenberg (LEO) and  LC-40 (GTO), but not for FH or LC-39A. Both run out in 2023.

https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/licenses/
Not the same type of license being referred to. Ones referenced by the article the sat side license filing and individual mission license.

Offline vaporcobra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1341
  • Tacoma, WA
  • Liked: 2935
  • Likes Given: 3078
According to friends with some familiarity, the gist of the problem is that some sort of license Arabsat 6A or LockMart depend on to operate (presumably FCC-related) will expire sometime in February 2019, a consequence of lengthy launch delays.

As I understand it, SpaceX's hope was to launch Arabsat 6A before that deadline (i.e. February). No longer clear if that's possible, as DM-1's delays mean that it will explicitly overlap the aspirational Falcon Heavy Flight 2 schedule.
« Last Edit: 01/24/2019 06:26 am by vaporcobra »

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4569
  • US
  • Liked: 4127
  • Likes Given: 2353
The only FCC license Lockmart or Arabsat might need would be for pre-launch testing.  This bird isn't serving the U.S. market.

edit: If there is a date restriction on the payload side it's more likely related to ITU filings.
« Last Edit: 01/24/2019 01:25 pm by gongora »

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2426
  • California
  • Liked: 1989
  • Likes Given: 5506
The only FCC license Lockmart or Arabsat might need would be for pre-launch testing.  This bird isn't serving the U.S. market.

edit: If there is a date restriction on the payload side it's more likely related to ITU filings.
SpaceX would still need STAs (spectrum use grants) from the FCC for the telemetry broadcast on this specific mission.  I'm not sure whether the ones for the Arabsat 6A launch have been identified by our resident FCC sleuths, but even if they've already been granted those STAs have a 6 month expiration.  If they run out due to schedule delays, SpaceX will have to wait until the FCC is fully operational again before they can launch so that they can get an extension.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Online Alexphysics

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
  • Spain
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 358
The only FCC license Lockmart or Arabsat might need would be for pre-launch testing.  This bird isn't serving the U.S. market.

edit: If there is a date restriction on the payload side it's more likely related to ITU filings.
SpaceX would still need STAs (spectrum use grants) from the FCC for the telemetry broadcast on this specific mission.  I'm not sure whether the ones for the Arabsat 6A launch have been identified by our resident FCC sleuths, but even if they've already been granted those STAs have a 6 month expiration.  If they run out due to schedule delays, SpaceX will have to wait until the FCC is fully operational again before they can launch so that they can get an extension.

The problem about searching for FCC permits is that their website is down due to the shutdown so we can't search them there. I wonder if there's an "old school" way of doing it, you know, without internet. Now that they're going to reopen the government for three weeks, we may be able to see if they can apply for those permits and get them granted in time.

Offline strawwalker

  • Member
  • Posts: 44
  • United States
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 15
The only FCC license Lockmart or Arabsat might need would be for pre-launch testing.  This bird isn't serving the U.S. market.

edit: If there is a date restriction on the payload side it's more likely related to ITU filings.
SpaceX would still need STAs (spectrum use grants) from the FCC for the telemetry broadcast on this specific mission.  I'm not sure whether the ones for the Arabsat 6A launch have been identified by our resident FCC sleuths, but even if they've already been granted those STAs have a 6 month expiration.  If they run out due to schedule delays, SpaceX will have to wait until the FCC is fully operational again before they can launch so that they can get an extension.

As of a few days before the FCC search site went down there were no Arabsat forms up. RCM was up and pending, and PSN-6 had been granted, and that was it. During more normal times 2-4 weeks is all that is needed for the launch and recovery STAs. Can't say what 5 weeks of backlog will do to that.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4569
  • US
  • Liked: 4127
  • Likes Given: 2353
Welcome back regulations.gov  :)

Quote
January 16, 2019

On behalf of Volga-Dnepr Airlines, Lockheed Martin Space kindly requests that the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) review and approve the exemption application from VOLGA-DNEPR AIRLINES LLC for an exemption (Docket OST-2019-0006) from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. §§ 40109(g) and 41703(c) of an intra-CONUS transport of ArabSat-6A commercial satellite from Moffett Field, Mountain View, CA to the NASA Shuttle Landing Facility, Titusville,
FL.

We understand that the government shutdown and furlough of many federal employees has impacted the DOTs approval process and would unpretentiously request specific approval of the Volga-Dnepr’s AN-124 transport scheduled for 5 February 2019. This transport is for the Arabsat-6A spacecraft which will provide critical communications capabilities for Europe and the Middle East upon launch which is scheduled from the SpaceX facility in early March 2019 directly preceding payload processing and integration on to the booster assembly. Delays in transportation will directly impact the launch of this satellite as well as the possibility of impacting other critical US national asset launches. The most critical possibility of an impact would be to the International Space Station Commercial Resupply Mission (CRS-17) which is the immediate launch following AR6A on the SpaceX manifest.

The part about possible impacts to CRS-17 or anything else other than STP-2 on the SpaceX manifest is complete bulls--t.  The other flights will just go from SLC-40, and SpaceX has multiple payload processing bays.
« Last Edit: 01/26/2019 10:04 pm by gongora »

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11657
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8756
  • Likes Given: 7375
The part about possible impacts to CRS-17 or anything else other than STP-2 on the SpaceX manifest is complete bulls--t.  The other flights will just go from SLC-40, and SpaceX has multiple payload processing bays.

Yeah but it's "unpretentious" bulls--t :)

Actually I do see their point,  sort of... delay something and it has a knock-on effect.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
  • Liked: 1846
  • Likes Given: 1548
The part about possible impacts to CRS-17 or anything else other than STP-2 on the SpaceX manifest is complete bulls--t.  The other flights will just go from SLC-40, and SpaceX has multiple payload processing bays.

Yeah but it's "unpretentious" bulls--t :)

Actually I do see their point,  sort of... delay something and it has a knock-on effect.

and
Quote
.. upon launch which is scheduled from the SpaceX facility in early March 2019 directly preceding payload processing and integration on to the booster assembly.

Launch preceding the integration is.... unusual.
Someone attempted flowery language beyond their ability.
But "unpretentiously" as you said.
« Last Edit: 01/26/2019 11:08 pm by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?


Very Cool!

Does anyone know the flow of events for this Falcon Heavy Launch? Are we going to see some extended testing like we did for the first one, or will it be more like the Falcon 9s, where it rolls out just a few days before launch for a static firing?

If extended time and DM-1 holds to February 23 launch date, it would be interesting to see a "ballet" of rocket activity on 39-A between Heavy and DM-1 Falcon 9.

Offline Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2280
  • Florida
  • Liked: 541
  • Likes Given: 948
Wow, OCISLY will nearly be 1,000 km downrage from LC-39A for this one. That'll mean the core stage will be traveling like 3.5 km/s at MECO. Going to be an extremely toasty first stage if they get that one back.
Attended space missions: STS-114, STS-124, STS-128, STS-135, Atlas V "Curiosity", Delta IV Heavy NROL-15, Atlas V MUOS-2, Delta IV Heavy NROL-37, Falcon 9 CRS-9, Falcon 9 JCSAT-16, Atlas V GOES-R, Falcon 9 SES-11, Falcon Heavy Demo, Falcon 9 Es'hail-2.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5573
  • Liked: 3376
  • Likes Given: 1652
Wow, OCISLY will nearly be 1,000 km downrage from LC-39A for this one. That'll mean the core stage will be traveling like 3.5 km/s at MECO. Going to be an extremely toasty first stage if they get that one back.

I expect a boostback burn to shed some of the core stage's downrange velocity, as on the demo mission.

Offline LouScheffer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Liked: 2764
  • Likes Given: 299
Wow, OCISLY will nearly be 1,000 km downrage from LC-39A for this one. That'll mean the core stage will be traveling like 3.5 km/s at MECO. Going to be an extremely toasty first stage if they get that one back.

No toastier than usual, I think.  Instead, the re-entry burn will be longer to bring the stage down to the same entry speed as usual.

Yes, this takes more fuel that could otherwise be used for boosting the payload, but they can still get a significantly higher staging velocity and get the stage back.  Conversely, if they could in any way accept a toastier re-entry, they could have given better orbits to the heavy satellites they recently launched in recoverable mode.   From this I conclude they are already at the toastiness limit, and hence a longer re-entry burn will be the option used on the heavy.

A potential flaw in this argument is that the heavy center core is special, anyway, and maybe has some special features for increased toast resistance.  But this goes against SpaceX's drive for maximum commonality, and if possible would likely be ported to the single core.  So I'm still voting for a longer re-entry burn and an otherwise nominal entry.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4897
  • California
  • Liked: 4712
  • Likes Given: 2827
A potential flaw in this argument is that the heavy center core is special, anyway, and maybe has some special features for increased toast resistance.  But this goes against SpaceX's drive for maximum commonality, and if possible would likely be ported to the single core.  So I'm still voting for a longer re-entry burn and an otherwise nominal entry.

The FH center core(s) are modified in many other ways anyway. (heavier structure, extra hardware for attaching side cores, and more)

Tags: