-
#140 by Jim on 09 May, 2008 12:21
-
Quote
input~2 - 9/5/2008 4:14 AM
Sea Launch could request the Amos-3 flight data from its partner Energia who is the manufacturer of both RB DM and RB DM-B
Landlaunch and Sealaunch are the same company -
#141 by input~2 on 09 May, 2008 13:01
-
According to Space News, for the Amos-3 launch, Space International Services (SIS) of Moscow negociated the contract with Spacecom and Sea Launch was not involved.
-
#142 by Jim on 09 May, 2008 13:25
-
Quote
input~2 - 9/5/2008 9:01 AM
According to Space News, for the Amos-3 launch, Space International Services (SIS) of Moscow negociated the contract with Spacecom and Sea Launch was not involved.
What was the name on the side of the vehicle?
Landlaunch
http://www.boeing.com/special/sea-launch/land-launch/index.html#organization -
#143 by edkyle99 on 09 May, 2008 15:02
-
Quote
Jim - 9/5/2008 7:21 AM
Quoteinput~2 - 9/5/2008 4:14 AM
Sea Launch could request the Amos-3 flight data from its partner Energia who is the manufacturer of both RB DM and RB DM-B
Landlaunch and Sealaunch are the same company
They're not the same company, but they are related. According to the Land Launch web site, http://www.boeing.com/special/sea-launch/land-launch/index.html
Land Launch is a "collaboration" of international consortium Sea Launch and Moscow-based Space International Services. It is really an SIS (Russian/Ukrainian) show, with Sea Launch handling "contracting and management". Boeing doesn't do payload integration for Land Launch.
The web site provides the following corporate structure.
"Sea Launch Company, LLC, provides contracting and management functions for the Land Launch system. Space International Services, Ltd., based in Moscow, provides hardware and services originating in Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, in a subcontracting arrangement with Sea Launch.
Sea Launch Company, LLC - provides commercial customers with mission management and the Boeing-led quality assurance and hardware acceptance procedures that have contributed to the outstanding reliability of the Sea Launch system.
* Boeing Commercial Space Company, Seattle, Washington, USA
* Aker ASA, Oslo, Norway
* RSC Energia, Moscow, Russia
* SDO Yuzhnoye/PO Yuzhmash, Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine
Space International Services, Ltd - Space International Services provides all launch system components, mission integration and launch operations.
* SDO Yuzhnoye/PO Yuzhmash, Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine
* RSC Energia, Moscow Russia
* KBTM – Design Bureau for Transport Machinery, Moscow, Russia
* TsENKI – Center for Ground-Based Space Infrastructure, Moscow, Russia"
- Ed Kyle -
#144 by edkyle99 on 10 May, 2008 16:33
-
Wondering what the possible failure modes might be, if this was a failure,
I reviewed the Land Launch Users Guide.
Among the differences of interest between the Blok DM-SL and
Blok SM-SLB stages are the following (quoted from the Users Guide).
" - The single, large (and heavy) toroidal avionics bay on the Block
DM-SL is replaced on the Block DM-SLB with several discrete avionics
containers for a net reduction in launch mass
- One set of fuel tanks for the attitude control/ullage engines are removed.
Previously, these tanks were routinely under-filled by the
equivalent of one set of tanks.
- The LOX tank is pressurized with helium instead of an oxygen/
helium mixture
- The minimum useable propellant criterion for the final re-start is
lowered from 4000-kg to 1500-kg, by adding two 10-kgf thrusters to
ensure settling prior to ignition
- An external heat radiator is removed with this function being assumed
by the upper adapter structure"
The "minimum usable propellant" caught my attention, as did the
helium-only LOX tank pressurization.
A shortfall of this type could be in the propulsion chain, but it could
also be in the avionics. I have a hard time believing that a guidance
issue would be involve in what appears to be a 125-ish meter per
second shortfall, since the stated Land Launch accuracy for a
geostationary injection is ± 200 km and ± 0.2 deg, a variation of
probably less than 15 meters per second delta-v.
A correction for my previous post - the shortfall appears to consist
of about 39 meters per second plane change and 80-90-ish meters
per second altitude change.
- Ed Kyle -
#145 by edkyle99 on 10 May, 2008 17:08
-
Quote
edkyle99 - 10/5/2008 11:33 AM
... the shortfall appears to consist
of about 39 meters per second plane change and 80-90-ish meters
per second altitude change.
- Ed Kyle
A re-correction for my previous post - the shortfall appears to consist
of about 39 meters per second plane change and 30-35 meters
per second altitude change to get to the stated injection orbit, for
a total of 70-75 meters per second. An additional 55-60 meters
per second would then be needed to reach the final geosynchronous
orbit, but that final delta-v appears to have originally been assigned
to Amos 3.
So, here's the question - is a 75 meter per second shortfall in a
13,200-ish meter per second GEO mission a launch vehicle failure?
- Ed Kyle -
#146 by McDew on 10 May, 2008 18:49
-
Quote
edkyle99 - 10/5/2008 1:08 PM
Quoteedkyle99 - 10/5/2008 11:33 AM
... the shortfall appears to consist
of about 39 meters per second plane change and 80-90-ish meters
per second altitude change.
- Ed Kyle
A re-correction for my previous post - the shortfall appears to consist
of about 39 meters per second plane change and 30-35 meters
per second altitude change to get to the stated injection orbit, for
a total of 70-75 meters per second. An additional 55-60 meters
per second would then be needed to reach the final geosynchronous
orbit, but that final delta-v appears to have originally been assigned
to Amos 3.
So, here's the question - is a 75 meter per second shortfall in a
13,200-ish meter per second GEO mission a launch vehicle failure?
- Ed Kyle
There will also be a significantly larger delta-v required for station acquisition. It appears that the erroneous injection orbit would have imparted a drift rate in the opposite direction of the planned target orbit to achieve the final on station location. So just calculating the delta-v back to the target orbit would be understating the impact on getting to the "final" on station location and orbit. This is probably why we have heard a higher 3 year lifetime impact being quoted than what a 75 m/s shortfall would otherwise indicate. -
#147 by yinzer on 11 May, 2008 22:03
-
Quote
edkyle99 - 10/5/2008 10:08 AM
So, here's the question - is a 75 meter per second shortfall in a
13,200-ish meter per second GEO mission a launch vehicle failure?
As is always the case when this question comes up, it depends on what one means by "failure". Natural language is not precise enough to do what you are trying to do with it.
That said, it's pretty clear that delta-V shortfall as a percentage of total mission delta-V has very little if any relevance. Shortfall as a fraction of total payload delta-V might be a meaningful criteria. -
#148 by hop on 11 May, 2008 22:51
-
Quote
edkyle99 - 10/5/2008 10:08 AM
See attached from the land launch users guide.
So, here's the question - is a 75 meter per second shortfall in a
13,200-ish meter per second GEO mission a launch vehicle failure?
- Ed Kyle
Assuming they didn't include a weasel clause in the contract, one would have to say that failing to meet those targets was a failure. Not a complete mission failure, but a failure to fulfill their obligations.
-
#149 by McDew on 12 May, 2008 02:14
-
Quote
yinzer - 11/5/2008 6:03 PM
The usual metric is the percent loss of spacecraft lifetime. If the spacecraft lifetime impact was the 3 years as quoted, then based upon a 15 year planned lifetime results in a partial failure of 20%.
That said, it's pretty clear that delta-V shortfall as a percentage of total mission delta-V has very little if any relevance. Shortfall as a fraction of total payload delta-V might be a meaningful criteria. -
#150 by PDJennings on 12 May, 2008 14:13
-
Every launch services contract has a weasel clause. Once you hear kontakt podyoma, your liability for performance goes to zero. (Third party liability is a separate matter.) There are some rare contracts that have "free reflight" terms, but those typically reflect buyer's market years and are not common. Even then, you probably need constructive total failure to cash in.
The debate about performance and lifetime for this mission is a matter for the insurers, not for Land Launch. For future missions, though, affected customers and insurers will want a satisfactory explanation of the shortfall. It might never become public domain knowledge.
I should also point out that anyone who considered NRO L-30 a "failure" should automatically consider this one likewise because the payload's dV shortfall was greater. -
#151 by edkyle99 on 12 May, 2008 14:27
-
Quote
PDJennings - 12/5/2008 9:13 AM
I should also point out that anyone who considered NRO L-30 a "failure" should automatically consider this one likewise because the payload's dV shortfall was greater.
This is how I am inclined to see it. Both shortfalls were in the 0.5-0.6% of total mission delta-v range. The AV-009 failure is easier to "see", however, since the cause (a faulty propellant valve) was announced.
This Land Launch "failure" is also reminiscent of last year's similar GSLV F04 problem, which left Insat 4CR about 75 meters per second short of its planned geosynchronous transfer orbit. ISRO never admitted to any launch vehicle problems on that flight even though the insertion apogee fell more than 4,000 km short of the target. Clearly, in both cases, *something* went wrong!
- Ed Kyle -
#152 by shuttle on 12 May, 2008 19:27
-
n2yo. traker give us the actual satellite Amos 3 position at 50°W .this is part of his orbital tests or this are manuvers for corrections ,or something else...?
http://www.n2yo.com/?s=32794 -
#153 by satlaunch on 12 May, 2008 19:39
-
Quote
shuttle - 12/5/2008 2:27 PM
.n2yo. traker give us the actual satellite amos3 position at 50*w .this is part of his orbital tests or this are manuvers for corrections?
http://www.n2yo.com/?s=32794
As far as I know AMOS 3 will be tested at 2.5°W longitude and then it will be positioned at 4°W co-located with other Israeli comsats. -
#154 by input~2 on 12 May, 2008 21:35
-
Quote
shuttle - 12/5/2008 2:27 PM n2yo. traker give us the actual satellite Amos 3 position at 50°W .this is part of his orbital tests or this are manuvers for corrections ,or something else...? http://www.n2yo.com/?s=32794
This n2yo.com position is derived from an old tle epoch of May 6 when the satellite had still a high drift rate; latest observation dated to-day May 12 indicates a much slower drift rate and a position close to its IOT slot of 2.5°W.
-
#155 by risktaker on 13 May, 2008 20:46
-
AMOS 3 had 18 years worth of fuel on-board for a 12 yr contract life, so even with 3 years lost it still easily makes it contract lifetime. The launch insurance had a no claim bonus which has been requested due to a successful launch.
-
#156 by pm1823 on 24 Jul, 2008 12:19