-
#180
by
manoweb
on 02 Mar, 2017 23:20
-
Translated in simple English...
-
#181
by
envy887
on 02 Mar, 2017 23:28
-
Translated in simple English...
FORMOSAT 5/SHERPA is delayed (to 2018?). All their customers that want to launch sooner are rebooked on other launchers.
-
#182
by
russianhalo117
on 02 Mar, 2017 23:47
-
Translated in simple English...
FORMOSAT 5/SHERPA is delayed (to 2018?). All their customers that want to launch sooner are rebooked on other launchers.
NET June 2017. Only high priority payloads that couldn't wait any longer were rebooked.
-
#183
by
OnWithTheShow
on 03 Mar, 2017 00:20
-
Translated in simple English...
FORMOSAT 5/SHERPA is delayed (to 2018?). All their customers that want to launch sooner are rebooked on other launchers.
NET June 2017. Only high priority payloads that couldn't wait any longer were rebooked.
Thats not what the press release says:
we made the decision to rebook all our customers
-
#184
by
old_sellsword
on 03 Mar, 2017 00:31
-
Translated in simple English...
FORMOSAT 5/SHERPA is delayed (to 2018?). All their customers that want to launch sooner are rebooked on other launchers.
NET June 2017. Only high priority payloads that couldn't wait any longer were rebooked.
Thats not what the press release says:
we made the decision to rebook all our customers
It says both things actually:
...the team hustled to have all customers who wanted to be rebooked confirmed on other launches!
There's some conflicting information coming from this press release, hopefully this can be cleared up.
-
#185
by
gongora
on 03 Mar, 2017 01:16
-
Does this make it more clear? (and this really doesn't surprise me at all)
edit: It appears SHERPA was cancelled from this flight.
-
#186
by
stcks
on 03 Mar, 2017 01:31
-
So, what happens to Formosat-5 then? Is it going to get a new rideshare partner from somewhere? If not, would SpaceX actually consider launching it alone? I hope not, it would be one cheap F9 flight if so...
-
#187
by
rockets4life97
on 03 Mar, 2017 01:35
-
This is a holdover from the Falcon 1 days right? I can't imagine SpaceX was going to make too much money on this launch. Unfortunately, that meant it was a low priority over their other major customers (Iridium, SES, etc.)
-
#188
by
macpacheco
on 03 Mar, 2017 03:39
-
SpaceX top priority right now is fulfilling delayed launches that are accumulating fines/discounts, for customers that are in the most financial pain due to their payloads not in orbit generating revenue. For commercial customers fines normally don't come even close to compensating for half of their losses. There's always the risk of loosing a customer for future launches and/or expensive lawsuits. After an unexpected stand down, putting an extra effort towards the most important customers is essential, The only not for profit customer that commands that treatment is NASA. All other scientific customers will end up waiting.
Even if SpaceX had 3 complete F9s ready to go today (including the SES-10 booster reuse), doesn't mean any launches should be allocated to payloads not in the most critical criteria. SpaceX likely can launch payloads faster than it can replenish with new F9s.
Once reuse becomes routine and commercial customers accept flying on reused boosters, then the whole thing changes.
That's the kind of headaches Ms. Shotwell has to contend with in such situations.
-
#189
by
manoweb
on 03 Mar, 2017 13:53
-
OK but one can argue that it is really the pad that took time, that was the bottleneck. There is evidence 39A needed and still needs more work than nominal, while SLC4 is idle, why not launch as much as possible from what has been accumulated on the West coast?
I know SpaceX has reasons for this. I would genuinely like to understand the answer.
-
#190
by
rockets4life97
on 03 Mar, 2017 17:05
-
OK but one can argue that it is really the pad that took time, that was the bottleneck. There is evidence 39A needed and still needs more work than nominal, while SLC4 is idle, why not launch as much as possible from what has been accumulated on the West coast?
I know SpaceX has reasons for this. I would genuinely like to understand the answer.
My guess is that second stages are a bottleneck. Both failures in the last 2 years were do 2nd stage issues. I doubt SpaceX restarted building 2nd stages until quite late in the Amos-6 investigation.
Another piece of the story I think is that towards the end of March, ULA won't launch from the Cape for about 3 months. I think you are going to see SpaceX try and pack in as many launches as possible in those 3 months.
-
#191
by
manoweb
on 03 Mar, 2017 17:13
-
Well my observation wasn't about the future (ULA not launching at the Cape) but the missed launch opportunities from Vandenberg. A shortage of second stages might partially explain that...
-
#192
by
soltasto
on 03 Mar, 2017 18:47
-
I guess this mission now becomes one of the best candidates for the SpaceX Internet constellation test satellites. Lot of volume to fill and plenty of mass left too.
This is pure speculation thought.
-
#193
by
jpo234
on 03 Mar, 2017 19:04
-
I guess this mission now becomes one of the best candidates for the SpaceX Internet constellation test satellites. Lot of volume to fill and plenty of mass left too.
This is pure speculation thought.
Would the CommX satellites go into a polar orbit? The iridium sats do, so this seems possible.
-
#194
by
Jarnis
on 03 Mar, 2017 19:50
-
I guess this mission now becomes one of the best candidates for the SpaceX Internet constellation test satellites. Lot of volume to fill and plenty of mass left too.
This is pure speculation thought.
Would the CommX satellites go into a polar orbit? The iridium sats do, so this seems possible.
For the test sats, I'm fairly sure only the altitude really matters.
-
#195
by
gongora
on 03 Mar, 2017 20:50
-
The SpaceX test sats haven't gotten their FCC license yet. (If you look at the application they are getting some requests for clarification from the FCC, so it is at least getting processed.) What flight they could launch on kinda depends on when they're approved for launch...
Iridium is launched into 86.6 degrees, 625km circular orbit. Formosat-5 is 97.4 degrees, 720km circular. The application for the SpaceX test sats says deployment at 97.44 degrees, 514-km circular orbit (they could always file an amendment to change that). I don't know what the orbits for SSO-A or SAOCOM-1A are going to be?
-
#196
by
baldusi
on 03 Mar, 2017 22:29
-
SAOCOM are 700km SSO
-
#197
by
smoliarm
on 04 Mar, 2017 22:01
-
The SpaceX test sats haven't gotten their FCC license yet. (If you look at the application they are getting some requests for clarification from the FCC, so it is at least getting processed.) What flight they could launch on kinda depends on when they're approved for launch...
Iridium is launched into 86.6 degrees, 625km circular orbit. Formosat-5 is 97.4 degrees, 720km circular. The application for the SpaceX test sats says deployment at 97.44 degrees, 514-km circular orbit (they could always file an amendment to change that). I don't know what the orbits for SSO-A or SAOCOM-1A are going to be?
FormoSat-5
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/f/formosat-5Orbit of primary payload: Sun-synchronous near-circular orbit of FormoSat-5, altitude = 720 km, inclination = 98.28º, period = 99.19 minutes, LTDN (Local Time on Descending Node) at ~ 10 hours.
SAOCOM 1A
http://database.eohandbook.com/database/missionsummary.aspx?missionID=405Orbit Type Sun-synchronous
Orbit Period 97.2 minutes
Orbit Sense Ascending
Orbit Inclination 97.89 deg
Orbit Altitude 620 km
Orbit Longitude Repeat Cycle 16 days
Orbit LST 6:12
-
#198
by
Comga
on 05 Mar, 2017 06:15
-
The difference between a 720 km high sun synchronize orbit and a 514 km SSO is 155 m/s including plane changes.
If it matters.
-
#199
by
Greg Hullender
on 05 Mar, 2017 17:49
-
Iridium is launched into 86.6 degrees, 625km circular orbit. Formosat-5 is 97.4 degrees, 720km circular. The application for the SpaceX test sats says deployment at 97.44 degrees, 514-km circular orbit (they could always file an amendment to change that). I don't know what the orbits for SSO-A or SAOCOM-1A are going to be?
If a polar orbit is inclined 90 degrees, what does it mean for an orbit to be inclined 97.4 degrees? Isn't that just the same as one inclined 82.6 degrees?
