SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 - SES-8 - DISCUSSION THREAD

[solartear]

Forgive me if this has already been covered, but I seem to recall that the USAF required three consecutive successful GTO launches before they would consider a new rocket for any 'significant' mission. Please correct me if that is wrong. SES-8 was one, if the Thaicom launch is successful that would be 2 leaving just one more to go.
Now, for a leap, assuming all that is correct and we get 3 successful launches and no subsequent failure, how soon might an USAF significant mission feasibly launch on a F9 1.1? By significant I mean in the realms of an AEHF or GPS etc

Also, just a note that we've had 3 F9 launches this year, the same total as the Delta IV. This year - if Thaicom launches and the GPS doesn't then that will be F9 with 4 launches and Delta IV with 3 launches. (Atlas V is headed for 8 )

SpaceX says CASSIOPE was #1, making Thaicom #3 (hopefully) successful launch in a row, and F9 v1.1 proven for certification. CASSIOPE can be included because failed re-start was post-mission. However, SpaceX still needs to add facilities for vertical integration of payload, currently they only do horizontal.

[rcoppola]

Their webcasts will undoubtedly get better as time goes on - the ones for the SES-8 were probably their smoothest yet, and they have started to add in graphics when the signal is out, and so on.

Evidently, the guy who does the graphics stuff for the webcasts was on reddit.  He was glad that people liked the graphic better than the "Awaiting Downlink" bit, but specifically said he wants to do as little with CGI as possible.  So I'm not sure if that means he doesn't want to do the ULA thing or if he wants to do something better.  He mentioned having cool new camera views and/or some neat stuff coming our way.

That's exactly my point form earlier. They would much rather deal with live "Real" footage as opposed to 3D graphics whenever possible. We will continue to see higher quality video, more cam placements and longer mission coverage when allowed. I'll go so far as to say that in the future they will let viewers, if they choose, to select which feed they want to focus on. So imagine a graphic of the F9 to the left of the screen with camera icon overlays showing where all the placements are. The viewer can click on any one of those to determine which view they want. Or just sit back and take the main feed which is live switched already.

[Jim]

That's exactly my point form earlier. They would much rather deal with live "Real" footage as opposed to 3D graphics whenever possible. We will continue to see higher quality video, more cam placements and longer mission coverage when allowed. I'll go so far as to say that in the future they will let viewers, if they choose, to select which feed they want to focus on. So imagine a graphic of the F9 to the left of the screen with camera icon overlays showing where all the placements are. The viewer can click on any one of those to determine which view they want. Or just sit back and take the main feed which is live switched already.

Not true.  Not enough bandwidth to downlink that many cameras, especially outside of ground stations (for which there is no bandwidth for video).  Awaiting downlink or CGI will be the only choices.

[rcoppola]

That's exactly my point form earlier. They would much rather deal with live "Real" footage as opposed to 3D graphics whenever possible. We will continue to see higher quality video, more cam placements and longer mission coverage when allowed. I'll go so far as to say that in the future they will let viewers, if they choose, to select which feed they want to focus on. So imagine a graphic of the F9 to the left of the screen with camera icon overlays showing where all the placements are. The viewer can click on any one of those to determine which view they want. Or just sit back and take the main feed which is live switched already.

Not true.  Not enough bandwidth to downlink that many cameras, especially outside of ground stations (for which there is no bandwidth for video).  Awaiting downlink or CGI will be the only choices.

Oh come on Jim. (Laughing cause I know your right) There must be some way.

[spacetraveler]

Most importantly, Spacex's launch costs are lower than their competitors, and with a few more successful GEO missions, Spacex can show that their vehicles are a reliable alternative.  Spacex has the opportunity to take a rather large portion of the market. 

Who are the SpaceX competitors for GTO missions?  Falcon 9 v1.1 can't lift the 5-6 tonners to GTO like Proton, Ariane, or Sea Launch Zenit.  It can't even lift one half of an Ariane 5 payload to GTO.  It can't match the big range of the EELVs, which can boost 6.7 tonnes (Atlas 5) or more than 11 tonnes (Delta 4) to GTO x 1,500 m/s, far more than Falcon 9 v1.1's probably 3.7 tonnes to the same energy orbit.  The SpaceX rocket seems to sit in its own category at the moment.

The only close competition seems to be Soyuz 2.1b/Fregat from Kourou, which can haul 3 tonnes to GTO, but this launch vehicle hasn't had GTO customers if I'm remembering correctly.

 - Ed Kyle

This is likely because the primary design application of the Falcon 9 was ISS resupply via/Dragon.

SpaceX knows they will not be able to fully compete in the GTO satellite market until they bring Falcon Heavy online.

[Herb Schaltegger]

The trend is in the other direction.  There are limited slots on orbit for comsats

Actually, the trend is in both directions.  The commercial satellite market has bifurcated into payloads at 3-4 tons, and payloads at 6+ tons.  Not a whole lot in between, lately.  Orbital slots is not a real limitation for the larger operators.  SES pioneered the approach of co-locating multiple active satellites in one slot.  So the satellite size trade is affected by launch options.  I would suggest the most promising commercial market for Falcon 9 is large comsats with electric-only propulsion.  These birds would be 6+ tons with chemical propulsion, but with electric only they are within the Falcon 9 capability to launch to a GTO or SSTO that shouldn't take unreasonable time to circularize.  I suspect there are other customers waiting to see how this approach turns out for the early adopters.

Actually, there are serious ITU and (for US operators) FCC regulatory issues with operating multiple satellites in on orbital slot. Fewer vehicles is definitely better than more - easier regulatory burden with regard to potential signal interference; easier satellite fleet control operations; and much easier telemetry, tracking and control during parking, stationkeeping and and disposal operations.

[edfishel]

Is a laser communications system out of the question for providing the video signals?

[edkyle99]

What's the perigee? Should be able to figure out when it'll eventually come down.

Per press kit, target orbit was 295km x 80,000km at 20.75 degrees.

Target, any idea how close they got?

CelesTrack is showing something labeled "Object A" with a launch date of 12/3/2013 from Florida.  It has international designator 2013-071A and NORAD catalog number 39460.

The TLE for this object is:

1 39460U 13071A   13337.40768818 -.00000413  00000-0  00000+0 0    37
2 39460  20.5531 242.7832 8534855 179.4250 185.5374  0.87290738    01

So it looks like 397 km by 79341 km at 20.55 degrees.

Space-Track shows five updates for this object, but still no second object from the launch.   Since the orbit has not changed much in these updates, I have to suspect that this is the Falcon 9 second stage, not the payload.  I wonder why Object B isn't reported?

 - Ed Kyle

[kevin-rf]

Space-Track shows five updates for this object, but still no second object from the launch.   Since the orbit has not changed much in these updates, I have to suspect that this is the Falcon 9 second stage, not the payload.  I wonder why Object B isn't reported?

 - Ed Kyle

I wonder if the Epoch Day's line up to when they obtained new tracking data...

If correct*, looks like they obtained two measurements on the 7th and two closely space observations on the 8th... 
*space-track.org and NORAD work in strange and mysterious ways, so who knows.

[Galactic Penguin SST]

In other news...... all published launch shots till now are from at least some distance away. Where are those close-up pad shots? Last time during the launch of CASSIOPE the photos came very quickly.....

(and where are the photos from Ben Cooper et al.?) 

[bartonn]

Most importantly, Spacex's launch costs are lower than their competitors, and with a few more successful GEO missions, Spacex can show that their vehicles are a reliable alternative.  Spacex has the opportunity to take a rather large portion of the market. 

Who are the SpaceX competitors for GTO missions?  Falcon 9 v1.1 can't lift the 5-6 tonners to GTO like Proton, Ariane, or Sea Launch Zenit.  It can't even lift one half of an Ariane 5 payload to GTO.  It can't match the big range of the EELVs, which can boost 6.7 tonnes (Atlas 5) or more than 11 tonnes (Delta 4) to GTO x 1,500 m/s, far more than Falcon 9 v1.1's probably 3.7 tonnes to the same energy orbit.  The SpaceX rocket seems to sit in its own category at the moment.

The only close competition seems to be Soyuz 2.1b/Fregat from Kourou, which can haul 3 tonnes to GTO, but this launch vehicle hasn't had GTO customers if I'm remembering correctly.

 - Ed Kyle

This is likely because the primary design application of the Falcon 9 was ISS resupply via/Dragon.

SpaceX knows they will not be able to fully compete in the GTO satellite market until they bring Falcon Heavy online.

I see that my previous statement was a bit overzealous.  I guess the Falcon Heavy will be the true GEO competitor for the Ariane 5 and eventually Ariane 6. 

Still, with the F9 competing with the smaller payloads on the Ariane 5, will it be harder for Arianespace to secure secondary payloads?

[Jim]

Is a laser communications system out of the question for providing the video signals?

To what ground station or relay satellite?  And where would the two articulating platforms (not to say complex) be mounted to point the transmitters. (need two 180 degrees apart since the launch vehicle can't always roll in a certain direction)

[edkyle99]

Now a second object, NORAD CAT ID 39461, is shown in a 423.5 x 79,977.2 km x 20.47 deg orbit.

 - Ed Kyle

[Antares]

The funny thing is, Orbital SSG has a lot to gain from SpaceX's success, at the grave expense of Orbital LSG.  SSG now has a cheap, increasingly reliable, domestic launcher that doesn't use 40 year old engines.  F9 fits extremely well with the size of SSG's satellites.  IMO, Antares has no more than 8 launches in its future.

[mlindner]

That's exactly my point form earlier. They would much rather deal with live "Real" footage as opposed to 3D graphics whenever possible. We will continue to see higher quality video, more cam placements and longer mission coverage when allowed. I'll go so far as to say that in the future they will let viewers, if they choose, to select which feed they want to focus on. So imagine a graphic of the F9 to the left of the screen with camera icon overlays showing where all the placements are. The viewer can click on any one of those to determine which view they want. Or just sit back and take the main feed which is live switched already.

Not true.  Not enough bandwidth to downlink that many cameras, especially outside of ground stations (for which there is no bandwidth for video).  Awaiting downlink or CGI will be the only choices.

During launch there is certainly bandwidth. That is evidenced by the rapid manual switching of camera views that is done. There is some availability of additional bandwidth during CRS missions as they show several camera views of payload release. You're probably right about not enough bandwidth on most downrange ground stations though.

[edkyle99]

The funny thing is, Orbital SSG has a lot to gain from SpaceX's success, at the grave expense of Orbital LSG.  SSG now has a cheap, increasingly reliable, domestic launcher that doesn't use 40 year old engines.  F9 fits extremely well with the size of SSG's satellites.  IMO, Antares has no more than 8 launches in its future.

Orbital's Antares won't lose any GTO business to Falcon 9 v1.1, because Antares can only lift maybe 1.5-1.8 tonnes to GTO (GEO-1800 m/s), less than half as much as the SpaceX rocket.  Antares also only lifts less than half as much to LEO.  Antares should end up costing less than Falcon 9 on a per launch basis, but that remains to be seen.  If the lower cost turns out to be true, I would expect to see both Antares and Falcon 9 at work for awhile, each working their own niche.

 - Ed Kyle

[ugordan]

During launch there is certainly bandwidth. That is evidenced by the rapid manual switching of camera views that is done.

That is no evidence for sufficient bandwidth. That switching isn't manual, it's most likely preprogrammed on the vehicle and there is only one video stream downlinked from the stage at any given point in time. Possibly two streams in total (one for each stage), but that's it.

[Zannanza]

heavens above has posted 2013-071-A orbital information
http://www.heavens-above.com/SatInfo.aspx?satid=39460&lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=CET&cul=en-GB

391 x 79,324 km, 20.5° and is labeled "Object A", so it is the F9 2nd stage? Then where is the SES-8 satellite?

[Ben the Space Brit]

@Zannanza,

See Ed Kyle's post above about NORAD 39461, in a 423.5 x 79,977.2 km x 20.47 deg orbit. That could be SES-8.

[kevin-rf]

NORAD still has both classified as U, ie 39460U and 39461U, meaning they haven't sorted it out yet...

Using a crude back of envelope calculation ( Earth Dia 6371km) with the latest NORAD TLE's 39460U has a lower perigee at model dependent altitude of 397km vs. 39461U's 430km.  39461U's Apogee is also higher at 79975km.

It might be a fair to assume 39460U is the upper stage and 39461U is the payload. 

Edit: Just as a reminder Ted Molzcan excellent post on how to do the calculations http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Dec-2002/0197.html