-
#140
by
Stan Black
on 20 Aug, 2011 07:19
-
With the latest elset, I found
Epoch August 19 at 1659UTC:
EXPRESS-AM4/11045A in 1004.5 x 20314.9 km inclined 51.33°
Epoch August 19 at 1301UTC:
Briz-M / 11045B in 697.2 x 20239.3 km inclined 51.18°
The expected orbit after Burn 4 was to have been 420 x 35,616 km x 49.1 deg.
- Ed Kyle
Ed,
Do you know the other target orbits?
Stan
-
#141
by
input~2
on 20 Aug, 2011 07:59
-
According to NK forum NORAD found both objects. Orbits:
37799 -- 51.18°, 689x20251 km, 362.7 min
37800 -- 51.32°, 996x20327 km, 368.8 min
37798 EXPRESS AM-4 2011-045A
37799 BREEZE-M R/B 2011-045B
37800 BREEZE-M DEB (TANK) 2011-045C
How can the Briz-M orbit 37799 have a significantly lower perigee than the APT, which was jettisoned before the 4th burn of the Briz? The implication is that all of the Briz propulsive maneuver was near apogee, and resulted in lowering the perigee.
OR .... the numbers are assigned to the wrong objects, and 37800 is really the Briz-M.
The elset for epoch Aug 19 at 1334UTC ("37800 -- 51.32°, 996x20327 km, 368.8 min") was wrongly allocated to the tank, it should have been allocated to
EXPRESS AM4/37798/11045A (not to Briz-M)
The next elset at epoch 1454UTC for 37800 was correctly allocated to the tank (see my post reply#132 above)
But, this is what you seem to imply in your reply#135
BTW, with this understanding your reply#140 would have to be revised
-
#142
by
Stan Black
on 20 Aug, 2011 08:46
-
-
#143
by
input~2
on 20 Aug, 2011 10:28
-
The expected orbit after Burn 4 was to have been 420 x 35,616 km x 49.1 deg.
Express-AM4 launch mass was 5700 kg, a comparable satellite (W7, with a launch mass of 5600 kg) had these nominal parameters:
"Transfer orbit" (after 4th Briz burn): 420 x 35616 km x 49.1°
* (same as Express-AM4)
"Geotransfer orbit" (after 5th Briz burn): 4920 x 35596 km x 20.9°
*This comes from coopi.khrunichev.ru web site (it's different from Stan's table..)
-
#144
by
Stan Black
on 20 Aug, 2011 11:26
-
The expected orbit after Burn 4 was to have been 420 x 35,616 km x 49.1 deg.
Express-AM4 launch mass was 5700 kg, a comparable satellite (W7, with a launch mass of 5600 kg) had these nominal parameters:
"Transfer orbit" (after 4th Briz burn): 420 x 35616 km x 49.1°* (same as Express-AM4)
"Geotransfer orbit" (after 5th Briz burn): 4920 x 35596 km x 20.9°
*This comes from coopi.khrunichev.ru web site (it's different from Stan's table..)
| Номинал | 419.65 | x | 35565.57 | |
| Оценка | 419.89 | x | 35610.97 | Бриз-М |
| Оценка | 422.27 | x | 35592.20 | ОКБ МЭИ (ФП "Ритм") |
| Оценка | 420.91 | x | 35585.93 | ГБЦ |
http://coopi.khrunichev.ru/download/2009/w7/email/rus/w7_e11.htm
-
#145
by
input~2
on 20 Aug, 2011 12:09
-
-
#146
by
Stan Black
on 20 Aug, 2011 12:19
-
http://coopi.khrunichev.ru/download/2009/w7/email/rus/w7_e11.htm
I took my values from the picture below; so there was an internal discrepancy between both sources from Khrunichev 
but I guess your reference was published later and should be more accurate 
;
I tried to be consistent with the information; went for the ‘
NewsPosting’ where available. There are a few other discrepancies, usually with the transfer orbit.
It would nice if these were available for the failed missions… Did anyone receive them for AMC14, ARABSAT4A, JCSAT11 before they were removed?
-
#147
by
input~2
on 20 Aug, 2011 12:51
-
It would nice if these were available for the failed missions… Did anyone receive them for AMC14, ARABSAT4A, JCSAT11 before they were removed?
I have
posted some data on AMC-14 in the "Soviet/Russian space programs Q&A" thread
-
#148
by
input~2
on 20 Aug, 2011 14:05
-
Looking at the low perigee for the APT (tank) orbit, it seems that problems started already during the third Briz burn
-
#149
by
edkyle99
on 20 Aug, 2011 14:53
-
With the latest elset, I found
Epoch August 19 at 1659UTC:
EXPRESS-AM4/11045A in 1004.5 x 20314.9 km inclined 51.33°
Epoch August 19 at 1301UTC:
Briz-M / 11045B in 697.2 x 20239.3 km inclined 51.18°
With the 3rd object, in this orbit:
37800 -- 51.32°, 996x20327 km
It looks like the Express 37798 and the APT 37800 are in similar orbits, whereas the Briz-M 37799 has a much lower perigee, which probably means that the Briz-M is really 37800, since 37800 and 37798 are closer.
I'm confused. Current tracking data as I understand it shows the following:
37798 Express AM4 997 x 20326 km x 51.39 deg (roughly)
37799 Briz M Stage 690 x 20250 km x 51.25 deg (roughly)
37800 Briz M Tank 140 x 11305 km x 49.55 deg (roughly)
I agree with the assessment of the tank orbit's low perigee. Something may have been wrong even before the fourth burn. The fourth burn occurred, but produced goofy results. Guidance?
- Ed Kyle
-
#150
by
Danderman
on 20 Aug, 2011 15:18
-
I have seen 2 different element sets for the APT here, one with a perigee of some 150 km, another with a perigee over 900 km. Its hard to speculate on whether the burn that was actually completed before the APT was jettisoned was somehow improperly executed, if there are problems with the element sets, or identification of objects.
-
#151
by
edkyle99
on 20 Aug, 2011 16:29
-
I have seen 2 different element sets for the APT here, one with a perigee of some 150 km, another with a perigee over 900 km. Its hard to speculate on whether the burn that was actually completed before the APT was jettisoned was somehow improperly executed, if there are problems with the element sets, or identification of objects.
The orbits I presented are straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak, and are today's info.
- Ed Kyle
-
#152
by
JimO
on 20 Aug, 2011 16:41
-
To recapitulate, how much hydrazine do we believe remains on the satellite?
In terms of final temperature, I believe we can expect it to freeze or at least get slushy. Black body temp for an object 1 AU from the sun is somewhere around -5C, and an inert reflective-skinned vehicle could get even colder.
-
#153
by
JimO
on 20 Aug, 2011 16:44
-
The fourth burn occurred, but produced goofy results. Guidance?
Ed, it's premature to speculate, but I can't help wondering if this isn't another perfectly healthy vehicle flown into the ground [soon, will be] by human error in the loaded burn parameters?
Other wild speculations...
What commonality do we have with the 3Glonass splash? Both errors may intersect at the pad 31 prop loading complex.
-
#154
by
gwiz
on 20 Aug, 2011 17:01
-
The orbits I presented are straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak, and are today's info.
I get the impression that the Stratcom orbits are sometimes search orbits for objects they are trying to locate, rather than actual data.
-
#155
by
Danderman
on 20 Aug, 2011 17:19
-
I have seen 2 different element sets for the APT here, one with a perigee of some 150 km, another with a perigee over 900 km. Its hard to speculate on whether the burn that was actually completed before the APT was jettisoned was somehow improperly executed, if there are problems with the element sets, or identification of objects.
The orbits I presented are straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak, and are today's info.
- Ed Kyle
If the APT really has a perigee under 200 km, something was very wrong with the Briz-M performance even before the 4th burn.
And it may be the case that the 4th burn was executed properly, except that it started from a very low perigee (ie that the prior burn was incorrect),
HOWEVER, we should keep in mind that assignment of names to the NORAD objects is not done by NORAD. We are just assuming that the first object is the satellite, the 2nd object is the Briz-M, and the third is the APT. These might all be pieces of debris, and the main objects may not even be listed (if, hypothetically, the stack went into the ocean after a misfire).
-
#156
by
Phillip Clark
on 20 Aug, 2011 18:09
-
The orbits I presented are straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak, and are today's info.
I get the impression that the Stratcom orbits are sometimes search orbits for objects they are trying to locate, rather than actual data.
That is quite an accurate assessment. Initially the tank's orbital data were issued as object A, presumably when USSSN had not worked out what orbit the satellite and Briz-M stage had actually ended up with.
Such confusion is perfectly normal for USSSN, actually! For example on the last Ariane launch object C was actually a satellite and eventually the data for objects B and C were interchanged.
-
#157
by
Danderman
on 20 Aug, 2011 18:30
-
The fourth burn occurred, but produced goofy results. Guidance?
Ed, it's premature to speculate, but I can't help wondering if this isn't another perfectly healthy vehicle flown into the ground [soon, will be] by human error in the loaded burn parameters?
Other wild speculations...
What commonality do we have with the 3Glonass splash? Both errors may intersect at the pad 31 prop loading complex.
According to the Proton user guide, Briz-M prop loading happens in Building 92A-50.
-
#158
by
patchfree
on 20 Aug, 2011 21:54
-
The fourth burn occurred, but produced goofy results. Guidance?
Ed, it's premature to speculate, but I can't help wondering if this isn't another perfectly healthy vehicle flown into the ground [soon, will be] by human error in the loaded burn parameters?
Other wild speculations...
What commonality do we have with the 3Glonass splash? Both errors may intersect at the pad 31 prop loading complex.
According to the Proton user guide, Briz-M prop loading happens in Building 92A-50.
Are your sure? It seems to me that Briz-M fueling happens at the "service station" out of the building 92A-50, so there is no commonality with the 3 glonass fail.
Block DM03 was fueled elsewhere.
-
#159
by
JimO
on 20 Aug, 2011 22:43
-
Good info on fueling locations, thanks.
Bldg 92-50 was a real mystery when we visited in mid-1990s, it was new but empty, with wide staircases leading from the ground floor DOWNwards. Interesting wall murals [local artist quality] of military-looking spacecraft, probably just impressionistic rather than descriptive.
but I guess your reference was published later and should be more accurate 
;