-
#240
by
envy887
on 21 Mar, 2018 17:34
-
The date on STP-2 was updated from NET June to NET June 13th in the general launch log thread last week. Is that a reasonably solid date?
-
#241
by
russianhalo117
on 21 Mar, 2018 17:41
-
The date on STP-2 was updated from NET June to NET June 13th in the general launch log thread last week. Is that a reasonably solid date?
It still says its a NET but it is more of a promising date than just NET June. Keep in mind that for a while now in the USA launch schedule the launch date is NET 13 June 2018 to NLT 13 August 2018.
-
#242
by
gongora
on 21 Mar, 2018 18:15
-
The date on STP-2 was updated from NET June to NET June 13th in the general launch log thread last week. Is that a reasonably solid date?
The 13th is probably a solid NET date but I wouldn't consider it a solid launch date yet.
-
#243
by
gongora
on 13 Apr, 2018 22:48
-
You never know what you'll find when you get bored and poke around the FCC database...
ELS File Number 0235-EX-PL-2016
TBEx will be inserted into the nominal STP-2 CubeSat orbit with apogee at 860 km, perigee
at 300 km, and an inclination of 28.4.
This was from a 2017 document, which is five years newer than the publicly released mission requirements document you can find at the top of the thread.
edit: attach document with cubesat mission details
-
#244
by
gongora
on 14 Apr, 2018 00:46
-
Here is the ODAR for the three ELaNa XV CubeSats. It gives the orbit as 300x860 at 28.5 degrees. It also shows the June 13 target date was already set as of Dec. 12, 2017 (a couple months before the FH Demo launch).
-
#245
by
gongora
on 14 Apr, 2018 17:40
-
The Planetary Society hasn't changed their ODAR for Lightsail-2, it still shows deployment at 720km circular, 24 degrees.
FCC application still pending, FCC ELS File Number 0338-EX-ST-2018
-
#246
by
tleski
on 16 Apr, 2018 00:57
-
On the Space Show dated April 10th, Casey Dreier (Planetary Society) mentioned that the Lightsail-2 launch slipped from June to September. It would mean STP-2 slipped. Do we have any information confirming this from other sources? He seems to be pretty well informed.
Link to the interview (the Lightsail-2 is discussed ~33minutes into the show):
http://thespaceshow.com/show/10-apr-2018/broadcast-3098-casey-dreier
-
#247
by
gongora
on 16 Apr, 2018 01:06
-
It would not be surprising at all if it slips a few months. There wasn't really any chance of June happening.
-
#248
by
cebri
on 20 Apr, 2018 10:18
-
Kind of a bummer, i'll probably be in the States in June and i was hoping to see it go. Not really that suprised tho.
-
#249
by
gongora
on 24 Apr, 2018 21:34
-
General Atomics Completes Ready-For-Launch Testing of Orbital Test Bed SatelliteSAN DIEGO, CA, 23 APRIL 2018 - General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems (GA-EMS) announced today that it has completed full system and “ready for launch” pre-flight testing of its Orbital Test Bed (OTB) satellite. OTB will launch as part of the U.S. Air Force’s Space Technology Program (STP-2) flight on the SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket. The OTB hosts multiple payloads on a single platform for on-orbit technology demonstration. Among the hosted payloads on OTB is NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate’s Deep Space Atomic Clock, designed and built at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which supports deep space navigation and exploration.
“The completion of system testing marks a significant milestone, allowing us to effectively “button up” the OTB satellite in anticipation of delivery to Cape Canaveral for launch into space,” stated Scott Forney, president of GA-EMS. “We believe OTB is a new paradigm in hosted payload satellite design and is paving the way to make space more affordable and accessible to customers looking to demonstrate and validate their technologies on-orbit.”
GA-EMS’ low-Earth orbit OTB is a versatile, modular platform designed for the simultaneous launch of multiple demonstration payloads. Hosting multiple payloads on a single satellite eliminates the need for customers to bear the costly burden of a dedicated platform and launch.
“As the small satellite industry grows, the OTB hosted payload platform can increase the number of flight opportunities, reduce the cost to access space, and provide a more adaptable approach to managing the integration, launch, and on-orbit operations to support commercial, civil, educational, and military payloads,” added Nick Bucci, vice president of Missile Defense and Space at GA-EMS. “From the perspective of both the payload customer and host provider, this new approach offers significant advantages and benefits over classic space industry practices to help rapidly space-qualify new equipment.”
GA-EMS continues to expand its portfolio of small satellites and mission-support capabilities, providing ground-to-on-orbit solutions that offer a high degree of modularity and payload flexibility to suit a variety of mission and customer requirements.
-
#250
by
Eagandale4114
on 09 May, 2018 22:32
-
-
#251
by
gongora
on 11 May, 2018 17:38
-
-
#252
by
Comga
on 08 Jun, 2018 01:44
-
A system engineer working a payload on STP-2 told me that SpaceX has told the team with that the launch is now targeted for November 19.
-
#253
by
gongora
on 08 Jun, 2018 01:58
-
It will be interesting to see where DM-1 ends up in relation to this flight.
-
#254
by
deruch
on 08 Jun, 2018 19:43
-
It will be interesting to see where DM-1 ends up in relation to this flight.
I wouldn't be surprised if current delays in preparation of LC-39 for DM-1 are causing the slippage of STP-2 since both need that pad.
-
#255
by
vaporcobra
on 10 Jun, 2018 02:56
-
What is the purpose of the 5 tonnes of ballast on this mission? Is it simply to ensure that FH is capable of meeting the EELV New Entrant specifications?
No. The launcher is too powerfull for just the payload alone. It requires additional payload mass (provided by means of ballast) to prevent over-performance.
Perhaps this is an ignorant question, but why is this mission still manifested on a Falcon Heavy? I'm trying to figure out the rationale, especially given the unbelievably severe delays STP-2 has been beset with as a result of LV choice. Sunk cost fallacy?
It's just hard for me to see any actual value in adding a huge amount of ballast to "stress" test a LV that has already been successfully demonstrated with an interplanetary launch.
-
#256
by
gongora
on 10 Jun, 2018 02:59
-
What is the purpose of the 5 tonnes of ballast on this mission? Is it simply to ensure that FH is capable of meeting the EELV New Entrant specifications?
No. The launcher is too powerfull for just the payload alone. It requires additional payload mass (provided by means of ballast) to prevent over-performance.
Perhaps this is an ignorant question, but why is this mission still manifested on a Falcon Heavy? I'm trying to figure out the rationale, especially given the unbelievably severe delays STP-2 has been beset with as a result of LV choice. Sunk cost fallacy?
It's just hard for me to see any actual value in adding a huge amount of ballast to "stress" test a LV that has already been successfully demonstrated with an interplanetary launch.
The STP contracts are an onramp to DoD certification for new vehicles. It's a test flight. The payload isn't all that relevant.
-
#257
by
gongora
on 13 Jul, 2018 18:15
-
I wonder what the requirements for this actually are now. I don't see why it would ever go to 720km-circular unless a government secondary payload needs that orbit. The initial permit request for Prox-1 back in 2016 was denied by the FCC because that orbit was so high. Most of the smaller payloads are now showing a 300x860 at 28.5 degrees orbit, and Formosat-7's operational (not necessarily deployment) orbit is only 550-km at 24 degrees.
This article mentions the launch being pushed toward the end of the year (which we already knew), and has a couple other tidbits about the Formosat-7 sats.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2018/07/14/2003696663In April and May, the US sent experts to replace some of Formosat-7’s components after the NSPO detected signal interference among its scientific payloads, he said, adding the satellite cluster is now ready for launch.
...
The second set’s seventh satellite, which was made by Taiwan, would still be launched, and the NSPO would seek other rocket suppliers to help with the plan, he said.
It would budget NT$540 million (US$17.67 million) for the seventh satellite’s separate launch, which is scheduled for 2020, Yu added.
-
#258
by
gongora
on 02 Aug, 2018 18:38
-
-
#259
by
John Alan
on 02 Aug, 2018 23:34
-
Do we have any idea how long SpaceX will need to switch 39A back and forth between F9 and FH as it currently stands?...
DM-1 in early Nov and STP-2 in late Nov seems a possibility...
