Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 : GPS III SV01 : SLC-40 : Dec. 23, 2018 - DISCUSSION  (Read 203710 times)

Offline garcianc

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 110
  • washington, dc
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 62
https://abc30.com/science/spacex-falcon-9-rocket-lifts-off-for-international-space-station/4956896/

Glad to see the mainstream news covering this launch, but perhaps they don't have the excellent space journalists we are accustomed to seeing here in NSF. For Pete's sake, all they had to do was cut-and-paste from the press kit! Yikes!

Edit to add quote from the article:
Quote
A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket carrying advance GPS satellites for the Air Force is on its way to the International Space Station.
« Last Edit: 12/24/2018 03:52 am by garcianc »

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14669
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14676
  • Likes Given: 1420
https://abc30.com/science/spacex-falcon-9-rocket-lifts-off-for-international-space-station/4956896/

Glad to see the mainstream news covering this launch, but perhaps they don't have the excellent space journalists we are accustomed to seeing here in NSF. For Pete's sake, all they had to do was cut-and-paste from the press kit! Yikes!

Edit to add quote from the article:
Quote
A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket carrying advance GPS satellites for the Air Force is on its way to the International Space Station.

Oh noez... This gotta be space news coverage fail of the year...
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline jcm

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3701
  • Jonathan McDowell
  • Somerville, Massachusetts, USA
    • Jonathan's Space Report
  • Liked: 1403
  • Likes Given: 816
Back to the discussion about the S2 deorbit burn: I am skeptical that a further 2 hour coast to apogee before deorbit would be used - I bet they want to finish the thing as soon as possible after payload sep. Yes, it's less efficient.
But if the report that reentry was at T+6h30min is correct, and using the target NOTAM area west of Namibia,
I get a much better fit with a 450m/s retrograde burn at about  1600 UTC, just after payload separation,
resulting in a -590 x 17570 km deorbit trajectory.  Burns of around 180 m/s at apogee instead give entry
at T+7h10m further downrange near the Antarctic.  But it's quite possible I've done my sums wrong.
-----------------------------

Jonathan McDowell
http://planet4589.org

Offline Alexphysics

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1625
  • Spain
  • Liked: 6027
  • Likes Given: 952
Back to the discussion about the S2 deorbit burn: I am skeptical that a further 2 hour coast to apogee before deorbit would be used - I bet they want to finish the thing as soon as possible after payload sep. Yes, it's less efficient.
But if the report that reentry was at T+6h30min is correct, and using the target NOTAM area west of Namibia,
I get a much better fit with a 450m/s retrograde burn at about  1600 UTC, just after payload separation,
resulting in a -590 x 17570 km deorbit trajectory.  Burns of around 180 m/s at apogee instead give entry
at T+7h10m further downrange near the Antarctic.  But it's quite possible I've done my sums wrong.

Would USAF let SpaceX burn the MVac close to the satellite? They were requested to purge the engine from all residues before separation and indeed if you look at the back of the stage it looks clean at separation, not even the usual chunk of ice or particles one is used to see. If they coasted to apogee then the satellite may have been far enough so that they can ignite it again without any problem.

Offline LouScheffer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3452
  • Liked: 6263
  • Likes Given: 882
Back to the discussion about the S2 deorbit burn: I am skeptical that a further 2 hour coast to apogee before deorbit would be used - I bet they want to finish the thing as soon as possible after payload sep. Yes, it's less efficient.
But if the report that reentry was at T+6h30min is correct, and using the target NOTAM area west of Namibia, I get a much better fit with a 450m/s retrograde burn at about  1600 UTC, just after payload separation, resulting in a -590 x 17570 km deorbit trajectory.  Burns of around 180 m/s at apogee instead give entry at T+7h10m further downrange near the Antarctic.  But it's quite possible I've done my sums wrong.
This makes sense - they had plenty of extra performance available.   The burns they used (not counting de-orbit) totaled about LEO+2500 m/s.   And they had about LEO + 2450 (standard GTO) + 350 (lighter payload) + 350 (expendable) = 3150 m/s available.  That's 650 m/s  that they could have had with the payload, which translates to about 1090 m/s without the payload (assuming ISP=348, ending mass = 5500 kg (controlled shutdown), sat mass = 4400 kg).  So no need for an efficient strategy, and why do an extended coast if not needed?

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • United States
  • Liked: 1006
  • Likes Given: 367
From the Lockheed Martin press release in the update thread

News Release Issued: Dec 23, 2018 (11:07am EST)

...
"In the coming days, GPS III SV01 will use its liquid apogee engines to climb into its operational orbit about 12,550 miles above the earth. We will then send it commands to deploy its solar arrays and antennas.

...

The satellite will only deploy the solar arrays after reaching the operational orbit, does it run on battery so long? or do the solar arrays produce some power for initial checkout even before being unfurled?

(I imagine this this is routine but I never noticed it before)

Offline Bunsen

  • Member
  • Posts: 7
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 23
From the Lockheed Martin press release in the update thread

News Release Issued: Dec 23, 2018 (11:07am EST)

...
"In the coming days, GPS III SV01 will use its liquid apogee engines to climb into its operational orbit about 12,550 miles above the earth. We will then send it commands to deploy its solar arrays and antennas.

...

The satellite will only deploy the solar arrays after reaching the operational orbit, does it run on battery so long? or do the solar arrays produce some power for initial checkout even before being unfurled?

(I imagine this this is routine but I never noticed it before)

Looking at the pre-encapsulation pictures, the outer section of the folded solar array has its solar cell side facing out.  That probably generates plenty of power to run the bird without the payload.

Online TJL

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1378
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 163
Question regarding first stage ditching...if SpaceX knew in advance the total fuel requirements of the payload, could they have compensated and return the first stage to the drone ship?
Or was the weight and trajectory required beyond that capability?
Thank you.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12102
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7499
  • Likes Given: 3809
Question regarding first stage ditching...if SpaceX knew in advance the total fuel requirements of the payload, could they have compensated and return the first stage to the drone ship?
Or was the weight and trajectory required beyond that capability?
Thank you.

It was beyond that capability.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39463
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 33125
  • Likes Given: 8906
\
Just 100m/s of margin. I can understand why USAF wanted all the performance from F9.

That is margin on top of margin. The 5.5 t to GTO for reusable already includes standard margins to account for performance deficiencies.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline LouScheffer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3452
  • Liked: 6263
  • Likes Given: 882
[...]  I'll note that depending on the SpaceX velocity versus altitude numbers has seemed in the past to provide underestimates of the actual orbit.
Aha!  I think I finally tracked down why the SpaceX cutoff numbers give different apogees than tracking reveals.
[...]
So the trick, I think, is to do the rotating-inertial conversion *at the 3D location of the burn*.
Thinking about this more, SpaceX (or any other rocket navigation) has to work in two coordinate systems at all times.  One is inertial, needed for apogee, perigee, and other orbital characterization.   The other coordinate system rotates with the Earth.  Location and velocity in this frame are needed for pointing ground antennas, comparing doppler and range-rate with expected values, and anything needing the ground track (including the graphics on the webcast).

So it makes sense that what the webcast is displaying is the Earth-rotating reference frame data.   The trajectory software needs to calculate this in real time anyway, and it makes the most intuitive sense for launch.    Once LEO is reached, it would make sense to change to inertial numbers,  but I can certainly see why they just want to stick to one coordinate systems for webcasts. 

Offline Semmel

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2178
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2433
  • Likes Given: 11922
Aha!  [...]

Lou, I congratulate you for debugging this problem! THAT is real engineering, love it! I deal with this sort of problems all day and getting that good of a fit to a problem where you dont know how the data is generated, reading into the errors of your model and solving the puzzle with independent confirmation.. thats pure engineering bliss right there. Better than chocolate!

Offline Raul

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
  • Ústí nad Orlicí, CZECH
  • Liked: 1191
  • Likes Given: 99
Last TLE shows that satellite successfully reached the final orbit.

2018-109A   20178.99/20196.48km/54.93°


Offline nzguy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 238
  • Liked: 188
  • Likes Given: 1
The first GPS receivers started tracking the PRN 4 signal from this satellite so it is alive.

Offline JimO

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2000
  • Texas, USA
  • Liked: 482
  • Likes Given: 195
Here’s my report, thanks all for your help, any further comments are welcome!
Wider Significance Of Australian Observations of Falcon Stage-2 Parking Orbit Departure Burn on Dec 23, 2018:

http://satobs.org/seesat_ref/misc/181223-falcon9-australia4.pdf

Offline GWR64

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1815
  • Likes Given: 1134
https://www.gpsworld.com/first-gps-iii-satellite-now-available/
Quote
The U.S. Air Force Second Space Operations Squadron (2 SOPS) has issued a statement that the first GPS III satellite is available for backup. While occupying the same plane as SV-68, the new satellite is broadcasting healthy, usable signals and is an active part of the constellation in the vicinity of slot F3 near SV-68.

To me it looks more like that SVN74 is very close to SVN60 on slot F4.
Strange I thought SVN43 should be replaced first.

https://www.n2yo.com/?s=43873|28361
« Last Edit: 01/25/2020 04:05 pm by GWR64 »

Offline GWR64

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1877
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1815
  • Likes Given: 1134
Quote

2020012 --------------------------
SVN60 (PRN23) DECOMMISSIONING JDAY 071/2200
      

NOTICE ADVISORY TO NAVSTAR USERS (NANU) 2020012
SUBJ: SVN60 (PRN23) DECOMMISSIONING JDAY 071/2200
1. NANU TYPE: DECOM
NANU NUMBER: 2020012
NANU DTG: 120131Z MAR 2020
REFERENCE NANU: 2020010
REF NANU DTG: 042041Z MAR 2020
SVN: 60
PRN: 23
UNUSABLE START JDAY: 069
UNUSABLE START TIME ZULU: 1919
UNUSABLE START CALENDAR DATE: 09 MAR 2020
DECOMMISSIONING START JDAY: 071
DECOMMISSIONING START TIME ZULU: 2200
DECOMMISSIONING START CALENDAR DATE: 11 MAR 2020

2. CONDITION: GPS SATELLITE SVN60 (PRN23) WAS UNUSABLE AS OF JDAY 069 (09 MAR 2020)
AND REMOVED FROM THE GPS CONSTELLATION ON JDAY 071 (11 MAR 2020).

3. POC: CIVILIAN - NAVCEN AT 703-313-5900, http://HTTPS://WWW.NAVCEN.USCG.GOV
MILITARY - GPS OPERATIONS CENTER AT http://HTTPS://GPS.AFSPC.AF.MIL/GPSOC, DSN 560-2541,
COMM 719-567-2541, [email protected], http://HTTPS://GPS.AFSPC.AF.MIL
MILITARY ALTERNATE - JOINT SPACE OPERATIONS CENTER, DSN 276-3526. COMM 805-606-3526.
[email protected]
https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?Do=constellationstatus

DECOMMISSIONING SVN60 on slot F4,
SVN74/GPS III-01 is physically on this slot F4 (even if slot A6 is named) and replaces SVN60/GPS-IIR-12
« Last Edit: 03/22/2020 09:30 pm by GWR64 »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0