Author Topic: SpaceX : SpaceIL secondary payload : Dec. 2018 : Temporary Thread  (Read 6209 times)

Offline scr00chy

  • Member
  • Posts: 33
  • Czechia
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 21
A Supersynchronous Transfer Orbit (STO) is not the same as a Sun-Synchronous Orbit (SSO). A STO is a type of GTO where the apogee goes beyond the GEO altitude.
Oh, sorry, misread the original post. Thanks. :)

Offline rpapo

  • Cybernetic Mole
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Michigan, USA
  • Liked: 584
  • Likes Given: 458
This is a good example of why certain people (like Musk) hate acronyms.
An Apollo fanboy . . . fifty years ago.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3359
  • US
  • Liked: 2719
  • Likes Given: 1628
This is a good example of why certain people (like Musk) hate acronyms.

The part he misread wasn't an acronym.

Online Alexphysics

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Spain
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 55
Sometimes is better to say SSO than "Sun-Synchronous Orbit" all the time, that's why certain acronyms are useful, but this is not relevant to this mission

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4100
  • Liked: 2120
  • Likes Given: 1269
It doesn't help that SpaceIL themselves have stated at various times that they would be flying to sun-sync and at other times that they were going to super-sync. The latter appears to be the current plan.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3359
  • US
  • Liked: 2719
  • Likes Given: 1628
It doesn't help that SpaceIL themselves have stated at various times that they would be flying to sun-sync and at other times that they were going to super-sync. The latter appears to be the current plan.

SpaceIL was never going to SSO, even when other payloads on their scheduled flight were going there.  There would have been another engine burn.

Offline TrevorMonty

It doesn't help that SpaceIL themselves have stated at various times that they would be flying to sun-sync and at other times that they were going to super-sync. The latter appears to be the current plan.
Their video that was included in article on this mission  had them going to 500km Sun Sync from Vandenburg. We know for this mission they aren't launching from Vandenburg.

The journalist didn't do their homework, should've watch video first before including it. Thats assuming they understood differences between SSO and GTO.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4460
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1056
  • Likes Given: 573
It doesn't help that SpaceIL themselves have stated at various times that they would be flying to sun-sync and at other times that they were going to super-sync. The latter appears to be the current plan.
Their video that was included in article on this mission  had them going to 500km Sun Sync from Vandenburg. We know for this mission they aren't launching from Vandenburg.

The journalist didn't do their homework, should've watch video first before including it. Thats assuming they understood differences between SSO and GTO.
Correct they are flying a different launch profile and from a different pad (SLC-40). The video left several details out of the old launch profile.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4460
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1056
  • Likes Given: 573
PSN-6 seems to be the only launch that fitst the criteria (Falcon 9 from Canaveral in December).

Current entry on US NSF Schedule:
Q4 - PSN-6 (Pasifik Satelit Nusantara 6), U.S. government satellite - Falcon 9 - Canaveral SLC-40

PSN-VI Possibilities:
Q4 - PSN-6 (Pasifik Satelit Nusantara 6), U.S. government satellite, SpaceIL Moon Lander - Falcon 9 - Canaveral SLC-40
Q4 - PSN-6 (Pasifik Satelit Nusantara 6), U.S. government satellite, SpaceIL Moon Lander - Falcon 9 - Canaveral SLC-40
Q4 - PSN-6 (Pasifik Satelit Nusantara 6), U.S. government satellite, SpaceIL Moon Lander - Falcon 9 - Canaveral SLC-40

The reports on the government secondary payload said it would be carried to orbit by PSN VI, so I don't think option 3 is likely.  If it does end up being with PSN VI then I'd guess option 2 is most likely.
Per a friend the below listed Israeli Payload has been cited in Israel as the most likely potential communications payload. It is possible as it is listed NET late December 2018/very early 2019 on Israeli forums. Per our NSF US Launch schedule it is currently listed as:
2019:
Early - Amos 17 - Falcon 9 - Canaveral SLC-40 (or Q2)

Offline scr00chy

  • Member
  • Posts: 33
  • Czechia
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 21
PSN-6 seems to be the only launch that fitst the criteria (Falcon 9 from Canaveral in December).

Current entry on US NSF Schedule:
Q4 - PSN-6 (Pasifik Satelit Nusantara 6), U.S. government satellite - Falcon 9 - Canaveral SLC-40

PSN-VI Possibilities:
Q4 - PSN-6 (Pasifik Satelit Nusantara 6), U.S. government satellite, SpaceIL Moon Lander - Falcon 9 - Canaveral SLC-40
Q4 - PSN-6 (Pasifik Satelit Nusantara 6), U.S. government satellite, SpaceIL Moon Lander - Falcon 9 - Canaveral SLC-40
Q4 - PSN-6 (Pasifik Satelit Nusantara 6), U.S. government satellite, SpaceIL Moon Lander - Falcon 9 - Canaveral SLC-40

The reports on the government secondary payload said it would be carried to orbit by PSN VI, so I don't think option 3 is likely.  If it does end up being with PSN VI then I'd guess option 2 is most likely.
Per a friend the below listed Israeli Payload has been cited in Israel as the most likely potential communications payload. It is possible as it is listed NET late December 2018/very early 2019 on Israeli forums. Per our NSF US Launch schedule it is currently listed as:
2019:
Early - Amos 17 - Falcon 9 - Canaveral SLC-40 (or Q2)

Seems unlikely to me. Amos-17 has been scheduled for Q2 2019 from the start (the initial 2017 announcement stated this planned date).

Tags: