-
LIVE: Atlas V 401 - GPS IIF-7 - August 01, 2014
by
beidou
on 21 Feb, 2014 18:08
-
-
#1
by
russianhalo117
on 21 Feb, 2014 19:23
-
This is going to be the third GPS launch in just half a year 
do we know the SVN number GPS IIF-7 yet.
-
#2
by
beidou
on 21 Feb, 2014 19:29
-
This is going to be the third GPS launch in just half a year
do we know the SVN number GPS IIF-7 yet.
As GPS IIF-5 is SVN 64, and SVN 65 and 66 were already taken by GPS IIF-3 and 4, so GPS IIF-6 should be SVN 67 and GPS IIF-7 should be SVN 68, which is just a wild guess.
-
#3
by
beidou
on 28 Apr, 2014 18:34
-
-
#4
by
beidou
on 21 May, 2014 20:06
-
Predict PRN3, secondary possibility PRN8.
There is also possibility for PRN4, which was assumed to be take by GPS IIF-6; but the just launched IIF-6 already took PRN6.
"04/34 D4 Rb1 IIA Rephase out of slot D4...will be replaced by upcoming SVN67"
-
#5
by
macpacheco
on 21 May, 2014 21:59
-
Predict PRN3, secondary possibility PRN8.
There is also possibility for PRN4, which was assumed to be take by GPS IIF-6; but the just launched IIF-6 already took PRN6.
"04/34 D4 Rb1 IIA Rephase out of slot D4...will be replaced by upcoming SVN67"
Removed the first post, my logic was incomplete and likely wrong.
PRN 3 / SVN 33 will likely be shutdown to free up almanac space.
Once PRN 3 is shutdown, PRN 3 and PRN 9 will be available for assignment.
Based on past behavior, PRN 9 will be assigned (the one that has been offline the longest).
My real bet is on what GPS IIA will be shutdown to free up almanac space.
There is almost zero chance PRN 4 or PRN 8 will be decommissioned instead, since they are replaced by IIF-5 and IIF-6 both of which are still in checkout, and they typically wait until it's operational for a good time (say 6 months) before becoming first choices for shutting down the satellite it replaced.
Even if IIF-7 gets delayed by as much as two months, the prediction stays the same.
It has been common to keep 3 satellites doing the job of 2 paired orbital slots.
PRN 3 replacement SVN 66 / PRN 27 has been operational since 06/21/2013.
The comment from NGA doesn't make much sense, since IIF-6 is replacing PRN 4 / SVN 34. But PRN 4 should stay online until IIF-6 completes its checkout and is set healthy for a while before SVN 34 gets shutdown (probably for IIF-9 or IIF-10)
-
#6
by
beidou
on 22 May, 2014 20:19
-
The comment from NGA doesn't make much sense, since IIF-6 is replacing PRN 4 / SVN 34. But PRN 4 should stay online until IIF-6 completes its checkout and is set healthy for a while before SVN 34 gets shutdown (probably for IIF-9 or IIF-10)
NGA is probably more authoritative than most of people in this forum. Your statement on GPS IIF-6 uses PRN 6 is definitely wrong - it is using PRN 6 and its signals have been tracked by many receivers around the world.
-
#7
by
macpacheco
on 22 May, 2014 21:42
-
The comment from NGA doesn't make much sense, since IIF-6 is replacing PRN 4 / SVN 34. But PRN 4 should stay online until IIF-6 completes its checkout and is set healthy for a while before SVN 34 gets shutdown (probably for IIF-9 or IIF-10)
NGA is probably more authoritative than most of people in this forum. Your statement on GPS IIF-6 uses PRN 6 is definitely wrong - it is using PRN 6 and its signals have been tracked by many receivers around the world.
Yes IIF-6 is broadcasting using PRN6, that's correct. But what you don't get is that its broadcasting an
unhealthy signal, and it will take at least about a month its checkout period testing to be completed, only after the checkout is complete the satellite will start broadcasting a healthy signal. Until healthy, the satellite should only be used for the express purpose of testing the satellite.
Even after IIF-6 is set healthy, the observed procedure is to keep the new and the old satellite broadcasting for many months (over a year when possible).
PRN 30 (SVN 64) replaces PRN 8 / SVN 38 and PRN 9 / SVN 39. The latter is already decommissioned, but the former should stay online for many months AFTER SVN 64 is set healthy (USABINIT NANU).
PRN 06 (SVN 67) replaces PRN 4 / SVN 34. As I explaned, SVN 34 should be kept operational for many months after SVN 67 is set healthy (USABINIT NANU).
I my lingo, a GPS satellite is not operational until it's set HEALTHY, right now SVN 64 and SVN 67 are broadcasting an unhealthy signal, so it's not operational (only special receivers set to track unhealthy signals are even capable of tracking those signals).
-
#8
by
jacqmans
on 04 Jun, 2014 10:35
-
From L2:
SLC-41 – Atlas V / GPS IIF-07
Launch scheduled > 8/1/14 (Range Approved)
-
#9
by
gwiz
on 04 Jun, 2014 10:41
-
I my lingo, a GPS satellite is not operational until it's set HEALTHY, right now SVN 64 and SVN 67 are broadcasting an unhealthy signal, so it's not operational...
SVN 64 was set healthy on May 30.
-
#10
by
Targeteer
on 05 Jun, 2014 07:54
-
Since it hasn't been stated yet, I'll pick a fight and start the arrows headed my way... Here's the first launch of what we now know may now turn out to be a finite number of Atlas 5/RD-180 cores with a payload that is ALREADY Delta IV qualified. In several years a payload requiring an Atlas 541 or 551 may be seriously delayed because the RD-180 was "wasted" on a GPS satellite fully capable of riding an RS-68...
-
#11
by
beidou
on 27 Jun, 2014 23:18
-
Count down on gps.gov website.
-
#12
by
jacqmans
on 30 Jun, 2014 09:48
-
From L2:
SLC-41 – Atlas V / GPS IIF-07
· Launch scheduled > 8/1/14, window: 2327L-2345L. (Range Approved)
-
#13
by
BabaORileyUSA
on 01 Jul, 2014 16:46
-
"...the first launch of what we now know may now turn out to be a finite number of Atlas 5/RD-180 cores with a payload that is ALREADY Delta IV qualified..."
I would call this the second. GPS_IIF-04 (a.k.a. Navstar-066, a.k.a. USA-0242, a.k.a. Vega) was launched on an Atlas-V(401) after three consecutive successful flights of the GPS_IIF on Delta-IVs. The number of RD-180s has always been, and will continue to remain, finite! :-)
-BabaORileyUSA
-
#14
by
Targeteer
on 02 Jul, 2014 00:00
-
"...the first launch of what we now know may now turn out to be a finite number of Atlas 5/RD-180 cores with a payload that is ALREADY Delta IV qualified..."
I would call this the second. GPS_IIF-04 (a.k.a. Navstar-066, a.k.a. USA-0242, a.k.a. Vega) was launched on an Atlas-V(401) after three consecutive successful flights of the GPS_IIF on Delta-IVs. The number of RD-180s has always been, and will continue to remain, finite! :-)
-BabaORileyUSA
USA-242 was launched on 15 May 2013, long before there was threat of the RD-180 supply being cut off and ULA could blissfully "waste" an awesome, cheap engine to launch a payload that didn't require it because there was an endless supply.
-
#15
by
macpacheco
on 18 Jul, 2014 00:36
-
Since it hasn't been stated yet, I'll pick a fight and start the arrows headed my way... Here's the first launch of what we now know may now turn out to be a finite number of Atlas 5/RD-180 cores with a payload that is ALREADY Delta IV qualified. In several years a payload requiring an Atlas 541 or 551 may be seriously delayed because the RD-180 was "wasted" on a GPS satellite fully capable of riding an RS-68...
The real issue should be: Is this launch needed right now for constellation sustainment ?
The answer is not really. The GPS constellation as of right now is better than ever.
Another question, would the cost of storing those satellites on the ground be higher than launching them: Perhaps
Launching IIF-7 and IIF-8 makes some technical sense as they clean up the way to launching IIIA-1 when its ready (fulfilling the 24+3 orbital layout even with all GPS IIA birds retired).
But launching IIF-9/10/11/12 as scheduled makes increasingly less sense (regardless of which booster is used). While ground storage costs money, latter launch would extend the service life of those satellites.
All GPS IIF satellites should still be serving us past 2030, with most of the lasting past 2040 and some all the way into 2050.
What if there is a major problem with IIIA satellites ? Having a few IIF on ground storage gives flexibility to launch them on more pressing orbital slots in the future should anything unplanned happen.
GPS satellites don't die sequentially. Although they provide quite a bit of early warning, having a strategic reserve of IIF satellites on the ground until the first IIIA is fully tested is a wise move (that isn't contemplated in the current GPS launch planning).
There is a lot of bureaucratic inertia in the GPS constellation sustainment process.
-
#16
by
Jim
on 18 Jul, 2014 00:43
-
Another question, would the cost of storing those satellites on the ground be higher than launching them: Perhaps
Not perhaps, but it is.
-
#17
by
baldusi
on 18 Jul, 2014 01:30
-
Macpacheco, weren't you the one saying that they were not replenishing fast enough and should increase the rate?
-
#18
by
Lar
on 18 Jul, 2014 03:25
-
Another question, would the cost of storing those satellites on the ground be higher than launching them: Perhaps
Not perhaps, but it is.
I think clearly the cost of X years of storage plus a launch in year X+1 is higher than a launch in year 1, unless the cost of launch in year X+1 is enough lower than the cost in year 1 that it covers the storage cost. So Jim is likely right, because launch costs are not likely to come down. Ever. No matter what happens.
But I don't think that's the right question. The right question is to ask what is the total cost of ownership of the entire GPS constellation (as birds die and get replaced) over the next N (where N is some large number, say 50) years. And I think there the argument can be made that IF you have sufficient on orbit spares already, why launch another spare now? Assuming the on orbit life is not diminished by storage, launching way more birds now than you need means you need replacement birds sooner and your TCO goes up.
-
#19
by
baldusi
on 18 Jul, 2014 04:35
-
IIF has the new signals. This is also about accelerating service improvements.
-
#20
by
Jim
on 18 Jul, 2014 13:04
-
Another question, would the cost of storing those satellites on the ground be higher than launching them: Perhaps
Not perhaps, but it is.
I think clearly the cost of X years of storage plus a launch in year X+1 is higher than a launch in year 1, unless the cost of launch in year X+1 is enough lower than the cost in year 1 that it covers the storage cost. So Jim is likely right, because launch costs are not likely to come down. Ever. No matter what happens.
But I don't think that's the right question. The right question is to ask what is the total cost of ownership of the entire GPS constellation (as birds die and get replaced) over the next N (where N is some large number, say 50) years. And I think there the argument can be made that IF you have sufficient on orbit spares already, why launch another spare now? Assuming the on orbit life is not diminished by storage, launching way more birds now than you need means you need replacement birds sooner and your TCO goes up.
It costs more because all the IIF spacecraft are built but the design and build team has to be maintained until the last of the series is on orbit. The USAF operates the spacecraft on orbit and so the required support from Boeing is much less.
Right now, the USAF is paying for two separate design and build teams; IIF (Boeing) & III (LM)
-
#21
by
macpacheco
on 18 Jul, 2014 13:30
-
Macpacheco, weren't you the one saying that they were not replenishing fast enough and should increase the rate?
Its true that a faster launch pace will speed up making L2C / M-Code signal operational.
But the really critical signal, L5 (essential for a complete migration from ground based navigation to satellite based navigation, specially retirement of billions USD worth of aging+obsolete ground equipment), is still 18 launches away from being operational, requiring all ordered GPS IIIA satellites plus a bunch of not even ordered ones.
I was consistently whining back when not even one launch / year was being executed, but on the other hand 3 or more launches per year is a waste of money, unless the plan is to launch a few more and stop for a few years.
Launching new GPS satellites too fast equals wasting perfectly good IIR GPS satellites. Lets get rid of the IIAs, those are really old and are performing much worse than the rest of the constellation.
But after launching IIF-7 + IIF-8 the constellation should have 27 healthy birds even with all IIA birds retired. Performance spec is for 27 birds.
The sweet spot is two launches per year.
It's a juggling act (conflicting priorities) between sustaining the constellation and preparing for M-Code/L2C FOC (and future L5 FOC).
The main GPS challenge right now is getting OCX fully operational and the first IIIA launched. Both projects are facing delays and (F35 like) SNAFUs.
-
#22
by
grythumn
on 18 Jul, 2014 15:04
-
Launching new GPS satellites too fast equals wasting perfectly good IIR GPS satellites. Lets get rid of the IIAs, those are really old and are performing much worse than the rest of the constellation.
But after launching IIF-7 + IIF-8 the constellation should have 27 healthy birds even with all IIA birds retired. Performance spec is for 27 birds.
The sweet spot is two launches per year.
It's a juggling act (conflicting priorities) between sustaining the constellation and preparing for M-Code/L2C FOC (and future L5 FOC).
The main GPS challenge right now is getting OCX fully operational and the first IIIA launched. Both projects are facing delays and (F35 like) SNAFUs.
They could also be planning on using the upper PRNs if needed for the GPS IIIA birds, and both exceeding the performance specs and giving themselves more on-orbit redundancy (I imagine they weren't happy with that GAO report from a while back).
But this has drifted to general GPS policy instead of mission specific (I don't think there IS an active general GPS thread...).
-Bob
-
#23
by
macpacheco
on 18 Jul, 2014 16:40
-
Launching new GPS satellites too fast equals wasting perfectly good IIR GPS satellites. Lets get rid of the IIAs, those are really old and are performing much worse than the rest of the constellation.
But after launching IIF-7 + IIF-8 the constellation should have 27 healthy birds even with all IIA birds retired. Performance spec is for 27 birds.
The sweet spot is two launches per year.
It's a juggling act (conflicting priorities) between sustaining the constellation and preparing for M-Code/L2C FOC (and future L5 FOC).
The main GPS challenge right now is getting OCX fully operational and the first IIIA launched. Both projects are facing delays and (F35 like) SNAFUs.
They could also be planning on using the upper PRNs if needed for the GPS IIIA birds, and both exceeding the performance specs and giving themselves more on-orbit redundancy (I imagine they weren't happy with that GAO report from a while back).
But this has drifted to general GPS policy instead of mission specific (I don't think there IS an active general GPS thread...).
-Bob
There are two bottlenecks to use the upper PRNs:
1 - AEP have a 31 PRN almanac limit
2 - AEP can't assign PRN33-PRN36
OCX block I remove both limitations.
But OCX can't manage IIA GPS birds, one of the reasons another 2 launches are very important (pave the way to have all remaining IIA GPS decommissioned for OCX block I activation)
With IIF-1 ... IIF-8 healthy, there will be 28 IIR+IIRM+IIF birds in orbit, minus SVN49 that has that L5 test payload problem, leaves 27 healthy birds, just enough to produce a 24+3 compliant constellation layout even with all GPS IIA retired (enabling OCX activation)
Plus without OCX block I online, IIIA GPS can't be fully managed (can't be added to the almanac nor can be set healthy)
-
#24
by
vapour_nudge
on 20 Jul, 2014 05:09
-
Does anyone know the Atlas/Centaur tail number for this launch? AV-0xx ?
-
#25
by
Lar
on 20 Jul, 2014 06:15
-
I think clearly the cost of X years of storage plus a launch in year X+1 is higher than a launch in year 1, unless the cost of launch in year X+1 is enough lower than the cost in year 1 that it covers the storage cost. So Jim is likely right, because launch costs are not likely to come down. Ever. No matter what happens.
But I don't think that's the right question. The right question is to ask what is the total cost of ownership of the entire GPS constellation (as birds die and get replaced) over the next N (where N is some large number, say 50) years. And I think there the argument can be made that IF you have sufficient on orbit spares already, why launch another spare now? Assuming the on orbit life is not diminished by storage, launching way more birds now than you need means you need replacement birds sooner and your TCO goes up.
It costs more because all the IIF spacecraft are built but the design and build team has to be maintained until the last of the series is on orbit. The USAF operates the spacecraft on orbit and so the required support from Boeing is much less.
Right now, the USAF is paying for two separate design and build teams; IIF (Boeing) & III (LM)
Thanks for clarifying that, I hadn't thought about the support team aspect and reducing dups... What is the burn rate (yearly cost) on (each of) the teams, do we know off hand or is that proprietary?
-
#26
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 20 Jul, 2014 06:31
-
Does anyone know the Atlas/Centaur tail number for this launch? AV-0xx ?
One website is reporting AV-048 (047 for Worldview 3?).
-
#27
by
edkyle99
on 20 Jul, 2014 15:43
-
Does anyone know the Atlas/Centaur tail number for this launch? AV-0xx ?
One website is reporting AV-048 (047 for Worldview 3?).
At what point do we stop using those designators if there actually are no more "tail" numbers on the vehicles themselves and if ULA does not use them in its press materials?
- Ed Kyle
-
#28
by
Jim
on 20 Jul, 2014 16:53
-
At what point do we stop using those designators if there actually are no more "tail" numbers on the vehicles themselves and if ULA does not use them in its press materials?
Because they are used in all engineering documentation. OV numbers were not "on" the vehicles visible to the public. There is a parts tag on the vehicle that does say AV-XXX. T
-
#29
by
edkyle99
on 20 Jul, 2014 19:15
-
At what point do we stop using those designators if there actually are no more "tail" numbers on the vehicles themselves and if ULA does not use them in its press materials?
Because they are used in all engineering documentation. OV numbers were not "on" the vehicles visible to the public. There is a parts tag on the vehicle that does say AV-XXX. T
But that is the problem. By "we" I mean those of us outside the program, who don't see the engineering documentation. "We" have no way to identify these vehicles. If "we" start guessing, "we" are eventually going to get it wrong, which confuses future historians. Better, I think, to stop guessing altogether.
- Ed Kyle
-
#30
by
Jim
on 20 Jul, 2014 20:39
-
If "we" start guessing, "we" are eventually going to get it wrong, which confuses future historians. Better, I think, to stop guessing altogether.
Don't need to guess, the info will be provided.
-
#31
by
edkyle99
on 20 Jul, 2014 23:13
-
If "we" start guessing, "we" are eventually going to get it wrong, which confuses future historians. Better, I think, to stop guessing altogether.
Don't need to guess, the info will be provided.
Much appreciated, but still second-hand for those outside the gate. I would like to see ULA provide the information directly.
- Ed Kyle
-
#32
by
vapour_nudge
on 21 Jul, 2014 15:00
-
SFN references it as AV-048
-
#33
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 22 Jul, 2014 12:25
-
The satellite (SVN68) will be launched into slot F3 to replace GPS IIR-2/SVN43 (launched July 1997); which in turn will be moved to slot F5 to replace GPS IIA-14/SVN26 (launched July 1992; 2nd oldest GPS satellite currently in service).
SourceThe satellite's Boeing internal code name is
Capella:
-
#34
by
BabaORileyUSA
on 24 Jul, 2014 14:36
-
Interesting. The star Capella, means 'Little Goat', and the goat is the animal associated with the constellation Auriga. The ULA mission patch, therefore, is a bit of an anomaly, and my question is simple: which goat at ULA doesn't know the difference between a GOAT and a SHEEP (ram)?!?! The constellation associated with sheep is Aries, but Capella is not in Aries....
I'm just sayin'....
-
#35
by
Jim
on 24 Jul, 2014 16:01
-
Interesting. The star Capella, means 'Little Goat', and the goat is the animal associated with the constellation Auriga. The ULA mission patch, therefore, is a bit of an anomaly, and my question is simple: which goat at ULA doesn't know the difference between a GOAT and a SHEEP (ram)?!?! The constellation associated with sheep is Aries, but Capella is not in Aries....
None of these are ULA patches. They are USAF patches.
The top one is the 5th SLS and bottom one is the 45th LCSS.
-
#36
by
Jim
on 24 Jul, 2014 16:03
-
The satellite's Boeing internal code name is Capella:
USAF's and not Boeing
-
#37
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 26 Jul, 2014 23:55
-
Per ULA, due to constant delays with the Delta IV launch, this launch will slip to August 1 local time (August 2 GMT - should be 03:23 - 03:41 UTC IIRC).
-
#38
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 27 Jul, 2014 06:00
-
Per ULA, due to constant delays with the Delta IV launch, this launch will slip to August 1 local time (August 2 GMT - should be 03:23 - 03:41 UTC IIRC).
Do we know if there are any range approved back-up slots if it doesn't launch on the 1st?
-
#39
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 27 Jul, 2014 16:47
-
Per ULA, due to constant delays with the Delta IV launch, this launch will slip to August 1 local time (August 2 GMT - should be 03:23 - 03:41 UTC IIRC).
Confirmed by ULA (that is 11:23 - 11:41 pm Eastern August 1).
Here's the mission booklet:
-
#40
by
chewi
on 28 Jul, 2014 16:03
-
-
#41
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 29 Jul, 2014 15:55
-
GPS IIF-7 being encapsulated and stacked:
-
#42
by
Speedracer
on 30 Jul, 2014 19:59
-
I'll be in Ft. Myers Beach tomorrow and would like to try and see if I can catch a view of the launch from there. To what direction will it be going? Up the coast, South, due east, etc.?
Thanks.
-
#43
by
WHAP
on 30 Jul, 2014 20:13
-
I'll be in Ft. Myers Beach tomorrow and would like to try and see if I can catch a view of the launch from there. To what direction will it be going? Up the coast, South, due east, etc.?
Thanks.
IMO, your chances of seeing anything other than a glow on the horizon are pretty small.
-
#44
by
Speedracer
on 30 Jul, 2014 21:16
-
I didn't know if they launched to the south towards the Caribbean I might have a better chance than if they sent it north towards the Carolinas.
-
#45
by
Darga
on 31 Jul, 2014 02:22
-
-
#46
by
sdsds
on 31 Jul, 2014 04:04
-
Some quotes from reliable sources:
"The ULA Launch Readiness Review is complete! [...] webcast begins @ 11:03 [pm EDT]."
"For MLP roll Thursday morning, relatively light southeast winds [...] and a low lightning threat are expected."
overall probability of violating weather constraints
Launch day: 30%
24-hour delay: 30%
-
#47
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 31 Jul, 2014 12:24
-
-
#48
by
Artyom.
on 31 Jul, 2014 17:41
-
A United Launch Alliance Atlas V is rolled from the Vertical Integration Facility (VIF) to the pad at Space Launch Complex-41 in preparation for launch of the Air Force's seventh Global Positioning Systems (GPS IIF-7) satellite.
http://www.ulalaunch.com/file-library.aspx
-
#49
by
Chris Bergin
on 01 Aug, 2014 16:41
-
Moved for live coverage.
-
#50
by
Chris Bergin
on 01 Aug, 2014 23:07
-
-
#51
by
russianhalo117
on 02 Aug, 2014 01:47
-
Per ULA:
The poll for cryogenic fueling is complete. We are GO to begin fueling operations. The #GPSIIF7 countdown has resumed. #AtlasV
-
#52
by
The Roadie
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:01
-
One minute to start of ULA webcast.
-
#53
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:02
-
-
#54
by
kevin-rf
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:02
-
Is it casting yet
-
#55
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:03
-
-
#56
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:03
-
-
#57
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:04
-
On the pad. T-4 and holding. Not working any issues.
-
#58
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:04
-
No issues in work.
-
#59
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:05
-
He's got a rocket tie.... (and it looks like a Shuttle - nice!)
-
#60
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:05
-
Coverage will conclude 20 minutes after lift-off.
-
#61
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:06
-
Discussion of GPS satellite. Weather is good.
-
#62
by
PahTo
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:06
-
Is it true the Atlas V 401 has the best PMF for any operational LV? At the risk of turning this in to a party thread, NSF is the best! Thanks for the coverage.
-
#63
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:07
-
About 17 minutes from launch.
-
#64
by
Prober
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:08
-
hmm interesting the Altas seems to have more lox boiloff than the Delta iv.
Wonder if that's true or if its just weather conditions?
-
#65
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:08
-
At the vehicle integration facility (VIF).
-
#66
by
QuantumG
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:09
-
What's the stream link?
-
#67
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:09
-
About 14 minutes to launch.
-
#68
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:10
-
-
#69
by
kevin-rf
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:11
-
hmm interesting the Altas seems to have more lox boiloff than the Delta iv.
Wonder if that's true or if its just weather conditions?
The Delta IV LOX and LH tanks are covered in foam. The Atlas V first stage LOX tank is not. So you should have greater amounts of LOX boil off.
-
#70
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:11
-
After fairing separation.
-
#71
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:12
-
-
#72
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:12
-
About 11 minutes to launch.
-
#73
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:13
-
Solar radiation acceptable for launch.
-
#74
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:13
-
Heh. There's the now well known solar radiation call on the loop.
-
#75
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:14
-
0134Z for window management plan.
-
#76
by
sdsds
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:14
-
There's a livestream as well.
-
#77
by
PahTo
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:15
-
hmm interesting the Altas seems to have more lox boiloff than the Delta iv.
Wonder if that's true or if its just weather conditions?
The Delta IV LOX and LH tanks are covered in foam. The Atlas V first stage LOX tank is not. So you should have greater amounts of LOX boil off.
Boil off does appear to be more than usual for Atlas V, not that I've seen most of them.
-
#78
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:15
-
About 8 minutes from launch. Will be polling soon.
-
#79
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:16
-
Coming up on polling to come out of the hold.
-
#80
by
kevin-rf
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:16
-
Heh. There's the now well known solar radiation call on the loop.
btw. There where two M class solar flares earlier today, and a minor CME impact. So was a worthwhile check.
-
#81
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:16
-
Going through poll.
-
#82
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:17
-
Polling is GO.
-
#83
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:17
-
L-6 mins.
-
#84
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:17
-
-
#85
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:19
-
T-4 minutes and counting.
-
#86
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:19
-
-
#87
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:20
-
-
#88
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:21
-
-
#89
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:22
-
-
#90
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:22
-
T-1 minute. Range is green.
-
#91
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:22
-
Range GREEN.
Go Atlas. Go Centaur!
-
#92
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:23
-
-
#93
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:23
-
-
#94
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:24
-
Booster performance very good.
-
#95
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:24
-
-
#96
by
sdsds
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:24
-
-
#97
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:24
-
-
#98
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:24
-
-
#99
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:25
-
-
#100
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:25
-
-
#101
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:25
-
-
#102
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:26
-
-
#103
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:26
-
-
#104
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:27
-
-
#105
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:28
-
-
#106
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:28
-
-
#107
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:29
-
-
#108
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:30
-
31 operational sats. 21 beyond normal life.
-
#109
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:31
-
-
#110
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:32
-
-
#111
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:33
-
ULA Atlas control centre I presume.
-
#112
by
belegor
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:34
-
Flying over Europe?
Not yet. Nova Scotia, I think...
-
#113
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:34
-
Making a fuel-rich correction.
-
#114
by
PahTo
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:34
-
Many telemetry calls, both for Centaur temps and engine performance/adjustments. HR proofing perhaps?
-
#115
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:35
-
L+12 minutes. Approaching end of burn. Flying south of Greenland.
-
#116
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:36
-
-
#117
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:37
-
-
#118
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:39
-
T+14 minutes. Cut-off in two minutes.
-
#119
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:40
-
-
#120
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:41
-
-
#121
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:41
-
Into the coast for three hours. I'm off back to bed!
Thanks again to Steven for the main coverage!
-
#122
by
PahTo
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:42
-
Lemme' guess--there'll be more than a few to cover SECO...
-
#123
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:42
-
-
#124
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:45
-
End of transmission.
Congratulations to ULA, Boeing and USAF for the successful launch!
Thanks Chris. Enjoy your sleep!
-
#125
by
Mapperuo
on 02 Aug, 2014 03:46
-
-
#126
by
Artyom.
on 02 Aug, 2014 07:16
-
-
#127
by
Artyom.
on 02 Aug, 2014 07:55
-
-
#128
by
Lewis007
on 02 Aug, 2014 07:55
-
ULA launch highlights video
-
#129
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Aug, 2014 08:41
-
-
#130
by
jacqmans
on 02 Aug, 2014 09:01
-
7th Boeing GPS IIF Delivered to Orbit and Operational
Third launch this year in Boeing-Air Force GPS modernization effort
CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, Fla., Aug. 2, 2014 – A Boeing [NYSE: BA] Global Positioning System (GPS) IIF satellite, launched late yesterday, has sent the signals to controllers that confirm it is currently operating properly within the constellation that millions of people rely on for timing and navigation information.
GPS IIF-7 was launched aboard a United Launch Alliance Atlas-5 rocket from Cape Canaveral. It is the seventh of 12 such satellites Boeing has built for the U.S. Air Force, and the third on-orbit delivery this year.
“We are providing our Air Force partner and GPS users with a steady supply of advanced GPS IIFs,” said Craig Cooning, president of Boeing Network & Space Systems. “Our robust launch tempo requires vigilance and attention to detail, and mission success is our top priority. We continue to partner with the Air Force and ULA to effectively execute the launch schedule.”
Boeing and the Air Force will complete the full on-orbit checkout of the satellite next month. The GPS IIFs offer improved signal accuracy, better anti-jamming capability, longer design life and the new civilian L5 signal.
GPS IIF-8, slated for launch during the fourth quarter, arrived at Cape Canaveral on July 16 to undergo final launch preparations.
-
#131
by
Rocket Science
on 02 Aug, 2014 12:48
-
Congrats ULA!
-
#132
by
baldusi
on 02 Aug, 2014 15:02
-
Congratulation to ULA, the range and the Boeing team!
-
#133
by
robertross
on 02 Aug, 2014 16:20
-
Congrats to ULA and the teams!
And thanks for the excellent coverage.
-
#134
by
PahTo
on 02 Aug, 2014 16:31
-
Another successful launch--on time and on target.
Congrats to all teams.
-
#135
by
Star One
on 11 Aug, 2014 14:15
-
Apt that the launch marking this change should be a GPS one.
WASHINGTON — The successful launch Aug. 1 of the U.S. Air Force’s seventh GPS 2F navigation satellite from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, marked the final time the service is expected to rely on C-band radars to track rockets immediately following liftoff.
Future Air Force launches, both from the Cape and from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, will rely on GPS signals for post-liftoff tracking, service officials said. The Air Force and its primary launch services provider, United Launch Alliance of Denver, have been working for years on the capability, which features rocket-mounted GPS receivers that transmit position-location data to controllers on the ground.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/41531gps-2f-7-launch-caps-air-force-use-of-c-band-tracking-radar
-
#136
by
Kim Keller
on 11 Aug, 2014 16:22
-
Apt that the launch marking this change should be a GPS one.
WASHINGTON — The successful launch Aug. 1 of the U.S. Air Force’s seventh GPS 2F navigation satellite from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, marked the final time the service is expected to rely on C-band radars to track rockets immediately following liftoff.
Future Air Force launches, both from the Cape and from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, will rely on GPS signals for post-liftoff tracking, service officials said. The Air Force and its primary launch services provider, United Launch Alliance of Denver, have been working for years on the capability, which features rocket-mounted GPS receivers that transmit position-location data to controllers on the ground.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/41531gps-2f-7-launch-caps-air-force-use-of-c-band-tracking-radar
The article is in error - AV-047/Worldview 3 will fly a transponder, not GPS-MTS.
-
#137
by
Star One
on 11 Aug, 2014 16:24
-
Apt that the launch marking this change should be a GPS one.
WASHINGTON — The successful launch Aug. 1 of the U.S. Air Force’s seventh GPS 2F navigation satellite from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, marked the final time the service is expected to rely on C-band radars to track rockets immediately following liftoff.
Future Air Force launches, both from the Cape and from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, will rely on GPS signals for post-liftoff tracking, service officials said. The Air Force and its primary launch services provider, United Launch Alliance of Denver, have been working for years on the capability, which features rocket-mounted GPS receivers that transmit position-location data to controllers on the ground.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/41531gps-2f-7-launch-caps-air-force-use-of-c-band-tracking-radar
The article is in error - AV-047/Worldview 3 will fly a transponder, not GPS-MTS.
Is that actually the last flight to do this?
-
#138
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 11 Aug, 2014 16:30
-
Apt that the launch marking this change should be a GPS one.
WASHINGTON — The successful launch Aug. 1 of the U.S. Air Force’s seventh GPS 2F navigation satellite from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, marked the final time the service is expected to rely on C-band radars to track rockets immediately following liftoff.
Future Air Force launches, both from the Cape and from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, will rely on GPS signals for post-liftoff tracking, service officials said. The Air Force and its primary launch services provider, United Launch Alliance of Denver, have been working for years on the capability, which features rocket-mounted GPS receivers that transmit position-location data to controllers on the ground.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/41531gps-2f-7-launch-caps-air-force-use-of-c-band-tracking-radar
The article is in error - AV-047/Worldview 3 will fly a transponder, not GPS-MTS.
But was AV-048 the last one to do so from the Cape?
-
#139
by
Kim Keller
on 11 Aug, 2014 16:37
-
But was AV-048 the last one to do so from the Cape?
I think so, but I haven't yet seen the installation data for AV-049/CLIO. IIRC, there are two transponders in ULA inventory, one of those assigned to AV-047, of course.
-
#140
by
Colodie
on 17 Sep, 2014 21:09
-
SVN 68 was set healthy today.
NOTICE ADVISORY TO NAVSTAR USERS (NANU) 2014071
SUBJ: SVN68 (PRN09) USABLE JDAY 260/2026
1. NANU TYPE: USABINIT
NANU NUMBER: 2014071
NANU DTG: 172024Z SEP 2014
REFERENCE NANU: N/A
REF NANU DTG: N/A
SVN: 68
PRN: 09
START JDAY: 260
START TIME ZULU: 2026
START CALENDAR DATE: 17 SEP 2014
STOP JDAY: N/A
STOP TIME ZULU: N/A
STOP CALENDAR DATE: N/A
2. CONDITION: GPS SATELLITE SVN68 (PRN09) WAS USABLE AS OF JDAY 260
(17 SEP 2014) BEGINNING 2026 ZULU.
3. POC: CIVILIAN - NAVCEN AT 703-313-5900,
http://HTTP://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 276-3514,
COMM 805-606-3514,
[email protected]
-
#141
by
Lewis007
on 14 Oct, 2014 06:11
-
