Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Iridium NEXT Flight 1 DISCUSSION (Jan. 14 2017)  (Read 339733 times)

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1200
  • Likes Given: 594
there are 81 satellites of which currently only 70 have an assigned flight.

Isn't that 75 now?
there are 81 satellites of which currently only 70 have an assigned flight.

Isn't that 75 now?

I think the key word is "assigned." The eighth Iridium flight (five NEXT satellites ridesharing with GRACE-FO) hasn't been officially announced, as far as I know.
We dont yet know if they are either splitting up Iridium flight 7 to fly the GRACE-FO sats or if the GRACE-FO sats are flying with 5 previously unassigned Iridium sats.  Flight 7 target falls perfectly with the target launch period for GRACE-FO.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3794
  • US
  • Liked: 3149
  • Likes Given: 1850
there are 81 satellites of which currently only 70 have an assigned flight.

Isn't that 75 now?
there are 81 satellites of which currently only 70 have an assigned flight.

Isn't that 75 now?

I think the key word is "assigned." The eighth Iridium flight (five NEXT satellites ridesharing with GRACE-FO) hasn't been officially announced, as far as I know.
We dont yet know if they are either splitting up Iridium flight 7 to fly the GRACE-FO sats or if the GRACE-FO sats are flying with 5 previously unassigned Iridium sats.  Flight 7 target falls perfectly with the target launch period for GRACE-FO.

PBdeS tweeted that they arranged for another Falcon after they found out they couldn't use Dnepr, which was long after the original 7 flights were bought.  He said it's the original 7 flights of Iridium plus the new flight with Iridium and GRACE-FO.  He also said the original 7 flights would go first, but depending on how the SpaceX launch manifest works out I wouldn't be surprised if that changed.

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1200
  • Likes Given: 594
there are 81 satellites of which currently only 70 have an assigned flight.

Isn't that 75 now?
there are 81 satellites of which currently only 70 have an assigned flight.

Isn't that 75 now?

I think the key word is "assigned." The eighth Iridium flight (five NEXT satellites ridesharing with GRACE-FO) hasn't been officially announced, as far as I know.
We dont yet know if they are either splitting up Iridium flight 7 to fly the GRACE-FO sats or if the GRACE-FO sats are flying with 5 previously unassigned Iridium sats.  Flight 7 target falls perfectly with the target launch period for GRACE-FO.

PBdeS tweeted that they arranged for another Falcon after they found out they couldn't use Dnepr, which was long after the original 7 flights were bought.  He said it's the original 7 flights of Iridium plus the new flight with Iridium and GRACE-FO.  He also said the original 7 flights would go first, but depending on how the SpaceX launch manifest works out I wouldn't be surprised if that changed.
I'm going by official information posted on the sites of Iridium and GFZ/DLR. I do not use or trust posted Social media including verified accounts

Offline iamlucky13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1660
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 93
there are 81 satellites of which currently only 70 have an assigned flight.

Isn't that 75 now?

I think the key word is "assigned." The eighth Iridium flight (five NEXT satellites ridesharing with GRACE-FO) hasn't been officially announced, as far as I know.

^ This is the point I was making above.

Also, I'm probably referencing old info, since I haven't kept track of Iridium very closely, but the statements I've been seeing is 66 active satellites plus 6 on-orbit spares. I certainly could see them increasing the on-orbit spares to make the maximum use of the launch capacity they have and will undoubtedly be adding to. I just missed any separate discussion of that intent.

Online smoliarm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Moscow, Russia
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 126
OK, about the eighth Iridium NEXT flight and *official information*
As far as I remember, the contract announcement back in 2012 was about SEVEN flights ordered AND an OPTION.
Unfortunately, SpaceX changed the structure of their site since then, so the link to this announcement in my archive does not work now. And I can't quote the exact language.
Nevertheless, my guess - they exercised option in the contract for this "5x Iridium NEXT + GRACE FO" flight.

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3794
  • US
  • Liked: 3149
  • Likes Given: 1850
Look away if you don't like Social Media ... Some tweets from Matt Desch (Iridium)

Quote
(Tweet) @IridiumBoss @spacecom @Falcon9_rocket @VandenbergAFB and has the @faa granted launch clearance?

Quote
(Reply by Matt Desch [Dec. 16]) No, review process continues. Early January is subject to approval completion.

Quote
(Tweet) @IridiumBoss Can you talk about the rideshare with the @NASA GRACE-FO satellites? Is the contract done? How many @IridiumComm satellites?

Quote
(Reply by Matt Desch [Dec. 16]) @AleLovesio @NASA @IridiumComm Not ready to talk about that. Hopefully soon...

Quote
(Tweet) @IridiumBoss What do you think about the whole re-usability race with you being involved directly, waste of time? Or future of spaceflight?

Quote
(Reply by Matt Desch [Dec. 16]) @BrandongTurner It's the future. We're just a little ahead of it now, so are using all new rockets. Anything to lower cost to space = good

Quote
(Tweet) @IridiumBoss Sorry one other question, Will your satellites be placed directly into a 780X780km orbit?

Quote
(Reply by Matt Desch [Nov. 17]) @WeatherPicsLive No, into a transfer orbit below, and then moved up one by one into position for a slot swap with existing sat to replace.

(Tweet) @IridiumBoss Will the orbit insertion be direct or will it require a stage 2 restart? That's my last Q. :)

Quote
(Reply by Matt Desch [Nov. 18]) @WeatherPicsLive Direct
« Last Edit: 12/17/2016 02:07 AM by gongora »

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2308
  • California
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 4000
there are 81 satellites of which currently only 70 have an assigned flight.

Isn't that 75 now?

I think the key word is "assigned." The eighth Iridium flight (five NEXT satellites ridesharing with GRACE-FO) hasn't been officially announced, as far as I know.
We dont yet know if they are either splitting up Iridium flight 7 to fly the GRACE-FO sats or if the GRACE-FO sats are flying with 5 previously unassigned Iridium sats.  Flight 7 target falls perfectly with the target launch period for GRACE-FO.

PBdeS tweeted that they arranged for another Falcon after they found out they couldn't use Dnepr, which was long after the original 7 flights were bought.  He said it's the original 7 flights of Iridium plus the new flight with Iridium and GRACE-FO.  He also said the original 7 flights would go first, but depending on how the SpaceX launch manifest works out I wouldn't be surprised if that changed.
I wonder whether they got any price consideration due to the delays in launching the constellation so far? 
« Last Edit: 12/17/2016 05:22 AM by deruch »
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4246
  • California
  • Liked: 3666
  • Likes Given: 2260
Picture of Iridium,s booster at Vandenberg

https://mobile.twitter.com/IridiumBoss/status/809869365046808576
Is it me or do the legs look a bit different? Maybe it's the angle.

I think it is just the angle, they look the same to me.

Offline Warem

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
There's a NET January 7 placeholder (L2)....again pending FAA, processing flow, good static fire and LRR.

I hope that will work fine :D

(Moved to the right thread, updates only in updates - I know you're new...welcome by the way ;D Chris).
« Last Edit: 12/19/2016 11:29 AM by Chris Bergin »

Offline montmein69

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • near LYON (France)
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Would the LOX used in this RTF be "super-chilled" , or would they used "nomal" LOX (if the mass of the satellites and the foreseen orbit allow that).

Online kevinof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 635
  • Antibes
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 482
Falcon 9 can only (far as we know) use Super-chilled. Also all the ground support equipment would have to be swapped out to support "regular" LOX.

Would the LOX used in this RTF be "super-chilled" , or would they used "nomal" LOX (if the mass of the satellites and the foreseen orbit allow that).

Offline montmein69

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • near LYON (France)
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
It's pretty great if SX engineers succeed in making totally secure the rapid  filling of the LOX tank with LOX (66K) - I guess O2 could not cristallised on the COPVs or if so, solid O2 could not react with carbon fibers -
No communication about the improvements ?
« Last Edit: 12/22/2016 09:46 AM by montmein69 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32428
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11171
  • Likes Given: 331
Falcon 9 can only (far as we know) use Super-chilled. Also all the ground support equipment would have to be swapped out to support "regular" LOX.


Not true in both cases

Online kevinof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 635
  • Antibes
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 482
Jim,
Do we know for a fact that it can still use both (regular and super!)  without changes?

Falcon 9 can only (far as we know) use Super-chilled. Also all the ground support equipment would have to be swapped out to support "regular" LOX.


Not true in both cases

Offline The Roadie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • San Diego
  • Liked: 2153
  • Likes Given: 94
Jim,
Do we know for a fact that it can still use both (regular and super!)  without changes?

Falcon 9 can only (far as we know) use Super-chilled. Also all the ground support equipment would have to be swapped out to support "regular" LOX.


Not true in both cases
I've been told by people who know propulsion that the engines are shimmed differently to put the mixture control valves more in the center of their range. And it's different for subcooled propellants than the original temps. And this is done at single-engine testing time in McGregor.

It's rational to assume the GSE can supply propellants with the subchilling process turned off, but the decision to make a Falcon into a non-full-thrust version would have to be made early in the production process. Not on the fly at the pad.
"A human being should be able to...plan an invasion..conn a ship..solve equations, analyze a new problem..program a computer, cook a tasty meal.."-RAH

Offline Jet Black


I wonder whether they got any price consideration due to the delays in launching the constellation so far?

As I understand there are launch penalties payable to the satellite owner associated with delays, if that's what you mean.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard Feynman

Offline matthewkantar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 847
  • Liked: 547
  • Likes Given: 664
Saw this on Youtube, not sure how new it is.



Matthew

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Commonwealth of Virginia
  • Liked: 445
  • Likes Given: 1370
There's a NET January 7 placeholder (L2)....again pending FAA, processing flow, good static fire and LRR.
Open observation/question RE: FAA approval
Is the "hold-up" merely due to the fact that a significant, but daily-shifting portion of the FAA bureaucracy is on holiday?  (The same is probably true for the entire federal bureaucratic complex.)

If so, then might we see decisive action when the "holiday season" ends on Tuesday, January 3?  (Monday, January 2 is the New Year's federal holiday, observed.)

***
EDIT after FAA issues launch license on January 6 for a January 9 launch: Well, my guess was early by three days!
« Last Edit: 01/06/2017 08:22 PM by zubenelgenubi »
Support your local planetarium!

Offline ccdengr

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 15
Pop over to https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/licenses/ and you can review all of the currently active launch licenses.  https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/commercial_space_transportation/ describes the licensing process.

Interesting that SpaceX has/had a specific license for 6 launches in 2016, while LM has a license to launch all the Atlases they want until 2021.
« Last Edit: 12/31/2016 01:12 AM by ccdengr »

Offline CorvusCorax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • Germany
  • Liked: 492
  • Likes Given: 444
Pop over to https://www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/licenses/ and you can review all of the currently active launch licenses.  https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/commercial_space_transportation/ describes the licensing process.

Interesting that SpaceX has/had a specific license for 6 launches in 2016, while LM has a license to launch all the Atlases they want until 2021.

is there any way to view expired/revoked licenses? (I only found "past launch permits" which only lists individual launches that actually took place)

The only currently active license (LLS-14-087 Rev 2)  allows SpaceX to launch Dragon capsules "in support of NASA Commercial Resupply Service missions" (+ optional secondary payload) on board a Falcon 9 version 1.2 with a launch azimuth of 43 degrees from complex 40 at CCAFS until 2018.

I guess amending it with a Rev3 to launch from KSC's 39a might be possible in time for the next CRS flight (was previously done to switch to Falcon 9 version 1.2 and change the azimuth from 47 to 43 degrees) but as for Iridium next ...

"this is not the license you are looking for"

Edit: I found one way to view past licenses:
On the page for conducted launches

(the page only shows launches that were actually conducted, so that won't work for licenses that were issued but never used, or failed during launch preparation)

clicking on the link to a past launch, in this case JCSAT-16

reveals the license ID, in this case LLS 14-090

putting this term into the
search box

lists the actual license in its latest revision

this is the license that allowed 6 launches in 2016 (not counting dragon resupply, which are covered by LLS-14-087)
It was very specific and only allowed "Transporting to geosynchronous transfer orbit the
following satellites on separate flights:  SES-9,  JCSAT-14, ABS/Eutelsat-2, AMOS-6, Thaicom-8, and JCSAT-16;"

Edit2: This "trick" using the search box failed for license LLS-14-088 (issued specifically for Dragon pad abort) and LLS-14-089 (issued specifically for Orbcomm 1+2) - probably because those licenses are too old and already "expired" in 2015

Edit3: By the looks of it these launch license number are issued sequentially with the ???issuing??? year at the start
LLS 14-087 : (active) SpaceX Dragon CRS until 2018 link
LLS 14-088 : (expired) SpaceX Dragon pad abort (no link found)
LLS 14-089 : (expired) SpaceX Orbcom 1+2 (no link found)
LLS 14-090 : (expired) SpaceX 6 GEO launches link
LLO 14-091 : (active) ATK License for Cygnus Antares Configuration 230 link
LRLO 16-092 : (active) Virgin Galactic License for Spaceship2 link
LLS 15-093 : (expired) ATK Cygnus Spacecraft OA-4 + OA-6 on Atlas V (no link found)
* **-094 : no search results found so far
* **-095 : no search results found so far
...
« Last Edit: 12/31/2016 10:53 PM by CorvusCorax »

Tags: