SpaceX F9 : Iridium NEXT 6 with GRACE-FO : NET May 22, 2018 - DISCUSSION

[AncientU]

We have a new metric for payloads:

Two sportscar-sized satellites in orbit to measure Earth's water

A SpaceX rocket Tuesday blasted off a duo of sports car-sized satellites built by the US and Germany to reveal changes in sea level rise, ice melt and drought on Earth.

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-sportscar-sized-satellites-orbit-earth.html

Less random* than whales...


* Unless you are using an Infinite Improbability Drive

[Ben the Space Brit]

It makes sense. Everyone has seen a picture of the 'Starman' Tesla Roadster, so the thought of sports cars in space is an easy-to-grasp point of comparison!

[LouScheffer]

Government launches are often thought of as more expensive than commercial launches.  For example, the TESS launch contract was $87 million, but a bare-bones commercial F9 is thought to be about $62M, though the price Iridum pays is not public.  The difference is often ascribed to extra checks, paperwork, reviews, and so on.

So by this logic, for this shared launch, Iridium would pay $31 million (half a commercial launch), and GRACE would pay $31M + $25M for extra services = $56M.  Or did NASA agree to just use standard commercial processing for this flight?  Or conversely, does Iridium normally buy more than the bare-bones services, so their cost is closer to NASA cost when everything is included?

[jpo234]

Government launches are often thought of as more expensive than commercial launches.  For example, the TESS launch contract was $87 million, but a bare-bones commercial F9 is thought to be about $62M, though the price Iridum pays is not public.  The difference is often ascribed to extra checks, paperwork, reviews, and so on.

So by this logic, for this shared launch, Iridium would pay $31 million (half a commercial launch), and GRACE would pay $31M + $25M for extra services = $56M.  Or did NASA agree to just use standard commercial processing for this flight?  Or conversely, does Iridium normally buy more than the bare-bones services, so their cost is closer to NASA cost when everything is included?

Who paid and purchased the GRACE-FO part of the launch: NASA or GFZ?

[gongora]

Iridium paid about $70M/launch including payload dispensers for the seven launches.

GRACE-FO was not a NASA launch contract.

[Hitech]

As with the last flight the video OB was very poor.

[deruch]

Government launches are often thought of as more expensive than commercial launches.  For example, the TESS launch contract was $87 million, but a bare-bones commercial F9 is thought to be about $62M, though the price Iridum pays is not public.  The difference is often ascribed to extra checks, paperwork, reviews, and so on.

So by this logic, for this shared launch, Iridium would pay $31 million (half a commercial launch), and GRACE would pay $31M + $25M for extra services = $56M.  Or did NASA agree to just use standard commercial processing for this flight?  Or conversely, does Iridium normally buy more than the bare-bones services, so their cost is closer to NASA cost when everything is included?

Who paid and purchased the GRACE-FO part of the launch: NASA or GFZ?

GFZ.

[Sam Ho]

There were reports of some bush fire around the pad so they couldn't get their remote cameras. From the picture, burning grass/bushes might be to blame instead of the rocket IMO.

Yes, he posted a clarification that it was a brush fire.

Well, one remote cam outside the pad perimeter was found to be a bit toast(y). sigh 😞

** and yes - it made pix until it's demise. **

Seeing many like and share this, but mis-reporting that this camera was close to the pad. I had many other cameras much closer to the pad than this and all are safe. This was result of a small brush fire, which is not unheard of from launches, and was extinguished by fireman, albeit, after my cam was baked.

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10213781978078424&id=1075771262

[russianhalo117]

Government launches are often thought of as more expensive than commercial launches.  For example, the TESS launch contract was $87 million, but a bare-bones commercial F9 is thought to be about $62M, though the price Iridum pays is not public.  The difference is often ascribed to extra checks, paperwork, reviews, and so on.

So by this logic, for this shared launch, Iridium would pay $31 million (half a commercial launch), and GRACE would pay $31M + $25M for extra services = $56M.  Or did NASA agree to just use standard commercial processing for this flight?  Or conversely, does Iridium normally buy more than the bare-bones services, so their cost is closer to NASA cost when everything is included?

Who paid and purchased the GRACE-FO part of the launch: NASA or GFZ?

GFZ. AFAIK they used the processing facilty at SLC-6 for GRACE-FO then they were moved to another facility to be joined with Iridium on the dispenser stack.

[groundbound]

We have a new metric for payloads:

Two sportscar-sized satellites in orbit to measure Earth's water

A SpaceX rocket Tuesday blasted off a duo of sports car-sized satellites built by the US and Germany to reveal changes in sea level rise, ice melt and drought on Earth.

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-sportscar-sized-satellites-orbit-earth.html

Less random* than whales...


* Unless you are using an Infinite Improbability Drive

This metric is too vague.

You need to specify "short sportscar," "long sportscar," or "metric sportscar."

[edkyle99]

As with the last flight the video OB was very poor.

I thought it was fine.  I was more bummed about the out of focus tracking camera, which was probably caused by cloud/fog/haze or some-such that spoofed the autofocus.  That was probably a range camera not "owned" by SpaceX.  The NASA webcast provided better tracking shots that were more in focus, for some reason.

On board video is not a given going forward.  It is not provided at all for most launches in the world.

 - Ed Kyle

[Sam Ho]

Government launches are often thought of as more expensive than commercial launches.  For example, the TESS launch contract was $87 million, but a bare-bones commercial F9 is thought to be about $62M, though the price Iridum pays is not public.  The difference is often ascribed to extra checks, paperwork, reviews, and so on.

So by this logic, for this shared launch, Iridium would pay $31 million (half a commercial launch), and GRACE would pay $31M + $25M for extra services = $56M.  Or did NASA agree to just use standard commercial processing for this flight?  Or conversely, does Iridium normally buy more than the bare-bones services, so their cost is closer to NASA cost when everything is included?

Who paid and purchased the GRACE-FO part of the launch: NASA or GFZ?

GFZ. AFAIK they used the processing facilty at SLC-6 for GRACE-FO then they were moved to another facility to be joined with Iridium on the dispenser stack.

From GFZ's page on the rideshare:

As the Russian/Ukraine Dnepr and corresponding launch services can no longer be provided by the International Space Company Kosmotras (ISCK), the joint NASA-GFZ Joint Steering Group has decided to exchange the GRACE-FO launcher. The corresponding contract was signed on 14. November 2016 by the Board of GFZ and Iridium Satellite LLC. It stipulates a "Rideshare" between GRACE-FO and 5 Iridium-Next satellites on a Space-X Falcon-9 from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California within the launch period December 2017 till February 2018.

The accompanying press release (in German; the English version seems to have disappeared) says that the German share of the mission is €77.7 million, and is about 1/4 of the total.  This is more than just the launch, though.

GFZ will be responsible for

* Science data exploitation and dissemination within the joint US/German Science Data System (SDS) including release of product versions of the GRACE-FO science data products through their Information System and Data Center (ISDC),
* Provision of developments for the Experimental Laser Ranging Interferometer (LRI),
* Provision of a Launch vehicle and launch services,
* Provision of Laser Retro-Reflectors (LRR) for each spacecraft,
* Mission operation (with US-support) and
* Leading the European Science Team.

https://www.gfz-potsdam.de/en/section/global-geomonitoring-and-gravity-field/projects/gravity-recovery-and-climate-experiment-follow-on-grace-fo-mission/
https://www.gfz-potsdam.de/medien-kommunikation/meldungen/detailansicht/article/das-erdschwerefeld-im-blick-mission-grace-fo-startet-auf-einer-rakete-von-spacex/

[Mongo62]

As with the last flight the video OB was very poor.

I thought it was fine.  I was more bummed about the out of focus tracking camera, which was probably caused by cloud/fog/haze or some-such that spoofed the autofocus.  That was probably a range camera not "owned" by SpaceX.  The NASA webcast provided better tracking shots that were more in focus, for some reason.

On board video is not a given going forward.  It is not provided at all for most launches in the world.

 - Ed Kyle

Is there a reason why manual focus is not used? Just set focus to infinity and keep it there, the rocket isn't going to suddenly jump close enough to the camera to require a change in focus.

[Lars-J]

As with the last flight the video OB was very poor.

I thought it was fine.  I was more bummed about the out of focus tracking camera, which was probably caused by cloud/fog/haze or some-such that spoofed the autofocus.  That was probably a range camera not "owned" by SpaceX.  The NASA webcast provided better tracking shots that were more in focus, for some reason.

On board video is not a given going forward.  It is not provided at all for most launches in the world.

 - Ed Kyle

Is there a reason why manual focus is not used? Just set focus to infinity and keep it there, the rocket isn't going to suddenly jump close enough to the camera to require a change in focus.

With large tracking cameras it would likely be insufficient to keep it in focus from just a few miles away to ~100 miles away.

[Semmel]

As with the last flight the video OB was very poor.

I thought it was fine.  I was more bummed about the out of focus tracking camera, which was probably caused by cloud/fog/haze or some-such that spoofed the autofocus.  That was probably a range camera not "owned" by SpaceX.  The NASA webcast provided better tracking shots that were more in focus, for some reason.

On board video is not a given going forward.  It is not provided at all for most launches in the world.

 - Ed Kyle

Is there a reason why manual focus is not used? Just set focus to infinity and keep it there, the rocket isn't going to suddenly jump close enough to the camera to require a change in focus.

The focus depends on ambient temperature. So you have to refocus short before the launch to get a good fit. This should be possible if the camera is manually operated, however I dont know if thats the case for tracking cameras. Come to think of it, I have no idea how the Vandenberg tracking cams looks like.

[Bananas_on_Mars]

I think there's some pictures of the setup on the internet... seems like usually the telescope for aiming the setup and the telescope for the camera are mounted in parallel. So the operator might not even have noticed the camera was out of focus.

[Sam Ho]

I think there's some pictures of the setup on the internet... seems like usually the telescope for aiming the setup and the telescope for the camera are mounted in parallel. So the operator might not even have noticed the camera was out of focus.

Photo from 2002 of a tracker here:
http://vandenberg.airshowjournal.com/2002/Img_0972.jpg

[Hitech]

The second stage OB video had a lot of "blooming" and "jello" and some "haloing" (likely due to condensation on the lens).

[jacqmans]

NASA's "melted camera" has become a social media thing. As with many photos that spread like wildfire on the Internet, only part of the camera's story has been exposed so far. Here is the rest of it.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/what-really-happened-to-that-melted-nasa-camera

[Johnnyhinbos]

So that was one of two remotes he had set up OUTSIDE the safety perimeter, it being the farthest away. Doesn’t seem too safe to me...