SpaceX Falcon 9 : Spaceflight SSO-A : December 3, 2018 - DISCUSSION

[jcm]

I got confirmation from the PI of EdgeSat that it won't be on SSO-A and has slipped to next year

[Steven Pietrobon]

I got confirmation from the PI of EdgeSat that it won't be on SSO-A and has slipped to next year

Do you mean EdgeCube?

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/edgecube.htm

[Elthiryel]

Actually, more spacecraft have been removed, but I have no information about the specific ones. Official Spaceflight website http://spaceflight.com/sso-a/ stated a few weeks ago that there will be 71 spacecraft from 18 countries and now it's 64 spacecraft from 17 countries. All the removed spacecraft are cubesats, as the website is still mentioning 15 microsats, the same as before.

[strawwalker]

Actually, more spacecraft have been removed, but I have no information about the specific ones.

I'm attempting to keep a list of the spacecraft over on reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/9raysi/ssoa_launch_campaign_thread/e8hwl1a/

I've already removed ZACube-2 since it is the only South African operated payload, and Spaceflight has removed the South African flag from the infographic on their website. EdgeCube, SpaceICE, and Hamilton-1 all have FCC applications that are still pending after cubesat integration so I'm leaning on removing them as well. No inside information, but that's my two cents.

[gongora]

Looks like Kazakhstan's two cubesats are still on the manifest.

https://www.inform.kz/en/kazakhstan-to-launch-satellites-on-elon-musk-s-rocket_a3447654

If all goes well, we launch two satellites on a Falcon 9 launch vehicle in California on November 19.

edit: Suomi 100 also still being mentioned Link

[Skyrocket]

Looks like Kazakhstan's two cubesats are still on the manifest.

https://www.inform.kz/en/kazakhstan-to-launch-satellites-on-elon-musk-s-rocket_a3447654

If all goes well, we launch two satellites on a Falcon 9 launch vehicle in California on November 19.

I think this means, that one of the Kazakh satellites has been removed. Originally three satellites, the minisat KAZSTSAT and the CubeSats KazSciSat and Al-Farabi-2, were to be on the launch.

[smoliarm]

Today's Interfax:

Москва. 6 ноября. INTERFAX.RU - Запуск двух первых казахстанских научно-технологических спутников ракетой-носителем Falcon-9 американской компании Space X запланирован на 20 ноября, сообщил пресс-секретарь министерства оборонной и аэрокосмической промышленности Казахстана Асет Нуркенов.

... космические аппараты такой конфигурации возможно запускать ракетами-носителями типа "Союз", "Протон", пуски которых производятся у нас с "Байконура" ... Почему в этот раз Falcon-9, потому что было дешевле производить запуск на Falcon-9.

...на 20 ноября запланирован запуск ракеты-носителя Falcon-9, на которой будет размещено два казахстанских спутника - один спутник научного назначения KazSaySat и другой KazistiSat - спутник технологического назначения.

Google translation:

Moscow. November 6th. INTERFAX.RU - The launch of the two first Kazakhstani scientific and technological satellites by the launch vehicle Falcon-9 of the American company Space X is scheduled for November 20, spokesman for the Ministry of Defense and Aerospace Industry of Kazakhstan Asset Nurkenov said.

... it is possible to launch spacecraft of such a configuration with launch vehicles like "Soyuz", "Proton", whose launches are made from Baikonur ... ... Why this time the Falcon-9, because it was cheaper to launch on the Falcon- 9.

... on November 20, the launch of the Falcon-9 launch vehicle is planned, which will house two Kazakh satellites - one scientific satellite, KazSaySat, and the other KazistiSat, a technology satellite.

My comment:
May by this is not a one-day slip but just a time difference? Astana time = GMT+6

[Alexphysics]

Today's Interfax:

Москва. 6 ноября. INTERFAX.RU - Запуск двух первых казахстанских научно-технологических спутников ракетой-носителем Falcon-9 американской компании Space X запланирован на 20 ноября, сообщил пресс-секретарь министерства оборонной и аэрокосмической промышленности Казахстана Асет Нуркенов.

... космические аппараты такой конфигурации возможно запускать ракетами-носителями типа "Союз", "Протон", пуски которых производятся у нас с "Байконура" ... Почему в этот раз Falcon-9, потому что было дешевле производить запуск на Falcon-9.

...на 20 ноября запланирован запуск ракеты-носителя Falcon-9, на которой будет размещено два казахстанских спутника - один спутник научного назначения KazSaySat и другой KazistiSat - спутник технологического назначения.

Google translation:

Moscow. November 6th. INTERFAX.RU - The launch of the two first Kazakhstani scientific and technological satellites by the launch vehicle Falcon-9 of the American company Space X is scheduled for November 20, spokesman for the Ministry of Defense and Aerospace Industry of Kazakhstan Asset Nurkenov said.

... it is possible to launch spacecraft of such a configuration with launch vehicles like "Soyuz", "Proton", whose launches are made from Baikonur ... ... Why this time the Falcon-9, because it was cheaper to launch on the Falcon- 9.

... on November 20, the launch of the Falcon-9 launch vehicle is planned, which will house two Kazakh satellites - one scientific satellite, KazSaySat, and the other KazistiSat, a technology satellite.

My comment:
May by this is not a one-day slip but just a time difference? Astana time = GMT+6

Yup, time difference. No word of delay so far.

[gongora]

ASDS landing NET Nov. 19 from Vandenberg.  I would guess SSO-A.
1907-EX-ST-2018
North  34  37  59   West  120  36  56

[Orbiter]

34 37 59 N 120 36 55 W -- that's LZ-4.

[gongora]

34 37 59 N 120 36 55 W -- that's LZ-4.

As Raul mentioned in the paperwork thread it has to just be a mistake on the form.  Not the first time a detail on one of these permits was wrong.

[Chris Bergin]

Includes the RTLS situation in this round up.

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1060973553414275072

[gongora]

[Astana Times] Transporting two Kazakh satellites aboard Falcon 9 will cost $1.3 million

[IntoTheVoid]

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/11/spacex-return-action-lsp-status-upgrade/

While SpaceX’s launch profile is not a significant risk to SLC-6, the landing trajectory poses a greater risk to the downrange facilities.

As a result, a land landing during the SSO-A launch would only be permitted if it were to occur after the Delta IV Heavy launch.

I understand that the 2nd part of that quote is what it is, but the math doesn't seem to work for the 1st part. Delta IV Heavy has launched 10 times, with 1 initial failure, and averages less than 1 flight per year.
In more than 30 attempts, including 11 this year, Falcon 9 booster landing has never been off by more than a Drone ship length, even when the landing itself failed.
The Delta IV and its payload are at vastly greater risk due to it's own launch than anything related to the F9. The data doesn't support the assertion that a F9 RTLS is a meaningful risk to the Delta IVH.

[joek]

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/11/spacex-return-action-lsp-status-upgrade/

While SpaceX’s launch profile is not a significant risk to SLC-6, the landing trajectory poses a greater risk to the downrange facilities.
As a result, a land landing during the SSO-A launch would only be permitted if it were to occur after the Delta IV Heavy launch.

I understand that the 2nd part of that quote is what it is, but the math doesn't seem to work for the 1st part. Delta IV Heavy has launched 10 times, with 1 initial failure, and averages less than 1 flight per year.
In more than 30 attempts, including 11 this year, Falcon 9 booster landing has never been off by more than a Drone ship length, even when the landing itself failed.
The Delta IV and its payload are at vastly greater risk due to it's own launch than anything related to the F9. The data doesn't support the assertion that a F9 RTLS is a meaningful risk to the Delta IVH.

If risks are coupled--which in this case they are--just because risk from event A (F9 RTLS) is lower than risk from event B (DIVH launch) does not mean you ignore the risk from event A.  In this case the additional risk is considered unacceptable.  That calculus (which we are not privy to) also likely included consideration of risk-benefit trade-off.  E.g., if the F9 RTLS had a high benefit relative to the risk to the DIVH, it might have been given a green light  SpaceX might have been given an option to increase insurance coverage to compensate for that risk and allow for F9 RTLS, and they declined.  In short, we don't know what went into the decision; I doubt it was as simple as you suggest.

[smoliarm]

...

I understand that the 2nd part of that quote is what it is, but the math doesn't seem to work for the 1st part. Delta IV Heavy has launched 10 times, with 1 initial failure, and averages less than 1 flight per year.
In more than 30 attempts, including 11 this year, Falcon 9 booster landing has never been off by more than a Drone ship length, even when the landing itself failed.
The Delta IV and its payload are at vastly greater risk due to it's own launch than anything related to the F9. The data doesn't support the assertion that a F9 RTLS is a meaningful risk to the Delta IVH.

No, your assessment is far off on multiple points.

1.
>>The Delta IV and its payload are at vastly greater risk due to it's own launch than anything related to the F9.
- incorrect approach,
but it does not matter how you estimate RELATIVE risks.
Because USAF does not want any ADDITIONAL risk, and they don't care which one is greater.
2.
>>Delta IV Heavy has launched 10 times, with 1 initial failure...
- strictly speaking, it was a partial failure (the payload was intact), and it was a test flight.
So I guess that USAF assessment of Delta IVH launch risk would differ from yours, I'd expect something like:
"All operational flights of Delta IVH were successful, with this launcher we never lost a payload".
3.
>>In more than 30 attempts, including 11 this year, Falcon 9 booster landing has never been
>>off by more than a Drone ship length, even when the landing itself failed.
Again, I suspect USAF won't agree.
They don't care about landing accuracy because even accurate landing may end up in explosion.
Something like Falcon Heavy core landing mishap - if happens at LZ-4  - will result in explosion with associated (a) shock wave and (b) bush fire.
Wildfires are a serious danger in this area, last year we saw it.

So the bottom line - USAF can not estimate risk of Falcon "land landing" just yet as there in not enough datapoints.
And they do not want any additional risk with such valuable sat in hangar.

IMHO, they are actually right:
It's their bird - it's their word.

[jpo234]

IMHO, they are actually right:
It's their bird - it's their word.

And most importantly: their base.

[Joffan]

IMHO, they are actually right:
It's their bird - it's their word.

And most importantly: their base.

Yes, no doubt there is something written into SpaceX's lease that everyone has signed on to.

[vaporcobra]

[Astana Times] Transporting two Kazakh satellites aboard Falcon 9 will cost $1.3 million

Does anyone know the mass of KazSaySat? KazistiSat has been reported as 100 kg. Would be nice to get an accurate  $/kg cost to LEO for Spaceflight.

[smoliarm]

[Astana Times] Transporting two Kazakh satellites aboard Falcon 9 will cost $1.3 million

Does anyone know the mass of KazSaySat? KazistiSat has been reported as 100 kg. Would be nice to get an accurate  $/kg cost to LEO for Spaceflight.

There is a lot of confusion with the names of these satellites.
The big one, built by British SSTL and Kazakh Ghalam LLP, is listed as KazSTSat in SI's manifest, and Gunter gives ~50 kg for its mass.
The small one is a 3U cubesat built by Kazakh Ghalam LLP, and it's safe to assume its weight at 4.5-5.0 kg.

>>Would be nice to get an accurate  $/kg cost to LEO for Spaceflight.
- You would not get it accurate anyway by two reasons:
1.
$1.3 M mentioned in "Astana Times" - represents total cost of the launch for the Kazakh side. Not all these money will be payed to SI. Transportation, pre-flight checkouts, may be insurance, etc.
2.
Just like an airline charge for a seat, SI charge customers for a slot, and the ticket price depends mainly on size.
With airline, if you want extra space (and service), you buy first class, and airline does not care much about actual weight.
An 80-pound teen and 200-pound adult will pay the same price for a first-class seat.

So the bottom line - we should calculate not $$ per kg, but $$ per seat.

Even if we assume ALL this sum ($1.3 M) goes to SI and most of it is for KazSTSat (like the little one goes free) - even in such case -
the price is surprisingly low.
There are 12 micro-sats on this flight, $1.3*12 = $15.6
There are 45-50 cubesats on manifest, and their combined upper limit can be estimated roughly at $25-30 M (judging from what we know on share ride prices with Soyuz and PSLV).
The total indeed looks low.

My guess therefore - Kazakhs got really good discount here.

EDIT
Correction: above I used inaccurate numbers, #of microsats = 15; # of cubesats ~ 55-58