VANCOUVER, November 16, 2018 | Helios Wire, a satellite-enabled IoT connectivity company, announced today that its Pathfinder II satellite is scheduled to launch aboard Spaceflight’s SSO-A SmallSat Express mission, on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, Nov. 19, 2018, from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. This is the first satellite in a constellation of up to 28 smallsats that will provide global IoT coverage.
HELIOS WIRE SATELLITE SCHEDULED TO LAUNCH ON SPACEFLIGHT’S SSO-A SMALLSAT EXPRESS MISSIONQuoteVANCOUVER, November 16, 2018 | Helios Wire, a satellite-enabled IoT connectivity company, announced today that its Pathfinder II satellite is scheduled to launch aboard Spaceflight’s SSO-A SmallSat Express mission, on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, Nov. 19, 2018, from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. This is the first satellite in a constellation of up to 28 smallsats that will provide global IoT coverage.Is this a payload on CORVUS-BC?
Any indication that the launch delay will allow the booster to RTLS?
Quote from: AndyH on 11/18/2018 08:05 pmAny indication that the launch delay will allow the booster to RTLS?It will happen only (but it may still not happen) if it gets delayed after the Delta IV Heavy launch
Quote from: soltasto on 11/18/2018 08:16 pmQuote from: AndyH on 11/18/2018 08:05 pmAny indication that the launch delay will allow the booster to RTLS?It will happen only (but it may still not happen) if it gets delayed after the Delta IV Heavy launchI agree, but haven't yet found the launch date for the Delta IV. I usually check the Spaceflight101 sched, but it's empty for Nov.
https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/1063901129141039110
https://twitter.com/minxsscubesat/status/1063888514280902656
Given a TBD launch delay re: this campaign's Falcon 9:
Re: discussion up-thread about orbital debris concerns--is this truly a concern for those with authority to authorize launch or withhold same until resolved? Or a tempest in a teacup?
...I imagine that SpaceX and Spaceflight, as well as the payload owners, have been subject to applicable regulations from the agencies of concern...or this flight would not be happening.If an agency is having difficulty, they may need to have policy changed, funding increased or "farm" this out to someone who can perform the task. Technology is relentless...agencies need to keep up...as well as advisory groups and concerned individuals/groups. If one does not like large numbers of small payloads....wait till the large constellations go up..I just wish "media personalities" would acquire and state the facts (probably wishful thinking).... the drama/agenda takes away from the mission...
Or the PSLV launch where small satellites without FCC approval were launched into orbit.
Quote from: Star One on 11/20/2018 09:43 am Or the PSLV launch where small satellites without FCC approval were launched into orbit.The FCC does not have authority outside of the United States.
Quote from: OnWithTheShow on 11/20/2018 12:35 pmQuote from: Star One on 11/20/2018 09:43 am Or the PSLV launch where small satellites without FCC approval were launched into orbit.The FCC does not have authority outside of the United States.FCC does have authority when the deployed satellites originate from US entities. And some of those small sats launched, without permission, indeed came from US entities.Therefore, FCC was rightly upset.
Quote from: Draggendrop on 11/17/2018 09:31 pm...I imagine that SpaceX and Spaceflight, as well as the payload owners, have been subject to applicable regulations from the agencies of concern...or this flight would not be happening.If an agency is having difficulty, they may need to have policy changed, funding increased or "farm" this out to someone who can perform the task. Technology is relentless...agencies need to keep up...as well as advisory groups and concerned individuals/groups. If one does not like large numbers of small payloads....wait till the large constellations go up..I just wish "media personalities" would acquire and state the facts (probably wishful thinking).... the drama/agenda takes away from the mission...What media personalities I see no media personalities just someone from an organisation expressing a genuine concern. Certainly not something worthy of such a dismissive attitude.I guess you missed the general confusion over the Soyuz launch earlier this year where it appears that a number of the small sats it was carrying were deployed dead on orbit. Or the PSLV launch where small satellites without FCC approval were launched into orbit.https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/09/spacebees-swarm-unauthorized-satellite-launch/569395/https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37032.msg1812333#msg1812333
Quote from: Star One on 11/20/2018 09:43 amQuote from: Draggendrop on 11/17/2018 09:31 pm...I imagine that SpaceX and Spaceflight, as well as the payload owners, have been subject to applicable regulations from the agencies of concern...or this flight would not be happening.If an agency is having difficulty, they may need to have policy changed, funding increased or "farm" this out to someone who can perform the task. Technology is relentless...agencies need to keep up...as well as advisory groups and concerned individuals/groups. If one does not like large numbers of small payloads....wait till the large constellations go up..I just wish "media personalities" would acquire and state the facts (probably wishful thinking).... the drama/agenda takes away from the mission...What media personalities I see no media personalities just someone from an organisation expressing a genuine concern. Certainly not something worthy of such a dismissive attitude.I guess you missed the general confusion over the Soyuz launch earlier this year where it appears that a number of the small sats it was carrying were deployed dead on orbit. Or the PSLV launch where small satellites without FCC approval were launched into orbit.https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/09/spacebees-swarm-unauthorized-satellite-launch/569395/https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37032.msg1812333#msg1812333That was quite presumptuous to assume that I was not aware of those two launches."I imagine that SpaceX and Spaceflight, as well as the payload owners, have been subject to applicable regulations from the agencies of concern...or this flight would not be happening." Do you have information to the contrary? Issues of importance would have been addressed by those various parties. If issues arise, I would be confident that they will be addressed for the next similar scenario. It has been brought to my attention that a few are concerned with tumble of the upper free flyer. I would be surprised if Spaceflight was unaware of this possibility and not offered mitigation with design or operations. If not, I will be very surprised. As for media personalities...I may have a more liberal view of media platforms and what constitutes a person with a level of merit, reporting in a particular field. I used a senior reporter/ author from a technology internet site, a space journalist/ author, an operator of orbital elements software, a space policy wonk from Washington and a launch processing operator. If I felt that the individuals did not have merit, I would not have used them. If they do not pass your standard then that would be your opinion which you are entitled to.We can argue all day about what constitutes a "media personality" but an individual who reports in various media formats with reasonable exposure can have the ability to pass on misleading and/or exaggerated information. I see you have selectively quoted again. My "entire post" also had a follow up which you completely ignored....quote the whole post with reference to my follow up post next time you have an issue to discuss.
"Through our conversations, we confirmed that the types of low-velocity collisions our simulations showed are possible (although very unlikely) but they are not a big concern for generating orbit debris. This is because any such collision would occur with very low relative velocity – around one meter per second in the worst-case, it is roughly equivalent to the velocity of an object hitting the ground after being dropped from a height of less than one foot on the Earth."
Noting Spaceflight's release on the subject of collision avoidance and debris mitigation here:http://spaceflight.com/collision-avoidance-and-debris-mitigation-for-spaceflights-sso-a-mission/
COLLISION AVOIDANCE AND DEBRIS MITIGATION FOR SPACEFLIGHT’S SSO-A MISSIONBy Armand AwadNOVEMBER 5, 2018Providing affordable rides to low Earth orbit for a large number of small spacecraft, as we’re doing on the SSO-A mission, also introduces some unique engineering challenges. In particular, deploying a pack of spacecraft into the same orbit raises natural concerns about potential collisions between spacecraft causing orbital debris. To that end, we wanted to take this opportunity to share a bit about the approach we’ve taken to mitigate some of these risks for the SSO-A mission. This isn’t an an exhaustive list by any means, but it offers some insight into our commitment to a safe space environment.One step we took was to design and rigorously analyze a strategy for how to deploy the spacecraft on this mission while minimizing the probability of a collision. To do so, we built and validated an in-house, six degree-of-freedom dynamic simulation of the mission to test out the effects of different orders, timings, and directions of spacecraft deployments. This simulation carefully models the complex physics of each and every single object on this mission and their interactions during deployment operations. In essence, we can fly the mission with this computer simulation.Starting from the launch vehicle’s initial insertion into the sun-synchronous orbit, this simulation runs through the successive deployments of every spacecraft, tracking their trajectories over time and checking for collisions. The simulation is then used to run computational algorithms known as Monte Carlo analyses that help us understand how successful a particular deployment strategy is in the presence of uncertainties, and to iterate our strategy based on the results. Using this approach we ran the experiment with many, many thousands of deployment strategies.Once we had a viable deployment strategy in hand, we next set out to discuss the mission and vet our approach with various external stakeholders.One such stakeholder was the NASA Orbit Debris Office. As the name implies, this is the NASA office that studies and helps develop mitigation measures for orbital debris. Through our conversations, we confirmed that the types of low-velocity collisions our simulations showed are possible (although very unlikely) but they are not a big concern for generating orbit debris. This is because any such collision would occur with very low relative velocity – around one meter per second in the worst-case, it is roughly equivalent to the velocity of an object hitting the ground after being dropped from a height of less than one foot on the Earth.Another important stakeholder that we’ve been working with is the 18th Space Control Squadron (18 SPCS). This is the part of the U.S. Air Force responsible for tracking space objects, predicting close approaches, and supporting collision avoidance operations between spacecraft operators. By initiating discussions with the 18 SPCS, we’ve been able to provide them with the information they need to minimize risks to currently orbiting space objects.At Spaceflight, we strive to be good stewards of space so everyone can continue to enjoy the benefits that space-based technologies bring. We thought a lot about the issues of potential collisions and debris as we prepared the SSO-A mission, and kept our commitment to a safe space environment throughout the process.
