Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 : Spaceflight SSO-A : December 3, 2018 - DISCUSSION (Read 308514 times)

Draggendrop · « **Reply #400 on:** 12/23/2018 03:45 am »

Info for Enoch...

Quote

On Friday, November 2, 2018, the FAA "made a favorable payload determination for the ENOCH payload," and ENOCH is now cleared for launch on the Falcon 9 flight from Vandenberg AFB on November 19. You can read more about ENOCH and the artist behind it here, here and here.

Quote

Lastly, since LACMA is not your typical satellite operator, we felt that adding a means to track ENOCH's orbit would be very useful, and so with LACMA's blessing we added three radar retroreflectors supplied by the US Navy to the structure (the white squares). With these radar tags, it will be relatively straightforward to track this "passive" nanosatellite.

This info would lend to licencing not being an issue with this payload....but you never know?

A lot of detail went into this payload and it's dispencer. More info at the link...
https://www.pumpkinspace.com/news/category/all

Quote

SpaceX is a founding sponsor of the LACMA Art +Technology Lab. In May 2014, Strachan met with SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell, an advisor to LACMA’s Art + Technology Lab, to explore how technology could push his art practice in new directions. Propelled by these conversations, the artist embarked on an exploratory project that led to the development of ENOCH.

http://www.lacma.org/enoch#about-the-project

"We're In Space!"

Quote

On Monday, December 3, at 10:34 am PST, artist Tavares Strachan's project ENOCH was launched into space in partnership with Spaceflight from a SpaceX Falcon 9 from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The payload was a 24-karat gold canopic jar honoring Robert Henry Lawrence Jr., the first African American astronaut selected for any national space program. The sculpture will circle the Earth for seven years in a sun-synchronous orbit.

https://unframed.lacma.org/2018/12/05/were-space

I have no reflector tagged to TLE data yet...still looking...

deruch · « **Reply #401 on:** 12/23/2018 02:08 pm »

Quote from: Draggendrop on 12/23/2018 03:45 am

Info for Enoch...

Quote
On Friday, November 2, 2018, the FAA "made a favorable payload determination for the ENOCH payload," and ENOCH is now cleared for launch on the Falcon 9 flight from Vandenberg AFB on November 19. You can read more about ENOCH and the artist behind it here, here and here.

Quote
Lastly, since LACMA is not your typical satellite operator, we felt that adding a means to track ENOCH's orbit would be very useful, and so with LACMA's blessing we added three radar retroreflectors supplied by the US Navy to the structure (the white squares). With these radar tags, it will be relatively straightforward to track this "passive" nanosatellite.

This info would lend to licencing not being an issue with this payload....but you never know?

A lot of detail went into this payload and it's dispencer. More info at the link...
https://www.pumpkinspace.com/news/category/all

So, maybe they're the one that didn't fully deploy? From the notes from Pumpkin blog posts it sounded like it wasn't a simple "plug-and-play" solution to get the dispenser to work right. And one-off/inaugural designs are always chancy.

Quote

With this new direction for ENOCH, we created a "sled" that is compatible with Planetary System Corporations Canisterized Satellite Dispenser (CSD). This resulted in a design that exposed the canopic jar as much as possible, and let the sled "fade into the background." Hence the deep black color to the sled. This layout meant that the canopic jar was heavily cantilevered at one end, which led to a few iterations when a lower-than-acceptable fundamental frequency was discovered during environmental tests. The base below the canopic jar also incorporates (hidden from view) the requisite hardware to vent the interior volume of the jar, as well as permanent magnets and hysteresis material to help ENOCH establish a stabilized attitude while on orbit. The sled has "feet" on the top and bottom, with an isogridded structure for strength and lightness, for symmetry and in order to satisfy the CSD requirements.

JimO · « **Reply #402 on:** 12/27/2018 11:35 am »

Second burn observed in Australia:

https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/space/strange-unidentified-light-seen-over-south-australia/news-story/12f1ebe06f3174dfc2231f19b62e5a46

ugordan · « **Reply #403 on:** 12/27/2018 11:46 am »

Quote from: JimO on 12/27/2018 11:35 am

Second burn observed in Australia:

https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/space/strange-unidentified-light-seen-over-south-australia/news-story/12f1ebe06f3174dfc2231f19b62e5a46

That would be the GPS-III flight, not SSO-A.

JimO · « **Reply #404 on:** 12/28/2018 03:10 am »

Dang, it's too easy to get the stampede mixed up -- my bad!!

strawwalker · « **Reply #405 on:** 01/14/2019 06:29 pm »

Quote from: Draggendrop on 01/14/2019 12:03 pm

[...]
Please review the list and point out any issues for correction.

The only nitpick I have is your inclusion of Landmapper, Corvus BC-4 in the confirmed success list. It looks like that is just based on the fact that it has been paired with a NORAD ID? It's up to you, of course, what criteria you use, but for consistency's sake, the same can also be said for several of the spacecraft still in the awaiting confirmation list. For instance, both STPSat-5 and the OrbWeavers can also be "tracked" at N2YO.com

Quote

This list has 65 payloads. Still working on this issue.

I know, right?

---
P.S. Reddit comments can be directly linked just like NSF comments. Your link actually points to the Launch Thread which contains an outdated version of my original payload table (which I can't edit), but you have to scroll down to find the live success list that you are referencing. The direct link is:

https://old.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/a0vjff/rspacex_ssoa_official_launch_discussion_updates/eb2ij5x/

The up-to-date payloads table is in another comment in another reddit thread. I don't know why anyone would need to look at it now, but here it is since the linked one is outdated:

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/9raysi/ssoa_launch_campaign_thread/e8hwl1a/

Draggendrop · « **Reply #406 on:** 01/14/2019 07:26 pm »

Thanks for the input.

I may have messed up on Corvus BC-4. Will recheck my info. Am using the "N2YO" as an extra data source only.

Will update your link on the list.

Will be updating in a few days after I chase a few loose ends.

Again, thanks for the input. It's only getting better...

deruch · « **Reply #407 on:** 01/15/2019 06:08 am »

It would be really nice if Spaceflight could offer some clarity on whether, in terms of their payloads count, Range A/B are counted as a single payload or as 2. Since they launched/deployed as a single item and only planned to separate some days post deployment, I could see them doing it either way. But that little bit of obscurity is enough to explain the 64 vs 65 payloads issue all by itself.

gongora · « **Reply #408 on:** 01/15/2019 02:30 pm »

Range A/B should be a single payload to Spaceflight.

strawwalker · « **Reply #409 on:** 01/15/2019 03:27 pm »

Range A,B may have been counted as two in their final count, even though they were listed together as one in the FCC exhibit and deployed as one. There are (64) SSO-A launch associated objects being tracked including RANGE A and B (2018-099Q, 2018-099R). If there were 62 successful deployments counting RANGE as one and if none of the other nested payloads are trackable yet, then we should expect to see (65) 2018-099 objects, right?

Also, counting RANGE A, B as one still gives us 65 so it wouldn't really settle the discrepancy yet. There is at least one spacecraft on our lists, maybe two, that don't belong.

strawwalker · « **Reply #410 on:** 01/16/2019 01:00 pm »

Quote from: Moskit on 01/16/2019 08:55 am

I couldn't find a direct confirmation, except this update in "News" section:
13/12/2018: KSNN site published the first results of measuring and processing data from KazSciSat-1. Results are available in "Database" section.

"Database" section contains TLE:
1 43785U 18099AD 19010.76794220 .00000153 00000-0 19282-4 0 9997
2 43785 97.7573 84.5132 0014894 126.1160 234.1441 14.95033702 5236

...and what seems to be measurements by KazSciSat from sequential dates (GDP-SSS-YYMMDD.xlsm), except it's described as "Demonstration files"
http://kazscisat.istt.kz/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&id=6:demo-files&Itemid=122

I think the simplest explanation is that "Demo files" is just a poor translation and the data are actual.

Steven Pietrobon · « **Reply #411 on:** 01/18/2019 03:43 am »

Here's the current list of confirmed payload deployments. At the recommendation of the moderators, please post any updates on this list in this thread, and not in the updates thread. Thanks!

Quote from: Draggendrop on 01/14/2019 01:28 am

With data from gongora's list located here...
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38551.msg1839535#msg1839535
r/spacex user strawwalker's list located here...
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/a0vjff/rspacex_ssoa_official_launch_discussion_updates/
and posts from users of NSF, r/spacex and twitter, this would be today's WAG for payload disposition.
--------------------------------------------
13 Jan 2019

We have 46 SSO-A spacecraft with confirmed operational status:

(1) AISTECH SAT 2
(1) Al-Farabi-2
(1) Astrocast 0.1
(1) BRIO
(1) Capella 1
(1) Centauri I
(1) CSIM
(1) Eaglet-1
(1) Elysium Star 2, no comm pkg
(1) ESEO
(1) Eu:CROPIS
(1) eXCITe
(1) ExseedSat-1
(1) FalconSat-6
(3) Flock-3s 1,2,3
(1) Fox-1C
(1) Global 2
(3) Hawk 1, 2, 3
(1) Hiber 2
(1) Iceye X2
(1) IRVINE02
(1) ITASAT
(1) JY1Sat
(1) K2SAT
(1) KazSTSAT
(1) KNACKSAT
(1) MinXSS 2
(1) MOVE-II
(1) NEXTSat-1
(1) Orbital Reflector (ORS-1)
(1) Pathfinder II
(1) PW-Sat2
(1) SeaHawk-1
(2) SkySat 14, 15
(1) SNUGLITE
(1) SNUSAT-2
(3) SpaceBEE 5, 6, 7
(1) Suomi 100
(1) VESTA

possible 19 SSO-A spacecraft which have not been publicly confirmed operational:

(1) Audacy Zero; POINTR
(1) BlackHawk
(1) Corvus-BC 4
(1) Enoch, no comm pkg (possible failure to deploy, TBD)
(1) ICE-Cap
(1) KazSciSat-1
(2) OrbWeaver 1 & 2 (2018-099AP, 2018-099AD)
(2) ORS 7A, B Polar Scouts
(1) RAAF M1
(1) RANGE A, B
(1) STPSat-5
(1) THEA
(3) US Government spacecraft
(1) VisionCube
(1) WeissSat-1

Draggendrop · « **Reply #412 on:** 01/18/2019 11:59 am »

Latest list, updated 18 Jan 2019, posted in the "updates" thread...

"We have 49 SSO-A spacecraft with confirmed operational status"

and

"possible 16 SSO-A spacecraft which have not been publicly confirmed operational"

--------------------------------

As above...Please post individual payload updates, questions and comments in this thread...Thanx.

deruch · « **Reply #413 on:** 01/18/2019 03:16 pm »

Quote from: Draggendrop on 01/18/2019 11:59 am

Latest list, updated 18 Jan 2019, posted in the "updates" thread...

"We have 49 SSO-A spacecraft with confirmed operational status"

and

"possible 16 SSO-A spacecraft which have not been publicly confirmed operational"

--------------------------------

As above...Please post individual payload updates, questions and comments in this thread...Thanx.

In the future, when you make changes to the list to move a payload from "possible" to "confirmed" for the first time can you highlight that move by listing that payload in bold?

gongora · « **Reply #414 on:** 01/24/2019 08:41 pm »

ORBITAL REFLECTOR STATUS REPORT

Reno, Nev. (January 18, 2019) – Trevor Paglen, the Nevada Museum of Art, art enthusiasts, and sky watchers across the globe remain anxious to see Orbital Reflector in the night sky. Unfortunately, the wait continues. On December 3, Orbital Reflector launched into low Earth orbit on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket carrying 64 satellites. This launch, dubbed the Spaceflight Industries SSOA SmallSat Express, was the largest satellite launch in US history. A division of the United States Air Force known as CSpOC is faced with the task of properly identifying each of those satellites so that they can be tracked as they orbit the earth. Six weeks post-launch, that task is still not complete; only half of the satellites from the launch have been properly identified. Many of the satellites that launched together remain in a cluster and until they separate it is difficult to correctly identify each one. With the government shutdown, we have no indication of how much longer it will take until the NORAD ID number become available.

Both the unprecedented launch and prolonged government shutdown also present other challenges. Prior to the holidays, we had been working very closely with the FCC and other relevant space-related authorities to deploy the balloon at the right time for a safe trajectory. The FCC had asked us to wait for their go-ahead before we deploy the balloon. Since the government shutdown began, communication with the FCC has been suspended, as they are not operational at this time. Of course, we want to ensure the safest possible mission both for Orbital Reflector but also for our neighbors in space (including the ISS!). As Trevor Paglen has stated, “Space is hard!”

Despite these challenging circumstances, the Orbital Reflector engineers continue to communicate with the satellite, and all systems appear healthy. The team is hopeful that the satellite can withstand the wait during the unforeseen government shutdown. Time will tell.

If you have downloaded the mobile application Star Walk 2 to your phone, you can search for Orbital Reflector. You will see all the information about the satellite in the app. Though it appears to be tracking, that information is not live. It will activate when the tracking information becomes available, as will the customized star map on the Orbital Reflector website.

Trevor Paglen and the Nevada Museum of Art deeply appreciate the support, patience, and enthusiasm that project donors, fans, and the watchful public have expressed as news of this historic project continues to unfold.

zubenelgenubi · « **Reply #415 on:** 01/25/2019 09:00 pm »

Quote from: gongora on 01/24/2019 08:41 pm

ORBITAL REFLECTOR STATUS REPORT

Reno, Nev. (January 18, 2019) – <snip>
A division of the United States Air Force known as CSpOC is faced with the task of properly identifying each of those satellites so that they can be tracked as they orbit the earth. Six weeks post-launch, that task is still not complete; only half of the satellites from the launch have been properly identified. Many of the satellites that launched together remain in a cluster and until they separate it is difficult to correctly identify each one. With the government shutdown, we have no indication of how much longer it will take until the NORAD ID number become available.

<snip>

DoD is funded and not furloughed. Is it erroneous to claim that the dissemination of satellite ID & TLEs are prevented by the furlough?
***

EDIT: Thanks, cuddihy! I wish more PR people composing press releases would fact-check--NSF is a great resource!--before PR release.

cuddihy · « **Reply #416 on:** 01/26/2019 11:06 am »

Yes, no part of the DoD (except the parts of the US Navy relying on Coast Guard support -- and even most of those are being done without pay) are affected by the "shutdown".

strawwalker · « **Reply #417 on:** 02/01/2019 11:25 pm »

Looks like Elysium Star 2 remains within the Lower Free Flyer. NORAD 43760 (2018-099C) bears the name of both.

gongora · « **Reply #418 on:** 02/02/2019 12:46 am »

How does the Upper Free Flyer have a "Small" RCS? Isn't that the biggest single item from the launch?

I have no idea what sort of permit Elysium would even need or where to look for it. They would presumably need an ok from the FCC for an orbital debris assessment but where would that be found (and would it even be publicly accessible) if they don't do any radio transmissions? Being stuck in the deployer will probably give them way more time on orbit, not sure if they would consider that bad or good.

strawwalker · « **Reply #419 on:** 02/02/2019 01:35 am »

I wish I knew the answer to any of those questions. It is possible that Elysium Star is the customer that was sealed in by Spaceflight. As far as I can tell we've never answered that question. In that case, at least they would have known going in that they would remain attached. At least this way it will be a much larger shooting star when it finally does come down.