Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 : Spaceflight SSO-A : December 3, 2018 - DISCUSSION  (Read 308533 times)

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1811
  • Likes Given: 1302
Folks. The Elysium Star 2 is doing space burial in a SSO orbit. So it is unlikely to have any active components aboard for what is essentially a cargo container.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10438
  • US
  • Liked: 14355
  • Likes Given: 6148
Folks. The Elysium Star 2 is doing space burial in a SSO orbit. So it is unlikely to have any active components aboard for what is essentially a cargo container.

We're aware of that, hence our discussion.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10438
  • US
  • Liked: 14355
  • Likes Given: 6148
https://mobile.twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1095609396787331077

Hey look, this object has a "Large" RCS.  That makes a little more sense.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10438
  • US
  • Liked: 14355
  • Likes Given: 6148
https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1095821430510575617
Quote
And we have an official ID for LACMA ENOCH (#43777) from the SSO-A launch. Only 15 unidentified objects to go…

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10438
  • US
  • Liked: 14355
  • Likes Given: 6148
THEA (0019-EX-CM-2019) and BRIO (0020-EX-CM-2019) had requests filed to add more ground stations
« Last Edit: 02/15/2019 02:01 am by gongora »

Offline gwiz

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
  • Cornwall
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 30
Now SeaHawk 1 identified as 2018-099BQ/43820.

Offline strawwalker

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • United States
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 49
Quote
SSO-A: DEPLOYMENT STATUS
By Jeff Roberts
MARCH 4, 2019

[...]
we now have confirmation that all expected deployments were successful.
[...]

https://www.spaceflightindustries.com/2019/03/04/sso-a-deployment-status/

I take this to mean that the earlier reported possible non-deployment from a customer supplied dispenser is now considered a successful deployment, which would mean that Elysium Star 2 is the one that was sealed in because of incomplete licensing. If Elysium was expecting that it would make more sense why they have been reporting success.

As to the four uncontacted sats, we know one to be RAAF M1. It also looks like Audacy Zero and KNACKSAT are probably among that four. Any ideas which of the remaining spacecraft fills out that list? Possible it could be K2SAT from their twitter activity. https://twitter.com/K2SAT_KAIST

Offline Ragmar

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • Space is the Place
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 87
I heard that the DARPA and Raytheon SeeMee satellites never deployed as well?  Were those confirmed?

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10438
  • US
  • Liked: 14355
  • Likes Given: 6148
[Dezeen] Trevor Paglen's art installation in limbo in earth's orbit
Quote
Nevada Museum of Art has since told Dezeen that currently there is no way of knowing when deployment of the satellite will be approved and whether the satellite will be able to withstand the wait.

"In spite of the government's being reopen, this still holds true. Unfortunately, that delay impacted us more than we thought it would," Nevada Museum of Art's Amanda Horn told Dezeen.

Offline DasBlinkenlight

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • United States
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 7
https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/2/18277344/space-situational-awareness-air-force-tracking-sso-a-spaceflight-cubesats

Quote
But nearly four months later, more than a dozen satellites from the launch have yet to be identified in space. We know that they’re up there, and where they are, but it’s unclear which satellites belong to which satellite operator on the ground.

They are, truly, unidentified flying objects.

The launch, called the SSO-A SmallSat Express, sent those small satellites into orbit for various countries, commercial companies, schools, and research organizations. Currently, all of the satellites are being tracked by the US Air Force’s Space Surveillance Network — an array of telescopes and radars throughout the globe responsible for keeping tabs on as many objects in orbit as possible. Yet 19 of those satellites are still unidentified in the Air Force’s orbital catalog. Many of the satellite operators do not know which of these 19 probes are theirs exactly, and the Air Force can’t figure it out either.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39463
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 33125
  • Likes Given: 8906
Presumably the -O, -R and -OR refer to optical, radar, and optical reflector, respectively.

"In addition to the ICE-Cap satellite, the mission will launch three other Navy projects. These even-smaller 1U nanosatellites measure only 10 centimeters per side.

The smaller Navy-built satellites will serve as calibration targets and technology demonstrations to improve tracking of small objects in space. These satellites will host different combinations of radio frequency reflectors that reflect radar for improved space object tracking and optical reflectors that reflect lasers for precise measurement of satellite altitude."
« Last Edit: 06/01/2019 04:43 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10438
  • US
  • Liked: 14355
  • Likes Given: 6148
Bit of a necropost here, but this image is HELLA cool:

https://twitter.com/DrTen7/status/1154354396576309250

This would probably be illegal if it was done by a US satellite.  NOAA tends to impose strict regulations on photographing other objects in orbit.  (It is a really cool pic.)

Offline Mandella

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 526
  • Liked: 802
  • Likes Given: 2673
twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1159241574900879360

Quote
Jeff Roberts of Spaceflight gives an overview of last year’s SSO-A rideshare mission. Of 64 satellites, 4 cubesats never made contact after deployment; 12 sats never claimed by their owners with Air Force. (And 1 locked in its deployer because of lack of licensing.) #smallsat

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1159242026627371008

Quote
Roberts: very hard to deal with 50+ customers on the same mission, but not against doing another mission like SSO-A. #smallsat

SpaceX has a plan that may mean he doesn’t have to worry about that issue again ...


So while we're necroposting, does anyone have any more info or speculation about what looks to me like very bizarre numbers? Okay 4 sats just didn't work, crap happens and all that. But 12 were never claimed? What does that mean? Is it voluntary to claim your sats with the Air Force? Or were they abandoned for some reason?

Also woe to the one guy who didn't get deployed due to some unspecified licensing issue. I mean, they didn't know they had a problem before it was packed up and launched?

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10438
  • US
  • Liked: 14355
  • Likes Given: 6148
But 12 were never claimed? What does that mean? Is it voluntary to claim your sats with the Air Force? Or were they abandoned for some reason?

It does seem to be voluntary, especially for non-US owned payloads.

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • United States
  • Liked: 1006
  • Likes Given: 367
....

Also woe to the one guy who didn't get deployed due to some unspecified licensing issue. I mean, they didn't know they had a problem before it was packed up and launched?

I don't know any specifics so this is just an educated guess:

I'm sure they knew, but the flight was leaving and they were forced to choose: You either get on the flight and hope to get your approval before you get to your destination, or miss the flight entirely and never get a chance.

They likely thought their approval was just around the corner.

Edit to add: I imagine they had a deadline by which to send their payload to SSO, which was probably quite some time before the launch.
« Last Edit: 08/08/2019 02:35 pm by mn »

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10438
  • US
  • Liked: 14355
  • Likes Given: 6148
https://twitter.com/SpaceflightInc/status/1159489637875761152
Quote
To clarify, the 12 cubesats mentioned as "unclaimed" means those organizations did not go to the 18th Space Control Squadron to report which object was their satellite. It does NOT mean those satellites were not functioning or abandoned. -jeff roberts

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2641
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 954
  • Likes Given: 172
....

Also woe to the one guy who didn't get deployed due to some unspecified licensing issue. I mean, they didn't know they had a problem before it was packed up and launched?

I don't know any specifics so this is just an educated guess:

I'm sure they knew, but the flight was leaving and they were forced to choose: You either get on the flight and hope to get your approval before you get to your destination, or miss the flight entirely and never get a chance.

They likely thought their approval was just around the corner.

Edit to add: I imagine they had a deadline by which to send their payload to SSO, which was probably quite some time before the launch.

The CubeSat concerned was Elysium-Star 2. Not being deployed was likely not a big deal for the customer, as this one was completely passive CubeSat containing only the cremated remains for "space burial".

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/elysium-star-2.htm

Offline Mandella

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 526
  • Liked: 802
  • Likes Given: 2673
....

Also woe to the one guy who didn't get deployed due to some unspecified licensing issue. I mean, they didn't know they had a problem before it was packed up and launched?

I don't know any specifics so this is just an educated guess:

I'm sure they knew, but the flight was leaving and they were forced to choose: You either get on the flight and hope to get your approval before you get to your destination, or miss the flight entirely and never get a chance.

They likely thought their approval was just around the corner.

Edit to add: I imagine they had a deadline by which to send their payload to SSO, which was probably quite some time before the launch.

The CubeSat concerned was Elysium-Star 2. Not being deployed was likely not a big deal for the customer, as this one was completely passive CubeSat containing only the cremated remains for "space burial".

https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/elysium-star-2.htm

Aha! So one way or the other they got their space burial.

In that particular case no reason to even have a deployment mechanism at all...

Offline Rondaz

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27059
  • Liked: 5301
  • Likes Given: 169
Spaceflight herded 64 cubesats onto a single Falcon 9 and has the scratch marks to prove it..

by Jeff Foust — August 23, 2019

https://spacenews.com/spaceflight-herded-64-cubesats-onto-a-single-falcon-9-it-has-the-scratch-marks-to-prove-it/

Offline Rondaz

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27059
  • Liked: 5301
  • Likes Given: 169
In contrast, the UFF and LFF dispensers, identified as 99F and  99C, have fairly modest decay rates despite reported drag sail deploys.
So I'm wondering if the IDs we have for the SSO-A launch still could use some work. Not sure why Enoch would be decaying so fast.

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1200655679616421888
« Last Edit: 11/30/2019 01:54 pm by Rondaz »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1