Aolong-1 (I would translate it as
"Traveling Dragon" 
- probably the "ADRV" shown earlier) - described as a small satellite demonstrating active orbital debris clean-up techniques using a robotic arm to simulate grabbing virtual targets and "throw" them back into the atmosphere. Satellite's operator is not known. (6) (7)
Star of Aoxiang
("Soaring" is probably the best translation of 翱翔) - built by Xian's
Northwestern Polytechnical University, it is apparently the 1st 12U picosat of any kind in the world (the photos below should clear up any size issues). The 18 kg, 30 x 20 x 20 cm satellite will perform tests on optical polarization navigation outside the atmosphere for about 3 months. (8 ) (9)
2 x Tiange (
"Sky Dove" - probably the "BPV" shown earlier) satellites - only thing known about them is that they will test intra-satellite and satellite-to-Earth communication techniques. Nothing else is known about them, including the satellite operator.
(10)
In-orbit satellite fueling experiment - as its name suggests, this fluid transfer experiment for developing fuel/gas transferal in orbit remains attached to the YZ-1A upper stage. Again, the operator of the experiment is not known (10)
Ballast - seems like it was shaped like the Tianzhou logistics spacecraft, the major user of the baseline CZ-7. According to a CCTV news report the total payload weights 12 tonnes.
(6)
http://news.cnr.cn/dj/20160625/t20160625_522495575.shtml(7)
http://www.chinanews.com/gn/2016/06-26/7917814.shtml(8 )
http://news.cyol.com/content/2016-06/25/content_12909280.htm(9)
http://news.nwpu.edu.cn/info/1002/45299.htm(10)
http://news.xinhuanet.com/2016-06/25/c_1119111794.htm
According to a Gunter's Space Page section regarding the Long March 7, it does correctly state that the variant used yesterday was the Long March 7/YZ-1A.
However, other variants are listed above the launch history such as the Long March 7 (300) and the Long March 7 (340 + HO). I'm thinking that the "340 + HO" config could have been used for yesterday's flight.
The "340 + HO" version - a.k.a. the baseline LM-7 + a 3rd stage base on the LM-3B LH2 upper stage with new YF-75D engines - would have been the replacement for the LM-3B/C workhorses, but as far as I know it's still a paper rocket right now. That really puts the LM-7 in an awkward position considering that it really can't do much to beyond LEO even with the baseline version, which is heavier than the Atlas V 551 yet requiring
10 oxidizer-rich stage combustion kerlox engines! Never mind that crazy F9-1.2 thing from that SoCal company which must not be named.....
Has a landing time been published yet, please?
1541 Bei time http://www.chinanews.com/gn/2016/06-26/7918008.shtml
Thank you! Missed it live by about 5 minutes then.
I assume it's too much to hope for any detailed description of the YZ-1A manoeuvres?
And which of the ten objects tracked in orbit is which? Well, we'll know which is the YZ-1A/NGCV because that will have disappeared from orbit this morning. Do we know when the small satellites were separated from YZ-1A?
The "340 + HO" version - a.k.a. the baseline LM-7 + a 3rd stage base on the LM-3B LH2 upper stage with new YF-75D engines - would have been the replacement for the LM-3B/C workhorses, but as far as I know it's still a paper rocket right now. That really puts the LM-7 in an awkward position considering that it really can't do much to beyond LEO even with the baseline version, which is heavier than the Atlas V 551 yet requiring 10 oxidizer-rich stage combustion kerlox engines! Never mind that crazy F9-1.2 thing from that SoCal company which must not be named.....
CZ-7 seems less efficient on paper, and likely will turn out to be less efficient, but with a 12 tonne payload, it apparently just out-lifted, on its inaugural launch, every Falcon 9 and Atlas 5 flown to date, not to mention every other launch vehicle flown this year to date.
- Ed Kyle
Apparently the YZ-1 upper stage flying with the CZ-7 is called "YZ-1A", featuring enhanced re-ignition capability.
Exact liftoff time is 12:00:07:413 UTC (which fits with earlier reports that liftoff occurs 7.6 seconds after command issuing).
According to the LM-7 project director, the differences of the YZ-1A from the original YZ-1 are as follows:
- mission lifetime up to 48 hours (was 6.5 hours on the YZ-1) - this is apparently being demonstrated right now since it won't be de-orbited until tomorrow at the earliest
- up to at least 9 engine burns possible, and
possibly up to 20 burns (was only 2 on the YZ-1)
- at least capable of making 7 payload separations (only single payloads possible on the YZ-1)
- improved thermal control system, guidance algorithms and orbit planning for multiple payload deployment missions
- YZ-1A will form the basis for future deep space propulsion stages, space tugs and orbital servicing and debris removal spacecraft
CZ-7 seems less efficient on paper, and likely will turn out to be less efficient, but with a 12 tonne payload, it apparently just out-lifted, on its inaugural launch, every Falcon 9 and Atlas 5 flown to date, not to mention every other launch vehicle flown this year to date.
- Ed Kyle
You can't compare 12 t into LEO to 6 to 10 t into GTO.
Why can't these idiots get their facts right?
I think this question answers itself.
More TLEs now showing 3 groups of orbits:
A 287 x 381 x 40.8
B 287 x 377 x 40.8
C 201 x 378 x 40.8
D 200 x 377 x 40.8
E 202 x 379 x 40.8
F 202 x 379 x 40.8
G 201 x 555 x 40.7
H 197 x 578 x 40.5
J 198 x 585 x 41.2
K 195 x 590 x 41.0
Initially I thought G to K might be motor separattion covers as per the usual CZ-2 series but now I'm wondering if they are the YZ-1A payloads, with the higher apogee and the variation in inclination reflecting YZ-1 burns.
Any suggestions?
I saw some Chinese forum members
making these guesses based on previously leaked flight sequences info (
http://bbs.9ifly.cn/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=13078&pid=466801):
A and B should be Star of Aoxiang and the combination upper stage, ballast and the capsule still attached (not in order), since the orbit perigee has been raised.
C to F are probably the 2nd stage, Aolong-1, its dispenser and the upper stage support structure, again not in order.
G to J are probably the motor separation covers.
We should have a few more objects appearing since the 2 Tiange satellites was listed as being separated after a 2nd upper stage burn. Then a 3rd burn would be done (presumably to a sub-orbital trajectory since the capsule needs to come down ballistically) and the ballast and the capsule would be separated. Then apparently the upper stage would make a 4th burn to put it back into orbit.
The YZ-1A will then continue making some engine burns to test engine multiple re-starts, long duration burns, as well as "virtual rendezvous" with a virtual target and testing inter-spacecraft communications and optical tracking. Eventually it will be de-orbited (one CCTV reports puts this at T+43 hours, or around 7 am UTC tomorrow) over the central Pacific.
Anyone knows the launch mission codename for this one?
Is it "87-01"?
Seems to be "07-W1" instead. (07 is shared with Xichang flights, which sounds right since IIRC WSLC is actually managed by XSLC)
CZ-7 seems less efficient on paper, and likely will turn out to be less efficient, but with a 12 tonne payload, it apparently just out-lifted, on its inaugural launch, every Falcon 9 and Atlas 5 flown to date, not to mention every other launch vehicle flown this year to date.
- Ed Kyle
You can't compare 12 t into LEO to 6 to 10 t into GTO.
I'm not. I'm just comparing pure payload mass, obviously to LEO but also regardless of destination. Also, the heaviest Atlas 5 payload to GTO of which I'm aware was 6.74 tonnes (MUOS, one of which flew this past week). Falcon 9's heaviest GTO has been 5.27 tonnes. CZ-7 with an LH2 fueled upper stage is said to be able to lift 7 tonnes to GTO (which is obviously another one of those TBD numbers).
- Ed Kyle
According to a Gunter's Space Page section regarding the Long March 7, it does correctly state that the variant used yesterday was the Long March 7/YZ-1A.
However, other variants are listed above the launch history such as the Long March 7 (300) and the Long March 7 (340 + HO). I'm thinking that the "340 + HO" config could have been used for yesterday's flight.
The "340 + HO" version - a.k.a. the baseline LM-7 + a 3rd stage base on the LM-3B LH2 upper stage with new YF-75D engines - would have been the replacement for the LM-3B/C workhorses, but as far as I know it's still a paper rocket right now. That really puts the LM-7 in an awkward position considering that it really can't do much to beyond LEO even with the baseline version, which is heavier than the Atlas V 551 yet requiring 10 oxidizer-rich stage combustion kerlox engines! Never mind that crazy F9-1.2 thing from that SoCal company which must not be named.....
Please note, that the "340 + HO" designation is only preliminary. I simply do not know yet the designations of the planned CZ-7 versions.
The capsule seemingly does not have solid motors for landing
if my 3d simulation is right, the upper diameter is around 1,6m
According to a Gunter's Space Page section regarding the Long March 7, it does correctly state that the variant used yesterday was the Long March 7/YZ-1A.
However, other variants are listed above the launch history such as the Long March 7 (300) and the Long March 7 (340 + HO). I'm thinking that the "340 + HO" config could have been used for yesterday's flight.
The "340 + HO" version - a.k.a. the baseline LM-7 + a 3rd stage base on the LM-3B LH2 upper stage with new YF-75D engines - would have been the replacement for the LM-3B/C workhorses, but as far as I know it's still a paper rocket right now. That really puts the LM-7 in an awkward position considering that it really can't do much to beyond LEO even with the baseline version, which is heavier than the Atlas V 551 yet requiring 10 oxidizer-rich stage combustion kerlox engines! Never mind that crazy F9-1.2 thing from that SoCal company which must not be named.....
Please note, that the "340 + HO" designation is only preliminary. I simply do not know yet the designations of the planned CZ-7 versions.
I've recorded it as 341, since I count the YZ-1 as an upper stage. But of course this is my internal designation until CASTC decide to inform the official designation.
The old LM-5 has all this complicated numerical designation.
But now that they have separated the families in LM-5/6/7 I've noted that the LM-5 is the one with an upper stage and the LM-5B is the one without one. So I would suspect that the LM-7 family will follow a similar nomeclature where the version with the upper stage gets an A or B designation. After all, that's also the case for the rest of the LM families.
It does seem that there are no new TLEs for 41624 (42A) since early Jun 26 while the other objects
are continuing to get TLEs. This suggests that 42A was the return capsule+YZ-1A? And that if the YZ-1A is
back in orbit, JSpOC hasn't found it yet.
With various propulsive events, any word on visual sightings of plume clouds?
the payload that was put into orbit
This morning's paper. Note the comment about the US space program on page 2 from an anonymous source.
- probably the "ADRV" shown earlier) - described as a small satellite demonstrating active orbital debris clean-up techniques using a robotic arm to simulate grabbing virtual targets and "throw" them back into the atmosphere. Satellite's operator is not known. (6) (7)
(10)