SpaceX Falcon 9 : AMOS-17 : August 6, 2019 : DISCUSSION

[gongora]

Discussion thread for the AMOS-17 mission

NSF Threads for AMOS-17 : Discussion / Updates / L2 Photos
NSF Articles for AMOS-17 :

Successful launch August 6, 2019 at 19:23 EDT (23:23 UTC) on reused Falcon 9 (1047.3) to GTO.  The first stage was expended.  A fairing half was successfully caught by Ms. Tree.  Payload wet mass ~6.5t, dry mass ~3t.

Spacecom Orders Multi-Band High-Throughput Satellite From Boeing Satellite Systems International
AMOS-17, Planned to be Launched in 2019, Will be Multi-Band High-Throughput Satellite (HTS) Servicing Middle East, Europe and Africa from 17°E Orbital Position

Tel Aviv – 21 December 2016: Spacecom (Tel Aviv Stock Exchange: SCC), operator of the AMOS satellite fleet, announced today that it has entered into a satellite procurement agreement with Boeing Satellite Systems International. The deal for AMOS-17 is worth US$161 million.

The new satellite, AMOS-17, expected to be launched in 2019, will operate from 17°E and will expand and strengthen Spacecom’s coverage of the growing satellite service markets in Africa, the Middle East and Europe. AMOS-17 will be designed for an in-orbit life of more than 15 years with payload power of approximately 8.5 kW.

AMOS-17 will offer Ka-band, Ku-band and C-Band services. It will have a combination of broad regional beams and high throughput spot beams to maximize throughput and spectral efficiency. By providing extensive Ka-Band coverage over the Middle East, Europe and Africa, Ku-Band and C-Band over Africa, it will be a catalyst for Spacecom’s growth plans over the next decade.

David Pollack, president and CEO of Spacecom said, “AMOS-17 will be a multi-band high-throughput, state-of-the-art satellite that will provide reliable solutions and offer a significant competitive advantage for our customers. We are pleased to partner with Boeing in making this important addition to our fleet. The Boeing satellite will provide a great fit for Spacecom’s expansion strategy, offering an innovative design with capabilities that provide flexible service offerings to meet the growing demands of our customers. AMOS-17 will enhance our capabilities as a growing and highly capable satellite operator.”

[SpaceNews Dec. 22, 2016] Ex-Im’s satellite-lending lapse didn’t stop Israel’s Spacecom from buying American
...
Spacecom ordered Amos-17 from Boeing Satellite Systems in a $161 million  deal announced Dec. 21 to replace Amos-5, a satellite built by Russia’s ISS Reshetnev around a payload supplied by Thales Alenia Space of France. Amos-5 ceased communicating in November 2015 after a power failure.
...
Amos-17 is planned for launch in 2019 and will use chemical propulsion.

[SpaceNews Oct. 19, 2017] Spacecom returns to SpaceX for one, possibly two launches

Israeli satellite operator Spacecom has agreed to launch its next satellite on a Falcon 9 rocket from SpaceX in 2019, and will likely launch a second satellite on another Falcon 9 in 2020.

In a statement provided to SpaceNews Oct. 18, Spacecom said it “will use full credits from AMOS-6’s unfulfilled September 2016 launch to fully cover AMOS-17’s launch fees.” Another statement, given to the Israeli stock exchange the same day, said the 2019 mission could launch on a previously flown Falcon 9 rocket.

SPACECOM’S AMOS-17 SATELLITE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETES CRITICAL DESIGN REVIEW (CDR)
AMOS-17 Multi-Band High-Throughput Satellite (HTS) To Service Africa from 17°E Orbital Position, Scheduled for Launch in 2019 via SpaceX Falcon-9

Tel Aviv/Cape Town – 6 November 2017: Spacecom (Tel Aviv Stock Exchange: SCC), operator of the AMOS satellite fleet, announced today that its AMOS-17 communication satellite has successfully completed its Critical Design Review (CDR) and entered full production. Specifically designed for the African continent and scheduled for launch in early 2019, AMOS-17 will operate from 17°E to expand and strengthen Spacecom’s coverage in Africa, the Middle East and Europe. It will offer extensive Ka-band, Ku-band and C-Band HTS services, combining broad regional beams and high throughput spot beams to maximize throughput and spectral efficiency. The satellite’s in-orbit life is expected to be 19 years. 

Boeing Satellite Systems International is building the satellite and SpaceX will send it into orbit on a Falcon-9 launch vehicle.

David Pollack, president and CEO of Spacecom said, “AMOS-17, equipped with latest generation digital payload, represents the most advanced satellite over Africa and further delivers on our long-term commitment to the African market. This satellite will bring multi-band high-throughput technologies to deliver unique service capabilities not possible on traditional satellites. We are introducing cutting edge satellite technology to Africa, that combined with our customer-centric approach, makes Spacecom the ideal choice for service providers. AMOS-17 will advance our support in creating a digital Sub-Sahara Africa society.“

AMOS-17 on Gunter's Space Page


Other SpaceX resources on NASASpaceflight:
   SpaceX News Articles (Recent)
   SpaceX News Articles from 2006 (Including numerous exclusive Elon interviews)
   SpaceX Dragon Articles
   SpaceX Missions Section (with Launch Manifest and info on past and future missions)

   L2 SpaceX Section

[OccasionalTraveller]

Multi-Band High-Throughput Satellite (HTS) To Service Africa from 17°E Orbital Position, Scheduled for Launch in Q2 2019
Tel Aviv – 7 March 2018: Spacecom (Tel Aviv Stock Exchange: SCC), operator of the AMOS satellite fleet, announced today that Cobbett Hill Earthstation has entered into a long term agreement for C-Band capacity covering the Sub-Sahara region on the AMOS-17 communication satellite. Scheduled for launch in Q2 2019, AMOS-17 is specifically designed for meeting the growing demands of the African continent. With extensive Ka-band, Ku-band and C-Band HTS services, the satellite will combine broad regional beams and high throughput spot beams to maximize throughput and spectral efficiency from the 17°E orbital position.

[mn]

Notice from AMOS to TASE (Tel Aviv Stock Exchange) re launch agreement (hebrew)

https://mayafiles.tase.co.il/rpdf/1126001-1127000/P1126845-00.pdf

(Thanks to scr00chy who referenced this in the SpaceIL thread).

Now I tried to get a google translate of the document and I got something really funny.
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=iw&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fmayafiles.tase.co.il%2Frpdf%2F1126001-1127000%2FP1126845-00.pdf

It seems that google is reading the pdf from left to right (each character) and most of it is gibberish, but some of the letters make up almost valid hebrew words which google duly translates. have fun trying to read this. (if google translate had an option of ignoring the layout and giving me just the text it would be much more fun to read).

[Comga]

I hope this doesn't run afoul of the ban on posting rather than links, but being that it's Hebrew and all,....
From Google Translate with editing to remove (some of the) Hebrew syntax and with emphasis added

"Tel Aviv
www.tase.co.il www.isa.gov.il
Re: Space Communications Ltd. ("the Company") - Immediate Report - Launch Agreement for Amos 17 and a launch agreement for Amos 8 with Space Exploration Technologies Corp.

We are pleased to announce that the Space Exploration Technologies Corp ("SpaceX") signed, on September 18, 2017 an agreement to provide space-launch services to be used for launching the Amos 17 satellite using the Falcon 9 launcher ("Amos 17 Launch Agreement") and to supply satellite launch services for a satellite that is scheduled to be launched to the 4° West orbit position as a switch to the Amos 8 satellite "(Amos 8 )" using the SpaceX Falcon-9 launcher.  "(Amos 8 launch agreement)

The following are the main issues in the Amos 17 launch agreement:
An agreement to launch Amos 17 constitutes a correction, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, of a launch agreement for the Amos 6 satellite between the company and SpaceX.

1. Launch date
The Amos 17 launch is scheduled to be carried out using a Falcon 9 launcher whose performance is according to instructions.  The agreement, and taking into consideration the characteristics of the satellite, is supposed to provide the satellite with a life of about 19 Years, at a three-month time window beginning in the second quarter of 2019.

2. Consideration of the launch services
The consideration paid under the Amos 6 satellite launch agreement prior to the amendment will be recorded and no additional charge will be required for the Amos 17 launch.

3. Conditions for launch
3.1 Conditions have been agreed with regard to scheduling the launch and priorities in various cases. They were also arranged Conditions enabling the launch of the satellite using a Falcon 9 launcher that includes the previously flown first stage.
3.2 The Amos 17 Launch Agreement includes provisions regarding the Company's rights in case of violation of the conditions above.

4.Taxes
The company will bear all the taxes that will apply to the Amos 17 satellite and SpaceX will bear all taxes which will apply to the launcher and launch services.

5. Third party liability insurance for dispatch
SpaceX will acquire a third party liability policy for launch which will also cover the Company's liability for damages, financial or physical, to any third party as a result of the launching activity in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Federal Aviation Authority. The said insurance does not cover damage to the satellite, the Company's assets and / or its personnel. Provisions have also been set regarding the division of the parties' liability for damages not covered by their Insurance.

6. Waiver of mutual claims, indemnification and limitation of liability
The Amos 17 dispatch agreement includes provisions regarding reciprocal waiver of claims between the parties, as well as a ratio between contractors and their customers with respect to damages. It also includes a Amos 17 launch agreement
Provisions regarding indemnification in the event of a claim other than according to the division of liability and limitation
responsibility.

7. Delays in launch
7.1 A delay in dispatch by either party may require the delaying party to pay the same delay to the terms of the Amos 17 launch agreement and provisions were made regarding the distribution of storage expenses of the Satellite and launcher between the parties.
7.2 Force majeure constitutes a waiver of liability. However, the longer the delay, the longer the duration the time agreed upon will constitute grounds for the other party to cancel the agreement and such cases have been set provisions regarding partial restitution or refund, as the case may be and as agreed.

8 Canceling a busy launch agreement
8.1 Cancellation due to breach of agreement
Provisions were set regarding the parties' rights to cancel the agreement due to its breach, including a right the Company shall cancel it in case of delay in dispatch by SpaceX for a period exceeding the duration and provisions were set regarding the monetary rights of the parties in case of cancellation as mentioned.
8.2 Cancellation by the Company for convenience
The Company may cancel the agreement for reasons of convenience with the payment of cancellation fees prescribed in the Amos 17 launch agreement.

9. Licensing and regulation
Each Party shall endeavor to obtain the licenses and authorizations required to perform its obligations under the agreement for the launch of Amos 1.

[crandles57]

http://amos-spacecom.com/satellite/amos-17/

has Q2 2019 rather than H1. Is it normal to update thread title?

[vaporcobra]

AMOS-17 [is] currently undergoing testing and final integration stages [and] is scheduled to be launched in the second quarter of 2019.

https://investingnews.com/daily/tech-investing/cloud-investing/nuran-wireless-partners-with-spacecoms-amos-17-satellite-for-up-to-9m-cad-project-in-africa-2/

[vaporcobra]

Mmmmm, a spicy, detailed launch schedule multiple months out.

[Spacecom] said the date range for the [Amos 17] launch was May 20-June 19, but it was targeting the week of May 27 for Elon Musk’s company SpaceX to undertake the launch.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/business/business-in-brief-spacecom-says-it-will-launch-amos-17-satellite-within-four-months-1.6963136

[PM3]

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1118633277676556289

[scr00chy]

Amos-17 disappeared from Ben Cooper's launch schedule. Any ideas why?

[russianhalo117]

Amos-17 disappeared from Ben Cooper's launch schedule. Any ideas why?

2020 bump??

[soltasto]

Amos-17 disappeared from Ben Cooper's launch schedule. Any ideas why?

2020 bump??

Doubt that per this:

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1118633277676556289

They rarely open their media accreditation if the satellite isn't ready.
He might just have forgot about it when editing it.

[input~2]

Launch of AMOS-17 Satellite Pushed Back Until July

[Norm38]

2019-05-15    2230/-4 F9   1049.3 S     Starlink 1 LEO . C-40 72
2019-06-11    F9                1051.2 L     RADARSAT Constellation SSO ~5k? V-4E 73
2019-06-22   (NET) H         RNR* LSL    STP-2 (US Air Force) MEO ~8k? C-39A (H3)
2019-07-08    F9                1056.2 L     CRS SpX-18 LEO ~10k C-40 .
2019-07        (NET) F9        R               AMOS-17 GTO 5500 C-40 .


Just playing the 1st stage core guessing game, based on the flights scheduled before this.
The reused cores that will be available are 1046.4, 1048.4 and 1047.3.
So unless this flight is the one that gets the first 4th launch, it would have to be 1047.3.  But then I don't understand why 1047 isn't launching Starlink today versus 1049, which had two fewer months for turn-around.
Core reuse is fascinating to me and there's so little information for why operations are as they are.

[scr00chy]

But then I don't understand why 1047 isn't launching Starlink today versus 1049, which had two fewer months for turn-around.

Amos-17 was originally supposed to launch before Starlink and boosters are assigned to missions quite some time in advance.

[gongora]

https://twitter.com/AMOSSpacecom/status/1132989742541365249

AMOS-17 is currently undergoing final preparation operations ahead of shipment to Cape Canaveral, FL where it is scheduled to be launched on a Falcon-9 launch vehicle by SpaceX.

h/t to u/Straumli_Blight on r/SpaceX

[PM3]

As CRS-18 is expected now to launch on July 21 from the same pad, Amos-17 will likely slip to early August.

[ZachS09]

As CRS-18 is expected now to launch on July 21 from the same pad, Amos-17 will likely slip to early August.

Why can't AMOS 17 launch from 39A? I think there's enough time to turnaround from STP-2 to AMOS 17 (one and a half months).

[Alexphysics]

As CRS-18 is expected now to launch on July 21 from the same pad, Amos-17 will likely slip to early August.

Why can't AMOS 17 launch from 39A? I think there's enough time to turnaround from STP-2 to AMOS 17 (one and a half months).

It could but currently they're planning it out of 40 so while that helds true they will have to wait until August for Amos 17

[Elthiryel]

Ben Cooper’s website now states it is going to launch from LC-39A in late July.

EDIT: And now he has removed a platform information for this flight.

[zubenelgenubi]

Going deeper into Ben Cooper's web site, to his AMOS-17 page:

Falcon 9 launches AMOS-17 7/27/19, 6:49 pm [EDT]

EDITED for math: 18:49 EDT + 4:00 = 2249 UTC

However, I don't know if this is the most current information that he has.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Going deeper into Ben Cooper's web site, to his AMOS-17 page:

Falcon 9 launches AMOS-17 7/27/19, 6:49 pm [EDT]

This equals 0249 7/28 UTC

However, I don't know if this is the most current information that he has.

If UTC is +4 hours EDT, then 2019 July 27 6:49 pm EDT should be 2019 July 27 22:49 UTC.

[scr00chy]

Going deeper into Ben Cooper's web site, to his AMOS-17 page:

Falcon 9 launches AMOS-17 7/27/19, 6:49 pm [EDT]

Nice find! The next page also confirms that the late September launch is Starlink, not Kacific-1.

[gongora]

Photo from the Spacecom website: AMOS-17 satellite at Boeing
Also site at: https://www.amos17.africa/EN/aboutsat.html

[RocketLover0119]

I haven't seen anything about a landing this mission, is this true? And if so, why? if it's a reused core I dunno why they would want to trash it...

[gongora]

I haven't seen anything about a landing this mission, is this true? And if so, why? if it's a reused core I dunno why they would want to trash it...

Depends how much performance the customer contracted (and paid) for.  We're really not seeing much of anything for this mission, has it been trucked to the Cape yet?

[RocketLover0119]

I haven't seen anything about a landing this mission, is this true? And if so, why? if it's a reused core I dunno why they would want to trash it...

Depends how much performance the customer contracted (and paid) for.  We're really not seeing much of anything for this mission, has it been trucked to the Cape yet?

If your talking about the sat being moved, dunno, booster, yes. Would think the booster seen in front of the 39a HIF that we were thinking was the CRS-18 core was the core for this mission, but who knows, still about 3 or so weeks until the current NET so plent of time still.

[gongora]

I meant the sat.

[RocketLover0119]

I meant the sat.

Then dunno, less than 3 weeks until the current NET so if it hasn't already, it should be very soon.

[crandles57]

Pietrobon has
http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/uscom-man.txt
#27 Jul 19  Falcon 9 v1.2B5 F18  AMOS 17
(think that has been there a few days.)

but Cooper
http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html
July 8 update now has:

Then, a Falcon 9 from pad TBD will launch the
AMOS-17 comsat for Israel on early August TBD, in the early evening EDT.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Pietrobon has
http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/uscom-man.txt
#27 Jul 19  Falcon 9 v1.2B5 F18  AMOS 17
(think that has been there a few days.)

I got that date from here! Date now changed to first week of August.

[ZachS09]

https://www.spacexfleet.com/next

AMOS 17 will be expendable, but I don't know how exactly.

Will they remove the recovery equipment and burn all the prop in Stage 1, or are they gonna do another landing test using a risky profile (leaving the legs, grid fins, and thrusters on)?

[2megs]

https://www.spacexfleet.com/next

AMOS 17 will be expendable, but I don't know how exactly.

Will they remove the recovery equipment and burn all the prop in Stage 1, or are they gonna do another landing test using a risky profile (leaving the legs, grid fins, and thrusters on)?

Expendable doesn't seem necessary. They've launched heavier payloads to GTO (B1046.2, Merah Putih / Telkom-4, 5800kg to around GEO-1925), stuck the landing, and successfully reused the same booster for subsequent flights.

Maybe there's something contractual lingering from AMOS-6 about getting the full performance of the booster? Or maybe we're just seeing the life limits of the early Block 5 builds, and they're going to extract the last value from one of their thrice-used boosters?

[wannamoonbase]

https://www.spacexfleet.com/next

AMOS 17 will be expendable, but I don't know how exactly.

Will they remove the recovery equipment and burn all the prop in Stage 1, or are they gonna do another landing test using a risky profile (leaving the legs, grid fins, and thrusters on)?

Seems like they would only do this if required by contract or for a given amount of delta V that can only come with being expendable.

It's a shame to see a booster expended, but isn't it great that we expect recovery?

[gongora]

Has anyone seen a real mass for this one?  The numbers I've seen look like they're just guesses based on the satellite bus used.

[ZachS09]

https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/85

Here, it says the mass is 5.5 tons. I'm not sure if that's an estimate, though.

Anyway, another reason why I have this next link is because B1047 should be making its third flight on this mission.

[ZachS09]

https://www.spacexfleet.com/next

AMOS 17 will be expendable, but I don't know how exactly.

Will they remove the recovery equipment and burn all the prop in Stage 1, or are they gonna do another landing test using a risky profile (leaving the legs, grid fins, and thrusters on)?

Seems like they would only do this if required by contract or for a given amount of delta V that can only come with being expendable.

It's a shame to see a booster expended, but isn't it great that we expect recovery?

It is, but my next question is this: has SpaceX tested every single EDL profile they came up with? If not, then it's understandable that more delta-v is needed to reach GEO.

That speculation is because of five straight missions in which Block 3/4 boosters were expended because they were obsolete, but they were testing different profiles.

[Orbiter]

Could be going to an elliptical GTO orbit with a very, very high apogee, thus needing the extra dV.

[ulm_atms]

They could be flying expendable to get this sat in service faster since they blew up the last one.  It says they are using the full credits from the AMOS-6 mishap....anyone know those contracted orbit parameters?

I wonder what a fully expendable B5 could do.  Sub GEO-1000?

[GWR64]

They could be flying expendable to get this sat in service faster since they blew up the last one.  ...

Amos-17 does not replace Amos-6 on 4° W. Amos-17 is for 17° E, replace Amos-5.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/amosspacecom/status/1151429998743556096

Check out the AMOS-17 satellite in its processing stage at Cape Canaveral!

AMOS-17 is ready for launch, stay tuned! #AMOS17 #launch #satellite #Spacecom

[zubenelgenubi]

Cross-post re: early August launch window:

http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html

Then, a Falcon 9 from pad TBA will launch the AMOS-17 comsat for Israel on early August, at around 7pm EDT. The launch window stretches around 90 minutes. <snip>

[Comga]

https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/

Aug. 3 Falcon 9 • Amos 17
Launch time: Approx. 2250 GMT (6:50 p.m. EDT)
Launch site: SLC-40, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida

[gongora]

Ben Cooper and Spaceflight Now are both showing this as August 3 now.  I would note there is another launch 10 days earlier from the same pad with a bad weather forecast, so don't be surprised if this moves to the right a little.

[RocketLover0119]

AMOS-17 prior to being encapsulated:

https://twitter.com/AMOSSpacecom/status/1153329522927951875

Our unique AMOS-17 just before encapsulation! The launch is getting closer! #AMOS17 #launch #Spacecom #satellite

[gongora]

https://twitter.com/AMOSSpacecom/status/1153678296539893761

The Spacecom team and our partners from Boeing and SpaceX  are working on final preparations for the launch of the AMOS-17 satellite! #AMOS17 #satellite #Spacecom

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/amosspacecom/status/1154036674583601153

SpaceX technicians are finalizing the PAF (Payload Attach Fitting) blankets. Final preparations for the launch of AMOS-17!! #AMOS17 #Spacecom #satellite

[Nehkara]

https://twitter.com/AMOSSpacecom/status/1154391072233218048?s=20

[RocketLover0119]

https://twitter.com/AMOSSpacecom/status/1154391072233218048?s=20

Link appears broken on desktop, re-linked below:

https://twitter.com/AMOSSpacecom/status/1154391072233218048

Look, AMOS-17 is half encapsulated! Final preparations for launch continue! #AMOS17 #satellite #Spacecom #launch

[gongora]

https://twitter.com/AMOSSpacecom/status/1154447882604429313

Encapsulation…DONE! AMOS-17 will be released out of these capsules only in space!!! #Spacecom #AMOS17 #satellite #launch

[Comet]

[SINO4894]

I've heard from the SpaceXfleet that the first stage booster(B1047.3) will be expended. Is that true?

[gongora]

SpaceX has not filed for the communications permit that usually accompanies a recovery attempt, so we are assuming it will be expendable.

[Phillipsturtles]

Official payload weight:

The payload's weight is ~6.5 ton, ~3.5 ton of it is fuel.

https://twitter.com/AMOSSpacecom/status/1154657143628414979

[ZachS09]

Official payload weight:

The payload's weight is ~6.5 ton, ~3.5 ton of it is fuel.

https://twitter.com/AMOSSpacecom/status/1154657143628414979

What do you think the delta-v could be for an expendable F9 launching a 6.5-ton sat to GTO?

I think it's around GTO-1689, but I might be wrong.

[Norm38]

Per the manifest, Telstar 18/19 were both 7 ton birds with ship recovery, so they should be able to land this stage as well.
I would think the core would have use as a Starlink launcher at least.  But as they have yet to attempt a 4th reflight, maybe they’re happy going expendable?

[Phillipsturtles]

Per the manifest, Telstar 18/19 were both 7 ton birds with ship recovery, so they should be able to land this stage as well.
I would think the core would have use as a Starlink launcher at least.  But as they have yet to attempt a 4th reflight, maybe they’re happy going expendable?

Both Telstar launches were to sub-GTO, I'm assuming this launch will be to a super-sync as Spacecom needs to get this satellite operational faster.

[scr00chy]

Any word on static fire? With the payload encapsulated and CRS-18 done, it should be coming up soon.

[su27k]

It's weird that they fly this one expendable, given they're flying it for free (as compensation for AMOS-6), I assume they'd want to minimize the cost.

[pb2000]

It's weird that they fly this one expendable, given they're flying it for free (as compensation for AMOS-6), I assume they'd want to minimize the cost.

Priority here is probably making the customer happy, seeing as SpaceX did blow up their last payload (scuttling the sale of Spacecom in the process).  Another factor is early block 5 cores also don't have the upgraded COPV's, so SpaceX may be willing to expend them.

[Rondaz]

ISRAELI SATELLITE 'AMOS-17' TO BE LAUNCHED INTO SPACE NEXT WEEK FROM FLORIDA

Jerusalem Post  Hi tech news

Amos-17's objective would be to provide TV, cellular and internet services to Africa, Europe and the Middle East.

BY ALON EINHORN   JULY 28, 2019 16:38

https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Israeli-satellite-Amos-17-to-be-launched-into-space-next-week-from-Florida-596985

[GWR64]

It's weird that they fly this one expendable, given they're flying it for free (as compensation for AMOS-6), I assume they'd want to minimize the cost.

 

Spacecom paid $ 50 million to SpaceX for the Amos 6 launch. They did not get the money back.
The insurance from the satellite manufacturer IAI has paid the money for the satellite.
This money has been returned to Spacecom by IAI.
SpaceX was allowed to keep the $ 50 million for the launch for 3 years.

That's how I know the story.

[Draggendrop]

I have no qualms and see no reason for this launch not be be expendable.

Courtesy launch and give the payload an assist as well as setting up for future business.

[John Alan]

As long as expending rockets is still legal... 
SpaceX has every right to expend rockets, to dispose of excess inventory of earlier models... 

Remember, it costs money to "recycle"... 
It costs nothing (and you gain performance) by doing it "the old fashion way"... 

SO... I have no issue with the fate of 1047...
3 flights was WAY better then just 1... job done... RIP... 

 

[Semmel]

I want to voice one possibility (pure speculation):

Early contracts with many customers for expendable first stages are re-negotiated towards booster recovery in exchange for a discount. Since this flight is free to the customer, there is no motivation from the customer to agree to a change in contract. In fact, F9 can give the payload a better orbit if the first stage is expended, hence the customer has even less motivation to agree to this.

[envy887]

Per the manifest, Telstar 18/19 were both 7 ton birds with ship recovery, so they should be able to land this stage as well.
I would think the core would have use as a Starlink launcher at least.  But as they have yet to attempt a 4th reflight, maybe they’re happy going expendable?

Both Telstar launches were to sub-GTO, I'm assuming this launch will be to a super-sync as Spacecom needs to get this satellite operational faster.

With 3.5 t of fuel this has to be chemical propulsion for GEO insertion, so the GTO energy does not matter for time to orbit. But it does matter a lot for stationkeeping fuel remaining after insertion... A higher orbit can mean several more years of life and tens of millions in revenue.

[edkyle99]

Per the manifest, Telstar 18/19 were both 7 ton birds with ship recovery, so they should be able to land this stage as well.
I would think the core would have use as a Starlink launcher at least.  But as they have yet to attempt a 4th reflight, maybe they’re happy going expendable?

Subsynchronous, as others pointed out, with apogee only around 18,000 km.  The limit for recovery is around 5.5 tonnes to a standard GTO, so if this one at 6.5 tonnes is going full GTO, first stage has to be expended.

I also have to wonder about the reuse numbers.  Maybe 3 and done is going to be it for Block 5.

 - Ed Kyle

[AC in NC]

Maybe 3 and done is going to be it for Block 5.

Even as a possibility, this seems exceedingly unlikely.  Doesn't seem like the boss.

[ZachS09]

Maybe 3 and done is going to be it for Block 5.

Even as a possibility, this seems exceedingly unlikely.  Doesn't seem like the boss.

I agree. I feel that Elon's commitment to fly each booster ten times before the required maintenance to keep going is set in stone. I can't see him changing his mind to have the Block 5 boosters make like the Block 4 versions which are only flown twice before being expended.

Expending each Block 5 booster after three times seems unrealistic to me.

[groundbound]

Maybe 3 and done is going to be it for Block 5.

Even as a possibility, this seems exceedingly unlikely.  Doesn't seem like the boss.

A recent Elon tweet stated otherwise. Something about a fifth flight by the end of 2019.

[edkyle99]

Maybe 3 and done is going to be it for Block 5.

Even as a possibility, this seems exceedingly unlikely.  Doesn't seem like the boss.

A recent Elon tweet stated otherwise. Something about a fifth flight by the end of 2019.

We'll see.  1046 should be the first, or one of the first, to try four flights.   

 - Ed Kyle

[ZachS09]

I've heard that B1048 will make a fourth and final flight, doing the IFA test.

[ZachF]

I also have to wonder about the reuse numbers.  Maybe 3 and done is going to be it for Block 5.

 - Ed Kyle

This is silly. B5 has only been around for a year. The entire Atlas 5 family hasn't even flown 4 times during this time period, nevermind a single booster that's gone 4 times.

Hell, the next flight on the manifest is another Starlink flight in september, I bet that's your fourth flight right there. Third Starlink flight will probably be #5.

I suspect all the flight milestones will take place on Starlink flights from here on as well.

[scr00chy]

I've heard that B1048 will make a fourth and final flight, doing the IFA test.

Seems likely. That booster was seen being moved to the HIF a not too long ago.

[gongora]

Maybe 3 and done is going to be it for Block 5.

Even as a possibility, this seems exceedingly unlikely.  Doesn't seem like the boss.

A recent Elon tweet stated otherwise. Something about a fifth flight by the end of 2019.

https://spacenews.com/spacex-targets-2021-commercial-starship-launch/

Hofeller said SpaceX plans to use a single Falcon 9 booster five times by the end of this year.

(this is getting a bit offtopic for the AMOS-17 thread)

[Chris Bergin]

Will start the update thread when we get a Static Fire date confirmed. NET Tuesday but thinking Wednesday.

[zubenelgenubi]

A "could-become-a-fun-fact"? EDIT 8/5

Four geocomm satellite launches in 6 4 days (UTC):
August 5: Proton-M/Briz-M / Baikonur / Blagovest #4
August 6: Ariane 5 ECA / Kourou / Intelsat 39 & EDRS C
August 6: Falcon 9 / Cape Canaveral / AMOS 17
August 8: Atlas V 551 / Cape Canaveral / AEHF 5

[gongora]

https://twitter.com/chrisswann26/status/1155921923186057216
h/t to Tyler Gray for finding this

Looks like they assembled the vehicle at 39-A and then moved it to 40.

[DatUser14]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but the booster looks like 1047. Left is the booster from that post, right is from this tweet: https://twitter.com/Cygnusx112/status/1064590202470100994?

[ChrisGebhardt]

From the National Hurricane Center: "Formation chance through 5 days...low...10 percent."  In other words, just an increase moisture/rain bringer to Florida... just in time (maybe) for AMOS-17's launch.

[crandles57]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but the booster looks like 1047.

https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/85
has it as 1047.3 since at least 22 July.

[codav]

https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/85
has it as 1047.3 since at least 22 July.

It was the most obvious choice, as no new booster has been sighted leaving Hawthorne (just the one spotted yesterday on I-10 in Arizona, heading to McGregor), they don't have any new or once-flown boosters in stock (not even the FH side boosters which flew twice) and this one was the only twice-flown booster on the east coast.

[Bananas_on_Mars]

Since launch is NET August 3rd and no signal for a static fire yet, could it be they do a static fire with the payload attached?
Might send a strong signal...

[mn]

Since launch is NET August 3rd and no signal for a static fire yet, could it be they do a static fire with the payload attached?
Might send a strong signal...

Definitely would be a strong signal, but not the kind of signal you want to be sending.

[scr00chy]

Since launch is NET August 3rd and no signal for a static fire yet, could it be they do a static fire with the payload attached?
Might send a strong signal...

I'd say 0% chance of that happening, considering what happened with the last Amos payload that was attached to the rocket during a static fire...

[Bananas_on_Mars]

Well, i‘ve said it here before, static fire with a payload attached became safer because of what happened with Amos-6. Perception might be different. We‘ll see.

[lonestriker]

Well, i‘ve said it here before, static fire with a payload attached became safer because of what happened with Amos-6. Perception might be different. We‘ll see.

The only F9 payloads that will be attached for static fires will be Crew Dragon and SpaceX's own payloads like Starlink.  Other than that, I would bet good money against any other payloads being attached.  If nothing else, the insurance companies would probably not cover loss of your payload to an AMOS-6 type mishap again on F9.

[jjyach]

Just to make it official to you guys, there is no payload attached to the booster.

[basedoesgames]

Is there any idea of a time frame for the static fire? I want to go out there to try and catch it but I don't need to be sitting out there for 6 hours if the window doesn't open until 5-6 PM local.

[SpaceOffshore]

Sometimes my tracking can be the first sign of a delay  . Thanks for the info Chris - I do lurk on here by the way!

[intelati]

We understand SpaceX's Falcon 9/AMOS-17 launch will slip a few days (the weather was going to be poor anyway!) due to an apparent requirement to conduct a second Static Fire test on Friday (NET).

Is this the first time a full Static Fire has been completed, and then repeated for a Falcon 9 Rocket?

Can't remember anything of the sort. I might remember an aborted static fire, but can't think of a situation like this.

[amarkit]

We understand SpaceX's Falcon 9/AMOS-17 launch will slip a few days (the weather was going to be poor anyway!) due to an apparent requirement to conduct a second Static Fire test on Friday (NET).

Is this the first time a full Static Fire has been completed, and then repeated for a Falcon 9 Rocket?

Can't remember anything of the sort. I might remember an aborted static fire, but can't think of a situation like this.

CASSIOPE had two static fires.

[whitelancer64]

We understand SpaceX's Falcon 9/AMOS-17 launch will slip a few days (the weather was going to be poor anyway!) due to an apparent requirement to conduct a second Static Fire test on Friday (NET).

Is this the first time a full Static Fire has been completed, and then repeated for a Falcon 9 Rocket?

Can't remember anything of the sort. I might remember an aborted static fire, but can't think of a situation like this.

OG2 Mission 2, the 10th Falcon 9 flight (back in 2014) had two successful static fires.

The second was due to having three scrubbed launch attempts, and after the 3rd scrub they had to replace the TVC actuator in the 1st stage. That launch campaign was over 2 months long.

[ulm_atms]

We understand SpaceX's Falcon 9/AMOS-17 launch will slip a few days (the weather was going to be poor anyway!) due to an apparent requirement to conduct a second Static Fire test on Friday (NET).

My guess is an engine data review showed something wrong with an engine and it needs work/replacement and then re-validation.  This is a used booster after all....and shows why the static fires are so important. 

Scratch that.....valve.

SpaceX:

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1157049942113865728

[IntoTheVoid]

This was telegraphed somewhat, this is not the standard phrasing after a good static fire.

SpaceX tweet confirming launch attempt for the 3rd, tweet phrases "Team is assessing data".

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1156741958229905409

[SpaceOffshore]

GO Navigator is underway downrange. At full speed, it's a 58 hour trip to the location where the fairing will land. This does seem to put Monday out of the question but makes Tuesday a good target. Wait to see what SpaceX say after tonight's static fire! The Air Force seemed to indicate a large delay in a weird tweet earlier.

[FlattestEarth]

Targeting Aug 6, but that would be less than 36h before the Atlas V launch.

[zubenelgenubi]

Seeking confirmation, correction, or clarification:
The range can support a Tuesday evening Falcon 9 launch from SLC-40, followed by a Thursday morning Atlas V/AEHF 5 launch from SLC-41.

IIRC, the Atlas V should roll out Tuesday morning--no longer enclosed.

The Air Force may choose to ask for a delay of the Falcon 9 launch until after their August 8 launch.

Precedence:
Last year, the Falcon 9/Hispasat 30W-6 launch from SLC-40 was delayed until after the GOES-S launch on Atlas V from SLC-41--same general circumstances.

EDIT/ADD self-quote of SFN article:

I just found this on SFN, dated Feb. 27:
Atlas 5 launch on track for Thursday, SpaceX mission expected to slip

The “clean pad” layout at Complex 41 does not offer shelter to the Atlas 5 rocket once its in position on the launch mount, and officials were concerned about exposing the launcher and sensitive optics on its weather satellite payload to exhaust plumes from the Falcon 9 rocket as it blasts off from the nearby Complex 40 launch pad.

Managers also studied whether the Atlas 5 rocket and the GOES-S satellite would be at risk of damage on the pad if the Falcon 9 rocket had a mishap during launch.

[mn]

Seeking confirmation, correction, or clarification:
The range can support a Tuesday evening Falcon 9 launch from SLC-40, followed by a Thursday morning Atlas V/AEHF 5 launch from SLC-41.

IIRC, the Atlas V should roll out Tuesday morning--no longer enclosed.

The Air Force may choose to ask for a delay of the Falcon 9 launch until after their August 8 launch.

Precedence:
Last year, the Falcon 9/Hispasat 30W-6 launch from SLC-40 was delayed until after the GOES-S launch on Atlas V from SLC-41--same general circumstances.

It seems like the AF has already approved the Tuesday launch attempt. At least the weather office which is part of the AF has issued a forecast. And SpaceCom has publicly announced the date, I assume they would know if the date has been range approved.

So the question is what changed since last time?

[Kansan52]

So the question is what changed since last time?

Experience? Paperwork?

[zubenelgenubi]

So the question is what changed since last time?

Experience? Paperwork?

And no sensitive optics, like GOES-S?

[Thorny]

I hope someone (SpaceX, ULA, USAF) has flown a helicopter or drone in the area to get nice photos of both Falcon 9 and Atlas 5 exposed on their launch pads this morning.

[jpo234]

https://twitter.com/AMOSSpacecom/status/1153329522927951875

https://twitter.com/AMOSSpacecom/status/1154036674583601153

https://twitter.com/AMOSSpacecom/status/1154391072233218048

https://twitter.com/AMOSSpacecom/status/1154447882604429313

https://twitter.com/AMOSSpacecom/status/1154629761341304832

https://twitter.com/AMOSSpacecom/status/1156175009607499776

[billh]

I hope someone (SpaceX, ULA, USAF) has flown a helicopter or drone in the area to get nice photos of both Falcon 9 and Atlas 5 exposed on their launch pads this morning.

This is what a spaceport should look like!

[intelati]

Current Radar 5:03pm EDT/9:03pm UTC

[zubenelgenubi]

There was no live footage from the first stage after separation.  I hope we'll see as much as possible of the rocketcam view of re-entry sometime later.

Also, did the second stage first burn go a few seconds long?

[Lars-J]

There was no live footage from the first stage after separation.  I hope we'll see as much as possible of the rocketcam view of re-entry sometime later.

Also, did the second stage first burn go a few seconds long?

This first stage was expended. I don't expect to see any footage from it. Looked like grid fins and camera package was removed from the interstage.

[jstrotha0975]

Will their be a fairing recovery attempt?

[Lars-J]

Will their be a fairing recovery attempt?

Yes. But not shown on the live stream. They will announce the result of the attempt on social media.

[ZachS09]

There technically was an interstage camera that showed us the last half-minute of Stage 1 powered flight before cutting to the M-Vac engine.

[Lars-J]

There technically an interstage camera that showed us the last half-minute of Stage 1 powered flight before cutting to the M-Vac engine.

Oh, good point. I assumed that was the 2nd stage camera, but probably not.

[RDMM2081]

Separation!

Congrats to SpaceX getting this one done and keeping SpaceCom/AMOS happy!

[gongora]

Over two months to the next Falcon launch (assuming no surprises), hopefully the withdrawal symptoms aren't too severe.  At least we'll get some Hopper action and Starship news to tide us over.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Congratulations to SpaceX and AMOS for the successful launch!

Stage 2 second cutoff was 35,295 km/h (9804.2 m/s) and 209 km. My calculator gives an apogee of 35,508 km, 278 km below geosynchronous at 35,786 km. Delta-V to geo is 1840.5 m/s.

http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/speed.zip

Enter initial perigee height (km): 209
Enter SpaceX speed (km/h): 35295
Enter initial orbit inclination (deg): 28.5

Estimated inertial speed = 10226.3 m/s
Estimated apogee height = 35508.1 km

Enter required inclination change (deg): 28.5
Enter final orbit height (km): -1
Geosynchronous altitude = 35786.0 km

Burn at   209.0 km: theta1 =  0.00 deg, dv1 =    4.6 m/s
Burn at 35786.0 km: theta2 = 28.50 deg, dv2 = 1835.9 m/s
dv = 1840.5 m/s

[LouScheffer]

On the webcast, John said they would add 2.6 km/sec to the orbital speed, more than enough to reach GEO apogee.  I'm guessing they used the rest to reduce inclination.  You can do slightly better with a super-synchronous apogee but it's only a few m/s and likely not worth the extra complexity.  Inclination reduction is also consistent with the final measured Earth-relative velocity of 35295 km/hr.

So my guess is 220 km x 36000 km, inclined 22^o.  1700 m/s to get to GEO.

EDIT: Added some forgotten units.

[ejb749]

Fairing caught.
 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1158899839456800769?s=19

[Alexphysics]

There was no live footage from the first stage after separation.  I hope we'll see as much as possible of the rocketcam view of re-entry sometime later.

Also, did the second stage first burn go a few seconds long?

This first stage was expended. I don't expect to see any footage from it. Looked like grid fins and camera package was removed from the interstage.

Camera was not removed, during ascent we were able to get views of the rocket going up with that camera

[Ogrepete]

I haven't seen an explanation (despite looking around) of why the range went Red and then Green within about 90 seconds.

Does anyone know the details behind that set of events?

[RocketLover0119]

Watched the launch in person, my first falcon launch in person, was one of the coolest things i've ever experienced in my life, the atmosphere, the launch itself, the roar of the merlins, and the rocket itself......WOW......

[ZachS09]

Has anyone found the TLEs for AMOS 17 yet?

I'd like to know the delta-v to GTO for this mission.

[penguin44]

I haven't seen an explanation (despite looking around) of why the range went Red and then Green within about 90 seconds.

Does anyone know the details behind that set of events?

I believe when I heard it in headphones, that someone was saying range was red in error and needed to be changed in the computer before the t-1:30 mark.

[RocketLover0119]

My first ever attempt at a streak shot during yesterday's launch 

[gongora]

Has anyone found the TLEs for AMOS 17 yet?

I'd like to know the delta-v to GTO for this mission.

There seems to be a problem with the satellite catalog right now.  None of yesterday's launches are there yet.

[andrewsdanj]

Has anyone found the TLEs for AMOS 17 yet?

I'd like to know the delta-v to GTO for this mission.

There seems to be a problem with the satellite catalog right now.  None of yesterday's launches are there yet.

I'm sure I heard the migty John Insprucker state '2.6 km/s added to get from parking orbit to transfer orbit' (or words to that effect) during the orbit raising burn, if that helps for now.

[LouScheffer]

I'd like to know the delta-v to GTO for this mission.

There seems to be a problem with the satellite catalog right now.  None of yesterday's launches are there yet.

I'm sure I heard the migty John Insprucker state '2.6 km/s added to get from parking orbit to transfer orbit' (or words to that effect) during the orbit raising burn, if that helps for now.

From above in the thread - using this info, likely delta-V is about 1700 m/s, not much different if they chose super-synchronous or inclination reduction.

On the webcast, John said they would add 2.6 km/sec to the orbital speed, more than enough to reach GEO apogee.  I'm guessing they used the rest to reduce inclination.  You can do slightly better with a super-synchronous apogee but it's only a few m/s and likely not worth the extra complexity.  Inclination reduction is also consistent with the final measured Earth-relative velocity of 35295 km/hr.

So my guess is 220 km x 36000 km, inclined 22^o.  1700 m/s to get to GEO.

[gongora]

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1159233901270917120

TLE data flowing again. 3 of  4 expected objects from the Ariane launch in  213-241 x 35557 - 35788 km x 4.5 deg geotransfer orbit. Both expected objects from the SpaceX AMOS 17 launch in 221 x 35750 km x 26.1 deg geotransfer orbit.

I can't find them, but I just poke around looking and Jonathan probably pulls everything

[LouScheffer]

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1159233901270917120

TLE data flowing again. 3 of  4 expected objects from the Ariane launch in  213-241 x 35557 - 35788 km x 4.5 deg geotransfer orbit. Both expected objects from the SpaceX AMOS 17 launch in 221 x 35750 km x 26.1 deg geotransfer orbit.

I can't find them, but I just poke around looking and Jonathan probably pulls everything

This is odd.  Such an orbit is only about 2.5 km/s from LEO, but John definitely said 2.6 km/sec.  I'm surprised there is not a bigger inclination reduction, or a higher apogee.

[scr00chy]

Yeah, seems kinda meh, compared to Intelsat 35e which was heavier (6761 kg), flew on a Block 4 rocket but still reached 296 x 42742 x 25.85°.

[edkyle99]

Yeah, seems kinda meh, compared to Intelsat 35e which was heavier (6761 kg), flew on a Block 4 rocket but still reached 296 x 42742 x 25.85°.

I don't find this surprising.  Block 5 introduced changes to improve reusability, which likely increased dry mass.  Also, I believe that Intelsat 35e used a Block 3 first stage and Block 4 second stage, with the first stage probably designed from the start to be expended.

 - Ed Kyle

[ZachS09]

Using https://gtocalc.github.io/, inputting the 221 by 35,750 kilometer orbit inclined 26.1 degrees gives the sat 1,784 m/s of delta-v to GEO.

[Alexphysics]

Arbasat 6A was about the same mass and went to GTO-1500. It kinda shows why FH still has some value for these kind of GTO sats.

[abaddon]

Could be the difference between a minimum residual shutdown versus a targeted orbit insertion.

[ZachS09]

Could be the difference between a minimum residual shutdown versus a targeted orbit insertion.

It could have been a Guidance-Controlled Shutdown in my humble opinion. If it were a Minimal-Residual Shutdown, the apogee would have been over 45,000 kilometers given that Block 5 has more power than Block 4. I also didn't hear from SpaceX that they would try to burn until depletion.

[abaddon]

Yes, that’s what I’m saying.

[Alexphysics]

Regarding targeted shutdown vs minimal residual shutdown: Towards the end of the webcast behind Kate Tice there's a view of the LOX tank and you can see it still had a some amount of LOX inside it so it had some more performance left. I know they don't literally drain the tanks but I remember back when they showed views of the LOX tank that when the tank was almost dry you could see the bottom of it and in this case it was not visible so the amount of LOX could have been enough to get more performance out of the second stage.

[mn]

Can anyone explain why they would choose guidance controlled vs minimum residual?

I had asked this before and the answer I got was roughly 'payload specific requirements'.

Does anyone have any reasonable explanation of what kind of requirements could be different between different payloads going to the same target orbit for the same purpose.

Are there additional risks with minimum residual that some customers don't want to take?

And another question: considering the final orbit, could they have tried a ASDS landing?

[LouScheffer]

Something literally does not add up about this trajectory:

They are starting from a roughly 200 km parking orbit (actually it looks roughly like 165 x 235, and they do the second burn 1/4 way around when they are at 200 km, but that makes no difference here).  Speed is 7789 m/s.  We know they ended up in a 221 x 35750 km orbit.  Speed at the bottom of such an orbit is 10226 m/s.

John clearly states "we're going to add about 2.6 km/second" at 46:48 of the SpaceX archived webcast, or roughly T+26:48.  These three speeds form a triangle with sides 7789, 10226, and 2600.  So now we can calculate the change in inclination, using the law of cosines.  The far end is 2600, and we want the angle between the 7789 and the 10226 vector.   2600^2 = 7789^2 + 10226^2 - 2*7789*10226*cos(theta).

So we ask google "acos((2600^2-7789^2 -10226^2)/ (-2*7789*10226)) in degrees"  and get 5.8 degrees.  So they final inclination should be 28.5^o (the Cape) - 5.8^o = 22.7^o, or less since the first two burns usually remove a small amount of inclination, 0.5 to 1 degree typically.

But the reported inclination is 26^o.  What's going on here?  It's hard to imagine the orbital speeds are wrong - the Earth's mass, gravitational constant, and radius are pretty constant.  The law of cosines seems hard to argue with.  That leaves John's statement, which was quite specific.  Even if you take the smallest value that he could have rounded up to 2.6 km/sec, 2550 m/s, you still get 4.8 degrees of inclination reduction, which was more than observed.  And there appeared to be no underburn, since right after the GTO insertion was the call "nominal orbit".

Any suggestions or double-checks would be appreciated.  My guess is that John was wrong, since the physics don't lie.

EDIT:  Add specifically which times in which webcast for John's statement.

[mn]

Something literally does not add up about this trajectory:

They are starting from a roughly 200 km parking orbit (actually it looks roughly like 165 x 235, and they do the second burn 1/4 way around when they are at 200 km, but that makes no difference here).  Speed is 7789 m/s.  We know they ended up in a 221 x 35750 km orbit.  Speed at the bottom of such an orbit is 10226 m/s.

John clearly states "we're going to add about 2.6 km/second" at 26:48 of the webcast.  These three speeds form a triangle with sides 7789, 10226, and 2600.  So now we can calculate the change in inclination, using the law of cosines.  The far end is 2600, and we want the angle between the 7789 and the 10226 vector.   2600^2 = 7789^2 + 10226^2 - 2*7789*10226*cos(theta).

So we ask google "acos((2600^2-7789^2 -10226^2)/ (-2*7789*10226)) in degrees"  and get 5.8 degrees.  So they final inclination should be 28.5^o (the Cape) - 5.8^o = 22.7^o, or less since the first two burns usually remove a small amount of inclination, 0.5 to 1 degree typically.

But the reported inclination is 26^o.  What's going on here?  It's hard to imagine the orbital speeds are wrong - the Earth's mass, gravitational constant, and radius are pretty constant.  The law of cosines seems hard to argue with.  That leaves John's statement, which was quite specific.  Even if you take the smallest value that he could have rounded up to 2.6 km/sec, 2550 m/s, you still get 4.8 degrees of inclination reduction, which was more than observed.  And there appeared to be no underburn, since right after the GTO insertion was the call "nominal orbit".

Any suggestions or double-checks would be appreciated.  My guess is that John was wrong, since the physics don't lie.

While I admit the math is way over my head, I nevertheless find the discussion fascinating.

So how much v do we expect to get from a 1 minute burn?

(and BTW there's a small typo in your post, the statement in the webcast is at 26:48 (not 46:48)
Edit: never mind on the typo: that's T+26:48, I can't seem to find the original SpaceX webcast so I can't see the time in the video)

[OneSpeed]

Something literally does not add up about this trajectory:

I've attached the AMOS-17 telemetry below. Assuming the parking orbit was 166 x 232, and the burn started at 199 kms, the instantaneous plane change ΔV requirement would be 325 m/s. However, as the burn progresses, the apogee raises. At the end of the burn, the instantaneous plane change requirement reduces to only 67 m/s. The integrated plane change ΔV requirement would be somewhere between these values, depending on how constant the yaw angle is.

Simply raising the apogee from 232 to 35750 at 199 kms requires 2,470 m/s, so perhaps John meant that the plane change cost 130 m/s, for a scalar total of 2,600m/s?

[LouScheffer]

Yeah, seems kinda meh, compared to Intelsat 35e which was heavier (6761 kg), flew on a Block 4 rocket but still reached 296 x 42742 x 25.85°.

I don't find this surprising.  Block 5 introduced changes to improve reusability, which likely increased dry mass.  Also, I believe that Intelsat 35e used a Block 3 first stage and Block 4 second stage, with the first stage probably designed from the start to be expended.

 - Ed Kyle

Whatever the explanation is, it's not this.  Amos-17 separated at 9520 km/hr (2644 m/s)  and 79.6 km.  Intelsat 35e separated at 9480 km/hr (2633 m/s) and 73.6 km.  The lesser mass of Amos-17 (6500 kg vs 6770 kg) only accounts for about 3 m/s of the 11 m/s delta.  So at least in this case, the Block 5 first stage has higher performance than the Block 4. 

[LouScheffer]

How well do we really know the mass of AMOS-17?  If it was really 7000 kg instead of 6500, then the performance would be in line with other launches.

As a wild guess as to what that extra 500 kg might be, sometimes the military will host their GEO payloads on commercial comsats.  This might be particularly appealing to the Israeli military, which unlike the US does not have its own dedicated GEO satellites.

[Mike_1179]

Can anyone explain why they would choose guidance controlled vs minimum residual?

I had asked this before and the answer I got was roughly 'payload specific requirements'.

One reason is timing of on-orbit maneuvers and ground station coverage.

With a targeted shutdown, you can plan on when the sat will be over a ground station well before the launch. If you’re trying to make sure things won’t happen in the middle of the night (or on the Sabbath?) you define what you want your GTO to be instead of “get me as close to GEO as possible”

[edkyle99]

Yeah, seems kinda meh, compared to Intelsat 35e which was heavier (6761 kg), flew on a Block 4 rocket but still reached 296 x 42742 x 25.85°.

I don't find this surprising.  Block 5 introduced changes to improve reusability, which likely increased dry mass.  Also, I believe that Intelsat 35e used a Block 3 first stage and Block 4 second stage, with the first stage probably designed from the start to be expended.

 - Ed Kyle

Whatever the explanation is, it's not this.  Amos-17 separated at 9520 km/hr (2644 m/s)  and 79.6 km.  Intelsat 35e separated at 9480 km/hr (2633 m/s) and 73.6 km.  The lesser mass of Amos-17 (6500 kg vs 6770 kg) only accounts for about 3 m/s of the 11 m/s delta.  So at least in this case, the Block 5 first stage has higher performance than the Block 4. 

The payload fairing has to be heavier now since it carries recovery equipment.  The second stage is likely heavier thanks to the man-rating effort.  Etc.  Also, isn't there some uncertainty in those first stage cutoff numbers since they likely come from the webcast display?

 - Ed Kyle

[LouScheffer]

Yeah, seems kinda meh, compared to Intelsat 35e which was heavier (6761 kg), flew on a Block 4 rocket but still reached 296 x 42742 x 25.85°.

I don't find this surprising.  Block 5 introduced changes to improve reusability, which likely increased dry mass.  Also, I believe that Intelsat 35e used a Block 3 first stage and Block 4 second stage, with the first stage probably designed from the start to be expended.

 - Ed Kyle

Whatever the explanation is, it's not this.  Amos-17 separated at 9520 km/hr (2644 m/s)  and 79.6 km.  Intelsat 35e separated at 9480 km/hr (2633 m/s) and 73.6 km.  The lesser mass of Amos-17 (6500 kg vs 6770 kg) only accounts for about 3 m/s of the 11 m/s delta.  So at least in this case, the Block 5 first stage has higher performance than the Block 4. 

The payload fairing has to be heavier now since it carries recovery equipment. 

True, but the effect is quite small.  A 4500 kg capacity parafoil for the military masses 238 kg for the parachute + control equipment.  Assume that SpaceX uses 2 of these, one for each half, even though they are more than twice what they need.  Then the overall mass penalty is 500 kg.  So assume the regular fairing is 4000 kg and the recoverable one 4500 kg.  The fairing is jettisoned about 50 seconds into the second stage operation.  Since the Merlin eats about 300 kg of fuel/second, that means 15000 kg of fuel is used during the burn.   Consider the burn from second stage ignition to fairing jettison (the rest of the burn is identical). The mass of the stack at the start of the burn is roughly 106t fuel (from env. impact statement) + 4.5t stage + 6.5t payload + fairing.  At the end of the burn, it's 91t fuel + stage + payload + fairing.  Now using the rocket equation, we can find the difference in the delta-V.  It's 348*9.8*(ln((117+4)/(102+4))- ln((117+4.5)/(102+4.5))), or about 2 m/s, a tiny fraction of the 100 m/s or so discrepancy here.  The effect on the first stage is bigger, but the Block 5 first stage does better, even though pushing the heavier fairing.   So it's not the mass of the fairing recovery hardware.

The second stage is likely heavier thanks to the man-rating effort.  Etc. 

Possible, but we've seen no evidence of this, and the structural margins were originally designed for man-rated standards.   So the difference should be small, nowhere near enough to explain the discrepancy.

Also, isn't there some uncertainty in those first stage cutoff numbers since they likely come from the webcast display?

Yes, these are from the webcast.  However the numbers are quite stable for the few seconds between MECO and second stage ignition.  This should minimize the effect of time quantization, running filtering, and other artifacts in the displayed numbers.

[Wolfram66]

Something literally does not add up about this trajectory:

I've attached the AMOS-17 telemetry below. Assuming the parking orbit was 166 x 232, and the burn started at 199 kms, the instantaneous plane change ΔV requirement would be 325 m/s. However, as the burn progresses, the apogee raises. At the end of the burn, the instantaneous plane change requirement reduces to only 67 m/s. The integrated plane change ΔV requirement would be somewhere between these values, depending on how constant the yaw angle is.

Simply raising the apogee from 232 to 35750 at 199 kms requires 2,470 m/s, so perhaps John meant that the plane change cost a total of 130 m/s?

What event occurred at 1463? As seen in telemetry plot

[pb2000]

I think the simple answer is they didn't need the extra performance. AMOS-6 was sold as a recovery mission, so the free launch of AMOS-17 would presumably be the same, meaning they would be expecting an apogee closer to 20k km.

Initial lifespan was announced at >15 years in 2006(F9 FT is flying), refined to 19 years following CDR in 2017 (Block 4 flying, but B5 announced and slated for mission) and the launch press kit said >20 years (mission changed to expendable). Solar panels and batteries degrade in a fairly predictable manner, so that may be the limiting factor.

[marsbase]

I think the simple answer is they didn't need the extra performance.

I don't see how that answers the question about why the booster was expended. Are you saying there was reserve and unneeded capacity but not enough for an ASDS landing?

[pb2000]

I think the simple answer is they didn't need the extra performance.

I don't see how that answers the question about why the booster was expended. Are you saying there was reserve and unneeded capacity but not enough for an ASDS landing?

Recovery with apogee at 35k is ~5.5Ton, so they couldn't do both.  As to why they expended instead of going subsync gto - unless Elon tweets the answer, I doubt we'll ever know. My money is on making the customer happy after blowing up AMOS-6.

[OneSpeed]

What event occurred at 1463? As seen in telemetry plot

Because of an expected loss of signal, the live telemetry updates paused at about 700 seconds, when the displayed velocity was 26,725 km/h, and the altitude was 165 kms. When the updates resumed at 1464 seconds, there was a step change to 26,611 km/h, and 191 kms altitude. The step change in velocity produced the negative spike in acceleration you see on the plot. So, it's just an artifact that can safely be ignored.

[Wolfram66]

What event occurred at 1463? As seen in telemetry plot

Because of an expected loss of signal, the live telemetry updates paused at about 700 seconds, when the displayed velocity was 26,725 km/h, and the altitude was 165 kms. When the updates resumed at 1464 seconds, there was a step change to 26,611 km/h, and 191 kms altitude. The step change in velocity produced the negative spike in acceleration you see on the plot. So, it's just an artifact that can safely be ignored.

Makes sense. Wasn’t sure if there was a stealth secondary deployment going on

[matthewkantar]

Is there any info regarding the disposition of the second stage? Has it reentered? Is there a TLE for it? I am wondering because it seems possible the first stage was expended tp leave propellant in the second stage for some sort of experiment. Long duration coast and relight?

[gongora]

Is there any info regarding the disposition of the second stage? Has it reentered? Is there a TLE for it? I am wondering because it seems possible the first stage was expended tp leave propellant in the second stage for some sort of experiment. Long duration coast and relight?

Second stage is in same orbit as AMOS-17, same as every other GTO launch.

[gongora]

https://twitter.com/AMOSSpacecom/status/1197431831194406912

The AMOS-17 communication satellite has successfully completed its In Orbit Testing and has reached its 17°E orbital position. AMOS-17 is scheduled to begin commercial operations within a few days.
Nick Zilmer, Boeing, presenting Moshe Golani, AMOS-Spacecom, with the AMOS-17 key.