Author Topic: Virgin Orbit LauncherOne : Orbital Test Flight : early 2019  (Read 3307 times)

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4011
  • US
  • Liked: 3446
  • Likes Given: 1986
Tweet from Jeff Foust
Quote
The FAA has issued a launch license to Virgin Orbit for its first LauncherOne mission: http://bit.ly/2yXXMfs
« Last Edit: 11/27/2018 02:02 PM by gongora »

Offline deruch

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • California
  • Liked: 1897
  • Likes Given: 4447
Re: Virgin Orbit LauncherOne : Orbital Test Flight
« Reply #1 on: 06/29/2018 10:39 PM »
Seems an odd use of language that the payload is listed as: Mass Simulator with CubeSat.  As opposed to "mass simulator and cubesat."  Hmm.

I also note that on the page following that screenshot'd by gongora, there is a list of the AFSS (Autonomous Flight Safety System) testing Virgin must complete and demonstrate prior to the launch:
Quote
No less than one week prior to flight, VO must proivde the FAA with the following for review and acceptance:
(a)    Valve Acceptance Test Reports
(b)    Flght Computer Qualification Test Report
(c)    Flight Computer Acceptance Test Report
(d)    End-to-End Test Plan and Procedures
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4011
  • US
  • Liked: 3446
  • Likes Given: 1986
Re: Virgin Orbit LauncherOne : Orbital Test Flight
« Reply #2 on: 09/24/2018 10:06 PM »
1657-EX-ST-2018
Quote
Virgin Orbit is designing a satellite launch vehicle that will be air launched from a modified 747 airplane. STA License is requested to operate an S-Band Transmitter located on Launcher One for the upcoming first launch. 747 will take-off from Mojave Air and Space Port in California with Launcher One in captive carry. Launcher One will be dropped and launched in the Western Sea Range restricted airspace off Point Mugu, California. Launch license to be provided by FAA-Commercial Space Transportation Office. Captive carry flight and orbital trajectory details have been provided to NTIA.

NET date is Nov. 17

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6214
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2355
  • Likes Given: 790
Seems an odd use of language that the payload is listed as: Mass Simulator with CubeSat.  As opposed to "mass simulator and cubesat."  Hmm.

I'm not positive, but I think I know who is building the cubesat in question...

Online Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4378
  • Liked: 1645
  • Likes Given: 1357
Tweet from Jeff Foust
Quote
The FAA has issued a launch license to Virgin Orbit for its first LauncherOne mission: http://bit.ly/2yXXMfs

"launch azimuth of 163 degrees"?
Isn't that almost straight "backwards" against the rotation of the Earth?
Why make achieving orbit so difficult?
« Last Edit: 09/26/2018 05:50 AM by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4826
  • Liked: 2712
  • Likes Given: 1446
Tweet from Jeff Foust
Quote
The FAA has issued a launch license to Virgin Orbit for its first LauncherOne mission: http://bit.ly/2yXXMfs

"launch azimuth of 163 degrees"?
Isn't that almost straight "backwards" against the rotation of the Earth?
Why make achieving orbit so difficult?

No, backwards would be 270 degrees (i.e. due west). 163 degrees is south-southeast.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6214
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2355
  • Likes Given: 790
Tweet from Jeff Foust
Quote
The FAA has issued a launch license to Virgin Orbit for its first LauncherOne mission: http://bit.ly/2yXXMfs

"launch azimuth of 163 degrees"?
Isn't that almost straight "backwards" against the rotation of the Earth?
Why make achieving orbit so difficult?

No, backwards would be 270 degrees (i.e. due west). 163 degrees is south-southeast.

Ah, so probably roughly parallel to the coast?

Online Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4378
  • Liked: 1645
  • Likes Given: 1357
Tweet from Jeff Foust
Quote
The FAA has issued a launch license to Virgin Orbit for its first LauncherOne mission: http://bit.ly/2yXXMfs

"launch azimuth of 163 degrees"?
Isn't that almost straight "backwards" against the rotation of the Earth?
Why make achieving orbit so difficult?

No, backwards would be 270 degrees (i.e. due west). 163 degrees is south-southeast.

Ah, so probably roughly parallel to the coast?

Yeah, it's nowhere near "backwards". (slaps forehead)

At what azimuth do sun synchronous orbits launch from Vandenberg?
Isn't it >180 degrees, south-southwest?

Someone here knows the real reason.  I just hope said person can and will post it.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline ZachS09

Typically, SSO launches from Vandenberg follow down an azimuth between 190 and 199 degrees.
Because the Falcon Heavy Test Flight was successful, it has inspired thousands of people to consider changing the future of space travel.

Offline Hog

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1295
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 349
  • Likes Given: 1082
Polar orbits,  similar to what West Coast Space Launch Complex-6 (SLC-6) Vandenberg Space Shuttle launches were to be.

"Launches from Vandenberg have an allowable launch path suitable for polar insertions south, southwest and southeast. The launch limits at Vandenberg are 201 and 158 degrees. At a 201-degree launch azimuth, the spacecraft would be orbiting at a 104-degree inclination. Zero degrees would be due north of the launch site, and the orbital trajectory would be within 14 degrees east or west of the north-south pole meridian. At a launch azimuth of 158 degrees, the spacecraft would be orbiting at a 70-degree inclination, and the trajectory would be within 20 degrees east or west of the polar meridian. Like KSC, Vandenberg has allowable launch azimuths that do not pass over habitable areas or involve safety, abort, separation and political considerations."
https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/sts/launch.html

An interesting blurb concerning payload
"Attempting to launch and place a spacecraft in polar orbit from KSC to avoid habitable land mass would be uneconomical because the Shuttle's payload would be reduced severely-down to approximately 17,000 pounds. A northerly launch into polar orbit of 8 to 20 degrees azimuth would necessitate a path over a land mass; and most safety, abort, and political constraints would have to be waived. This prohibits polar orbit launches from the KSC."

Pic 1) Diagram illuminating Inclination and Azimuth
Paul

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6839
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 6726
  • Likes Given: 2091
« Last Edit: 11/27/2018 01:56 PM by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Europe
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 57
So now NET January?

As I see it, 2018 is still the year when dedicated launch vehicles come to the fore. But only one of them is already launching.

There seems to be a word missing in that second tweet. Month? Quarter? Half?
« Last Edit: 11/27/2018 02:27 PM by gongora »

Offline programmerdan

So now NET January?

As I see it, 2018 is still the year when dedicated launch vehicles come to the fore. But only one of them is already launching.

There seems to be a word missing in that second tweet. Month? Quarter? Half?

Perhaps giving Ultima Thule flyby watchers something to do while waiting on lightlag? (literal reading, Jan 1...)

Tags: