-
Pegasus XL – TacRL-2 – Vandenberg –13 June 2021 (08:11 UTC)
by
Star One
on 14 Aug, 2020 16:31
-
-
#1
by
arachnitect
on 14 Aug, 2020 19:07
-
Looks like a routine proficiency flight to me. Only difference is flying out of Edwards.
Why are they flying out of Edwards? Could be cool secret stuff but more likely it's boring ordinary stuff (hangar maintenance?)
-
#2
by
Star One
on 14 Aug, 2020 19:29
-
Looks like a routine proficiency flight to me. Only difference is flying out of Edwards.
Why are they flying out of Edwards? Could be cool secret stuff but more likely it's boring ordinary stuff (hangar maintenance?)
As you say this appears to be what they are basing it on as quoted below.
It is possible that this was just a routine training flight so that the Stargazer's crew could practice a launch operation without actually firing a rocket. However, it's not clear why Northrop Grumman would have staged such a flight out of Edwards, the U.S. Air Force's premier flight test facility, which is also home to NASA's Armstrong Flight Research Center, rather than the aircraft's home base at Mojave.
-
#3
by
zubenelgenubi
on 06 Mar, 2021 00:28
-
Is this what we were discussing last year?
(excerpt of the on-line State of Vandenberg Air Force Base address, morning of March 5, 2021--see attached screen capture)
2021 Launch Missions, Vandenberg AFB
TacRL-2Launching on Pegasus from L-1011 (
Stargazer)
-
#4
by
russianhalo117
on 06 Mar, 2021 00:57
-
Is this what we were discussing last year?
(excerpt of the on-line State of Vandenberg Air Force Base address, morning of March 5, 2021--see attached screen capture)
2021 Launch Missions, Vandenberg AFB
TacRL-2
Launching on Pegasus from L-1011 (Stargazer)
Maybe.
FA8818 is the base identifier for the TacRL Programme run out of Kirtland AFB.
-
#5
by
PM3
on 06 Mar, 2021 09:03
-
https://govtribe.com/award/federal-contract-award/delivery-order-fa881820d0003-fa881820f0020TACRL-2 MISSION TASK ORDER
Jul 30 2020
Award Date
Jul 30 2021
Current Completion Date
Jul 30 2021
Potential Completion Date
FA881820D0003FA881820F0020 is a delivery order under Orbital Services Program 4. It was awarded to Orbital Sciences LLC on Jul 30, 2020. The delivery order is funded by the Space and Missile Systems Center (DOD - USAF - AFSPC). The potential value of the award is $28,100,000. The NAICS Category for the award is 481212 - Nonscheduled Chartered Freight Air Transportation. The PSC Category is V126 - Space Transportation and Launch Services
-
#6
by
starchasercowboy
on 06 Mar, 2021 20:45
-
-
#7
by
gongora
on 06 Mar, 2021 23:26
-
-
#8
by
gongora
on 03 Apr, 2021 22:13
-
There is a Pegasus launch this year.
TacRL-2 mission out of VAFB mid-year. Tactically Responsive Launch Program. USAF calls NorGrum and says "go". NorGrum then has three weeks to integrate, test and launch the mission.
-
#9
by
Comga
on 04 Apr, 2021 03:59
-
Have I got this correct?
The USSF buys one of the last two vehicles of and old design at half price.
They contract to launch a satellite to demonstrate “rapid response”.
This should not be a challenge for an established, solid fueled vehicle...
unless you look at the last launch that took years to get into space
But even if they do succeed in launching it quickly, the feat can only be repeated once.
While relying on the lovely but aged and irreplaceable Stargazer.
Seems more like a consolation prize for NG bidding full price for the IXPE launch, simultaneous with demonstrating unreliability, all while it was obvious that they were no longer the only rocket capable of launching into an equatorial orbit.
Why SHOULD NG have offered NASA a discount of 20%, 30%, or even 40% on their second to last rocket when their friends will guarantee they can get 50%?
In fact, half price sounds like a TERRIBLE deal for the Space Force. What’s NG’s marginal cost? Forget the build. That’s a sunk cost. Either they got Paul Allen to pay for them or the made a poor investment in a business that made little sense. (Trade your old unique aircraft for a new, massively oversized unique aircraft.Plan for multiple launches of a rocket that launched barely once a year, while still touting the benefits of launching to exactly the orbit the customer wants, ridesharing by another name.)
Can someone point out a reason why this is a good idea?
-
#10
by
rayleighscatter
on 04 Apr, 2021 12:45
-
Because TRL isn't a launch vehicle program, it's a capabilities program. If they can do it with Pegasus they can do it with any available launch vehicle.
So they went with the cheapest option.
-
#11
by
edkyle99
on 04 Apr, 2021 14:07
-
Seems more like a consolation prize for NG bidding full price for the IXPE launch, simultaneous with demonstrating unreliability, all while it was obvious that they were no longer the only rocket capable of launching into an equatorial orbit.
I'm not sure I see the "simultaneous" here. The last Pegasus failure was in 1996. The ICON launch, in 2019 around the same time that IXPE was awarded, was successful, though delayed. The satellite mission itself also seems to be successful to date.
...
Can someone point out a reason why this is a good idea?
Celebrate the price reduction, thanks to competition and, possibly, to Orbital/Northrop Grumman merger synergies.
True, I think, that Pegasus is the only U.S launch vehicle currently flying that is also already in the Smithsonian.
- Ed Kyle
-
#12
by
ncb1397
on 04 Apr, 2021 14:24
-
While relying on the lovely but aged and irreplaceable Stargazer.
There are other aircraft that can carry Pegasus XL (it is in fact lighter fueled than Launcher One is). 747s are pretty cheap right now.
Why SHOULD NG have offered NASA a discount of 20%, 30%, or even 40% on their second to last rocket when their friends will guarantee they can get 50%?
I missed the announcement that Pegasus XL was cancelled, other than musings by the NSF cancel-everything-not-labeled-S****X brigade. Yes, the grim reaper comes for every rocket eventually...
-
#13
by
Comga
on 04 Apr, 2021 23:21
-
Of course, but it doesn't matter.
It's not a "capability" if it's a one-off that can't be replicated.
Pegasus is a solid fueled rocket mated to a specific aircraft, and there is only one Pegasus after this one.
Who remembers Maxwell Smart's response to being told his finger gun was out of bullets?
He fires the last one into the ceiling.
"NOW I'm out of bullets!"
There is no industry wide technology they are proving that means another launch provider could do the same.
It doesn't matter if rainbow flying unicorns could carry Pegasus. It has not been done.
The IXPE
BID was made simultaneous with NG was failing to get ICON off the ground.
Going out of business sales make for good opportunities for the buyer, but don't promote business.
Someone said "Do not think it is much of an advancement to do the unnessesary three times faster."
Here, we can say that it is not much of a bargain to buy something not needed at half price.
So no one can rise above picking nits and make a convincing case for this award?
-
#14
by
rayleighscatter
on 06 Apr, 2021 00:57
-
So no one can rise above picking nits and make a convincing case for this award?
The USAF has 600 spare launch vehicles that are almost identical to Pegasus.
-
#15
by
lrk
on 06 Apr, 2021 01:18
-
Have I got this correct?
The USSF buys one of the last two vehicles of and old design at half price.
My understanding is that NG is still capable of building Pegasus vehicles, but they are typically only built when ordered. The two currently in inventory were ordered by Stratolaunch and never flown.
-
#16
by
Tomness
on 06 Apr, 2021 03:30
-
So no one can rise above picking nits and make a convincing case for this award?
The USAF has 600 spare launch vehicles that are almost identical to Pegasus.
Got love decommissioned ICBM Motors Via Minotaurs and Pegasus's baby brother Minotaur-C
-
#17
by
lrk
on 06 Apr, 2021 04:08
-
Pegasus's baby brother Minotaur-C
IDK if I would call it a
baby brother, it's basically a Pegasus minus the wings, stuck on top of another "stage 0" motor.
-
#18
by
edkyle99
on 07 Apr, 2021 00:14
-
People have been "calling" the end of Pegasus for a dozen years or more now. One day, they'll be right, but for the time being it is alive as long as there are Minotaurs and GBIs and Antares and test missiles, since they more or less share avionics.
- Ed Kyle
-
#19
by
The Phantom
on 10 Apr, 2021 16:07
-
Have I got this correct?
The USSF buys one of the last two vehicles of and old design at half price.
They contract to launch a satellite to demonstrate “rapid response”.
This should not be a challenge for an established, solid fueled vehicle...
unless you look at the last launch that took years to get into space
But even if they do succeed in launching it quickly, the feat can only be repeated once.
While relying on the lovely but aged and irreplaceable Stargazer.
Seems more like a consolation prize for NG bidding full price for the IXPE launch, simultaneous with demonstrating unreliability, all while it was obvious that they were no longer the only rocket capable of launching into an equatorial orbit.
Why SHOULD NG have offered NASA a discount of 20%, 30%, or even 40% on their second to last rocket when their friends will guarantee they can get 50%?
In fact, half price sounds like a TERRIBLE deal for the Space Force. What’s NG’s marginal cost? Forget the build. That’s a sunk cost. Either they got Paul Allen to pay for them or the made a poor investment in a business that made little sense. (Trade your old unique aircraft for a new, massively oversized unique aircraft.Plan for multiple launches of a rocket that launched barely once a year, while still touting the benefits of launching to exactly the orbit the customer wants, ridesharing by another name.)
Can someone point out a reason why this is a good idea?
It's good to remember that NASA paid twice what this mission costs because NASA required mission assurance activities that the DoD is not demanding for this mission. Mission assurance is expensive because it requires plenty of man-hours from well-paid analysts and engineers.
It should be noted that, back in the 00's, OSC offered the USAF Pegasus missions priced at less than $15M for the Orbital/Suborbital Program. Those offerings were called "Raptor".
-
#20
by
Comga
on 10 Apr, 2021 16:26
-
So no one can rise above picking nits and make a convincing case for this award?
The USAF has 600 spare launch vehicles that are almost identical to Pegasus.
No they don’t
They have elements that
might be useable as parts of future Pegasus or other (yet unproven) launch vehicles, but there are not 600 Pegasus equivalents in storage.
You are still picking nits
How does flying TacRL-2 on a Pegasus advance the state of the art for “launch on demand”?
-
#21
by
Comga
on 10 Apr, 2021 16:35
-
Have I got this correct?
The USSF buys one of the last two vehicles of and old design at half price.
My understanding is that NG is still capable of building Pegasus vehicles, but they are typically only built when ordered. The two currently in inventory were ordered by Stratolaunch and never flown.
So you are saying that each Pegasus is built to order
This is proven to increase cost
What other smallsat launch program is taking this approach?
IOW NG has insufficient faith in Pegasus as a competitor to build a batch and stockpile them
But they have two
And Minotaur hasn’t exactly been a frequent flyer
-
#22
by
Zed_Noir
on 10 Apr, 2021 22:12
-
Have I got this correct?
The USSF buys one of the last two vehicles of and old design at half price.
My understanding is that NG is still capable of building Pegasus vehicles, but they are typically only built when ordered. The two currently in inventory were ordered by Stratolaunch and never flown.
So you are saying that each Pegasus is built to order
This is proven to increase cost
What other smallsat launch program is taking this approach?
IOW NG has insufficient faith in Pegasus as a competitor to build a batch and stockpile them
But they have two
And Minotaur hasn’t exactly been a frequent flyer
AIUI Northrop-Grumman (formerly Orbital ATK) can make more rocket motors components for the Pegasus XL. It isn't cheap to stockpile poured large solid rocket motors on spec. The avionics and the airframe should be quickly builded.
-
#23
by
The Phantom
on 11 Apr, 2021 00:14
-
So no one can rise above picking nits and make a convincing case for this award?
The USAF has 600 spare launch vehicles that are almost identical to Pegasus.
No they don’t
They have elements that might be useable as parts of future Pegasus or other (yet unproven) launch vehicles, but there are not 600 Pegasus equivalents in storage.
You are still picking nits
How does flying TacRL-2 on a Pegasus advance the state of the art for “launch on demand”?
By proving the concept of ordering up a flight and launching in three weeks. It's not meant to be a revolution.
-
#24
by
The Phantom
on 11 Apr, 2021 00:17
-
Have I got this correct?
The USSF buys one of the last two vehicles of and old design at half price.
My understanding is that NG is still capable of building Pegasus vehicles, but they are typically only built when ordered. The two currently in inventory were ordered by Stratolaunch and never flown.
So you are saying that each Pegasus is built to order
This is proven to increase cost
What other smallsat launch program is taking this approach?
IOW NG has insufficient faith in Pegasus as a competitor to build a batch and stockpile them
But they have two
And Minotaur hasn’t exactly been a frequent flyer
I am aware of NO OTHER MANUFACTURER who builds a stockpile of launchers. There has NEVER been a demand for stockpiles of launchers by any company or country. What is your problem?
-
#25
by
starchasercowboy
on 11 Apr, 2021 15:54
-
Price is only part of the equation. As I said in another post, NG lost IXPE, because NASA lost confidence in Pegasus and went with a used F9. NG did put ICON into orbit, but NG had to eat a lot of money to get NASA to approve the go ahead and launch. Murphy bites everyone once in awhile. DOD has been wanting a rapid response for a long time, many years, and I don't know what the emergency was, but they looked around and said who is available, from what location, can get the satellite to where they want, for a price that would work for them. I assume they want a capability that is demonstrated, IOC initial operating capability, and start a Rapid Response by competitions later. 21 days, on call, waiting to launch, is not easy. Range, FAA, launch pad or aircraft availability, waiting for the satellite, weather and other conditions could alter the 21 day schedule. The 2 Pegasus that NG got from Strato, shortened the time frame and lowered the price that made it appealing to DOD.
-
#26
by
soltasto
on 11 Apr, 2021 19:30
-
Have I got this correct?
The USSF buys one of the last two vehicles of and old design at half price.
My understanding is that NG is still capable of building Pegasus vehicles, but they are typically only built when ordered. The two currently in inventory were ordered by Stratolaunch and never flown.
So you are saying that each Pegasus is built to order
This is proven to increase cost
What other smallsat launch program is taking this approach?
IOW NG has insufficient faith in Pegasus as a competitor to build a batch and stockpile them
But they have two
And Minotaur hasn’t exactly been a frequent flyer
I am aware of NO OTHER MANUFACTURER who builds a stockpile of launchers. There has NEVER been a demand for stockpiles of launchers by any company or country. What is your problem?
Ariane and Vega launchers are produced in batches, most of the time before the launches are fully sold.
Example here:
https://www.arianespace.com/press-release/ariane-6-series-production-begins-with-first-batch-of-14-launchers/ULA (Delta IV Heavy excluded) doesn't formally produce a batch of launchers but can reassign launchers to newly signed missions (RapidLaunch). In reality they have a backlog quite far into the future that they always produce new launchers, but it really is like having a stockpile.
With Falcon it is very different as they reuse boosters, so that may count as a stockpile by itself, but for second stages I guess at this point they just pump them out as fast as they can with all the starlink missions, so it also is kind as a stockpile.
-
#27
by
The Phantom
on 13 Apr, 2021 17:22
-
Have I got this correct?
The USSF buys one of the last two vehicles of and old design at half price.
My understanding is that NG is still capable of building Pegasus vehicles, but they are typically only built when ordered. The two currently in inventory were ordered by Stratolaunch and never flown.
So you are saying that each Pegasus is built to order
This is proven to increase cost
What other smallsat launch program is taking this approach?
IOW NG has insufficient faith in Pegasus as a competitor to build a batch and stockpile them
But they have two
And Minotaur hasn’t exactly been a frequent flyer
I am aware of NO OTHER MANUFACTURER who builds a stockpile of launchers. There has NEVER been a demand for stockpiles of launchers by any company or country. What is your problem?
Ariane and Vega launchers are produced in batches, most of the time before the launches are fully sold.
Example here: https://www.arianespace.com/press-release/ariane-6-series-production-begins-with-first-batch-of-14-launchers/
ULA (Delta IV Heavy excluded) doesn't formally produce a batch of launchers but can reassign launchers to newly signed missions (RapidLaunch). In reality they have a backlog quite far into the future that they always produce new launchers, but it really is like having a stockpile.
With Falcon it is very different as they reuse boosters, so that may count as a stockpile by itself, but for second stages I guess at this point they just pump them out as fast as they can with all the starlink missions, so it also is kind as a stockpile.
Clearly, you and I have different definitions of the word "stockpile".
-
#28
by
soltasto
on 13 Apr, 2021 19:30
-
Have I got this correct?
The USSF buys one of the last two vehicles of and old design at half price.
My understanding is that NG is still capable of building Pegasus vehicles, but they are typically only built when ordered. The two currently in inventory were ordered by Stratolaunch and never flown.
So you are saying that each Pegasus is built to order
This is proven to increase cost
What other smallsat launch program is taking this approach?
IOW NG has insufficient faith in Pegasus as a competitor to build a batch and stockpile them
But they have two
And Minotaur hasn’t exactly been a frequent flyer
I am aware of NO OTHER MANUFACTURER who builds a stockpile of launchers. There has NEVER been a demand for stockpiles of launchers by any company or country. What is your problem?
Ariane and Vega launchers are produced in batches, most of the time before the launches are fully sold.
Example here: https://www.arianespace.com/press-release/ariane-6-series-production-begins-with-first-batch-of-14-launchers/
ULA (Delta IV Heavy excluded) doesn't formally produce a batch of launchers but can reassign launchers to newly signed missions (RapidLaunch). In reality they have a backlog quite far into the future that they always produce new launchers, but it really is like having a stockpile.
With Falcon it is very different as they reuse boosters, so that may count as a stockpile by itself, but for second stages I guess at this point they just pump them out as fast as they can with all the starlink missions, so it also is kind as a stockpile.
Clearly, you and I have different definitions of the word "stockpile".
I would define it as a quantity of something accumulated for possible future use. Doesn't have to be in the order of hundreds or more.
Of course they no one builds tens or hundreds of rockets in advance as storage cost would be too high with no real benefit, but most companies commit to producing large batches of launchers even before they are sold (See Arianespace) and adapt the production cadence to the launch cadence. Which is very different than Pegasus XL
-
#29
by
zubenelgenubi
on 28 May, 2021 21:09
-
-
#30
by
PM3
on 07 Jun, 2021 21:44
-
-
#31
by
Fmedici
on 08 Jun, 2021 18:45
-
-
#32
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 09 Jun, 2021 15:51
-
-
#33
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 10 Jun, 2021 18:25
-
https://twitter.com/stephenclark1/status/1403054426777174016A Space Force spokesperson confirms an air-launched Northrop Grumman Pegasus XL rocket staged out of Vandenberg SFB is set to carry a “Space Domain Awareness technology demonstration satellite” to orbit Sunday.
Launch is set for approximately 1:11am PDT (4:11am EDT; 0811 GMT).
-
#34
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 12 Jun, 2021 18:13
-
twitter.com/mxsocal/status/1401043092292063242
From Vandenberg AFB: There will be a hazardous operation on 13 June 2021 with a back-up day of 14 June 2021. The window is 0109L – 0115L. See graphic for local impact areas.
https://twitter.com/chrisg_nsf/status/1403771520330108931Drop-zone for #TacRL2 on the #Pegasus rocket -- air launched from underneath the #Stargazer L1011. Plane take off will be from Vandenberg Space Force Base. Given night launch at 01:11 local (08:11 UTC) Sunday, if June gloom is not present, you should be able to see some of it.
-
#35
by
TGMetsFan98
on 13 Jun, 2021 03:54
-
-
#36
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 13 Jun, 2021 06:09
-
-
#37
by
William Graham
on 13 Jun, 2021 08:11
-
Launch is likely happening around now, we're two minutes into the window with four minutes left.
No sign of Stargazer on FlightRadar24 though - don't know if they'd turn the ADS-B transponder off for a military launch, but on NASA's ICON launch she could be tracked. Sign of a delay?
-
#38
by
emrerocky
on 13 Jun, 2021 08:33
-
I believe I was able to see it launch from LA, at about 1:12 AM a bright dot appeared due west going south and up lasting about 1 minute. I couldn't see anything after it disappeared, presumably from first stage burn out. It traveled a good distance downrange by the time it did burn out.
-
#39
by
slobber91
on 13 Jun, 2021 08:39
-
Observed launch through gaps in the marine layer from El Segundo, between 0112-0114 PST, ~10 deg above western horizon. Went behind clouds while motor was still firing.
-
#40
by
William Graham
on 13 Jun, 2021 09:08
-
-
#41
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 13 Jun, 2021 10:26
-
-
#42
by
edkyle99
on 13 Jun, 2021 14:05
-
-
#43
by
Bean Kenobi
on 13 Jun, 2021 14:25
-
-
#44
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 13 Jun, 2021 14:45
-
-
#45
by
jcm
on 13 Jun, 2021 14:46
-
I can't find data for the N140SC flight on FlightRadar24 .... not released, or I don't know how to search right?
Same for FlightAware, which shows only a short MHV-MHV flight on May 19
-
#46
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 13 Jun, 2021 15:21
-
-
#47
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 13 Jun, 2021 15:21
-
https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-successfully-launches-pegasus-xl-rocket-for-the-us-space-forceCompany executes design, integration and testing of launch vehicle in less than four months
CHANDLER, Ariz. – June 13, 2021 – Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) successfully launched the Tactically Responsive Launch-2 (TacRL-2) payload into orbit for the U.S. Space Force (USSF), using the company’s Pegasus XL rocket. TacRL-2 was launched from Vandenberg Space Force Base.
The USSF’s tactically responsive launch concept seeks to introduce speed, agility, and flexibility into the launch enterprise in order to respond to dynamic changes in the space domain or an operational theater and insert or replace assets on orbit much faster than standard timelines to meet emerging combatant command requirements.
Northrop Grumman successfully launched the TacRL-2 payload into orbit for the U.S. Space Force's Space and Missile Systems Center using the company’s Pegasus XL rocket.
Pegasus, the world’s first privately-developed commercial space launch vehicle, is an air-launched three-staged rocket carried aloft by Northrop Grumman’s specially modified "Stargazer" L-1011 aircraft. Shortly after its release from Stargazer, at approximately 40,000 feet above the Pacific Ocean, Pegasus ignited its first stage, beginning its successful flight carrying TacRL-2 to its intended orbit.
“This Pegasus launch was a clear demonstration of our team’s ability to provide rapid and responsive operational needs,” said Rich Straka, vice president, launch vehicles, Northrop Grumman. “Our team was able to execute the design, integration and testing of the TacRL-2 launch vehicle in less than four months from contract award.”
This is the 45th successful launch of Pegasus, which uses solid propulsion to offer maximum responsiveness by enabling launch to a wide variety of orbits on short timelines. This capability provides customers with the flexibility to operate from virtually anywhere on Earth with minimal ground support requirements. Pegasus has launched more than 90 satellites into low earth orbit from five separate launch sites in the United States, Europe and the Marshall Islands.
Northrop Grumman solves the toughest problems in space, aeronautics, defense and cyberspace to meet the ever evolving needs of our customers worldwide. Our 90,000 employees define possible every day using science, technology and engineering to create and deliver advanced systems, products and services.
-
#48
by
catdlr
on 13 Jun, 2021 15:50
-
-
#49
by
russianhalo117
on 13 Jun, 2021 16:15
-
I can't find data for the N140SC flight on FlightRadar24 .... not released, or I don't know how to search right?
Same for FlightAware, which shows only a short MHV-MHV flight on May 19
Not released nor available in real-time to me either.
-
#50
by
russianhalo117
on 13 Jun, 2021 16:20
-
-
#51
by
input~2
on 13 Jun, 2021 17:27
-
2021-051A/48844 in 405 x 452 km x 97.48°
2021-051B/48845 in 403 x 452 km x 97.48°
-
#52
by
Fmedici
on 13 Jun, 2021 20:13
-
-
#53
by
FutureSpaceTourist
on 14 Jun, 2021 11:35
-
-
#54
by
Fmedici
on 16 Jun, 2021 11:09
-
Is the USA-316 for the payload designation confirmed?
-
#55
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 20 Jun, 2021 04:15
-
-
#56
by
russianhalo117
on 20 Jun, 2021 15:13
-
Is the USA-316 for the payload designation confirmed?
USA 316 has been assigned to NROL 111.
https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=48846
Source is not from the government so they are going off what others do.
-
#57
by
PM3
on 29 Jun, 2021 09:19
-
Is the USA-316 for the payload designation confirmed?
USA 316 has been assigned to NROL 111.
https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=48846
Source is not from the government so they are going off what others do.
Source is Space-Track.org, which is operated on behalf of the government. N2YO mostly displays Space-Track data, with ~ 1 day time lag.
-
#58
by
russianhalo117
on 29 Nov, 2021 23:26
-
VSFB Video:
-
#59
by
russianhalo117
on 22 Aug, 2022 22:30
-
SLD-30 released video as part of onging USAF to USSF archives migration:
-
#60
by
Rondaz
on 12 Dec, 2022 18:48
-
-
#61
by
Rondaz
on 15 Dec, 2022 11:04
-
-
#62
by
Rondaz
on 17 Dec, 2022 21:51
-
-
#63
by
Rondaz
on 18 Dec, 2022 11:30
-
