SpaceX launch Falcon 9 with Eutelsat 115 West B and ABS 3A

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

mpitfield

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
4,902
Reaction score
460
Location
Toronto, Ontario
Last edited:
I haven't heard yet either. Absolutely love watching their progress.
 
The next couple launches will not have any attempt at a landing because they are boosting to a high orbit and need all the fuel they can load to get the payload where it needs to go.
 
The next couple launches will not have any attempt at a landing because they are boosting to a high orbit and need all the fuel they can load to get the payload where it needs to go.

Yep. No legs, probably no Grid Fins, and probably no RCS. If RCS is built-in stock, at the least they'd not load the RCS propellant as IIRC it is not needed for the stages to separate. if i'm wrong on that, they'd only need a tiny amount. Unless they plan any descent steering maneuvers of any kind, in which case the grid fins would be useful too.

Edit update, nope, no fins, no restart of the first stage.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/spacex-falcon-9-debut-dual-satellite-mission/

BTW - These kinds of missions are good candidates for future re-used F9 stages to make "retirement" flights with. Although some speculate that once Falcon 9 Heavy is routine, they would use F9H for some of these flights so they would get back all of the lower stages (two side boosters doing RTLS and core landing on the ASDS barge). I'm not so sure, but we'll see (depends on how well reuseability really works out over time, reliability, and the real costs, to make a whole 3-booster F9H flight worth the $ and risk compared to preparing, launching, and losing a single F9 stage). Some F9H flights flying near max payload mass would then use an "expendable" core, which could be a reused S9R making its retirement flight (if the customer and their insurance company goes for it).

Last I looked, next landing attempt flight will be CRS-6 no earlier than April 8th. Poor barge needs some down time for repair anyway (storm damage).

BTW #2 - A Pad Abort Test flight of the Crewed version of the Dragon spacecraft is due this month, from Vandenberg. They have a contractural obligation to do it by the end of the month. A really quick google did not come up with a likely date.

https://www.spaceflightinsider.com/...ion-technologies/pad-abort-test-nears-spacex/
 
Last edited:
Launched successfully.

So far so good regarding the satellites making their way to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (type of orbit where the satellite is in sync with the Earth's rotation, usually for communication sats).

- George Gassaway
 
The next couple launches will not have any attempt at a landing because they are boosting to a high orbit and need all the fuel they can load to get the payload where it needs to go.

Well not quite true As mentioned by george, one of the launches is the pad abort test. The other in THEORY could of had a landing on Jason 3 if it wasn't scheduled to be from Vandenberg. As of now the west coast barge (Of Course I Still Love You) is not finished being built.
 
One interesting thing about these two satellites is that they both use ion engines to climb to geosynchronous orbit and for station keeping. Neither one has any chemical propellants. It saves a lot of weight, but it also means it will take a few months for these satellites to reach their final orbits.
 
One interesting thing about these two satellites is that they both use ion engines to climb to geosynchronous orbit and for station keeping. Neither one has any chemical propellants. It saves a lot of weight, but it also means it will take a few months for these satellites to reach their final orbits.

True, but it also means that they will never (in any reasonable lifetime) have to be de-orbited because they are out of fuel.
 
True, but it also means that they will never (in any reasonable lifetime) have to be de-orbited because they are out of fuel.

Hmmm...... there is no practical way to de-orbit a satellite that high up, unless it had a lot of fuel drop the periapsis (lowest part of the orbit) from over 22,000 miles to 80-ish miles or less, to graze the atmosphere for a slow eventual orbital decay.

IIRC, what is sometimes done with a Goesynchronious satellite that still works but is at the end of its useful life, is to use the last bit of propellant to nudge it out of a perfect geosynchronous orbit.

Ah.... after typing the above I did a little bit of googling and found this gem. It explains the use of "graveyard orbits" for old Geosync satellites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graveyard_orbit

But anyway, you do make a great point on how long and useful these satellites should be without needing to rely on a limited amount of propellant to maintain their Geosync orbits.

BTW - the google search also found this pdf file that goes into more detail about decomissioning a geosync satellite. Simply reading page two provides a great amount of information.

https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=aerosp

This reminds me a bit of a story I heard long ago, that I am 99% sure is real but a quick google search could not come up with it (Which could mean the story may be from 20 years or more since a lot of things are glaringly missing from the internet, or barely mentioned and hard to find, if they did not occur before the internet. Well the popular information age internet anyway). There was some satellite that was early into its mission, or at least in its prime, and a ground signal was accidentally sent to it, to turn the satellite "off". That signal was a mistake. Because it did not put it to sleep, it literally turned it OFF, FOREVER. There was no way for a new signal to re-activate the satellite to work, because the satellite was OFF, dead. So no receiver would ever be on to receive such a signal and no guidance was on to keep the antenna pointed toward Earth to even receive such a signal. Just a useless piece of junk the instant it responded to the "off" signal (not in an orbit the shuttle could ever get to, and probably not worth a shuttle launch even if it was). I do not recall if that was a Geosync satellite, a NASA interplanetary mission, or what. But a big lesson was learned by that. Many (if not all) satellites do need to have the capability to be turned "off" when they are no longer useful, but its not as easy a thing to do as it was when that accidental signal was sent.

- George Gassaway
 
Last edited:
I don't doubt you, but it sure seems odd in a world where I have to answer yes two or three times at a prompt that says "are you sure?" and then enter my passsword four times just to change my account email address.
 
Back
Top