Why does Arabsat 6A need a Falcon Heavy to launch












11












$begingroup$


Is it just me or does a falcon heavy seem like a bit of an overkill to launch Arabsat 6A?



Falcon Heavy - GEO payload: 26,700 kilograms



Arabsat 6A - weight: ~6000 kilograms



Wouldn't some other launch options be more appropriate or is there something about the launch of Arabsat 6A that needs the additional power?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Is there anything else being launched ? 20k kilos of spare capacity could carry 3 more satellites, assuming there's physically room for them. Perhaps its like a bus, where not every seat is sold yet.
    $endgroup$
    – Criggie
    Apr 4 at 23:37






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The given payload figure is for a fully expendable Falcon Heavy. In fully reusable mode, the payload is 8000kg to GTO, still more than Arabsat 6A requires and allows for up to 2000kg of GTO ridesharing (potentially more if they can be dropped off in LEO on the way, but I don't know if that is ever done).
    $endgroup$
    – asgallant
    Apr 5 at 15:35


















11












$begingroup$


Is it just me or does a falcon heavy seem like a bit of an overkill to launch Arabsat 6A?



Falcon Heavy - GEO payload: 26,700 kilograms



Arabsat 6A - weight: ~6000 kilograms



Wouldn't some other launch options be more appropriate or is there something about the launch of Arabsat 6A that needs the additional power?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Is there anything else being launched ? 20k kilos of spare capacity could carry 3 more satellites, assuming there's physically room for them. Perhaps its like a bus, where not every seat is sold yet.
    $endgroup$
    – Criggie
    Apr 4 at 23:37






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The given payload figure is for a fully expendable Falcon Heavy. In fully reusable mode, the payload is 8000kg to GTO, still more than Arabsat 6A requires and allows for up to 2000kg of GTO ridesharing (potentially more if they can be dropped off in LEO on the way, but I don't know if that is ever done).
    $endgroup$
    – asgallant
    Apr 5 at 15:35
















11












11








11





$begingroup$


Is it just me or does a falcon heavy seem like a bit of an overkill to launch Arabsat 6A?



Falcon Heavy - GEO payload: 26,700 kilograms



Arabsat 6A - weight: ~6000 kilograms



Wouldn't some other launch options be more appropriate or is there something about the launch of Arabsat 6A that needs the additional power?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




Is it just me or does a falcon heavy seem like a bit of an overkill to launch Arabsat 6A?



Falcon Heavy - GEO payload: 26,700 kilograms



Arabsat 6A - weight: ~6000 kilograms



Wouldn't some other launch options be more appropriate or is there something about the launch of Arabsat 6A that needs the additional power?







spacex launch falcon-9 falcon-heavy






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 4 at 18:41







Jay Laughlin

















asked Apr 4 at 18:27









Jay LaughlinJay Laughlin

1217




1217












  • $begingroup$
    Is there anything else being launched ? 20k kilos of spare capacity could carry 3 more satellites, assuming there's physically room for them. Perhaps its like a bus, where not every seat is sold yet.
    $endgroup$
    – Criggie
    Apr 4 at 23:37






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The given payload figure is for a fully expendable Falcon Heavy. In fully reusable mode, the payload is 8000kg to GTO, still more than Arabsat 6A requires and allows for up to 2000kg of GTO ridesharing (potentially more if they can be dropped off in LEO on the way, but I don't know if that is ever done).
    $endgroup$
    – asgallant
    Apr 5 at 15:35




















  • $begingroup$
    Is there anything else being launched ? 20k kilos of spare capacity could carry 3 more satellites, assuming there's physically room for them. Perhaps its like a bus, where not every seat is sold yet.
    $endgroup$
    – Criggie
    Apr 4 at 23:37






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The given payload figure is for a fully expendable Falcon Heavy. In fully reusable mode, the payload is 8000kg to GTO, still more than Arabsat 6A requires and allows for up to 2000kg of GTO ridesharing (potentially more if they can be dropped off in LEO on the way, but I don't know if that is ever done).
    $endgroup$
    – asgallant
    Apr 5 at 15:35


















$begingroup$
Is there anything else being launched ? 20k kilos of spare capacity could carry 3 more satellites, assuming there's physically room for them. Perhaps its like a bus, where not every seat is sold yet.
$endgroup$
– Criggie
Apr 4 at 23:37




$begingroup$
Is there anything else being launched ? 20k kilos of spare capacity could carry 3 more satellites, assuming there's physically room for them. Perhaps its like a bus, where not every seat is sold yet.
$endgroup$
– Criggie
Apr 4 at 23:37




2




2




$begingroup$
The given payload figure is for a fully expendable Falcon Heavy. In fully reusable mode, the payload is 8000kg to GTO, still more than Arabsat 6A requires and allows for up to 2000kg of GTO ridesharing (potentially more if they can be dropped off in LEO on the way, but I don't know if that is ever done).
$endgroup$
– asgallant
Apr 5 at 15:35






$begingroup$
The given payload figure is for a fully expendable Falcon Heavy. In fully reusable mode, the payload is 8000kg to GTO, still more than Arabsat 6A requires and allows for up to 2000kg of GTO ridesharing (potentially more if they can be dropped off in LEO on the way, but I don't know if that is ever done).
$endgroup$
– asgallant
Apr 5 at 15:35












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















12












$begingroup$

@geoffc's answer explains why Falcon Heavy over Falcon 9, but the reason for why not any of the other options is likely cost.



It's difficult to say with certainty what the launch costs would be, since costs are negotiated per launch, and are affected by a large number of factors (target orbit, payload mass, fuel costs, ridesharing, etc). Estimates put Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy's main competitors Ariane 5 at around $178M, Atlas 5 at $109M-179M, and Proton-M at about $100M1. Expendable Falcon 9 and Fully Reusable Falcon Heavy both cost an estimated $90M, and as @geoffc pointed out, FH has greater GTO capacity than F9, so the launch could use some combination of more favorable orbit and extra ridesharing capacity to reduce the effective launch cost.



[Edit]



In the launch intro of the webcast, SpaceX said that Arabsat 6A is going into a GTO with an apogee of 90000km, which is substantially higher than standard GTOs. This confirms using FH for the favorable orbit vs its competitors and F9.



Source



1 this reflects the likely cost as of the time when Arabsat 6A's launch was being negotiated; Proton-M has since been price-cut to be competitive to Falcon-9






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 8




    $begingroup$
    Also, this being the first revenue flight of FH (and the second overall), I'm pretty sure that SpaceX went out of their way to make the FH price really attractive this time, no matter what are their long-term price targets or costs.
    $endgroup$
    – TooTea
    Apr 5 at 7:59



















12












$begingroup$

6000 Kg is actually pretty big. I am sure SpaceX offered some discounts to attract a customer for Falcon Heavy.



So I will ignore the other options (Atlas 5 with side boosters, Ariane 5, or Proton) and focus on why not a Falcon 9.



Falcon 9's numbers are lower to GTO, Wikipedia has it around 5500kg reusable. 8300kg expendable, and SpaceX's point is, if you are bigger than a Falcon 9 can handle and still land, better off moving to a Falcon Heavy.



Also there are different GTO orbits, the higher the 'energy' the less work (aka burned up fuel) the satellite needs to do to get to a circular GEO orbit. SpaceX does aim for a lower of the set, usually to allow recovery.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    4












    $begingroup$

    I know the SpaceX website does list the Falcon 9 as having a 8,300 kg payload to GTO Falcon 9 GTO but the wiki for Falcon 9 launches also shows that the Telstar 18V / Apstar-5C launch on Sept. 10, 2018 was 7,060 kg to GTO and a successful drone ship landing was achieved with the Falcon 9 Wiki-Launch 61. This would be a higher weight than the Arabsat 6 and also a GTO launch that did a successful drone ship landing so it was a reusable launch.



    The Arabsat 6 also uses powerful hypergolic main engine to boost to GEO from GTO according to Nasaspaceflight. There is no mention on the peak it will be sent in GTO but the satellite using those engines instead of electric seems to point to it needing a lot of thrust to circularize it's orbit.



    Unless there are some other specs that show this is being put in a different GTO orbit or higher it seems like the Falcon 9 reusable could launch this satellite.



    There must be another explanation such as SpaceX discount to use this as a Falcon Heavy qualification flight for the USAF or something else.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    fosgate is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Telstar 18V launched into a subsynchronous geostationary transfer orbit, which is lower than a typical transfer orbit. I haven't been able to find info on what the planned GTO orbit is for Arabsat 6A to compare, but the extra payload capacity would allow for a more favorable GTO.
      $endgroup$
      – asgallant
      yesterday






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      In the webcast, SpaceX announced that Arabsat 6A is launching into a GTO with an apogee of 90000km, which is about 5x higher than Telstar 18's GTO apogee.
      $endgroup$
      – asgallant
      4 hours ago



















    2












    $begingroup$

    Looks like they just need to continue Falcon Heavy testing, and since the first test went almost fine, they decided to take some payload now, just to pay back the costs. However, risks are still too high (up to 10%, on Elon Musk's estimation) to wholly pack it with expensive electronics, so, a single autonomous Arabsat, to move itself to the right orbit if something goes wrong again, plus some ballast mass is quite a cautious and balanced decision.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Gamen Acountas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$














      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "508"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35290%2fwhy-does-arabsat-6a-need-a-falcon-heavy-to-launch%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      12












      $begingroup$

      @geoffc's answer explains why Falcon Heavy over Falcon 9, but the reason for why not any of the other options is likely cost.



      It's difficult to say with certainty what the launch costs would be, since costs are negotiated per launch, and are affected by a large number of factors (target orbit, payload mass, fuel costs, ridesharing, etc). Estimates put Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy's main competitors Ariane 5 at around $178M, Atlas 5 at $109M-179M, and Proton-M at about $100M1. Expendable Falcon 9 and Fully Reusable Falcon Heavy both cost an estimated $90M, and as @geoffc pointed out, FH has greater GTO capacity than F9, so the launch could use some combination of more favorable orbit and extra ridesharing capacity to reduce the effective launch cost.



      [Edit]



      In the launch intro of the webcast, SpaceX said that Arabsat 6A is going into a GTO with an apogee of 90000km, which is substantially higher than standard GTOs. This confirms using FH for the favorable orbit vs its competitors and F9.



      Source



      1 this reflects the likely cost as of the time when Arabsat 6A's launch was being negotiated; Proton-M has since been price-cut to be competitive to Falcon-9






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 8




        $begingroup$
        Also, this being the first revenue flight of FH (and the second overall), I'm pretty sure that SpaceX went out of their way to make the FH price really attractive this time, no matter what are their long-term price targets or costs.
        $endgroup$
        – TooTea
        Apr 5 at 7:59
















      12












      $begingroup$

      @geoffc's answer explains why Falcon Heavy over Falcon 9, but the reason for why not any of the other options is likely cost.



      It's difficult to say with certainty what the launch costs would be, since costs are negotiated per launch, and are affected by a large number of factors (target orbit, payload mass, fuel costs, ridesharing, etc). Estimates put Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy's main competitors Ariane 5 at around $178M, Atlas 5 at $109M-179M, and Proton-M at about $100M1. Expendable Falcon 9 and Fully Reusable Falcon Heavy both cost an estimated $90M, and as @geoffc pointed out, FH has greater GTO capacity than F9, so the launch could use some combination of more favorable orbit and extra ridesharing capacity to reduce the effective launch cost.



      [Edit]



      In the launch intro of the webcast, SpaceX said that Arabsat 6A is going into a GTO with an apogee of 90000km, which is substantially higher than standard GTOs. This confirms using FH for the favorable orbit vs its competitors and F9.



      Source



      1 this reflects the likely cost as of the time when Arabsat 6A's launch was being negotiated; Proton-M has since been price-cut to be competitive to Falcon-9






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 8




        $begingroup$
        Also, this being the first revenue flight of FH (and the second overall), I'm pretty sure that SpaceX went out of their way to make the FH price really attractive this time, no matter what are their long-term price targets or costs.
        $endgroup$
        – TooTea
        Apr 5 at 7:59














      12












      12








      12





      $begingroup$

      @geoffc's answer explains why Falcon Heavy over Falcon 9, but the reason for why not any of the other options is likely cost.



      It's difficult to say with certainty what the launch costs would be, since costs are negotiated per launch, and are affected by a large number of factors (target orbit, payload mass, fuel costs, ridesharing, etc). Estimates put Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy's main competitors Ariane 5 at around $178M, Atlas 5 at $109M-179M, and Proton-M at about $100M1. Expendable Falcon 9 and Fully Reusable Falcon Heavy both cost an estimated $90M, and as @geoffc pointed out, FH has greater GTO capacity than F9, so the launch could use some combination of more favorable orbit and extra ridesharing capacity to reduce the effective launch cost.



      [Edit]



      In the launch intro of the webcast, SpaceX said that Arabsat 6A is going into a GTO with an apogee of 90000km, which is substantially higher than standard GTOs. This confirms using FH for the favorable orbit vs its competitors and F9.



      Source



      1 this reflects the likely cost as of the time when Arabsat 6A's launch was being negotiated; Proton-M has since been price-cut to be competitive to Falcon-9






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      @geoffc's answer explains why Falcon Heavy over Falcon 9, but the reason for why not any of the other options is likely cost.



      It's difficult to say with certainty what the launch costs would be, since costs are negotiated per launch, and are affected by a large number of factors (target orbit, payload mass, fuel costs, ridesharing, etc). Estimates put Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy's main competitors Ariane 5 at around $178M, Atlas 5 at $109M-179M, and Proton-M at about $100M1. Expendable Falcon 9 and Fully Reusable Falcon Heavy both cost an estimated $90M, and as @geoffc pointed out, FH has greater GTO capacity than F9, so the launch could use some combination of more favorable orbit and extra ridesharing capacity to reduce the effective launch cost.



      [Edit]



      In the launch intro of the webcast, SpaceX said that Arabsat 6A is going into a GTO with an apogee of 90000km, which is substantially higher than standard GTOs. This confirms using FH for the favorable orbit vs its competitors and F9.



      Source



      1 this reflects the likely cost as of the time when Arabsat 6A's launch was being negotiated; Proton-M has since been price-cut to be competitive to Falcon-9







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 4 hours ago

























      answered Apr 4 at 22:52









      asgallantasgallant

      2364




      2364








      • 8




        $begingroup$
        Also, this being the first revenue flight of FH (and the second overall), I'm pretty sure that SpaceX went out of their way to make the FH price really attractive this time, no matter what are their long-term price targets or costs.
        $endgroup$
        – TooTea
        Apr 5 at 7:59














      • 8




        $begingroup$
        Also, this being the first revenue flight of FH (and the second overall), I'm pretty sure that SpaceX went out of their way to make the FH price really attractive this time, no matter what are their long-term price targets or costs.
        $endgroup$
        – TooTea
        Apr 5 at 7:59








      8




      8




      $begingroup$
      Also, this being the first revenue flight of FH (and the second overall), I'm pretty sure that SpaceX went out of their way to make the FH price really attractive this time, no matter what are their long-term price targets or costs.
      $endgroup$
      – TooTea
      Apr 5 at 7:59




      $begingroup$
      Also, this being the first revenue flight of FH (and the second overall), I'm pretty sure that SpaceX went out of their way to make the FH price really attractive this time, no matter what are their long-term price targets or costs.
      $endgroup$
      – TooTea
      Apr 5 at 7:59











      12












      $begingroup$

      6000 Kg is actually pretty big. I am sure SpaceX offered some discounts to attract a customer for Falcon Heavy.



      So I will ignore the other options (Atlas 5 with side boosters, Ariane 5, or Proton) and focus on why not a Falcon 9.



      Falcon 9's numbers are lower to GTO, Wikipedia has it around 5500kg reusable. 8300kg expendable, and SpaceX's point is, if you are bigger than a Falcon 9 can handle and still land, better off moving to a Falcon Heavy.



      Also there are different GTO orbits, the higher the 'energy' the less work (aka burned up fuel) the satellite needs to do to get to a circular GEO orbit. SpaceX does aim for a lower of the set, usually to allow recovery.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        12












        $begingroup$

        6000 Kg is actually pretty big. I am sure SpaceX offered some discounts to attract a customer for Falcon Heavy.



        So I will ignore the other options (Atlas 5 with side boosters, Ariane 5, or Proton) and focus on why not a Falcon 9.



        Falcon 9's numbers are lower to GTO, Wikipedia has it around 5500kg reusable. 8300kg expendable, and SpaceX's point is, if you are bigger than a Falcon 9 can handle and still land, better off moving to a Falcon Heavy.



        Also there are different GTO orbits, the higher the 'energy' the less work (aka burned up fuel) the satellite needs to do to get to a circular GEO orbit. SpaceX does aim for a lower of the set, usually to allow recovery.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          12












          12








          12





          $begingroup$

          6000 Kg is actually pretty big. I am sure SpaceX offered some discounts to attract a customer for Falcon Heavy.



          So I will ignore the other options (Atlas 5 with side boosters, Ariane 5, or Proton) and focus on why not a Falcon 9.



          Falcon 9's numbers are lower to GTO, Wikipedia has it around 5500kg reusable. 8300kg expendable, and SpaceX's point is, if you are bigger than a Falcon 9 can handle and still land, better off moving to a Falcon Heavy.



          Also there are different GTO orbits, the higher the 'energy' the less work (aka burned up fuel) the satellite needs to do to get to a circular GEO orbit. SpaceX does aim for a lower of the set, usually to allow recovery.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          6000 Kg is actually pretty big. I am sure SpaceX offered some discounts to attract a customer for Falcon Heavy.



          So I will ignore the other options (Atlas 5 with side boosters, Ariane 5, or Proton) and focus on why not a Falcon 9.



          Falcon 9's numbers are lower to GTO, Wikipedia has it around 5500kg reusable. 8300kg expendable, and SpaceX's point is, if you are bigger than a Falcon 9 can handle and still land, better off moving to a Falcon Heavy.



          Also there are different GTO orbits, the higher the 'energy' the less work (aka burned up fuel) the satellite needs to do to get to a circular GEO orbit. SpaceX does aim for a lower of the set, usually to allow recovery.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Apr 4 at 18:38









          geoffcgeoffc

          56.1k10162311




          56.1k10162311























              4












              $begingroup$

              I know the SpaceX website does list the Falcon 9 as having a 8,300 kg payload to GTO Falcon 9 GTO but the wiki for Falcon 9 launches also shows that the Telstar 18V / Apstar-5C launch on Sept. 10, 2018 was 7,060 kg to GTO and a successful drone ship landing was achieved with the Falcon 9 Wiki-Launch 61. This would be a higher weight than the Arabsat 6 and also a GTO launch that did a successful drone ship landing so it was a reusable launch.



              The Arabsat 6 also uses powerful hypergolic main engine to boost to GEO from GTO according to Nasaspaceflight. There is no mention on the peak it will be sent in GTO but the satellite using those engines instead of electric seems to point to it needing a lot of thrust to circularize it's orbit.



              Unless there are some other specs that show this is being put in a different GTO orbit or higher it seems like the Falcon 9 reusable could launch this satellite.



              There must be another explanation such as SpaceX discount to use this as a Falcon Heavy qualification flight for the USAF or something else.






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              fosgate is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.






              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                Telstar 18V launched into a subsynchronous geostationary transfer orbit, which is lower than a typical transfer orbit. I haven't been able to find info on what the planned GTO orbit is for Arabsat 6A to compare, but the extra payload capacity would allow for a more favorable GTO.
                $endgroup$
                – asgallant
                yesterday






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                In the webcast, SpaceX announced that Arabsat 6A is launching into a GTO with an apogee of 90000km, which is about 5x higher than Telstar 18's GTO apogee.
                $endgroup$
                – asgallant
                4 hours ago
















              4












              $begingroup$

              I know the SpaceX website does list the Falcon 9 as having a 8,300 kg payload to GTO Falcon 9 GTO but the wiki for Falcon 9 launches also shows that the Telstar 18V / Apstar-5C launch on Sept. 10, 2018 was 7,060 kg to GTO and a successful drone ship landing was achieved with the Falcon 9 Wiki-Launch 61. This would be a higher weight than the Arabsat 6 and also a GTO launch that did a successful drone ship landing so it was a reusable launch.



              The Arabsat 6 also uses powerful hypergolic main engine to boost to GEO from GTO according to Nasaspaceflight. There is no mention on the peak it will be sent in GTO but the satellite using those engines instead of electric seems to point to it needing a lot of thrust to circularize it's orbit.



              Unless there are some other specs that show this is being put in a different GTO orbit or higher it seems like the Falcon 9 reusable could launch this satellite.



              There must be another explanation such as SpaceX discount to use this as a Falcon Heavy qualification flight for the USAF or something else.






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              fosgate is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.






              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                Telstar 18V launched into a subsynchronous geostationary transfer orbit, which is lower than a typical transfer orbit. I haven't been able to find info on what the planned GTO orbit is for Arabsat 6A to compare, but the extra payload capacity would allow for a more favorable GTO.
                $endgroup$
                – asgallant
                yesterday






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                In the webcast, SpaceX announced that Arabsat 6A is launching into a GTO with an apogee of 90000km, which is about 5x higher than Telstar 18's GTO apogee.
                $endgroup$
                – asgallant
                4 hours ago














              4












              4








              4





              $begingroup$

              I know the SpaceX website does list the Falcon 9 as having a 8,300 kg payload to GTO Falcon 9 GTO but the wiki for Falcon 9 launches also shows that the Telstar 18V / Apstar-5C launch on Sept. 10, 2018 was 7,060 kg to GTO and a successful drone ship landing was achieved with the Falcon 9 Wiki-Launch 61. This would be a higher weight than the Arabsat 6 and also a GTO launch that did a successful drone ship landing so it was a reusable launch.



              The Arabsat 6 also uses powerful hypergolic main engine to boost to GEO from GTO according to Nasaspaceflight. There is no mention on the peak it will be sent in GTO but the satellite using those engines instead of electric seems to point to it needing a lot of thrust to circularize it's orbit.



              Unless there are some other specs that show this is being put in a different GTO orbit or higher it seems like the Falcon 9 reusable could launch this satellite.



              There must be another explanation such as SpaceX discount to use this as a Falcon Heavy qualification flight for the USAF or something else.






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              fosgate is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.






              $endgroup$



              I know the SpaceX website does list the Falcon 9 as having a 8,300 kg payload to GTO Falcon 9 GTO but the wiki for Falcon 9 launches also shows that the Telstar 18V / Apstar-5C launch on Sept. 10, 2018 was 7,060 kg to GTO and a successful drone ship landing was achieved with the Falcon 9 Wiki-Launch 61. This would be a higher weight than the Arabsat 6 and also a GTO launch that did a successful drone ship landing so it was a reusable launch.



              The Arabsat 6 also uses powerful hypergolic main engine to boost to GEO from GTO according to Nasaspaceflight. There is no mention on the peak it will be sent in GTO but the satellite using those engines instead of electric seems to point to it needing a lot of thrust to circularize it's orbit.



              Unless there are some other specs that show this is being put in a different GTO orbit or higher it seems like the Falcon 9 reusable could launch this satellite.



              There must be another explanation such as SpaceX discount to use this as a Falcon Heavy qualification flight for the USAF or something else.







              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              fosgate is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.









              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer






              New contributor




              fosgate is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.









              answered Apr 8 at 17:45









              fosgatefosgate

              411




              411




              New contributor




              fosgate is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.





              New contributor





              fosgate is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.






              fosgate is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.












              • $begingroup$
                Telstar 18V launched into a subsynchronous geostationary transfer orbit, which is lower than a typical transfer orbit. I haven't been able to find info on what the planned GTO orbit is for Arabsat 6A to compare, but the extra payload capacity would allow for a more favorable GTO.
                $endgroup$
                – asgallant
                yesterday






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                In the webcast, SpaceX announced that Arabsat 6A is launching into a GTO with an apogee of 90000km, which is about 5x higher than Telstar 18's GTO apogee.
                $endgroup$
                – asgallant
                4 hours ago


















              • $begingroup$
                Telstar 18V launched into a subsynchronous geostationary transfer orbit, which is lower than a typical transfer orbit. I haven't been able to find info on what the planned GTO orbit is for Arabsat 6A to compare, but the extra payload capacity would allow for a more favorable GTO.
                $endgroup$
                – asgallant
                yesterday






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                In the webcast, SpaceX announced that Arabsat 6A is launching into a GTO with an apogee of 90000km, which is about 5x higher than Telstar 18's GTO apogee.
                $endgroup$
                – asgallant
                4 hours ago
















              $begingroup$
              Telstar 18V launched into a subsynchronous geostationary transfer orbit, which is lower than a typical transfer orbit. I haven't been able to find info on what the planned GTO orbit is for Arabsat 6A to compare, but the extra payload capacity would allow for a more favorable GTO.
              $endgroup$
              – asgallant
              yesterday




              $begingroup$
              Telstar 18V launched into a subsynchronous geostationary transfer orbit, which is lower than a typical transfer orbit. I haven't been able to find info on what the planned GTO orbit is for Arabsat 6A to compare, but the extra payload capacity would allow for a more favorable GTO.
              $endgroup$
              – asgallant
              yesterday




              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              In the webcast, SpaceX announced that Arabsat 6A is launching into a GTO with an apogee of 90000km, which is about 5x higher than Telstar 18's GTO apogee.
              $endgroup$
              – asgallant
              4 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              In the webcast, SpaceX announced that Arabsat 6A is launching into a GTO with an apogee of 90000km, which is about 5x higher than Telstar 18's GTO apogee.
              $endgroup$
              – asgallant
              4 hours ago











              2












              $begingroup$

              Looks like they just need to continue Falcon Heavy testing, and since the first test went almost fine, they decided to take some payload now, just to pay back the costs. However, risks are still too high (up to 10%, on Elon Musk's estimation) to wholly pack it with expensive electronics, so, a single autonomous Arabsat, to move itself to the right orbit if something goes wrong again, plus some ballast mass is quite a cautious and balanced decision.






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              Gamen Acountas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.






              $endgroup$


















                2












                $begingroup$

                Looks like they just need to continue Falcon Heavy testing, and since the first test went almost fine, they decided to take some payload now, just to pay back the costs. However, risks are still too high (up to 10%, on Elon Musk's estimation) to wholly pack it with expensive electronics, so, a single autonomous Arabsat, to move itself to the right orbit if something goes wrong again, plus some ballast mass is quite a cautious and balanced decision.






                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                Gamen Acountas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.






                $endgroup$
















                  2












                  2








                  2





                  $begingroup$

                  Looks like they just need to continue Falcon Heavy testing, and since the first test went almost fine, they decided to take some payload now, just to pay back the costs. However, risks are still too high (up to 10%, on Elon Musk's estimation) to wholly pack it with expensive electronics, so, a single autonomous Arabsat, to move itself to the right orbit if something goes wrong again, plus some ballast mass is quite a cautious and balanced decision.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Gamen Acountas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  $endgroup$



                  Looks like they just need to continue Falcon Heavy testing, and since the first test went almost fine, they decided to take some payload now, just to pay back the costs. However, risks are still too high (up to 10%, on Elon Musk's estimation) to wholly pack it with expensive electronics, so, a single autonomous Arabsat, to move itself to the right orbit if something goes wrong again, plus some ballast mass is quite a cautious and balanced decision.







                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Gamen Acountas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer






                  New contributor




                  Gamen Acountas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered yesterday









                  Gamen AcountasGamen Acountas

                  211




                  211




                  New contributor




                  Gamen Acountas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  Gamen Acountas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  Gamen Acountas is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35290%2fwhy-does-arabsat-6a-need-a-falcon-heavy-to-launch%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Plaza Victoria

                      Puebla de Zaragoza

                      Musa