Why does Arabsat 6A need a Falcon Heavy to launch
$begingroup$
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?
spacex launch falcon-9 falcon-heavy
asked Apr 4 at 18:27
Jay LaughlinJay Laughlin
1217
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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?
spacex launch falcon-9 falcon-heavy
asked Apr 4 at 18:27
Jay LaughlinJay Laughlin
1217
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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?
spacex launch falcon-9 falcon-heavy
asked Apr 4 at 18:27
Jay LaughlinJay Laughlin
1217
$endgroup$
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
spacex launch falcon-9 falcon-heavy
asked Apr 4 at 18:27
Jay LaughlinJay Laughlin
1217
asked Apr 4 at 18:27
Jay LaughlinJay Laughlin
1217
edited Apr 4 at 18:41
Jay Laughlin
asked Apr 4 at 18:27
Jay LaughlinJay Laughlin
1217
asked Apr 4 at 18:27
Jay LaughlinJay Laughlin
1217
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
@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
answered Apr 4 at 22:52
asgallantasgallant
2364
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
answered Apr 4 at 18:38
geoffcgeoffc
56.1k10162311
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
answered Apr 8 at 17:45
fosgatefosgate
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
answered yesterday
Gamen AcountasGamen Acountas
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
@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
answered Apr 4 at 22:52
asgallantasgallant
2364
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
@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
answered Apr 4 at 22:52
asgallantasgallant
2364
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
@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
answered Apr 4 at 22:52
asgallantasgallant
2364
$endgroup$
@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
answered Apr 4 at 22:52
asgallantasgallant
2364
edited 4 hours ago
answered Apr 4 at 22:52
asgallantasgallant
2364
answered Apr 4 at 22:52
asgallantasgallant
2364
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
answered Apr 4 at 18:38
geoffcgeoffc
56.1k10162311
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
answered Apr 4 at 18:38
geoffcgeoffc
56.1k10162311
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
answered Apr 4 at 18:38
geoffcgeoffc
56.1k10162311
$endgroup$
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.
answered Apr 4 at 18:38
geoffcgeoffc
56.1k10162311
answered Apr 4 at 18:38
geoffcgeoffc
56.1k10162311
answered Apr 4 at 18:38
geoffcgeoffc
56.1k10162311
answered Apr 4 at 18:38
geoffcgeoffc
56.1k10162311
56.1k10162311
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
answered Apr 8 at 17:45
fosgatefosgate
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
answered Apr 8 at 17:45
fosgatefosgate
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
answered Apr 8 at 17:45
fosgatefosgate
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.
$endgroup$
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.
answered Apr 8 at 17:45
fosgatefosgate
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.
answered Apr 8 at 17:45
fosgatefosgate
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.
answered Apr 8 at 17:45
fosgatefosgate
411
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
answered yesterday
Gamen AcountasGamen Acountas
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
answered yesterday
Gamen AcountasGamen Acountas
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
answered yesterday
Gamen AcountasGamen Acountas
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.
$endgroup$
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.
answered yesterday
Gamen AcountasGamen Acountas
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.
answered yesterday
Gamen AcountasGamen Acountas
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.
answered yesterday
Gamen AcountasGamen Acountas
211
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.
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
$begingroup$
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