Why does Arabsat 6A need a Falcon Heavy to launchWhat missions could be done with Orion on Falcon Heavy?Falcon 9R as SSTOWhat would the challenges be in developing a Falcon Heavy with three or four strap-on boosters?Why is the first launch of Falcon Heavy sending a car instead of something useful?Was anything else about the Falcon Heavy test launch “off nominal” besides the center core return?What accounted for the total mass of the Tesla/Starman?How much payload can Falcon Heavy Reusable lift?Why doesn't SpaceX deploy some module to cover whole fairing like a rain coat just before sea landing?Does the downrange position of an ASDS vary, depending on payload mass?What is meant by “a high-energy geostationary orbit”? (SpaceX Arabsat 6A)
How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?
Latin words with no plurals in English
How would photo IDs work for shapeshifters?
Travelling to Edinburgh from India
What does 'script /dev/null' do?
Prime joint compound before latex paint?
Weird behaviour when using querySelector
What do the Banks children have against barley water?
How do you conduct xenoanthropology after first contact?
How can I fix this gap between bookcases I made?
Add an angle to a sphere
How to make payment on the internet without leaving a money trail?
Are objects structures and/or vice versa?
Could a US political party gain complete control over the government by removing checks & balances?
I’m planning on buying a laser printer but concerned about the life cycle of toner in the machine
aging parents with no investments
My colleague's body is amazing
Domain expired, GoDaddy holds it and is asking more money
Where to refill my bottle in India?
Why was the "bread communication" in the arena of Catching Fire left out in the movie?
Information to fellow intern about hiring?
Is it legal to have the "// (c) 2019 John Smith" header in all files when there are hundreds of contributors?
Is there a familial term for apples and pears?
How to manage monthly salary
Why does Arabsat 6A need a Falcon Heavy to launch
What missions could be done with Orion on Falcon Heavy?Falcon 9R as SSTOWhat would the challenges be in developing a Falcon Heavy with three or four strap-on boosters?Why is the first launch of Falcon Heavy sending a car instead of something useful?Was anything else about the Falcon Heavy test launch “off nominal” besides the center core return?What accounted for the total mass of the Tesla/Starman?How much payload can Falcon Heavy Reusable lift?Why doesn't SpaceX deploy some module to cover whole fairing like a rain coat just before sea landing?Does the downrange position of an ASDS vary, depending on payload mass?What is meant by “a high-energy geostationary orbit”? (SpaceX Arabsat 6A)
$begingroup$
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
1016
New contributor
Jay Laughlin 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 |
$begingroup$
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
1016
New contributor
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
1
$begingroup$
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
1016
New contributor
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
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
1016
New contributor
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Apr 4 at 18:27
Jay LaughlinJay Laughlin
1016
New contributor
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Apr 4 at 18:41
Jay Laughlin
asked Apr 4 at 18:27
Jay LaughlinJay Laughlin
1016
New contributor
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Apr 4 at 18:27
Jay LaughlinJay Laughlin
1016
asked Apr 4 at 18:27
Jay LaughlinJay Laughlin
1016
1016
New contributor
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$begingroup$
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
1
$begingroup$
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
1
$begingroup$
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
1
1
$begingroup$
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 |
3 Answers
3
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.
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
1862
New contributor
asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
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
56k10162310
$endgroup$
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 3 hours ago
fosgatefosgate
211
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.
$endgroup$
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
);
);
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
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.
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
1862
New contributor
asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
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.
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
1862
New contributor
asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
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.
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
1862
New contributor
asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
@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.
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
1862
New contributor
asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Apr 4 at 22:52
asgallantasgallant
1862
New contributor
asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Apr 4 at 22:52
asgallantasgallant
1862
answered Apr 4 at 22:52
asgallantasgallant
1862
1862
New contributor
asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asgallant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
4
$begingroup$
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 |
4
$begingroup$
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
4
4
$begingroup$
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
56k10162310
$endgroup$
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
56k10162310
$endgroup$
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
56k10162310
$endgroup$
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
56k10162310
answered Apr 4 at 18:38
geoffcgeoffc
56k10162310
answered Apr 4 at 18:38
geoffcgeoffc
56k10162310
answered Apr 4 at 18:38
geoffcgeoffc
56k10162310
56k10162310
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 3 hours ago
fosgatefosgate
211
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.
$endgroup$
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 3 hours ago
fosgatefosgate
211
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.
$endgroup$
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 3 hours ago
fosgatefosgate
211
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 3 hours ago
fosgatefosgate
211
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 3 hours ago
fosgatefosgate
211
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 3 hours ago
fosgatefosgate
211
answered 3 hours ago
fosgatefosgate
211
211
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.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Jay Laughlin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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
1
$begingroup$
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