ULA Launches First National Security Mission On Vulcan Centaur Rocket (space.com) 21
United Launch Alliance's Vulcan Centaur rocket successfully completed its first-ever national security mission, launching the U.S. military's first experimental navigation satellite in 48 years. Space.com reports: The mission saw the company's powerful new Vulcan Centaur rocket take off from Space Launch Complex 41 (SLC-41) at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. Vulcan launched with four side-mounted solid rocket boosters in order to generate enough thrust to send its payload directly into geosynchronous orbit on one of ULA's longest flights ever, a seven-hour journey that will span over 22,000 miles (35,000 kilometers), according to ULA.
The payload launching on Tuesday's mission was the U.S. military's first experimental navigation satellite to be launched in 48 years. It is what's known as a position, navigation and timing (PNT) satellite, a type of spacecraft that provides data similar to that of the well-known GPS system. This satellite will be testing many experimental new technologies that are designed to make it resilient to jamming and spoofing, according to Andrew Builta with L3Harris Technologies, the prime contractor for the PNT payload integrated onto a satellite bus built by Northrop Grumman.
The satellite, identified publicly only as Navigation Technology Satellite-3 (NTS-3), features a phased array antenna that allows it to "focus powerful beams to ground forces and combat jamming environments," Builta said in a media roundtable on Monday (Aug. 11). GPS jamming has become an increasingly worrisome problem for both the U.S. military and commercial satellite operators, which is why this spacecraft will be conducting experiments to test how effective these new technologies are at circumventing jamming attacks. In addition, the satellite features a software architecture that allows it to be reprogrammed while in orbit. "This is a truly game-changing capability," Builta said.
The payload launching on Tuesday's mission was the U.S. military's first experimental navigation satellite to be launched in 48 years. It is what's known as a position, navigation and timing (PNT) satellite, a type of spacecraft that provides data similar to that of the well-known GPS system. This satellite will be testing many experimental new technologies that are designed to make it resilient to jamming and spoofing, according to Andrew Builta with L3Harris Technologies, the prime contractor for the PNT payload integrated onto a satellite bus built by Northrop Grumman.
The satellite, identified publicly only as Navigation Technology Satellite-3 (NTS-3), features a phased array antenna that allows it to "focus powerful beams to ground forces and combat jamming environments," Builta said in a media roundtable on Monday (Aug. 11). GPS jamming has become an increasingly worrisome problem for both the U.S. military and commercial satellite operators, which is why this spacecraft will be conducting experiments to test how effective these new technologies are at circumventing jamming attacks. In addition, the satellite features a software architecture that allows it to be reprogrammed while in orbit. "This is a truly game-changing capability," Builta said.
Always nice to see a launch (Score:2)
But ULA (or its successor) really needs reusable capability of they will remain a minor player.
https://spacestatsonline.com/l... [spacestatsonline.com]
Only seven US launches were not SpaceX.
Re: (Score:1)
Whose idea is it to have SatNav assets in GeoSync?
Re:Always nice to see a launch (Score:5, Insightful)
It might not be a great orbit for a part of the GPS constellation, but those satellites are only visible above the horizon for about six hours each, twice a day. Great for a network that covers the globe but not ideal for testing.
I'm guessing the geostationary orbit was selected to provide a location that is always visible for testing. Testing new frequencies, modulations, encrypted timing, reprogramming, (spread spectrum? frequency hopping? agile polarization? beam shaping?).
For a prototype and proof of concept I think a geostationary orbit provides a first step for testing. Perhaps the next version will be in a polar orbit to test atmospheric interference, propagation delays, and stage two beam steering?
Re:Always nice to see a launch (Score:5, Informative)
I'm guessing the geostationary orbit was selected to provide a location that is always visible for testing.
Just a nitpick, but the article said geosynchronous, not geostationary. Both are 24-hour orbits, but geosynchronous orbits can be inclined or elliptical, as opposed to geostationary which are circular directly over the equator. Geostationary satellites appear to be in a fixed position in the sky, but geosynchronous satellites appear to move about over a 24 hour period.
Geosynchronous (Score:1)
I detest the phrase "geostationary."
A stationary orbit is a contradiction in terms. No orbits are stationary, and the term confuses people who are not knowledgeable about the field. You get people talking about an orbit that's stationary above Antarctica (yes, I've seen that.)
Yes, it is possible to be synchronous with the Earth's rotation but not over the equator with zero eccentricity. But this is rare enough that it is not a problem that people people get confused about what geosynchronous obit means.
Re: (Score:1)
It's probably a good first step on any satellite navigation to start with a geosynchronous orbit.
The Chinese satellite navigation apparently started out with three geosynchronous satellites. That works if someone is concerned about navigation in and around their own nation than having global coverage. That was something of a "phase one" part of the system, the next step added another three satellites to bring coverage to the region. China now has more than 40 navigation satellites in orbit which offer gl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA's idea, for one notable example. WAAS has ranging GEOs that augment GPS navigation. Japan has the similar MSAS, plus QZSS that's in IGSO with a long linger above Japan to help in urban canyons. Europe has EGNOS, India has GAGAN and NavIC, Korea has KASS. Other countries have systems that are not yet certified for safety-of-life/flight use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, the US military's. It's in the first sentence of the summary.
I assume you are comparing it to GPS. I doubt very much this is supposed to be some kind of next generation GPS. It's a military navigation satellite designed to work in jamming environments. There are some pretty obvious advantages in being able to use highly directional transmitters and receivers with known, fixed targets, rather than the omnidirectional transmitters and receivers used by GPS.
Re: (Score:2)
But ULA (or its successor) really needs reusable capability of they will remain a minor player.
True that, however ULA has a stock of rockets to launch for Amazon (and Spaceforce too). Amazon doesn't want to use SpaceX to launch Project Kuiper [aboutamazon.com]. Amazon will be using ULA a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
But ULA (or its successor) really needs reusable capability of they will remain a minor player.
True that, however ULA has a stock of rockets to launch for Amazon (and Spaceforce too). Amazon doesn't want to use SpaceX to launch Project Kuiper [aboutamazon.com]. Amazon will be using ULA a lot.
Seems that a lot of people here believe that the most important thing is the rocket, not the payload. The rocket being the gee-whizz ohmagawd device days ended with the F1 Engine in the Saturn 5.
Even the Starship is just a reprise of the Soviet N1 rocket.
There is supposed to be competition. Landing the first stage of the candles puts big restrictions on orbital shells, and if a desired shell puts the first stage out of the possible landing areas, the Falcons just become another expendable rocket.
So
Re: (Score:2)
Even the Starship is just a reprise of the Soviet N1 rocket.
No it isn't. Starship is different from N1 in pretty much every possible way, except in that both use a large number of engines.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the Starship is just a reprise of the Soviet N1 rocket.
No it isn't. Starship is different from N1 in pretty much every possible way, except in that both use a large number of engines.
That's what I was referring to - as well as the number of successful orbital launches. 8^) Not the Starship is somehow identical to the N1. My apologies if you thought I was trying to say that. No, they aren't identical.
You are correct in that a long time has passed, and the advances in rocketry are substantial. But if you are using many engines, it increases the complexity. Perhaps that paradigm no longer holds, and we can just keep adding to the stack? 60 engines could be very cool.
Re: (Score:2)
But ULA (or its successor) really needs reusable capability of they will remain a minor player.
https://spacestatsonline.com/l... [spacestatsonline.com]
Only seven US launches were not SpaceX.
Only took one post for the Muskovites to weigh in.
Perhaps the "reusable Rocket" thing ends up in some fairly restrictive orbital shells. That's based on orbital mechanics. Until Musk can land his rockets anywhere on earth, there are some shells that require not retrieving the Falcon 9/heavy Rocket. Either that or launch a Rocket that is expendable.
And this is just a first stage - why not retrieve the second stage? There's a reason for that - look it up. There are occasions where the payload requires
Couple Launch Vids (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
#obLLAP (Score:1)
Why do we need to rely on these alien rockets?
Make Space Great Again!
Re: (Score:2)
If only we could get them to make peace with the Andorians...
Can we please ditch that overused cliche? (Score:2)
Though I do worry that it would just bring back "paradigm shift".
Re: (Score:2)
Just keep the cliched sports metaphors, and cliched metaphores in general, going.
"Come on people, get in the game!" Right, lets see that skilled stick handling! Soft hands, soft hands! Get the grinders into the dirty areas and work the man!
"The optics look bad" You're right. We need a couple of intermediate index materials so we can make a cemented triplet achromat. A Schmit corrector plate wouldn't hurt either.
Makes meetings much more interesting.
Re: (Score:2)