For those who would like to Track AMC14
- Thread starter goaliebob99
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 371
- Views 41K
Object 32708 is now AMC 14
When one searches the database on Live AMC 14 now comes up instead of Object A. Also the speed of Object A speed is unrealisticly slow.
JC
When one searches the database on Live AMC 14 now comes up instead of Object A. Also the speed of Object A speed is unrealisticly slow.
JC
How long does it take to get DirecTV-11 to calm down and make it stay where it belongs? To me as somebody that doesn't know much about rocket science, it looks like the paths of DirecTV-11 and AMC-14 are similar bad. I wish I'd know more about this, because it bugs me to not understand what's going on right now and what they're gonna do about it.
What do you mean the speed is unrealisticly slow??? (ps..Object A is a just a generic descriptor for a new satellite)
When it's at the high point of it's orbit, it's going to "appear" to be moving slower when viewing it from the ground, but that's deceptive...it's moving the same speed as it always has
They've alreading been moving it around to it's proper orbit...The Rocket always leaves it lower and at a different angle... and the satellite moves itself gradually with it's own thrusters to the proper orbit. All they have to do now is push out the lower part of it's orbit so it's in a circular orbit around the equator..they've got it near the equator already with an inclination of ~0% (which is the issue with AMC14..they are at 49% still).
ps....Trivia...To push out the lower part of the orbit, they fire the thrusters at the high part of the orbit
....
One way to tell for sure which is AMC-14 and the BRIZ-M is to wait for SEL to start maneuvering AMC-14 towards its intended destination. The orbital inclination should start trending towards 0? from the 48.9? it is now.
Gee, it's too bad all these video games today are roll-playing shoot-em-ups. I learned orbital mechanics on a PDP-9 playing Space War: two ships trying to launch missiles at each other while under the influence of a star at the center of the screen. All you could do was rotate, thrust, and fire the missiles. Hit the sun (or get too close) and you burn up (as will your missiles). You learned all about circular and elliptical orbits and how the further down in the gravity well you got, the faster you went until you reached perihelion (closest approach to the sun) after which you'd start to slow down again.
Here's a link to a great site that allows you to play with a pretend planet: Orbit Shapes Interactive Animation You can adjust the size and eccentricity of the orbit around the sun (pretend it's the Earth if you like) and see how a satellite changes its speed as it orbits.
Gee, it's too bad all these video games today are roll-playing shoot-em-ups. I learned orbital mechanics on a PDP-9 playing Space War: two ships trying to launch missiles at each other while under the influence of a star at the center of the screen. All you could do was rotate, thrust, and fire the missiles. Hit the sun (or get too close) and you burn up (as will your missiles). You learned all about circular and elliptical orbits and how the further down in the gravity well you got, the faster you went until you reached perihelion (closest approach to the sun) after which you'd start to slow down again.
Here's a link to a great site that allows you to play with a pretend planet: Orbit Shapes Interactive Animation You can adjust the size and eccentricity of the orbit around the sun (pretend it's the Earth if you like) and see how a satellite changes its speed as it orbits.
Don't think so... It's in an elliptical orbit so its speed varies, moving fastest at the low point and slowest at the high point in actual speed, not only apparent speed.
When they fire the thrusters to correct the inclination, they will do it at the high point because when it's going slower, it take less energy to change direction.
rglore, you're correct..I didnt explain what I meant by apparent speed from the ground well at all. Mr Kepler governs the actual speed and it will vary from low/fast to high/slower in this type of orbit.
On the push out, I was just talking about apogee/perigee corrections (that are done at the opposite end). When/if they do the inclination adjustment they will do that at the apogee, and will also boost out the perigee at the same time to use less fuel to meet both requirements.
On the push out, I was just talking about apogee/perigee corrections (that are done at the opposite end). When/if they do the inclination adjustment they will do that at the apogee, and will also boost out the perigee at the same time to use less fuel to meet both requirements.
Well, there is a little bit of change in apogee/perigee/inclination in the last 10 days.
I wonder if the change is man made, or if gravity/nature is the cause???
1 32708U 08011A 08081.39023700 -.00000157 00000-0 00000+0 0 85
2 32708 049.1180 169.4890 7098407 357.5510 002.5630 02.24735313 166
Epoch (UTC): 9:21:56 AM, Friday, March 21, 2008
Eccentricity: 0.7098407
Inclination: 049.1180°
Perigee Height: 765 km
Apogee Height: 35,718 km
Right Ascension of Ascending Node: 169.4890°
Argument of Perigee: 357.5510°
Revolutions per Day: 02.24735313
Mean Anomaly at Epoch: 002.5630°
Orbit Number at Epoch: 16
____________________________________________
1 32708U 08011A 08091.57946284 -.00000172 00000-0 00000+0 0 152
2 32708 048.9793 167.0584 7087087 359.5922 000.1411 02.25661934 404
Epoch (UTC): 1:54:26 PM, Monday, March 31, 2008
Eccentricity: 0.7087087
Inclination: 048.9793°
Perigee Height: 774 km
Apogee Height: 35,574 km
Right Ascension of Ascending Node: 167.0584°
Argument of Perigee: 359.5922°
Revolutions per Day: 02.25661934
Mean Anomaly at Epoch: 000.1411°
Orbit Number at Epoch: 40
I wonder if the change is man made, or if gravity/nature is the cause???
1 32708U 08011A 08081.39023700 -.00000157 00000-0 00000+0 0 85
2 32708 049.1180 169.4890 7098407 357.5510 002.5630 02.24735313 166
Epoch (UTC): 9:21:56 AM, Friday, March 21, 2008
Eccentricity: 0.7098407
Inclination: 049.1180°
Perigee Height: 765 km
Apogee Height: 35,718 km
Right Ascension of Ascending Node: 169.4890°
Argument of Perigee: 357.5510°
Revolutions per Day: 02.24735313
Mean Anomaly at Epoch: 002.5630°
Orbit Number at Epoch: 16
____________________________________________
1 32708U 08011A 08091.57946284 -.00000172 00000-0 00000+0 0 152
2 32708 048.9793 167.0584 7087087 359.5922 000.1411 02.25661934 404
Epoch (UTC): 1:54:26 PM, Monday, March 31, 2008
Eccentricity: 0.7087087
Inclination: 048.9793°
Perigee Height: 774 km
Apogee Height: 35,574 km
Right Ascension of Ascending Node: 167.0584°
Argument of Perigee: 359.5922°
Revolutions per Day: 02.25661934
Mean Anomaly at Epoch: 000.1411°
Orbit Number at Epoch: 40
dahenny, one of two possibilities: AMC-14 is slowly being maneuvered into its proper orbit, or NORAD has had more orbits (40 vs. 16) to more accurately measure AMC-14's actual orbit.
Based on dahenny's numbers, it looks like SLOWLY is the operative word, if the changes over ten days represent maneuvering toward an optimum orbit.
Inclination is changing by 0.01387 degrees per day. By my casual calculation, at the current rate, it will take about 9.7 years to get to 0. Sure hope they can speed up the process a bit.
Last edited:
ALL RIGHT!!! 9.7 years...so you're sayin' there's a chance! YESSSS!!!
Seriously, I'm wondering if the movement is natural causes.
Seriously, I'm wondering if the movement is natural causes.
If you figure that at every apogee they command a brief burst out of the station keeping jets to give AMC-14 a leeeeetle more momentum while at the same time moving it more towards 0? inclination, we should be seeing the perigee/apogee increase as the orbit "rounds" out.
A great thought experiment, really. The AMC-14 has a finite amount of propellant on board which will yield a given force when used. As the propellant is used, the satellite gets a little less massive, making it easier to accelerate. If the solar panels are fully deployed, the gyroscopes will be used to align the satellite for each maneuver, saving propellant. Each burn has to accomplish an increase in altitude, a decrease in eccentricity, and a reduction in inclination. Finally, the target location at 61.5?W has to be at or near the final maneuver or else you end up using more propellant to "slide" the satellite to the proper licensed position. Finally, you want to minimize the amount of propellant used to accomplish this to maximize the amount of time AMC-14 will have at 61.5?W. A compromise will be made in order to get AMC-14 to geostationary position as soon as possible, but without reducing the usable lifetime to too short of a time. Take too long to accomplish this, however, and you might as well launch a new satellite!
Phew!
A great thought experiment, really. The AMC-14 has a finite amount of propellant on board which will yield a given force when used. As the propellant is used, the satellite gets a little less massive, making it easier to accelerate. If the solar panels are fully deployed, the gyroscopes will be used to align the satellite for each maneuver, saving propellant. Each burn has to accomplish an increase in altitude, a decrease in eccentricity, and a reduction in inclination. Finally, the target location at 61.5?W has to be at or near the final maneuver or else you end up using more propellant to "slide" the satellite to the proper licensed position. Finally, you want to minimize the amount of propellant used to accomplish this to maximize the amount of time AMC-14 will have at 61.5?W. A compromise will be made in order to get AMC-14 to geostationary position as soon as possible, but without reducing the usable lifetime to too short of a time. Take too long to accomplish this, however, and you might as well launch a new satellite!
Phew!
Needless to say someone that is good with orbital mechanics and tons of computer time to calculate this... I would not want to have to be the one to figure this all out. Where is the Moon at any given moment, what is the effect of the Sun at this point in the orbit? So many variables.
The changes are the result of natural causes. There would be no need to fire something at the apogee. When they decide to do something, there would have to be a longish burn intended to flatten out the orbit. It would be noticeable, although the changes might take days after the burn. Each orbit would be noticeably (possibly hundreds of miles) different.
If the object is to save as much fuel as possible, then you want to make sure you use as little fuel as possible to "Stop" the maneuver.
There would be an optimum point to do this sometime during a lunar month. They may have figured out that point already. OR they may be figuring that out with the idea to do it in May.
I am sure SAS wants this puppy in a usable orbit as soon as possible to begin getting payments from Dish.
If the object is to save as much fuel as possible, then you want to make sure you use as little fuel as possible to "Stop" the maneuver.
There would be an optimum point to do this sometime during a lunar month. They may have figured out that point already. OR they may be figuring that out with the idea to do it in May.
I am sure SAS wants this puppy in a usable orbit as soon as possible to begin getting payments from Dish.
ALL RIGHT!!! 9.7 years...so you're sayin' there's a chance! YESSSS!!!
Seriously, I'm wondering if the movement is natural causes.
Yes "SOON"
If you look on the page LIVE REAL TIME SATELLITE AND SPACE SHUTTLE TRACKING It doesn't look like its moving and is at a high altitude. Is it even close to where it should be? Or is AMC-14 a lost cause?
Actually right now according to those stats on the tracking page, the sat is looking pretty good right now
Altitude is almost perfect, however it is still moving.
Location could be right because they said they would put it into a testing orbit first, anyone remember that location?
Any thoughts?
Altitude is almost perfect, however it is still moving.
Location could be right because they said they would put it into a testing orbit first, anyone remember that location?
Any thoughts?
Attachments
Last edited:
