Re: Could the Titan IV launch involve a Molniya payload? - Was
John Pike (johnpike@fas.org)
Fri, 17 May 1996 13:41:04 -0400
At 11:59 AM 5/17/96 -0400, Ted M. wrote:
>>Bjoern Gimle wrote:
>
>>Is the A object going into a Molniya orbit
Well, this [among other things] is what threw me off when these things first
started showing up, and why it took me so long to realize that Phil C. was
basically on top of the case in reverse engineering these new systems, for
which much credit is due to him.
>No one knows whether or not the A object
My current line of reasoning is that there is no "A object" worthy of the
name after the triplet has deployed. I assert that the "A object" consists
of the triplet, a frame to hold them together, a kick stage, and not much
else. After the triplet deploys, all that remains of the "A object" is the
frame that was holding the triplet together, which is why the thing hasn't
been observerd. As previously noted, we have some artwork that depicts our
current thinking at
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/surveill/sbwass_n.htm
The problem here is three-fold:
1 - The apparent brightness of the triplet objects seems to be roughly
consistent with vehicles that would seem to consume much if not all of the
payload mass and shroud volume of the T-4 used to launch them. Thus, any
object headed to HEO [aka Molniya] would be a secondary rather than the
primary payload.
2 - Perhaps there is enough rattle space in the calculation leading to #1 to
suggest that the mass and shroud volume is partitioned more evently between
the "A object" and the triplet. But this raises the uncomfortable question
as to what is the mission of the "A object" in HEO. It is very hard to
imagine a HEO compliment to the ocean surveillance mission of the triplet,
though perhaps one might imagine some sorta HERITAGE-like IR sensor such is
accomodated on SDS-2 [thank you Phil!!!]. But there is little [aka no]
precedent for launching two roughly equal sized payloads of largely
dissimilar mission and configuration on a single vehicle.
3 - I am sorta runnin outta missions for a HEO bird. We already have TRUMPET
doing the JUMPSEAT SIGINT mission, and SDS-2 doing the SPINTCOM mission, as
well as IR tracking + MASINT with the hosted HERITAGE payload. Someone would
need to make a plausible case as to what the dang "A object" would be up to.
Back before Phil et al cracked the SDS-2 case [praised be!!], I figured that
the "A object" was either SDS or JUMPSEAT, but now neither of these seem
viable options.
>In the case of the NOSS 2-1 launch, there are
>two pieces in moderately eccentric orbits, with
>apogee far higher than the NOSS triad's. Could
>this debris be in the transfer orbit to a 3000 km
>circular orbit?
This is not a very popular orbit, and I would need someone to explain to me
what one would be doing there.
>Or could it have gone to Molniya,
>with perigee at either 1228 km or 2960 km?
AFAIK these are also pretty unpopular perigees as well.
>NOSS 2-1
>
>1990-50B Elements not available
>1990-50F 129.2 1228 x 2960 x 63.5
>1990-50G 125.4 1224 x 2601 x 63.4
>1990-50H 90.0 268 x 284 x 61.0
I would try to make F & G "go away" by suggesting that they might be some
sorta NRO Space Test Program kinda secondary payloads. Outfits like CTA have
made a whole buncha smallsats for the spooks, and they gotta be launched
sometime or somehow.
>the NOSS 2 triad members are about
>2 magnitudes brighter than their
>NOSS 1 counterparts,
>I find that the NOSS 2 triad objects
>are between about 1.5 and 2 meters across. That is not all
>that large,
This doesn't seem right, since this is only slightly larger than the NOSS-1
subsatellites:
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/surveill/noss.htm
which we make out to be about 0.5x1x2 m =~2 m2 -- if NOSS-2 = 2 magnitudes
brighter, are we not looking for something that has at least an average
presented area of about 10m2 ?? And given that [as I recall] the KH-12 is
dimmer by about 1 magnitude than the KH-11, might not there also be albedo
changes that would render the NOSS-2 even larger than these magnitude
comparisons would suggest? Even modest albedo reductions could correspond to
major size differences. So we are imagining the NOSS-2 vehicles as being
more along the lines of 2x2x8 meters as seen in the previously cited URL.
which would give a typically presented cross-section of ~15 m2. The 2x2 is
pretty strongly constrained by the shroud, while the length is poorly
constrained, though our depiction is not inconsitent with typical vehicle
structural densities.....
>Consider that the two shuttle launched DOD Molniya payloads,
>USA 40 and USA 89, occupied no more than about half of the
>cargo bay of the shuttle, which has about the same dimensions
>as the 57 foot Titan shroud.
The total mass of that stack was about 10 tons, which would leave another 10
tons or so for other PL like the triplet.
>Also, consider the other similarities. Both of the shuttle-
>deployed payloads lingered in LEO from 1 week to 3 months
The USA 40 suffered a malfunction, which is currently the subject of a
lawsuit against the manufacturer, Hughes.
>before making their final manouevres. Both objects left
>one upper stage in a transfer orbit. (532 km x 8135 km x 57 deg
Which is much higher than the debris we are seeing here.
>the NOSS 2-1 triad was placed in exactly the same plane as the
>1-8 triad, but they waited in much lower 61 deg parking orbit,
>first at about 280 km, later at 454 km. Why not direct insertion
>into the 1-8 plane? Most likely because the A object was going
>elsewhere, into a more easterly plane, and had to be manoeuvred
This is a very good point that requires further contemplation.
____________________________
John Pike
Director, Space Policy & CyberStrategy Projects
Federation of American Scientists
307 Massachusetts Ave. NE
Washington, DC 20002
V 202-675-1023, F 202-675-1024, http://www.fas.org/