NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX Missions Section => Topic started by: gongora on 01/15/2022 08:07 pm

Title: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: gongora on 01/15/2022 08:07 pm
Thread for the Starlink 4-7 launch from Florida.

NSF Threads for Starlink 4-7: Discussion (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55562.0)

Launch February 3, 2022 at 18:13 UTC (1:13 pm EST) from LC-39A on booster 1061-6.  ASDS landing was successful, aboard A Shortfall of Gravitas.

Payload 49 Starlink satellites to 53.2 degree inclination on SE trajectory.  Initial orbit of ~210x339km.  On the Starlink Group 4-5 webcast it was mentioned that the southeast trajectory is to increase the recovery weather availability for the booster and fairings during the winter months.

Quote
SpaceX is targeting Thursday, February 3 for a Falcon 9 launch of 49 Starlink satellites to low Earth orbit from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The instantaneous launch window is at 1:13 p.m. EST (18:13 UTC), and a backup opportunity is available on Friday, February 4 at 12:51 p.m. EST (17:51 UTC).

The booster supporting this mission previously launched Crew-1, Crew-2, SXM-8, CRS-23, and IXPE. Following stage separation, SpaceX will land Falcon 9’s first stage on the A Shortfall of Gravitas droneship, which will be stationed in the Atlantic Ocean. One fairing half previously supported five Starlink missions, and the other half previously supported Transporter-1 and two Starlink missions.

Please use the Starlink Discussion Thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48297.0) for all general discussion on Starlink.

Check the Starlink Index Thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48981.0) for links to more Starlink information.

L2 SpaceX:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=60.0 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=60.0)

From a previous mission's Press Kit:
Quote
Each Starlink satellite weights approximately 260 kg and features a compact, flat-panel design that minimizes volume, allowing for a dense launch stack to take full advantage of Falcon 9’s launch capabilities. With four powerful phased array and two parabolic antennas on each satellite ... At end of their life cycle, the satellites will utilize their on-board propulsion system to deorbit over the course of a few months. In the unlikely event their propulsion system becomes inoperable, the satellites will burn up in Earth’s atmosphere within 1-5 years, significantly less than the hundreds or thousands of years required at higher altitudes. Further, Starlink components are designed for full demisability.

Starlink is targeting service to near global coverage of the populated world by 2021. Additional information on the system can be found at starlink.com.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/15/2022 08:10 pm
Cross-posts

Launch late January:
Mission 1719, Starlink 4-7 with the southeastern landing zone.
1994-EX-ST-2021 (https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/STA_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=112116&RequestTimeout=1000)

From Spaceflight Now (https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/01/06/spacex-deploys-49-more-starlink-satellites-in-first-launch-of-2022/), dated Jan 6:

Quote
Two more Falcon 9 flights with Starlink satellites are slated this month, bringing the total tally to seven missions on the range schedule at Cape Canaveral. Launch dates for the next two Starlink missions were unavailable Thursday.

In a press release this week, the Space Force said five of the seven launches planned this month will head southeast or south from Cape Canaveral...[includes the two Starlink launches previously mentioned in quote]

https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/  [dated Jan 5]
Quote
January • Falcon 9 • Starlink
Launch time: TBD
Launch site: LC-39A, Kennedy Space Center, Florida
...
Jan. 24 • Falcon 9 • CSG 2
Launch time: Approx. 2311:12 GMT (6:11:12 p.m. EST)
Launch site: SLC-40, Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida
...
January • Falcon 9 • Starlink
Launch time: TBD
Launch site: LC-39A, Kennedy Space Center, Florida

https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/5337
Quote
Starlink Group 4-6
Launch Time
NET January, 2022
https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/5338
Quote
Starlink Group 4-7
Launch Time
NET January, 2022

Starlink 4-7 is planned for Jan 29:

Quote
A Falcon 9 from pad 39A will launch another Starlink batch on January 29.

http://www.launchphotography.com/Launch_Viewing_Guide.html
[Jan 14 update]



Space Coast orbital launches in the immediate future:

2022 Launched:
Date - Satellite(s) - Rocket - Launch Site - Time (UTC)

January 21 Q4 2020 Mar 2021 or Spring 2021 Aug 2021 early Sept 2021 NET Nov 2021? NET mid Nov 2021? NET mid Nov 2021 TBD ~Nov 22, 2021 Jan 2022 - USSF-8 (GSSAP 5 and 6) - Atlas V 511 (AV-084) - Canaveral SLC-41 - 19:00:00 19:00 to 21:54 ~19:15 to 21:45

January 31 TBD 2022 (NET) Nov 18, 2021 Dec 2021 Dec 14, 2021 Dec 2021? early 2022 Jan late Jan Jan 24 Jan 27 Jan 28 Jan 29 Jan 30 - CSG-2 - Falcon 9-138 128? TBD 130? 131? TBD (1052.3 L? low reuse no. booster) Vega-C - Canaveral SLC-40 / Kennedy LC-39A Kourou - 23:11:14 23:11:12 23:11:50 23:11:19
(Sun-synchronous orbit satellites: launch at approximately the same time of day year-round)

February 3 NET Aug 2021 NET Nov 2021 TBD NET Feb 2022 NET late Jan Jan 29 Jan 30 Jan 31 Feb 1 NET Feb 3 Feb 2 - Starlink 4-7 4-? group? 4-? (x49 x60 x53?) (flight 36 TBD) [v1.5 L7 v1.0 L33 L-TBD] - Falcon 9-140 139 (1061.6 S) - Kennedy LC-39A / Canaveral SLC-40 - 18:13:20  20:00 or 23:17 19:39 or 22:56 19:17 or 22:34 18:56 or 22:13 Feb 3 ~18:15 or ~21:35 21:51:50 or 21:30
(mid-inclination Starlink: launch 20-22 minutes earlier/day)

2022 Scheduled:
Date - Satellite(s) - Rocket - Launch Site - Time (UTC)

February 5 NET Dec 1 2021/NLT July 2022 NET Dec 2021 NET Jan 2022 Jan Jan 18 Jan TBD Jan 23 Jan 26? TBD Feb - VCLS Demo 2A: BAMA-1, INCA, QubeSat, R5-S1 (ELaNa 41) CURIE A, CURIE B - Rocket 3.x (Astra) [LV0008] - Canaveral SLC-46 Kodiak LP-3B / Kwajalein - 18:00 to 21:00

NET mid February NET Aug 2021 NET Dec 2021 TBD NET Q1 NET Feb 1 NET early Feb - Starlink 4-8 4-? group? (x49 x60 x53?) (flight 37 TBD) [v1.5 L8 v1.0 L34 L-TBD] - Falcon 9-141 (S) - Canaveral SLC-40 /Kennedy LC-39A
(mid-inclination Starlink: launch 20-22 minutes earlier/day)

NET February 15 NET Aug 2021 NET Jan TBD NETQ1 NET Feb - Starlink 4-9 4-? group? 4-? (x49 x60 x53?) (flight TBD) [v1.5 L-TBD v1.0 L35] - Falcon 9 (S) - Kennedy LC-39A / Canaveral SLC-40
(mid-inclination Starlink: launch 20-22 minutes earlier/day)

NET February 25 - Starlink 4-10 (x49) (flight TBD) [v1.5 L-TBD] - Falcon 9 (S) - Kennedy LC-39A / Canaveral SLC-40
(mid-inclination Starlink: launch 20-22 minutes earlier/day)

Changes on October 6th, 2020
Changes on October 20th, 2020
Changes on December 11th, 2020
Changes on February 15th, 2021
Changes on May 1st, 2021
Changes on May 22nd, 2021
Changes on May 27th, 2021
Changes on May 28th, 2021
Changes on June 5th, 2021
Changes on June 11th, 2021
Changes on June 14th, 2021
Changes on June 24th, 2021
Changes on July 13th, 2021
Changes on August 13th, 2021
Changes on September 7th, 2021
Changes on September 8th, 2021
Changes on September 30th, 2021
Changes on October 14th, 2021
Changes on October 22nd, 2021
Changes on October 30th, 2021
Changes on November 4th, 2021
Changes on November 5th, 2021
Changes on November 9th, 2021
Changes on November 12th, 2021
Changes on November 13th, 2021
Changes on November 17th, 2021
Changes on November 19th, 2021
Changes on November 22nd, 2021
Changes on December 3rd, 2021
Changes on December 6th, 2021
Changes on December 7th, 2021
Changes on December 10th, 2021
Changes on December 15th, 2021
Changes on December 21st, 2021
Changes on December 30th, 2021
Changes on January 5th, 2022
Changes on January 6th, 2022
Changes on January 7th, 2022
Changes on January 10th, 2022
Changes on January 13th, 2022
Changes on January 14th, 2022
Changes on January 15th, 2022
Changes on January 16th, 2022
Changes on January 17th, 2022
Changes on January 19th, 2022
Changes on January 20th, 2022
Changes on January 21st, 2022
Changes on January 22nd, 2022
Changes on January 23rd, 2022
Changes on January 25th, 2022
Changes on January 26th, 2022
Changes on January 27th, 2022
Changes on January 28th, 2022
Changes on January 29th, 2022
Changes on January 30th, 2022
Changes on February 1st, 2022
Changes on February 2nd, 2022
Changes on February 3rd, 2022
zubenelgenubi
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022
Post by: crandles57 on 01/23/2022 04:02 pm
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ 23rd Jan update
has the launch time as 20:00 UTC  3pm EST
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022
Post by: Orbiter on 01/23/2022 04:09 pm
Looks like the reaction frame is being picked up.

Source: SpaceFlightNow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a12sI1qKRig
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/23/2022 06:23 pm
Possible first stages for Starlink 4-7: 1052.3 or 1061.6.

No other stages will be/are known to be available yet.

These are also the possible first stages for CSG-2.

Whichever of the two that doesn't launch CSG-2, launches Starlink 4-7.

My >guess< regarding Static Fire or not would be:
No Static Fire.

(We on the outside do not know what the current disposition of B1069 is.  We have not yet seen 1053.3 with conversion work completed to single stick.)

(1051.12, 1063.4, and 1071.1 are on the west coast.)

Edited

Edit Jan 26: 1061.6, by deduction.

Edit Feb 1: 1061.6 confirmed.

Edit Feb 3: Successful launch and ASOG landing.  No Static Fire.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 01/23/2022 06:37 pm
Possible first stages for Starlink 4-7:
1052.3 or 1061.6.
No other stages will be/are known to be available yet.

These are also the possible first stages for CSG-2.

Whichever of the two that doesn't launch CSG-2, launches Starlink 4-7.

My >guess< regarding Static Fire or not would be:
No Static Fire.
I agree, although I would also add B1061 as a possibility for Starlink 4-7.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: Coveman on 01/24/2022 03:16 am
Did you mean 1069?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/24/2022 07:24 am
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ 23rd Jan update
has the launch time as 20:00 UTC  3pm EST
Further update Jan 23:
Backup launch time 23:17 UTC = 6:17 pm EST.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: gongora on 01/24/2022 01:22 pm
Quote
240447Z JAN 22
NAVAREA IV 77/22(11,26).
WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC.
FLORIDA.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, ROCKET LAUNCHING
   291950Z TO 300017Z JAN, ALTERNATE
   301929Z TO 302356Z, 311907Z TO 312334Z JAN,
   011846Z TO 012313Z AND 021824Z TO 022251Z FEB
   IN AREAS BOUND BY:
   A. 28-38-17N 080-37-11W, 28-39-00N 080-37-00W,
      28-38-00N 080-24-00W, 28-22-00N 079-55-00W,
      28-18-00N 079-56-00W, 28-33-24N 080-33-59W.
   B. 25-59-00N 076-00-00W, 26-40-00N 075-09-00W,
      25-37-00N 073-53-00W, 24-53-00N 074-44-00W.
2. CANCEL THIS MSG 022351Z FEB 22.

Quote
240427Z JAN 22
HYDROLANT 220/22(GEN).
SOUTH ATLANTIC.
SOUTHWESTERN INDIAN OCEAN.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, SPACE DEBRIS
   292135Z TO 300141Z JAN, ALTERNATE
   302114Z TO 310120Z JAN, 312052Z JAN TO
   010058Z FEB, 012031Z TO 020037Z AND
   022009Z TO 030015Z FEB IN AREA BOUND BY
   35-59S 050-22W, 35-28S 049-58W,
   37-16S 045-27W, 45-17S 028-19W,
   47-50S 020-18W, 49-51S 011-01W,
   51-05S 000-43E, 50-46S 014-54E,
   50-33S 021-34E, 46-52S 039-17E,
   43-19S 050-25E, 44-37S 051-06E,
   54-16S 018-06E, 54-22S 004-06E,
   54-22S 000-43E, 54-28S 004-31W,
   53-15S 013-27W, 51-14S 023-03W,
   47-53S 033-10W, 42-56S 042-53W,
   39-07S 048-08W.
2. CANCEL THIS MSG 030115Z FEB 22.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: Comga on 01/24/2022 04:42 pm
https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/ (https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/) 23rd Jan update
has the launch time as 20:00 UTC  3pm EST
Further update Jan 23:
Backup launch time 23:17 UTC = 6:17 pm EST.

A slip to the backup time would be just after sunset with the Sun at -4 degrees of elevation, which could make for a great “show” at staging.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: Rondaz on 01/25/2022 09:24 pm
A Shortfall of Gravitas droneship is outbound for the Starlink mission NET Jan 29 at 3pm ET.

Very busy month for ASOG whilst JRTI is out of service for work after B1069 shenanigans.

https://twitter.com/SpaceOffshore/status/1486069103429365763
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: Ken the Bin on 01/26/2022 01:53 pm
L-3 weather forecast.  80% 'Go' for January 29.  90% 'Go' for January 30.  Booster Recovery Weather risk is High for January 29 and Moderate for January 30.  All other Additional Risk Criteria are Low.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: Vettedrmr on 01/26/2022 01:56 pm
Since this is a Starlink flight I expect they'll delay to get better recovery weather.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: Spiffles on 01/26/2022 02:10 pm
Since this is a Starlink flight I expect they'll delay to get better recovery weather.

If the weather prediction holds up then I would expect that. They also might delay to give priority to CSG-2.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: lenny97 on 01/26/2022 03:05 pm
Since this is a Starlink flight I expect they'll delay to get better recovery weather.
They also might delay to give priority to CSG-2.


CSG-2 FM2 will be launched as soon as weather is acceptable for sure, but they're two separate flight from two different launch pad.
CSG-2 as RTLS allows SpaceX to launch the two mission even in a relative short timeframe.


IMO the recovery weather is the key, despite of CSG-2...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 01/26/2022 03:24 pm

https://twitter.com/Raul74Cz/status/1486374280380174338
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 01/26/2022 05:22 pm
https://everydayastronaut.com/csg-2-falcon-9-block-5/
Do for starlink 4-7 b1061.5 is confirmed
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/26/2022 05:28 pm
https://everydayastronaut.com/csg-2-falcon-9-block-5/
Do for starlink 4-7 b1061.5 is confirmed

Cross-post; same caution applies here:
https://everydayastronaut.com/csg-2-falcon-9-block-5/
B1052.3 is confirmed

It SHOULD be 1052, but on EDA's website is a guess. Austin, the writer, wrote on twitter earlier that "it seems to be 1052".

All signs are trending towards it, but in lack of HQ pics, (for me) it's not confirmed until SpaceX confirms! 😁
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: lenny97 on 01/26/2022 05:32 pm
https://everydayastronaut.com/csg-2-falcon-9-block-5/
Do for starlink 4-7 b1061.5 is confirmed

Cross-post; same caution applies here:
https://everydayastronaut.com/csg-2-falcon-9-block-5/
B1052.3 is confirmed

It SHOULD be 1052, but on EDA's website is a guess. Austin, the writer, wrote on twitter earlier that "it seems to be 1052".

All signs are trending towards it, but in lack of HQ pics, (for me) it's not confirmed until SpaceX confirms! 😁

Yes, anyway SpaceX should update the website in matter of minutes...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: Alexphysics on 01/26/2022 07:43 pm
I do know B1052 for CSG-2 is correct, not sure about the booster for this mission tho.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/26/2022 08:19 pm
(Most likely) 1061.6, and therefore no Static Fire.  Awaiting a reliable source to confirm my deduction.
Possible first stages for Starlink 4-7:
1052.3 or 1061.6.
No other stages will be/are known to be available yet.

These are also the possible first stages for CSG-2.

Whichever of the two that doesn't launch CSG-2, launches Starlink 4-7.

My >guess< regarding Static Fire or not would be:
No Static Fire.

(We on the outside do not know what the current disposition of B1069 is.  We have not yet seen 1053.3 with conversion work completed to single stick.)

Edited
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 01/27/2022 07:43 am
(Most likely) 1061.6, and therefore no Static Fire.  Awaiting a reliable source to confirm my deduction.
Possible first stages for Starlink 4-7:
1052.3 or 1061.6.
No other stages will be/are known to be available yet.

These are also the possible first stages for CSG-2.

Whichever of the two that doesn't launch CSG-2, launches Starlink 4-7.

My >guess< regarding Static Fire or not would be:
No Static Fire.

(We on the outside do not know what the current disposition of B1069 is.  We have not yet seen 1053.3 with conversion work completed to single stick.)

Edited
even I quoted b1061.5 due to this hypothesis  only
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: Ken the Bin on 01/27/2022 12:36 pm
L-2 weather forecast.  80% 'Go' for January 29.  90% 'Go' for January 30.  Booster Recovery Weather risk is High for January 29 and Moderate for January 30.  All other Additional Risk Criteria are Low.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: crandles57 on 01/27/2022 12:41 pm
(Most likely) 1061.6, and therefore no Static Fire.  Awaiting a reliable source to confirm my deduction.

How is 1063.4 ruled out?

Edit: Doh still west coast probably
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/27/2022 12:42 pm
(Most likely) 1061.6, and therefore no Static Fire.  Awaiting a reliable source to confirm my deduction.

How is 1063.4 ruled out?

I think B1063 is still in Vandenberg following DART. Just a guess.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 01/27/2022 12:49 pm
(Most likely) 1061.6, and therefore no Static Fire.  Awaiting a reliable source to confirm my deduction.

How is 1063.4 ruled out?

I think B1063 is still in Vandenberg following DART. Just a guess.
B1051, B1063 and B1071 are in Vandy
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 01/28/2022 03:42 am
Per SFN (https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/) this has now slipped to January 30 at 19:39 UTC/2:39 pm Eastern with a second window at 22:56 UTC/5:56 pm Eastern.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 30 January 2022 (19:39 UTC)
Post by: Ken the Bin on 01/28/2022 04:43 am
New cancel-and-replace NGA notices confirming the postponement.

Quote from: NGA
280432Z JAN 22
NAVAREA IV 89/22(11,26).
WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC.
FLORIDA.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, ROCKET LAUNCHING
   301929Z TO 302356Z JAN, ALTERNATE
   311907Z TO 312334Z JAN, 011846Z TO 012313Z
   AND 021824Z TO 022251Z FEB
   IN AREAS BOUND BY:
   A. 28-38-17N 080-37-11W, 28-39-00N 080-37-00W,
      28-38-00N 080-24-00W, 28-22-00N 079-55-00W,
      28-18-00N 079-56-00W, 28-33-24N 080-33-59W.
   B. 25-59-00N 076-00-00W, 26-40-00N 075-09-00W,
      25-37-00N 073-53-00W, 24-53-00N 074-44-00W.
2. CANCEL NAVAREA IV 77/22.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 022351Z FEB 22.
Quote from: NGA
280416Z JAN 22
HYDROPAC 232/22(GEN).
SOUTHWESTERN INDIAN OCEAN.
SOUTH ATLANTIC.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, SPACE DEBRIS
   302114Z TO 310120Z JAN, ALTERNATE
   312052Z JAN TO 010058Z FEB,
   012031Z TO 020037Z AND
   022009Z TO 030015Z FEB IN AREA BOUND BY
   35-59S 050-22W, 35-28S 049-58W,
   37-16S 045-27W, 45-17S 028-19W,
   47-50S 020-18W, 49-51S 011-01W,
   51-05S 000-43E, 50-46S 014-54E,
   50-33S 021-34E, 46-52S 039-17E,
   43-19S 050-25E, 44-37S 051-06E,
   54-16S 018-06E, 54-22S 004-06E,
   54-22S 000-43E, 54-28S 004-31W,
   53-15S 013-27W, 51-14S 023-03W,
   47-53S 033-10W, 42-56S 042-53W,
   39-07S 048-08W.
2. CANCEL HYDROPAC 197/22.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 030115Z FEB 22.
Quote from: NGA
280404Z JAN 22
HYDROLANT 268/22(GEN).
SOUTH ATLANTIC.
SOUTHWESTERN INDIAN OCEAN.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, SPACE DEBRIS
   302114Z TO 310120Z JAN, ALTERNATE
   312052Z JAN TO 010058Z FEB,
   012031Z TO 020037Z AND
   022009Z TO 030015Z FEB IN AREA BOUND BY
   35-59S 050-22W, 35-28S 049-58W,
   37-16S 045-27W, 45-17S 028-19W,
   47-50S 020-18W, 49-51S 011-01W,
   51-05S 000-43E, 50-46S 014-54E,
   50-33S 021-34E, 46-52S 039-17E,
   43-19S 050-25E, 44-37S 051-06E,
   54-16S 018-06E, 54-22S 004-06E,
   54-22S 000-43E, 54-28S 004-31W,
   53-15S 013-27W, 51-14S 023-03W,
   47-53S 033-10W, 42-56S 042-53W,
   39-07S 048-08W.
2. CANCEL HYDROLANT 220/22.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 030115Z FEB 22.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 31 January 2022
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/28/2022 10:18 pm
CSG-2 launch attempt on January 28 was scrubbed.  Its next attempt is in 24 hours on January 29, 23:11 UTC.

This Starlink launch will be 20 hours and 28 minutes later.

Edit Jan 29:
SFN, Weather delays set up SpaceX for two weekend launches from Cape Canaveral (https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/01/28/weather-delays-set-up-spacex-for-two-launches-from-cape-canaveral-this-weekend/), January 28
Quote
...the shortest span between two orbital departures from Florida’s Space Coast since 1967.

Moot point now, due to further developments, but I'm sure the situation will happen again.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 30 January 2022 (19:39 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 01/28/2022 10:36 pm
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1487206384852606976
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 30 January 2022 (19:39 UTC)
Post by: Ken the Bin on 01/29/2022 01:06 pm
L-1 weather forecast.  90% 'Go' for both January 30 and January 31.  Booster Recover Weather risk is Moderate for January 30.  All other Additional Risk Criteria are Low.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 30 January 2022 (19:39 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 01/29/2022 01:36 pm

Could be B1061.https://twitter.com/MadeOnEarthFou1/status/1487418202640556033 (https://twitter.com/MadeOnEarthFou1/status/1487418202640556033)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 30 January 2022 (19:39 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 01/29/2022 03:32 pm
49 satellites on this mission.
https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1487451374719807499 (https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1487451374719807499)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 30 January 2022 (19:39 UTC)
Post by: Alexphysics on 01/29/2022 04:44 pm
Delay https://twitter.com/SpaceTfrs/status/1487481451595673604
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 31 January 2022 (~19:20 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 01/29/2022 05:24 pm
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1487491402242007044
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 31 January 2022 (19:17 UTC)
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/29/2022 05:43 pm
Next Spaceflight, updated January 29:
https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/5338

Primary launch time is 19:17 UTC, January 31.  No listing yet for secondary launch time, same date.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 31 January 2022 (19:17 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 01/29/2022 07:35 pm
https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1487522342012080134
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 31 January 2022 (19:17 UTC)
Post by: Ken the Bin on 01/29/2022 07:57 pm
Next Spaceflight, updated January 29:
https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/5338

Primary launch time is 19:17 UTC, January 31.  No listing yet for secondary launch time, same date.

Secondary launch time is 22:34.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 31 January 2022 (19:17 UTC)
Post by: Ken the Bin on 01/29/2022 07:59 pm
New cancel-and-replace NGA notices:

Quote from: NGA
292009Z JAN 22
NAVAREA IV 98/22(11,26).
WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC.
FLORIDA.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, ROCKET LAUNCHING
   311907Z TO 312334Z JAN, ALTERNATE
   011846Z TO 012313Z AND 021824Z TO 022251Z FEB
   IN AREAS BOUND BY:
   A. 28-38-17N 080-37-11W, 28-39-00N 080-37-00W,
      28-38-00N 080-24-00W, 28-22-00N 079-55-00W,
      28-18-00N 079-56-00W, 28-33-24N 080-33-59W.
   B. 25-59-00N 076-00-00W, 26-40-00N 075-09-00W,
      25-37-00N 073-53-00W, 24-53-00N 074-44-00W.
2. CANCEL NAVAREA IV 89/22.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 022351Z FEB 22.
Quote from: NGA
292024Z JAN 22
HYDROPAC 249/22(GEN).
SOUTHWESTERN INDIAN OCEAN.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, SPACE DEBRIS
   312052Z JAN TO 010058Z FEB, ALTERNATE
   012031Z TO 020037Z AND
   022009Z TO 030015Z FEB IN AREA BOUND BY
   35-59S 050-22W, 35-28S 049-58W,
   37-16S 045-27W, 45-17S 028-19W,
   47-50S 020-18W, 49-51S 011-01W,
   51-05S 000-43E, 50-46S 014-54E,
   50-33S 021-34E, 46-52S 039-17E,
   43-19S 050-25E, 44-37S 051-06E,
   54-16S 018-06E, 54-22S 004-06E,
   54-22S 000-43E, 54-28S 004-31W,
   53-15S 013-27W, 51-14S 023-03W,
   47-53S 033-10W, 42-56S 042-53W,
   39-07S 048-08W.
2. CANCEL HYDROPAC 232/22.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 030115Z FEB 22.
Quote from: NGA
292031Z JAN 22
HYDROLANT 291/22(GEN).
SOUTHWESTERN INDIAN OCEAN.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, SPACE DEBRIS
   312052Z JAN TO 010058Z FEB, ALTERNATE
   012031Z TO 020037Z AND
   022009Z TO 030015Z FEB IN AREA BOUND BY
   35-59S 050-22W, 35-28S 049-58W,
   37-16S 045-27W, 45-17S 028-19W,
   47-50S 020-18W, 49-51S 011-01W,
   51-05S 000-43E, 50-46S 014-54E,
   50-33S 021-34E, 46-52S 039-17E,
   43-19S 050-25E, 44-37S 051-06E,
   54-16S 018-06E, 54-22S 004-06E,
   54-22S 000-43E, 54-28S 004-31W,
   53-15S 013-27W, 51-14S 023-03W,
   47-53S 033-10W, 42-56S 042-53W,
   39-07S 048-08W.
2. CANCEL HYDROLANT 268/22.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 030115Z FEB 22.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 31 January 2022
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/29/2022 08:35 pm
CSG-2 launch attempt on January 29 was canceled, replaced by Its next attempt in 24 hours on January 30, 23:11 UTC.

This Starlink launch will be 20 hours and 6 minutes later.

SFN article, edited and re-titled: Delays set up SpaceX for two launches in two days from Cape Canaveral (https://spaceflightnow.com/2022/01/28/weather-delays-set-up-spacex-for-two-launches-from-cape-canaveral-this-weekend/), January 28
Quote
...the shortest span between two orbital departures from Florida’s Space Coast since 1967.

Article also a source for:
Secondary launch time is 22:34.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 31 January 2022 (19:17 UTC)
Post by: Ken the Bin on 01/30/2022 01:43 pm
L-1 weather forecast.  90% 'Go' for January 31.  80% 'Go' for February 1.  All Additional Risk Criteria are Low for both days.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 31 January 2022 (19:17 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 01/30/2022 07:02 pm

Falcon 9 now vertical on 39A.https://twitter.com/MadeOnEarthFou1/status/1487782272451461123
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 31 January 2022 (19:17 UTC)
Post by: ZachS09 on 01/30/2022 09:18 pm
I think I have proof that B1061 will be used for this mission. How exactly? By examining the soot markings from the previous mission.

Here are some past pictures of B1061 before IXPE and the recent dual Falcon 9 photo SpaceX posted on Twitter.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (~18:55 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 01/30/2022 10:21 pm
Waiting for a new launch time for this mission due to the cancellation of the CSG-2 launch.

Hold was at T-33 seconds due to ship in the range. Will be trying again tomorrow.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (~18:55 UTC)
Post by: scr00chy on 01/30/2022 10:48 pm
I see the thread title was updated to a new launch date and time.

Is that in any way confirmed, or is it just someone's assumption based on the CSG-2 scrub?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: SpaceFinnOriginal on 01/30/2022 10:49 pm
A Shortfall of Gravitas droneship is outbound for the Starlink mission NET Jan 29 at 3pm ET.

Very busy month for ASOG whilst JRTI is out of service for work after B1069 shenanigans.

What tug will be used?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (~18:55 UTC)
Post by: gongora on 01/30/2022 10:58 pm
I see the thread title was updated to a new launch date and time.

Is that in any way confirmed, or is it just someone's assumption based on the CSG-2 scrub?

It's my assumption based on CSG-2 being tomorrow.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (~18:55 UTC)
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/30/2022 11:28 pm
At the end of the CSG-2 SpaceX Mission Control Audio YouTube stream, they said  "This will be our final attempt ahead of NROL 87 launch." That sounds like the Starlink launch will be after NROL 87, currently scheduled for Wednesday 2 February. Go to 59:20 in the video below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPghRBrQvNw
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (~18:55 UTC)
Post by: lenny97 on 01/30/2022 11:34 pm
At the end of the CSG-2 Space Mission Control Audio YouTube stream, they said  "This will be our final attempt ahead of NROL 87 launch." That sounds like the Starlink launch will be after NROL 87, currently scheduled for Tuesday 2 February. Go to 59:20 in the video below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPghRBrQvNw

It could also be "our final attemp (of this launch) ahead of NROL-87".

Also, for what is worth, Jami Higginbotham replied to someone saying that the three launches are back-to-back. So 31, 1 and 2.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 29 January 2022 (20:00 UTC)
Post by: vaporcobra on 01/30/2022 11:57 pm
A Shortfall of Gravitas droneship is outbound for the Starlink mission NET Jan 29 at 3pm ET.

Very busy month for ASOG whilst JRTI is out of service for work after B1069 shenanigans.

What tug will be used?

Zion Falgout left with ASOG.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (~18:55 UTC)
Post by: gongora on 01/31/2022 01:35 am
Quote
310200Z JAN 22
NAVAREA IV 107/22(11,26).
WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC.
FLORIDA.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, ROCKET LAUNCHING
   011846Z TO 012313Z, ALTERNATE
   021824Z TO 022251Z FEB
   IN AREAS BOUND BY:
   A. 28-38-17N 080-37-11W, 28-39-00N 080-37-00W,
      28-38-00N 080-24-00W, 28-22-00N 079-55-00W,
      28-18-00N 079-56-00W, 28-33-24N 080-33-59W.
   B. 25-59-00N 076-00-00W, 26-40-00N 075-09-00W,
      25-37-00N 073-53-00W, 24-53-00N 074-44-00W.
2. CANCEL NAVAREA IV 98/22.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 022351Z FEB 22.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (~18:55 UTC)
Post by: Ken the Bin on 01/31/2022 12:46 pm
L-1 weather forecast (additional evidence that SpaceX is actually planning a launch attempt for tomorrow).  90% 'Go' for February 1.  80% 'Go' for February 2.  All Additional Risk Criteria are Low for both days.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (~18:55 UTC)
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 01/31/2022 04:55 pm
SFN now confirms Feb. 1, 18:56 UTC (1:56 pm EST) (https://spaceflightnow.com/launch-schedule/) for this with 2nd window at 22:13 UTC/5:13 pm EST.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (18:56 UTC)
Post by: gongora on 01/31/2022 05:47 pm
@Ken the Bin, sorry I accidentally messed up one of your posts this morning, hit the wrong button.  Having mod controls on the screen can be dangerous when you're tired.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (18:56 UTC)
Post by: Ken the Bin on 01/31/2022 07:27 pm
@Ken the Bin, sorry I accidentally messed up one of your posts this morning, hit the wrong button.  Having mod controls on the screen can be dangerous when you're tired.

I wondered why you removed my calculated times (the first pair of which matched what Galactic Penguin SST posted from SFN).  So I just went ahead and deleted the comment entirely (which then broke vaporcobra's link in his article, sorry Eric).

My calculated times:
February 1 at 18:56 and 22:13 UTC.
February 2 at 18:34 and 21:51 UTC.

The other part of the message was the two Space Debris notices, because you accidentally posted the Rocket Launching notice three times in your comment (you must have been tired then also), which you later removed the two extra.

Quote from: NGA
310216Z JAN 22
HYDROPAC 255/22(GEN).
SOUTHWESTERN INDIAN OCEAN.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, SPACE DEBRIS
   012031Z TO 020037Z, ALTERNATE
   022009Z TO 030015Z FEB IN AREA BOUND BY
   35-59S 050-22W, 35-28S 049-58W,
   37-16S 045-27W, 45-17S 028-19W,
   47-50S 020-18W, 49-51S 011-01W,
   51-05S 000-43E, 50-46S 014-54E,
   50-33S 021-34E, 46-52S 039-17E,
   43-19S 050-25E, 44-37S 051-06E,
   54-16S 018-06E, 54-22S 004-06E,
   54-22S 000-43E, 54-28S 004-31W,
   53-15S 013-27W, 51-14S 023-03W,
   47-53S 033-10W, 42-56S 042-53W,
   39-07S 048-08W.
2. CANCEL HYDROPAC 249/22.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 030115Z FEB 22.
Quote from: NGA
310210Z JAN 22
HYDROLANT 305/22(GEN).
SOUTHWESTERN INDIAN OCEAN.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, SPACE DEBRIS
   012031Z TO 020037Z, ALTERNATE
   022009Z TO 030015Z FEB IN AREA BOUND BY
   35-59S 050-22W, 35-28S 049-58W,
   37-16S 045-27W, 45-17S 028-19W,
   47-50S 020-18W, 49-51S 011-01W,
   51-05S 000-43E, 50-46S 014-54E,
   50-33S 021-34E, 46-52S 039-17E,
   43-19S 050-25E, 44-37S 051-06E,
   54-16S 018-06E, 54-22S 004-06E,
   54-22S 000-43E, 54-28S 004-31W,
   53-15S 013-27W, 51-14S 023-03W,
   47-53S 033-10W, 42-56S 042-53W,
   39-07S 048-08W.
2. CANCEL HYDROLANT 291/22.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 030115Z FEB 22.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (18:56 UTC)
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 01/31/2022 11:07 pm
The CSG-2 launch was successful.  Let's see 👀 if there's mention of this launch in the SpaceX webcast.

No, no mention at the webcast close of either upcoming launch.

 🤔
Edit to make my thought clear: Makes one think this launch is delayed until after NROL-87.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (18:56 UTC)
Post by: emmettiscool on 01/31/2022 11:44 pm
According to TFRs the Starlink launch is Wednesday but that kind of doesn’t seem right
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (18:56 UTC)
Post by: russianhalo117 on 01/31/2022 11:46 pm
According to TFRs the Starlink launch is Wednesday but that kind of doesn’t seem right
NROL-87 likely has taken priority across all ranges for SpaceX.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (18:56 UTC)
Post by: emmettiscool on 01/31/2022 11:49 pm
According to TFRs the Starlink launch is Wednesday but that kind of doesn’t seem right
NROL-87 likely has taken priority across all ranges for SpaceX.
I guess that but it’s on the same day around 2 hours before NROL 87 unless it takes the backup window
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (18:56 UTC)
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/01/2022 12:17 am
According to TFRs the Starlink launch is Wednesday but that kind of doesn’t seem right
NROL-87 likely has taken priority across all ranges for SpaceX.
If there is an explanation of a (unconfirmed) delay of Starlink 4-7 until NET February 3, I'll be interested to hear it.

SpaceX launches within less than 24 hours of one another is now supposed to be within standard operating procedures?

I wonder if there are additional person-hours (man-hours) required for the actual launch day of a national security launch?  (Or HSF and/or crewed launch?)

And, it's just easier to slightly delay the Starlink launch because it's for the internal customer?

Or, did the five attempts to launch CSG-2 eat into labor costs?  Ending in the same result?

(Direct labor costs for wage employees, especially in terms of overtime.  For salaried employees, indirect costs.)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (18:56 UTC)
Post by: Ken the Bin on 02/01/2022 12:17 am
According to TFRs the Starlink launch is Wednesday but that kind of doesn’t seem right
NROL-87 likely has taken priority across all ranges for SpaceX.
I guess that but it’s on the same day around 2 hours before NROL 87 unless it takes the backup window

I wonder if someone at the FAA messed up when they were deleting TFRs after today's CSG-2 launch, because what is out there for tomorrow is for CSG-2.  Maybe they meant to delete tomorrow's CSG-2 and deleted tomorrow's Starlink 4-7 instead.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (18:56 UTC)
Post by: Alexphysics on 02/01/2022 12:39 am
The TFR's are right
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (18:56 UTC)
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 02/01/2022 01:33 am
Why are there range problems no problem happened with launch of tursat 5b and starlink 4-4
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (18:56 UTC)
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 02/01/2022 02:01 am
Why are there range problems no problem happened with launch of tursat 5b and starlink 4-4

Why do you think there are “range problems”?

And a word of advice: you’re new to NSF. Please post less and read more until you catch up on the usual terminology and are familiar with how SpaceX conducts their operations. You’re causing a lot of needless confusion with your posts in the SpaceX mission threads.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (18:56 UTC)
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/01/2022 06:16 am
Launch Photography (http://www.launchphotography.com/Launch_Viewing_Guide.html), updated January 31 after the CSG-2 launch, states the Starlink 4-7 launch will be on February 1, at the already noted times, or on February 2, with no times given.

Launch for the 53 and 53.2 degrees inclination Starlink launches is 20 to 22 minutes earlier per day.

My calculated times:
February 1 at 18:56 and 22:13 UTC.
February 2 at 18:34 and 21:51 UTC.

However, the above is inconsistent with the information that this launch will be after the NROL-87 launch from Vandenberg on February 2, 20:18 UTC.

My interpretation is as early as February 3, not within the next hour on the same day.

We now know the Astra Rocket launch from Canaveral is scheduled for February 5 or 7.

Edit: My interpretation was wrong.  Launches:
NROL-87 Feb 2, 20:18 UTC
Starlink Feb 2, 21:51 UTC, 93 minutes later
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (18:56 UTC)
Post by: ATPTourFan on 02/01/2022 10:57 am
I could simply see SpaceX wanting to give their teams a break to avoid 6 consecutive days on console and running procedures at the pad. Starlink 4-7 has no schedule pressure, so this one launch can slip for human reasons.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (18:56 UTC)
Post by: crandles57 on 02/01/2022 11:24 am
I could simply see SpaceX wanting to give their teams a break to avoid 6 consecutive days on console and running procedures at the pad. Starlink 4-7 has no schedule pressure, so this one launch can slip for human reasons.

The sooner this one flys the sooner ASOG will be ready for next flight. If JRTI is out of action for a while longer, ASOG availability may be the dominant restriction on upcoming launches?

But yes it is possible that starlink production or something else means this doesn't matter.

 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (18:56 UTC)
Post by: scr00chy on 02/01/2022 11:58 am
Looks like a one day delay:

Quote
The next SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch another Starlink batch on February 2 at 4:51pm EST

http://www.launchphotography.com/Launch_Viewing_Guide.html
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (18:56 UTC)
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 02/01/2022 12:00 pm
Looks like a one day delay:

Quote
The next SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch another Starlink batch on February 2 at 4:51pm EST

http://www.launchphotography.com/Launch_Viewing_Guide.html

Very likely a 2 day slip however, highly doubt they can do NROL and this within like 2 hours.

Also a chance NROL slipped a day but guess we will see.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (18:56 UTC)
Post by: Alexphysics on 02/01/2022 12:05 pm
NROL-87 didn't slip and they can do those two launches in under 2 hours.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 1 February 2022 (18:56 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 02/01/2022 12:38 pm
This is just a taste of what SpaceX wants to do in 2022, the first will be a new record between the shortest time between two missions.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 2 February 2022 (21:51 UTC)
Post by: Ken the Bin on 02/01/2022 01:00 pm
L-1 weather forecast.  80% 'Go' for February 2.  70% 'Go' for February 3.  Booster Recovery Weather risk is Moderate for February 3.  All other Additional Risk Criteria are Low.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 2 February 2022 (21:51 UTC)
Post by: ZachS09 on 02/01/2022 01:35 pm
Why would they delay Starlink 4-7 if it and NROL-87 are on two different coasts? Is it too much work for the launch teams?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 2 February 2022 (21:51 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 02/01/2022 01:54 pm
Why would they delay Starlink 4-7 if it and NROL-87 are on two different coasts? Is it too much work for the launch teams?
SpaceX has the capability to support both launches, the only thing that makes me curious will be the NROL-87 deployment as we might see the 4-7 launch first than the NROL-87 deployment, but we will know once SpaceX posts the information on their website.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 2 February 2022 (21:51 UTC)
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 02/01/2022 01:56 pm
https://mobile.twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1488504252028928000
What I mmmmeeeeeeeeeeaaaasannnnn seriously. SpaceX sought to break the Gemini 8 Atlas Agena world record
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 2 February 2022 (21:51 UTC)
Post by: Alexphysics on 02/01/2022 02:02 pm
Not a world record, several Soyuz launches have happened even within minutes from each other.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 2 February 2022 (21:51 UTC)
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 02/01/2022 03:27 pm
Not a world record, several Soyuz launches have happened even within minutes from each other.
any example?? Also even though this might not become a world record, it will become a American records
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 2 February 2022 (21:51 UTC)
Post by: Vettedrmr on 02/01/2022 03:30 pm
Not a world record, several Soyuz launches have happened even within minutes from each other.
any example??

Did you go look?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 2 February 2022 (21:51 UTC)
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 02/01/2022 03:39 pm
Not a world record, several Soyuz launches have happened even within minutes from each other.
any example??

Did you go look?
OK found 22 July 1969 with 25 minutes apart so this is alright
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 2 February 2022 (21:51 UTC)
Post by: Ken the Bin on 02/01/2022 04:31 pm
No new NGA Rocket Launching notice for the delay to February 2, even though I received these two new cancel-and-replace Space Debris a couple of hours ago.  (I held them, waiting for the Rocket Launching notice to show up.)

Also (not based on these notices), I've calculated for the February 3 backup day:
February 3 at 18:13 and 21:30.

Quote from: NGA
011454Z FEB 22
HYDROPAC 277/22(GEN).
SOUTHWESTERN INDIAN OCEAN.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, SPACE DEBRIS
   022326Z TO 030012Z, ALTERNATE
   031948Z TO 032354Z FEB IN AREA BOUND BY
   35-59S 050-22W, 35-28S 049-58W,
   37-16S 045-27W, 45-17S 028-19W,
   47-50S 020-18W, 49-51S 011-01W,
   51-05S 000-43E, 50-46S 014-54E,
   50-33S 021-34E, 46-52S 039-17E,
   43-19S 050-25E, 44-37S 051-06E,
   54-16S 018-06E, 54-22S 004-06E,
   54-22S 000-43E, 54-28S 004-31W,
   53-15S 013-27W, 51-14S 023-03W,
   47-53S 033-10W, 42-56S 042-53W,
   39-07S 048-08W.
2. CANCEL HYDROPAC 255/22.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 040054Z FEB 22.
Quote from: NGA
011506Z FEB 22
HYDROLANT 322/22(GEN).
SOUTHWESTERN INDIAN OCEAN.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, SPACE DEBRIS
   022326Z TO 030012Z, ALTERNATE
   031948Z TO 032354Z FEB IN AREA BOUND BY
   35-59S 050-22W, 35-28S 049-58W,
   37-16S 045-27W, 45-17S 028-19W,
   47-50S 020-18W, 49-51S 011-01W,
   51-05S 000-43E, 50-46S 014-54E,
   50-33S 021-34E, 46-52S 039-17E,
   43-19S 050-25E, 44-37S 051-06E,
   54-16S 018-06E, 54-22S 004-06E,
   54-22S 000-43E, 54-28S 004-31W,
   53-15S 013-27W, 51-14S 023-03W,
   47-53S 033-10W, 42-56S 042-53W,
   39-07S 048-08W.
2. CANCEL HYDROLANT 305/22.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 040054Z FEB 22.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 2 February 2022 (21:51 UTC)
Post by: Ken the Bin on 02/01/2022 05:58 pm
The new cancel-and-replace NGA Rocket Launching notice finally arrived.

Quote from: NGA
011746Z FEB 22
NAVAREA IV 113/22(11,26).
WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC.
FLORIDA.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, ROCKET LAUNCHING
   022141Z TO 022248Z, ALTERNATE
   031803Z TO 032230Z FEB
   IN AREAS BOUND BY:
   A. 28-38-17N 080-37-11W, 28-39-00N 080-37-00W,
      28-38-00N 080-24-00W, 28-22-00N 079-55-00W,
      28-18-00N 079-56-00W, 28-33-24N 080-33-59W.
   B. 25-59-00N 076-00-00W, 26-40-00N 075-09-00W,
      25-37-00N 073-53-00W, 24-53-00N 074-44-00W.
2. CANCEL NAVAREA IV 107/22.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 032330Z FEB 22.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 2 February 2022 (21:51 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 02/01/2022 10:03 pm
SpaceX already posted the information of this launch on its website although it does not yet appear on the main website, the livestream is this (currently private):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY3fZ6PwuUY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY3fZ6PwuUY)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 2 February 2022 (21:51 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 02/01/2022 10:05 pm
It also confirms that B1061 will support this mission.
The first paragraph is wrong, although it won't take long to correct it.
Quote
The booster supporting this mission previously launched Crew-1, Crew-2, SXM-8, CRS-23, and IXPE. Following stage separation, SpaceX will land Falcon 9’s first stage on the A Shortfall of Gravitas droneship, which will be stationed in the Atlantic Ocean. One fairing half previously supported five Starlink missions, and the other half previously supported Transporter-1 and two Starlink missions.
https://www.spacex.com/launches/sl4-7/ (https://www.spacex.com/launches/sl4-7/)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 2 February 2022 (21:51 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 02/02/2022 12:26 am
https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1488683762191777793
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 2 February 2022 (21:51 UTC)
Post by: Spiffles on 02/02/2022 01:36 am
https://twitter.com/Alexphysics13/status/1488702677827694595?s=20&t=uuqZeI842l3ux_Qmn2JyTQ
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 2 February 2022 (21:51 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 02/02/2022 01:46 am
https://twitter.com/Alexphysics13/status/1488702677827694595?s=20&t=uuqZeI842l3ux_Qmn2JyTQ (https://twitter.com/Alexphysics13/status/1488702677827694595?s=20&t=uuqZeI842l3ux_Qmn2JyTQ)
The record will have to wait a bit :'( , hopefully there will be more opportunities later this year.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 2 February 2022 (21:51 UTC)
Post by: AndyH on 02/02/2022 03:37 am
Possibly...

Quote
020427Z FEB 22
NAVAREA IV 116/22(11,26).
WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC.
FLORIDA.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, ROCKET LAUNCHING
   031803Z TO 032230Z FEB, ALTERNATE
   041741Z TO 042208Z FEB
   IN AREAS BOUND BY:
   A. 28-38-17N 080-37-11W, 28-39-00N 080-37-00W,
      28-38-00N 080-24-00W, 28-22-00N 079-55-00W,
      28-18-00N 079-56-00W, 28-33-24N 080-33-59W.
   B. 25-59-00N 076-00-00W, 26-40-00N 075-09-00W,
      25-37-00N 073-53-00W, 24-53-00N 074-44-00W.
2. CANCEL NAVAREA IV 113/22.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 042308Z FEB 22.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 2 February 2022 (21:51 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 02/02/2022 03:56 am
https://twitter.com/EmreKelly/status/1488737137436639237
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 2 February 2022 (21:51 UTC)
Post by: Ken the Bin on 02/02/2022 03:58 am
Possibly...

Quote
020427Z FEB 22
NAVAREA IV 116/22(11,26).
WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC.
FLORIDA.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, ROCKET LAUNCHING
   031803Z TO 032230Z FEB, ALTERNATE
   041741Z TO 042208Z FEB
   IN AREAS BOUND BY:
   A. 28-38-17N 080-37-11W, 28-39-00N 080-37-00W,
      28-38-00N 080-24-00W, 28-22-00N 079-55-00W,
      28-18-00N 079-56-00W, 28-33-24N 080-33-59W.
   B. 25-59-00N 076-00-00W, 26-40-00N 075-09-00W,
      25-37-00N 073-53-00W, 24-53-00N 074-44-00W.
2. CANCEL NAVAREA IV 113/22.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 042308Z FEB 22.

Not "possibly", but "yes", that's official confirmation of the postponement to February 3.

My calculated launch times.
February 3 at 18:13 and 21:30 UTC.
February 4 at 17:51 and 21:08 UTC.

The associated Space Debris notices:
Quote from: NGA
020441Z FEB 22
HYDROPAC 282/22(GEN).
SOUTHWESTERN INDIAN OCEAN.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, SPACE DEBRIS
   031948Z TO 032354Z FEB, ALTERNATE
   041926Z TO 042332Z FEB IN AREA BOUND BY
   35-59S 050-22W, 35-28S 049-58W,
   37-16S 045-27W, 45-17S 028-19W,
   47-50S 020-18W, 49-51S 011-01W,
   51-05S 000-43E, 50-46S 014-54E,
   50-33S 021-34E, 46-52S 039-17E,
   43-19S 050-25E, 44-37S 051-06E,
   54-16S 018-06E, 54-22S 004-06E,
   54-22S 000-43E, 54-28S 004-31W,
   53-15S 013-27W, 51-14S 023-03W,
   47-53S 033-10W, 42-56S 042-53W,
   39-07S 048-08W.
2. CANCEL HYDROPAC 277/22.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 050032Z FEB 22.
Quote from: NGA
020437Z FEB 22
HYDROLANT 325/22(GEN).
SOUTHWESTERN INDIAN OCEAN.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, SPACE DEBRIS
   031948Z TO 032354Z FEB, ALTERNATE
   041926Z TO 042332Z FEB IN AREA BOUND BY
   35-59S 050-22W, 35-28S 049-58W,
   37-16S 045-27W, 45-17S 028-19W,
   47-50S 020-18W, 49-51S 011-01W,
   51-05S 000-43E, 50-46S 014-54E,
   50-33S 021-34E, 46-52S 039-17E,
   43-19S 050-25E, 44-37S 051-06E,
   54-16S 018-06E, 54-22S 004-06E,
   54-22S 000-43E, 54-28S 004-31W,
   53-15S 013-27W, 51-14S 023-03W,
   47-53S 033-10W, 42-56S 042-53W,
   39-07S 048-08W.
2. CANCEL HYDROLANT 322/22.
3. CANCEL THIS MSG 050032Z FEB 22.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 2 February 2022 (21:51 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 02/02/2022 06:23 am
https://youtu.be/UY3fZ6PwuUY
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 2 February 2022 (21:51 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 02/02/2022 06:24 am

Starlink 4-7 now February 3.
Quote
SpaceX is targeting Thursday, February 3 for a Falcon 9 launch of 49 Starlink satellites to low Earth orbit from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The instantaneous launch window is at 1:13 p.m. EST (18:13 UTC), and a backup opportunity is available on Friday, February 4 at 12:51 p.m. EST (17:51 UTC).
https://www.spacex.com/launches/sl4-7/index.html
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Ken the Bin on 02/02/2022 12:50 pm
L-1 weather forecast.  80% 'Go' for February 3.  70% 'Go' for February 4.  Booster Recovery Weather risk is Moderate for February 3.  All other Additional Risk Criteria are Low.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: soltasto on 02/02/2022 06:01 pm
"Press kit" capture with OCR, plus bonus
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/02/2022 11:26 pm
Cross-post:
http://www.launchphotography.com/Launch_Viewing_Guide.html
Update February 2
Quote
The next SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch another Starlink batch on February 3 at 1:13pm or 4:30pm EST.
= 18:13 or 21:30 UTC
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: ZachS09 on 02/03/2022 01:52 am
https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1488923240852377603
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 02/03/2022 09:24 am
https://twitter.com/SpaceTfrs/status/1488948157820063744?s=20&t=iuT4VVDWfIW2KqySFoFsLw
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Rondaz on 02/03/2022 01:28 pm
Another Falcon 9 launch is on tap at 1:13pm EST today from the Cape (it's the one on the right below); and Astra's small-sat launcher could see its first flight from here as early as Saturday afternoon.

Find out where to watch these if you're around

https://twitter.com/LaunchPhoto/status/1489239298075418631
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Elthiryel on 02/03/2022 02:20 pm
It's going to be a sixth flight for one of the fairing halves, this is going to be a new record.

It has to be the same fairing that flew for the fifth time with Starlink V1.0 L28 mission.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 02/03/2022 02:36 pm
It's going to be a sixth flight for one of the fairing halves, this is going to be a new record.

It has to be the same fairing that flew for the fifth time with Starlink V1.0 L28 mission.

Fairing flights

Activate: Starlink-0, Starlink-5, Starlink-12, Starlink-17, Starlink-28
Passive: Transporter-1, Starlink-21, Starlink-28
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: wannamoonbase on 02/03/2022 02:38 pm
It's going to be a sixth flight for one of the fairing halves, this is going to be a new record.

It has to be the same fairing that flew for the fifth time with Starlink V1.0 L28 mission.

Fairing flights

Activate: Starlink-0, Starlink-5, Starlink-12, Starlink-17, Starlink-28
Passive: Transporter-1, Starlink-21, Starlink-28

6 times, that is really impressive, especially since they had been making design changes as well as learning how to recover the fairing and spent that time with the nets. 

It's the quiet part of the process now, but the fairing recovery is amazing to me, and surely it enables the high flight rate for Starlink.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 02/03/2022 03:27 pm
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1489272439234125827
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1489272440333111304
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 02/03/2022 04:32 pm
Starlink 4-7 Mission Control Audio
https://youtu.be/JvCiyvZ_G_o
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 02/03/2022 04:59 pm
Vehicle prop loading well.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/03/2022 05:01 pm
NSF webcast already in progress.
SpaceX webcast starting now.

Third SpaceX launch of a trio!
CSG-2, January 31, from Canaveral SLC-40;

NROL-87, February 2, from Vandenberg SLC-4E;

And now, Starlink 4-7, from Kennedy LC-39A.

Countdown proceeding smoothly.

Launch and landing location views.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/03/2022 05:10 pm
Plug for Starlink premium service.

Under 5 minutes to liftoff.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/03/2022 05:13 pm
Propellant loads completed.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/03/2022 05:18 pm
Liftoff!
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/03/2022 05:22 pm
MECO, stage separation, fairings separation.

View from ground tracking camera of first stage boostback burn and the fairings.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 02/03/2022 05:24 pm
Stage 1 has landed.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: HVM on 02/03/2022 05:26 pm
Somewhat heavy swell, and booster swing...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: ppb on 02/03/2022 05:29 pm
Stage 1 has landed.
Bullseye. It’s hard to get any more accurate.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/03/2022 05:30 pm
1st/2nd stage camera views, including entry burn.

ASOG landing, but the ASOG camera view frozen from several seconds earlier.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 02/03/2022 05:32 pm
Starlink deploy to be confirmed later due to blackout. View of first stage on deck at the end. Looked to be wobbling around a little.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 02/03/2022 05:38 pm
Second stage camera view of Merlin-Vac after SECO.

SpaceX live webcast coverage ends now, but audio channel remains open. There will be no telemetry links to a ground station until approximately T+ 1 hour, 20 minutes. This is after Starlink cluster deployment.

Social media will provide updates.

Signed off.



Congratulations SpaceX!  And thank you to our NSF webcast team!

That's the third successful SpaceX launch of what I call a "trio"!

CSG-2, January 31, from Canaveral SLC-40;

NROL-87, February 2, from Vandenberg SLC-4E;

Starlink 4-7, February 3, from Kennedy LC-39A.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 02/03/2022 06:05 pm
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1489303668872683522?s=20&t=Xzt-CML8GuVNIIWxsJHn7Q
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 02/03/2022 06:05 pm
https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1489293395323461645?s=20&t=Xzt-CML8GuVNIIWxsJHn7Q
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 02/03/2022 06:06 pm
https://twitter.com/the_space_nut/status/1489312343238586369?s=20&t=Xzt-CML8GuVNIIWxsJHn7Q
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 02/03/2022 06:07 pm
https://twitter.com/Zshauladventure/status/1489306079662153735?s=20&t=Xzt-CML8GuVNIIWxsJHn7Q
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 02/03/2022 06:07 pm
https://twitter.com/ABernNYC/status/1489308836938846208?s=20&t=Xzt-CML8GuVNIIWxsJHn7Q
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 02/03/2022 06:07 pm
https://twitter.com/EmreKelly/status/1489304383087075332?s=20&t=Xzt-CML8GuVNIIWxsJHn7Q
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 02/03/2022 06:08 pm
https://twitter.com/johnkrausphotos/status/1489302670103957506?s=20&t=Xzt-CML8GuVNIIWxsJHn7Q
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 02/03/2022 06:08 pm
https://twitter.com/Zshauladventure/status/1489304920478076928?s=20&t=Xzt-CML8GuVNIIWxsJHn7Q
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 02/03/2022 06:09 pm
https://twitter.com/JennyHPhoto/status/1489307033157476361?s=20&t=Xzt-CML8GuVNIIWxsJHn7Qhttps://twitter.com/JennyHPhoto/status/1489307923394314245?s=20&t=Xzt-CML8GuVNIIWxsJHn7Q
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: kdhilliard on 02/03/2022 06:43 pm
Starlink separation confirmed.

From Starlink Mission Control Audio:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=JvCiyvZ_G_o&t=2h23m27s
Quote
Starlink separation confirmed.
[20 seconds later]
Mvac engine chill is in progress.
[Mission Control Audio webcast ends 1 minute later]

[Edited to add webcast time-link.]
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: RocketLover0119 on 02/03/2022 06:45 pm
Congrats to SpaceX on launch #3 this week!

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1489323574309441541
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/03/2022 07:18 pm
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1489303668872683522?s=20&t=Xzt-CML8GuVNIIWxsJHn7Q
Falcon 9 v1.2 is now up to 119 consecutive orbital launch successes, not including the AMOS 6 ground accident.  (v1.1 and v1.2 were intermingled for a bit.)  With v1.1 and v1.2 combined there have been 120 124 consecutive (orbital) successes if I'm counting right.

On two occasions (1983-86 and 1990-96) R-7 based launchers recorded 133 consecutive mission successes.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 02/03/2022 07:32 pm
https://twitter.com/whoisheartbreak/status/1489328981618790403?s=20&t=2mBmKrqEu_4-KpHeVxMjXg
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: mandrewa on 02/03/2022 08:28 pm
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1489303668872683522?s=20&t=Xzt-CML8GuVNIIWxsJHn7Q
Falcon 9 v1.2 is now up to 119 consecutive orbital launch successes, not including the AMOS 6 ground accident.  (v1.1 and v1.2 were intermingled for a bit.)  With v1.1 and v1.2 combined there have been 124 consecutive successes if I'm counting right.

On two occasions (1983-86 and 1990-96) R-7 based launchers recorded 133 consecutive mission successes.

 - Ed Kyle

I'm counting 121 consecutive successful Falcon 9 launches.  There were 24 Falcon 9 FT launch attempts, all successful, 12 Falcon Block 4 launch attempts, all successful, and 84 Falcon Block 5 launch attempts, all successful.  Plus we add the last Falcon 9 ver. 1.1 launch attempt, which was successful, and the one before that was a failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/03/2022 08:55 pm
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1489303668872683522?s=20&t=Xzt-CML8GuVNIIWxsJHn7Q
Falcon 9 v1.2 is now up to 119 consecutive orbital launch successes, not including the AMOS 6 ground accident.  (v1.1 and v1.2 were intermingled for a bit.)  With v1.1 and v1.2 combined there have been 124 consecutive successes if I'm counting right.

On two occasions (1983-86 and 1990-96) R-7 based launchers recorded 133 consecutive mission successes.

 - Ed Kyle

I'm counting 121 consecutive successful Falcon 9 launches.  There were 24 Falcon 9 FT launch attempts, all successful, 12 Falcon Block 4 launch attempts, all successful, and 84 Falcon Block 5 launch attempts, all successful.  Plus we add the last Falcon 9 ver. 1.1 launch attempt, which was successful, and the one before that was a failure.
121 for Falcon 9.  You are right.  I accidentally included the three Heavy launches.  But we are also both counting the suborbital flight, which means there have only been 120 consecutive successful orbital flights I think.  Eric Berger's 112, then, appears to be only since AMOS 6 and includes the suborbital launch.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: mandrewa on 02/03/2022 09:18 pm
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1489303668872683522?s=20&t=Xzt-CML8GuVNIIWxsJHn7Q
Falcon 9 v1.2 is now up to 119 consecutive orbital launch successes, not including the AMOS 6 ground accident.  (v1.1 and v1.2 were intermingled for a bit.)  With v1.1 and v1.2 combined there have been 124 consecutive successes if I'm counting right.

On two occasions (1983-86 and 1990-96) R-7 based launchers recorded 133 consecutive mission successes.

 - Ed Kyle

I'm counting 121 consecutive successful Falcon 9 launches.  There were 24 Falcon 9 FT launch attempts, all successful, 12 Falcon Block 4 launch attempts, all successful, and 84 Falcon Block 5 launch attempts, all successful.  Plus we add the last Falcon 9 ver. 1.1 launch attempt, which was successful, and the one before that was a failure.
121 for Falcon 9.  You are right.  I accidentally included the three Heavy launches.  But we are also both counting the suborbital flight, which means there have only been 120 consecutive successful orbital flights I think.  Eric Berger's 112, then, appears to be only since AMOS 6 and includes the suborbital launch.

 - Ed Kyle

Yes, you are right.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Rondaz on 02/03/2022 10:19 pm
Falcon 9 rises over the Space Coast for the second time this week.

It’s a good thing booster *and* fairing reuse is working out so well. I get the feeling us locals are in for a busy year! Who’s complaining?

https://twitter.com/spacecoast_stve/status/1489366023329525763
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: OneSpeed on 02/04/2022 02:03 am
Here is a comparison of the webcast telemetry for Starlink 4-6 and 4-7.

Peas in a pod.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: JuaniX on 02/04/2022 02:17 am
My table with times during the launch, created from this tweet:
https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1488923240852377603
Quote from: Tw @TSKelso
CelesTrak has updated the pre-launch SupTLEs for the #Starlink Group 4-7 launch to reflect a new launch date of 2022-02-03 18:13:20 UTC with deployment at 2022-02-03 18:28:55.780 UTC, per @SpaceX: https://celestrak.com/NORAD/elements/supplemental/

Considered for lift-off and deployment.

And from the official livestream:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=UY3fZ6PwuUY

Here it is:
T+min:sec   UTC      Event
00:00      18:13:20      Lift-off
01:00      18:14:20      Supersonic
01:14      18:14:34      MaxQ
02:30      18:15:50      MECO
02:40      18:16:00      Stage sep 1-2
02:49      18:16:09      SES-1
02:54      18:16:14      Fairing sep
06:51      18:20:11      Entry burn
07:11      18:20:31      Entry burn complete
07:57      18:21:17      Transonic
08:28      18:21:48      Landing burn
08:49      18:22:09      Landing
08:59      18:22:19      SECO-1
15:36      18:28:56      Starlink 4-7 deployment

Cheers!
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Lars-J on 02/04/2022 02:30 am
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1489303668872683522?s=20&t=Xzt-CML8GuVNIIWxsJHn7Q
Falcon 9 v1.2 is now up to 119 consecutive orbital launch successes, not including the AMOS 6 ground accident.  (v1.1 and v1.2 were intermingled for a bit.)  With v1.1 and v1.2 combined there have been 120 124 consecutive (orbital) successes if I'm counting right.

On two occasions (1983-86 and 1990-96) R-7 based launchers recorded 133 consecutive mission successes.

 - Ed Kyle

A response tweet by SpaceX employee Jon Edwards (VP of Falcon Launch Vehicles) on the subject of Amos-6:

https://twitter.com/edwards345/status/1489073789342081025

Quote
Jon Edwards @edwards345
Replying to @SciGuySpace
@SciGuySpace We always count AMOS-6 at SpaceX. That was 100% a mission failure.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: scr00chy on 02/04/2022 11:22 am
https://twitter.com/LaunchPhoto/status/1489346690062635016?s=20&t=bBSMmNq4too0T56dJpwjcQ
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 02/04/2022 02:07 pm
https://twitter.com/nkknspace/status/1489312817408737281?s=20&t=8RwxrwYjIUUiEZH5NQhFdg
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/04/2022 03:47 pm
Don't know why Elon is supporting Eric Berger's tweet when it is proved wrong here.
It all depends on one's criteria.  Main problem with Berger's number is that it includes a suborbital launch.  If we're going to include suborbital success strings we're going to have to compare against Minuteman, Polaris, etc., and those ran far beyond this number.  AMOS 6 was obviously a failed launch campaign, but it was not a launch.  Etc.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Alexphysics on 02/04/2022 04:53 pm
If you don't count suborbital launches, take into account Amos 6, and don't count Falcon Heavy flights... Falcon 9 has 111 launches in a row successfully. Eric counting IFA really doesn't change much because the previous record was at 100 so 111 or 112 doesn't matter. Many people seem to not be able to do simple maths these days...
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: crandles57 on 02/04/2022 05:13 pm
Don't know why Elon is supporting Eric Berger's tweet when it is proved wrong here.
It all depends on one's criteria.  Main problem with Berger's number is that it includes a suborbital launch.  If we're going to include suborbital success strings we're going to have to compare against Minuteman, Polaris, etc., and those ran far beyond this number.  AMOS 6 was obviously a failed launch campaign, but it was not a launch.  Etc.

 - Ed Kyle

It says

"The Falcon 9 rocket has now flown more consecutive successful missions, 111, than any orbital rocket in history."

If it said 111 consecutive successful orbital flights that would be wrong, but the case of a deliberate suborbital flight by a rocket that has reached orbit many times being successful is clearly 'a successful mission by an orbital class rocket'.

It also seems right to regard the AMOS 6 *mission* as a failure - the payload was destroyed. While there wasn't a flight, there was an unsuccessful mission.

So it seems to me to be entirely accurate and also devoid of any hint of deceitful slight of hand that would be present in a claim of 121 consecutive successful flights. It is the right thing to do to reduce 121 to 112 and the wording is clear and accurate.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/04/2022 05:30 pm
Amos 6 wasn’t even a launch attempt. It was a ground testing error if you wanted to call it something. While it is certainly arguable either way, I wouldn’t call this deceitful slight of hand.

Anyway, people will be arguing about it and then SpaceX will (likely) get to 130 in a few months anyway, making it a moot point. ;)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Craftyatom on 02/04/2022 05:46 pm
On two occasions (1983-86 and 1990-96) R-7 based launchers recorded 133 consecutive mission successes.
Eric counting IFA really doesn't change much because the previous record was at 100 so 111 or 112 doesn't matter.
This is the part that's causing some confusion, AIUI.

Eric Berger's article counts individual Soyuz versions, and the longest streak on any individual version is 100 with Soyuz-U (unless you consider Cosmos 2243 as a success, in which case the streak is 112).  However, if you count the R-7 family as a whole, the streak is 133, including Soyuz-U, Soyuz-U2, Molniya-M, and Vostok-2M rockets.

This is where the "family" definitions become problematic.  Falcon 9 also has "variants": v1.0, v1.1, v1.2 ("Full Thrust" or FT), Block 4, Block 5 (and of course Falcon Heavy of various versions), and the 112 success streak cited in the article includes FT, Block 4, and Block 5 (and Falcon Heavy versions thereof) since AMOS-6.

I don't think it's too contentious to say that if Falcon Heavy is included, the R-7 family as a whole should be included, since FH and F9 are significantly different stage layouts.  What makes this more difficult is if you don't include Falcon Heavy - then F9's streak becomes 109, and the question then becomes whether the different F9 variants are as significant as the R-7 variants.

The difference between an F9 FT and an F9 B5 is clearly less than the difference between an R-7 ICBM and a Soyuz-2 (and let's not even start with Soyuz-2.1v).  But it's probably more significant than the difference between a Soyuz-U and Soyuz-FG.  Soyuz-U and Soyuz-U2 differed almost only by propellant - but propellant choice is one of the core features of a rocket design, so are they very similar or very different?  The Molniya series had improved thrust off the pad, but also a different final stage - but is that stage difference on the same level as having two extra cores?

"The R-7 Family" has existed for so long, and covered so many vehicles (some with 17% success rates and some with 97% success rates), that it is no longer a useful delineation for the purposes of such discussion.  However, since "variants" or "versions" are designated by the launch provider, they're also not useful for comparisons, since the manner in which they're assigned differs from provider to provider.  All variants are different, but not all by the same amount - and even rockets within the same variant can have significant differences.

In a class I took on computer modeling, the professor retold a story about a king who wanted an accurate map of his lands.  The cartographers made many maps, but each time they ended up missing some of the details the king found most important.  In the end, he was finally satisfied with a map the size of the kingdom itself - though for some reason it never got used.  In the end, all launchers have only a 0% or 100% success rate - but that's not exactly a useful point of comparison, is it.

I just can't wait until the end of the year, when - all going well - this whole debate will be moot.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: mandrewa on 02/04/2022 05:47 pm
Don't know why Elon is supporting Eric Berger's tweet when it is proved wrong here.
It all depends on one's criteria.  Main problem with Berger's number is that it includes a suborbital launch.  If we're going to include suborbital success strings we're going to have to compare against Minuteman, Polaris, etc., and those ran far beyond this number.  AMOS 6 was obviously a failed launch campaign, but it was not a launch.  Etc.

 - Ed Kyle

It says

"The Falcon 9 rocket has now flown more consecutive successful missions, 111, than any orbital rocket in history."

If it said 111 consecutive successful orbital flights that would be wrong, but the case of a deliberate suborbital flight by a rocket that has reached orbit many times being successful is clearly 'a successful mission by an orbital class rocket'.

It also seems right to regard the AMOS 6 *mission* as a failure - the payload was destroyed. While there wasn't a flight, there was an unsuccessful mission.

So it seems to me to be entirely accurate and also devoid of any hint of deceitful slight of hand that would be present in a claim of 121 consecutive successful flights. It is the right thing to do to reduce 121 to 112 and the wording is clear and accurate.

Amos 6 was not lost during a launch attempt.  Amos 6 was lost because they were experimenting with a very rapid LOX load.  And they wouldn't have used that very rapid LOX load in the launch procedure they had already established for the Falcon 9 FT.

But who knows, maybe if that very rapid LOX load had worked during that static fire, and they obviously had every expectation it was going to work, they would have eventually used it on an actual launch attempt.

Now whether or not a person thinks Amos 6 should have counted as a launch failure depends on what they are trying to do.  Ed Kyle has been keeping statistics on rockets launches for many years.  And he already had a definition long predating Amos 6 for what constituted a success and failure.  And by that definition Amos 6 was not an attempted launch and therefore shouldn't count.

I don't think it should be counted as a launch failure.  But then my perspective is that I'm trying to figure out the inherent reliability of the rocket and I'm not sure how relevant this failed experimental expansion of the envelope for the Falcon is to that.  But if I were looking at it from the perspective of a company looking to hire SpaceX to launch my payload into orbit, I would definitely count it as a failure!

But now if I were SpaceX I wouldn't try to argue this. It's just not worth it.  There are too many people around like you, crandles57, who would think it would be deceptive to not count Amos 6 or Alexphysics who seems to be saying that it's a math error if someone doesn't count Amos 6 as a failed launch attempt.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 02/04/2022 06:21 pm
Don't know why Elon is supporting Eric Berger's tweet when it is proved wrong here.
It all depends on one's criteria.  Main problem with Berger's number is that it includes a suborbital launch.  If we're going to include suborbital success strings we're going to have to compare against Minuteman, Polaris, etc., and those ran far beyond this number.  AMOS 6 was obviously a failed launch campaign, but it was not a launch.  Etc.

 - Ed Kyle

It says

"The Falcon 9 rocket has now flown more consecutive successful missions, 111, than any orbital rocket in history."

If it said 111 consecutive successful orbital flights that would be wrong, but the case of a deliberate suborbital flight by a rocket that has reached orbit many times being successful is clearly 'a successful mission by an orbital class rocket'.

It also seems right to regard the AMOS 6 *mission* as a failure - the payload was destroyed. While there wasn't a flight, there was an unsuccessful mission.

So it seems to me to be entirely accurate and also devoid of any hint of deceitful slight of hand that would be present in a claim of 121 consecutive successful flights. It is the right thing to do to reduce 121 to 112 and the wording is clear and accurate.

Amos 6 was not lost during a launch attempt.  Amos 6 was lost because they were experimenting with a very rapid LOX load.  And they wouldn't have used that very rapid LOX load in the launch procedure they had already established for the Falcon 9 FT.

But who knows, maybe if that very rapid LOX load had worked during that static fire, and they obviously had every expectation it was going to work, they would have eventually used it on an actual launch attempt.

Now whether or not a person thinks Amos 6 should have counted as a launch failure depends on what they are trying to do.  Ed Kyle has been keeping statistics on rockets launches for many years.  And he already had a definition long predating Amos 6 for what constituted a success and failure.  And by that definition Amos 6 was not an attempted launch and therefore shouldn't count.

I don't think it should be counted as a launch failure.  But then my perspective is that I'm trying to figure out the inherent reliability of the rocket and I'm not sure how relevant this failed experimental expansion of the envelope for the Falcon is to that.  But if I were looking at it from the perspective of a company looking to hire SpaceX to launch my payload into orbit, I would definitely count it as a failure!

But now if I were SpaceX I wouldn't try to argue this. It's just not worth it.  There are too many people around like you, crandles57, who would think it would be deceptive to not count Amos 6 or Alexphysics who seems to be saying that it's a math error if someone doesn't count Amos 6 as a failed launch attempt.
What I usually tell people whenever this Amos-6 issue comes up is that counting this is up to each one, if you are counting, Spacex launches, Amos-6 would not count since there was never even a launch attempt, if you are going to count SpaceX missions, then Amos-6 would count since it was a mission that just didn't launch.


I personally count SpaceX missions and always make the clarification that Amos-6 is included.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: ZachS09 on 02/04/2022 06:34 pm
What thread can we place the launch record discussion? This is kinda deviating from the Starlink mission topic.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Alexphysics on 02/04/2022 07:21 pm
On two occasions (1983-86 and 1990-96) R-7 based launchers recorded 133 consecutive mission successes.
Eric counting IFA really doesn't change much because the previous record was at 100 so 111 or 112 doesn't matter.
This is the part that's causing some confusion, AIUI.

Eric Berger's article counts individual Soyuz versions, and the longest streak on any individual version is 100 with Soyuz-U (unless you consider Cosmos 2243 as a success, in which case the streak is 112).  However, if you count the R-7 family as a whole, the streak is 133, including Soyuz-U, Soyuz-U2, Molniya-M, and Vostok-2M rockets.

This is where the "family" definitions become problematic.  Falcon 9 also has "variants": v1.0, v1.1, v1.2 ("Full Thrust" or FT), Block 4, Block 5 (and of course Falcon Heavy of various versions), and the 112 success streak cited in the article includes FT, Block 4, and Block 5 (and Falcon Heavy versions thereof) since AMOS-6.

I don't think it's too contentious to say that if Falcon Heavy is included, the R-7 family as a whole should be included, since FH and F9 are significantly different stage layouts.  What makes this more difficult is if you don't include Falcon Heavy - then F9's streak becomes 109, and the question then becomes whether the different F9 variants are as significant as the R-7 variants.

The difference between an F9 FT and an F9 B5 is clearly less than the difference between an R-7 ICBM and a Soyuz-2 (and let's not even start with Soyuz-2.1v).  But it's probably more significant than the difference between a Soyuz-U and Soyuz-FG.  Soyuz-U and Soyuz-U2 differed almost only by propellant - but propellant choice is one of the core features of a rocket design, so are they very similar or very different?  The Molniya series had improved thrust off the pad, but also a different final stage - but is that stage difference on the same level as having two extra cores?

"The R-7 Family" has existed for so long, and covered so many vehicles (some with 17% success rates and some with 97% success rates), that it is no longer a useful delineation for the purposes of such discussion.  However, since "variants" or "versions" are designated by the launch provider, they're also not useful for comparisons, since the manner in which they're assigned differs from provider to provider.  All variants are different, but not all by the same amount - and even rockets within the same variant can have significant differences.

In a class I took on computer modeling, the professor retold a story about a king who wanted an accurate map of his lands.  The cartographers made many maps, but each time they ended up missing some of the details the king found most important.  In the end, he was finally satisfied with a map the size of the kingdom itself - though for some reason it never got used.  In the end, all launchers have only a 0% or 100% success rate - but that's not exactly a useful point of comparison, is it.

I just can't wait until the end of the year, when - all going well - this whole debate will be moot.

Block 4 and Block 5 are still Falcon 9 v1.2. 111 Falcon 9 successful launches in a row does NOT count Falcon Heavy. People, please, let's do better at counting

SpaceX launches since Amos 6:

2017: 18
2018: 21
2019: 13
2020: 26
2021: 31
2022: 6 (5 when he wrote the article)

total is 115, it gets to 112 if you remove the 3 Falcon Heavy flights and it goes down to 111 if you remove IFA.

Falcon 9 v1.2 is the only single core rocket that has been launched since Amos 6 by SpaceX into orbit. Block 4 and Block 5 are still part of that variant of the rocket.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: alugobi on 02/04/2022 07:40 pm
Somebody on the internet is wrong.  Better keep arguing until they capitulate. 
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 02/04/2022 08:02 pm
What thread can we place the launch record discussion? This is kinda deviating from the Starlink mission topic.
I don't see a suitable thread in this section or in the general section, how about a new thread in the SpaceX General Section?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: ZachS09 on 02/04/2022 08:18 pm
What thread can we place the launch record discussion? This is kinda deviating from the Starlink mission topic.
I don't see a suitable thread in this section or in the general section, how about a new thread in the SpaceX General Section?

Sure.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55747.0
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/05/2022 03:07 pm
Any news on ASOG return?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: vaporcobra on 02/06/2022 10:37 am
Any news on ASOG return?

Nothing encouraging! B1061 already sliding around minutes after touchdown was not a great omen 😬

https://twitter.com/CowboyDanPaasch/status/1490234049478238208
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 02/06/2022 04:23 pm
Any news on ASOG return?

Nothing encouraging! B1061 already sliding around minutes after touchdown was not a great omen 😬

https://twitter.com/CowboyDanPaasch/status/1490234049478238208
https://twitter.com/SpaceOffshore/status/1490358019661742084?s=20&t=EI4ztKX8CAhw-obcneZDQg
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: thirtyone on 02/06/2022 07:16 pm
Just out of curiosity, for someone who was truly nosy, are images of the droneship potentially available on some commercial earth imaging platform? Or at least a way to find out if it is (I realize distribution is typically a more complex / $$$ issue)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: ejb749 on 02/06/2022 10:06 pm
Looks like Doug is on the move.  Still in the Bahamas, but running at 10knts pointed toward home.
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/shipid:454774/zoom:10 (https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/shipid:454774/zoom:10)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Rondaz on 02/07/2022 12:44 am
In this image you can see Doug alongside ASOG from earlier today,  when they were stopped.

Doug left the area recently and the droneship is heading in the general direction of Port Canaveral now.

https://twitter.com/SpaceOffshore/status/1490473843772866562
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: alugobi on 02/07/2022 01:00 am
Looks like a booster standing up, but it doesn't look centered anymore.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Notleslie on 02/07/2022 02:54 pm
4 Objects from this launch have appeared in the catalog on Space-track.org

                                          ILD                 PERIOD     INC           AP    PER
51456    STARLINK-3XXX    2022-010A     87.56   53.21   164   144
51457       STARLINK-3XXX    2022-010B     89.55   53.19   303   202
51458       STARLINK-3XXX    2022-010C     89.13   53.22   271   192
51459       STARLINK-3XXX    2022-010D    89.30   53.22   287   192   


Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Rondaz on 02/07/2022 08:50 pm
ASOG progress:

https://twitter.com/SpaceOffshore/status/1490752217506365440
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: scr00chy on 02/07/2022 10:37 pm
https://twitter.com/JennyHPhoto/status/1490828108877864961
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Zeitmas on 02/08/2022 06:55 pm
ASOG seems to be about 30 miles out. Will be interesting to see when it gets back.

Edit: looks like Bob has joined the party as well.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Rondaz on 02/08/2022 09:25 pm
ASOG droneship is closing in on Port Canaveral.

Support ship Bob actually departed Port Canaveral this morning and has now met ASOG offshore. (Not typical behaviour)

https://twitter.com/SpaceOffshore/status/1491139649116545027
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Rondaz on 02/08/2022 10:48 pm
Going to *cautiously* estimate arrival around dawn tomorrow.

https://twitter.com/SpaceOffshore/status/1491188361490534400
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: gongora on 02/08/2022 11:42 pm
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1491209847785803777
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1491210037569675266

Quote
We've been noticing the lack of orbit updates for the most recent batch of Starlinks, and the reentry of several. Well, it turns out things did not go well for this launch. SpaceX now say increased drag due to a recent geomagnetic storm forced them to put the sats in safemode but

a bunch of them failed to exit safemode and can't orbit raise. So the majority (perhaps 40 of the 49) will reenter shortly after only a few days in orbit
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: gongora on 02/08/2022 11:47 pm

FEBURARY 8, 2022
GEOMAGNETIC STORM AND RECENTLY DEPLOYED STARLINK SATELLITES
On Thursday, February 3 at 1:13 p.m. EST, Falcon 9 launched 49 Starlink satellites to low Earth orbit from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Falcon 9’s second stage deployed the satellites into their intended orbit, with a perigee of approximately 210 kilometers above Earth, and each satellite achieved controlled flight.

SpaceX deploys its satellites into these lower obits so that in the very rare case any satellite does not pass initial system checkouts it will quickly be deorbited by atmospheric drag. While the low deployment altitude requires more capable satellites at a considerable cost to us, it’s the right thing to do to maintain a sustainable space environment.

Unfortunately, the satellites deployed on Thursday were significantly impacted by a geomagnetic storm on Friday. These storms cause the atmosphere to warm and atmospheric density at our low deployment altitudes to increase. In fact, onboard GPS suggests the escalation speed and severity of the storm caused atmospheric drag to increase up to 50 percent higher than during previous launches. The Starlink team commanded the satellites into a safe-mode where they would fly edge-on (like a sheet of paper) to minimize drag—to effectively “take cover from the storm”—and continued to work closely with the Space Force’s 18th Space Control Squadron and LeoLabs to provide updates on the satellites based on ground radars.

Preliminary analysis show the increased drag at the low altitudes prevented the satellites from leaving safe-mode to begin orbit raising maneuvers, and up to 40 of the satellites will reenter or already have reentered the Earth’s atmosphere. The deorbiting satellites pose zero collision risk with other satellites and by design demise upon atmospheric reentry—meaning no orbital debris is created and no satellite parts hit the ground. This unique situation demonstrates the great lengths the Starlink team has gone to ensure the system is on the leading edge of on-orbit debris mitigation.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: vaporcobra on 02/09/2022 12:00 am
Via https://www.spacex.com/updates/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: JayWee on 02/09/2022 12:08 am
Ouch. Do you think they are insured?
How could the atmospheric density prevent the satellites from exitting the safe mode?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: vaporcobra on 02/09/2022 12:14 am
Ouch. Do you think they are insured?
How could the atmospheric density prevent the satellites from exitting the safe mode?

My guess is that that means the force of atmospheric drag is now greater than the thrust Starlink's ion propulsion can produce, making orbit-raising physically impossible. Properly deploying the solar arrays to maximize power generation (probably necessary for max-thrust orbit-raising) would also drastically increase that drag.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: kevin-rf on 02/09/2022 01:33 am
Since the solar cycle is on the uptick, I wonder if they will offload a few satellites on future launches so they can deploy at a slightly higher altitude.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: eeergo on 02/09/2022 07:12 am
Ouch. Do you think they are insured?
How could the atmospheric density prevent the satellites from exitting the safe mode?

My guess is that that means the force of atmospheric drag is now greater than the thrust Starlink's ion propulsion can produce, making orbit-raising physically impossible. Properly deploying the solar arrays to maximize power generation (probably necessary for max-thrust orbit-raising) would also drastically increase that drag.

There can be several effects at play here: one is the overwhelming of the control authority they are able to muster (i.e. their attitude might have been unstable due to drag making them tumble). They presumably use control rods and gyros for that, perhaps coupled with help from the ion thrusters (?), although the gyros may only be for fine-pointing the optical links.

Then there can be the thrust issue you mention, by itself or in combination with the above (if they can't keep the edge-on attitude well locked, then drag will increase too, making control harder and increasing drag, in a vicious circle)... although that seems unlikely -or a major design flaw- since this extremely quick deorbit would mean they aren't even able to *hold* their current orbit (whose apogee is quite a bit higher than 200-something km), not just raise it. If this minor storm was an issue (50% extra sounds like a lot, but let's keep in mind this means less than twice the drag than previous occasions, which is NOT a lot, especially with this being a well-known and consistently measured effect). Considering we've been going through one of the quietest solar minima on record, it doesn't bode well for the system's deployment over the next few years as the Sun gets rowdy again.

Another issue can be within the electric propulsion itself: too high an ambient free electron density and you will get arcing between the thruster's cathode and its neutralizer, which will fault the EP and can altogether prevent its operation.

Then there are the radiation effects of course (both over the poles and the SAA), although the release doesn't seem to focus on them, and levels don't appear to have significantly increased.

Has anyone seen any news concerning other satellites (in general) and Starlinks (in particular)? There should be >150 S/C undergoing orbit-raising experiencing similar issues - even if not so severe as to bring them down in a matter of hours, there can have been issues with them as well, especially for the 4-6 group launched just a few days prior.

This event has single-handedly doubled early mortality numbers for Starlink.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: jacqmans on 02/09/2022 07:38 am
SpaceX photos
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: eeergo on 02/09/2022 07:54 am
Ouch. Do you think they are insured?
How could the atmospheric density prevent the satellites from exitting the safe mode?

My guess is that that means the force of atmospheric drag is now greater than the thrust Starlink's ion propulsion can produce, making orbit-raising physically impossible. Properly deploying the solar arrays to maximize power generation (probably necessary for max-thrust orbit-raising) would also drastically increase that drag.

There can be several effects at play here: one is the overwhelming of the control authority they are able to muster (i.e. their attitude might have been unstable due to drag making them tumble). They presumably use control rods and gyros for that, perhaps coupled with help from the ion thrusters (?), although the gyros may only be for fine-pointing the optical links.

Then there can be the thrust issue you mention, by itself or in combination with the above (if they can't keep the edge-on attitude well locked, then drag will increase too, making control harder and increasing drag, in a vicious circle)... although that seems unlikely -or a major design flaw- since this extremely quick deorbit would mean they aren't even able to *hold* their current orbit (whose apogee is quite a bit higher than 200-something km), not just raise it. If this minor storm was an issue (50% extra sounds like a lot, but let's keep in mind this means less than twice the drag than previous occasions, which is NOT a lot, especially with this being a well-known and consistently measured effect). Considering we've been going through one of the quietest solar minima on record, it doesn't bode well for the system's deployment over the next few years as the Sun gets rowdy again.

Another issue can be within the electric propulsion itself: too high an ambient free electron density and you will get arcing between the thruster's cathode and its neutralizer, which will fault the EP and can altogether prevent its operation.

Then there are the radiation effects of course (both over the poles and the SAA), although the release doesn't seem to focus on them, and levels don't appear to have significantly increased.

Has anyone seen any news concerning other satellites (in general) and Starlinks (in particular)? There should be >150 S/C undergoing orbit-raising experiencing similar issues - even if not so severe as to bring them down in a matter of hours, there can have been issues with them as well, especially for the 4-6 group launched just a few days prior.

This event has single-handedly doubled early mortality numbers for Starlink.

The issue was primarily the temporary increase of up to 50% in atmospheric density at the deployment altitude. Even so, some of the current batch managed to navigate through it.

Everything at a higher altitude will be fine. No need for opportunistic concern trolling.👍

Appreciate your rapid knee-jerk and name calling, with no actual meaningful discussion of the issue or the informed hypotheses presented.👍 Forgot no problem can be discussed in these sections for some here, even when >80% of a mission's payload is toast a few hours after launch, due to a relatively common and mild event.

By the way, regarding higher altitudes being "fine". Apart from the fact there is no specific information to base that assertion on, a 1.5x increase of drag at 200-odd km is NOT a lot, as I said before. Along-track drag conditions at a given altitude in LEO can easily reach integer multiples of their value at solar minimum (which is where Starlink has been operating so far): think factors of 4-7x even at 500 km. FYI, this information is actually based on industry-standard operational-level atmospheric models.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Rondaz on 02/09/2022 10:49 am
Falcon 9 Booster B1061 arriving into Port Canaveral on "A Shortfall Of Gravitas".

Looks like it used up a lot of crush core. That can be replaced.

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1491299776243322883
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Rondaz on 02/09/2022 10:50 am
Welcome back to Port Canaveral B1061-6

https://twitter.com/Kyle_M_Photo/status/1491295742211747840
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Rondaz on 02/09/2022 10:52 am
Horrible photo, but looks like B1061 is on jack stands.  It is so dark I had to shoot at 51k iso to get this photo and I was just at the limits of my camera body.

https://twitter.com/Kyle_M_Photo/status/1491305904544772098
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Rondaz on 02/09/2022 10:52 am
B1061-6 is all finished berthing

https://twitter.com/Kyle_M_Photo/status/1491311350693638147
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: envy887 on 02/09/2022 01:18 pm
Has anyone seen any news concerning other satellites (in general) and Starlinks (in particular)? There should be >150 S/C undergoing orbit-raising experiencing similar issues - even if not so severe as to bring them down in a matter of hours, there can have been issues with them as well, especially for the 4-6 group launched just a few days prior.

This event has single-handedly doubled early mortality numbers for Starlink.

jcm updated his plots with data through yesterday for the previous 3 launches (4-4, 4-5, and 4-6) , and they all look like they are continuing to operate normally. "Normally" means raising to ~350 km, which starts within 36 hours of launch, and then drifting to precess until they are in plane to continue raising. There are plenty of sats both drifting and raising as of yesterday, and it all looks nominal.

The 4-7 batch are now 9 days post-launch and never started the L+36 hour raise. They are clearly behaving much differently then the previous 3 launches. I don't think there's anything here to worry about for the earlier launches.

https://planet4589.org/space/stats/star/starstats.html
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: AstroDave on 02/09/2022 01:22 pm
From this perspective the engine bells on 1061 look unharmed. Hope it is just crush cores that need replacing.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: eeergo on 02/09/2022 01:28 pm
Has anyone seen any news concerning other satellites (in general) and Starlinks (in particular)? There should be >150 S/C undergoing orbit-raising experiencing similar issues - even if not so severe as to bring them down in a matter of hours, there can have been issues with them as well, especially for the 4-6 group launched just a few days prior.

This event has single-handedly doubled early mortality numbers for Starlink.

jcm updated his plots with data through yesterday for the previous 3 launches (4-4, 4-5, and 4-6) , and they all look like they are continuing to operate normally. "Normally" means raising to ~350 km, which starts within 36 hours of launch, and then drifting to precess until they are in plane to continue raising. There are plenty of sats both drifting and raising as of yesterday, and it all looks nominal.

The 4-7 batch are now 9 days post-launch and never started the L+36 hour raise. They are clearly behaving much differently then the previous 3 launches. I don't think there's anything here to worry about for the earlier launches.

https://planet4589.org/space/stats/star/starstats.html (https://planet4589.org/space/stats/star/starstats.html)

Thanks for the link! Indeed, looks like the orbit-raising process to the intermediate altitude takes about three weeks, which the 4-6 batch had just spent in orbit at the time of the storm.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Rondaz on 02/09/2022 01:50 pm
ASOG returned overnight with B1061 completing its sixth flight and the Starlink 4-7 mission. The southern trajectory makes for some high energy landings resulting in crush core use and old school chains to secure the booster.

https://twitter.com/julia_bergeron/status/1491399355143962636
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Rondaz on 02/09/2022 01:51 pm
Last night, booster 1061-6 returned on ASOG after launching Starlink 4-7.

https://twitter.com/JennyHPhoto/status/1491394472927965187
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: rsnellenberger on 02/09/2022 01:54 pm
The solar event (a Coronal Mass Ejection) that caused the geomagnetic storm occurred on January 31.  NOAA issued its geomagnetic storm warning for February 2/3 the evening before the launch.

It sounds like SpaceX just learned a very expensive process lesson.

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/geomagnetic-storm-conditions-likely-2-3-february-2022 (https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/geomagnetic-storm-conditions-likely-2-3-february-2022)

Edit: spelling
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: webdan on 02/09/2022 02:27 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7KUSN89-A0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7KUSN89-A0)

And link to Scott Manley's tweet about it:
https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1491212294184849408 (https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1491212294184849408)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 02/09/2022 07:26 pm
The GOESS chart for this event.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: jcm on 02/09/2022 07:27 pm
Has anyone seen any news concerning other satellites (in general) and Starlinks (in particular)? There should be >150 S/C undergoing orbit-raising experiencing similar issues - even if not so severe as to bring them down in a matter of hours, there can have been issues with them as well, especially for the 4-6 group launched just a few days prior.

This event has single-handedly doubled early mortality numbers for Starlink.

jcm updated his plots with data through yesterday for the previous 3 launches (4-4, 4-5, and 4-6) , and they all look like they are continuing to operate normally. "Normally" means raising to ~350 km, which starts within 36 hours of launch, and then drifting to precess until they are in plane to continue raising. There are plenty of sats both drifting and raising as of yesterday, and it all looks nominal.

The 4-7 batch are now 9 days post-launch and never started the L+36 hour raise. They are clearly behaving much differently then the previous 3 launches. I don't think there's anything here to worry about for the earlier launches.

https://planet4589.org/space/stats/star/starstats.html (https://planet4589.org/space/stats/star/starstats.html)

Thanks for the link! Indeed, looks like the orbit-raising process to the intermediate altitude takes about three weeks, which the 4-6 batch had just spent in orbit at the time of the storm.


Yes, the earlier launches will be fine. Remember the atmo density falls off VERY fast with altitude so at say 300 km you could increase the density by a LARGE factor and still be less than the normal density at 210 km.

Still unclear if the problems were control authority, thrust-to-drag ratio too low to stop decay, or electric propulsion issues of some kind, or a combo. I am guessing lack of control authority at the high densities was the issue.

And of course the root cause: SpaceX forgetting we are no longer at solar minimum, and unexpected rapid density rises are a thing. A not uncommon thing that will become more common and more dramatic over the next couple years towards solar max.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: vaporcobra on 02/09/2022 07:44 pm
I made a very basic graphic depicting 34 of 36 Starlink launches and all solar weather events > +/- 50 nT over the last two years. It honestly looks like SpaceX just got very lucky that something like this took so long to happen. Events of the severity of February 3rd's appear to be pretty common.

Given the proximity of several other Starlink launches to somewhat weaker storms, unless Feb 3rd's was a fluke, I find it very hard to believe that constellation operators weren't aware of their impact on atmospheric density. That leaves three obvious explanations, in my mind: go-fever, a fluke space weather event, or some nonlinear/unintuitive relationship between solar weather and atmospheric density.

Via http://wdc.kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dst_realtime/202001/index.html

🔴 = Starlink launch
🔵 = solar weather event > +/- 50 nT
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Yiosie on 02/09/2022 07:50 pm
I made a very basic graphic depicting 34 of 36 Starlink launches and all solar weather events > +/- 50 nT over the last two years. It honestly looks like SpaceX just got very lucky that something like this took so long to happen. Events of the severity of February 3rd's appear to be pretty common.

Given the proximity of several other Starlink launches to somewhat weaker storms, unless Feb 3rd's was a fluke, I find it very hard to believe that constellation operators weren't aware of their impact on atmospheric density. That leaves three obvious explanations, in my mind: go-fever, a fluke space weather event, or some nonlinear/unintuitive relationship between solar weather and atmospheric density.

Via http://wdc.kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dst_realtime/202001/index.html

🔴 = Starlink launch
🔵 = solar weather event > +/- 50 nT

A "nonlinear/unintuitive relationship between solar weather and atmospheric density" may be a key reason, given this statement reported in SpaceNews:

Dozens of Starlink satellites from latest launch to reenter after geomagnetic storm (https://spacenews.com/dozens-of-starlink-satellites-from-latest-launch-to-reenter-after-geomagnetic-storm/)

Quote
While SpaceX emphasized the severe nature of the storm, forecasts before the launch, and data collected during it, indicated only a minor storm. NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center said Feb. 2 it expected a moderate geomagnetic storm, rated G2 on a scale of G1 to G5, that day, going down to G1 on Feb. 3, the day of the launch. The Space Force’s Space Launch Delta 45 predicted only a low risk from space weather in the last forecast it issued before the launch. Other satellite operators have not reported issues with their spacecraft, but were not in SpaceX’s unique position of having satellites in very low orbits.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: JayWee on 02/09/2022 07:56 pm
Article: Lower-thermosphere response to solar activity: an empirical-mode-decomposition analysis of GOCE 2009–2012 data
https://angeo.copernicus.org/articles/38/789/2020/
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: 1 on 02/09/2022 08:35 pm
Ouch. Do you think they are insured?
How could the atmospheric density prevent the satellites from exitting the safe mode?

The possibility of drag now overpowering the ability of the ion engine to escape is certainly plausible, as discusses up thread.

But we need to understand what 'safe mode' means in this case. Most of the time, a satellite in safe mode at least has some contingency operations available. Primary among these, is that a satellite in safe mode is often assumed to at least have nominal power available for generation to allow time for ground intervention/mitigation.

If, however, starlink was deliberately commanded to fly edge on to reduce drag, then insufficient energy may be a reason that most of these sats can't wake up.  Off-nominal or deliberately delayed solar panel deployment could plausibly lead to a condition where the onboard batteries have discharged to the point where they can no longer power the main systems. Most satellites attempt to deploy their solar arras rather quickly, and into full sunlight so that the sat can at least be power positive during subsequent checkouts. But if attitude control is lost and positive power can't be established, then the sats would be doomed and the few that survived may have just been lucky.

Radiation doesn't change appreciably between the deployment altitude and the operational altitude, so I wouldn't expect radiation to be an issue. At lower orbits, you'll have elevated trapped proton and trapped electron numbers, but accounting for solar activity is SOP when designing missions. You'll often see numbers for worst week, worst day, all the way down to 5 minute peak. More likely that the issue was exactly as stated in the update; increased drag to the point where SpaceX simply didn't have a good contingency plan.

In the next weeks, I'd expect a slight increase in the deployment altitude and more strict inclusion of solar weather in the launch violation criteria. All IMHO, of course. SpaceX obviously isn't afraid to lose hardware, but I do bet this launch has to sting a bit.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Rondaz on 02/09/2022 09:56 pm
B1061 seemed to arrive overnight with a very sliiiight lean to it....

https://twitter.com/SpaceOffshore/status/1491534717916692483
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: pb2000 on 02/09/2022 10:10 pm
Scott Manly has interpreted the problem as the atmospheric drag is over powering the ability of the magnetic torquers to point the satellite in the right direction. I didn't quite get if he meant that as just to deploy the solar arrays or to maintain orientation after deployment so the orbit could be raised.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kIcEFyEPgA
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: AndyH on 02/09/2022 11:17 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY3TMaExHkg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY3TMaExHkg)
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Rondaz on 02/10/2022 02:34 am
Folks have been waiting for this one! Glad to say that the booster's back… at Rusty's at the Port!

https://twitter.com/RustysInThePort/status/1491549061354303488
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 02/10/2022 02:10 pm
The solar flares that cause such events can happen several days before Earth feels anything.  SpaceX needs to hire the services of Space Weather forecasters (there are such people, like Tamitha Skov (https://www.spaceweatherwoman.com/)) who keep an eye on such things so SpaceX will have a heads up before official government warnings come out.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Jim on 02/10/2022 02:13 pm
The solar flares that cause such events can happen several days before Earth feels anything.  SpaceX needs to hire the services of Space Weather forecasters (there are such people, like Tamitha Skov (https://www.spaceweatherwoman.com/)) who keep an eye on such things so SpaceX will have a heads up before official government warnings come out.

not true in both cases
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Vettedrmr on 02/10/2022 03:18 pm
The solar flares that cause such events can happen several days before Earth feels anything.  SpaceX needs to hire the services of Space Weather forecasters (there are such people, like Tamitha Skov (https://www.spaceweatherwoman.com/)) who keep an eye on such things so SpaceX will have a heads up before official government warnings come out.

It's not that SpaceX didn't know about it, but that they didn't expect the atmospheric response that occurred.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Rondaz on 02/11/2022 12:46 am
B1061 featuring two pelicans & a dolphin

https://twitter.com/JennyHPhoto/status/1491852594892918795
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Rondaz on 02/11/2022 12:47 am
Booster 1061 going horizontal after 6 flights.

https://twitter.com/JennyHPhoto/status/1491852111499476994
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 02/11/2022 07:15 pm
Scott Manly has interpreted the problem as the atmospheric drag is over powering the ability of the magnetic torquers to point the satellite in the right direction. I didn't quite get if he meant that as just to deploy the solar arrays or to maintain orientation after deployment so the orbit could be raised.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kIcEFyEPgA
https://twitter.com/esherifftv/status/1491508425519370242?s=20&t=cHh_gtDD58tNegmW2wKFhg

Ouch. Do you think they are insured?
How could the atmospheric density prevent the satellites from exitting the safe mode?
this video also tells that whether this launch was insured or not it has no significant loss as launching starlinks on b1051 was also risky where you can loose all satellite on launch is nothing significant in its launch https://youtu.be/mmVftEeIrPE this video was represented by Jonathan mcdowell only
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Twark_Main on 02/12/2022 10:20 am
What I usually tell people whenever this Amos-6 issue comes up is that counting this is up to each one, if you are counting, Spacex launches, Amos-6 would not count since there was never even a launch attempt, if you are going to count SpaceX missions, then Amos-6 would count since it was a mission that just didn't launch.


I personally count SpaceX missions and always make the clarification that Amos-6 is included.

What thread can we place the launch record discussion? This is kinda deviating from the Starlink mission topic.

You had to jinx it, didn't you Zach...    8)

So this counts as a successful SpaceX launch and a failed SpaceX mission, correct?

If the satellite operator had this issue, we would certainly classify this as a failed mission. Only difference is that in this case SpaceX is both the satellite operator and the launch provider, but a failed mission is a failed mission.

If a Starship payload was lost on the way to Mars we would certainly be calling it a "failed mission." This payload loss occurred even closer, "only" on its way to LEO.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Rekt1971 on 02/12/2022 01:15 pm
What I usually tell people whenever this Amos-6 issue comes up is that counting this is up to each one, if you are counting, Spacex launches, Amos-6 would not count since there was never even a launch attempt, if you are going to count SpaceX missions, then Amos-6 would count since it was a mission that just didn't launch.


I personally count SpaceX missions and always make the clarification that Amos-6 is included.

What thread can we place the launch record discussion? This is kinda deviating from the Starlink mission topic.

You had to jinx it, didn't you Zach...    8)

So this counts as a successful SpaceX launch and a failed SpaceX mission, correct?

If the satellite operator had this issue, we would certainly classify this as a failed mission. Only difference is that in this case SpaceX is both the satellite operator and the launch provider, but a failed mission is a failed mission.


No, the problem with calling AMOS-6 a failed launch is that it wasn't a launch. It should count as a failure of the launch vehicle since the F9 explosion destroyed the payload, ergo failed mission.

You cannot count this as a failed mission for F9 as it didn't cause the loss of satellites.

Quote
If a Starship payload was lost on the way to Mars we would certainly be calling it a "failed mission." This payload loss occurred even closer, "only" on its way to LEO.

How was it lost on its way to LEO? The target orbit was 340x211 km which was achieved, the second stage deployed the satellites where they remained for several days.

If Starship *WAS* the payload and it would be lost on its way to Mars you might count it as a failed mission (although that might be disputed).
However, If Starship launched a satellite, deployed it and the satellite would fail afterward you couldn't count it as a failed Starship mission as the LV wasn't the cause for the loss of payload.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: meekGee on 02/12/2022 03:40 pm
What I usually tell people whenever this Amos-6 issue comes up is that counting this is up to each one, if you are counting, Spacex launches, Amos-6 would not count since there was never even a launch attempt, if you are going to count SpaceX missions, then Amos-6 would count since it was a mission that just didn't launch.


I personally count SpaceX missions and always make the clarification that Amos-6 is included.

What thread can we place the launch record discussion? This is kinda deviating from the Starlink mission topic.

You had to jinx it, didn't you Zach...    8)

So this counts as a successful SpaceX launch and a failed SpaceX mission, correct?

If the satellite operator had this issue, we would certainly classify this as a failed mission. Only difference is that in this case SpaceX is both the satellite operator and the launch provider, but a failed mission is a failed mission.


No, the problem with calling AMOS-6 a failed launch is that it wasn't a launch. It should count as a failure of the launch vehicle since the F9 explosion destroyed the payload, ergo failed mission.

You cannot count this as a failed mission for F9 as it didn't cause the loss of satellites.

Quote
If a Starship payload was lost on the way to Mars we would certainly be calling it a "failed mission." This payload loss occurred even closer, "only" on its way to LEO.

How was it lost on its way to LEO? The target orbit was 340x211 km which was achieved, the second stage deployed the satellites where they remained for several days.

If Starship *WAS* the payload and it would be lost on its way to Mars you might count it as a failed mission (although that might be disputed).
However, If Starship launched a satellite, deployed it and the satellite would fail afterward you couldn't count it as a failed Starship mission as the LV wasn't the cause for the loss of payload.
Heh Amos 6 being failed mission without being a failed launch is odd but weirdly logical..
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: GWR64 on 02/13/2022 04:34 pm
It looks like 11 satellites survived.
For 11, SpaceX releases TLEs from launch 2022-010.
NORAD has TLEs for 12 satellites, but one is very deep and probably already burned up.
at Celestrak

Perhaps SpaceX will return to two second-stage burns with a circular orbit.
I don't know if that would be safe if the number of satellites stayed the same.
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Chinakpradhan on 02/20/2022 04:28 am
It looks like 11 satellites survived.
For 11, SpaceX releases TLEs from launch 2022-010.
NORAD has TLEs for 12 satellites, but one is very deep and probably already burned up.
at Celestrak

Perhaps SpaceX will return to two second-stage burns with a circular orbit.
I don't know if that would be safe if the number of satellites stayed the same.
returned on group 4-8
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: cube on 02/25/2022 01:39 am
Do we know why 11 of the 49 satellites managed to survive?
Title: Re: SpaceX F9 : Starlink Group 4-7 : KSC LC-39A : 3 February 2022 (18:13 UTC)
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 02/25/2022 08:10 pm
Do we know why 11 of the 49 satellites managed to survive?
Perhaps it was because if they were able to exit safe mode