Quote from: envy887 on 02/09/2022 01:18 pmQuote from: eeergo on 02/09/2022 07:12 amHas 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.htmlThanks 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.
Quote from: eeergo on 02/09/2022 07:12 amHas 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
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.
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
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.
Ouch. Do you think they are insured? How could the atmospheric density prevent the satellites from exitting the safe mode?
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) who keep an eye on such things so SpaceX will have a heads up before official government warnings come out.
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.
Quote from: Conexion Espacial on 02/04/2022 06:21 pmWhat 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.
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.
Quote from: ZachS09 on 02/04/2022 06:34 pmQuote from: Conexion Espacial on 02/04/2022 06:21 pmWhat 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... 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.
Quote from: Twark_Main on 02/12/2022 10:20 amQuote from: ZachS09 on 02/04/2022 06:34 pmQuote from: Conexion Espacial on 02/04/2022 06:21 pmWhat 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... 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. QuoteIf 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.
