SpaceX F9 : Starlink v0.9 : May 23, 2019 - DISCUSSION

[PM3]

Discussion thread for the first Starlink launch.

Check the Starlink Index Thread for links to more Starlink information.

NSF Threads for first starlink launch: Discussion / Updates / Starlink Satellite Spotting

NSF Articles on first starlink launch:
- Falcon Heavy and Starlink headline SpaceX’s upcoming manifest, Michael Baylor, March 6, 2019

Successful launch May 23, 2019, at 10:30pm Eastern (02:30 UTC on the 24th), with Falcon 9 (booster 1049.3) from CCAFS SLC-40.  Successful ASDS landing on OCISLY.  Targeting deployment orbit of 440km circular.

Payload: 60 test satellites (227kg each, Ku-band only, lacking satellite interconnects and Ka-band).  Total payload about 30,000 pounds (~13600 kg)

FCC Filings:
- 0276-EX-ST-2019 LV comms, filed Feb 21, 2019 for the timespan Apr 26 - Oct 26, 2019
- 0279-EX-ST-2019 LV recovery, filed Feb 21, 2019 for the timespan Apr 26 - Oct 26, 2019

NSF Threads for the Feb 2018 demo sat launch (Tintin A + B, with Paz): Discussion / Updates
NSF Threads on Starlink: Discussion / FCC filings

Please use the Starlink thread for all general discussion on Starlink.

[PM3]

Inclination should about 55-56 degrees if my very inaccurate measurements are right. Which is a very strage inclination. It is higher than the ISS orbit, and lower than a Molniya orbit. AFAIK Starling will also be different at 53°. Anybody knows any satellite launched to that inclination?

My *quick* calculation gives something similar at 54-55 degrees. GPS sats are usually inserted on orbits with a similar inclination but we would have known if it were a GPS sat. All I can think of apart from Starlink is a secret military sat to a Molnya-like orbit. That would explain the need for a downrange landing with no boostback. Any LEO orbit would at least allow a partial boostback burn like on Iridium missions...

I think it may be for Starlink too but I wonder why a downrange landing with no boostback burn (which is what one could guess from that distance of about 620km from the launchpad). Will they fill the entire fairing to the top with sats so the payload will be very heavy? Or what?

These discussions were done before it became clear that this is a Starlink flight. Copied them here because of the conclusions on inclination and the payload weight.

[scr00chy]

My guess is that this launch will use the B1046.4 booster. It would be a good way to show customers that a booster used 4 times isn't any less safe than a booster with fewer launches under its belt.

[Galactic Penguin SST]

My guess is that this launch will use the B1046.4 booster. It would be a good way to show customers that a booster used 4 times isn't any less safe than a booster with fewer launches under its belt.

Or B1050.2, if their trials on extensive repairs to seawater corrosion work well (Mr. Musk indicated before that it will be allocated to Starlink if eventually repaired).

[scr00chy]

My guess is that this launch will use the B1046.4 booster. It would be a good way to show customers that a booster used 4 times isn't any less safe than a booster with fewer launches under its belt.

Or B1050.2, if their trials on extensive repairs to seawater corrosion work well (Mr. Musk indicated before that it will be allocated to Starlink if eventually repaired).

I considered it but I think B1050.2 would have been chosen for the in-flight abort if it was expected to ever be flight-worthy again. That would have been an ideal mission for it IMHO.

[Celestar]

My guess is that this launch will use the B1046.4 booster. It would be a good way to show customers that a booster used 4 times isn't any less safe than a booster with fewer launches under its belt.

Or B1050.2, if their trials on extensive repairs to seawater corrosion work well (Mr. Musk indicated before that it will be allocated to Starlink if eventually repaired).

I considered it but I think if B1050.2 would have been chosen for the in-flight abort if it was expected to ever be flight-worthy again. That would have been an ideal mission for it IMHO.

Unless NASA said 'no'...

Celestar

[deruch]

Or B1050.2, if their trials on extensive repairs to seawater corrosion work well (Mr. Musk indicated before that it will be allocated to Starlink if eventually repaired).

I considered it but I think if B1050.2 would have been chosen for the in-flight abort if it was expected to ever be flight-worthy again. That would have been an ideal mission for it IMHO.

Unless NASA said 'no'...

NASA has no say on the matter for the abort mission.  Their only involvement with the actual mission is after the fact to determine whether the test met the agreed upon requirements for "success" that were established in the CCiCap agreement.  If it didn't, then NASA won't pay.  That's it.  I suppose NASA could advise against using a suspect booster due to the increased risk of not meeting the success threshold but that's the limit of their input on the matter.  If SpaceX was willing to accept that risk, NASA doesn't care. 

[neoforce]

If I understand correctly, the cuRrent FCC filing is to support the F9 launch only.  So will they need to file with the FCC to support the satellites after deployment?  If so, do we know how far in advance that might be done?  I assume that would give us an idea how many satellites they would be expecting on this launch.

[CorvusCorax]

If I understand correctly, the cuRrent FCC filing is to support the F9 launch only.  So will they need to file with the FCC to support the satellites after deployment?  If so, do we know how far in advance that might be done?  I assume that would give us an idea how many satellites they would be expecting on this launch.

I might be wrong, but isn't starlink sat operation - once deployed - covered under the existing FCC license SpaceX has for the starlink constellation?

AFAIK that covers both the operational payload radio communication and the control up and telemetry downlink for the sats. For checkout and tests they'd only need the latter, but its still covered, isn't it?

[Lar]

Fits my understanding.

[PM3]

I might be wrong, but isn't starlink sat operation - once deployed - covered under the existing FCC license SpaceX has for the starlink constellation?

The existing FCC licenses cover only the ~1200 km and ~ 340 km orbits. But the first 1584 Starlink sats will go to 550 km (see page 17 here), and the license for that is not granted yet. It was estimated here that it could be granted by May 2019, which would nicely fit the launch schedule.

Actually, this FCC license may be the NET component of the date for this launch.

[cebri]

How many sats are we expecting to be launched?

[ThomasGadd]

How many sats are we expecting to be launched?

In total or per launch?
For current planned total I don't know. 
For the initial constellation 66x24 at 525 km,
the initial launches are on F9's there are reasonable guesses of 22 to 28 sats per laun
ch

edit: fixed typo

[ThomasGadd]

How many sats are we expecting to be launched?

In total or per launch?
For current planned total I don't know. 
For the initial consolation 66x24 at 525 km,
the initial launches are on F9's there are reasonable guesses of 22 to 28 sats per launch

For you or anyone:  Does anyone have a guess or information as to launch cadence?

Everything I've read are guesses...
I think once they launch this first mission they will start launching on a regular basis.  The constellation doesn't have to be complete to be useful.

[cebri]

How many sats are we expecting to be launched?

In total or per launch?
For current planned total I don't know. 
For the initial consolation 66x24 at 525 km,
the initial launches are on F9's there are reasonable guesses of 22 to 28 sats per launch

For this launch, total was reported to the FCC if i'm not mistaken. I wonder if we'll get a look at the dispenser soon. Musk loves to share those kind of things.

[PM3]

For you or anyone:  Does anyone have a guess or information as to launch cadence?

Everything I've read are guesses...
I think once they launch this first mission they will start launching on a regular basis.  The constellation doesn't have to be complete to be useful.

Please use the Starlink thread for general Starlink discussions. This thread is only about the first launch.

[PM3]

launchphotography.com now has changed it from "late April or May at the earliest" to "May TBD at the earliest".

[gongora]

I really expect this launch to slip at least a couple of months.  Their first generation of sats doesn't match their FCC license, and the modification they filed is going to take a while to go through the process.

[wannamoonbase]

Do we know or have confirmation that this is the first deployment, or another test launch?

Or is the answer to both those questions a single 'yes'?

Wouldn't it be fun if this was the first reuse of the fairing halves they've fished out of the pacific?

Edit: If this is the start of manufacturing and deployment the manifest should get very busy in the second half of this year.

[scr00chy]

The original plan was to do another test launch after Tintin A/B (that's what Musk said some months ago), but I think that changed at some point and instead, the next launch would carry the first operational sats, BUT they're a simplified "V1" version that doesn't have all the planned features.

So basically instead of perfecting the final sat design by doing a test launch first, they replaced that with doing a simplified operational run straight away which will be followed by more advanced iterations of sats in the future.