SpaceX F9 : Starlink v1.0 L17 : KSC LC-39A : 4 March 2021 (0824 UTC)

[Jansen]

Discussion thread for Starlink v1.0 Launch 17.

NSF Threads for Starlink v1.0 L17: Discussion
NSF Articles for Starlink v1.0 L17: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/02/spacex-launch-delayed-starlink/

Launched successfully on March 4 at 3:24am EST (0824 UTC) on Falcon 9 (booster 1049.8 ) from Kennedy Space Center’s LC-39A. ASDS landing successful on OCISLY, towed by tugboat Hawk. Fairing recovery of both halves from the water by support ships GO Searcher and GO Navigator was successful.

The Falcon 9 first stage rocket booster supporting this mission previously flew on seven missions: the Iridium-8 mission, the Telstar 18 VANTAGE mission, and five Starlink missions. Following stage separation, SpaceX will land Falcon 9’s first stage on the “Of Course I Still Love You” droneship, which will be located in the Atlantic Ocean. One half of Falcon 9’s fairing previously flew on three Starlink missions, and the other half previously supported two Starlink missions.

Payload: A batch of 60 Starlink satellites. Expected deployment orbit of approximately 255x287km.

Please use the Starlink Discussion Thread for all general discussion on Starlink.

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

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

From a previous mission's Press Kit:

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 in the Northern U.S. and Canada in 2020, rapidly expanding to near global coverage of the populated world by 2021. Additional information on the system can be found at starlink.com.

[Jansen]

Crosspost:

And Mission 1545 (Starlink v1.0 L17)
https://fcc.report/ELS/Space-Exploration-Technologies-Corp-SpaceX/1829-EX-ST-2020

[Jansen]

Crosspost:

And Mission 1545 (Starlink v1.0 L17)
https://fcc.report/ELS/Space-Exploration-Technologies-Corp-SpaceX/1829-EX-ST-2020

The STA for this mission has been granted. Valid from 12 January 2021 through 12 July 2021.
https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=264968&x=.

[Jansen]

Looking at the current manifest, the earliest launch possible based on previous pad turnaround is 30 Jan from LC-39A and SLC-40.

It would also be the fourth launch of the month, tying a launch record and on par for SpaceX’s target of 48 launches in 2021.

[scr00chy]

Looking at the current manifest, the earliest launch possible based on previous pad turnaround is 30 Jan from LC-39A and SLC-40.

Why? They've done 6-day turnarounds on both pads in the past (when counting from launch to next SF, which is a more useful metric than launch-to-launch).

[Jansen]

Looking at the current manifest, the earliest launch possible based on previous pad turnaround is 30 Jan from LC-39A and SLC-40.

Why? They've done 6-day turnarounds on both pads in the past (when counting from launch to next SF, which is a more useful metric than launch-to-launch).

Launch to launch turnaround is more useful for predicting the next launch date as it includes payload mate and integrated system checks.

[scr00chy]

But launch to launch metric also includes stuff like weather delays or rocket HW issues which skews the numbers.

Starlink missions often skip static fires and even when they don't, they're done with payload already attached, so that's maybe like an extra day from when the pad is ready for a SF. So I think it's safe to say the pad turnaround can be as low as 7 days, not 12 days, like you're calculating.

[Rekt1971]

The Hazard area for this mission has been posted.

https://twitter.com/EmreKelly/status/1352005107223818242

[wannamoonbase]

That ASDS needs to haul butt back to port to unload and get back on station to make the 27th.

[vaporcobra]

B1049 seems like the obvious choice for this mission.

[klod]

Noway this launch will occur in 7 days. JRTI needs 4 days to get back home, then at least a few hours for unloading, and 4-5 days for a trip to the landing zone.

[pb2000]

Anyone have the AIS data on Hawk? If octograbber was quick, they may already be well underway, making the 27th not entirely impossible.

[cpushack]

Noway this launch will occur in 7 days. JRTI needs 4 days to get back home, then at least a few hours for unloading, and 4-5 days for a trip to the landing zone.

Should be enough room on the deck to have 2 boosters on at once.  Never would happen but I suspect its technically feasible.

[vaporcobra]

Noway this launch will occur in 7 days. JRTI needs 4 days to get back home, then at least a few hours for unloading, and 4-5 days for a trip to the landing zone.

Should be enough room on the deck to have 2 boosters on at once.  Never would happen but I suspect its technically feasible.

I'm sure this has already been discussed to death in another better thread but this is one of those cases where it would just be insane without making substantial changes. Most notably, SpaceX would need to secure the stage with Octagrabber, move it to a corner, remove Octagrabber, and safely secure the stage again with jacks and shoes. Even then, in the event that the second booster lands but is hit by sea conditions that prevent recovery and leave it sliding around, two boosters would be at risk. Almost impossible to imagine SpaceX risking two landings on the same ship in with the current operational regime and fleet as-is.

But again, please discuss this concept elsewhere unless it becomes clear that it's actually SpaceX's plan for JRTI and B1051.

[Mat-FoundInSpace]

If they really want to make it happen, they can dump the booster at Morehead City and get back to LZ.

[Jansen]

If they really want to make it happen, they can dump the booster at Morehead City and get back to LZ.

This would greatly increase the turnaround time on the booster and ultimately be counterproductive to the long term launch cadence.

[Jansen]

That ASDS needs to haul butt back to port to unload and get back on station to make the 27th.

It would not be the first time that someone at SpaceX used an older date that did not account for delays to previous launches. Expect this to be postponed at least 2-3 days.

[Jansen]

Next SpaceFlight and Ben Cooper have updated the launch to January 27.

Edit: Targeting approximately 8am EST (1300 UTC)

Edit2: Recovery on JRTI

[Jansen]

B1049 seems like the obvious choice for this mission.

I concur, but there may be some refurbishment delays.

Here’s the full list of possible boosters for the curious:

B1049.8
63 days Nov 25-Jan 27

B1063.2
66 days Nov21-Jan 27

B1059.6
39 days Dec 19-Jan 27

[Jakusb]

B1049 seems like the obvious choice for this mission.

I concur, but there may be some refurbishment delays.

Here’s the full list of possible boosters for the curious:

B1049.8
63 days Nov 25-Jan 27

B1063.2
66 days Nov21-Jan 27

B1059.6
39 days Dec 19-Jan 27

1063 is still at West coast.
1049 seems most logical.
1056 then for Starlink 18 likely begin feb
1060 then for Starlink 19 likely mid feb