Author Topic: Starlink v2 mini satellites  (Read 67017 times)

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47310
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80116
  • Likes Given: 36283
Starlink v2 mini satellites
« on: 02/26/2023 04:43 pm »
First launch of v2 mini Starlinks tomorrow from the Cape:

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1629898468373192707

Quote
We call them “V2 Mini”. They represent a step forward in Starlink capability

twitter.com/spacex/status/1629898472722776066

Quote
V2 minis include key technologies—such as more powerful phased array antennas and the use of E-band for backhaul—which will allow Starlink to provide ~4x more capacity per satellite than earlier iterations

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1629898475042140160

Quote
This means Starlink can provide more bandwidth with increased reliability and connect millions of more people around the world with high-speed internet → starlink.com/resources

twitter.com/spacex/status/1629898794874687489

Quote
Among other enhancements, V2 minis are equipped with new argon Hall thrusters for on orbit maneuvering

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1629898798968328201

Quote
Developed by SpaceX engineers, they have 2.4x the thrust and 1.5x the specific impulse of our first gen thrusters. This will also be the first time ever that argon Hall thrusters are operated in space
« Last Edit: 02/26/2023 04:44 pm by FutureSpaceTourist »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47310
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80116
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #1 on: 02/26/2023 04:50 pm »
https://api.starlink.com/public-files/Gen2StarlinkSatellites.pdf

Quote
SECOND GENERATION STARLINK SATELLITES

Since the original license to operate the Starlink Generation 1 network was granted in March 2018, SpaceX has rapidly deployed satellites to bring internet to the hardest to reach places in the United States and abroad. Five years later, SpaceX has launched nearly 4,000 satellites and is providing high-speed internet to more than one million locations around the world, the majority of which are households. Starlink continues to grow rapidly, and SpaceX has raced to keep up with a surging demand for connectivity across the globe, especially in areas where few, if any, options for broadband connections have existed before now.

With the recent authorization of our second-generation network, or "Gen2," SpaceX will provide even faster speeds to more users. This new authorization enables SpaceX to launch additional, much-improved spacecraft with significantly more throughput per satellite than the first-generation systems. For the end consumer, this means more bandwidth and increased reliability. As a result, millions of more people will have access to high-speed internet no matter where they live.


V2 Mini

SpaceX will soon launch a new generation of satellites that are larger and more capable than earlier generations. We call these satellites "V2," and there will be two separate versions of this satellite design: one that is compatible with the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, and one that is compatible with the Starship launch vehicle. When we launch V2 satellites on Falcon 9, they won’t be the full-size version that are designed to be launched on Starship. The V2 satellites launched on Falcon 9 are a bit smaller, so we affectionately refer to them as "V2 Mini" satellites. But don’t let the name fool you, a V2 Mini satellite has four times the capacity for serving users compared to its earlier counterparts.
 
Space Sustainability and Safety

As we begin to deploy our Gen2 network, SpaceX will continue to lead the industry in creating a safe and sustainable space environment. SpaceX includes sustainability as a critical design element for its satellite operations, ensuring that no debris remains in space longer than five years, should a satellite become non-maneuverable. SpaceX adheres to, and significantly exceeds, any applicable requirements or industry best practices, and operates with full transparency, even going beyond what is required by U.S. regulations. As we've detailed in a previous update, numerous filings with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), and an "Industry Best Practices" guide, SpaceX’s space safety approach includes many elements that greatly enhance sustainability.

These include:
  • Design and build reliability. SpaceX satellites are designed and built with high reliability, around 99% after the deployment of nearly 4,000 satellites.
  • Operations below 600 km. SpaceX has chosen to operate the vast majority of our satellites at an altitude below 600 km. At these altitudes, objects will decay and reenter due to atmospheric drag within a short period of time in rare off-nominal scenarios, eliminating the risk of persistent orbital debris.
  • Deployment into low-insertion orbit below space stations. At these low altitudes (below 400 km), any SpaceX satellites that do not pass initial system checkouts are quickly deorbited actively, or by atmospheric drag.
  • Radical transparency and data sharing with the U.S. government and other satellite owners/operators to ensure full space situational awareness. SpaceX openly shares high-fidelity future position and velocity prediction data for all SpaceX spacecraft, along with uncertainties on those predictions. In addition, SpaceX is the only operator that provides routine system “health reports” to the FCC.
  • Advanced collision avoidance systems protect SpaceX and other satellites. SpaceX satellites utilize an autonomous collision avoidance system that ensures spacecraft have the most up to date information to mitigate close approaches with tracked objects (including debris and active satellites). SpaceX’s autonomous collision avoidance system has been scrutinized by NASA’s Conjunction Assessment and Risk Analysis (CARA) program, which deemed it sufficiently trustworthy to rely on to avoid collisions with NASA spacecraft.
  • Post-mission disposal. SpaceX satellites are propulsively deorbited within weeks of spacecraft end of mission. This vastly exceeds the international standard of 25 years.
  • Starlink spacecraft are 100% demisable. At end of life, SpaceX satellites are designed to fully demise upon atmospheric reentry, eliminating the risk of falling debris.
  • Best Practices. SpaceX’s approach to space safety relies on extreme transparency in operations, and SpaceX has collaborated with other operators and experts in developing “Industry Best Practices” based on operational lessons learned. SpaceX encourages all operators to implement these best practices to keep space safe and sustainable.

Brightness Mitigations

SpaceX has also prioritized collaboration with astronomers and scientists to mitigate the impact of Starlink satellite streaks on their observations. For our Gen1 network, SpaceX proactively requested two license modifications from the FCC to reflect two different deployment phases to lower the operating altitude of the satellites. These modifications were a crucial mitigation for astronomers and one endorsed by the American Astronomical Society to reduce impacts on astronomy, as well as improve space safety with respect to orbital debris mitigation. More recently, the National Science Foundation and SpaceX announcedan updated coordination agreement to protect astronomy and continue collaboration on mitigation practices.

As we've detailed in an earlier update, SpaceX has proactively collaborated with astronomers and the U.S. government by dedicating engineers and resources to design and deploy mitigations and run experiments to test their efficacy. Initially, for example, SpaceX experimented with a dark paint to absorb sunlight. But when in-space experiments showed this mitigation was less effective than desired, SpaceX pivoted to development of a visor—VisorSat—to block sunlight from hitting the satellite and reflecting back to the Earth. SpaceX also implemented flight configuration changes to minimize the surface area of the spacecraft from which a reflection could result—both highly effective mitigations. SpaceX also started using dielectric mirror film on many surfaces of the satellite, which reflects light away from the ground and leads to less reflectivity.

Since the first use of mirrors on our satellites, we’ve made significant improvements in mirror film technology and its application. We’ve also developed an industry leading space-qualified black paint for angled surfaces or those not conducive to mirror adhesion. SpaceX continues development with additional technologies, including a combination of dielectric mirror film (developed and made by SpaceX), which reflects sunlight away from the Earth, and the SpaceX-developed, low-reflectivity black paint, which reduces lower specular peak by a factor of five compared to the darkest available space stable paint. These improvements are implemented on our V2 satellites. With several years of experience and the ability to design, test, and field mitigation strategies, mitigations were able to be “baked into” the design of the V2 satellites from the start. Additionally, we’ve designed our solar arrays to allow off-pointing to reduce reflections as a satellite approaches the terminator. So, while our V2 Mini satellites are larger than earlier versions, we’re still expecting them to be as dark or darker once the full range of mitigations are implemented and the satellites reach their operational orbit. These V2 Mini satellites may be somewhat bright initially, especially during orbit raising and initial operations

However, we want to emphasize that even though brightness component measurements, ground modeling, and analysis show effective brightness mitigations, we won’t know the full efficacy of our efforts until on-orbit observations are made of the satellites and data is collected and analyzed. What we learn from early observations will help us improve and refine mitigations. These V2 Mini satellites may be somewhat bright initially, but as our track record demonstrates, SpaceX will work tirelessly to refine design/manufacturing/materials and operational mitigations and continue to work with astronomers toward reducing the brightness of our satellites. Critically, we will also share our insights with other operators to protect the shared space domain. To that end, SpaceX will continue to make the dielectric mirror film and dark paint we’ve developed available at cost to other satellite developers and owner/operators.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2023 05:01 pm by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • Home
  • Liked: 921
  • Likes Given: 205
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #2 on: 02/26/2023 05:14 pm »
Stupid question: How many per launch? This has a huge impact on concerns regarding space debris and astronomical impact.

Stack looks to be 20 high but it's not clear if there are multiple satellites in each layer.

Offline Tommyboy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 308
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 373
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #3 on: 02/26/2023 05:22 pm »
Stupid question: How many per launch? This has a huge impact on concerns regarding space debris and astronomical impact.

Stack looks to be 20 high but it's not clear if there are multiple satellites in each layer.
SpaceX tweeted 21 per launch:

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1629898239066480640?t=mNgtxYvARzRcMzgET8K5rA&s=19
« Last Edit: 02/26/2023 05:22 pm by Tommyboy »

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2578
  • Likes Given: 525
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #4 on: 02/26/2023 05:33 pm »
21 per launch probably means ~750kg each now for mass.
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #5 on: 02/26/2023 05:36 pm »
Argon is a pretty big deal for scalability. Xenon costs around $3000/kg & has limited world supply. Starlink would’ve used all of it & more. Plus, $3000/kg is more than F9’s launch costs and more than Starlink average manufacturing cost. So SpaceX went to Krypton, which is 10 times as plentiful and costs a tenth as much. But $300/kg is still much more than Starship’s long term launch costs, so it makes sense they’re moving to Argon, which is cheaper than $1/kg and much lower than Starship’s launch costs. It also is a plentiful byproduct of producing liquefied oxygen and nitrogen. For every 4000 tons of nitrogen, about 200 tons of Argon can be produced (argon is about 1% of Earth’s atmosphere), so SpaceX can get their own Argon from their own liquefaction process (or easily from Air Liquide or Linde or whatever, instead of as a specialized gas).

It can also be easily produced on Mars, where it’s about 2% of the atmosphere (plus 3% nitrogen, a bit of water vapor, and the rest CO2), so in principle it’s something a Mars city could launch to Earth for revenue.

If SEP propellant is 20% of Starlink’s launch mass, and Starlink is 40,000 satellites 2 tons each replenished every 5 years, that’s 3200 tons of SEP propellant per year. Not sure there’s that much Krypton in the world, and there’s certainly not that much Xenon.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #6 on: 02/26/2023 05:40 pm »
Only like 50-60 tons of Xenon produced per year, and about 800 tons of Neon. (Krypton probably somewhere in between.)

BTW, Ukraine is the largest producer of Xenon, Krypton, and Neon. Producing like 70% of the world’s Neon and 40% of Krypton.

Makes sense Starlink would go right to Argon. Starlink would otherwise use up all the world’s production capacity of heavier noble gases… which also is at war right now.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2023 05:42 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2578
  • Likes Given: 525
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #7 on: 02/26/2023 05:44 pm »
Any idea of an ISP range and efficiency for these argon thrusters?

There’s probably SEP tug possibilities down the line with argon being as cheap as it is.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2023 05:47 pm by ZachF »
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2578
  • Likes Given: 525
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #8 on: 02/26/2023 05:53 pm »
Also “4x more capacity per satellite” probably means 100 gbps per satellite which is pretty impressive… I mean China just a few days ago launched its first 100GBps satellite and that probably weighs multiple times more. One web sats are only like 7 GBps each.

Each launch will now be lofting 2+ TBps of bandwidth per launch.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2023 05:57 pm by ZachF »
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline Tywin

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #9 on: 02/26/2023 05:58 pm »
Any idea of an ISP range and efficiency for these argon thrusters?

There’s probably SEP tug possibilities down the line with argon being as cheap as it is.


That is my idea here:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53526.msg2461439#new
The knowledge is power...Everything is connected...
The Turtle continues at a steady pace ...

Offline Tywin

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #10 on: 02/26/2023 06:01 pm »
21 per launch probably means ~750kg each now for mass.

IF the mini have a mass of 750kg, how much could be the normal V2 satellite?

Maybe as big as the BlueWalker 3?
The knowledge is power...Everything is connected...
The Turtle continues at a steady pace ...

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47310
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80116
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #11 on: 02/26/2023 06:13 pm »
Argon is a pretty big deal for scalability.

Also SpaceX likely to be saving millions of dollars per launch just from switching to Argon.

twitter.com/spaceabhi/status/1629914293960597505

Quote
Vertical integration.  Part of the reason I have been so bearish on startups that JUST wanted to do a thruster (however novel) and license/sell it.  To optimize the end product its hard to just stitch a system together.

https://twitter.com/spaceabhi/status/1629916604753661952

Quote
And since SpaceX doesn't license or sell its components, startups will be born (in stealth) as soon as this week to work on Argon thrusters now that one has been seen in the wild as incorporated into a fleet.  Everyone will want one.


Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2578
  • Likes Given: 525
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #12 on: 02/26/2023 06:17 pm »
Argon is a pretty big deal for scalability.

Also SpaceX likely to be saving millions of dollars per launch just from switching to Argon.
[/quote]

If 20% of a ~16t Starlink launch mass is krypton and it’s about $300/kg as robotbeat says, that’s about $1m in savings per launch on just krypton.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2023 06:21 pm by ZachF »
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #13 on: 02/26/2023 06:26 pm »
Maybe not millions, but possibly a million. As I showed above.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8740
  • Liked: 4646
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #14 on: 02/26/2023 06:41 pm »
Stupid question: How many per launch? This has a huge impact on concerns regarding space debris and astronomical impact.

Stack looks to be 20 high but it's not clear if there are multiple satellites in each layer.
SpaceX tweeted 21 per launch:

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1629898239066480640?t=mNgtxYvARzRcMzgET8K5rA&s=19
There is one sat per layer. The PLF volume wise can support 30 sats but mass wise will be around 20 depending upon factors such as launch site, launch azimuth and targeted inclination and seasonal weather.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2023 06:42 pm by russianhalo117 »

Offline Tomness

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 659
  • Into the abyss will I run
  • Liked: 289
  • Likes Given: 736
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #15 on: 02/26/2023 06:42 pm »
Stupid question: How many per launch? This has a huge impact on concerns regarding space debris and astronomical impact.

Stack looks to be 20 high but it's not clear if there are multiple satellites in each layer.
SpaceX tweeted 21 per launch:

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1629898239066480640?t=mNgtxYvARzRcMzgET8K5rA&s=19
The PLF volume wise can support 30 sats but mass wise will be around 20 depending upon factors such as launch site, launch azimuth and targeted inclination and seasonal weather.

They might upgrade to Extended Fairing with Recovery.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5003
  • Likes Given: 1424
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #16 on: 02/26/2023 06:46 pm »
A savings of ~$48,000 per V2 Mini sat. Or on the full size V2 a probable $90,000 to $100,000 per sat. Note on the 7,500 sats in this first phase of deployments a likely cost savings of up to $675M.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8740
  • Liked: 4646
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #17 on: 02/26/2023 06:47 pm »
Stupid question: How many per launch? This has a huge impact on concerns regarding space debris and astronomical impact.

Stack looks to be 20 high but it's not clear if there are multiple satellites in each layer.
SpaceX tweeted 21 per launch:

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1629898239066480640?t=mNgtxYvARzRcMzgET8K5rA&s=19
The PLF volume wise can support 30 sats but mass wise will be around 20 depending upon factors such as launch site, launch azimuth and targeted inclination and seasonal weather.

They might upgrade to Extended Fairing with Recovery.
That would necessitate using Falcon Heavy as the combined payload stacks' wet mass is the constraint not the fairing. The stack is 9 minis short of the of the v1.0 stack height which was two parallel stacks of 30 totalling 60.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2023 06:48 pm by russianhalo117 »

Offline Tomness

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 659
  • Into the abyss will I run
  • Liked: 289
  • Likes Given: 736
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #18 on: 02/26/2023 07:34 pm »
Stupid question: How many per launch? This has a huge impact on concerns regarding space debris and astronomical impact.

Stack looks to be 20 high but it's not clear if there are multiple satellites in each layer.
SpaceX tweeted 21 per launch:

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1629898239066480640?t=mNgtxYvARzRcMzgET8K5rA&s=19
The PLF volume wise can support 30 sats but mass wise will be around 20 depending upon factors such as launch site, launch azimuth and targeted inclination and seasonal weather.

They might upgrade to Extended Fairing with Recovery.
That would necessitate using Falcon Heavy as the combined payload stacks' wet mass is the constraint not the fairing. The stack is 9 minis short of the of the v1.0 stack height which was two parallel stacks of 30 totalling 60.

FH every month until Starship is launching would be wild.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #19 on: 02/26/2023 08:03 pm »
We knew the v2 full sized satellites will have 4x the bandwidth of the v1.5 satellites. Guess I am a little surprised that v2 mini's have 4x the bandwidth.  Guess it makes sense,  other than the antennas which are half the size,  everything else in the payload is the same.  Smaller antennas just means they don't have the sensitivity and beam forming capabilities of their larger brothers.

Can not wait to see them in orbit... or not see them if the new coatings work.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47310
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80116
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #20 on: 02/26/2023 08:06 pm »
https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1629948869239873538

Quote
Argon Hall thruster tech specs:
- 170 mN thrust
- 2500 s specific impulse
- 50% total efficiency
- 4.2 kW power
- 2.1 kg mass
- Center mounted cathode

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5398
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1778
  • Likes Given: 1281
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #21 on: 02/26/2023 08:11 pm »
Stupid question: How many per launch? This has a huge impact on concerns regarding space debris and astronomical impact.

Stack looks to be 20 high but it's not clear if there are multiple satellites in each layer.
SpaceX tweeted 21 per launch:

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1629898239066480640?t=mNgtxYvARzRcMzgET8K5rA&s=19
The PLF volume wise can support 30 sats but mass wise will be around 20 depending upon factors such as launch site, launch azimuth and targeted inclination and seasonal weather.

They might upgrade to Extended Fairing with Recovery.
That would necessitate using Falcon Heavy as the combined payload stacks' wet mass is the constraint not the fairing. The stack is 9 minis short of the of the v1.0 stack height which was two parallel stacks of 30 totalling 60.

FH every month until Starship is launching would be wild.

It is even wilder. Considering that the Falcon Heavy for the Starlink v2 mini should be fully recoverable except for the upper stage. In theory one Falcon heavy core set could sustain the month launch rate for Starlink v2 mini.

The question is how many Starlink v2 mini in the Falcon extended payload fairing that  still allows the recovery of the cores?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #22 on: 02/26/2023 08:25 pm »
2000W/kg is REALLY good specific power, I think?

The Busek 600W hall thruster is 2.6kg. 230W/kg, around an order of magnitude less.
https://www.busek.com/bht600
« Last Edit: 02/26/2023 08:32 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2578
  • Likes Given: 525
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #23 on: 02/26/2023 08:35 pm »
2000W/kg is REALLY good specific power, I think?

The Busek 600W hall thruster is 2.6kg.

All the stats are pretty impressive considering argon fuel.

SpaceX is getting good at building them, not a surprising development factoring in the gigantic numbers of them they must build now. (Must be multiples the rest of the world combined?)
« Last Edit: 02/26/2023 08:37 pm by ZachF »
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5003
  • Likes Given: 1424
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #24 on: 02/26/2023 09:03 pm »
2000W/kg is REALLY good specific power, I think?

The Busek 600W hall thruster is 2.6kg.

All the stats are pretty impressive considering argon fuel.

SpaceX is getting good at building them, not a surprising development factoring in the gigantic numbers of them they must build now. (Must be multiples the rest of the world combined?)
Overall it does better using argon than the Busek does using Xenon fuel. Plus its ISP increase over that of an Xenon Hal thruster will need 30% less fuel for same total Delta-V.

added: Correction For the V2 sats. That is >50% less fuel for same DV. From the Isp*9.8*LN(wet/dry) where using argon only 20% of V2 sat mass is fuel.

The V2 will be a "lively" as in highly and quickly maneuverable sat vs the V1's due to the much higher acceleration rates even with same number of thrusters and 2X the total mass. Giving the V2s about 2X the acceleration over that of V1 for same number of thrusters.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2023 09:33 pm by oldAtlas_Eguy »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5398
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1778
  • Likes Given: 1281
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #25 on: 02/26/2023 09:28 pm »
Wonder if SpaceX consider a Xenon version of their new Argon thruster for high performance usage?

Come to think of it, maybe their new Argon thruster is a derated variant of a Xenon thruster that SpaceX was working on. Until they realized the very limited availability of Xenon even before the Russians invaded Ukraine.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #26 on: 02/26/2023 09:47 pm »
No, there is not nearly enough Xenon, and it’s way too expensive to use Xenon.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5003
  • Likes Given: 1424
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #27 on: 02/26/2023 09:57 pm »
No, there is not nearly enough Xenon, and it’s way too expensive to use Xenon.
A 3000 to 1 price difference per kg. The V2Mini sat holds 150kg of fuel so $150 for Argon and $450,000 for the same amount of Xenon.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5303
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5003
  • Likes Given: 1424
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #28 on: 02/26/2023 10:06 pm »
An implication of use of this thruster is that with higher thrust it enables a quicker reaching of the orbital operational position. Instead of up to 3 months to reach its operations orbit after launch. It could be considerably shorter as in a month or even less depending on how much fuel usage is the optimum use amount for sat lifetime.

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2293
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 504
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #29 on: 02/26/2023 10:33 pm »
We knew the v2 full sized satellites will have 4x the bandwidth of the v1.5 satellites. Guess I am a little surprised that v2 mini's have 4x the bandwidth.  Guess it makes sense,  other than the antennas which are half the size,  everything else in the payload is the same.  Smaller antennas just means they don't have the sensitivity and beam forming capabilities of their larger brothers.

Can not wait to see them in orbit... or not see them if the new coatings work.

Elon said the V2 sats would have “almost an order of magnitude” more capacity than the V1.5’s. People interpreted that as meaning about 8 times more. So the mini’s having 4 times more (or half that of the full size V2’s) seems about right.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2023 10:41 pm by M.E.T. »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #30 on: 02/26/2023 10:38 pm »
No, there is not nearly enough Xenon, and it’s way too expensive to use Xenon.
A 3000 to 1 price difference per kg. The V2Mini sat holds 150kg of fuel so $150 for Argon and $450,000 for the same amount of Xenon.
what’s your source for 150kg of propellant for V2Mini? I spitballed 20%, but it was totally made up.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #31 on: 02/26/2023 10:44 pm »
BTW, the reason why, ignoring price, Xenon is better than Krypton which is better than Argon is:
1) the higher atomic mass means higher density, easier to store with lower dry mass tanks and plumbing.
2) lower ionization energy per unit atomic mass, which means greater efficiency.

You have to ionize the gas in order to accelerate it typically but that ionization energy is typically totally lost. You can adjust the ISP to be as high as you want, but too low of an ISP means it takes a lot longer to reach your destination for a given input power. However generally, the efficiency increases with ISP as you already paid for the energy to ionize it so you can accelerate it as fast as you want and so the denominator of the loss ratio gets bigger, reducing the relative loss.

Xenon has the lowest per atom ionization energy of all the stable noble gases. It also is the heaviest. So it will be the most energy efficient to use. 131.2 amu for Xe, 83.8 amu for Kr, 40.0 amu for Argon.

If we assume we accelerate each of those atoms to 20km/s (about 2000s Isp), then they’ll have a kinetic energy of 272, 174, and 83eV, respectively.
12.13eV, 14.00eV, 15.76eV first ionization energy respectively. So if everything else is totally efficient, Xenon can be 96% efficient, Kr 92.6%, and Argon 84%. Or you can operate at higher Isp, so ionization losses become even less important.
« Last Edit: 02/27/2023 12:13 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1768
  • Likes Given: 2851
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #32 on: 02/27/2023 03:31 pm »
I'm curious why bandwidth is the constraining metric.

The more subscribers (uplinks) you have the less likely all will be using bandwidth at the same time. 

I suspect that number of uplink connections per satellite is the constraining metric.  I guess that is kept as a trade secret.

Subscribers pay the bill, not bandwidth


Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1768
  • Likes Given: 2851
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #33 on: 02/27/2023 03:32 pm »
are there any specs on the solar power system?  Can't find any

Offline DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1666
  • Liked: 1167
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #34 on: 02/27/2023 03:35 pm »
I'm curious why bandwidth is the constraining metric.

The more subscribers (uplinks) you have the less likely all will be using bandwidth at the same time. 

I suspect that number of uplink connections per satellite is the constraining metric.  I guess that is kept as a trade secret.

Subscribers pay the bill, not bandwidth

I think ISP's in the EU had the same opinion. However they are currently trying to get the likes of Amazon and Netflix to pay for their network upgrades.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5286
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4137
  • Likes Given: 1661
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #35 on: 02/27/2023 03:41 pm »
I'm curious why bandwidth is the constraining metric.

The more subscribers (uplinks) you have the less likely all will be using bandwidth at the same time. 

I suspect that number of uplink connections per satellite is the constraining metric.  I guess that is kept as a trade secret.

Subscribers pay the bill, not bandwidth
The beams almost certainly share bandwidth using TDMA on the uplink and some sort of packet tags in the downlink. This allows for an effectively unlimited number of simultaneous users per beam, limited only by the bandwidth, unless the protocol designers made some extremely short-sighted decisions.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47310
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80116
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #36 on: 02/27/2023 04:37 pm »
https://twitter.com/lrocket/status/1630260581658923009

Quote
Wow, they've com a long way since my original spreadsheet!

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
  • Liked: 1051
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #37 on: 02/28/2023 12:33 am »
An implication of use of this thruster is that with higher thrust it enables a quicker reaching of the orbital operational position. Instead of up to 3 months to reach its operations orbit after launch. It could be considerably shorter as in a month or even less depending on how much fuel usage is the optimum use amount for sat lifetime.

That recent research on overdriven thrusters made me think, for orbit placement could the thrusters be fed by the full power of the solar arrays in some sort of overdrive mode, then do maintenance propulsion with a smaller energy budget when the sat is transmitting?

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #38 on: 02/28/2023 02:13 am »
While Shell 4 satellites took up to three months to reach operational altitude,  they filled multiple orbital planes each launch and had to spend time drifting. The Shell 3 satellites which only filled one plane per launch reached operational altitude in two months.

Launching 21 satellites per launch it is reasonable to expect v2 mini's to all go to the same plane without needing to drift.  So, we should expect v2 mini's on station less than two months after each launch.
« Last Edit: 02/28/2023 02:24 am by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10112
  • US
  • Liked: 13665
  • Likes Given: 5862
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #39 on: 02/28/2023 02:18 am »
Lots of changes.  The mirror film over the phased arrays, the deployment rods staying attached to the second stage.  Can't tell what the fold-out pieces on top of the solar arrays are.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1630394434847227909

Online vaporcobra

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #40 on: 02/28/2023 03:55 am »
Lots of changes.  The mirror film over the phased arrays, the deployment rods staying attached to the second stage.  Can't tell what the fold-out pieces on top of the solar arrays are.

To add to this, the rectangular object sticking out from the crossbeam is likely a big chunk of aluminum honeycomb that crushes against the tank wall to stop the 'ladder' from bouncing back up.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
  • Liked: 1051
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #41 on: 02/28/2023 04:04 am »
Can't tell what the fold-out pieces on top of the solar arrays are.

My eyesight isn't that bad yet, but what fold out pieces are you referring to?

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10494
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 7753
  • Likes Given: 7277
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #42 on: 02/28/2023 04:13 am »
Can't tell what the fold-out pieces on top of the solar arrays are.

My eyesight isn't that bad yet, but what fold out pieces are you referring to?

The best I could see was the two Argon thrusters pointed 45 deg from each other at the top of the solar arrays. Unless that crack that runs down the entire length of the solar array folds outward?
« Last Edit: 02/28/2023 04:15 am by catdlr »
Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline blach

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #43 on: 02/28/2023 05:15 am »
2000W/kg is REALLY good specific power, I think?

The Busek 600W hall thruster is 2.6kg.

All the stats are pretty impressive considering argon fuel.

SpaceX is getting good at building them, not a surprising development factoring in the gigantic numbers of them they must build now. (Must be multiples the rest of the world combined?)
Overall it does better using argon than the Busek does using Xenon fuel. Plus its ISP increase over that of an Xenon Hal thruster will need 30% less fuel for same total Delta-V.

added: Correction For the V2 sats. That is >50% less fuel for same DV. From the Isp*9.8*LN(wet/dry) where using argon only 20% of V2 sat mass is fuel.

The V2 will be a "lively" as in highly and quickly maneuverable sat vs the V1's due to the much higher acceleration rates even with same number of thrusters and 2X the total mass. Giving the V2s about 2X the acceleration over that of V1 for same number of thrusters.

I'm not sure this is correct. It might actually be a good bit slower to reach operational orbit:

https://twitter.com/lougrims/status/1630309641434398722

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12077
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18010
  • Likes Given: 12026
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #44 on: 02/28/2023 09:11 am »
Stupid question: How many per launch? This has a huge impact on concerns regarding space debris and astronomical impact.

Stack looks to be 20 high but it's not clear if there are multiple satellites in each layer.
SpaceX tweeted 21 per launch:

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1629898239066480640?t=mNgtxYvARzRcMzgET8K5rA&s=19
The PLF volume wise can support 30 sats but mass wise will be around 20 depending upon factors such as launch site, launch azimuth and targeted inclination and seasonal weather.

They might upgrade to Extended Fairing with Recovery.
That would necessitate using Falcon Heavy as the combined payload stacks' wet mass is the constraint not the fairing. The stack is 9 minis short of the of the v1.0 stack height which was two parallel stacks of 30 totalling 60.

You are assuming that the V2 mini's have the same "height" (or rather lack thereof) as the v1.0 sats. I can tell you that your assumption is incorrect. The V2 mini's are somewhat "thicker" than the v1.5 sats and notably thicker than the v1.0 sats. Also, the way how the tension-release mechanism of the connected tension rods is set up,  removes a few feet of useable room near the top of the fairing. Both factors combined is why in the same height of payload envelope only 21 layers of V2 minis can be stacked, against 30 layers of v1.0s.

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2241
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 295
  • Likes Given: 485
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #45 on: 02/28/2023 11:58 am »
You can tell the v2's were designed for Starship with being enclosed all the way to orbit.. They are like typical Sats in their ability to withstand aero-loads/heating. You could see there was a much bigger delay in Fairing Deploy than with the earlier v1.x Starlinks. This likey cost them an additional 1-2 Starlinks they could lift to orbit.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #46 on: 02/28/2023 12:24 pm »
2000W/kg is REALLY good specific power, I think?

The Busek 600W hall thruster is 2.6kg.

All the stats are pretty impressive considering argon fuel.

SpaceX is getting good at building them, not a surprising development factoring in the gigantic numbers of them they must build now. (Must be multiples the rest of the world combined?)
Overall it does better using argon than the Busek does using Xenon fuel. Plus its ISP increase over that of an Xenon Hal thruster will need 30% less fuel for same total Delta-V.

added: Correction For the V2 sats. That is >50% less fuel for same DV. From the Isp*9.8*LN(wet/dry) where using argon only 20% of V2 sat mass is fuel.

The V2 will be a "lively" as in highly and quickly maneuverable sat vs the V1's due to the much higher acceleration rates even with same number of thrusters and 2X the total mass. Giving the V2s about 2X the acceleration over that of V1 for same number of thrusters.

I'm not sure this is correct. It might actually be a good bit slower to reach operational orbit:

https://twitter.com/lougrims/status/1630309641434398722
He’s exaggerating the efficiency difference and the time to reach orbit. Efficiency of Xenon at that Isp would be about 65%, Krypton in between like 57%. But the Isp was increased from before which reduces the efficiency hit.

SpaceX gets a really good power to weight ratio with this thruster. If they also improved the solar arrays, then there may have been no hit to time to reach station at all. In spite of the higher Isp and lower efficiency.
« Last Edit: 02/28/2023 12:26 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10112
  • US
  • Liked: 13665
  • Likes Given: 5862
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #47 on: 02/28/2023 12:27 pm »
Can't tell what the fold-out pieces on top of the solar arrays are.

My eyesight isn't that bad yet, but what fold out pieces are you referring to?

There are two surfaces on top covered with mirror film, I'm assuming those fold out and face the ground.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47310
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80116
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #48 on: 02/28/2023 07:23 pm »
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1630659589673721864

Quote
Fascinating thread here on why SpaceX shifted from using Krypton to Argon to fuel its Starlink spacecraft. The new thrusters were designed, built, tested, and flown in about 550 days.

twitter.com/lougrims/status/1630302082526769153

Quote
As promised here is a thread on SpaceX announcement about their new Hall thruster for Starlink V2 mini. Trying to go over the figures they published and why it's kind of a unique thruster. Please excuse in advance typos, I had a long day of meetings. twitter.com/SpaceX/status/…

https://twitter.com/longmier/status/1630463541949132800

Quote
Nice writeup Lou. This was a tricky one for us to solve for sure.

twitter.com/lougrims/status/1630464757147787265

Quote
I can imagine! You probably can't take about it but I would be curious to know when the switch to argon was decided. Also love those molded brackets on the reaction wheel. Cool to see that volumes are high enough that "CNC all the things" is not the best solution anymore.

https://twitter.com/longmier/status/1630626524318797825

Quote
556 days from thruster clean-sheet to orbit.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
  • Liked: 1051
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #49 on: 02/28/2023 11:13 pm »
Can't tell what the fold-out pieces on top of the solar arrays are.

My eyesight isn't that bad yet, but what fold out pieces are you referring to?

There are two surfaces on top covered with mirror film, I'm assuming those fold out and face the ground.

Ah, eyes got tricked, thought I was seeing the horizon directly when that was actually the reflection off the mirrored panel.

I think the mirror panel part is covering the pieces of the small antennas and their frame. But, it's on both sides, so I wonder about line of sight issues with at least one ISL laser beam director...

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8740
  • Liked: 4646
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #50 on: 03/01/2023 01:55 am »
No, there is not nearly enough Xenon, and it’s way too expensive to use Xenon.
Xenon as what is used for spacecraft underwent isotopic beta decay from Iodine via the Iodine to Xenon cycle. There is however it is nearly all trapped inside rock, the mantle and water, however its free atmospheric abundance is variable through degassing and regassing though it is presently on a decreasing trend. Argon comes from rock as well as originates from Potassium Argon cycle. Carbon becomes Nitrogen over time. It is all a cycle subject to physical reaction and geologic time. Xenon and Iodine love heat while under pressure to regas the rock. To move upwards a combination of the geologic elevator and water bring the final product and its variations of Xenon to the surface. Subduction , hydrothermal vents and eruptions are some of natures ways to degas Xenon from the rock.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8740
  • Liked: 4646
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #51 on: 03/01/2023 02:10 am »
Stupid question: How many per launch? This has a huge impact on concerns regarding space debris and astronomical impact.

Stack looks to be 20 high but it's not clear if there are multiple satellites in each layer.
SpaceX tweeted 21 per launch:

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1629898239066480640?t=mNgtxYvARzRcMzgET8K5rA&s=19
The PLF volume wise can support 30 sats but mass wise will be around 20 depending upon factors such as launch site, launch azimuth and targeted inclination and seasonal weather.

They might upgrade to Extended Fairing with Recovery.
That would necessitate using Falcon Heavy as the combined payload stacks' wet mass is the constraint not the fairing. The stack is 9 minis short of the of the v1.0 stack height which was two parallel stacks of 30 totalling 60.

You are assuming that the V2 mini's have the same "height" (or rather lack thereof) as the v1.0 sats. I can tell you that your assumption is incorrect. The V2 mini's are somewhat "thicker" than the v1.5 sats and notably thicker than the v1.0 sats. Also, the way how the tension-release mechanism of the connected tension rods is set up,  removes a few feet of useable room near the top of the fairing. Both factors combined is why in the same height of payload envelope only 21 layers of V2 minis can be stacked, against 30 layers of v1.0s.
That was all a very quick guestimation before pictures became available.
The tension rods height, per a friend, of the forward release mechanism can be adjusted for the intended number of sats and are not at the maximum loading capacity but close. For this flight, and maybe others, cameras were flown on select tension rods with the blue cabling running to them and the stacks forward release mechanism.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12077
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18010
  • Likes Given: 12026
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #52 on: 03/01/2023 07:35 am »

https://twitter.com/longmier/status/1630626524318797825

Quote
556 days from thruster clean-sheet to orbit.

And THAT is why the rest of the world is unable to compete with SpaceX.
« Last Edit: 03/01/2023 07:38 am by woods170 »

Offline ZachF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Immensely complex & high risk
  • NH, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 2578
  • Likes Given: 525
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #53 on: 03/01/2023 04:20 pm »
Something fun/interesting to think about, the eventual photovoltaic capacity of the Starlink system might be measured in *gigawatts*!

https://twitter.com/virtuallynathan/status/1630941027317186560?s=21

1 GW generation at 50% capacity is roughly comparable to Latvia or Lithuania.
artist, so take opinions expressed above with a well-rendered grain of salt...
https://www.instagram.com/artzf/

Offline seb21051

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 150
  • Michigan, USA
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 174
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #54 on: 03/01/2023 05:48 pm »
Pretty impressive coming from a ~800kg satellite. (16,900kg/21 = 804kg).

From Wikipedia's Falcon 9 Launch List:

27 February 2023,
23:13[491]   F9 B5 ♺
B1076.3[492]   CCSFS,
SLC-40   Starlink Group 6-1[493] (21 V2 Mini satellites)[494]   ~16,900 kg (37,300 lb)   LEO   SpaceX   Success   Success
(drone ship)
An East Coast Starlink launch to their Generation 2 network. First launch of downsized Starlink V2 satellites - officially referred to as the F9-2 bus, but colloquially known as "Starlink V2 Mini." This flight marked the 100th consecutive landing success of a Falcon 9 booster since 16 February 2021.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #55 on: 03/01/2023 06:34 pm »
Something fun/interesting to think about, the eventual photovoltaic capacity of the Starlink system might be measured in *gigawatts*!

https://twitter.com/virtuallynathan/status/1630941027317186560?s=21

1 GW generation at 50% capacity is roughly comparable to Latvia or Lithuania.
24% is actually doable for commercial silicon cell panel-level efficiency at 1AM or AM1.5, ie 1000W/m^2 at sea level and the equator. But space has higher intensity sunlight AM0 (air mass zero) of 1367/m^2. However the slightly different spectrum means a little lower efficiency. Maybe 21% efficiency, so the net effect is still to have about 287W/m^2 solar power at the panel level. It’s possible he actually under-estimated total power per satellite (although I suspect it’s close as maybe Starlink solar panels are not as optimized in area). It could be 73.4kW per Starlink v2 full size satellite. (Trying to find the FCC document… Which isn’t made any easier by the fact that deep-linking to FCC document attachments does not work in spite of people continuing to try deep-linking to those documents here. PLEASE attach the document PDF when linking to the FCC site!

Edit: I’ve attached the document in question.
« Last Edit: 03/01/2023 06:42 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #56 on: 03/01/2023 06:49 pm »
Note that because the satellites are orbiting around 530km altitude, about 510km above vast majority of the atmosphere, their time in sunlight is over 60%, not just 50%.

Anyway, let’s say 40,000 satellites at 73.4kW each and with a 60% capacity factor. 77.2TWh of energy made over 5 years.

Let’s say it took 800 Starship launches to get them there. That required on the order of 800,000tonnes of methane, which if fully burned produces 2.75 kg of CO2 per kg of methane, so about 2.2Mtonnes of CO2. That’s 28.5 grams of CO2 emitted per kWh of electricity produced on the Starlink satellites (which displaces perhaps a similar amount on the ground? Maybe half that because maybe half of the energy is used for stationkeeping). Not bad compared to the US average of over 360grams of CO2 per kWh.

Or put another way… 800,000 tonnes of methane at 55.5MJ/kg is 44.4 Petajoules (4.44e16J) which the average 1.76GW pays back in about 0.8 years or 10 months. The solar arrays produce more electrical energy than it took fuel energy to launch the rocket within 10 months. Again, not too shabby!

It may not be space based solar power with actual energy beaming, but offloading telecoms energy to orbit isn’t bad, either.
« Last Edit: 03/01/2023 07:07 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5286
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4137
  • Likes Given: 1661
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #57 on: 03/01/2023 06:56 pm »
Note that because the satellites are orbiting around 530km altitude, about 510km above vast majority of the atmosphere, their time in sunlight is over 60%, not just 50%.
Not because the are above the atmosphere, but because they spend less than half the time in the Earth's shadow.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #58 on: 03/01/2023 07:08 pm »
Note that because the satellites are orbiting around 530km altitude, about 510km above vast majority of the atmosphere, their time in sunlight is over 60%, not just 50%.
Not because the are above the atmosphere, but because they spend less than half the time in the Earth's shadow.
Yes, of course, I took that to be implicit. I included the atmosphere as part of the thing that can produce a shadow. Clouds and stuff can produce a shadow.
« Last Edit: 03/01/2023 07:09 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #59 on: 03/01/2023 07:15 pm »
Not sure if this was mentioned here but from 6-1, SpaceX separated the fairings much later at ~98km altitude compared to much lower altitudes with the Starlink V1.5 launches (the latest V1.5 launch out of Vandenburg separated at ~85km). I wonder if this is a case of SpaceX playing it safe for the first launch with V2 mini sats or if the new sats truly do have less tolerance for lower atmospheric heating. I mean, when the V2 sats launch on starship they dont have to experience any atmospheric heating or drag because, well, the satellites arent exposed to space until deployment.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #60 on: 03/01/2023 07:19 pm »
Not sure if this was mentioned here but from 6-1, SpaceX separated the fairings much later at ~98km altitude compared to much lower altitudes with the Starlink V1.5 launches (the latest V1.5 launch out of Vandenburg separated at ~85km). I wonder if this is a case of SpaceX playing it safe for the first launch with V2 mini sats or if the new sats truly do have less tolerance for lower atmospheric heating. I mean, when the V2 sats launch on starship they dont have to experience any atmospheric heating or drag because, well, the satellites arent exposed to space until deployment.
It could be both that and that they had a little extra performance (as in, maybe they could fit 21.5 satellites but obviously they wouldn’t launch half a satellite, so that’s a little extra performance).

I think also they had those cameras and stuff on the poles, and they may wanted to protect those for this first launch of the V2minis.
« Last Edit: 03/01/2023 07:21 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #61 on: 03/01/2023 07:46 pm »
This is dumb, but… you’ve got connectivity, you’ve got power, you’ve presumably got some cooling as well, plus transport costs as low as $10-100/kg (which is much cheaper than server hardware which costs $1000/kg)…

It might almost make sense to sell server collocation rack space on full size V2s… a V2 could probably handle a full rack or two, which can go for $5000-$20,000 per month per rack. For 40,000 satellites, that’s potentially billions or tens of billions in revenue. (Gotta handle launch, may need extra shielding for radiation, but… it may actually work.) It sounds really dumb, and no doubt it makes sense to focus on revenue from internet connectivity (which is like 10 times as lucrative per satellite), but that’s an amount of revenue comparable to or greater than all the annual launch revenue of the entire world combined.

Makes more sense than space-based solar power, at least…
« Last Edit: 03/01/2023 07:47 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10112
  • US
  • Liked: 13665
  • Likes Given: 5862
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #62 on: 03/01/2023 08:09 pm »
Pretty impressive coming from a ~800kg satellite. (16,900kg/21 = 804kg).

From Wikipedia's Falcon 9 Launch List:

That's not an exact number.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5286
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4137
  • Likes Given: 1661
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #63 on: 03/01/2023 08:28 pm »
This is dumb, but… you’ve got connectivity, you’ve got power, you’ve presumably got some cooling as well, plus transport costs as low as $10-100/kg (which is much cheaper than server hardware which costs $1000/kg)…

It might almost make sense to sell server collocation rack space on full size V2s… a V2 could probably handle a full rack or two, which can go for $5000-$20,000 per month per rack. For 40,000 satellites, that’s potentially billions or tens of billions in revenue. (Gotta handle launch, may need extra shielding for radiation, but… it may actually work.) It sounds really dumb, and no doubt it makes sense to focus on revenue from internet connectivity (which is like 10 times as lucrative per satellite), but that’s an amount of revenue comparable to or greater than all the annual launch revenue of the entire world combined.

Makes more sense than space-based solar power, at least…
Satellites move. If your server is on a single satellite, it's distance from you will vary form about 500 km to about 20,000 km on several timescales. but mostly over the course of about 45 minutes. 20,000 is 66 ms one way or 133 ms turnaround time (actually more because because the ISLs are not precisely shortest path), plus switching delays.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47310
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80116
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #64 on: 03/01/2023 08:51 pm »
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1630392586254053378

Quote
The transition to argon was tricky, but necessary, as krypton is too rare

twitter.com/lrocket/status/1631048126340665344

Quote
Really awesome that you got such great efficiency.  I remember when we selected Krypton we were told by the "experts" that we could make it work but would never get high efficiency.

https://twitter.com/lrocket/status/1631048879872561153

Quote
And also "the tank will be much heavier" with krypton.  It saved like $100K per satellite over Xenon but was only on the order of a kilogram or so heavier

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1631048839518904322

Quote
These the same experts who said supersonic retropropulsion was not possible?

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14098
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13957
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #65 on: 03/04/2023 03:21 pm »
These the same experts who said supersonic retropropulsion was not possible?

Knee-jerk engineering.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4847
  • Liked: 2773
  • Likes Given: 1090
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #66 on: 03/04/2023 04:04 pm »
These the same experts who said supersonic retropropulsion was not possible?
Knee-jerk engineering.

At the risk of sending OT... one of those skeptics was Tony Bruno. Somewhere way back in a video interview he was asked about SMART vs. SpaceX approach. His response: "I know a lot about hypersonics...and that's what worries me". (Unfortunately cannot find video. But stuck in my head as a weak attempt to justify SMART. Context was both supersonic retropropulsion and thermal conditions of engines and vehicle.) If anyone has a reference to that interview, would appreciate. Thanks

Offline Mariusuiram

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Liked: 129
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #67 on: 03/04/2023 05:04 pm »
Or put another way… 800,000 tonnes of methane at 55.5MJ/kg is 44.4 Petajoules (4.44e16J) which the average 1.76GW pays back in about 0.8 years or 10 months. The solar arrays produce more electrical energy than it took fuel energy to launch the rocket within 10 months. Again, not too shabby!

It may not be space based solar power with actual energy beaming, but offloading telecoms energy to orbit isn’t bad, either.

I always thought the most compelling argument against Space Based Solar Power was that its not necessarily infeasible, but if you put the effort to have that scale of energy beaming you'll always generate more revenue per W by encoding the electromagnetic waves with information.

IF Data centers and data transmission are on track to account for 5%+ of our energy consumption in the near term, the idea of moving a huge portion of that off planet seems like a pretty impressive use case for all this tech development happening.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #68 on: 03/04/2023 05:30 pm »
You’ll always generate more revenue… until you’ve saturated that market.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline CuddlyRocket

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #69 on: 03/04/2023 08:14 pm »
I always thought the most compelling argument against Space Based Solar Power was that its not necessarily infeasible, but if you put the effort to have that scale of energy beaming you'll always generate more revenue per W by encoding the electromagnetic waves with information.

To date, the most compelling argument against was that for the same money you got far more energy per day out of Earth-based solar power even taking into account the storage needed for nighttime use. However, I haven't seen anyone take into account potential revenue from a subsidiary use of being a geostationary communications satellite!

Offline Reynold

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 166
  • Liked: 270
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #70 on: 03/05/2023 03:19 pm »
You’ll always generate more revenue… until you’ve saturated that market.

If it were a static market, but unlike launch, which turned out to fairly insensitive to price (more recent upwards demand trends are encouraging at least), bandwidth demand seems to keep climbing very steadily.  Some optical fiber companies went bankrupt in 2009 time frame because of overcapacity, but that fiber capacity was soaked up in well under 10 years. 

I have friends who are paying business subscription rates for Starlink because household connections were not available in their rural Tennessee area.  If more bandwidth were available, they would certainly drop to household rates, but other people in the region who can't afford $2500 for the antenna and $500/month for service would probably sign up. 

Offline Cheapchips

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
  • UK
  • Liked: 854
  • Likes Given: 1922
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #71 on: 03/07/2023 08:22 am »

Quote
This is a prime example of a successful solar panel deployment! Congrats on the launch
@SpaceX
.

Our space-based sensors captured a newly launched Starlink V2 Mini satellite 7 days after deployment.

Powered by
@Satellogic

https://twitter.com/heorobotics/status/1632967220560265216?s=20


Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
  • Liked: 1051
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #72 on: 03/07/2023 11:53 pm »
Kinda hard to go shark fin mode there?

Online eeergo

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #73 on: 03/09/2023 08:28 am »

Quote
This is a prime example of a successful solar panel deployment! Congrats on the launch
@SpaceX
.

Our space-based sensors captured a newly launched Starlink V2 Mini satellite 7 days after deployment.

Powered by
@Satellogic


Was it known v2mini Starlinks would be featuring double solar wings? If so, when was this first scooped? Or am I interpreting the image wrong?
-DaviD-

Offline Stimbergi

  • Member
  • Posts: 99
  • Liked: 269
  • Likes Given: 83
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #74 on: 03/09/2023 09:52 am »
Was it known v2mini Starlinks would be featuring double solar wings? If so, when was this first scooped? Or am I interpreting the image wrong?
Yes - October 4, 2022 https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=17429628

To avoid mistakes - please pay attention to the concepts of "DAS Area and DAS Mass"
Quote
As SpaceX's CEO explained in recent public statements, SpaceX plans to launch satellites on Starship that are approximately 1250 kg and seven meters long. But to further demonstrate the inherently low risk of SpaceX's Gen2 satellites, the DAS analysis provided here assumed a larger satellite with a total mass of 2000 kg and an area of 294 square meters (i.e., an area-to-mass ratio of 0.147).
https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=16832647

Online eeergo

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #75 on: 03/09/2023 09:55 am »
Was it known v2mini Starlinks would be featuring double solar wings? If so, when was this first scooped? Or am I interpreting the image wrong?
Yes - October 4, 2022 https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=17429628

To avoid mistakes - please pay attention to the concepts of "DAS Area and DAS Mass"
Quote
As SpaceX's CEO explained in recent public statements, SpaceX plans to launch satellites on Starship that are approximately 1250 kg and seven meters long. But to further demonstrate the inherently low risk of SpaceX's Gen2 satellites, the DAS analysis provided here assumed a larger satellite with a total mass of 2000 kg and an area of 294 square meters (i.e., an area-to-mass ratio of 0.147).
https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=16832647


Thanks for the clear answer and reference - quite a larger satellite overall, and certainly with the doubled-up panel.
-DaviD-

Offline psionedge

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #76 on: 03/09/2023 03:43 pm »
Does SpaceX build their own solar cells? Have a wholly owned subsidiary or something?

Offline JayWee

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 981
  • Liked: 975
  • Likes Given: 1782
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #77 on: 03/09/2023 04:44 pm »
Does SpaceX build their own solar cells? Have a wholly owned subsidiary or something?
Most likely not: 

https://twitter.com/VirtuallyNathan/status/1622589195955978240

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #78 on: 03/09/2023 06:11 pm »
Does SpaceX build their own solar cells? Have a wholly owned subsidiary or something?
Most likely not: 

https://twitter.com/VirtuallyNathan/status/1622589195955978240
Not only that but SpaceX uses silicon solar cells and at least for the full size starlink GEN2 and the whole constellation size, they would need around 500 MW of cell capacity per year and the US actually has zero large scale (ie greater than megawatt per year) silicon *CELL* manufacturing capacity right now. In fact, even Gen 1 currently launched is multiple megawatts.

So no, unless SpaceX has a factory elsewhere than the US, SpaceX is not manufacturing their own cells.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2398
  • Liked: 2367
  • Likes Given: 10124
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #79 on: 03/09/2023 08:25 pm »
As far as I understand it, SpaceX doesn't build its own solar cells, but it does build its own modules and arrays.  I would guess that a small minority of the costs of an array are the cells and that the cells are more or less commodities that are readily available in bulk from multiple suppliers.

Also see, for example, Tesla Solar roof tiles.
« Last Edit: 03/09/2023 08:31 pm by RedLineTrain »

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
  • Liked: 1051
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #80 on: 03/09/2023 11:29 pm »
Does SpaceX build their own solar cells? Have a wholly owned subsidiary or something?
Most likely not: 

https://twitter.com/VirtuallyNathan/status/1622589195955978240

Pardon my ignorance, but why would solar cells need to be delivered in temperature controlled containers, when they have to face the thermal swings of space?


Was it known v2mini Starlinks would be featuring double solar wings? If so, when was this first scooped? Or am I interpreting the image wrong?
Yes - October 4, 2022 https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=17429628

To avoid mistakes - please pay attention to the concepts of "DAS Area and DAS Mass"
Quote
As SpaceX's CEO explained in recent public statements, SpaceX plans to launch satellites on Starship that are approximately 1250 kg and seven meters long. But to further demonstrate the inherently low risk of SpaceX's Gen2 satellites, the DAS analysis provided here assumed a larger satellite with a total mass of 2000 kg and an area of 294 square meters (i.e., an area-to-mass ratio of 0.147).
https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=16832647


The areas shown really make a case for why AST&Science/Spacemobile said screw it, and combined the solar panel and phased array antenna into one monster contiguous structure. If you have to spread out that far anyways for the solar panel, spreading out to a larger antenna is seductive.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #81 on: 03/10/2023 01:55 am »
Cells don’t really like moisture. If you need moisture control, you’ll want to ship in a temperature-controlled unit.

Additionally, the packaging materials could break down from high temperature, ie stick to the cells, etc.

BUT interesting the cells come from Taiwan. “friendshoring” FTW!

And makes sense, too, as this company makes thinner cells specifically for flexible modules, IIRC.
« Last Edit: 03/10/2023 02:05 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #82 on: 03/10/2023 02:11 am »
You know how cheap these cells are? pvinsights.com says the current high price for Mono PERC cells is 18¢ Per Watt.

Crazy that SpaceX is just bypassing the aerospace supply chain for cells (which can literally be $100/Watt or more… at the cell level!) and going for commodity type extremely cheap cells like a factor of 500 cheaper. Of course, Argon is like 500 times cheaper than Krypton, too. Starship may eventually cost a factor of 500 times less than the expendable rockets from Ariane or ULA did.

Like nearly 3 orders of magnitude cost difference.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #83 on: 03/10/2023 02:19 am »
15000kg of solar cells is approximate 5-10 Megawatts.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Almoturg

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 348
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #84 on: 03/10/2023 01:08 pm »
Crazy that SpaceX is just bypassing the aerospace supply chain for cells (which can literally be $100/Watt or more… at the cell level!) and going for commodity type extremely cheap cells like a factor of 500 cheaper. Of course, Argon is like 500 times cheaper than Krypton, too. Starship may eventually cost a factor of 500 times less than the expendable rockets from Ariane or ULA did.

Like nearly 3 orders of magnitude cost difference.

I loved this tweet on the Starlink engineering culture (CTO of Swarm, which was acquired by SpaceX):

https://twitter.com/longmier/status/1630625199451418625

Quote from: Ben Longmier
On the Starlink team, you basically get made fun of if your part is not bent sheet metal and any more than 2 fasteners.  (All in) Cost is king: material cost, mass, personnel touch time, cast or molded or machining spindle time.

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #85 on: 03/12/2023 05:41 pm »
Stupid question: How many per launch? This has a huge impact on concerns regarding space debris and astronomical impact.

Stack looks to be 20 high but it's not clear if there are multiple satellites in each layer.
SpaceX tweeted 21 per launch:

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1629898239066480640?t=mNgtxYvARzRcMzgET8K5rA&s=19
Can someone help me out?  I am trying to understand the functionality of this rather large assembly on the V2.0 mini's.  It appears to be in the middle of the longer side of the satellite (the shorter side has solar panels). I have enhanced the photo a bit. It appears to be some sort of "large hinged" bracket that folds back into the body of the satellite. I say hinged because it appears to have an attachment point of some sort at the base where it connects to the satellite body. Has some sort of connector that has a red cap on it (obviously remove before launch), perhaps indicating it gets plugged into something when on-orbit??  Don't think it is a thruster, because those appear to be on the corners on pivots with red "Remove before flight lanyards" on them.  Any help from the more knowledgeable would be appreciated.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #86 on: 03/12/2023 05:44 pm »
Draw on that picture using MS Paint or your phone’s photo annotation thing.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #87 on: 03/13/2023 01:11 am »
Draw on that picture using MS Paint or your phone’s photo annotation thing.

Thank you for your reply.  I will do this "paint" a bit later.  But, I am specifically interested in the black "A Bracket" I will call it.  With the Red Cap on top of it with 4 screw holes on the surface.  This is a rather large bulky "bracket"/? IMO.  Between the two feeder link dish antennas. This is on the longer non-solar panel side of the satellite buss. Due to the size and hence weight of it. I would deduce it has some important functions.

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #88 on: 03/13/2023 01:20 am »
Stupid question: How many per launch? This has a huge impact on concerns regarding space debris and astronomical impact.

Stack looks to be 20 high but it's not clear if there are multiple satellites in each layer.
SpaceX tweeted 21 per launch:

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1629898239066480640?t=mNgtxYvARzRcMzgET8K5rA&s=19
Can someone help me out?  I am trying to understand the functionality of this rather large assembly on the V2.0 mini's.  It appears to be in the middle of the longer side of the satellite (the shorter side has solar panels). I have enhanced the photo a bit. It appears to be some sort of "large hinged" bracket that folds back into the body of the satellite. I say hinged because it appears to have an attachment point of some sort at the base where it connects to the satellite body. Has some sort of connector that has a red cap on it (obviously remove before launch), perhaps indicating it gets plugged into something when on-orbit??  Don't think it is a thruster, because those appear to be on the corners on pivots with red "Remove before flight lanyards" on them.  Any help from the more knowledgeable would be appreciated.

I assume you are referring to this, and the structure it's on. If you look at the pic from the order side, it has the same thing behind it, but no plate/bracket/red cap. The "remove before flight" tags on the corners are the ISLs (space lasers), I'm pretty sure, they look very similar on V1.5.

Thank you, I understand that the solar panel side of the buss looks almost identical between V1.5 and V2.0mini.  But, I am more interested in this large "A Bracket/? on the longer side of the buss with the red cap. Looks relatively large and sturdy
in overall terms. So I assume it has some important functionality? Appears to attach to the outside of the satellite on the botton, and then go back inside on the top?

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #89 on: 03/13/2023 01:32 am »
Stupid question: How many per launch? This has a huge impact on concerns regarding space debris and astronomical impact.

Stack looks to be 20 high but it's not clear if there are multiple satellites in each layer.
SpaceX tweeted 21 per launch:

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1629898239066480640?t=mNgtxYvARzRcMzgET8K5rA&s=19
Can someone help me out?  I am trying to understand the functionality of this rather large assembly on the V2.0 mini's.  It appears to be in the middle of the longer side of the satellite (the shorter side has solar panels). I have enhanced the photo a bit. It appears to be some sort of "large hinged" bracket that folds back into the body of the satellite. I say hinged because it appears to have an attachment point of some sort at the base where it connects to the satellite body. Has some sort of connector that has a red cap on it (obviously remove before launch), perhaps indicating it gets plugged into something when on-orbit??  Don't think it is a thruster, because those appear to be on the corners on pivots with red "Remove before flight lanyards" on them.  Any help from the more knowledgeable would be appreciated.

I assume you are referring to this, and the structure it's on. If you look at the pic from the order side, it has the same thing behind it, but no plate/bracket/red cap. The "remove before flight" tags on the corners are the ISLs (space lasers), I'm pretty sure, they look very similar on V1.5.

Now that you brought it up. Do you know what the round devices in your V1.5 vs v.2.0m photo provided (with thanks) 
Fuel tanks?
« Last Edit: 03/13/2023 02:04 am by raptorx2 »

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8740
  • Liked: 4646
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #90 on: 03/13/2023 01:41 am »
Stupid question: How many per launch? This has a huge impact on concerns regarding space debris and astronomical impact.

Stack looks to be 20 high but it's not clear if there are multiple satellites in each layer.
SpaceX tweeted 21 per launch:

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1629898239066480640?t=mNgtxYvARzRcMzgET8K5rA&s=19
Can someone help me out?  I am trying to understand the functionality of this rather large assembly on the V2.0 mini's.  It appears to be in the middle of the longer side of the satellite (the shorter side has solar panels). I have enhanced the photo a bit. It appears to be some sort of "large hinged" bracket that folds back into the body of the satellite. I say hinged because it appears to have an attachment point of some sort at the base where it connects to the satellite body. Has some sort of connector that has a red cap on it (obviously remove before launch), perhaps indicating it gets plugged into something when on-orbit??  Don't think it is a thruster, because those appear to be on the corners on pivots with red "Remove before flight lanyards" on them.  Any help from the more knowledgeable would be appreciated.

I assume you are referring to this, and the structure it's on. If you look at the pic from the order side, it has the same thing behind it, but no plate/bracket/red cap. The "remove before flight" tags on the corners are the ISLs (space lasers), I'm pretty sure, they look very similar on V1.5.

Thank you, I understand that the solar panel side of the buss looks almost identical between V1.5 and V2.0mini.  But, I am more interested in this large "A Bracket/? on the longer side of the buss with the red cap. Looks relatively large and sturdy
in overall terms. So I assume it has some important functionality? Appears to attach to the outside of the satellite on the botton, and then go back inside on the top?
The first picture is the fully integrated state and second is the unintegrated stste. The red remove before flight caps are screwed over the black protrusion in the first. Second shows several connection points and a central exit point. The size might be the same size as the new hall effect thruster to which its length accounts for along with the bracket however lasers and star trackers can also looks this way. The ISL dishes on their individual robotic arms are shown in both photos in their stowed and latched positions. Those unlatch and deploy to each corner on the sat. For each ISL dish there is one laser on each axis. They do not however provide photos of all six sides so that is my observations and insight so far.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2023 01:42 am by russianhalo117 »

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
  • Liked: 1051
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #91 on: 03/13/2023 01:51 am »
Uh, if the no bracket state is showing the central strongback structure, that might also integrate the argon tanks (pressurized tank works as structural beam)? Which implies whatever this bracket object is, is either a mount for the thruster (red cap is thruster cap), or a refueling point? Being close to the top of a gas canister implies short run from the argon gas canister to the thruster (if the gas tap is at the end of the canister dome).

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
  • Liked: 1051
  • Likes Given: 32

Offline Stan-1967

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1108
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 1150
  • Likes Given: 596
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #93 on: 03/17/2023 02:34 am »
Very interesting!  Perhaps they are testing new VLEO capability with the new argon thrusters?  It will be interesting to see where & if the orbits stabilize, and how long they can stay there until the thrusters are spent. 

https://spacenews.com/how-low-can-satellites-go-vleo-entrepreneurs-plan-to-find-out/

Offline HVM

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 741
  • Finland
  • Liked: 1187
  • Likes Given: 587
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #94 on: 03/17/2023 09:04 am »
I see two purposely deorbiting, ~rest in free fall.
Jonathan McDowell says all of them are bust:
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1636441355248386063
Quote
I think the downward movement of these objects is consistent with uncontrolled decay in a variety of attitude states

SpaceX only test new development thrusters in vacuum chamber. Production version of the sats, -they just yeet them to the orbit, and see how many stuck (go look 1.0 and 1.5 https://satellitemap.space/starlink/launches.html). And they make fixes to the next batch...
« Last Edit: 03/17/2023 09:24 am by HVM »

Offline ATPTourFan

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 4274
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #95 on: 03/17/2023 01:17 pm »
Latest 17 March update shows continued decay and two potentially actively deorbiting.

https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/sg76.jpg


Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #96 on: 03/17/2023 02:26 pm »
Worth noting there have been a few tweets claiming issues with the reaction wheels. None of it confirmed...
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline cohberg

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 243
  • Liked: 769
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #97 on: 03/18/2023 01:25 am »
Starlink-30038 and Starlink-30058 (the 2 actively deorbiting V2s) have appeared to level off at 366x364

Offline ATPTourFan

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 4274
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #98 on: 03/18/2023 01:26 pm »
Latest 18 March update shows the two actively deorbiting sats are leveling off, as mentioned above. Several others below the main group are performing similarly.

https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/sg76.jpg

Online niwax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1421
  • Germany
    • SpaceX Booster List
  • Liked: 2033
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #99 on: 03/18/2023 03:06 pm »
This is pretty rough speculation, but could they be testing viability of powered orbits around ~350km? That's where the bulk of the v2 constellation is headed, plus where they got burned deploying satellites in harsh weather.
Which booster has the most soot? SpaceX booster launch history! (discussion)

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #100 on: 03/18/2023 03:51 pm »
I think we need at least a few more days of data to determine if the "rise" is real or just spurious/updated data points. It looks like the rise for 30046, 30038, and 30058 are all based on a single TLE update.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline virtuallynathan

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #101 on: 03/19/2023 12:28 am »
I think we need at least a few more days of data to determine if the "rise" is real or just spurious/updated data points. It looks like the rise for 30046, 30038, and 30058 are all based on a single TLE update.

There have been several SupTLE updates, 30058 and 30038 have definitely leveled off for the time being. 30046 has changed in its passive decay.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
  • Liked: 1051
  • Likes Given: 32

Offline virtuallynathan

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #103 on: 03/20/2023 01:00 pm »
They remain parked at ~366x364. Based on the drift/lowering rate of the other ~19, it will take something like 12-15 days to reach the same altitude.
« Last Edit: 03/20/2023 01:06 pm by virtuallynathan »

Offline matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2043
  • Liked: 2487
  • Likes Given: 2172
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #104 on: 03/20/2023 02:34 pm »
Are these “minis” out for a very sporty test drive?

Offline Stan-1967

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1108
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 1150
  • Likes Given: 596
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #105 on: 03/21/2023 02:40 am »
Are these “minis” out for a very sporty test drive?

I immediately thought something novel was being tested with these v2 mini's.  There has been plenty of industry talk about powered VLEO orbits, so it looked like maybe this was along those lines. 

I don't see an obvious failure mode that would explain all the v2 failing simultaneously?   With the previous Starlink loss to space weather issues, there is an identifiable cause for that mass failure.  Here with the v2's I don't think all the thrusters would fail near simultaneously.  Something different seems to be going on. 

From a business perspective, if Starlink could be first to develop VLEO capability into commercially useful orbits, it seems like that would be a very good position to be in given the limitations of available higher orbits.

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1002
  • United States
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #106 on: 03/21/2023 03:13 am »
Are these “minis” out for a very sporty test drive?

I immediately thought something novel was being tested with these v2 mini's.  There has been plenty of industry talk about powered VLEO orbits, so it looked like maybe this was along those lines. 

I don't see an obvious failure mode that would explain all the v2 failing simultaneously?   With the previous Starlink loss to space weather issues, there is an identifiable cause for that mass failure.  Here with the v2's I don't think all the thrusters would fail near simultaneously.  Something different seems to be going on. 

From a business perspective, if Starlink could be first to develop VLEO capability into commercially useful orbits, it seems like that would be a very good position to be in given the limitations of available higher orbits.

This is the first batch of a new design. A common failure mode seems completely plausible.

Offline Mariusuiram

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Liked: 129
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #107 on: 03/21/2023 03:43 am »
This is the first batch of a new design. A common failure mode seems completely plausible.

Not only a new design but a completely novel thruster that is literally first of its kind.

Offline M.E.T.

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2293
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 504
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #108 on: 03/21/2023 04:06 am »
Does a lower altitude, coupled with the increased power of the v2 satellites significantly increase the viability of direct to cellphone connectivity? If so, it would radically change the Starlink business case.
« Last Edit: 03/21/2023 04:06 am by M.E.T. »

Offline Stan-1967

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1108
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 1150
  • Likes Given: 596
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #109 on: 03/21/2023 04:29 am »
This is the first batch of a new design. A common failure mode seems completely plausible.

Not only a new design but a completely novel thruster that is literally first of its kind.

i can agree that a common failure mode is very possible on a new design, but what type common failure mode would have near simultaneous occurrence on all the v2 sats?  A more gaussian distribution seems more plausible to me. 

I'm not an expert on FEMA's for Argon thrusters, and I couldn't find much in Google searches on failure modes.  I did find that Xenon ion thrusters are tested to 10's of thousand of hours of operational thrusting, so this failure would really suggest something really problematic if that was indeed the case. 

What can really go that catastrophically wrong?  Cathode failure? ( how exactly?)  Neutralizer beam?  Argon tanks 10^4 too small or all sprouted a leak simultaneously so they all ran out prop?  ( not being serious here)

How also do you explain the two sats that are leading the pace of lowering the orbit, two or maybe three more lowering at a rate between the leaders and the bulk of them in a seemingly natural decay state?  That look like they are testing throttle profiles to me.

If anyone is in the know, please share. 

Online eeergo

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #110 on: 03/21/2023 07:21 am »
This is the first batch of a new design. A common failure mode seems completely plausible.

Not only a new design but a completely novel thruster that is literally first of its kind.

i can agree that a common failure mode is very possible on a new design, but what type common failure mode would have near simultaneous occurrence on all the v2 sats?  A more gaussian distribution seems more plausible to me. 

I'm not an expert on FEMA's for Argon thrusters, and I couldn't find much in Google searches on failure modes.  I did find that Xenon ion thrusters are tested to 10's of thousand of hours of operational thrusting, so this failure would really suggest something really problematic if that was indeed the case. 

What can really go that catastrophically wrong?  Cathode failure? ( how exactly?)  Neutralizer beam?  Argon tanks 10^4 too small or all sprouted a leak simultaneously so they all ran out prop?  ( not being serious here)

How also do you explain the two sats that are leading the pace of lowering the orbit, two or maybe three more lowering at a rate between the leaders and the bulk of them in a seemingly natural decay state?  That look like they are testing throttle profiles to me.

If anyone is in the know, please share. 

There was some (ordinary, yet somewhat high) solar activity around the dates they started decaying. From a cursory look it seems too much of a stretch to attribute issues to those events, as they're either too early or too late with respect to the approximate "elbow" in altitude on March 11th-12th - but it would certainly fit the bill as to a reason why they all might have failed at the same time.

Regarding the two more rapidly decaying units, attitude differences (or appendage deployment differences, or maybe even design differences!) could explain their behavior.
-DaviD-

Offline virtuallynathan

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #111 on: 03/21/2023 11:09 am »
This is the first batch of a new design. A common failure mode seems completely plausible.

Not only a new design but a completely novel thruster that is literally first of its kind.

i can agree that a common failure mode is very possible on a new design, but what type common failure mode would have near simultaneous occurrence on all the v2 sats?  A more gaussian distribution seems more plausible to me. 

I'm not an expert on FEMA's for Argon thrusters, and I couldn't find much in Google searches on failure modes.  I did find that Xenon ion thrusters are tested to 10's of thousand of hours of operational thrusting, so this failure would really suggest something really problematic if that was indeed the case. 

What can really go that catastrophically wrong?  Cathode failure? ( how exactly?)  Neutralizer beam?  Argon tanks 10^4 too small or all sprouted a leak simultaneously so they all ran out prop?  ( not being serious here)

How also do you explain the two sats that are leading the pace of lowering the orbit, two or maybe three more lowering at a rate between the leaders and the bulk of them in a seemingly natural decay state?  That look like they are testing throttle profiles to me.

If anyone is in the know, please share. 

There was some (ordinary, yet somewhat high) solar activity around the dates they started decaying. From a cursory look it seems too much of a stretch to attribute issues to those events, as they're either too early or too late with respect to the approximate "elbow" in altitude on March 11th-12th - but it would certainly fit the bill as to a reason why they all might have failed at the same time.

Regarding the two more rapidly decaying units, attitude differences (or appendage deployment differences, or maybe even design differences!) could explain their behavior.

FWIW the 2 that declined quickly and then leveled off were lowering at the same 6km/day rate they were raising -- seems active to me.

Offline HVM

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 741
  • Finland
  • Liked: 1187
  • Likes Given: 587
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #112 on: 03/21/2023 11:32 am »
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1637952660866252803
Quote
Latest orbital data for Starlink 6-1 (the V2Minis) show the two lowest sats now stable in altitude. Best guess is tthat they are debugging something, so too early to write them off.
Can stay at this altitude for months before orbit raising, so may be a while before fate known

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14098
  • N. California
  • Liked: 13957
  • Likes Given: 1389
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #113 on: 03/21/2023 12:04 pm »
Subsequent v2 launches will be a clue, right?
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Online eeergo

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #114 on: 03/21/2023 01:10 pm »
FWIW the 2 that declined quickly and then leveled off were lowering at the same 6km/day rate they were raising -- seems active to me.

See reply #102 upthread. Also, altitude going down at approximately the same rate as it was going up (not true, slopes were noticeably steeper upwards, but still) just means they have enough thrust to counteract ambient drag by 2x its value: 1x to achieve drag-free conditions + 1x to go up with the same rate they would go down if passively decaying. In fact, were they actively thrusting to lower the altitude they would need to throttle the retrograde-firing thrusters by a fourth compared to the setting they used to go up. Entirely possible, but not at all a smoking gun.

Having satellites that are undergoing commissioning extend just one of the solar arrays, if power margins allow, is a perfectly good reason for the different slopes, while being compatible with natural drag. They might have used two spacecraft with both arrays deployed to see what the worst-case drag would be (in the interest of improving margins, offering early service, squeezing more juice out of the thrusters, whatever), knowing it would obviously be larger, so they wouldn't do it for all of them. Drag would be approximately twice as much, explaining the slope difference.
-DaviD-

Offline matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2043
  • Liked: 2487
  • Likes Given: 2172
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #115 on: 03/21/2023 04:57 pm »
Is it too early for sats that suck up veeeery thin atmosphere to compress and use as reaction mass?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #116 on: 03/21/2023 04:58 pm »
Is it too early for sats that suck up veeeery thin atmosphere to compress and use as reaction mass?
Operational nightmare and not worth it unless going for very low altitudes.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6428
  • Liked: 4512
  • Likes Given: 4987
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #117 on: 03/21/2023 06:40 pm »
Is it too early for sats that suck up veeeery thin atmosphere to compress and use as reaction mass?
It’s not too early
It’s too unphysical ;)
Do the math
If a spacecraft sucked up ALL the air molecules coming in at the orbital velocity of around 8 km/s, it would have to expel them all at a similar velocity out the back.  That’s equivalent to an Isp of ~8,000/10=800 seconds, for an engine using mostly nitrogen and oxygen.  Such an engine does not exist
If it only captures half the air molecules the required Isp rises to 1,600 to 3,200 seconds.
If it only used the Argon, it would need >80,000 sec Isp.
And that’s theoretical.
It gets worse from there.😁
This is not the explanation you are looking for.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #118 on: 03/21/2023 07:46 pm »
People have tested electric thrusters on air. It works. Erosion probably a lot worse. And you have to get enough power to compensate for the drag of your power source… It’s like trying to tread water while carrying a boulder.

Technically possible (particularly using a tether or something to separate power source from the electric ramjet thing by a few scale heights), but not necessarily a good idea economically.

We have multiple threads on this idea.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5398
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1778
  • Likes Given: 1281
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #119 on: 03/22/2023 08:50 am »
<snip>
If a spacecraft sucked up ALL the air molecules coming in at the orbital velocity of around 8 km/s, it would have to expel them all at a similar velocity out the back.  That’s equivalent to an Isp of ~8,000/10=800 seconds, for an engine using mostly nitrogen and oxygen.  Such an engine does not exist
<snip>
Until someone comes up with a pico scramjet and ion thruster combination. ;)

Offline soyuzu

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 213
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #120 on: 03/22/2023 09:13 am »
Is it too early for sats that suck up veeeery thin atmosphere to compress and use as reaction mass?
It’s not too early
It’s too unphysical ;)
Do the math
If a spacecraft sucked up ALL the air molecules coming in at the orbital velocity of around 8 km/s, it would have to expel them all at a similar velocity out the back.  That’s equivalent to an Isp of ~8,000/10=800 seconds, for an engine using mostly nitrogen and oxygen.  Such an engine does not exist
If it only captures half the air molecules the required Isp rises to 1,600 to 3,200 seconds.
If it only used the Argon, it would need >80,000 sec Isp.
And that’s theoretical.
It gets worse from there.😁
This is not the explanation you are looking for.

First, such thing exists, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere-breathing_electric_propulsion

And your math is wrong, just like a turbofan doesn’t need to accelerate the air flow from zero to exhaust velocity, a well designed intake can conserve some of the energy.

« Last Edit: 03/22/2023 09:18 am by soyuzu »

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47310
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80116
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #121 on: 03/22/2023 05:59 pm »
https://twitter.com/virtuallynathan/status/1638591334054510593

Quote
Seems like something is going on with some of the other Starlink V2 mini's, some changes in altitude and eccentricity (more eccentric orbits). @planet4589 any thoughts? Orbital mechanics ain't my jam

twitter.com/planet4589/status/1638597952762531840

Quote
I think only the altitude changes are significant. I think they are debugging some issue with the new sats, and we'll see in  a few weeks if they resume orbit raising

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1638616130356133888

Quote
Lot of new technology in Starlink V2, so we’re experiencing some issues, as expected.

Some sats will be deorbited, others will be tested thoroughly before raising altitude above Space Station.
« Last Edit: 03/22/2023 06:00 pm by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #122 on: 03/23/2023 12:54 am »
Interesting,  they are keeping them below the ISS while working out the kinks.  From a safety standpoint, that makes perfect sense.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Online eeergo

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #123 on: 03/23/2023 10:34 am »
Interesting,  they are keeping them below the ISS while working out the kinks.  From a safety standpoint, that makes perfect sense.

Injection altitudes have always been <400 km for Starlink, precisely to avoid having dozens or hundreds of dead/faulty/irresponsive satellites in long-lived orbits intersecting many other LEO assets.

In fact, these "v2-mini" satellites have been injected much higher than v1's (370 km vs the usual 280-300 km), reminiscent of the v0.9 batch in the first dedicated Starlink launch. Maybe their design is much more experimental than what was presumed - also raising relevant questions about the readiness of the full-sized v2 models intended for launch in Starship.
-DaviD-

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #124 on: 03/23/2023 11:24 pm »
My point was, they have stopped orbit raising to keep them below ISS while they work this out.  What ever "this" is,  might not be the Argon thrusters,  and "this" might identify as pural.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
  • Liked: 1051
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #125 on: 03/24/2023 01:03 am »
Do they need to do a controlled reentry demo for each major series of sat perhaps? That would account for some...

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12077
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18010
  • Likes Given: 12026
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #126 on: 03/24/2023 08:12 am »
Interesting,  they are keeping them below the ISS while working out the kinks.  From a safety standpoint, that makes perfect sense.

Injection altitudes have always been <400 km for Starlink, precisely to avoid having dozens or hundreds of dead/faulty/irresponsive satellites in long-lived orbits intersecting many other LEO assets.

In fact, these "v2-mini" satellites have been injected much higher than v1's (370 km vs the usual 280-300 km), reminiscent of the v0.9 batch in the first dedicated Starlink launch. Maybe their design is much more experimental than what was presumed - also raising relevant questions about the readiness of the full-sized v2 models intended for launch in Starship.

Questions not needed. Both the V2-mini's and the full-size V2's sitting at Starbase are experimental units. Similar to how the very first Starlinks (the v0.9 version) were just as experimental.

What is happening with the first V2-mini's in orbit is no different from what SpaceX did with the v0.9 batch: they test the h*ck out of them, including multiple deliberate raisings and lowerings of orbits. Some of them will be deliberately deorbited just mere weeks after launch. And similar to the v0.9 batch: they will find issues and stuff to improve. That is afterall how SpaceX operates: rapidly iterate.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12077
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18010
  • Likes Given: 12026
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #127 on: 03/24/2023 08:14 am »
Do they need to do a controlled reentry demo for each major series of sat perhaps? That would account for some...

Some of this first batch of V2-minis will indeed be deorbited deliberately to verify that the deorbiting capability works as advertised.

Online eeergo

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #128 on: 03/24/2023 10:34 am »
What I'm saying is that SpaceX themselves have confirmed there are teething issues with the satellites. It is *very* premature to attribute anomalous behavior to "planned" tests. Some of the birds might indeed be undergoing deliberate maneuvers, but they clearly are not the dominant factor in this batch's behavior, or the company wouldn't be so quick to acknowledge the problems. Moreover, they wouldn't be shifting v1 units for the next few launches to replace further previously planned "v2 minis".

Regarding the full v2's, I made my comment because not so long ago (late 2021) it was stated large numbers of Starship-launched Starlink v2's would (need to) be deployed NLT late last year in order for the project to close its most favorable business case. So far, it was assumed Starship development was the issue why these weren't launched within that deadline, and the creation of stripped-down versions ("v2 minis") was a straightforward move to spearhead said deployment with the main comms components but less throughput, in line with F9's capability, while Starship orbital capacity was hopefully achieved. This seemed to imply Starlink v2 development was pretty mature, and in-orbit testing would mainly be about ops envelope expansion and comms testing - not actual S/C design viability.
-DaviD-

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12077
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18010
  • Likes Given: 12026
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #129 on: 03/24/2023 05:08 pm »
What I'm saying is that SpaceX themselves have confirmed there are teething issues with the satellites.

What SpaceX, primarily by the voice of Elon, communicated was that the V2-mini "are experiencing some issues AS EXPECTED".

That is the result of substantial testing being performed. SpaceX does a huge amount of on-orbit testing with those sats, to find any issues as soon as possible. They do the testing fully expecting to find problems.

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1002
  • United States
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #130 on: 03/24/2023 07:16 pm »
What I'm saying is that SpaceX themselves have confirmed there are teething issues with the satellites. It is *very* premature to attribute anomalous behavior to "planned" tests. Some of the birds might indeed be undergoing deliberate maneuvers, but they clearly are not the dominant factor in this batch's behavior, or the company wouldn't be so quick to acknowledge the problems. Moreover, they wouldn't be shifting v1 units for the next few launches to replace further previously planned "v2 minis".

Regarding the full v2's, I made my comment because not so long ago (late 2021) it was stated large numbers of Starship-launched Starlink v2's would (need to) be deployed NLT late last year in order for the project to close its most favorable business case. So far, it was assumed Starship development was the issue why these weren't launched within that deadline, and the creation of stripped-down versions ("v2 minis") was a straightforward move to spearhead said deployment with the main comms components but less throughput, in line with F9's capability, while Starship orbital capacity was hopefully achieved. This seemed to imply Starlink v2 development was pretty mature, and in-orbit testing would mainly be about ops envelope expansion and comms testing - not actual S/C design viability.

Had starship been ready, they would have gone through the same iterative process (launch a batch, see what happens, learn and make changes,....)

It just would have happened a year or two earlier.

The S/C were done with the design phase to the extent that can be done in an iterative process until the next step in the process was to launch a batch in space. So yes they were ready and waiting, for the next step in the process...
« Last Edit: 03/24/2023 07:19 pm by mn »

Offline rsnellenberger

  • Amateur wood butcher
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
  • Harbor Springs, Michigan
  • Liked: 370
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #131 on: 03/25/2023 01:11 pm »
What I'm saying is that SpaceX themselves have confirmed there are teething issues with the satellites.

What SpaceX, primarily by the voice of Elon, communicated was that the V2-mini "are experiencing some issues AS EXPECTED".

That is the result of substantial testing being performed. SpaceX does a huge amount of on-orbit testing with those sats, to find any issues as soon as possible. They do the testing fully expecting to find problems.
This is also a good opportunity to do some early tests of the astronomical reflection mitigation strategy they'll be using for the V2 constellation.

Offline virtuallynathan

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #132 on: 03/26/2023 02:34 pm »
Looks like STARLINK-30062 is the first to be de-orbited... still on it's way down.

Online eeergo

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #133 on: 03/27/2023 09:41 am »
Looks like STARLINK-30062 is the first to be de-orbited... still on it's way down.
Yep. Unclear what the others might be doing, as they're still around injection altitude, but most seem to have started to decay again after last week's pause. From JCM's website:
-DaviD-

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12077
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18010
  • Likes Given: 12026
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #134 on: 03/27/2023 12:37 pm »
Looks like STARLINK-30062 is the first to be de-orbited... still on it's way down.

Actively being deorbited in fact. Its rate of decay is much higher than natural decay.

Online eeergo

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #135 on: 03/27/2023 01:23 pm »
Looks like STARLINK-30062 is the first to be de-orbited... still on it's way down.

Actively being deorbited in fact. Its rate of decay is much higher than natural decay.

Please note this has been discussed upthread. There is no way of knowing whether any of those satellites is actively deorbiting, or their rates of decay are like they are due to attitude differences or other factors. Your definitive statement is very much unsubstantiated from the available data, even if it is certianly a possibility.
-DaviD-

Offline virtuallynathan

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #136 on: 03/27/2023 02:18 pm »
Looks like STARLINK-30062 is the first to be de-orbited... still on it's way down.

Actively being deorbited in fact. Its rate of decay is much higher than natural decay.

Please note this has been discussed upthread. There is no way of knowing whether any of those satellites is actively deorbiting, or their rates of decay are like they are due to attitude differences or other factors. Your definitive statement is very much unsubstantiated from the available data, even if it is certianly a possibility.

There hasn't been a SupTLE published for 30062 in 6 days. Not sure exactly what that implies, but it is different than the other 20.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12077
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18010
  • Likes Given: 12026
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #137 on: 03/27/2023 07:30 pm »
Looks like STARLINK-30062 is the first to be de-orbited... still on it's way down.

Actively being deorbited in fact. Its rate of decay is much higher than natural decay.

Please note this has been discussed upthread. There is no way of knowing whether any of those satellites is actively deorbiting, or their rates of decay are like they are due to attitude differences or other factors. Your definitive statement is very much unsubstantiated from the available data, even if it is certianly a possibility.

There is no way of knowing for you. However, I am in fairly regular contact with several sources at SpaceX and know for a fact that it is being actively deorbited.
You can choose not to believe me or doubt me. That's fine. But I know for a fact what is going on, and you don't.

Besides, anyone with even the smallest amount of experience in this field knows that a sat at that altitude, even with the large solar arrays and relative low mass that the V2-minis have, does not lose 15 km of altitude in just 2 days by mere natural drag.
To give you an idea, the thing is coming down almost 20 times faster than the ISS did when it was at that altitude.


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #138 on: 03/27/2023 07:40 pm »
Yes, you can calculate the rate of decay. SpaceX submitted some documents to the FCC giving enough details about the V2 Mini satellites that you could calculate the natural decay rate given current space weather conditions which are publicly available.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline OceanCat

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 193
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #139 on: 03/27/2023 11:44 pm »
Looks like STARLINK-30062 is the first to be de-orbited... still on it's way down.

Actively being deorbited in fact. Its rate of decay is much higher than natural decay.

Please note this has been discussed upthread. There is no way of knowing whether any of those satellites is actively deorbiting, or their rates of decay are like they are due to attitude differences or other factors. Your definitive statement is very much unsubstantiated from the available data, even if it is certianly a possibility.

There is no way of knowing for you. However, I am in fairly regular contact with several sources at SpaceX and know for a fact that it is being actively deorbited.
You can choose not to believe me or doubt me. That's fine. But I know for a fact what is going on, and you don't.

Besides, anyone with even the smallest amount of experience in this field knows that a sat at that altitude, even with the large solar arrays and relative low mass that the V2-minis have, does not lose 15 km of altitude in just 2 days by mere natural drag.
To give you an idea, the thing is coming down almost 20 times faster than the ISS did when it was at that altitude.

Can you ask the sources why the SupTLEs derived from SpaceX provided ephemerides ended? It's supposed to be a safety feature to reduce probability of collisions. It's very unusual for SpaceX not to publish ephemerides for an active Starlink satellite.

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #140 on: 03/28/2023 12:10 am »
Yes, you can calculate the rate of decay. SpaceX submitted some documents to the FCC giving enough details about the V2 Mini satellites that you could calculate the natural decay rate given current space weather conditions which are publicly available.

Not sure all the data is there?  Musk said V2.0's FS will have D2D antennas that are "this big".  25sqM.  Clearly missing from the Starhip data.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #141 on: 03/28/2023 12:45 am »
V2minis are what were launched, not the full V2. And anyway, SpaceX actually has to provide the relevant information.
« Last Edit: 03/28/2023 12:46 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #142 on: 03/28/2023 01:41 am »
Correct.  Yet all of the relevant information has obviously not been provided.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #143 on: 03/28/2023 02:04 am »
Correct.  Yet all of the relevant information has obviously not been provided.
wrong, it actually has been provided. What is given in the FCC documents is sufficient already to estimate decay rate.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #144 on: 03/28/2023 02:28 am »
Okay, If you say so, sounds good to me.

And so it goes,

Offline ATPTourFan

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 4274
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #145 on: 04/01/2023 01:42 pm »
Latest 1 April update shows several vehicles boosting their altitude, 30062 in active deorbit, with the remainder passively decaying.

I'm hopeful we will see more of them raising their orbits once the proper configuration and software updates are made.

https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/sg76.jpg

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #146 on: 04/01/2023 02:16 pm »
To add to that.

Starlinks 30042 and 30058 are raising altitude.

Starlink 30051 looks to have just started rising.

Starlinks 30037, 30046, 30047, 30050, 30055, 30057, 30059, 30060, 30061, 30063, 30064, and 30065 are maintaining altitude. A win,  that requires active propulsion.

Sadly Starlinks 30038, 30040, 30044, 30048, and 30054 are slowly losing altitude.  Indicating propulsion has not been turned back on.

And as noted Starlink 30062 is actively heading for a watery grave.

With propulsion active on 15 of the 21 satellites, that is very good news.

Jonathan's more detailed breakdown per satellite.
https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/sg76/index.html
« Last Edit: 04/01/2023 02:18 pm by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #147 on: 04/01/2023 02:23 pm »
For the bulk of the satellites,  it appears that propulsion for keeping altitude was turned on around the 24th.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47310
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80116
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #148 on: 04/04/2023 12:26 am »
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1643039702927147011

Quote
Three of the Starlink V2Mini sats (30058, 30042, 30051) have resumed orbit raising, while Starliink 30062 reentered at 0850 UTC Apr 3 off the coast of California

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47310
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80116
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #149 on: 04/05/2023 09:48 am »
Cross-post:

According to SFN:

https://twitter.com/starlinkinsider/status/1643543021839892480

Quote
Next Starlink launch slated for April 19th, containing another batch of V2 Mini’s. 🚀
« Last Edit: 04/05/2023 09:49 am by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline ATPTourFan

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 4274
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #150 on: 04/09/2023 07:57 pm »
Dr. McDowell posted this update on Twitter:

"Update on the Starlink Group 6-1 (V2-Mini prototype) launch:  3 sats (30042, 30051, 30058) continue orbit raising. 30046 thinking about it. 30062 has reentered as reported earlier. Rest continue under control but slowly descending."

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1645104758753992710

Offline RDMM2081

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 295
  • Liked: 287
  • Likes Given: 594
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #151 on: 05/04/2023 12:03 am »
Update on upcoming launch dates for v2 minis:
https://twitter.com/virtuallynathan/status/1653747271354449922?s=46&t=iEJNdIBcyHTvN4ocIRmxOQ

Has anyone seen anything recent about the on orbit status of the original v2 minis? I havent seen anything for awhile.

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #152 on: 05/04/2023 12:06 am »
Update on upcoming launch dates for v2 minis:
https://twitter.com/virtuallynathan/status/1653747271354449922?s=46&t=iEJNdIBcyHTvN4ocIRmxOQ

And many more were added earlier today too https://twitter.com/VirtuallyNathan/status/1653867999919751169?s=20

Quote
Has anyone seen anything recent about the on orbit status of the original v2 minis? I havent seen anything for awhile.

Latest for Group 6-1 from McDowell

Offline virtuallynathan

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #153 on: 05/04/2023 03:47 am »
Credit where credit is due, the discovery came from https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45440.msg2484490#msg2484490 (I look through a lot of FCC docs, but not usually ELS).
« Last Edit: 05/04/2023 03:47 am by virtuallynathan »

Offline OceanCat

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 193
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #154 on: 05/31/2023 12:57 pm »
SpaceX plans to add direct-to-cellular capability (aka SCS, Supplemental Coverage from Space) to v2-mini satellites. It made a 99 page long filing attached below in response to multiple opposition filings yesterday. Not much new info except two new configurations of gen2 satellites revealed.

Quote
The tables below present illustrative information for proposed form factors of SpaceX
Gen2 satellites with SCS capabilities: one of which will be launched on Falcon 9 rockets and one
that will be launched on Starship. For convenience, these satellites are labeled satellites F9-3 and
Starship-2, respectively, following the naming convention SpaceX used for its authorized Gen2
satellites. Note that to better reflect a non-maneuverable satellite in a tumbling deorbit a 0.5 scaling
factor has been applied to the area-to-mass ratios used with NASA’s Debris Assessment Software
(“DAS”). Further note that while the specific dimensions of the bus of the Starship-2 satellite is
larger than the Starship-1 satellite, reflecting a deployed SCS antenna, the DAS analysis of the
Starship-2 satellite is identical to the Starship-1 analysis that the Commission approved in the Gen2
Order because the area-to-mass ratio used for the analysis is the same. These demonstrations are
for illustrative purposes, and it would be contrary to established rules and disincentivize operators
from sharing such information in the future if the Commission were to use this information that
SpaceX’s provides here voluntarily to establish new conditions on SpaceX’s operations.

I'm also attaching the description of configurations without SCS antennas. See my previous post for the accompanying text.
« Last Edit: 05/31/2023 01:20 pm by OceanCat »

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #155 on: 06/01/2023 12:50 am »
Correct.  Yet all of the relevant information has obviously not been provided.
wrong, it actually has been provided. What is given in the FCC documents is sufficient already to estimate decay rate.

Well, as it turns out, all of the data actually was not provided at the time. SpaceX updated V2.0 Mini data yesterday to include the included D2D payload antenna which has been included in the launches since 6-1

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #156 on: 06/01/2023 01:02 am »
SpaceX plans to add direct-to-cellular capability (aka SCS, Supplemental Coverage from Space) to v2-mini satellites. It made a 99 page long filing attached below in response to multiple opposition filings yesterday. Not much new info except two new configurations of gen2 satellites revealed.

Quote
The tables below present illustrative information for proposed form factors of SpaceX
Gen2 satellites with SCS capabilities: one of which will be launched on Falcon 9 rockets and one
that will be launched on Starship. For convenience, these satellites are labeled satellites F9-3 and
Starship-2, respectively, following the naming convention SpaceX used for its authorized Gen2
satellites. Note that to better reflect a non-maneuverable satellite in a tumbling deorbit a 0.5 scaling
factor has been applied to the area-to-mass ratios used with NASA’s Debris Assessment Software
(“DAS”). Further note that while the specific dimensions of the bus of the Starship-2 satellite is
larger than the Starship-1 satellite, reflecting a deployed SCS antenna, the DAS analysis of the
Starship-2 satellite is identical to the Starship-1 analysis that the Commission approved in the Gen2
Order because the area-to-mass ratio used for the analysis is the same. These demonstrations are
for illustrative purposes, and it would be contrary to established rules and disincentivize operators
from sharing such information in the future if the Commission were to use this information that
SpaceX’s provides here voluntarily to establish new conditions on SpaceX’s operations.

I'm also attaching the description of configurations without SCS antennas. See my previous post for the accompanying text.

I believe the V2.0mini D2D payload antennas have been launching since 6-1

In the TMUS D2D event last August, Musk said they "were considering" a sort of V2.0 mini for Falcon 9 as a backup plan if Starship was delayed.  Yesterday in the FCC Filing was the first time they acknowledged that D2D payload antenna was part of Mini. 

Offline OceanCat

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 193
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #157 on: 06/01/2023 07:46 am »
SpaceX plans to add direct-to-cellular capability (aka SCS, Supplemental Coverage from Space) to v2-mini satellites. It made a 99 page long filing attached below in response to multiple opposition filings yesterday. Not much new info except two new configurations of gen2 satellites revealed.

Quote
The tables below present illustrative information for proposed form factors of SpaceX
Gen2 satellites with SCS capabilities: one of which will be launched on Falcon 9 rockets and one
that will be launched on Starship. For convenience, these satellites are labeled satellites F9-3 and
Starship-2, respectively, following the naming convention SpaceX used for its authorized Gen2
satellites. Note that to better reflect a non-maneuverable satellite in a tumbling deorbit a 0.5 scaling
factor has been applied to the area-to-mass ratios used with NASA’s Debris Assessment Software
(“DAS”). Further note that while the specific dimensions of the bus of the Starship-2 satellite is
larger than the Starship-1 satellite, reflecting a deployed SCS antenna, the DAS analysis of the
Starship-2 satellite is identical to the Starship-1 analysis that the Commission approved in the Gen2
Order because the area-to-mass ratio used for the analysis is the same. These demonstrations are
for illustrative purposes, and it would be contrary to established rules and disincentivize operators
from sharing such information in the future if the Commission were to use this information that
SpaceX’s provides here voluntarily to establish new conditions on SpaceX’s operations.

I'm also attaching the description of configurations without SCS antennas. See my previous post for the accompanying text.

I believe the V2.0mini D2D payload antennas have been launching since 6-1

In the TMUS D2D event last August, Musk said they "were considering" a sort of V2.0 mini for Falcon 9 as a backup plan if Starship was delayed.  Yesterday in the FCC Filing was the first time they acknowledged that D2D payload antenna was part of Mini.

Unlikely. Did you see the F9-3 mass listed? It's 970 kg. 17,400 kg (the heaviest known Starlink batch) / (22 group 6 satellites) = 790 kg. That's clearly F9-2 configuration even if we don't know the exact weight of group 6 batches.

EDIT: I agree that they may have launched one or two experimental F9-3 satellites already.
« Last Edit: 06/01/2023 07:51 am by OceanCat »

Offline ZachS09

  • Space Savant
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8391
  • Roanoke, TX
  • Liked: 2338
  • Likes Given: 2051
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #158 on: 06/04/2023 04:35 pm »
I'm using Orbiter 2016 to determine the maximum number of Starlink v2 Minis that can fly on an expendable Falcon 9 to the Group 6 orbit. In this case, I'm using a circular 300-km orbit inclined -43 degrees.

Earlier in this thread, someone said at most 30 Starlink v2 Mini satellites can fit within the standard Falcon 9 fairing, which would make for a total mass of 24 metric tons (assuming each satellite is 800 kilograms).

Even an expendable Falcon 9 doesn't have enough delta-v to make it to orbit with 30 satellites, let alone deorbiting Stage 2 following payload separation.

With that, after some experimentation, I'm assuming 26 Starlink v2 Mini satellites (20.8 metric tons all together) is barely within the margins for the following profile:

1 - Starting by going down a launch azimuth of 121 degrees (which would usually lead to a -40-degree orbit).

2 - Expending Stage 1.

3 - Jettisoning the fairing five seconds after Second Engine Start-1.

4 - Small plane change immediately after fairing separation to 128-degree azimuth (leading to a -43-degree orbit).

5 - Eventually reaching the targeted orbit of 300 kilometers, inclined -43 degrees with two M-Vac burns.

6 - Deorbiting Stage 2 on the second orbit with the remaining fuel left after payload separation.

Unless SpaceX wants to be conservative and keep launching at most 22 Starlink v2 Minis while recovering Stage 1, I think they can launch 26 if there's a really old booster (i.e. near the 20-flight mark) that's chosen to be expended.
« Last Edit: 01/21/2024 12:19 am by ZachS09 »
Liftoff for St. Jude's! Go Dragon, Go Falcon, Godspeed Inspiration4!

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #159 on: 06/04/2023 07:05 pm »
I think if they’re going that route due to, say, launch count restrictions, a Falcon Heavy with extended fairing would be a better bet. Could potentially even RTLS all the cores if droneship availability was limited and/or if they ended up being too volume limited even with an extended fairing.

But that’s all a lot of work when a starship is so close. And probably with the limited booster reuse count, it might not be worth using up 3 uses like that. But if they extended booster reuse to 20-30, it starts to make more sense.

Wonder what Falcon Heavy with all cores RTLS would have as far as payload performance? Maybe 25-35 tonnes?
« Last Edit: 06/04/2023 07:18 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline ZachS09

  • Space Savant
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8391
  • Roanoke, TX
  • Liked: 2338
  • Likes Given: 2051
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #160 on: 06/04/2023 10:41 pm »
Remind me if this question was answered.

We've seen both Starlink Group 5 and Group 6 launches go to the 530 km, 43-degree orbit shell, but the original Gen2 Group 5 shell was 525 km, inclined 53 degrees.

Was that shell cancelled, or are there some launches planned for the 525 km, 53-degree orbit shell in the future?

Source: https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/starlink-v2-mini.htm
Liftoff for St. Jude's! Go Dragon, Go Falcon, Godspeed Inspiration4!

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #161 on: 06/05/2023 01:26 am »
Probably want to fill the 43 degree shell first. Plenty of satellites in the 53 degree shells.The 43 degree shell provides Starlink satellites the most time over the continental US where demand is highest.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #162 on: 06/06/2023 03:02 am »
SpaceX plans to add direct-to-cellular capability (aka SCS, Supplemental Coverage from Space) to v2-mini satellites. It made a 99 page long filing attached below in response to multiple opposition filings yesterday. Not much new info except two new configurations of gen2 satellites revealed.

Quote
The tables below present illustrative information for proposed form factors of SpaceX
Gen2 satellites with SCS capabilities: one of which will be launched on Falcon 9 rockets and one
that will be launched on Starship. For convenience, these satellites are labeled satellites F9-3 and
Starship-2, respectively, following the naming convention SpaceX used for its authorized Gen2
satellites. Note that to better reflect a non-maneuverable satellite in a tumbling deorbit a 0.5 scaling
factor has been applied to the area-to-mass ratios used with NASA’s Debris Assessment Software
(“DAS”). Further note that while the specific dimensions of the bus of the Starship-2 satellite is
larger than the Starship-1 satellite, reflecting a deployed SCS antenna, the DAS analysis of the
Starship-2 satellite is identical to the Starship-1 analysis that the Commission approved in the Gen2
Order because the area-to-mass ratio used for the analysis is the same. These demonstrations are
for illustrative purposes, and it would be contrary to established rules and disincentivize operators
from sharing such information in the future if the Commission were to use this information that
SpaceX’s provides here voluntarily to establish new conditions on SpaceX’s operations.

I'm also attaching the description of configurations without SCS antennas. See my previous post for the accompanying text.

I believe the V2.0mini D2D payload antennas have been launching since 6-1

In the TMUS D2D event last August, Musk said they "were considering" a sort of V2.0 mini for Falcon 9 as a backup plan if Starship was delayed.  Yesterday in the FCC Filing was the first time they acknowledged that D2D payload antenna was part of Mini.

Unlikely. Did you see the F9-3 mass listed? It's 970 kg. 17,400 kg (the heaviest known Starlink batch) / (22 group 6 satellites) = 790 kg. That's clearly F9-2 configuration even if we don't know the exact weight of group 6 batches.

EDIT: I agree that they may have launched one or two experimental F9-3 satellites already.

Well, I am simply going off of SpaceX's FCC SCS/D2D application to the FCC on Feb. 7, 2023 Waiver Requests Attachment.
We all know Musk/SpaceX's timeline estimates wonkiness, but this seems somewhat definitive.
https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=19976425

"SpaceX expects to deploy enough satellites to support
THE SERVICE as soon as mid-2023."

[EDIT] Tweet below from Caleb Henery @SATSHOW RE Joanathan Hoefeller/ SpaceX
Jonathan Hofeller, SpaceX: Our Starlink production facility in Seattle is producing 6 satelites a day. We’ve launched 302 to date, w/ another 60 launching at the end of this week.
6:52 AM · Mar 9, 2020




THE SERVICE?  My best guess is only 2-way SMS texting (Which Musk stated would be first at the TMUS event last August) which most likely can be accomplished with the post mid-Oct. 2022  F9-1 configurations (best guess on transition date (Added Laser ISL's, mass increased to over 300kg 

(FWIW, Lynx is doing SMS with CubeSats)

My guess is V2.0/V2.0 Mini's will provide (ADVANCED SERVICES) MMS, Mail, Voice,  Data.

[Speculation] One avenue to monetize these Advanced Services will be a low-bandwidth version of Twitter which would employ the recently announced "Twitter Micro-Transactions Engine". TMUS users would have access to 2-way SMS. Additional services are purchased piecemeal via "Twitter Micro-Transactions".  Want to send a photo??  It's $.50 with a revenue share to the spectrum sponsoring MNO. Phone Call?  It's $1 a minute via Twitter app. etc.  Twitter "micro-transaction engine" will solve one of the hardest parts of the equation.  Billing!  It also weaves Musks purchase of Twitter into the workflow.  JMO
« Last Edit: 06/06/2023 03:30 am by raptorx2 »

Offline OceanCat

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 193
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #163 on: 06/08/2023 08:10 am »
Fair enough. You can consider mid-2023 to be a stretch goal based on the Waiver Requests attachment. But One NZ SpaceX partnership announced in April does not support it:

Q: What will I be able to do and where can I connect?
A: The technology will initially be for text and MMS before being extended to voice and data. It will provide coverage anywhere in the country where you have line of sight to the sky, up to the 12-mile offshore territorial limit. SpaceX’s next generation satellites are timed to be in orbit to deliver text coverage from late 2024, with voice and data services to follow.

Q: Why is it only available from late 2024?
A: SpaceX’s next generation satellites are timed to be in orbit and ready to provide connectivity from late 2024.

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #164 on: 06/08/2023 07:29 pm »
Sorry if I implied that it would provide continuous coverage between +/- 53 by mid-2023.  Musk in the TMUS event said something like the initial service in late 2023 (pre-beta) would be non-continuous, you might have to wait "half an hour maybe",


ONE NZ has stated hard service launch late 2024.
It is in my opinion very clear that SpaceX/TMUS had been in the planning stages of this long before the Aug. 2022 media TMUS event.  They had obviously already had extensive conversations with the FCC on spectrum requirements as they showed up with exactly what the FCC stated months later would be the initial requirement.  i.e. Single channel Nationwide license. 

Given the fact that SpaceX has not requested an FCC Experimental License for testing, as AST Space has in the US.  Then one would suspect that they are doing initial testing in another country under another country's regulator.  Germany's Deutsche Telekom and BNetzA perhaps? 

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #165 on: 06/08/2023 08:02 pm »
Fair enough. You can consider mid-2023 to be a stretch goal based on the Waiver Requests attachment. But One NZ SpaceX partnership announced in April does not support it:

Q: What will I be able to do and where can I connect?
A: The technology will initially be for text and MMS before being extended to voice and data. It will provide coverage anywhere in the country where you have line of sight to the sky, up to the 12-mile offshore territorial limit. SpaceX’s next generation satellites are timed to be in orbit to deliver text coverage from late 2024, with voice and data services to follow.

Q: Why is it only available from late 2024?
A: SpaceX’s next generation satellites are timed to be in orbit and ready to provide connectivity from late 2024.

Has anyone discussed the possibility of a sort of Raptor-lite developed for the Falcon 9?  It seems that a methane-powered engine for the Falcon 9 with the extended faring might reduce costs and close the gap to the "mass to GEO" advantage that Vulcan purports.   It would also potentially increase the number of V2.0 minis lofted per launch @ nearly 1000kg each on a Falcon 9.

Offline darkenfast

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Liked: 1821
  • Likes Given: 8644
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #166 on: 06/08/2023 08:07 pm »
No, there have been no hints from SpaceX, or from people who actually have real insight into what is going on with the company, that they have the slightest interest in saddling their successful Falcon launchers and pad infrastructure with a new engine that uses a different propellant combination, especially considering where the Starship program is right now.
Writer of Book and Lyrics for musicals "SCAR", "Cinderella!", and "Aladdin!". Retired Naval Security Group. "I think SCAR is a winner. Great score, [and] the writing is up there with the very best!"
-- Phil Henderson, Composer of the West End musical "The Far Pavilions".

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #167 on: 06/08/2023 08:36 pm »
Fair enough. You can consider mid-2023 to be a stretch goal based on the Waiver Requests attachment. But One NZ SpaceX partnership announced in April does not support it:

Q: What will I be able to do and where can I connect?
A: The technology will initially be for text and MMS before being extended to voice and data. It will provide coverage anywhere in the country where you have line of sight to the sky, up to the 12-mile offshore territorial limit. SpaceX’s next generation satellites are timed to be in orbit to deliver text coverage from late 2024, with voice and data services to follow.

Q: Why is it only available from late 2024?
A: SpaceX’s next generation satellites are timed to be in orbit and ready to provide connectivity from late 2024.

Has anyone discussed the possibility of a sort of Raptor-lite developed for the Falcon 9?  It seems that a methane-powered engine for the Falcon 9 with the extended faring might reduce costs and close the gap to the "mass to GEO" advantage that Vulcan purports.   It would also potentially increase the number of V2.0 minis lofted per launch @ nearly 1000kg each on a Falcon 9.
No point. You’re talking like a billion dollar development (custom very high performance engine, new stage with different diameter, new GSE, new F9 vehicle configuration, etc) for little to no gain and which would need a bunch of qualification flights to qualify for the sort of national security payloads that usually need that. You can just use Falcon Heavy for those flights and/or wait for Starship and use either refueling or an expendable upper stage.

Originally SpaceX was sort of pitching an idea like yours to the Air Force which is how they got some initial funding for Raptor, but that was a super long time ago and everything has changed.
« Last Edit: 06/08/2023 08:37 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #168 on: 06/08/2023 11:57 pm »
I'm using Orbiter 2016 to determine the maximum number of Starlink v2 Minis that can fly on an expendable Falcon 9 to the Group 6 orbit. In this case, I'm using a circular 360-km orbit inclined -43 degrees.

Earlier in this thread, someone said at most 30 Starlink v2 Mini satellites can fit within the standard Falcon 9 fairing, which would make for a total mass of 24 metric tons (assuming each satellite is 800 kilograms).

Even an expendable Falcon 9 doesn't have enough delta-v to make it to orbit with 30 satellites, let alone deorbiting Stage 2 following payload separation.

With that, after some experimentation, I'm assuming 25 Starlink v2 Mini satellites (20 metric tons all together) is barely within the margins for the following profile:

1 - Starting by going down a launch azimuth of 118 degrees (which would usually lead to a -38.5-degree orbit).

2 - Expending Stage 1.

3 - Jettisoning the fairing five seconds after Second Engine Start-1.

4 - Small plane change immediately after fairing separation to 129-degree azimuth (leading to a -43-degree orbit).

5 - Eventually reaching the targeted orbit of 360 kilometers, inclined -43 degrees with two M-Vac burns.

6 - Deorbiting Stage 2 on the second orbit with the remaining fuel left after payload separation.

Unless SpaceX wants to be conservative and keep launching at most 22 Starlink v2 Minis while recovering Stage 1, I think they can launch 25 if there's a really old booster (i.e. near the 20-flight mark) that's chosen to be expended.

Is there room inside the standard faring for more than 22?

Offline ZachS09

  • Space Savant
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8391
  • Roanoke, TX
  • Liked: 2338
  • Likes Given: 2051
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #169 on: 06/09/2023 12:34 am »
The second paragraph of my post said the total volume in the standard fairing can hold up to 30 Starlink v2 Minis.

This is per russianhalo117’s post on Page 1, which is what I meant by “earlier in this thread”.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58374.msg2461455#msg2461455
« Last Edit: 06/09/2023 12:38 am by ZachS09 »
Liftoff for St. Jude's! Go Dragon, Go Falcon, Godspeed Inspiration4!

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #170 on: 06/10/2023 12:52 am »
I think this photo of the V2.0 mini deployment along with the shadows on the second stage from the dispenser poles provides an interesting perspective into this subject..

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #171 on: 06/11/2023 07:41 pm »
V2.0  Mini Flares?  This YouTube Video purports to have been recorded about 12 hours post-deployment of V2.0 Mini Group 6-3 with a fly-over Albany Missouri by an "Aurora Cam"  I can not attest to any post-recording processing to the footage could have undergone.  However, it is reminiscent of Iridium satellite flares of days gone by.

Credit Dan Bush - "Missouri Skies"


Offline chariotoffire

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 110
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #172 on: 06/16/2023 10:48 pm »
Paper showing initial brightness observations of the V2 Minis.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2306/2306.06657.pdf

V2 Minis are half as bright as V1 sats with VisorSat despite having more than 4x the area.

The mean magnitude for V2 Minis in brightness mitigation mode is 7.06 (<7 is considered problematic for research).

Brightness mitigation mode reduces brightness by a factor of 12 vs orbit-raising mode.

V2 minis are approximately as bright when on station and burning as when orbit-raising.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39243
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25169
  • Likes Given: 12100
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #173 on: 06/17/2023 04:44 am »
That’s pretty dang good! Most impressive. Gives hope that the Full v2 satellites (about twice as massive as the V2 minis) will be no brighter than the Gen 1 visorsats in spite of being much larger.
« Last Edit: 06/17/2023 04:54 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47310
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80116
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #174 on: 07/11/2023 10:37 pm »
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1678600679659585537

Quote
The first group of V2Mini Starlinks launched on Feb 27 ran into trouble right away, but 3 of them had raised their orbits to 480 km by late April. However, those 3 are now lowering their orbits again - likely for early retirement.

Offline r1279

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 288
  • Liked: 327
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #175 on: 07/17/2023 03:51 am »
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1678600679659585537

Quote
The first group of V2Mini Starlinks launched on Feb 27 ran into trouble right away, but 3 of them had raised their orbits to 480 km by late April. However, those 3 are now lowering their orbits again - likely for early retirement.

It looks like 2 of these satellites have slowed/stopped their descent as they reached the altitude where 10 of the G6-1 sats [and other drifting/shifting sats] have been maintaining [the 3rd slowed its descent earlier and hasn't dropped to this altitude yet]

[Updated Jul 19th, maintaining altitude]
« Last Edit: 07/19/2023 03:26 pm by r1279 »

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #176 on: 09/04/2023 07:05 pm »
V2.0  Mini Flares?  This YouTube Video purports to have been recorded about 12 hours post-deployment of V2.0 Mini Group 6-3 with a fly-over Albany Missouri by an "Aurora Cam"  I can not attest to any post-recording processing to the footage could have undergone.  However, it is reminiscent of Iridium satellite flares of days gone by.

Credit Dan Bush - "Missouri Skies"



So that is the last 3 launches for Starlink V2.0 Mini's whihc only had 21 satellites (down from the previous 22.

7-1  Vandenberg
6-12  39A
6-14  SLC-40

Is anyone else ready to call this a new variant of the V2.0 Mini?

The other issue that is kind of running through my head.. is.

Given the performance improvements on the V2.0 Minis over earlier v1.5 (reported 4X), along with the large waitlisted area  in the Eastern US (well below the reported upper limit of the 43 degree Group 6.

Why wouldn't SpaceX be concentrating all of its current launch capability in populating Group 6?

Very few areas of "waitlist" between the upper limit of Group 6 and Group 7 according to the Starlink availability map?
https://www.starlink.com/map

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #177 on: 09/05/2023 02:21 am »
Maybe,  they decided they just needed more margin.  So dropped from 22 to 21.

Also,  7-1 was out of Vandenberg.  Maybe they decided the 43 degree performance hit was too high using SLC-4E.

While I do agree,  43 degrees in the near term will provide SpaceX the most bang for the buck.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #178 on: 09/05/2023 04:19 am »
I discounted it on 7-1 due to launch location.  But both East Coast facilities?  Six months of launches @ 22 and suddenly need more margin?

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #179 on: 09/05/2023 04:49 am »
I discounted it on 7-1 due to launch location.  But both East Coast facilities?  Six months of launches @ 22 and suddenly need more margin?

Whats interesting about 6-12 with only 21 V2 minis is it was flown by 1073. For some reason this particular booster has never flown the "max" number of starlinks to a particular shell. First launch it did 53 to Group 4, which was the max for a bit for Group 4 launches, but they were able to do max 54 towards the end of that shell. Then every other launch afterwards it was 52 sats for Group 4, 54 sats for Group 5, or 21 sats for Group 6, which are all lower then the max that was carried.

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
  • Liked: 1051
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #180 on: 09/05/2023 06:30 am »
I discounted it on 7-1 due to launch location.  But both East Coast facilities?  Six months of launches @ 22 and suddenly need more margin?

Whats interesting about 6-12 with only 21 V2 minis is it was flown by 1073. For some reason this particular booster has never flown the "max" number of starlinks to a particular shell. First launch it did 53 to Group 4, which was the max for a bit for Group 4 launches, but they were able to do max 54 towards the end of that shell. Then every other launch afterwards it was 52 sats for Group 4, 54 sats for Group 5, or 21 sats for Group 6, which are all lower then the max that was carried.

For those keeping track, does this particular booster's launches also correspond to short nozzle upper stages?

Offline Barley

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1002
  • Liked: 669
  • Likes Given: 366
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #181 on: 09/05/2023 01:23 pm »
I discounted it on 7-1 due to launch location.  But both East Coast facilities?  Six months of launches @ 22 and suddenly need more margin?
Sun spots?

Solar activity inflates the Earth's atmosphere, you need to get a little higher for a minimum orbit.

Currently we are two years before the next solar maximum around July 2025.  This means we are in the region of steepest increase.

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #182 on: 09/05/2023 04:18 pm »
I discounted it on 7-1 due to launch location.  But both East Coast facilities?  Six months of launches @ 22 and suddenly need more margin?

Whats interesting about 6-12 with only 21 V2 minis is it was flown by 1073. For some reason this particular booster has never flown the "max" number of starlinks to a particular shell. First launch it did 53 to Group 4, which was the max for a bit for Group 4 launches, but they were able to do max 54 towards the end of that shell. Then every other launch afterwards it was 52 sats for Group 4, 54 sats for Group 5, or 21 sats for Group 6, which are all lower then the max that was carried.

For those keeping track, does this particular booster's launches also correspond to short nozzle upper stages?

? Short nozzle is never used on Starlink missions

Offline OceanCat

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 193
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #183 on: 09/05/2023 09:39 pm »
So that is the last 3 launches for Starlink V2.0 Mini's whihc only had 21 satellites (down from the previous 22.

7-1  Vandenberg
6-12  39A
6-14  SLC-40

Is anyone else ready to call this a new variant of the V2.0 Mini?

They may have launched a few heavier SCS (aka direct-to-cellular) varians. A lot of people don't realize SpaceX has a license to launch 2,016 gen2 SCS satellites and provide service in Germany. They may also have experimental or market access licenses in other countries.

Quote
Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (“SpaceX”) petitions for a declaratory ruling
granting market access to operate its direct-to-cellular Mobile-Satellite Service (“MSS”) payload
in the United States in the 1910-1915 MHz and 1990-1995 MHz bands (the “PCS G Block”).
The payload has been licensed by the German Administration (Assignment of Orbit and
Frequency Usage Rights, No. 023-2022/BNetzA (223) (issued Dec. 6, 2022).)

The SpaceX direct-to-cellular system will consist of a German-licensed hosted payload
flown on a subset of 2,016 of the second-generation (“Gen2”) non-geostationary orbit (“NGSO”)
satellites recently authorized for Space Exploration Holdings, LLC at 525 km and 530 km
altitudes. The direct-to-cellular system will be deployed on up to 72 satellites per plane (of the
120 satellites per plane in the “Amended Gen2 System Orbital Parameters (Configuration 1)”)
and up to a total of 28 planes at 53 and 43 degree inclinations.

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #184 on: 09/05/2023 10:05 pm »
So that is the last 3 launches for Starlink V2.0 Mini's whihc only had 21 satellites (down from the previous 22.

7-1  Vandenberg
6-12  39A
6-14  SLC-40

Is anyone else ready to call this a new variant of the V2.0 Mini?

They may have launched a few heavier SCS (aka direct-to-cellular) varians. A lot of people don't realize SpaceX has a license to launch 2,016 gen2 SCS satellites and provide service in Germany. They may also have experimental or market access licenses in other countries.

Quote
Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (“SpaceX”) petitions for a declaratory ruling
granting market access to operate its direct-to-cellular Mobile-Satellite Service (“MSS”) payload
in the United States in the 1910-1915 MHz and 1990-1995 MHz bands (the “PCS G Block”).
The payload has been licensed by the German Administration (Assignment of Orbit and
Frequency Usage Rights, No. 023-2022/BNetzA (223) (issued Dec. 6, 2022).)

The SpaceX direct-to-cellular system will consist of a German-licensed hosted payload
flown on a subset of 2,016 of the second-generation (“Gen2”) non-geostationary orbit (“NGSO”)
satellites recently authorized for Space Exploration Holdings, LLC at 525 km and 530 km
altitudes. The direct-to-cellular system will be deployed on up to 72 satellites per plane (of the
120 satellites per plane in the “Amended Gen2 System Orbital Parameters (Configuration 1)”)
and up to a total of 28 planes at 53 and 43 degree inclinations.

Correct!  I have been trying to explain this to other people (regarding the original  "Market Access for the German licensed payload".) They already have authority outside of the US. Many claim that SpaceX can not do D2C on anything except a V2.0.  I told them that Lynk is doing "Voice and Text" on Cubesats.  So I think they can do it on Mini's (if not on  later builds of V1.5s also)

Starlink group 8-1 just showed up on the US Launcher manifest on NSF from Vandenberg late September?

This almost has to be 96.9° / 360km. Because 33° or 38° would be a bust from Vandenberg, worse than Group 6. (retrogrades?)
30 per/ 120 planes

Seems like the fastest route to a "Global D2C" system.  (Like Iridium)

Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #185 on: 09/05/2023 10:20 pm »
Quote
Correct!  I have been trying to explain this to other people (regarding the original  "Market Access for the German licensed payload".) They already have authority outside of the US. Many claim that SpaceX can not do D2C on anything except a V2.0.  I told them that Lynk is doing "Voice and Text" on Cubesats.  So I think they can do it on Mini's (if not on  later builds of V1.5s also)

Starlink group 8-1 just showed up on the US Launcher manifest on NSF from Vandenberg late September?

This almost has to be 96.9° / 360km. Because 33° or 38° would be a bust from Vandenberg, worse than Group 6. (retrogrades?)
30 per/ 120 planes

Seems like the fastest route to a "Global D2C" system.  (Like Iridium)

Group 8 has the exact same landing coordinates as the Group 7 flyover options. I bet its just another 53 deg shell, same as Group 7.
« Last Edit: 09/05/2023 10:21 pm by spacenuance »

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #186 on: 09/05/2023 10:39 pm »
So 53° @ 340km?  Seems that we are approaching a period of increased solar activity  that they would avoid the lower altitude shells for a number of years?

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47310
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80116
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #187 on: 09/17/2023 05:23 am »
https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1703132464712237216

Quote
Video of last night’s @Starlink satellite deployment

Screen grabs from the video attached

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
  • Liked: 1051
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #188 on: 09/18/2023 11:28 pm »
https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1703132464712237216

Quote
Video of last night’s @Starlink satellite deployment

Screen grabs from the video attached

Pic 8315 is interesting. Is there no traditional payload adapter, and the mini's are somehow mounted on the interstage directly via those top and bottom edge plates?

Offline Mandella

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
  • Liked: 799
  • Likes Given: 2566
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #189 on: 09/19/2023 01:16 pm »
https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1703132464712237216

Quote
Video of last night’s @Starlink satellite deployment

Screen grabs from the video attached

Pic 8315 is interesting. Is there no traditional payload adapter, and the mini's are somehow mounted on the interstage directly via those top and bottom edge plates?

Isn't that the same philosophy as the first production version of Starlink? They surprised everyone by not having a payload adapter and just flinging the sats off the rocket then too.

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #190 on: 09/21/2023 03:46 am »
I think if you look in the "reflections" you can see the dispenser retainer arms folding back. However, they do appear that they remain connected to the Second Stage for deorbit.

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #191 on: 09/21/2023 04:25 am »
Interesting on X/Twitter.

Claims the secret XL Faring photo we saw a couple of weeks ago is actually going to be used to deploy F9-3's Direct 2 Cell.
Facts and figures seem pretty convincing.

https://twitter.com/FREESPEECH1017/status/1704712820687040964

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #192 on: 09/21/2023 04:39 am »
Interesting on X/Twitter.

Claims the secret XL Faring photo we saw a couple of weeks ago is actually going to be used to deploy F9-3's Direct 2 Cell.
Facts and figures seem pretty convincing.

https://twitter.com/FREESPEECH1017/status/1704712820687040964

If true, then what is the payload to LEO performance penalty with F9-3 ~900kg satellites and the larger faring?

I would expect them to use a well-experienced first stage given the new dynamics for at-sea drone ship landings.

Perhaps 1061 or 1063

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47310
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80116
  • Likes Given: 36283
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #193 on: 09/26/2023 05:16 pm »
Crosspost:

https://twitter.com/starlink/status/1706718537711337650

Quote
Our next generation Starlink optical space lasers (pew pew!) were launched to orbit on Monday 🛰️🌎

Offline raptorx2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • san diego, ca
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #194 on: 09/26/2023 08:44 pm »
Didn't they initially put these on the original V2.0 Mini prototype satellites?  Group 6-1, 6-2  (Many now deorbited)

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2398
  • Liked: 2367
  • Likes Given: 10124
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #195 on: 09/26/2023 11:48 pm »
100 Gbps is the figure of merit for those laser links.

https://twitter.com/Starlink/status/1706719043460514101

Offline Asteroza

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2786
  • Liked: 1051
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #196 on: 09/26/2023 11:50 pm »
Crosspost:

https://twitter.com/starlink/status/1706718537711337650

Quote
Our next generation Starlink optical space lasers (pew pew!) were launched to orbit on Monday 🛰️🌎

Does this seem to suggest most of the ISL gymbal (for this laser at least) is for left-right movement and less up-down?

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Starlink v2 mini satellites
« Reply #197 on: 10/02/2023 02:14 am »
Considering you are either looking at the next satellite ahead or behind or  right or left. Not much adjustment is needed up / down. You will be looking slightly down at a satellite a fixed distance due to curvature of the orbit.

The tracking does get exciting when looking between planes near the top/bottom (bad terminology on my part) of the orbit as the planes cross. But that is mostly in azimuth,  not attitude (up/down).

It does bring up a question in my mind. For the plane to plane connections. I do wonder if spaceX only uses the part of the orbit that the satellites have low motion in relation to each other for cross plane ISL. Say for 53 degrees when satellites are between msybe a wag of +/-45 for the cross plane connections. You still have the ahead and behind connections the entire orbit. It gets tricky to track adjacent satellites as you pass the northern/ southern limits of the orbits.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1