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

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1114262117744566272

SpaceX open media accreditation for the "Starlink mission" from SLC-40 at Cape Canaveral. "The launch is targeted for no earlier than May. "

Confirms an earlier story from Micheal Baylor (@nextspaceflight) that it had entered the manifest:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/03/falcon-heavy-starlink-headline-spacexs-manifest/

[ThePonjaX]

I'm really curious about how many sats they are going to launch.

[matthewkantar]

I'm really curious about how many sats they are going to launch.

Many guesses are in the 20-30 range. SpaceX said the first 75 would be different than ensuing models. 24 is divisible by 6 and 8. My guess is they will launch 25, with one sitting on top of 24 in a corn cob style dispenser.

[docmordrid]

I'm really curious about how many sats they are going to launch.

>
My guess is they will launch 25, with one sitting on top of 24 in a corn cob style dispenser.

That would seem to match up with the PAZ/Tintin a/b dispenser, the last bird in PAZ's location.

Anyone think they can fit 6/dispenser segment (6x4+1)?

[PM3]

I wonder if we may see the first reused fairing on this flight.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1069679948103847939?lang=de

Falcon fairing halves missed the net, but touched down softly in the water. Mr Steven is picking them up. Plan is to dry them out & launch again. Nothing wrong with a little swim.

[deruch]

I wonder if we may see the first reused fairing on this flight.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1069679948103847939?lang=de

Falcon fairing halves missed the net, but touched down softly in the water. Mr Steven is picking them up. Plan is to dry them out & launch again. Nothing wrong with a little swim.

A good way to start acclimatizing your customers to take the idea seriously is to show them you're willing to put your money where your mouth is. 

[RocketLover0119]

Fairings from the FH Arabsat 6a mission will be reused on this mission!

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1116514068393680896

[envy887]

Fairings from the FH Arabsat 6a mission will be reused on this mission!

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1116514068393680896

He didn't specify this mission. SpaceX is likely to launch more than 1 Starlink mission this year, and probably wants more than a few weeks to look over these fairings.

[wannamoonbase]

These are the best pictures but the fairings look to be in great shape.  No charring.

Edit: Agree, these are more likely to be later this year.  Not next month.  (So make more room in the manifest)

[ATPTourFan]

Right, further, they wouldn't want their first launch of up to 20 Starlink sats ruined by their first attempt to reuse a fairing. Priority is getting that first set on orbit so they can be checked out, activated, etc.

[Joffan]

Right, further, they wouldn't want their first launch of up to 20 Starlink sats ruined by their first attempt to reuse a fairing. Priority is getting that first set on orbit so they can be checked out, activated, etc.

I wouldn't be too certain about such "obvious" conclusions. Recall that SpaceX premiered "full thrust" and land landing on their return to flight mission after the CRS-7 explosion.

[speedevil]

Right, further, they wouldn't want their first launch of up to 20 Starlink sats ruined by their first attempt to reuse a fairing. Priority is getting that first set on orbit so they can be checked out, activated, etc.

I wouldn't be too certain about such "obvious" conclusions. Recall that SpaceX premiered "full thrust" and land landing on their return to flight mission after the CRS-7 explosion.

Priority may be getting the manufacture process rolling, if they are sufficiently confident on their design that it's 'good enough' that there are no major 'throw it all out and start again' problems.
They need to be making these things at close to ten a week, so another way of looking at it is not 'irreplaceable' but 'later this month'.
Clearly (well, probably), they're not making them that fast right now.
There have also been statements that there will be a 'V2' satellite - with a fully safe for reentry design, meaning the ones going up could even be already 'obselete' in that they have new models on the shelf.

[guckyfan]

Do we know for sure that the first batch will not have laser links? Or is it possible they have already installed demisable mirrors that we don't hear of? Seems weird to me that they would build that many if they become obsolete after a few months.

[ThomasGadd]

Do we know for sure that the first batch will not have laser links? Or is it possible they have already installed demisable mirrors that we don't hear of? Seems weird to me that they would build that many if they become obsolete after a few months.

I'm curious about the optical links links myself, some discussion about alternative materials but nothing conclusive.

[Jcc]

OneWeb is already starting to launch, so time is of the essence of they want to establish early dominance of the market.  When you are planning 12,000 sats eventually, launching 75 pilot sats that are intended to be superseded quickly is completely rational.

[ThomasGadd]

OneWeb is already starting to launch, so time is of the essence of they want to establish early dominance of the market.  When you are planning 12,000 sats eventually, launching 75 pilot sats that are intended to be superseded quickly is completely rational.

OneWeb is against a deadline at the end of year it good to see them finally launch. 

Spacex needs to focus on 2200 by April 2024. 
Also I don't think the last round of orbit changes has been approved by the FCC yet.
Once they get some flight time on the first satellites they may incrementally modify the design.

[gongora]

OneWeb is already starting to launch, so time is of the essence of they want to establish early dominance of the market.  When you are planning 12,000 sats eventually, launching 75 pilot sats that are intended to be superseded quickly is completely rational.

OneWeb is against a deadline at the end of year it good to see them finally launch. 

Spacex needs to focus on 2200 by April 2024. 
Also I don't think the last round of orbit changes has been approved by the FCC yet.
Once they get some flight time on the first satellites they may incrementally modify the design.

I don't know what OneWeb deadline you are talking about.  Their FCC license for U.S. access required them to have the constellation up by mid-2023.  If the new rules get retroactively applied to their constellation then they'll have even longer.  For ITU purposes they're probably already good with the first set of sats on orbit.

SpaceX still needs to get some sort of modification or STA approved before they can do anything with the sats they're intending to launch first, they just don't match the existing license.

[ThomasGadd]

OneWeb is already starting to launch, so time is of the essence of they want to establish early dominance of the market.  When you are planning 12,000 sats eventually, launching 75 pilot sats that are intended to be superseded quickly is completely rational.

OneWeb is against a deadline at the end of year it good to see them finally launch. 

Spacex needs to focus on 2200 by April 2024. 
Also I don't think the last round of orbit changes has been approved by the FCC yet.
Once they get some flight time on the first satellites they may incrementally modify the design.

I don't know what OneWeb deadline you are talking about.  Their FCC license for U.S. access required them to have the constellation up by mid-2023.  If the new rules get retroactively applied to their constellation then they'll have even longer.  For ITU purposes they're probably already good with the first set of sats on orbit.

SpaceX still needs to get some sort of modification or STA approved before they can do anything with the sats they're intending to launch first, they just don't match the existing license.

I was referring to the ITU deadline for OneWeb.

[mn]

Right, further, they wouldn't want their first launch of up to 20 Starlink sats ruined by their first attempt to reuse a fairing. Priority is getting that first set on orbit so they can be checked out, activated, etc.

I wouldn't be too certain about such "obvious" conclusions. Recall that SpaceX premiered "full thrust" and land landing on their return to flight mission after the CRS-7 explosion.

That just happened to work out that way because there were no more of the v1.1 cores left (except 1 reserved for the Jason-3 mission). The next flight was going to be FT no matter what, there was no other choice.

Edit: and the landing means nothing in this context, they were trying to land for a while already and they finally succeeded on that launch.

[deruch]

Right, further, they wouldn't want their first launch of up to 20 Starlink sats ruined by their first attempt to reuse a fairing. Priority is getting that first set on orbit so they can be checked out, activated, etc.

I wouldn't be too certain about such "obvious" conclusions. Recall that SpaceX premiered "full thrust" and land landing on their return to flight mission after the CRS-7 explosion.

That just happened to work out that way because there were no more of the v1.1 cores left (except 1 reserved for the Jason-3 mission). The next flight was going to be FT no matter what, there was no other choice.

Edit: and the landing means nothing in this context, they were trying to land for a while already and they finally succeeded on that launch.

Joffan was pointing out that it was their first attempt at a land landing.  I.e. RTLS.  All other attempts had been for at-sea, downragne ASDS landing attempts.  And at the time, people were very much surprised that SpaceX was trying to do so much in their return to flight mission.  While it's true that there weren't any other v1.1 cores left on hand to use, it wasn't at all clear that they wouldn't decide to take the time to build one for the RTF instead of transitioning to the new design in the middle of the accident investigation and RTF preparations.  Though that certainly would have meant a significantly longer downtime.