Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/05/2019 01:34 pm
Check the Starlink Index Thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48981.0) for links to more Starlink information.
NSF Threads for Starlink v1 Flight 1: Discussion (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49421.0) / Updates (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48983.0)
NSF News Articles for Starlink:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/?s=Starlink
Successful launch November 11, 2019 at 0956 EST (1456 UTC) on Falcon 9 (booster 1048.4) from CCAFS SLC-40. ASDS landing was successful. The fairing catch was called off due to rough weather. Targeting deployment orbit of 280km. This flight reused the payload fairing from the Arabsat-6A mission.
Payload: First batch of 60 operational satellites with both Ku-band and Ka-band. Mass 260kg? per satellite.
Please use the Starlink Discussion Thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48297.0) for all general discussion on Starlink.
L2 SpaceX:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=60.0
Post by: ZachS09 on 11/05/2019 05:16 pm
Post by: Captain Crutch on 11/05/2019 05:22 pm
Post by: Marci on 11/05/2019 05:24 pm
- first time a booster is flown 4 times
- first reuse of the fairings
- first catching of both fairing halves
if everything goes according to plan, every part of the rocket will be reused and also catched/landed (appart from stage 2 of course). This would be the final stage of the Falcon9 reusability vision.
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/05/2019 07:25 pm
NSF's Brady Kenniston (@TheFavoritist) took this video of the first Starlink satellites in formation. Shot on Nikon D850 & 70-200mm f/2.8 from Mid-Michigan. Taken May 26, 2019 at 10:23pm Eastern.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHQQu9GWOps
Post by: ThomasGadd on 11/05/2019 07:34 pm
I think the biggest drawback is launching at the higher attitude SpaceX had an improved plan.
Post by: leetdan on 11/05/2019 07:37 pm
So three firsts in one launch:
- first time a booster is flown 4 times
- first reuse of the fairings
- first catching of both fairing halves
if everything goes according to plan, every part of the rocket will be reused and also catched/landed (appart from stage 2 of course). This would be the final stage of the Falcon9 reusability vision.
One more -- this would also be the first use of the permanent mobile crane for booster and fairing recovery ops at Port Canaveral.
Post by: erv on 11/06/2019 06:33 am
Post by: tyrred on 11/06/2019 07:56 am
So three firsts in one launch:
- first time a booster is flown 4 times
- first reuse of the fairings
- first catching of both fairing halves
if everything goes according to plan, every part of the rocket will be reused and also catched/landed (appart from stage 2 of course). This would be the final stage of the Falcon9 reusability vision.
Existential dilemma: has Falcon 9 reached final state? ;)
Here Here! Keep the firsts rolling, I say!
Post by: Alexphysics on 11/06/2019 10:41 am
Is it known what initial inclination they are aiming for? Wondering if I should get the gear ready, being at 57N :)
Same inclination as the last Starlink launch. These first launches are for the same inclination just different orbital plane.
Post by: Semmel on 11/06/2019 01:13 pm
Post by: capoman on 11/06/2019 01:19 pm
Interesting that the static fire was done without the payload. If my brain doesnt fool me, the last batch of starlink satellites were integrated with F9 for the static fire.
Yes, I was wondering that too. In the recent Teslarati article, it says both fairing halves will be reused and the acoustic insulation has been removed. I wonder if the lack of acoustic insulation on the fairing might be the reason they didn't install the payload for the static fire? Just exposing the satellites to less acoustic vibration in total.
Post by: edzieba on 11/06/2019 01:32 pm
Post by: abaddon on 11/06/2019 02:53 pm
Interesting that the static fire was done without the payload. If my brain doesnt fool me, the last batch of starlink satellites were integrated with F9 for the static fire.Someone stated that at the time, but I believe that was subsequently retracted as incorrect, and in fact the payload was not on for static fire.
Post by: capoman on 11/06/2019 02:54 pm
The last Starlink launch also lacked the acoustic tiles within the fairings.
Are you sure about that? I just looked at some pictures with Starlink 0.9 and it's fairing, and it looks like the tiles are in place in those pictures..
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=48135.0;attach=1560089;image
Also, it looks like it did static fire while payload/fairing were attached:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=48135.0;attach=1560321;image
Post by: Alexphysics on 11/06/2019 03:33 pm
Interesting that the static fire was done without the payload. If my brain doesnt fool me, the last batch of starlink satellites were integrated with F9 for the static fire.Someone stated that at the time, but I believe that was subsequently retracted as incorrect, and in fact the payload was not on for static fire.
For Starlink v0.9 the payload was inside the fairing. The rocket had its static fire just a day and a half before the planned launch and it never went to the HIF during that time so it couldn't have been that one. The ones that had fairing attached but with no payload onboard were the static fires of the first and the third Falcon Heavy missions.
Post by: penguin44 on 11/07/2019 04:57 am
So three firsts in one launch:
- first time a booster is flown 4 times
- first reuse of the fairings
- first catching of both fairing halves
if everything goes according to plan, every part of the rocket will be reused and also catched/landed (appart from stage 2 of course). This would be the final stage of the Falcon9 reusability vision.
One more -- this would also be the first use of the permanent mobile crane for booster and fairing recovery ops at Port Canaveral.
One more, first time booster will land 4x
Post by: smoliarm on 11/07/2019 06:36 am
Post by: su27k on 11/07/2019 08:10 am
Does such a long debris corridor (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48983.msg2012352#msg2012352) (from Madagascar to New Zealand) implies that SpaceX is planning to test a new heat shield with this second stage?
It's the same as the first Starlink launch, so I'm guessing no?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48135.msg1946062#msg1946062
Post by: ZachS09 on 11/07/2019 10:41 am
Post by: baldusi on 11/07/2019 12:00 pm
May be they are doing burn to depletion and thus have a wider uncertainty margin?Does such a long debris corridor (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48983.msg2012352#msg2012352) (from Madagascar to New Zealand) implies that SpaceX is planning to test a new heat shield with this second stage?
It's the same as the first Starlink launch, so I'm guessing no?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48135.msg1946062#msg1946062
Post by: edzieba on 11/07/2019 01:14 pm
Look closely at the half-in-fairing photo, the tiles are not present. They are also definitely not present post-recovery (https://youtu.be/UmTyouQDe68?t=568).The last Starlink launch also lacked the acoustic tiles within the fairings.
Are you sure about that? I just looked at some pictures with Starlink 0.9 and it's fairing, and it looks like the tiles are in place in those pictures..
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=48135.0;attach=1560089;image
Also, it looks like it did static fire while payload/fairing were attached:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=48135.0;attach=1560321;image
Post by: gongora on 11/07/2019 01:14 pm
Will the launch mass be the same as the Starlink v0.9 mission (18.5 US tons)?
If the individual satellites were anywhere near the stated mass then the first launch wasn't 18.5 tons no matter if you're doing metric or US short tons. On the launch webcast they said the payload was 30,000 pounds.
Post by: ZachS09 on 11/07/2019 04:32 pm
Will the launch mass be the same as the Starlink v0.9 mission (18.5 US tons)?
If the individual satellites were anywhere near the stated mass then the first launch wasn't 18.5 tons no matter if you're doing metric or US short tons. On the launch webcast they said the payload was 30,000 pounds.
I said 18.5 US tons because I saw on Raul’s General SpaceX Map that the launch mass for Starlink v0.9 was 16,783 kilograms, which converts to 18.5 US tons.
This, in turn, came from a tweet from Elon prior to that launch.
Post by: JFARNS on 11/07/2019 05:17 pm
Does such a long debris corridor (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48983.msg2012352#msg2012352) (from Madagascar to New Zealand) implies that SpaceX is planning to test a new heat shield with this second stage?
It's the same as the first Starlink launch, so I'm guessing no?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48135.msg1946062#msg1946062
Maybe in case the satellites failed to separate and came down with the stage?
Post by: woods170 on 11/08/2019 08:05 am
Does such a long debris corridor (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48983.msg2012352#msg2012352) (from Madagascar to New Zealand) implies that SpaceX is planning to test a new heat shield with this second stage?
It's the same as the first Starlink launch, so I'm guessing no?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48135.msg1946062#msg1946062
Maybe in case the satellites failed to separate and came down with the stage?
Bingo.
Post by: CyndyC on 11/09/2019 06:43 pm
Will the launch mass be the same as the Starlink v0.9 mission (18.5 US tons)?
If the individual satellites were anywhere near the stated mass then the first launch wasn't 18.5 tons no matter if you're doing metric or US short tons. On the launch webcast they said the payload was 30,000 pounds.
I said 18.5 US tons because I saw on Raul’s General SpaceX Map that the launch mass for Starlink v0.9 was 16,783 kilograms, which converts to 18.5 US tons.
This, in turn, came from a tweet from Elon prior to that launch.
I believe the explanation for exceeding 60 x 500.5 lbs is revealed in Tyler Gray's article on this website at https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/11/spacex-fires-up-falcon-9-starlink-mission/ (emphasis mine):
Quote
Each individual satellite has a launch mass of 227 kilograms (500.5 pounds), making the total payload mass – not including the payload adapter or deployment mechanisms – add up to 13,620 kilograms (30,027 pounds). This matches the payload mass from the previous dedicated Starlink mission, which was the heaviest payload that SpaceX launched to date.
If the launch mass of v 0.9 and of v 1.0 truly match, then the addition of the Ka-band antennas aren't adding any significant mass, and I find it somewhat difficult to believe they wouldn't be adding at least half a ton, so maybe the design improvements took off some mass.
Post by: ZachS09 on 11/10/2019 01:57 pm
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47594.msg1946572#msg1946572
Post by: CyndyC on 11/10/2019 07:55 pm
One more thing to point out: I saw some posts in the Starlink 0.9 Discussion Thread that talked about 40 to 50 kilograms of krypton propellant in each of the sats, which could be a factor to the "18.5 tons" I mentioned.
Except Tyler calls the 227kg/500.5lbs the "launch mass", and w/o the fuel the satellites would be useless, so seems the fuel might as well be included in the given figure, but that figure is no longer accurate either way.
According to starlink.com, each sat now weighs ~260kg = ~573lbs, so the design improvements and/or the addition of Ka-band antennas will add ~2 tons to the final payload
Post by: gongora on 11/10/2019 08:58 pm
Post by: Jirka Dlouhy on 11/10/2019 09:05 pm
I think that this is not problem for Falcon 9 FT.One more thing to point out: I saw some posts in the Starlink 0.9 Discussion Thread that talked about 40 to 50 kilograms of krypton propellant in each of the sats, which could be a factor to the "18.5 tons" I mentioned.
Except Tyler calls the 227kg/500.5lbs the "launch mass", and w/o the fuel the satellites would be useless, so seems the fuel might as well be included in the given figure, but that figure is no longer accurate either way.
According to starlink.com, each sat now weighs ~260kg = ~573lbs, so the design improvements and/or the addition of Ka-band antennas will add ~2 tons to the final payload
Post by: gongora on 11/10/2019 09:22 pm
One more thing to point out: I saw some posts in the Starlink 0.9 Discussion Thread that talked about 40 to 50 kilograms of krypton propellant in each of the sats, which could be a factor to the "18.5 tons" I mentioned.
Except Tyler calls the 227kg/500.5lbs the "launch mass", and w/o the fuel the satellites would be useless, so seems the fuel might as well be included in the given figure, but that figure is no longer accurate either way.
According to starlink.com, each sat now weighs ~260kg = ~573lbs, so the design improvements and/or the addition of Ka-band antennas will add ~2 tons to the final payload
That change from 227 to 260 is very recent, I'm pretty sure I checked a few days ago and it was still 227.
Post by: CyndyC on 11/10/2019 09:47 pm
The easiest explanation is that Elon misspoke, but a lot of people would never accept that explanation.
Back in early 2015 he was asked in a Reddit AMA how he had calculated the 50% chance of landing the first attempt, and he freely admitted it was a complete guess. I thought that was funny, that someone so smart could use an estimate off the top of his head and have it interpreted as a complex calculation. That's analogous to a woman known to be wealthy and getting away with wearing cubic zirconia.
Post by: sferrin on 11/11/2019 12:06 am
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1193687615528042496 (https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1193687615528042496)I wonder why they think one of the satellites may not make it to it's proper orbit. And if they have reason to believe that why not fix it? ???Quote from: SpaceXTeam is go for launch of 60 Starlink sats tomorrow—heaviest payload to date, first re-flight of a fairing, and first Falcon 9 to fly a fourth mission. Watching 1 sat that may not orbit raise; if not, 100% of its components will quickly burn up in Earth’s atmosphere
Post by: terryy on 11/11/2019 12:36 am
Post by: salpun on 11/11/2019 12:45 am
Post by: gongora on 11/11/2019 12:47 am
Will this batch of Starlinks have inter-satellite links?
No
Post by: Alexphysics on 11/11/2019 01:06 am
One more thing to point out: I saw some posts in the Starlink 0.9 Discussion Thread that talked about 40 to 50 kilograms of krypton propellant in each of the sats, which could be a factor to the "18.5 tons" I mentioned.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47594.msg1946572#msg1946572
40 to 50 kilograms of Krypton would be overkill for this system. They would need 10kg at most for the rest of their operations.
Post by: groknull on 11/11/2019 01:06 am
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1193687615528042496 (https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1193687615528042496)I wonder why they think one of the satellites may not make it to it's proper orbit. And if they have reason to believe that why not fix it? ???Quote from: SpaceXTeam is go for launch of 60 Starlink sats tomorrow—heaviest payload to date, first re-flight of a fairing, and first Falcon 9 to fly a fourth mission. Watching 1 sat that may not orbit raise; if not, 100% of its components will quickly burn up in Earth’s atmosphere
Operational costs may far outweigh the value of a single satellite. Many costs for a delay: time and personnel for rollback, destacking, replacement, restacking, stack check, rollout; range costs; ASDS, tug, fairing catcher ship idle time costs (station keeping fuel, crew costs), etc. Probably cheaper to leave a problematic satellite in the stack and launch it.
Some similarities to data center operations. Disks (and sometimes servers) are often fail in place. If something goes bad, it is cheaper to disable the component and leave it there than have someone replace it. Servers get replaced every 18 months or so for power consumption reasons, so a failed component typically doesn't impact overall data center performance significantly or for very long.
Post by: RedLineTrain on 11/11/2019 02:04 am
One more thing to point out: I saw some posts in the Starlink 0.9 Discussion Thread that talked about 40 to 50 kilograms of krypton propellant in each of the sats, which could be a factor to the "18.5 tons" I mentioned.
Except Tyler calls the 227kg/500.5lbs the "launch mass", and w/o the fuel the satellites would be useless, so seems the fuel might as well be included in the given figure, but that figure is no longer accurate either way.
According to starlink.com, each sat now weighs ~260kg = ~573lbs, so the design improvements and/or the addition of Ka-band antennas will add ~2 tons to the final payload
That change from 227 to 260 is very recent, I'm pretty sure I checked a few days ago and it was still 227.
Indeed, the Wayback Machine's October 22 snapshot indicates a 227 kg mass.
Post by: Sesquipedalian on 11/11/2019 03:47 am
Post by: Llian Rhydderch on 11/11/2019 11:58 am
But we can watch both. The Mercury transit started about 25 mins ago; and will last 5 1/2 hrs, and is being live cast by both citizen scientists as well as NASA.
Then, just tune into the F9 launch as the time comes.
Post by: Rondaz on 11/11/2019 12:26 pm
https://twitter.com/TGMetsFan98/status/1193877740581261312
Post by: Crispy on 11/11/2019 12:59 pm
And is it all OK with Of Course I Still Love You?No problems we know about.
You'd hear about it via https://twitter.com/SpaceXFleet if there was.
Post by: mrhuggy on 11/11/2019 01:06 pm
https://twitchtheater.tv/v=pIDuv0Ta0XQ&list=WL/v=rC_N5DBnicI/v=CkwAkOUvm2w&list=WL
And original:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC_N5DBnicI
Post by: TorenAltair on 11/11/2019 02:04 pm
Post by: sevenperforce on 11/11/2019 02:07 pm
Is it possible they ignited the second stage a few seconds later than usual? It seemed at least so to me.Yeah, I felt like it was a late ignition as well. Also a slower takeoff than usual, though that may be the heavy payload.
Heavy seas for OCISLY. Is Octagrabber operational?
Post by: Mike_1179 on 11/11/2019 02:10 pm
Is that a view of the metal helium tank in the second stage?
Post by: yokem55 on 11/11/2019 02:12 pm
SECO-1 is accompanied by an internal tank view, for only a few seconds. What a throwback!Looks to me like they left a fair bit in the tank. Seems like more than what they would need for the coast boiloff, circularization, and deorbit?
Post by: whitelancer64 on 11/11/2019 02:16 pm
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48983.msg2013717#msg2013717 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48983.msg2013717#msg2013717)
Is that a view of the metal helium tank in the second stage?
The helium tank is the black COPV on the left.
Post by: Mike_1179 on 11/11/2019 02:22 pm
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48983.msg2013717#msg2013717 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48983.msg2013717#msg2013717)
Is that a view of the metal helium tank in the second stage?
The helium tank is the black COPV on the left.
Here's a side-by-side of this one and a previous F9 (ABS-EUTELSAT-1)
Where one of black COPVs is located now has that metal-looking bottle. Is that one of the metal ones needed for certification of humans on F9?
Post by: Nomadd on 11/11/2019 02:22 pm
It is definitely the first SpaceX launch during a Mercury transit. These astronomical events happen only about a dozen times per century.Just a speck in the middle with an old eclipse filter and pocket camera, but still cool, just like the speck that was Halley's comet in 86.
But we can watch both. The Mercury transit started about 25 mins ago; and will last 5 1/2 hrs, and is being live cast by both citizen scientists as well as NASA.
Then, just tune into the F9 launch as the time comes.
Post by: Paul_G on 11/11/2019 02:25 pm
Here's a side-by-side of this one and a previous F9 (ABS-EUTELSAT-1)
Where one of black COPVs is located now has that metal-looking bottle. Is that one of the metal ones needed for certification of humans on F9?
I believe the metal looking thing (technical term) on the right is a device that the helium expands in/out of, and into the main tank, rather than a pressurised tank in its own right.
Post by: punder on 11/11/2019 03:02 pm
Post by: Cheapchips on 11/11/2019 03:04 pm
Post by: dgates on 11/11/2019 03:04 pm
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48983.msg2013717#msg2013717 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48983.msg2013717#msg2013717)
Is that a view of the metal helium tank in the second stage?
Might it be the first stage? I saw the LOX “sloshing” seemingly in response to the pitching and rolling of OCISLY right after touchdown. Also, very low LOX level as one would expect after touchdown of the first stage, which if true gives one an idea of how close to depletion they are at landing. Not a lot left over!
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 11/11/2019 03:06 pm
Here's that reused fairing heading for an ocean recovery.
Fourth flight of this booster successfully landed.
Post by: mn on 11/11/2019 03:12 pm
Coincidence? (I think not!)
Post by: JamesH65 on 11/11/2019 03:12 pm
Here's that reused fairing heading for an ocean recovery.
Didn't they say they were not recovering the fairings due to weather conditions?
Post by: capoman on 11/11/2019 03:15 pm
Post by: Joffan on 11/11/2019 03:15 pm
Post by: Paul_G on 11/11/2019 03:18 pm
Here's that reused fairing heading for an ocean recovery.
Didn't they say they were not recovering the fairings due to weather conditions?
I believe the Fairing Capture ships reported issues with their nets due to rough seas enroute, and returned to a port for repairs. The 'fish it out of the water' process will be attempted instead.
Post by: Nomadd on 11/11/2019 03:18 pm
Would be cool if SpaceX would be able to turn around and continue to use 1048.x for Starlink flights. Would be a great way to verify the amount of times F9 can be reused, as well as give customer confidence for highly reused boosters.Deploying the initial 1440 sat constellation with the same rocket would be impressive. Only 22 flights to go.
Post by: sevenperforce on 11/11/2019 03:24 pm
We had a glimpse of a tension rod just at the end there.So are all of the sats somehow pressure-clamped onto it from the end, and then it gets dropped and they all float off?
Post by: marsbase on 11/11/2019 03:25 pm
Post by: sevenperforce on 11/11/2019 03:31 pm
Unlike the previous Starlink satellite release, this second stage was not spinning to impart a differential momentum to the satellites, thus causing them to slowly separate from each other. There must be some other mechanism to separate the satellites from each other this time.The webcast said they just sorta bump into each other and drift apart that way.
Post by: marsbase on 11/11/2019 03:43 pm
I didn't hear that and it seems unlikely. The webcast did mention(at 1:00:17) that they were designed so they would not be damaged if they bumped into each other. Didn't say this was a disbursement mechanism.Unlike the previous Starlink satellite release, this second stage was not spinning to impart a differential momentum to the satellites, thus causing them to slowly separate from each other. There must be some other mechanism to separate the satellites from each other this time.The webcast said they just sorta bump into each other and drift apart that way.
Post by: Captain Crutch on 11/11/2019 03:45 pm
Post by: spacenut on 11/11/2019 03:48 pm
Post by: marsbase on 11/11/2019 03:49 pm
I'm sure releasing the tension bars causes a spring like motion which then propells and spreads the sats away from the stage and eachother. Just a guess but it seems pretty logical, things under tension just tend to spring back once thetension is released.You may be right, but that's not what SpaceX thought on the previous launch. They were very deliberate in spinning the second stage and explained that this would provide the necessary differential momentum. Maybe there are small springs between the satellites that are released at the time the tension bar is released. Something is different this time.
Post by: mainmind on 11/11/2019 03:50 pm
Thanks
Post by: docmordrid on 11/11/2019 03:55 pm
It was said up-thread that this batch of satellites do not have the inter-satellite laser links. Does anyone know when that will be added? It seemed like the whole "link" part of Starlink and an important component for faster global communications.
Thanks
Gwynne Shotwell at IAC2019,
CNN... (http://"https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/26/tech/spacex-starlink-elon-musk-tweet-gwynne-shotwell/index.html")
Quote
>
The 60 satellites that we already flew are capable of operations, but the next version will have upgraded technology. By late next year, we'll be flying satellite with lasers that allow them to talk to each other in space and share data, which ensures customers will never lose service.
>
>
Post by: eriblo on 11/11/2019 03:59 pm
The second stage was clearly rotating at separation for this launch as well.I'm sure releasing the tension bars causes a spring like motion which then propells and spreads the sats away from the stage and eachother. Just a guess but it seems pretty logical, things under tension just tend to spring back once thetension is released.You may be right, but that's not what SpaceX thought on the previous launch. They were very deliberate in spinning the second stage and explained that this would provide the necessary differential momentum. Maybe there are small springs between the satellites that are released at the time the tension bar is released. Something is different this time.
Post by: rklaehn on 11/11/2019 04:05 pm
Post by: mainmind on 11/11/2019 04:06 pm
ThanksIt was said up-thread that this batch of satellites do not have the inter-satellite laser links. Does anyone know when that will be added? It seemed like the whole "link" part of Starlink and an important component for faster global communications.
Thanks
Gwynne Shotwell at IAC2019,
CNN... (http://"https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/26/tech/spacex-starlink-elon-musk-tweet-gwynne-shotwell/index.html")Quote>
The 60 satellites that we already flew are capable of operations, but the next version will have upgraded technology. By late next year, we'll be flying satellite with lasers that allow them to talk to each other in space and share data, which ensures customers will never lose service.
>
>
So the network topology they're going for with the current iteration is akin to bent-pipe reflectors taking between users and ground stations? And that's the version that's going to go live for northern US and parts of Canada next year? How many ground stations do they have set up now?
Post by: rsdavis9 on 11/11/2019 04:06 pm
Does anybody have preliminary two line elements for this batch of satellites, or a link to a ground track display? I would love to see them this time.
https://www.heavens-above.com/PassSummary.aspx?satid=70003
Post by: marsbase on 11/11/2019 04:08 pm
Aha! You are right. It's not rotating as rapidly as last time, but there is a spin there. Also not much background to view it against. Ok, I retract my observation.The second stage was clearly rotating at separation for this launch as well.I'm sure releasing the tension bars causes a spring like motion which then propells and spreads the sats away from the stage and eachother. Just a guess but it seems pretty logical, things under tension just tend to spring back once thetension is released.You may be right, but that's not what SpaceX thought on the previous launch. They were very deliberate in spinning the second stage and explained that this would provide the necessary differential momentum. Maybe there are small springs between the satellites that are released at the time the tension bar is released. Something is different this time.
Post by: John Santos on 11/11/2019 04:10 pm
The second stage was clearly rotating at separation for this launch as well.I'm sure releasing the tension bars causes a spring like motion which then propells and spreads the sats away from the stage and eachother. Just a guess but it seems pretty logical, things under tension just tend to spring back once thetension is released.You may be right, but that's not what SpaceX thought on the previous launch. They were very deliberate in spinning the second stage and explained that this would provide the necessary differential momentum. Maybe there are small springs between the satellites that are released at the time the tension bar is released. Something is different this time.
Yes, there were a couple of bright objects moving across the field of view during the deployment. (I think they were bright stars or planets). One in particular appears a few seconds after the satellite stack drifts out of view. From the rate of motion, it looks like the second stage and stack were tumbling end-over-end at a few RPM. Differential velocity (the sats at the top of the stack moving faster than those at the bottom of the stack) should cause them to separate quickly.
The SpaceX comment in the video was that the sats were designed to withstand low energy bumps if they happened to contact each other during deployment, not that such collisions were intentional or part of the planned deployment mechanism.
Post by: rsdavis9 on 11/11/2019 04:10 pm
Aha! You are right. It's not rotating as rapidly as last time, but there is a spin there. Also not much background to view it against. Ok, I retract my observation.The second stage was clearly rotating at separation for this launch as well.I'm sure releasing the tension bars causes a spring like motion which then propells and spreads the sats away from the stage and eachother. Just a guess but it seems pretty logical, things under tension just tend to spring back once thetension is released.You may be right, but that's not what SpaceX thought on the previous launch. They were very deliberate in spinning the second stage and explained that this would provide the necessary differential momentum. Maybe there are small springs between the satellites that are released at the time the tension bar is released. Something is different this time.
The only background I saw was the earth terminator. It very slowly was moving upwards in the shot. Do we know the terminator movement wasn't from the rotation around the earth?
Post by: gongora on 11/11/2019 04:19 pm
So the network topology they're going for with the current iteration is akin to bent-pipe reflectors taking between users and ground stations? And that's the version that's going to go live for northern US and parts of Canada next year? How many ground stations do they have set up now?
6 Ku-band, 5 Ka-band in the US.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48981.msg1990162#msg1990162
Post by: John Santos on 11/11/2019 04:23 pm
Post by: SDSmith on 11/11/2019 04:25 pm
Any estimate as to how many will be needed for US coverage?So the network topology they're going for with the current iteration is akin to bent-pipe reflectors taking between users and ground stations? And that's the version that's going to go live for northern US and parts of Canada next year? How many ground stations do they have set up now?
6 Ku-band, 5 Ka-band in the US.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48981.msg1990162#msg1990162
Post by: gongora on 11/11/2019 04:37 pm
Any estimate as to how many will be needed for US coverage?So the network topology they're going for with the current iteration is akin to bent-pipe reflectors taking between users and ground stations? And that's the version that's going to go live for northern US and parts of Canada next year? How many ground stations do they have set up now?
6 Ku-band, 5 Ka-band in the US.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48981.msg1990162#msg1990162
They might not need many more gateways for initial service, more gateways would be needed as the amount of traffic grows. Still need about 10 more launches.
Post by: theonlyspace on 11/11/2019 04:40 pm
Post by: gongora on 11/11/2019 04:41 pm
Did the fairings land in the nets aboard the two fairing recovery ships ?
The fairing recovery ships encountered some rough weather on their way out. They ended up aborting the recovery attempt and returning to shore before the launch.
Post by: DecoLV on 11/11/2019 04:43 pm
Post by: sevenperforce on 11/11/2019 04:57 pm
Fairing recovery was cancelled prior to launch; cause unknown but allegedly due to rough seas in same ocean where OSISLY was fine today.OCISLY was showing a LOT of back and forth during the landing.
Post by: eriblo on 11/11/2019 04:59 pm
At T+1:00:17 the Moon appears behind the Starlink stack and moves up and out of frame at T+1:00:23. Right before the "fortuitous video dropout at separation" we start seeing the lightened horizon appearing on the bottom right and after the video is back we see a hint of the Sun moving out of the top right of the view at T+1:01:21.Aha! You are right. It's not rotating as rapidly as last time, but there is a spin there. Also not much background to view it against. Ok, I retract my observation.The second stage was clearly rotating at separation for this launch as well.I'm sure releasing the tension bars causes a spring like motion which then propells and spreads the sats away from the stage and eachother. Just a guess but it seems pretty logical, things under tension just tend to spring back once thetension is released.You may be right, but that's not what SpaceX thought on the previous launch. They were very deliberate in spinning the second stage and explained that this would provide the necessary differential momentum. Maybe there are small springs between the satellites that are released at the time the tension bar is released. Something is different this time.
The only background I saw was the earth terminator. It very slowly was moving upwards in the shot. Do we know the terminator movement wasn't from the rotation around the earth?
The deployment took place between Australia and Antarctica at ~15:57 UTC, so the Moon should be above the horizon at ~337° (NNW) and the Sun below the horizon at ~167° (SSE). So if I have the geometry right the stage is rotating mostly perpendicular to the surface (
EDIT: Got flipped around, Earth might be to the right (blaming Australia) - fisheye lenses means that the apparent phase of the Moon and the curvature of the horizon do not necessarily agree but the first mission had a CCW spin seen from above.
Post by: punder on 11/11/2019 05:09 pm
I mean, no one else is doing anything remotely close to this. Why would they need to hide anything?
Post by: gongora on 11/11/2019 05:18 pm
Okay do y'all really think SpaceX is trying to hide something about the deployment? It seems unlikely but what do I know.
I mean, no one else is doing anything remotely close to this. Why would they need to hide anything?
Intentionally releasing debris during satellite deployment is discouraged, and SpaceX appears to be doing that.
Post by: eriblo on 11/11/2019 05:39 pm
Yes, they might want to avoid bad PR but on the other hand most of those who care would know regardless and then they just look shady... The first launch was of course much worse, these ones will reenter much sooner (and will not cross ISS altitude).Okay do y'all really think SpaceX is trying to hide something about the deployment? It seems unlikely but what do I know.
I mean, no one else is doing anything remotely close to this. Why would they need to hide anything?
Intentionally releasing debris during satellite deployment is discouraged, and SpaceX appears to be doing that.
The drop out might easily be due to loss of directional downlink during the horizontal rotation (easily predicted ahead of time). They could on the other hand have released a full video later (assuming that it is cached and downlinked for engineering purposes before reentry), so some might hesitate to put away the tinfoil hats :)
Post by: rsdavis9 on 11/11/2019 05:55 pm
So did they maybe use starlink for the drone ship coverage?
Post by: gongora on 11/11/2019 06:07 pm
https://twitter.com/HansKoenigsmann/status/1193944631421132801 (https://twitter.com/HansKoenigsmann/status/1193944631421132801)
So did they maybe use starlink for the drone ship coverage?
No
Post by: mme on 11/11/2019 06:18 pm
Fairing recovery was cancelled prior to launch; cause unknown but allegedly due to rough seas in same ocean where OSISLY was fine today.They encountered rough seas on the way out and were concerned the net support structure was damaged. It's a big ocean, a multi-day journey and OSISLY and Ms * are completely different beasts. Why the implication they are lying?
Post by: hplan on 11/11/2019 06:19 pm
12,000 satellites at 20 gbps over USA 5% of the time for 300 million people gives 13 gigabytes of data per month for each person in the USA.
42,000 satellites at 80 gbps gives 182 gigabytes of data per month per person -- enough to meet the entire consumer broadband network bandwidth needs of the country, if my math is right.
Post by: spacenut on 11/11/2019 06:22 pm
Post by: gongora on 11/11/2019 06:24 pm
The pregame show mentioned something about quadrupling the data bandwidth of these new starlings -- in passing, as though it were a minor point.
The previous set of satellites didn't have the Ka-band equipment. Most of the increase on this set would just be from using Ka-band as well as Ku-band.
Post by: stcks on 11/11/2019 07:14 pm
Still no answer about the Octograbber securing the booster?
Unless you know someone on the recovery ships, don't expect an answer until it arrives back at port and someone snaps a picture.
Post by: theonlyspace on 11/11/2019 07:53 pm
Post by: AndrewRG10 on 11/11/2019 08:06 pm
Hopefully they do not return with a empty ship the booster having fallen overboard due to rough seasThat's only ever happened once in history and it was because the Octagrabber couldn't fit on the booster.
1. The Octagrabber will immediately go out and grab the booster
2. There were several landings throughout 2016 and 2017 which didn't have an Octagrabber but the booster never fell over in those landings. Heck even Iridium-7 with one of the harshest seas on landing, had no Octagrabber but returned fine and that booster flew again for the fourth time today.
Post by: old_geez on 11/11/2019 09:01 pm
Post by: niwax on 11/11/2019 09:24 pm
Does anyone have a mass to orbit vs mass expended vs mass recovered ration for this mission?
My estimation:
Total launch mass: 579.4t
of which
Fuel: 530.2t
Payload: 15.6t
Reused: 29.1t
New: 4.5t
Recovered: 27.2t
Expended: 6.4t
Assuming they don't retrieve the fairings.
Post by: exilon on 11/12/2019 06:01 am
Post by: edzieba on 11/12/2019 10:13 am
Post by: ugordan on 11/12/2019 10:20 am
Both the webcast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIDuv0Ta0XQ?t=1313) (looking down at the plume) and the USLR tracking cam (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TomCoWIId0?t=269) (compare rocket body angle to plume trail angle. Ignore the 'glow' portion, look at the longer gas trail) show the stage ending the burn at an extremely jaunty angle.
Nothing really out of the ordinary for F9 nor, for that matter, other rockets.
Post by: vanoord on 11/12/2019 10:40 am
2. There were several landings throughout 2016 and 2017 which didn't have an Octagrabber but the booster never fell over in those landings. Heck even Iridium-7 with one of the harshest seas on landing, had no Octagrabber but returned fine and that booster flew again for the fourth time today.
Excluding this launch, there have been 25 successful ASDS landings with the Octagrabber used 11 times - so 14 times that it hasn't been used (7 on each droneship).
Post by: Zed_Noir on 11/12/2019 12:20 pm
Post by: scr00chy on 11/12/2019 02:35 pm
Is there any update from SpaceX about fishing the payload fairing halves out of the water like the fairings' previous flight on the Arabsat-6A mission?Both ships were recalled to port hours before the launch so there was no way to fish the fairings out. SpaceX saying they'd try was some kind of miscommunication, I guess.
Post by: Danderman on 11/12/2019 03:03 pm
The slightly lower injection orbit might account for additional payload capability.
Post by: erv on 11/12/2019 04:36 pm
Post by: Lars-J on 11/12/2019 05:32 pm
Both the webcast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIDuv0Ta0XQ?t=1313) (looking down at the plume) and the USLR tracking cam (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TomCoWIId0?t=269) (compare rocket body angle to plume trail angle. Ignore the 'glow' portion, look at the longer gas trail) show the stage ending the burn at an extremely jaunty angle.
This is normal, F9 usually flies at a slight angle of attack on purpose near the end of the stage 1 flight, presumably to take advantage of some slight aerodynamic lift.
Post by: ugordan on 11/12/2019 05:37 pm
Both the webcast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIDuv0Ta0XQ?t=1313) (looking down at the plume) and the USLR tracking cam (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TomCoWIId0?t=269) (compare rocket body angle to plume trail angle. Ignore the 'glow' portion, look at the longer gas trail) show the stage ending the burn at an extremely jaunty angle.
This is normal, F9 usually flies at a slight angle of attack on purpose near the end of the stage 1 flight, presumably to take advantage of some slight aerodynamic lift.
There's no useful aerodynamic lift at that point, it's purely for trajectory optimizing purposes.
Post by: sevenperforce on 11/12/2019 05:55 pm
Residual from the powered change to the landing spot. The stage has to translate over to land on the surface.Both the webcast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIDuv0Ta0XQ?t=1313) (looking down at the plume) and the USLR tracking cam (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TomCoWIId0?t=269) (compare rocket body angle to plume trail angle. Ignore the 'glow' portion, look at the longer gas trail) show the stage ending the burn at an extremely jaunty angle.
This is normal, F9 usually flies at a slight angle of attack on purpose near the end of the stage 1 flight, presumably to take advantage of some slight aerodynamic lift.
Post by: ZachS09 on 11/12/2019 05:56 pm
Post by: rsdavis9 on 11/12/2019 06:13 pm
Have there been any TLEs recorded for the Starlink sats?
From heavens above
1 70003U 19999A 19315.62222222 .00000000 00000-0 00000-0 0 09
2 70003 053.0000 171.4040 0001502 047.3044 323.7123 15.97988880 01
Maybe newer ones on other sites.
Post by: abaddon on 11/12/2019 06:17 pm
There's no useful aerodynamic lift at that point, it's purely for trajectory optimizing purposes.Then why not just point in the direction you want to go?
Post by: gongora on 11/12/2019 06:17 pm
Have there been any TLEs recorded for the Starlink sats?
From heavens above
1 70003U 19999A 19315.62222222 .00000000 00000-0 00000-0 0 09
2 70003 053.0000 171.4040 0001502 047.3044 323.7123 15.97988880 01
Maybe newer ones on other sites.
The stuff on Heavens Above is a pre-launch guess (although it works pretty good).
Post by: AC in NC on 11/12/2019 06:22 pm
There's no useful aerodynamic lift at that point, it's purely for trajectory optimizing purposes.Then why not just point in the direction you want to go?
Trajectory optimization is "the direction you want to go".
Post by: ugordan on 11/12/2019 06:54 pm
Residual from the powered change to the landing spot. The stage has to translate over to land on the surface.Both the webcast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIDuv0Ta0XQ?t=1313) (looking down at the plume) and the USLR tracking cam (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TomCoWIId0?t=269) (compare rocket body angle to plume trail angle. Ignore the 'glow' portion, look at the longer gas trail) show the stage ending the burn at an extremely jaunty angle.
This is normal, F9 usually flies at a slight angle of attack on purpose near the end of the stage 1 flight, presumably to take advantage of some slight aerodynamic lift.
Huh. I assume that's the same reason for example this Delta II can be seen flying at a significant AoA at 0:56 in the video?
https://youtu.be/YJEZlKXeQFk?t=56
Post by: envy887 on 11/12/2019 07:14 pm
There's no useful aerodynamic lift at that point, it's purely for trajectory optimizing purposes.Then why not just point in the direction you want to go?
The nice thing about being outside the sensible atmosphere is that you can point your thrust in the direction you want to go, but you can point the rocket itself in other directions.
For instance, if you want to thrust purely horizontally without gravity pulling the nose of the rocket down below the horizon, you point the thrust horizontal and the nose slightly up, offsetting the thrust vector from the CG by the exact amount that gravity is pulling down on the CG. This eliminates gravity losses for that part of the trajectory, since all the the thrust is going to horizontal acceleration and none of ti is fighting gravity directly.
Post by: OneSpeed on 11/12/2019 08:13 pm
There's no useful aerodynamic lift at that point, it's purely for trajectory optimizing purposes.
SpaceSim calculates the maximum lift for Starlink 0.9 after the gravity turn was complete was about 126kN, or 12t of force. That is small compared to the mass of the vehicle (234t at that point), but still useful. The difference between inertial and orbital acceleration at that point is 0.33g, so there are still some gravity losses occurring.
Post by: Lars-J on 11/13/2019 12:37 am
There's no useful aerodynamic lift at that point, it's purely for trajectory optimizing purposes.Then why not just point in the direction you want to go?
The nice thing about being outside the sensible atmosphere is that you can point your thrust in the direction you want to go, but you can point the rocket itself in other directions.
For instance, if you want to thrust purely horizontally without gravity pulling the nose of the rocket down below the horizon, you point the thrust horizontal and the nose slightly up, offsetting the thrust vector from the CG by the exact amount that gravity is pulling down on the CG. This eliminates gravity losses for that part of the trajectory, since all the the thrust is going to horizontal acceleration and none of ti is fighting gravity directly.
There isn't a lot of atmosphere there, but it is still below 60km, and there is a reason why they don't open the fairing until 100+ km altitude.
OneSpeed is probably right - it is a combination of fighting gravity losses and lift effect.
Post by: Danderman on 11/13/2019 11:56 am
These satellites were injected into a 280 km parking orbit, compared to 350 km for the previous mission, or is my memory failing me?
The slightly lower injection orbit might account for additional payload capability.
Yep.
This launch was to a 280 km injection orbit, but the first went to 440 km.
Not only does the lower orbit support greater payload capacity, but if the plan is to deploy to 3 planes, it's much quicker from this lower orbit.
Post by: ChrisC on 11/13/2019 12:21 pm
Post by: HiHatWhenItsClosed on 11/13/2019 12:53 pm
Post by: Mandella on 11/13/2019 05:24 pm
If they don't I guess these are gone, unless of course they've got a deployable outboard and are going to motor back to harbor themselves.
That last was a joke -- I think.
Post by: SteveU on 11/13/2019 07:18 pm
...If they don't I guess these are gone, unless of course they've got a deployable outboard and are going to motor back to harbor themselves.
Don't give SpaceX any crazy ideas - they come up with enough on their own! ;)
Post by: rsdavis9 on 11/13/2019 07:50 pm
There were comments from SpaceX that they would fish the fairings out, but obviously they need a ship to do that with. Do they have anything else out there aside from the two catchers?
If they don't I guess these are gone, unless of course they've got a deployable outboard and are going to motor back to harbor themselves.
That last was a joke -- I think.
Don't they usually have 2 tugs minding OCISLY?
One towing and another to assist.
Post by: Joffan on 11/13/2019 08:07 pm
There were comments from SpaceX that they would fish the fairings out, but obviously they need a ship to do that with. Do they have anything else out there aside from the two catchers?
If they don't I guess these are gone, unless of course they've got a deployable outboard and are going to motor back to harbor themselves.
That last was a joke -- I think.
Don't they usually have 2 tugs minding OCISLY?
One towing and another to assist.
Go Quest was out there. Can they haul fairings aboard?
https://twitter.com/SpaceXFleet/status/1193580421247713284
Post by: CyndyC on 11/13/2019 08:42 pm
Go Quest was out there. Can they haul fairings aboard?
Found some old photos of GO Searcher bringing in two fairing halves in 2017. Pretty sure the earlier plan had both GO sisters modified in some way to bring in fairings https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38111.msg1662778#msg1662778
Post by: Brovane on 11/13/2019 09:13 pm
These satellites were injected into a 280 km parking orbit, compared to 350 km for the previous mission, or is my memory failing me?
The slightly lower injection orbit might account for additional payload capability.
Yep.
This launch was to a 280 km injection orbit, but the first went to 440 km.
Not only does the lower orbit support greater payload capacity, but if the plan is to deploy to 3 planes, it's much quicker from this lower orbit.
What is the expected passive time it would take for a dead satellite to de-orbit from the 280 km injection orbit?
Post by: gongora on 11/13/2019 09:23 pm
These satellites were injected into a 280 km parking orbit, compared to 350 km for the previous mission, or is my memory failing me?
The slightly lower injection orbit might account for additional payload capability.
Yep.
This launch was to a 280 km injection orbit, but the first went to 440 km.
Not only does the lower orbit support greater payload capacity, but if the plan is to deploy to 3 planes, it's much quicker from this lower orbit.
What is the expected passive time it would take for a dead satellite to de-orbit from the 280 km injection orbit?
For 350km they said a couple weeks to 8 months depending on the solar cycle. I don't think they've said numbers for 280km.
Post by: CyndyC on 11/13/2019 10:45 pm
I did a little searching on the subject because the Falcon 9 FT max payload to LEO is 22,800kg/50265lbs, much greater than even this record payload
Turns out Thomas Burghardt of NSF and Stephen Clark of SFN both reported the lower insertion was to check out and de-orbit improperly functioning satellites from a lower altitude. They'll actually be drifting to their respective planes farther up if they check out, at 350km/217mi, but still lower than the previous insertion at 440km/273mi. Operational orbit will remain the same at 550km/342mi, although previously lowered right before the test launch with FCC approval in April.
From Thomas Burghardt's article at https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/11/spacex-cape-return-first-operational-starlink-mission/:
Quote
After launch, SpaceX will establish contact with each satellite and confirm each spacecraft’s health before maneuvering them to 350 kilometer orbits. Any satellites not functioning properly after launch will be left in the initial 280 kilometer orbit to naturally deorbit. Satellites that pass their health checks will use the 350 kilometer orbit to drift to their orbit planes, where they will then maneuver up to their operational altitude of 550 kilometers.
From SFN in the next to last paragraph at https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/11/10/spacex-readies-upgraded-starlink-satellites-for-launch/:
Quote
SpaceX says injecting the satellites into a lower orbit at an altitude of 174 miles will allow time for checkouts before orbit-raising. The Starlink satellites launched in May were deployed in a higher orbit at an altitude of around 273 miles (440 kilometers).
Post by: Alexphysics on 11/13/2019 10:48 pm
A lower de-orbit was probably the only reason they lowered the insertion orbit.
I did a little searching on the subject because the Falcon 9 FT max payload to LEO is 22,800kg/50265lbs, much greater than even this record payload at ~20.7 tons (including the adaptor & dispenser hardware). Maybe they saved a little on fuel, but the 2nd & final 2nd stage firing was what, 2-3 seconds? So another 160km/99mi would have cost another second or two of fuel, or probably not very much, and we all saw how much fuel the 1st stage came back with.
Turns out Thomas Burghardt of NSF and Stephen Clark of SFN both reported the lower insertion was to check out and de-orbit improperly functioning satellites from a lower altitude. They'll actually be drifting to their respective planes farther up if they check out, at 350km/217mi, but still lower than the previous insertion at 440km/273mi. Operational orbit will remain the same at 550km/342mi, although previously lowered right before the test launch with FCC approval in April.
From Thomas Bruhardt's article at https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/11/spacex-cape-return-first-operational-starlink-mission/:QuoteAfter launch, SpaceX will establish contact with each satellite and confirm each spacecraft’s health before maneuvering them to 350 kilometer orbits. Any satellites not functioning properly after launch will be left in the initial 280 kilometer orbit to naturally deorbit. Satellites that pass their health checks will use the 350 kilometer orbit to drift to their orbit planes, where they will then maneuver up to their operational altitude of 550 kilometers.
From SFN in the next to last paragraph at https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/11/10/spacex-readies-upgraded-starlink-satellites-for-launch/:QuoteSpaceX says injecting the satellites into a lower orbit at an altitude of 174 miles will allow time for checkouts before orbit-raising. The Starlink satellites launched in May were deployed in a higher orbit at an altitude of around 273 miles (440 kilometers).
20.7 tons? What numbers did you use? There is no dispenser for Starlink launches and the satellites alone are 15.6 tons. From where do the other 5.1 tons come from?
Post by: CyndyC on 11/13/2019 10:55 pm
A lower de-orbit was probably the only reason they lowered the insertion orbit.
I did a little searching on the subject because the Falcon 9 FT max payload to LEO is 22,800kg/50265lbs, much greater than even this record payloadat ~20.7 tons (including the adaptor & dispenser hardware). Maybe they saved a little on fuel, but the 2nd & final 2nd stage firing was what, 2-3 seconds? So another 160km/99mi would have cost another second or two of fuel, or probably not very much, and we all saw how much fuel the 1st stage came back with.
Turns out Thomas Burghardt of NSF and Stephen Clark of SFN both reported the lower insertion was to check out and de-orbit improperly functioning satellites from a lower altitude. They'll actually be drifting to their respective planes farther up if they check out, at 350km/217mi, but still lower than the previous insertion at 440km/273mi. Operational orbit will remain the same at 550km/342mi, although previously lowered right before the test launch with FCC approval in April.
From Thomas Bruhardt's article at https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/11/spacex-cape-return-first-operational-starlink-mission/:QuoteAfter launch, SpaceX will establish contact with each satellite and confirm each spacecraft’s health before maneuvering them to 350 kilometer orbits. Any satellites not functioning properly after launch will be left in the initial 280 kilometer orbit to naturally deorbit. Satellites that pass their health checks will use the 350 kilometer orbit to drift to their orbit planes, where they will then maneuver up to their operational altitude of 550 kilometers.
From SFN in the next to last paragraph at https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/11/10/spacex-readies-upgraded-starlink-satellites-for-launch/:QuoteSpaceX says injecting the satellites into a lower orbit at an altitude of 174 miles will allow time for checkouts before orbit-raising. The Starlink satellites launched in May were deployed in a higher orbit at an altitude of around 273 miles (440 kilometers).
20.7 tons? What numbers did you use? There is no dispenser for Starlink launches and the satellites alone are 15.6 tons. From where do the other 5.1 tons come from?
This was discussed earlier, now on page 5 or 6. Zach documented the test launch was 18.5 tons, and the satellite mass has increased from 227kg to 260kg per SpaceX, adding about 2.2 tons
Post by: gongora on 11/13/2019 11:07 pm
20.7 tons? What numbers did you use? There is no dispenser for Starlink launches and the satellites alone are 15.6 tons. From where do the other 5.1 tons come from?
This was discussed earlier, now on page 5 or 6. Zach documented the test launch was 18.5 tons, and the satellite mass has increased from 227kg to 260kg per SpaceX, adding about 2.2 tons
Either the 18.5 tons or the 227kg was wrong. The 22.8 ton to LEO number is for expendable F9.
Post by: CyndyC on 11/13/2019 11:11 pm
20.7 tons? What numbers did you use? There is no dispenser for Starlink launches and the satellites alone are 15.6 tons. From where do the other 5.1 tons come from?
This was discussed earlier, now on page 5 or 6. Zach documented the test launch was 18.5 tons, and the satellite mass has increased from 227kg to 260kg per SpaceX, adding about 2.2 tons
Either the 18.5 tons or the 227kg was wrong. The 22.8 ton to LEO number is for expendable F9.
Gotcha. Probably the 18.5. I'll cross out my total and just leave it blank to be safe
Post by: Nomadd on 11/13/2019 11:40 pm
There's no dispenser, but there is some sort of pole or structure isn't there?20.7 tons? What numbers did you use? There is no dispenser for Starlink launches and the satellites alone are 15.6 tons. From where do the other 5.1 tons come from?
This was discussed earlier, now on page 5 or 6. Zach documented the test launch was 18.5 tons, and the satellite mass has increased from 227kg to 260kg per SpaceX, adding about 2.2 tons
Either the 18.5 tons or the 227kg was wrong. The 22.8 ton to LEO number is for expendable F9.
Post by: Alexphysics on 11/13/2019 11:43 pm
There's no dispenser, but there is some sort of pole or structure isn't there?20.7 tons? What numbers did you use? There is no dispenser for Starlink launches and the satellites alone are 15.6 tons. From where do the other 5.1 tons come from?
This was discussed earlier, now on page 5 or 6. Zach documented the test launch was 18.5 tons, and the satellite mass has increased from 227kg to 260kg per SpaceX, adding about 2.2 tons
Either the 18.5 tons or the 227kg was wrong. The 22.8 ton to LEO number is for expendable F9.
4 tension rods. Shouldn't weigh too much, probably not even half a ton in total. The 18.5 tons figure had to be wrong one way or another, a F9 would never be able to put that mass in LEO while being reusable.
Post by: CyndyC on 11/14/2019 12:28 am
There's no dispenser, but there is some sort of pole or structure isn't there?20.7 tons? What numbers did you use? There is no dispenser for Starlink launches and the satellites alone are 15.6 tons. From where do the other 5.1 tons come from?
This was discussed earlier, now on page 5 or 6. Zach documented the test launch was 18.5 tons, and the satellite mass has increased from 227kg to 260kg per SpaceX, adding about 2.2 tons
Either the 18.5 tons or the 227kg was wrong. The 22.8 ton to LEO number is for expendable F9.
4 tension rods. Shouldn't weigh too much, probably not even half a ton in total. The 18.5 tons figure had to be wrong one way or another, a F9 would never be able to put that mass in LEO while being reusable.
Their strength would have to weigh enough to stabilize 4.3 tons each, or more when the stack shifts, and there would have to be adapters at both the top & bottom to in turn stabilize the tension rods, so all that can probably add up to something significant, even if not quite enough to expend a Falcon 9. How much fuel did that look like was left in the 1st stage, a lot or very little?
Post by: Comga on 11/14/2019 12:49 am
This launch was to a 280 km injection orbit, but the first went to 440 km.
Not only does the lower orbit support greater payload capacity, but if the plan is to deploy to 3 planes, it's much quicker from this lower orbit.
What is the expected passive time it would take for a dead satellite to de-orbit from the 280 km injection orbit?
For 350km they said a couple weeks to 8 months depending on the solar cycle. I don't think they've said numbers for 280km.
A crude rule of thumb says that the atmospheric density doubles or halves every 20 km. So the orbital lifetime does the same in reverse.
Because we are in an incredibly weak solar cycle (Did you see the sunspot-less solar disk for the Mercury transit?) the 8 month upper end of their estimate is more likely.
So 8 months divided be 2^3=8 to 2^4=16 would be 2-4 weeks.
Pretty short orbital lifetime.
Post by: sferrin on 11/14/2019 11:20 am
Post by: ZachS09 on 11/14/2019 12:16 pm
Any word on Flights 2 & 3? They're still scheduled for this year over on Spaceflight Now. :-\
My best guess is that they’re now scheduled for 2020, although it’ll take time for SFN to update their launch schedule.
Post by: crandles57 on 11/14/2019 03:36 pm
Any word on Flights 2 & 3? They're still scheduled for this year over on Spaceflight Now. :-\
My best guess is that they’re now scheduled for 2020, although it’ll take time for SFN to update their launch schedule.
SLC launches Dec 4 and 16. If a minimum of a week before Dec 4, we would know about it by now. Insufficient time between 4th and 16th. So earliest possible opportunity from SLC 40 would be about Dec 28. Another from LC-39A a couple of weeks after in flight abort so before end of year is just about possible... but with such little leeway and Christmas interfering with those timescales, I agree the smart money would be on 2020 rather than 2019.
Post by: bobaroony on 11/14/2019 06:51 pm
looks like almost empty tank right after landing on barge
RP1 or LOX mabe ... i wonder
Post by: gongora on 11/14/2019 07:32 pm
photo cut from spacex starlink live video at 23:56
looks like almost empty tank right after landing on barge
RP1 or LOX mabe ... i wonder
That should be the second stage LOX tank.
Post by: CyndyC on 11/14/2019 10:03 pm
photo cut from spacex starlink live video at 23:56
looks like almost empty tank right after landing on barge
RP1 or LOX mabe ... i wonder
That should be the second stage LOX tank.
There are too many reasons to think it's the 1st stage RP1 tank. The video flashed to it directly from the landing shot and then went directly back to the landing shot. Even though Lauren & the timeline ref'd SECO about the same time, both 2nd stage tanks are monocoque. The 1st stage LOX tank is also monocoque, but the 1st stage RP1 tank has "a stringer and ring-frame design that adds strength to the vehicle" (SpaceFlight101.com), exactly what is pictured in the video. Also, where's a vent pipe like that going to go from the 2nd stage LOX tank, into the payload? Below is a photo by SpaceX of inside the 2nd stage LOX tank, and it's not the same tank that was in the video.
Incidentally, Spaceflight101 also reveals the FT 1st stage under full performance has to achieve MECO in 150 to 170 seconds after lift off to be able to land, and according to the press kit this burn was 153 seconds,
Edit: My thinking on remaining fuel wasn't quite right. The 1st stage can burn up to 195 seconds without a landing, so that was about 42 seconds of fuel remaining.
Post by: whitelancer64 on 11/14/2019 10:30 pm
photo cut from spacex starlink live video at 23:56
looks like almost empty tank right after landing on barge
RP1 or LOX mabe ... i wonder
That should be the second stage LOX tank.
There are too many reasons to think it's the 1st stage RP1 tank. The video flashed to it directly from the landing shot and then went directly back to the landing shot. Even though Lauren & the timeline ref'd SECO about the same time, both 2nd stage tanks are monocoque. The 1st stage LOX tank is also monocoque, but the 1st stage RP1 tank has "a stringer and ring-frame design that adds strength to the vehicle" (SpaceFlight101.com), exactly what is pictured in the video. Also, where's a vent pipe like that going to go from the 2nd stage LOX tank, into the payload? Below is a photo by SpaceX of inside the 2nd stage LOX tank, and it's not the same tank that was in the video.
Incidentally, Spaceflight101 also reveals the FT 1st stage under full performance has to achieve MECO in 150 to 170 seconds after lift off to be able to land, and according to the press kit this burn was 153 seconds,so that's about 17 seconds of fuel remaining.
Edit: My thinking on remaining fuel wasn't quite right. The 1st stage can burn up to 195 seconds without a landing, so that was about 42 seconds of fuel remaining.
Kerosene is naturally colorless, and standard RP-1 is dyed red.
LOX is naturally a pale blue. This is LOX.
Post by: CyndyC on 11/14/2019 10:52 pm
photo cut from spacex starlink live video at 23:56
looks like almost empty tank right after landing on barge
RP1 or LOX mabe ... i wonder
That should be the second stage LOX tank.
There are too many reasons to think it's the 1st stage RP1 tank. The video flashed to it directly from the landing shot and then went directly back to the landing shot. Even though Lauren & the timeline ref'd SECO about the same time, both 2nd stage tanks are monocoque. The 1st stage LOX tank is also monocoque, but the 1st stage RP1 tank has "a stringer and ring-frame design that adds strength to the vehicle" (SpaceFlight101.com), exactly what is pictured in the video. Also, where's a vent pipe like that going to go from the 2nd stage LOX tank, into the payload? Below is a photo by SpaceX of inside the 2nd stage LOX tank, and it's not the same tank that was in the video.
Incidentally, Spaceflight101 also reveals the FT 1st stage under full performance has to achieve MECO in 150 to 170 seconds after lift off to be able to land, and according to the press kit this burn was 153 seconds,so that's about 17 seconds of fuel remaining.
Edit: My thinking on remaining fuel wasn't quite right. The 1st stage can burn up to 195 seconds without a landing, so that was about 42 seconds of fuel remaining.
Kerosene is naturally colorless, and standard RP-1 is dyed red.
LOX is naturally a pale blue. This is LOX.
They have good reasons to stabilize the RP1 tank basin with that extra structure since it's directly over the octaweb, but not as much reason to add the same structure to the shorter LOX tank above the RP1 tank, as that idea would imply they did so later or that Spaceflight101 was incorrect. It's possible SpaceX doesn't pay the extra cost of red dye in their RP1, which wouldn't be a trivial amount, and that the blue tint of the basin is shining through. It would be a lot easier to just ask someone at SpaceX.
Post by: whitelancer64 on 11/14/2019 11:03 pm
Kerosene is naturally colorless, and standard RP-1 is dyed red.
LOX is naturally a pale blue. This is LOX.
They have good reasons to stabilize the RP1 tank basin with that extra structure since it's directly over the octaweb, but not as much reason to add the same structure to the shorter LOX tank above the RP1 tank, as that idea would imply they did so later or that Spaceflight101 was incorrect. It's possible SpaceX doesn't pay the extra cost of red dye in their RP1, which wouldn't be a trivial amount, and that the blue tint of the basin is shining through. It would be a lot easier to just ask someone at SpaceX.
RP-1 is dyed red by the manufacturers, not by SpaceX, and it doesn't cost extra. It actually costs more to get RP-2, which is further refined to be lower in sulfur content and is not dyed red. RP-1 is dyed red to comply with federal law regarding tax-exempt status for non-road-grade kerosene. Locomotive diesel fuel is dyed red for the same reason.
Picture of standard RP-1
Post by: ejb749 on 11/14/2019 11:13 pm
Quote
They have good reasons to stabilize the RP1 tank basin with that extra structure since it's directly over the octaweb, but not as much reason to add the same structure to the shorter LOX tank above the RP1 tank, as that idea would imply they did so later or that Spaceflight101 was incorrect. It's possible SpaceX doesn't pay the extra cost of red dye in their RP1, which wouldn't be a trivial amount, and that the blue tint of the basin is shining through. It would be a lot easier to just ask someone at SpaceX.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1116479251669078016
Post by: LouScheffer on 11/14/2019 11:52 pm
We see it slosh from one side to the other, and it does not complete even half a cycle in two seconds. So the slosh rate is very slow, meaning low acceleration. Under 1 g after landing it would be much faster. Next, the landing was a 8:26, and the sloshing shown at 8:54, almost 30 seconds later. Any remaining slosh in the first stage would have already almost died out. Finally the surface of the sloshing liquid is nowhere near flat. This can only happen in (much) reduced gs. So this is the second stage.
Next, how much liquid is shown? The puddle covers about 1/2 the diameter. The dome (from SpaceX pictures (https://www.spacex.com/news/2013/02/11/falcon-9-progress-update-10)) looks like it is about 1 meter deep. We can crudely approximate the liquid volume as a cone of height 1/2 meter and a radius of 1 meter. Using V = 1/3*pi*r^2*h, we get about half a cubic meter. That's roughly 500 kg, using a density of 1 (good enough for both LOX and kerosene for the accuracy needed here.)
Now an Merlin engine eats about 288 ks/sec at full throttle. (981,000 N /348 (ISP) / 9.8 = 288 kg/sec). Of this 208 kg/sec are LOX and 80 kg/sec are kerosene, assuming a mixture ratio of 2.6. This then represents 2.5 seconds worth of LOX (plus whatever is in the piping), or 6+ more seconds of kerosene. This makes sense for LOX, which just needs a 1 second circularization burn (likely not at full throttle) but would be a crazy amount of kerosene to have left over after landing, or for the remaining second stage burns.
So, this can only be the second stage LOX tank.
EDIT: fix typo
Post by: Gliderflyer on 11/15/2019 12:03 am
Post by: bobaroony on 11/15/2019 12:11 am
Post by: CyndyC on 11/15/2019 01:50 am
.......This then represents 2.5 seconds worth of LOX (plus whatever is in the piping), or 6+ more seconds of kerosene. This makes sense for LOX, which just needs a 1 second circularization burn (likely not at full throttle) but would be a crazy amount of kerosene to have left over after landing, or for the remaining second stage burns.
So, this can only be the second stage LOX tank.
Did you really mean to say a crazy amount left for either stage, before concluding this was the 2nd stage tank? They still had a 2-second 2nd stage burn left to go for insertion, and it occurs to me I don't know if they burn again for de-orbit. They HAVE cut it that close for a landing before, if you recall the one heading for the drone ship and it dropped short into the ocean.
At least we can be certain it's LOX now, but I would like to leave my suggestion on the table to save some fuel costs by leaving the dye out of processing RP1, for non tax-exempt launches I'll add now thanks to Whitelancer's input. A major business lesson I learned during a stint in newspaper logistics is how fast fractions of a cent can add up, and we all know a launch uses millions of gallons, and Elon Musk has shared that the biggest cost of any rocket launch is the fuel. You heard the rest here first
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/16/2019 03:28 am
Looks like they're raising by a little under 5km a day. (Attachment is an animated gif)Except STARLINK 1040, which looks to be decaying 1km/day.
Post by: Yazata on 11/16/2019 07:26 am
How do they prevent the remaining liquid in mostly empty tanks from forming into floating fluid balls when the engines are off and the vehicle is coasting? Is fuel and oxidizer in the lines sufficient to restart the engines and produce enough acceleration to corral the remaining fluid at the bottom of the tanks? Does Falcon 9 have headers?
Post by: ugordan on 11/16/2019 08:02 am
Post by: smoliarm on 11/16/2019 08:31 am
So why would they install a camera and lights in the second stage LOX tank? Presumably the SpaceX engineers want more information on how liquid behaves in there.
...
Well, I guess they do it by the same reason such cameras are installed in some regular/industrial LOX or LN2 tanks - for monitoring cryogenic liquid and the insides of the tank.
It's really very handy thing - you can detect visually (and - immediately!) almost all typical troubles which may happen during tanking/detanking cryogenic liquid. E.g., you can easily SEE any crystal build-up, and even tell apart water and CO2 crystals.
Thus you can identify the problem and, sometimes, even locate the faulty gasket.
And BTW they told me there are no "lights" - such monitoring systems utilize some cheap IR-cameras which give "illumination" of its own. So it's a sensor and a lamp - at the same time.
And (AIUI) the bluish picture is a result of false-color conversion of IR-picture to "RGB". At least from what I saw - LN2 on these monitors looks the same color as LOX.
Post by: Danderman on 11/16/2019 03:23 pm
Turns out Thomas Burghardt of NSF and Stephen Clark of SFN both reported the lower insertion was to check out and de-orbit improperly functioning satellites from a lower altitude. They'll actually be drifting to their respective planes farther up if they check out, at 350km/217mi, but still lower than the previous insertion at 440km/273mi. Operational orbit will remain the same at 550km/342mi, although previously lowered right before the test launch with FCC approval in April.
From Thomas Burghardt's article at https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/11/spacex-cape-return-first-operational-starlink-mission/:QuoteAfter launch, SpaceX will establish contact with each satellite and confirm each spacecraft’s health before maneuvering them to 350 kilometer orbits. Any satellites not functioning properly after launch will be left in the initial 280 kilometer orbit to naturally deorbit. Satellites that pass their health checks will use the 350 kilometer orbit to drift to their orbit planes, where they will then maneuver up to their operational altitude of 550 kilometers.
From SFN in the next to last paragraph at https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/11/10/spacex-readies-upgraded-starlink-satellites-for-launch/:QuoteSpaceX says injecting the satellites into a lower orbit at an altitude of 174 miles will allow time for checkouts before orbit-raising. The Starlink satellites launched in May were deployed in a higher orbit at an altitude of around 273 miles (440 kilometers).
What is the original source reporting that these satellites will deploy to more than one plane?
Post by: CyndyC on 11/16/2019 04:19 pm
Turns out Thomas Burghardt of NSF and Stephen Clark of SFN both reported the lower insertion was to check out and de-orbit improperly functioning satellites from a lower altitude. They'll actually be drifting to their respective planes farther up if they check out, at 350km/217mi, but still lower than the previous insertion at 440km/273mi. Operational orbit will remain the same at 550km/342mi, although previously lowered right before the test launch with FCC approval in April.
From Thomas Burghardt's article at https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/11/spacex-cape-return-first-operational-starlink-mission/:QuoteAfter launch, SpaceX will establish contact with each satellite and confirm each spacecraft’s health before maneuvering them to 350 kilometer orbits. Any satellites not functioning properly after launch will be left in the initial 280 kilometer orbit to naturally deorbit. Satellites that pass their health checks will use the 350 kilometer orbit to drift to their orbit planes, where they will then maneuver up to their operational altitude of 550 kilometers.
What is the original source reporting that these satellites will deploy to more than one plane?
The author is probably monitoring this thread because I think he originally had the individual satellite mass at 227kg, and now the article has a paragraph explaining the mass changed to 260kg. It sounded to me like he had to be talking with someone at SpaceX for everything else, BUT, a couple of paragraphs before the first one I quoted contradicts the plane change statement:
Quote
The first phase of Starlink deployment is planned to include 1,584 satellites in 550 kilometer altitude orbits, inclined 53 degrees. Additional deployment phases to different orbital altitudes will follow the completion of phase one.
I recall someone saying earlier that these satellites will be going to 3 [of the ultimate 72] planes, but I don't remember who said it or if he or she knew for certain.
Post by: ThomasGadd on 11/16/2019 04:28 pm
I remember this as 3 planes and a SpaceX source but I'll have to dig back to find it.
Turns out Thomas Burghardt of NSF and Stephen Clark of SFN both reported the lower insertion was to check out and de-orbit improperly functioning satellites from a lower altitude. They'll actually be drifting to their respective planes farther up if they check out, at 350km/217mi, but still lower than the previous insertion at 440km/273mi. Operational orbit will remain the same at 550km/342mi, although previously lowered right before the test launch with FCC approval in April.
From Thomas Burghardt's article at https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/11/spacex-cape-return-first-operational-starlink-mission/:QuoteAfter launch, SpaceX will establish contact with each satellite and confirm each spacecraft’s health before maneuvering them to 350 kilometer orbits. Any satellites not functioning properly after launch will be left in the initial 280 kilometer orbit to naturally deorbit. Satellites that pass their health checks will use the 350 kilometer orbit to drift to their orbit planes, where they will then maneuver up to their operational altitude of 550 kilometers.
What is the original source reporting that these satellites will deploy to more than one plane?
The author is probably monitoring this thread because I think he originally had the individual satellite mass at 227kg, and now the article has a paragraph explaining the mass changed to 260kg. It sounded to me like he had to be talking with someone at SpaceX for everything else, BUT, a couple of paragraphs before the first one I quoted contradicts the plane change statement:QuoteThe first phase of Starlink deployment is planned to include 1,584 satellites in 550 kilometer altitude orbits, inclined 53 degrees. Additional deployment phases to different orbital altitudes will follow the completion of phase one.
I recall someone saying earlier that these satellites will be going to 3 [of the ultimate 72] planes, but I don't remember who said it or if he or she knew for certain.
Post by: gongora on 11/16/2019 04:41 pm
Post by: Semmel on 11/17/2019 09:35 am
It looks like Starlink 1040 has finally started raising it's orbit on the latest TLEs.
Hard to say what the plan is for it. Animated gif of the past three days.
Edit: Whoops, my data was from the beginning of today, not the end. 1040 is definitely booking it now.
Also, big props for the cadence of public telemetry updates compared to the first 60.
Thx, but is this real data? Looks like someone took the original distribution and scaled/shifted it upwards. Why would all sats behave identically? seems suspicious.
Post by: theinternetftw on 11/17/2019 01:59 pm
Thx, but is this real data? Looks like someone took the original distribution and scaled/shifted it upwards. Why would all sats behave identically? seems suspicious.
It's straight from the Celestrak TLEs. (https://celestrak.com/NORAD/elements/supplemental/) They aren't all moving in perfect lockstep, there's some small variation (aside from the obvious lingering sat at the bottom). I don't know enough to know whether 'move-almost-as-one' is improbable or not.
Right now there's significant variation from before, but I'm waiting to see if that's some sats not having been updated or not.
Post by: jak Kennedy on 11/17/2019 02:54 pm
.......This then represents 2.5 seconds worth of LOX (plus whatever is in the piping), or 6+ more seconds of kerosene. This makes sense for LOX, which just needs a 1 second circularization burn (likely not at full throttle) but would be a crazy amount of kerosene to have left over after landing, or for the remaining second stage burns.
So, this can only be the second stage LOX tank.
Did you really mean to say a crazy amount left for either stage, before concluding this was the 2nd stage tank? They still had a 2-second 2nd stage burn left to go for insertion, and it occurs to me I don't know if they burn again for de-orbit. They HAVE cut it that close for a landing before, if you recall the one heading for the drone ship and it dropped short into the ocean.
At least we can be certain it's LOX now, but I would like to leave my suggestion on the table to save some fuel costs by leaving the dye out of processing RP1, for non tax-exempt launches I'll add now thanks to Whitelancer's input. A major business lesson I learned during a stint in newspaper logistics is how fast fractions of a cent can add up, and we all know a launch uses millions of gallons, and Elon Musk has shared that the biggest cost of any rocket launch is the fuel. You heard the rest here first
I recall Elon saying the opposite. And from the SpaceX website "However, the cost of fuel for each flight is only around $200,000—about 0.4% of the total."
Post by: CyndyC on 11/17/2019 05:29 pm
..........
At least we can be certain it's LOX now, but I would like to leave my suggestion on the table to save some fuel costs by leaving the dye out of processing RP1, for non tax-exempt launches I'll add now thanks to Whitelancer's input. A major business lesson I learned during a stint in newspaper logistics is how fast fractions of a cent can add up, and we all know a launch uses millions of gallons, and Elon Musk has shared that the biggest cost of any rocket launch is the fuel. You heard the rest here first
I recall Elon saying the opposite. And from the SpaceX website "However, the cost of fuel for each flight is only around $200,000—about 0.4% of the total."
Then what I thought I heard he would have meant the fuel as a portion of just the launch & range costs, not including the rocket itself. Did anyone else hear what I heard, or something related?
Post by: scr00chy on 11/17/2019 09:32 pm
Post by: marsbase on 11/17/2019 09:49 pm
Post by: AndrewRG10 on 11/17/2019 10:33 pm
I think what Elon said is that with fully re-usable rockets like Starship, fuel is the biggest expense of a launch.At the moment it's actually paying employees. SpaceX has roughly 6500 employees. The lowest average pay is $70,000 and highest is $110,000. Assuming average of $90,000, thats $585,000,000, spread over 18 launches a year. That's $30,000,000 per launch to pay for employees. Falcon 9 current listed price is around $50 million. The cost of fairings are $6 million but that's counting the pay for employees so if you take their wage out it goes way down. Building a Falcon also includes cost for paying employees, so the real cost is lower. So when you take the employee paying cost it could go down by a lot as the launch costs are really just employee pay, the raw materials and the things to build the materials.
In order for fuel to be the biggest cost in a launch, you need nearly 300 launches a year for the employee cost to be below the $2 million Musk says it would cost to launch Starship.
Post by: CyndyC on 11/18/2019 12:00 am
I think what Elon said is that with fully re-usable rockets like Starship, fuel is the biggest expense of a launch.
At the moment it's actually paying employees. SpaceX has roughly 6500 employees. The lowest average pay is $70,000 and highest is $110,000. Assuming average of $90,000, thats $585,000,000, spread over 18 launches a year. That's $30,000,000 per launch to pay for employees. Falcon 9 current listed price is around $50 million. The cost of fairings are $6 million but that's counting the pay for employees so if you take their wage out it goes way down. Building a Falcon also includes cost for paying employees, so the real cost is lower. So when you take the employee paying cost it could go down by a lot as the launch costs are really just employee pay, the raw materials and the things to build the materials.
In order for fuel to be the biggest cost in a launch, you need nearly 300 launches a year for the employee cost to be below the $2 million Musk says it would cost to launch Starship.
I think Marsbase hit on what he actually said, and what he was or wasn't factoring in is anyone's guess, but surely not every employee at SpaceX just for one rocket. For example, he has stated publicly that 5% of employees are working on Starship. I don't think how actual costs compare to customer costs is fully known, but those are some interesting statistics otherwise.
Post by: Danderman on 11/18/2019 01:14 am
SpaceX has applied to the FCC for permission to restructure this initial shell of the constellation from 24 planes to 72 planes. They have not yet gotten permission to do that. They would like to split the satellites from this launch into 3 of the 72 planes. Right now they have permission to raise 20 of them into one of the 24 planes that are currently approved. Where the rest of them end up may depend on further developments with their modification request.
What does that mean, in terms of deployment of the satellites? Are the 40 satellites going to sit at 350 km until this is resolved?
Post by: M.E.T. on 11/18/2019 02:56 am
I think what Elon said is that with fully re-usable rockets like Starship, fuel is the biggest expense of a launch.At the moment it's actually paying employees. SpaceX has roughly 6500 employees. The lowest average pay is $70,000 and highest is $110,000. Assuming average of $90,000, thats $585,000,000, spread over 18 launches a year. That's $30,000,000 per launch to pay for employees. Falcon 9 current listed price is around $50 million. The cost of fairings are $6 million but that's counting the pay for employees so if you take their wage out it goes way down. Building a Falcon also includes cost for paying employees, so the real cost is lower. So when you take the employee paying cost it could go down by a lot as the launch costs are really just employee pay, the raw materials and the things to build the materials.
In order for fuel to be the biggest cost in a launch, you need nearly 300 launches a year for the employee cost to be below the $2 million Musk says it would cost to launch Starship.
Thats not marginal cost, though. Much of the employee costs are fixed cost. Adding an extra Starlink launch will not incur an additional $30m in staff costs. Those staff costs are mostly incurred already. The marginal cost of an extra F9 launch is much lower than $50m.
Probably closer to $25m, if fairings are recovered.
Post by: ThomasGadd on 11/18/2019 03:20 am
SpaceX has applied to the FCC for permission to restructure this initial shell of the constellation from 24 planes to 72 planes. They have not yet gotten permission to do that. They would like to split the satellites from this launch into 3 of the 72 planes. Right now they have permission to raise 20 of them into one of the 24 planes that are currently approved. Where the rest of them end up may depend on further developments with their modification request.
What does that mean, in terms of deployment of the satellites? Are the 40 satellites going to sit at 350 km until this is resolved?
Several planes old and new are close enough to use. SpaceX wants to populate US orbits first if possible.
Post by: AC in NC on 11/18/2019 03:21 am
http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/spacex-press-conference-at-the-national-press-club-2014-04-25
"The cost of propellant is actually only about 0.3% of the cost of the rocket, or of a mission. So, if the mission costs $60 million, the cost of propellant is only $200,000. There's potential there for ultimately a hundred fold improvement in the cost of access to space."
Post by: Danderman on 11/18/2019 04:21 am
Several planes old and new are close enough to use. SpaceX wants to populate US orbits first if possible.
What’s a US orbit?
Post by: Danderman on 11/18/2019 04:23 am
What does that mean, in terms of deployment of the satellites? Are the 40 satellites going to sit at 350 km until this is resolved?
Several planes old and new are close enough to use.
Are you suggesting that SpaceX intends to move these 40 satellites into adjacent planes, or is this speculation?
Post by: smoliarm on 11/18/2019 07:28 am
using the tracking data from reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/dxhs32/all_60_satellites_are_now_raising_orbits_plot/).
The result is on the attached graph, looks like reentry could be some days around Christmas.
But I've never done this before, so -
QUESTION:
Is this estimate - reasonable ?
Post by: guyw on 11/18/2019 11:15 am
Orbits suitable to provide service for the continental United States.
Several planes old and new are close enough to use. SpaceX wants to populate US orbits first if possible.
What’s a US orbit?
Post by: Pete on 11/18/2019 11:39 am
I tried to model the reentry of deployment debris from this Starlink launchWay too fast.
using the tracking data from reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/dxhs32/all_60_satellites_are_now_raising_orbits_plot/).
The result is on the attached graph, looks like reentry could be some days around Christmas.
But I've never done this before, so -
QUESTION:
Is this estimate - reasonable ?
Taking the decay shown in the first 7days, and assuming nothing interesting happens on the Solar and Geomagnetic front... We are looking at about 102-105 days to reentry. This puts it around 22 feb.
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/18/2019 12:50 pm
Decay isn’t linear, but you’re taking that into account, right?I tried to model the reentry of deployment debris from this Starlink launchWay too fast.
using the tracking data from reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/dxhs32/all_60_satellites_are_now_raising_orbits_plot/).
The result is on the attached graph, looks like reentry could be some days around Christmas.
But I've never done this before, so -
QUESTION:
Is this estimate - reasonable ?
Taking the decay shown in the first 7days, and assuming nothing interesting happens on the Solar and Geomagnetic front... We are looking at about 102-105 days to reentry. This puts it around 22 feb.
Post by: woods170 on 11/18/2019 12:50 pm
Several planes old and new are close enough to use. SpaceX wants to populate US orbits first if possible.
What’s a US orbit?
US orbits refers to a range of inclinations covering CONUS.
Naturally that set of inclinations covers not JUST the CONtinental United States.
Post by: CyndyC on 11/18/2019 04:24 pm
I tried to model the reentry of deployment debris from this Starlink launchWay too fast.
using the tracking data from reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/dxhs32/all_60_satellites_are_now_raising_orbits_plot/).
The result is on the attached graph, looks like reentry could be some days around Christmas.
But I've never done this before, so -
QUESTION:
Is this estimate - reasonable ?
Taking the decay shown in the first 7days, and assuming nothing interesting happens on the Solar and Geomagnetic front... We are looking at about 102-105 days to reentry. This puts it around 22 feb.
I don't think solar activity's contribution to drag can realistically be zeroed out of any predictions. I've been getting weekly space weather forecast emails from NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center for many years. I believe we're at a solar minimum in the 11-year solar cycle, meaning less sunspots to interfere with radio communications, but more coronal holes. Those are low density open magnetic fields that allow high speed solar winds to escape.
Lately there have been a lot of weeks with G-1 and G-2 geomagnetic storms of the 5 levels, with every other to every third week completely quiet. I can't remember the last time I saw a G-3, but I've seen those too. G-1 has minor impact on satellites, but G-2 and G-3 can require corrective action.
From the page about satellite drag at https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/impacts/satellite-drag
Quote
When the Sun is quiet, satellites in LEO have to boost their orbits about four times per year to make up for atmospheric drag. When solar activity is at its greatest over the 11-year solar cycle, satellites may have to be maneuvered every 2-3 weeks to maintain their orbit [1].
In addition to these long-term changes in upper atmospheric temperature and density caused by the solar cycle, interactions between the solar wind and the Earth’s magnetic field during geomagnetic storms can produce large short-term increases in upper atmosphere temperature and density, increasing drag on satellites and changing their orbits.
The scales and their effects can be found at https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/noaa-scales-explanation
Post by: gongora on 11/18/2019 07:20 pm
As for whether some of these sit at 350km for a while, it may depend on whether SpaceX thinks they'll get approval for the modified constellation architecture anytime soon. It just wasn't filed soon enough before this launch to have any chance of approval yet. Despite the strange wording of the partially granted STA for this mission, I assume they can raise all of these satellites to the previously approved orbits.
Post by: CyndyC on 11/19/2019 02:50 am
Several planes old and new are close enough to use. SpaceX wants to populate US orbits first if possible.
What’s a US orbit?
US orbits refers to a range of inclinations covering CONUS.
Naturally that set of inclinations covers not JUST the CONtinental United States.
Are you familiar with planes in the 53 degree orbit that would provide more coverage of the US than others?
I suspect someone has misinterpreted a statement from SpaceX.
The 53rd parallel north is a little up there for starting US coverage if that's what you meant, but one of the SpaceX goals with Starlink is to serve under served areas, which is a good goal to start with while still testing and improving on operations.
In addition, I came across something very intriguing in a search for images of the 53rd parallel. If I'm interpreting a particular post and image correctly in a community for users of the game series Sim City, with which players plan and construct cities, so a game Elon Musk is likely to have explored, the 53rd parallel is used as a virtual "equator". Coincidence? You decide...
http://www.modthesims.info/d/596138/mid-latitude-sunrise-sunset-offset-times.html
Post by: TripleSeven on 11/19/2019 02:53 am
Several planes old and new are close enough to use. SpaceX wants to populate US orbits first if possible.
What’s a US orbit?
US orbits refers to a range of inclinations covering CONUS.
Naturally that set of inclinations covers not JUST the CONtinental United States.
Are you familiar with planes in the 53 degree orbit that would provide more coverage of the US than others?
I suspect someone has misinterpreted a statement from SpaceX.
The 53rd parallel north is a little up there for starting US coverage if that's what you meant, but one of the SpaceX goals with Starlink is to serve under served areas, which is a good goal to start with while still testing and improving on operations.
In addition, I came across something very intriguing in a search for images of the 53rd parallel. If I'm interpreting a particular post and image correctly in a community for users of the game series Sim City, with which players plan and construct cities, so a game Elon Musk is likely to have explored, the 53rd parallel is used as a virtual "equator". Coincidence? You decide...
http://www.modthesims.info/d/596138/mid-latitude-sunrise-sunset-offset-times.html
latitude and inclination are not the same
Post by: CyndyC on 11/19/2019 03:23 am
latitude and inclination are not the same
ok, then where is a 53 degree inclination? With respect to latitudes?
Post by: gongora on 11/19/2019 03:30 am
latitude and inclination are not the same
ok, then where is a 53 degree inclination? With respect to latitudes?
It goes between 53 north and 53 south.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k73AFybi7zk
Post by: su27k on 11/19/2019 03:44 am
Several planes old and new are close enough to use. SpaceX wants to populate US orbits first if possible.
What’s a US orbit?
US orbits refers to a range of inclinations covering CONUS.
Naturally that set of inclinations covers not JUST the CONtinental United States.
Are you familiar with planes in the 53 degree orbit that would provide more coverage of the US than others?
I suspect someone has misinterpreted a statement from SpaceX.
"US orbit" is not accurate, I assume he was referring to the new planes. SpaceX requested FCC to change the number of planes for the 550km shell, from 24 planes to 72 planes, they think this will allow them to cover US more quickly, using one launch to populate 3 nearby planes. See this thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg1986863#msg1986863) for details from SpaceX filing.
Post by: Danderman on 11/19/2019 04:39 am
Several planes old and new are close enough to use. SpaceX wants to populate US orbits first if possible.
What’s a US orbit?
US orbits refers to a range of inclinations covering CONUS.
Naturally that set of inclinations covers not JUST the CONtinental United States.
Are you familiar with planes in the 53 degree orbit that would provide more coverage of the US than others?
I suspect someone has misinterpreted a statement from SpaceX.
"US orbit" is not accurate, I assume he was referring to the new planes. SpaceX requested FCC to change the number of planes for the 550km shell, from 24 planes to 72 planes, they think this will allow them to cover US more quickly, using one launch to populate 3 nearby planes. See this thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg1986863#msg1986863) for details from SpaceX filing.
If the US would be covered more quickly using more planes, then everywhere on the planet between 53 degrees N and S would likewise be covered more quickly. Unless you are suggesting that SpaceX can magically cover certain longitudes more frequently than others.
I just to make sure that nobody here thinks that “US orbits” are a thing.
Post by: CorvusCorax on 11/19/2019 05:49 am
In the south, such a band would cover New Sealand, South Afrika, most of Chile, Argentina, Uruquay, the southern half of Australia,
and the southern tips of Brasil, Paraquay, Botswana, Namibia and Madagaskar in the south, among vast vast stretches of open ocean.
In the North it would cover the continental United States except Alaska, Central and Southern Europe, North Africa (Everything down to Northern half of Sahara) The Middle East, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, South of Kasachstan, the Northern third of India and the Himalayas, all of China, Korea and Japan.
Almost none of Russia though.
Post by: envy887 on 11/19/2019 02:36 pm
Several planes old and new are close enough to use. SpaceX wants to populate US orbits first if possible.
What’s a US orbit?
US orbits refers to a range of inclinations covering CONUS.
Naturally that set of inclinations covers not JUST the CONtinental United States.
Are you familiar with planes in the 53 degree orbit that would provide more coverage of the US than others?
I suspect someone has misinterpreted a statement from SpaceX.
"US orbit" is not accurate, I assume he was referring to the new planes. SpaceX requested FCC to change the number of planes for the 550km shell, from 24 planes to 72 planes, they think this will allow them to cover US more quickly, using one launch to populate 3 nearby planes. See this thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg1986863#msg1986863) for details from SpaceX filing.
If the US would be covered more quickly using more planes, then everywhere on the planet between 53 degrees N and S would likewise be covered more quickly. Unless you are suggesting that SpaceX can magically cover certain longitudes more frequently than others.
I just to make sure that nobody here thinks that “US orbits” are a thing.
Not "everywhere" else between 53N and 53S. With a limited number of satellites and planes, it's possible to get complete coverage at CONUS latitudes of 40-50 degrees (and the corresponding southern latitudes) while leaving the equatorial regions with only very intermittent coverage. This is the minimum viable constellation to service the US, and it's what SpaceX plans to fill first.
This minimum constellation also covers southern Canada and parts of Australia pretty well, so SpaceX is also filing for regulatory permission to broadcast into those areas.
Since longitude is obviously irrelevant, they could also cover southern Europe, parts of Asia, southern South America, etc, but the regulatory issues will IMO take longer to sort out in those places so the limiting factors there will be things other than coverage.
Post by: ThomasGadd on 11/19/2019 04:29 pm
SpaceX has applied to the FCC for permission to restructure this initial shell of the constellation from 24 planes to 72 planes. They have not yet gotten permission to do that. They would like to split the satellites from this launch into 3 of the 72 planes. Right now they have permission to raise 20 of them into one of the 24 planes that are currently approved. Where the rest of them end up may depend on further developments with their modification request.
What does that mean, in terms of deployment of the satellites? Are the 40 satellites going to sit at 350 km until this is resolved?
Several planes old and new are close enough to use. SpaceX wants to populate US orbits first if possible.
What I meant and should have said is.
The orbits covering US deployment first.
Post by: Comga on 11/19/2019 05:46 pm
I tried to model the reentry of deployment debris from this Starlink launch
using the tracking data from reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/dxhs32/all_60_satellites_are_now_raising_orbits_plot/).
The result is on the attached graph, looks like reentry could be some days around Christmas.
But I've never done this before, so -
QUESTION:
Is this estimate - reasonable ?
This looks reasonable to me.
If you used a scale height of 20 km for the doubling of exoatmospheric density, a good rule of thumb I believe, the time to descend 20 km is half the lifetime. That is, every time the orbit decays by 20 km the descent rate would double. I had pretty good correspondence with the descent of the Chinese Tiongong-1 (sp?) with that rule.
The graph puts half the life at about 25 km descent so it’s reasonable. A bit longer than indicated by my rule of thumb, but reasonable.
Post by: Danderman on 11/19/2019 08:03 pm
Unless the constellation provides continuous coverage for all users, and has full inter satellite links, there would have to be significant work arounds to provide useful benefits for customers.
Post by: gongora on 11/19/2019 08:06 pm
This stuff is harder than it looks because most people never think of the end user experience, as this interim US coverage brings up a lot of issues that no one here is discussing.
Unless the constellation provides continuous coverage for all users, and has full inter satellite links, there would have to be significant work arounds to provide useful benefits for customers.
These things have been discussed in the Starlink Discussion threads.
Post by: Danderman on 11/20/2019 12:25 am
Every orbit provides more coverage to higher latitudes than Equatorial regions.
That doesn't mean that are architectures in a 53 degree constellation that favor US coverage, but there is a number of satellites where the US is fully covered, but Brazil is not. Of course, if the US is covered, so is the North Pacific or China.
Post by: AC in NC on 11/20/2019 01:07 am
I was wrong.
Every orbit provides more coverage to higher latitudes than Equatorial regions.
That doesn't mean that are architectures in a 53 degree constellation that favor US coverage, but there is a number of satellites where the US is fully covered, but Brazil is not. Of course, if the US is covered, so is the North Pacific or China.
Kudos for that concession.
Would it seem unappreciative if I asked you to take one step further and accept ground stations and regulatory environment (in a loose sense) as integral components of architecture? Absent ISL, that North Pacific or China "coverage" is meaningless without ground stations.
Post by: Mandella on 11/20/2019 02:01 am
Purely from self interest I hope they get speedy approval.
Post by: gongora on 11/20/2019 06:11 pm
Post by: AC in NC on 11/20/2019 06:15 pm
Under the currently approved plan it kinda looks like they'd fill about every fourth plane of the 24 planes for initial service, then expand it to cover approximately every other plane (v1 sats in 11 planes and v0.9 in one plane?) to cover the rest of CONUS. I'm not sure how that translates to the newer orbital scheme.
This is very helpful for those of us that don't read (or perhaps even couldn't understand) the filings. Helps very much with visualizing a mental picture.
My layman's interpretation of the 3 plane split was that it might improve the high-lat coverage for initial service. IDK.
Post by: ZachS09 on 11/21/2019 01:14 am
Was something preventing the legs from being retracted?
Post by: Mandella on 11/21/2019 02:39 am
Why were B1048's legs removed after it arrived at Port?
Was something preventing the legs from being retracted?
I was wondering this myself, and to expand the question a little is there any good speculation on just why retracting the legs is being such a problem? It would "seem" straightforward, but obviously it is not.
Post by: abaddon on 11/21/2019 01:35 pm
Pretty please?
Post by: Danderman on 11/26/2019 10:44 pm
The satellites are injected into 280 km orbit. Then, they raise themselves to a 350 km parking orbit. If any phasing is scheduled, the satellites remain at 350 km, otherwise, they transfer soon to a 550 km working altitude.
Post by: ThomasGadd on 11/26/2019 11:32 pm
Let’s see if I understand this correctly:
The satellites are injected into 280 km orbit. Then, they raise themselves to a 350 km parking orbit. If any phasing is scheduled, the satellites remain at 350 km, otherwise, they transfer soon to a 550 km working altitude.
That's what the FCC docs. say.
Post by: tyrred on 12/01/2019 09:05 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXSGXaN6Wkw
Any idea what these couple of bright spots are on the hull?
2:01 - 2:10 in video
MMOD?
Post by: Lar on 12/01/2019 01:55 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXSGXaN6Wkw
Any idea what these couple of bright spots are on the hull?
2:01 - 2:10 in video
MMOD?
MMOD? highly unlikely. Looks more like partial cleaning. Or an ice chunk that came off taking some dirt with it.
Post by: gongora on 12/01/2019 02:05 pm
Any idea what these couple of bright spots are on the hull?
2:01 - 2:10 in video
MMOD?
Attachment points on the interior? There are spots like that all over the booster, and those spots were present before the last flight.
Post by: tyrred on 12/01/2019 06:04 pm
Any idea what these couple of bright spots are on the hull?
2:01 - 2:10 in video
MMOD?
Attachment points on the interior? There are spots like that all over the booster, and those spots were present before the last flight.
Thanks. I was probably misdirected by the zoom-in on the video, and didn't watch closely enough to see the similar spots on other areas.
Post by: Semmel on 12/03/2019 07:33 am
Post by: Shanuson on 01/09/2020 12:41 pm
First tension bar has returned back to Earth in tiny pieces.Comparing the decayed track to the other 3 bars, I estimate by eye, that the last bar will be returned in 3-4 weeks from now.
Post by: scr00chy on 01/16/2020 01:06 pm
The latest tweet (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48983.msg2034319#msg2034319) about the status of this batch from Jonathan McDowell didn't mention anything like that, so I'm guessing the satellite recovered?
Post by: eriblo on 01/16/2020 02:15 pm
There was a post about Starlink-1040 possibly being lost (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48983.msg2032429#msg2032429). Can anyone tell me if that's still the case?It seems like its status is unchanged - it is still not included in the data supplied by SpaceX and its altitude is decreasing. You can see it as the slightly lower cyan trace in Jonathans plot while the other plots posted have it labeled separately.
The latest tweet (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48983.msg2034319#msg2034319) about the status of this batch from Jonathan McDowell didn't mention anything like that, so I'm guessing the satellite recovered?
Post by: Wolfram66 on 01/16/2020 02:49 pm
Any idea what these couple of bright spots are on the hull?
2:01 - 2:10 in video
MMOD?
Attachment points on the interior? There are spots like that all over the booster, and those spots were present before the last flight.
Most likely SpaceX engineering established structural data points to measure wear and tear on booster. Critical joins of subassembly structures, high stress welds and seams, connections to internal structural supports and attachments. Areas showing fatigue, or excessive wear/degradation are addressed on the booster before next launch. CQI team takes the data back to engineering and new boosters coming off the line have these areas strengthened, redesigned or have additional stress/strain telemetry sensors attached to study the phenomenon. Like the checklist you get from service at car dealer technician on how your car is wearing. Or software hotfix being applied when code deficiency aka bug or “unintended coding feature” is reported
Please return to regularly scheduled STARLINK discussion. ... :) @Gongora this to general F9 topic of your choice
Post by: Hummy on 01/16/2020 03:42 pm
There was a post about Starlink-1040 possibly being lost (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48983.msg2032429#msg2032429). Can anyone tell me if that's still the case?
The latest tweet (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48983.msg2034319#msg2034319) about the status of this batch from Jonathan McDowell didn't mention anything like that, so I'm guessing the satellite recovered?
Its orbit is still decaying. On a related note two satellites in the second group are experiencing issues. Total 18 are climbing. 17 in the main group and one extra sent 5 days later.
Post by: Danderman on 11/16/2020 06:32 pm
Did the satellites end up in 3 adjacent planes? What about the failed satellites, how will they be replaced?