Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Starlink v0.9 : May 23, 2019 - DISCUSSION  (Read 238450 times)

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9500
  • US
  • Liked: 12242
  • Likes Given: 5402
Gwynne mentioned 3-7 flights (including this one), with at least one of those being operational sats.  That seems to mean only one or two flights of the initial "up to 75" generation of test sats.  There is really no problem with fitting in these launches, they have plenty of launch capacity.
« Last Edit: 05/10/2019 04:10 pm by gongora »

Offline matthewkantar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1821
  • Liked: 2163
  • Likes Given: 1922
If F9 is volume limited, one way to squeeze more sats in the fairing is to have the sats be the dispenser. Imagine daisy chaining them all together and having them release each other in turn. This would mean more structure to the individual units, but maybe less weight overall per sat. Might make the sats less demisable upon reentry.

This is the sort of out-of-the-box thinking SpaceX is known for, but maybe not worth tackling if a much more capable system is on its way?


Offline kessdawg

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 164
  • Liked: 298
  • Likes Given: 1437
Would the weight of that additional structure then reduce the satellite's on orbit useful life by needing more fuel to maintain orbit?  If so, might not be worth it.

Offline satcomopsuk

  • Member
  • Posts: 51
  • UK
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 1
Launch track ......


Image..

110252Z MAY 19
NAVAREA IV 408/19(11,12,26).
WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC.
FLORIDA.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, ROCKET LAUNCHING
   160225Z TO 160452Z, ALTERNATE 170225Z TO
   170452Z MAY IN AREAS BOUND BY:
   A. 28-36-28N 080-35-36W, 29-06-00N 080-07-00W,
      29-04-00N 080-04-00W, 28-53-00N 080-11-00W,
      28-36-00N 080-24-00W, 28-31-00N 080-33-17W,
      28-31-59N 080-33-42W.
   B. 32-08-00N 077-13-00W, 32-48-00N 076-53-00W,
      33-49-00N 075-53-00W, 34-00-00N 075-21-00W,
      33-39-00N 074-44-00W, 33-08-00N 074-44-00W,
      31-58-00N 077-03-00W.
2. CANCEL THIS MSG 170552Z MAY 19.

Offline rsdavis9

What is the number of satellites per plane for full deployment? I'm thinking they may want to use full planes for initial testing. That way they can test full earth relay if they have enough ground stations.
With ELV best efficiency was the paradigm. The new paradigm is reusable, good enough, and commonality of design.
Same engines. Design once. Same vehicle. Design once. Reusable. Build once.

What is the number of satellites per plane for full deployment? I'm thinking they may want to use full planes for initial testing. That way they can test full earth relay if they have enough ground stations.

66 satellites per plane.  6 ground stations.  No inter-satellites links. 
They can do store and forward testing. 

Offline rsdavis9

What is the number of satellites per plane for full deployment? I'm thinking they may want to use full planes for initial testing. That way they can test full earth relay if they have enough ground stations.

66 satellites per plane.  6 ground stations.  No inter-satellites links. 
They can do store and forward testing.

Store and forward meaning: store packets and wait for ground station to come into view? But with enough ground stations they could do straight relay? Probably 66 ground stations.
With ELV best efficiency was the paradigm. The new paradigm is reusable, good enough, and commonality of design.
Same engines. Design once. Same vehicle. Design once. Reusable. Build once.

Offline macpacheco

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Vitoria-ES-Brazil
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 3032
What is the number of satellites per plane for full deployment? I'm thinking they may want to use full planes for initial testing. That way they can test full earth relay if they have enough ground stations.

66 satellites per plane.  6 ground stations.  No inter-satellites links. 
They can do store and forward testing.

Store and forward meaning: store packets and wait for ground station to come into view? But with enough ground stations they could do straight relay? Probably 66 ground stations.

An educated guess would be to provide coverage for a limited area where they have ground stations and satellite coverage 24x7. It is testing after all. Perhaps Western USA only.
Looking for companies doing great things for much more than money

Offline cyloncat

  • Member
  • Posts: 29
  • North Carolina
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 55
What is the number of satellites per plane for full deployment? I'm thinking they may want to use full planes for initial testing. That way they can test full earth relay if they have enough ground stations.

66 satellites per plane.  6 ground stations.  No inter-satellites links. 
They can do store and forward testing.

Store and forward meaning: store packets and wait for ground station to come into view? But with enough ground stations they could do straight relay? Probably 66 ground stations.
Store, forward to the next node, hold until the next node acknowledges receipt. Depending on transmission rate, capacity, reliability, etc., not every message may be acknowledged; bulk or implicit acknowledgement may be used, and if the receiving node realizes it has missed a packet, it will likely request retransmit. Sending node will store only until it knows that there will be no need to retransmit.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8615
  • Highway Whatever
  • Liked: 58781
  • Likes Given: 1167
Would the weight of that additional structure then reduce the satellite's on orbit useful life by needing more fuel to maintain orbit?  If so, might not be worth it.

 No. More weight would make the sat would stay up longer if drag was the same. A feather balloon is going to deorbit a lot faster than a lead balloon the same size.
 The amount of fuel used only depends on drag. A 3 foot sphere that weighed six grams would require the same fuel to maintain orbit as a 3 foot sphere that weighed six tons.  (Admitting that there are a hundred real world complications to that)
« Last Edit: 05/11/2019 03:50 pm by Nomadd »
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37069
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 21745
  • Likes Given: 11142
If F9 is volume limited, one way to squeeze more sats in the fairing is to have the sats be the dispenser. Imagine daisy chaining them all together and having them release each other in turn. This would mean more structure to the individual units, but maybe less weight overall per sat. Might make the sats less demisable upon reentry.

This is the sort of out-of-the-box thinking SpaceX is known for, but maybe not worth tackling if a much more capable system is on its way?
The Boeing 702sp satellites were designed to stack on top of one another in this way.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Offline Herb Schaltegger

An educated guess would be to provide coverage for a limited area where they have ground stations and satellite coverage 24x7. It is testing after all. Perhaps Western USA only.
Didnít Gongora post some FCC licensing paperwork that indicated testing of ground terminals in the DC/NoVa region? Or am I imagining that?
« Last Edit: 05/11/2019 07:27 pm by Herb Schaltegger »
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9500
  • US
  • Liked: 12242
  • Likes Given: 5402
Merrillan, WI Ku ES
Greenville, PA Ku ES
Redmond, WA Ku ES
Hawthorne, CA Ku ES
North Bend, WA Ku ES
Brewster, WA TT&C ES
Conrad, MT Ku Earth Station

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13030
  • N. California
  • Liked: 12380
  • Likes Given: 1344
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline ThePonjaX

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • BsAs. - Argentina
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 927
60! That's insane. It's going to be very fun to look the deploy of this.

Seems they are going to need a lot less launches than expected to get the starlink working.

Online OneSpeed

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1383
  • Liked: 4098
  • Likes Given: 1749
Four stacks of 15 on a custom PAF, or is it 2 stacks of 30?

Online ZachS09

  • Space Savant
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8110
  • Roanoke, TX
  • Liked: 2071
  • Likes Given: 1895
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/starlink-1.htm

If each Starlink sat is 387 kilograms, and there's 60 all together, that's an estimated total payload mass of 23,220 kilograms (not including the dispenser).
Liftoff for St. Jude's! Go Dragon, Go Falcon, Godspeed Inspiration4!

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9500
  • US
  • Liked: 12242
  • Likes Given: 5402
I think the satellite design has evolved since those mass numbers came out.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5255
  • Florida
  • Liked: 4901
  • Likes Given: 1170
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/starlink-1.htm

If each Starlink sat is 387 kilograms, and there's 60 all together, that's an estimated total payload mass of 23,220 kilograms (not including the dispenser).
Looks to be no dispenser.

They are stacked on top of each other.

Also looks to be 2 stacks of 30 rectangular flat ~ .3 m thick.

At 250 kg will be a total of ~16mt.

Offline jaufgang

  • Member
  • Posts: 63
  • Liked: 79
  • Likes Given: 22


Looks to be no dispenser.

They are stacked on top of each other.

Also looks to be 2 stacks of 30 rectangular flat ~ .3 m thick.

Looks like a stack of lawn chairs, each ready to pop open into a new shape.  But lawn chairs don't have propellant tanks and maneuvering thrusters. Remarkable engineering! 


Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1