Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Starlink v0.9 : May 23, 2019 - DISCUSSION (Read 266743 times)

Lar · « **Reply #640 on:** 09/04/2019 09:39 pm »

Quote from: soltasto on 09/04/2019 03:09 pm

Greg Wyler is the Founder & Chairman of OneWeb and it's quite clear that he is playing every possible card but competition to get SpaceX out of the Internet satellite business while ESA is seeking funding for their automated collision avoidance system, so it's not really a surprise. Most of the media also blow things out of proportion as it gets them more clicks. Kinda depressing to be honest

It's clear that (at least on twitter) he's getting a lot of vigorous criticism over this very misguided tweet.

AC in NC · « **Reply #641 on:** 09/05/2019 12:28 am »

Quote from: Lar on 09/04/2019 09:39 pm

It's clear that (at least on twitter) he's getting a lot of vigorous criticism over this very misguided tweet.

My first inclination is to be steaming mad at GW over such cravenly obvious mendacity.
My second inclination is to smile because GW knows his goose is cooked.

Norm38 · « **Reply #642 on:** 09/10/2019 01:33 pm »

Because the v0.9 sats don't have Ka-band antennas, they're not as useful long term. Will all of these sats be de-orbited soon after v1 sats are up? Or will they find homes in the constellation?

gongora · « **Reply #643 on:** 09/10/2019 02:56 pm »

I doubt they would be retired before SpaceX has consistent coverage of much of the U.S.

CyndyC · « **Reply #644 on:** 09/12/2019 03:03 am »

Quote from: Lar on 09/04/2019 09:39 pm

Quote from: soltasto on 09/04/2019 03:09 pm

Greg Wyler is the Founder & Chairman of OneWeb and it's quite clear that he is playing every possible card but competition to get SpaceX out of the Internet satellite business while ESA is seeking funding for their automated collision avoidance system, so it's not really a surprise. Most of the media also blow things out of proportion as it gets them more clicks. Kinda depressing to be honest
It's clear that (at least on twitter) he's getting a lot of vigorous criticism over this very misguided tweet.

I think misguided is all it is. If you think WAY back, Richard Branson, who has partnered with One Web in some way, was quoted in an article that "they" tried to get Elon Musk to collaborate with them on a single constellation. Elon declined, he stated himself at some point, because the SpaceX satellite tech would be different. Even if Richard Branson was more behind the collaboration idea than One Web, would the rejection have turned the good will into ill will & malicious intent? Occasional frustration maybe because of the distance in the working relationship, but probably nothing more.

Jcc · « **Reply #645 on:** 09/12/2019 10:58 am »

Quote from: CyndyC on 09/12/2019 03:03 am

Quote from: Lar on 09/04/2019 09:39 pm
Quote from: soltasto on 09/04/2019 03:09 pm

Greg Wyler is the Founder & Chairman of OneWeb and it's quite clear that he is playing every possible card but competition to get SpaceX out of the Internet satellite business while ESA is seeking funding for their automated collision avoidance system, so it's not really a surprise. Most of the media also blow things out of proportion as it gets them more clicks. Kinda depressing to be honest
It's clear that (at least on twitter) he's getting a lot of vigorous criticism over this very misguided tweet.

I think misguided is all it is. If you think WAY back, Richard Branson, who has partnered with One Web in some way, was quoted in an article that "they" tried to get Elon Musk to collaborate with them on a single constellation. Elon declined, he stated himself at some point, because the SpaceX satellite tech would be different. Even if Richard Branson was more behind the collaboration idea than One Web, would the rejection have turned the good will into ill will & malicious intent? Occasional frustration maybe because of the distance in the working relationship, but probably nothing more.

Competition from Starlink could be the difference between OneWeb being a complete success or being a technical success and economic failure like the original Iridium. Wyler is probably feeling the pressure.

Llian Rhydderch · « **Reply #646 on:** 09/18/2019 02:38 pm »

Wyler and Musk were in talks, along with Google and Google sat folks, in summer of 2014...

... before they decided then to go their separate ways. Had ideas that weren't the same.

Then, they both announced their constellations within a week of each other in Jan 2015.

DigitalMan · « **Reply #647 on:** 09/18/2019 03:46 pm »

Quote from: Llian Rhydderch on 09/18/2019 02:38 pm

Wyler and Musk were in talks, along with Google and Google sat folks, in summer of 2014...

... before they decided then to go their separate ways. Had ideas that weren't the same.

Then, they both announced their constellations within a week of each other in Jan 2015.

One of the interesting things about splitting over differences of opinion like that is you just created a competitor, not a copycat.

Something like that happened in a place I used to work. It wasn't pretty.

thirtyone · « **Reply #648 on:** 09/19/2019 06:27 pm »

Anyone know of any sources which are still keeping track of the constellation? Kind of wondering how they were doing, and I don't know how to parse the satellite tracking data myself.

Also curious, anyone have any comments on the orbital spread (I don't know the proper term, but on Celestrak they don't quite seem like in the same plane. I also took a look at the OneWeb constellation, which I feel should have similar performance, and the orbits look a heck of a lot tighter to me. Could there be propulsion/stationkeeping/etc difficulties?

Hummy · « **Reply #649 on:** 11/25/2019 02:21 am »

43 out of 50 in the target orbit are on the move. More may move as space-track publishes new updates:

Hummy · « **Reply #650 on:** 11/25/2019 02:42 am »

Quote

One Tip: except for special reasons, NSF greatly prefers using ATTACH to post images (especially large ones).

No problem. I'll do that from now on.

Andy USA · « **Reply #651 on:** 11/25/2019 03:34 am »

I've done it.

scr00chy · « **Reply #652 on:** 11/25/2019 11:07 am »

Does that mean they're deorbiting them?

Hummy · « **Reply #653 on:** 11/25/2019 03:44 pm »

Moving to other planes most likely. All 50 on the move now.

ThomasGadd · « **Reply #654 on:** 11/25/2019 04:08 pm »

Smart. This first group is partially functional, no Ka-band radio, demonstrating they can move all or part of them to FCC and potential customers is important.

Hummy · « **Reply #655 on:** 11/26/2019 04:01 pm »

Spoke too soon about all 50 moving out of the target orbit. Apparently three of them are staying. They are probably backups in case some v1.0 satellites won't make it to the target orbit. Their plane is near estimated plane 3 of the last launch. Overall state of v0.9 batch:

ThomasGadd · « **Reply #656 on:** 11/26/2019 05:23 pm »

We don't know where these are going yet...
The FCC documentation mentioned three orbits for the v1.0 satellites.
I think SpaceX will keep the same types grouped together.
But this is SpaceX what do I know...
Fun.

Hummy · « **Reply #657 on:** 11/26/2019 06:18 pm »

Sure they want the same type together. The problem is that not all 60 may reach 550 km. I simulated 18 planes x 20 satellites coverage, it barely provides 1+ satellite visibility across the continental US and even leaves small gaps moving along central Florida latitudes. If some planes have only 19 satellites it would be even worse. Having v0.9 satellites as backups to fill the third plane up to 20 would help. This is only a "problem" as they push the limits what's possible with the initial 6 launches. After 12 launches it's not a problem.

ThomasGadd · « **Reply #658 on:** 11/26/2019 06:23 pm »

Have they gotten FCC approval on the new orbits yet?

Hummy · « **Reply #659 on:** 11/26/2019 06:28 pm »

Nope, no approval. SpaceX filed a "Reply to GSO Operators" on Nov 11th and SES also made a filing on the same day in support of their objection. Since that day no updates.

From the latest SES filing: "At a minimum, the SES Petition asks the Commission to require SpaceX to provide the PFD masks, EIRP masks, and inter-satellite masks necessary to confirm compliance with EPFD limits and allow at least 30 days for review and further comments once those materials have been provided."