SpaceX F9: Starlink v1 Flight 1 : November 11, 2019 - DISCUSSION

[CyndyC]

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/:

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.

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:

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.

[ThomasGadd]

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/:

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.

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:

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.

I remember this as 3 planes and a SpaceX source but I'll have to dig back to find it.   

[gongora]

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.

[Semmel]

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.

[theinternetftw]

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.  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.

[jak Kennedy]

.......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."

[CyndyC]

..........

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?

[scr00chy]

Elon said launching 60 Starlink satellites costs more than making them. Maybe that's what you mean?

[marsbase]

I think what Elon said is that with fully re-usable rockets like Starship, fuel is the biggest expense of a launch.

[AndrewRG10]

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.

[CyndyC]

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.

[Danderman]

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?

[M.E.T.]

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.

[ThomasGadd]

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.

[AC in NC]

This sub-thread on propellant cost is off-topic.  Can we end it with the actual statement?

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."

[Danderman]

Several planes old and new are close enough to use.  SpaceX wants to populate US orbits first if possible.

What’s a US orbit?

[Danderman]

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?

[smoliarm]

I tried to model the reentry of deployment debris from this Starlink launch
using the tracking data from reddit.
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 ?

[guyw]

Several planes old and new are close enough to use.  SpaceX wants to populate US orbits first if possible.

What’s a US orbit?

Orbits suitable to provide service for the continental United States.
 

[Pete]

I tried to model the reentry of deployment debris from this Starlink launch
using the tracking data from reddit.
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 ?

Way too fast.
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.