Launching Starlink with Starship

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

He means have a standard Starship that's used in lots of different ways.
Rather than modifying Starship types for a variety of different types of missions.

I'm assuming that too.

I agree generally that it should be standardised.

But if it can be particularly more efficient for a customer who wants a lot of launches, maybe there's some scope.

The beauty of the modern shipping container is not that it's a great way to load and deploy cargo.  Rather it's a great way to transship cargo, which turns out to be more expensive than the deployment problem--at least on Earth.   But for Starlink and a whole bunch of other satellites, reliable deployment is everything, because there is no transshipment happening.

Beyond that, for Starlink, you also want to minimize deployment debris.  The tensioning rods aren't perfect in this regard, but they're vastly better than some kind of standardized container tossed into space.  If you want to re-use the containers, you can't stack stuff on top of one another, then unstack and deploy it in orbit, without a huge amount of complexity.  Deployment complexity scares the bejeezus out of your customers.

When you get to lunar or martian surface deployments, containers make a lot more sense.  But for satellites?  Not happening any time soon.

I took Robotbeat's patient advice and started a topic on this subject:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51968.new;

You make a good point about satellites, but my original thinking was indeed for colony-building (on a surface or a free-flying facility) rather than the general satellite population. The shipping volume will be orders of magnitude greater. Also, I was thinking more about a standard interfacing method rather than a physical container, as in load attachment geometry, gripping points for handling, signal connectors, digital interface standards, and so forth.

A BTW an older thread about standardised containers for shipping to Mars exists. It discussed the items you mentioned such as standards for CG, handling, shape (full height, half, quarter and and other dimensions for easy mix and matching to take advantage of every cubic meter of volume), electrical, thermal, pressurized/non-pressurized...

I think it is in the archive now. So look for it and attach to your new thread.


Now back to Starship and Starlink. A V1.0 Starlink is ~260kg but a 50% heavier V2.0 is likely to be as much as 400kg. So numbers of sats per launch at best would be 240. On a reduced payload capability Starship probably just 120. In the full 42,000 sat set of end game Starlink a 5 year life would require ~8000 sats launched each year. At 240 sats per launch that is 34 launches/year if the mass of the Starlink sats do not get any heavier. A 500kg V2.1 would require 40+ launches/year. As stated before this is just the rate needed to support Starlink. By 2024 the launch rates for Starship would need to be about 50/year to meet the needs of Starlink and all the other demands not able to be met by other existing smaller LVs including F9 and FH. Just 2 Lunar mission in 1 year would need ~12 launches. By 2026 demand from Starlink and others would balloon the launch rate to close to 100/year. NOTE just 2 pads launching once a week can keep up with this large number of launches.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Now back to Starship and Starlink. A V1.0 Starlink is ~260kg but a 50% heavier V2.0 is likely to be as much as 400kg. So numbers of sats per launch at best would be 240. On a reduced payload capability Starship probably just 120. In the full 42,000 sat set of end game Starlink a 5 year life would require ~8000 sats launched each year. At 240 sats per launch that is 34 launches/year if the mass of the Starlink sats do not get any heavier. A 500kg V2.1 would require 40+ launches/year. As stated before this is just the rate needed to support Starlink. By 2024 the launch rates for Starship would need to be about 50/year to meet the needs of Starlink and all the other demands not able to be met by other existing smaller LVs including F9 and FH. Just 2 Lunar mission in 1 year would need ~12 launches. By 2026 demand from Starlink and others would balloon the launch rate to close to 100/year. NOTE just 2 pads launching once a week can keep up with this large number of launches.

There are some pretty good reasons why they might not increase the size of the v2.x birds:

1) It bifurcates what can be launched on F9 vs. what can be launched on Starship, unless you're very careful to make the new form factor backward-compatible with a 6.7m x 4.6m fairing. SpaceX will likely plan for a Starship outage, where some serious problem grounds the fleet for a few months.  Backfilling with F9 is pretty handy.  It's also pretty handy for some of the polar orbital shells.

2) Lots of power and thermal changes.  Not the end of the world, but it's more than just an incremental change.

3) Bigger bird may equal bigger ballistic coefficient.  They're being pretty careful about their demise times.  I kinda get the feeling that the current design may be pretty close to optimal for that.

4) The astronomers.  I guess you could do a partial solar deployment, but that's not great for low-orbit checkout and de-orbiting things that fail early.  Otherwise, more power = brighter birds in open-book mode, during orbit raise.

[RedLineTrain]

There are some pretty good reasons why they might not increase the size of the v2.x birds:

It seems likely that they will have to increase the mass on these birds in order to accommodate the v-band antennas.

[Robotbeat]

...

4) The astronomers.  I guess you could do a partial solar deployment, but that's not great for low-orbit checkout and de-orbiting things that fail early.  Otherwise, more power = brighter birds in open-book mode, during orbit raise.

On the contrary, this is one reason they might increase the mass: More margin to use stealthing techniques to avoid impacting astronomy.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

To double the throughput of the sat it likely would only require a 50-60%  increase in mass. Some things just do not require 2X more mass to get 2X more capability. Take the volume of the sat superstructure. To get 2X more volume only requires ~60% more mass. Also there may be other items that also can take advantage of this squared surface vs cubed volume such as the prop tanks. Other synergies and mass savingings are also possible. NOTE the mass of the V1.0 sat went up 260kg 15% increase vs that of the V0.9 227kg and the bandwidth increased on the sat by 4X.

So a 50-60% mass increase would get at least a 2X increase in max bandwidth per sat. It may be possible with some mass savings that the capability increase could reach a 4X value with just a 50-60% mass increase. Instead of (speaking of F9 fairing compatibility) a rectangle it would be a squarish sat of same ~thickness such that 30 or more sats in a single stack could be launched on a F9. Will need to be bigger surface area toward Earth to accommodate more phased arrays: 2X more arrays each with 2X more bandwidth (double the number of spots each can form and support).

2X or 4X more bandwidth for a 50-60% mass increase which is a 50-60% increase in number of launches for a possible 2X to 4X increase in revenue earning capability per sat. Also note that prop mass increase exactly matches total sat mass increase.

[winkhomewinkhome]

Question -

Presently with F9, S2 starts a longitudinal spin to disperse the Starlink stack of satellites, Starship does not perform the dispersal spin, plus, even if it did, the "chompper" hatch is potentially(?) an obstruction, so the question, how does the physics work to get the dispersion of the sats, and what is the mechanism to make that happen? 

if previously asked, apologies, otherwise...

thank you -

[XenIneX]

Question -

Presently with F9, S2 starts a longitudinal spin to disperse the Starlink stack of satellites, Starship does not perform the dispersal spin, plus, even if it did, the "chompper" hatch is potentially(?) an obstruction, so the question, how does the physics work to get the dispersion of the sats, and what is the mechanism to make that happen? 

if previously asked, apologies, otherwise...

thank you -

Different launch vehicle; different constraints; different solution.

Since F9 S2 is expendable and mass-constrained, it made sense to go with the cheap, lightweight, and novel deployment approach they did.  If they end up with the occasional crib death as a result of trading paint, it's still cheaper than a "proper" aerospace-grade deployment mechanism.

With SS being volume constrained, on the other hand, they can afford to throw hardware at it to make a robust deployment mechanism.  And since the entire vehicle is reusable, it doesn't really matter if it costs a bit more.

[beelsebob]

Question -

Presently with F9, S2 starts a longitudinal spin to disperse the Starlink stack of satellites, Starship does not perform the dispersal spin, plus, even if it did, the "chompper" hatch is potentially(?) an obstruction, so the question, how does the physics work to get the dispersion of the sats, and what is the mechanism to make that happen? 

if previously asked, apologies, otherwise...

thank you -

Different launch vehicle; different constraints; different solution.

Since F9 S2 is expendable and mass-constrained, it made sense to go with the cheap, lightweight, and novel deployment approach they did.  If they end up with the occasional crib death as a result of trading paint, it's still cheaper than a "proper" aerospace-grade deployment mechanism.

With SS being volume constrained, on the other hand, they can afford to throw hardware at it to make a robust deployment mechanism.  And since the entire vehicle is reusable, it doesn't really matter if it costs a bit more.

Given that the chomper appears to be one sided it seems plausible to me that it’ll integrate some kind of robotic arm to move the payload outside enough to be deployed.  I must say, the one sided design does seem sub-optimal from a deployment stand point, but I guess they gain enough from heat shielding and launch characteristics that the weight of some complex deployment mechanism is worth it.

[ZChris13]

Question -

Presently with F9, S2 starts a longitudinal spin to disperse the Starlink stack of satellites, Starship does not perform the dispersal spin, plus, even if it did, the "chompper" hatch is potentially(?) an obstruction, so the question, how does the physics work to get the dispersion of the sats, and what is the mechanism to make that happen? 

if previously asked, apologies, otherwise...

thank you -

Different launch vehicle; different constraints; different solution.

Since F9 S2 is expendable and mass-constrained, it made sense to go with the cheap, lightweight, and novel deployment approach they did.  If they end up with the occasional crib death as a result of trading paint, it's still cheaper than a "proper" aerospace-grade deployment mechanism.

With SS being volume constrained, on the other hand, they can afford to throw hardware at it to make a robust deployment mechanism.  And since the entire vehicle is reusable, it doesn't really matter if it costs a bit more.

Don't forget: SpaceX get that deployment mechanism back at the end of the mission with Starship.

[savantu]

Question -

Presently with F9, S2 starts a longitudinal spin to disperse the Starlink stack of satellites, Starship does not perform the dispersal spin, plus, even if it did, the "chompper" hatch is potentially(?) an obstruction, so the question, how does the physics work to get the dispersion of the sats, and what is the mechanism to make that happen? 

if previously asked, apologies, otherwise...

thank you -

Different launch vehicle; different constraints; different solution.

Since F9 S2 is expendable and mass-constrained, it made sense to go with the cheap, lightweight, and novel deployment approach they did.  If they end up with the occasional crib death as a result of trading paint, it's still cheaper than a "proper" aerospace-grade deployment mechanism.

With SS being volume constrained, on the other hand, they can afford to throw hardware at it to make a robust deployment mechanism.  And since the entire vehicle is reusable, it doesn't really matter if it costs a bit more.

Given that the chomper appears to be one sided it seems plausible to me that it’ll integrate some kind of robotic arm to move the payload outside enough to be deployed.  I must say, the one sided design does seem sub-optimal from a deployment stand point, but I guess they gain enough from heat shielding and launch characteristics that the weight of some complex deployment mechanism is worth it.

You can put also the hinges at the top and have the payload delivered straight up.

[rsdavis9]

Question -

Presently with F9, S2 starts a longitudinal spin to disperse the Starlink stack of satellites, Starship does not perform the dispersal spin, plus, even if it did, the "chompper" hatch is potentially(?) an obstruction, so the question, how does the physics work to get the dispersion of the sats, and what is the mechanism to make that happen? 

if previously asked, apologies, otherwise...

thank you -

Different launch vehicle; different constraints; different solution.

Since F9 S2 is expendable and mass-constrained, it made sense to go with the cheap, lightweight, and novel deployment approach they did.  If they end up with the occasional crib death as a result of trading paint, it's still cheaper than a "proper" aerospace-grade deployment mechanism.

With SS being volume constrained, on the other hand, they can afford to throw hardware at it to make a robust deployment mechanism.  And since the entire vehicle is reusable, it doesn't really matter if it costs a bit more.

Don't forget: SpaceX get that deployment mechanism back at the end of the mission with Starship.

Here is a simple mechanism to do the starlink deploy.
Eject the stack as one unit. Once free from SS have a small compressed N2 jet start the spin. Then release the clamps and allow the dispersal. Only requires one COPV and a RCS bell/jet.

[capoman]

Question -

Presently with F9, S2 starts a longitudinal spin to disperse the Starlink stack of satellites, Starship does not perform the dispersal spin, plus, even if it did, the "chompper" hatch is potentially(?) an obstruction, so the question, how does the physics work to get the dispersion of the sats, and what is the mechanism to make that happen? 

if previously asked, apologies, otherwise...

thank you -

Different launch vehicle; different constraints; different solution.

Since F9 S2 is expendable and mass-constrained, it made sense to go with the cheap, lightweight, and novel deployment approach they did.  If they end up with the occasional crib death as a result of trading paint, it's still cheaper than a "proper" aerospace-grade deployment mechanism.

With SS being volume constrained, on the other hand, they can afford to throw hardware at it to make a robust deployment mechanism.  And since the entire vehicle is reusable, it doesn't really matter if it costs a bit more.

Don't forget: SpaceX get that deployment mechanism back at the end of the mission with Starship.

Here is a simple mechanism to do the starlink deploy.
Eject the stack as one unit. Once free from SS have a small compressed N2 jet start the spin. Then release the clamps and allow the dispersal. Only requires one COPV and a RCS bell/jet.

Here's another simple solution. Do a spring loaded cartridge eject. Can load new satellites into the cartridge bays, and deploy them spaced out, one at a time. Since it's reusable, would be very quick to reload. No need to spin or deploy them all at once.

Edit: now that I think of it, in Starship, the columns of cartridges could be stacked on a turntable to increase the amount of satellites deployed from each cartridge stack.

[MKremer]

Edit: now that I think of it, in Starship, the columns of cartridges could be stacked on a turntable to increase the amount of satellites deployed from each cartridge stack.

If you include the ability to tilt the base of each stack's mounting base out 90 degrees then you can do away with ejector springs.

Tilt the stack perpendicular to the ship's longitudinal axis and begin a slow roll of the ship. Release the stack at the proper time and rotate the turntable to the next stack, repeat the tilt and release.

[Slothman]

Question -

Presently with F9, S2 starts a longitudinal spin to disperse the Starlink stack of satellites, Starship does not perform the dispersal spin, plus, even if it did, the "chompper" hatch is potentially(?) an obstruction, so the question, how does the physics work to get the dispersion of the sats, and what is the mechanism to make that happen? 

if previously asked, apologies, otherwise...

thank you -

Different launch vehicle; different constraints; different solution.

Since F9 S2 is expendable and mass-constrained, it made sense to go with the cheap, lightweight, and novel deployment approach they did.  If they end up with the occasional crib death as a result of trading paint, it's still cheaper than a "proper" aerospace-grade deployment mechanism.

With SS being volume constrained, on the other hand, they can afford to throw hardware at it to make a robust deployment mechanism.  And since the entire vehicle is reusable, it doesn't really matter if it costs a bit more.

Don't forget: SpaceX get that deployment mechanism back at the end of the mission with Starship.

Here is a simple mechanism to do the starlink deploy.
Eject the stack as one unit. Once free from SS have a small compressed N2 jet start the spin. Then release the clamps and allow the dispersal. Only requires one COPV and a RCS bell/jet.

Wouldn't this method also need an on board computer/reaction wheel, battery and so on (aside from what is used to release the payload) to position the stack in a way that makes the RCS bell spin it in the correct plane? What if the stack rotates slightly for some reason after it has been ejected from Starship? Then the RCS will spin the stack in some unpredictable plane.

Or does the orientation of the spin not matter? I thought the F9 S2 performs it's spin in this axis for a reason instead of any other axis.

I think it would be more complicated than just adding a fire extinguisher bracket to the base of the stack and let it rip once the stack is far enough away from SS

[rsdavis9]

Question -

Presently with F9, S2 starts a longitudinal spin to disperse the Starlink stack of satellites, Starship does not perform the dispersal spin, plus, even if it did, the "chompper" hatch is potentially(?) an obstruction, so the question, how does the physics work to get the dispersion of the sats, and what is the mechanism to make that happen? 

if previously asked, apologies, otherwise...

thank you -

Different launch vehicle; different constraints; different solution.

Since F9 S2 is expendable and mass-constrained, it made sense to go with the cheap, lightweight, and novel deployment approach they did.  If they end up with the occasional crib death as a result of trading paint, it's still cheaper than a "proper" aerospace-grade deployment mechanism.

With SS being volume constrained, on the other hand, they can afford to throw hardware at it to make a robust deployment mechanism.  And since the entire vehicle is reusable, it doesn't really matter if it costs a bit more.

Don't forget: SpaceX get that deployment mechanism back at the end of the mission with Starship.

Here is a simple mechanism to do the starlink deploy.
Eject the stack as one unit. Once free from SS have a small compressed N2 jet start the spin. Then release the clamps and allow the dispersal. Only requires one COPV and a RCS bell/jet.

Wouldn't this method also need an on board computer/reaction wheel, battery and so on (aside from what is used to release the payload) to position the stack in a way that makes the RCS bell spin it in the correct plane? What if the stack rotates slightly for some reason after it has been ejected from Starship? Then the RCS will spin the stack in some unpredictable plane.

Or does the orientation of the spin not matter? I thought the F9 S2 performs it's spin in this axis for a reason instead of any other axis.

I think it would be more complicated than just adding a fire extinguisher bracket to the base of the stack and let it rip once the stack is far enough away from SS

I think this is what I was suggesting. KISS.

[capoman]

Edit: now that I think of it, in Starship, the columns of cartridges could be stacked on a turntable to increase the amount of satellites deployed from each cartridge stack.

If you include the ability to tilt the base of each stack's mounting base out 90 degrees then you can do away with ejector springs.

Tilt the stack perpendicular to the ship's longitudinal axis and begin a slow roll of the ship. Release the stack at the proper time and rotate the turntable to the next stack, repeat the tilt and release.

Understand what you are saying, but I think there might be advantages to time to operational position if they ejected satellites already spaced out. I suspect they are not doing that now due to fairing room and debris constraints. But the cartridge ejections are already being used successfully for things like cubesats now. Starship should have the capacity to do things this way which may get things better prepared for raising to final orbits. As it is now, pretty sure they hold back on the raising rate of many satellites to provide a better trajectory to their final position. Staggered ejection should allow for more optimization of these orbit raises.

[eriblo]

Question -

Presently with F9, S2 starts a longitudinal spin to disperse the Starlink stack of satellites, Starship does not perform the dispersal spin, plus, even if it did, the "chompper" hatch is potentially(?) an obstruction, so the question, how does the physics work to get the dispersion of the sats, and what is the mechanism to make that happen? 

if previously asked, apologies, otherwise...

thank you -

Different launch vehicle; different constraints; different solution.

Since F9 S2 is expendable and mass-constrained, it made sense to go with the cheap, lightweight, and novel deployment approach they did.  If they end up with the occasional crib death as a result of trading paint, it's still cheaper than a "proper" aerospace-grade deployment mechanism.

With SS being volume constrained, on the other hand, they can afford to throw hardware at it to make a robust deployment mechanism.  And since the entire vehicle is reusable, it doesn't really matter if it costs a bit more.

Don't forget: SpaceX get that deployment mechanism back at the end of the mission with Starship.

Here is a simple mechanism to do the starlink deploy.
Eject the stack as one unit. Once free from SS have a small compressed N2 jet start the spin. Then release the clamps and allow the dispersal. Only requires one COPV and a RCS bell/jet.

Wouldn't this method also need an on board computer/reaction wheel, battery and so on (aside from what is used to release the payload) to position the stack in a way that makes the RCS bell spin it in the correct plane? What if the stack rotates slightly for some reason after it has been ejected from Starship? Then the RCS will spin the stack in some unpredictable plane.

Or does the orientation of the spin not matter? I thought the F9 S2 performs it's spin in this axis for a reason instead of any other axis.

I think it would be more complicated than just adding a fire extinguisher bracket to the base of the stack and let it rip once the stack is far enough away from SS

I think this is what I was suggesting. KISS.

Is there a reason for the original statement that Starship would not do a spin dispersal other than that the stack is going to be much bigger? I can se no reason why it would not in theory be viable for Starship as well: Roll Starship onto its side (say +Y pointing towards Earth) , open the chomper door (preferably to 90° or more), spin it parallel to the surface (i.e. along the Y-axis, "pitch/nose up"), release the Starlinks when the Z-axis points prograde and rapidly stop the rotation using RCS just like the Falcon 9 second stage currently does.

From perspective of Starship the Starlinks would rise more or less vertically out of the payload bay with those more forward going quicker. The stack could be tilted out first to increase the clearances and reduce the RCS trust needed to stop Starship rotation.

[capoman]

There's no reason to think SpaceX will deploy Starlinks the same way with Starship as with F9. F9 has some serious limitations it has to deal with at 60 satellites, and the reason they do it the way they do. Per my previous post, I think that using a cartridge tower on a turntable is the simplest solution. They can be ejected one at a time sideways away from the ship, no debris or anything like that, no fancy spins or even the need to angle ejector out to space. Springs are reliable and there are many simple ways of doing a latch. The proposals above are just way more complicated than need be, and are using the assumption that SpaceX will use the F9 method of deployment which would be no longer needed with Starship.

[Jumparound]

There's no reason to think SpaceX will deploy Starlinks the same way with Starship as with F9. F9 has some serious limitations it has to deal with at 60 satellites, and the reason they do it the way they do. Per my previous post, I think that using a cartridge tower on a turntable is the simplest solution. They can be ejected one at a time sideways away from the ship, no debris or anything like that, no fancy spins or even the need to angle ejector out to space. Springs are reliable and there are many simple ways of doing a latch. The proposals above are just way more complicated than need be, and are using the assumption that SpaceX will use the F9 method of deployment which would be no longer needed with Starship.

im more inclined to a gatling gun type of deployment.  RATATATATATATA, and another batch of 60 satellites makes it to their inteded plane

[Herb Schaltegger]

None of this Starlink deployment stuff has anything to do with the current Texas Prototypes. Please take it to the appropriate Starship Engineering thread, or one of the Starlink threads.