Quote from: Orbiter on 06/21/2022 12:02 amThere was a dogleg. You can see it in the streak shots.So the Mission Control Audio webcast is wrong? I can see an initial roll to the azimuth, but no actual dogleg (a sharp yaw).
There was a dogleg. You can see it in the streak shots.
I have photographed dozens of streak shots. None of them have that little kink towards the end of the ascent unless there's a dogleg. There is a yaw right at the end of first stage ascent that I have never seen before.
Quote from: Alexphysics on 06/20/2022 04:41 pmQuote from: su27k on 06/20/2022 01:31 amQuote from: Alexphysics on 06/20/2022 01:20 amThe theory that they're some sort of prototype Starlink 2.0 satellites that they're launching without anyone knowing falls itself apart when you consider the fact that they'd have to be approved by the FCC. If there were any Starlinks in this flight of any kind they would have to be of the older generation and/or be for a government agency which wouldn't necessarily need FCC approval. That or whoever proposes that theory has to include SpaceX comitting an illegal action that could entail the removal of their rights to operate the Starlink constellation. Not necessarily, SpaceX didn't file anything when they started flying v1.5, what can be flown under their existing Gen1 license is not clearly defined. Should be obvious that if they did fly Gen2 prototype, it'll still be using the same spectrum as Gen1, this would eliminate most of the concerns from FCC. The altitude and inclination of USA 320 is pretty close to one of the Gen1 orbits as well (97.5 degrees vs 97.6 degrees, 540km vs 560km)Or they could sidestep FCC by asking their DoD customer such as SDA to classify the launch as part of the DoD program. For example it's quite possible that they're using Starlink v2 bus for their SDA missile warning satellites, so they could ask SDA to authorize a test launch or two of this bus as part of the SDA constellation program. This way SDA gets the peace of mind that their missile warning satellite would actually work once launched, and SpaceX gets to test Starlink v2 bus early, win-win.SpaceX did file an updated constellation planning to add v1.5 satellites and needed special permission to launch the laser link satellites on Transporter-1 for the polar shells.SpaceX filed an updated constellation plan so that they can move all the satellites from 1200km to 550km, in the same filing they added polar shells, this is a change of all the shells of the constellation, it's not specific to a satellite design. The designation "v1.0" or "v1.5" did not appear in this filing, what FCC cares most is the orbit and spectrum, not some satellite design.FCC didn't approve this new constellation plan until April 2021, so when SpaceX wants to fly some Starlink to polar orbit on Transporter-1 in Jan 2021, they're flying to an orbit not approved by FCC yet, this is why they need to ask special permission. It has nothing to do with the fact that the satellites flown to polar orbits are v1.5, they could very well fly v1.0 on Transporter-1 and they'd still need to ask for permission. In fact we don't know that those flown on Transporter-1 are v1.5's, they're likely prototypes since they were all deorbited in less than a year.I believe the first official v1.5 launch is Group 2-1 on September 13, 2021, with Elon Musk's confirmation: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1436541063406264320
Quote from: su27k on 06/20/2022 01:31 amQuote from: Alexphysics on 06/20/2022 01:20 amThe theory that they're some sort of prototype Starlink 2.0 satellites that they're launching without anyone knowing falls itself apart when you consider the fact that they'd have to be approved by the FCC. If there were any Starlinks in this flight of any kind they would have to be of the older generation and/or be for a government agency which wouldn't necessarily need FCC approval. That or whoever proposes that theory has to include SpaceX comitting an illegal action that could entail the removal of their rights to operate the Starlink constellation. Not necessarily, SpaceX didn't file anything when they started flying v1.5, what can be flown under their existing Gen1 license is not clearly defined. Should be obvious that if they did fly Gen2 prototype, it'll still be using the same spectrum as Gen1, this would eliminate most of the concerns from FCC. The altitude and inclination of USA 320 is pretty close to one of the Gen1 orbits as well (97.5 degrees vs 97.6 degrees, 540km vs 560km)Or they could sidestep FCC by asking their DoD customer such as SDA to classify the launch as part of the DoD program. For example it's quite possible that they're using Starlink v2 bus for their SDA missile warning satellites, so they could ask SDA to authorize a test launch or two of this bus as part of the SDA constellation program. This way SDA gets the peace of mind that their missile warning satellite would actually work once launched, and SpaceX gets to test Starlink v2 bus early, win-win.SpaceX did file an updated constellation planning to add v1.5 satellites and needed special permission to launch the laser link satellites on Transporter-1 for the polar shells.
Quote from: Alexphysics on 06/20/2022 01:20 amThe theory that they're some sort of prototype Starlink 2.0 satellites that they're launching without anyone knowing falls itself apart when you consider the fact that they'd have to be approved by the FCC. If there were any Starlinks in this flight of any kind they would have to be of the older generation and/or be for a government agency which wouldn't necessarily need FCC approval. That or whoever proposes that theory has to include SpaceX comitting an illegal action that could entail the removal of their rights to operate the Starlink constellation. Not necessarily, SpaceX didn't file anything when they started flying v1.5, what can be flown under their existing Gen1 license is not clearly defined. Should be obvious that if they did fly Gen2 prototype, it'll still be using the same spectrum as Gen1, this would eliminate most of the concerns from FCC. The altitude and inclination of USA 320 is pretty close to one of the Gen1 orbits as well (97.5 degrees vs 97.6 degrees, 540km vs 560km)Or they could sidestep FCC by asking their DoD customer such as SDA to classify the launch as part of the DoD program. For example it's quite possible that they're using Starlink v2 bus for their SDA missile warning satellites, so they could ask SDA to authorize a test launch or two of this bus as part of the SDA constellation program. This way SDA gets the peace of mind that their missile warning satellite would actually work once launched, and SpaceX gets to test Starlink v2 bus early, win-win.
The theory that they're some sort of prototype Starlink 2.0 satellites that they're launching without anyone knowing falls itself apart when you consider the fact that they'd have to be approved by the FCC. If there were any Starlinks in this flight of any kind they would have to be of the older generation and/or be for a government agency which wouldn't necessarily need FCC approval. That or whoever proposes that theory has to include SpaceX comitting an illegal action that could entail the removal of their rights to operate the Starlink constellation.
How do you know that those four undiscussed sats are for the government?
Quote from: Orbiter on 06/21/2022 03:19 amI have photographed dozens of streak shots. None of them have that little kink towards the end of the ascent unless there's a dogleg. There is a yaw right at the end of first stage ascent that I have never seen before.Sure, but how many launches have you photographed that both landed on an ASDS, and performed direct injection to a 533 x 533km orbit? This launch had an unusually high amount of loft. Perhaps what you are seeing is a pitch up after the gravity turn is complete?
1 99654U 22671E 22171.97791079 .00000000 00000-0 50000-4 0 052 99654 52.9957 223.8538 0001000 0.0000 63.4553 15.11237881 07# 20220620.98-20220620.98, 3 measurements, 0.010 deg rms1 99655U 22671F 22171.97796925 .00000000 00000-0 50000-4 0 012 99655 52.9814 223.8744 0001000 0.0000 63.7125 15.10737863 01# 20220620.98-20220620.98, 3 measurements, 0.008 deg rms1 99656U 22671G 22171.97796925 .00000000 00000-0 50000-4 0 022 99656 53.0218 223.9444 0001000 0.0000 63.6104 15.10953506 00# 20220620.98-20220620.98, 3 measurements, 0.009 deg rms1 99657U 22671H 22171.97796925 .00000000 00000-0 50000-4 0 032 99657 52.8013 223.3984 0001000 0.0000 63.8870 15.10783344 07# 20220620.98-20220620.98, 3 measurements, 0.005 deg rms1 99658U 22671J 22171.97805575 .00000000 00000-0 50000-4 0 062 99658 52.9706 223.7012 0001000 0.0000 63.7275 15.12075317 08# 20220620.98-20220620.98, 2 measurements, 0.000 deg rmsThese 5 objects were about 5 minutes early compared to Marco's 70001search elset. The first 4 were equally spaced on the sky and of equalbrightness, with the latter trailing and being brighter. These must bethe covert payloads (USA 328-311, 52889-52892/22064B-E) launched withthe GLOBALSTAR FM15 satellite, as well as the reported piece of Falcon9 debris (52893/22064F). Hopefully these search orbits will besufficient to observe these satellites again over the next few days.
There is speculation in this article that the four satellites might be missile warning ones SpaceX was contracted to build for the DoD back in 2020. If so, they would be a bit ahead of schedule, these were scheduled to launch in late 2022 which, with any other company, would mean early 2023. https://spaceexplored.com/2022/06/20/spacex-launched-four-classified-payloads-on-globalstar-mission-according-to-tracking-data/
There is speculation in this article that the four satellites might be missile warning ones SpaceX was contracted to build for the DoD back in 2020. If so, they would be a bit ahead of schedule, these were scheduled to launch in late 2022 which, with any other company, would mean early 2023.
