SpaceX F9 : Starlink group 5-1 : CCSFS SLC-40 : 28 December 2022 (09:34 UTC)

[zubenelgenubi]

Thread for the Starlink 5-1 group launch.

NSF Threads for Starlink 5-1: Discussion

Launch December 28, 2022, 09:34 UTC (4:34 am EST), from Canaveral SLC-40, on booster 1062-11.  First stage landing aboard A Shortfall of Gravitas is successful.

Main payload: 54 Starlink v1.5 satellites, also the Starlink upgraded network Flight 1.

Rideshare passengers:
D-Orbit ION?

Going to a mid-inclination orbit on a southeastern trajectory.  Initial orbit is 212 x 338 km at 43 degrees.

Starlink v1.5 satellite mass is about 300 kg.

Please use the Starlink Discussion Thread for all general discussion on Starlink.

Check the Starlink Index Thread for links to more Starlink information.


L2 SpaceX: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=60.0

[zubenelgenubi]

Cross-post :

1825-EX-ST-2022
Mission 1923 Starlink Group 5-1 from Cape Canaveral FL at LC-40 CCAFS or LC-39a at KSC,
NET end of November [30]

I wonder if they may have put the wrong ship coordinates, unless Group 5 is something different than we expected.
North  25  36  35   West  74  47  47

Unless I missed an update, Group 5 is assigned to the same altitude and inclination as Group 3. The difference between them is the number of orbital planes (6 for group 3, 4 for group 5) and the number of satellites per plane (58 for group 3, 43 for group 5).

[kevin-rf]

It is similar to the descending node Starlink 4-9 (24°24'15.0"N 76°20'28.0"W) and 4-15 (24°38'38.0"N 75°02'33.0"W) launches.

Assuming it's not a typo, is it to replenish shell 1?

[zubenelgenubi]

Confirmation:

NextSpaceFlight, updated December 12:
Launch NET January 2023

Launch could easily be later than January, given the busy launch schedule at both Florida launch complexes.

Previously, this launch, and others, appeared to be NET 2023, as other launches had firmer launch dates in December.  Then the HAKUTO-R launch was delayed by two weeks.

SFN, SpaceX launches Dragon cargo ship to deliver new solar arrays to space station, November 26:

The launch Saturday was the 54th SpaceX mission so far in 2022. SpaceX aims to launch around a half-dozen Falcon 9 rockets from Florida and California by the end of December to reach the company’s goal of 60 missions this year.

The next Falcon 9 launch is scheduled for Wednesday, Nov. 30, carrying a commercial lunar lander into space for the Japanese company ispace. The privately-developed spacecraft will attempt to become the first commercial mission to make a soft landing on the moon next year.

[zubenelgenubi]

Cross-post:

Starlink 2-2 takes Transporter-6's place in the SLC-40 launch queue:
Ben Cooper's Launch Photography Viewing Guide, updated late in the day December 14:

A Falcon 9 will launch a Starlink batch from pad 40 on late December.

Before or after Christmas? 🎄

Starlink 2-2 slipped to January and it's Starlink 5-1 that's planned for late December (specifically Dec 28), as per Spaceflight Now and Next Spaceflight.

Yes, the new information was posted in the hours between my post and scroochy's reply.

NextSpaceFlight, updated December 15:
Launch December 28 3:19 am EST = 08:19 UTC, from SLC-40.

[zubenelgenubi]

What first stage will launch this flight?

Available first stages and most recent landing date:
1052.8    Sep 5 (last use before modifications to return to a Falcon Heavy side booster to launch ViaSat-3 Americas NET January)
1060.15  Oct 8
1062.11  Oct 20
1076.2    Nov 26
1069.5    Dec 8 (maybe?)

Edit Dec 19: It's 1062.11.

[gongora]

Looking at recent filings and press releases, this could be the first Gen2 launch and could be a rideshare mission.

SpaceX made a filing (SAT-STA-20221215-00174) for its VHF tracking beacons on the gen2 sats (the beacon transmissions haven't been approved yet) and mentioned launches starting this month.

D-Orbit put out a press release yesterday saying they have an ION launching to mid-inclination orbit in Q4-2022, and will be operating at 270km.

SpaceX also made filings for its user terminals to connect to gen2 sats, and for Swarm's VHF ground stations to receive the VHF tracking beacons.

Also looks like they're going back to the southeastern trajectory for the winter months?

[jackvancouver]

Polar does make sense for the T-mobile "Anywhere on earth" pitch. Could that have been a reason why polar was chosen first? (assuming it's according to the original V1.5 shell plan)

Or is it more like Shell 2?

[scr00chy]

D-Orbit put out a press release yesterday saying they have an ION launching to mid-inclination orbit in Q4-2022, and will be operating at 270km.

Not sure how this fits. Group 5 launches are polar, not "mid-inclination". Unless the presence of V2 sats means the shell designation doesn't apply anymore and this mission isn't actually going to be launching to a polar orbit.

Which FCC licence would these F9-V2 sats be operated under anyway? Because the new V2 licence doesn't have a shell that corresponds to the old V1 Group 5.

[Alexphysics]

Not sure how this fits. Group 5 launches are polar, not "mid-inclination". Unless the presence of V2 sats means the shell designation doesn't apply anymore and this mission isn't actually going to be launching to a polar orbit.

The thing is this launch isn't going to polar orbit, the landing coordinates for the barge match the ones they used for southeast launches of shell 4 missions, so this is a mid inclination launch to a roughly 53° orbital inclination launch. There aren't three shells at 53° orbital inclination on the first generation constellation. This mission was already weird when the FCC launch and landing permits came out and kept being weird when subsequent Group 5 missions kept being pretty much the same. This being Starlink v2 sats would pretty much explain all of that weirdness

[kevin-rf]

The other option is they decided to name Shell 1 replenishment missions 5-x.

[jackvancouver]

It is confusing how they're going to fill out the rest of the polar sats but they're for sure at some point going to put more Group 2 70 degree satellites.

[r1279]

Group 5 launches are polar, not "mid-inclination". Unless the presence of V2 sats means the shell designation doesn't apply anymore...

The 5th row (shell) in the table describing the 2nd Gen orbital configuration is 53° at 525km.  So perhaps just an overlapping / confusing [or as suggested deprecated] reference?

[crandles57]

When will droneship have to leave? Fairly early on 25th? Happy Christmas 

[pb2000]

When will droneship have to leave? Fairly early on 25th? Happy Christmas 

Ah yes, sailor, the one profession guaranteed to always be home for the stat holidays.

[OceanCat]

D-Orbit put out a press release yesterday saying they have an ION launching to mid-inclination orbit in Q4-2022, and will be operating at 270km.

Not sure how this fits. Group 5 launches are polar, not "mid-inclination". Unless the presence of V2 sats means the shell designation doesn't apply anymore and this mission isn't actually going to be launching to a polar orbit.

Gen1 Group 5 name was assumed based on a table in the submitted pdf file. But that's just an assumption. The orbits described in the gen1 mdb file have only four shells. Shell 3 has 10 planes in the mdb file.

[zubenelgenubi]

Time change for launch?
Ben Cooper's Launch Photography Viewing Guide, updated December 18:

The next SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch a Starlink batch from pad 40 on December 28 around 5 a.m. EST.

= ~10:00 UTC
Circa 2 hours later

Will the upper atmosphere be illuminated while the ground is still in darkness?  There may be a pre-dawn light show for those to the southeast of the Cape.

[ZachS09]

Time change for launch?
Ben Cooper's Launch Photography Viewing Guide, updated December 18:

The next SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch a Starlink batch from pad 40 on December 28 around 5 a.m. EST.

= ~10:00 UTC
Circa 2 hours later

Will the upper atmosphere be illuminated while the ground is still in darkness?  There may be a pre-dawn light show for those to the southeast of the Cape.

It's WAY too early for the twilight phenomenon at that time in the morning.

Per https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/solcalc/, sunrise will be at 7:14 AM EST (12:14 UTC). Coordinates are 28.5619578, -80.5771995.

It'd have to be at least 6:30 AM EST (10:30 UTC) for the twilight phenomenon to happen.

[crandles57]

Per https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/7035

1062.11 for this launch

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/spaceoffshore/status/1604883505153990656

Guess the booster!

Another Falcon 9 rolls from HangarX to the launch pad, passing the KSC press site

nsf.live/spacecoast

[NX-0]

Eric Berger
@SciGuySpace
The Starlink 5-1 launch scheduled for 5:00am ET (10:00 UTC) on December 28 just got more interesting.
Quote Tweet
Nathan Owens
@VirtuallyNathan
·
8h
Starlink Gen2 news:
- "SpaceX  anticipates that it will begin launching Gen2 satellites before the end of December"
- SpaceX has filed applications with the FCC to run 3 different UTs + ESIM using Gen2 sats: UT (E210127), UT (E190066), HP-UT  (E220009), ESIM (E210309)

[zubenelgenubi]

Approximate time window for launch; my bold:
Ben Cooper's Launch Photography Viewing Guide, updated December 19:

The next SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch a Starlink batch from pad 40 on December 28 around 4-5 a.m. EST.

= ~09:00 to 10:00 UTC

[Lee Jay]

I would have sworn that Elon said in one of the interviews that V2 was entirely dependent on Starship since it couldn't be launched on F9.  Am I remembering that wrong?

[AmigaClone]

I would have sworn that Elon said in one of the interviews that V2 was entirely dependent on Starship since it couldn't be launched on F9.  Am I remembering that wrong?

No, Elon did state that at one time. In a later interview Elon mentioned the possibility of launching V2 on Falcon 9s. That is supported by documentation sent to the FCC.

[Alexphysics]

In fact the documentation came first and then Elon was asked about it saying they would if Starship gets delayed too much and well, guess what happened...

[Dave_T]

How many Starlink v2 could the F9 carry to LEO? I assume these satellites won't be 1250 kg/piece nor as big as per the official data.

[Bob Niland]

How many Starlink v2 could the F9 carry to LEO? I assume these satellites won't be 1250 kg/piece nor as big as per the official data.

Things are likely getting off-topic for this particular launch, but there seem to be a number of possibilities for early(pre-SS)-V2:
🛰 send very few V.2 in existing fairing
🛰 send more, but as V1.99999
🛰 send more V.2 in new fairing
🛰 and now for something, completely different
It all depends on how urgent it is to get V.2 tech on station for check out.

[gongora]

How many Starlink v2 could the F9 carry to LEO? I assume these satellites won't be 1250 kg/piece nor as big as per the official data.

The smaller size shown here seems to be pretty much the same as the gen1 sats currently being launched.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg2436554#msg2436554

[Elthiryel]

Actually, the document states that there are three versions of these Gen2 sats:
- Bus F9-1, 303 kg mass, it looks more or less like current V1.5 satellites, maybe they wanted (or still want) to have an option to launch "old" sats into the Gen2 orbits
- Bus F9-2, 800 kg mass, looks like this is "V1.9", or however we want to call it, simply V2 downsized to fit inside F9 fairing
- Bus Starship, 2000 kg mass

SpaceX expects that launches will have approximately twenty to sixty satellites on each Falcon 9 launch

So most likely around 20 satellites if they launch Bus F9-2 sats (20 x 800 kg = 16000 kg) and up to 60 satellites if they launch Bus F9-1 sats (which are similar in mass to V1.5, so up to 60 makes sense).

[TheRadicalModerate]

How many Starlink v2 could the F9 carry to LEO? I assume these satellites won't be 1250 kg/piece nor as big as per the official data.

The smaller size shown here seems to be pretty much the same as the gen1 sats currently being launched.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46726.msg2436554#msg2436554

So the F9-1 is designed to be two stacks side-by-side (like v1.5), the F9-2 is designed to be one stack, and presumably the Starship version is again two stacks side-by-side.

Some fun with geometry:

F9 static envelope is 4.6m in diameter.
F9-1 bus is 2.8m x 1.3m.  Presumably 2 stacks.
If you do a computation of the chord of a 4.6m circle that's 1.3m away from the center, it's 3.8m long.  So far, so good.

F9-2 bus is 4.1m x 2.7m. Presumably a single stack.
The chord that's 2.7/2=1.35m from the center of a 4.6m circle is 3.7m.
So the 4.1m-long bus is 0.4m too long to fit.

Starship static envelope is 8m diameter.
Starship bus is 6.4m x 2.7m.  Presumably two stacks.
The chord that's 2.7m from the center is 5.9m.
So the 6.4m-long bus is 0.5m too long to fit. 

IOW, the F9-2 and Starship buses are roughly the same amount too long.  Seems like something that's about 40-50cm long must fold out after deployment.

[vaporcobra]

- Bus F9-2, 800 kg mass, looks like this is "V1.9", or however we want to call it, simply V2 downsized to fit inside F9 fairing

FWIW, the internal term is Starlink V2 Mini

[Robotbeat]

- Bus F9-2, 800 kg mass, looks like this is "V1.9", or however we want to call it, simply V2 downsized to fit inside F9 fairing

FWIW, the internal term is Starlink V2 Mini

Will they have any capability to do the direct-to-Earth cellular stuff, even just as a test?

These have a solar array nearly a factor of 5 larger than the v1.5 sats, quite a bit of power. With F9, it'd take what, on the order of 400 launches to get these to orbit? With Starship, about 150 launches for the larger bus, 60 for the smaller bus... (But I assume if Starship works, they'll just launch the larger bus.... If Starship takes a while to get up to speed, they'll just fill out the constellation with F9 launches. At 100 launches per year, about 4 years.)

[Robotbeat]

Eric Berger
@SciGuySpace
The Starlink 5-1 launch scheduled for 5:00am ET (10:00 UTC) on December 28 just got more interesting.
Quote Tweet
Nathan Owens
@VirtuallyNathan
·
8h
Starlink Gen2 news:
- "SpaceX  anticipates that it will begin launching Gen2 satellites before the end of December"
- SpaceX has filed applications with the FCC to run 3 different UTs + ESIM using Gen2 sats: UT (E210127), UT (E190066), HP-UT  (E220009), ESIM (E210309)

Linking Twitter: https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1604899073189969921?s=20&t=0t_3mSY8OaYAPngTwjfEJQ

[virtuallynathan]

Cross-post :

1825-EX-ST-2022
Mission 1923 Starlink Group 5-1 from Cape Canaveral FL at LC-40 CCAFS or LC-39a at KSC,
NET end of November [30]

I wonder if they may have put the wrong ship coordinates, unless Group 5 is something different than we expected.
North  25  36  35   West  74  47  47

Unless I missed an update, Group 5 is assigned to the same altitude and inclination as Group 3. The difference between them is the number of orbital planes (6 for group 3, 4 for group 5) and the number of satellites per plane (58 for group 3, 43 for group 5).

Are the droneship positions for the other upcoming Group 5 launches consistent with a Polar orbit? Was this one a typo?

[Alexphysics]

Cross-post :

1825-EX-ST-2022
Mission 1923 Starlink Group 5-1 from Cape Canaveral FL at LC-40 CCAFS or LC-39a at KSC,
NET end of November [30]

I wonder if they may have put the wrong ship coordinates, unless Group 5 is something different than we expected.
North  25  36  35   West  74  47  47

Unless I missed an update, Group 5 is assigned to the same altitude and inclination as Group 3. The difference between them is the number of orbital planes (6 for group 3, 4 for group 5) and the number of satellites per plane (58 for group 3, 43 for group 5).

Are the droneship positions for the other upcoming Group 5 launches consistent with a Polar orbit? Was this one a typo?

All four of the current Group 5 launches they've applied FCC permits for have the same coordinates and they're all consistent with a mid-inclination launch (per Flight Club sims the landing location is compatible with a 53º or 43º inclination orbit just depending on how pronounced the dogleg is for the second stage).

[virtuallynathan]

Cross-post :

1825-EX-ST-2022
Mission 1923 Starlink Group 5-1 from Cape Canaveral FL at LC-40 CCAFS or LC-39a at KSC,
NET end of November [30]

I wonder if they may have put the wrong ship coordinates, unless Group 5 is something different than we expected.
North  25  36  35   West  74  47  47

Unless I missed an update, Group 5 is assigned to the same altitude and inclination as Group 3. The difference between them is the number of orbital planes (6 for group 3, 4 for group 5) and the number of satellites per plane (58 for group 3, 43 for group 5).

Are the droneship positions for the other upcoming Group 5 launches consistent with a Polar orbit? Was this one a typo?

All four of the current Group 5 launches they've applied FCC permits for have the same coordinates and they're all consistent with a mid-inclination launch (per Flight Club sims the landing location is compatible with a 53º or 43º inclination orbit just depending on how pronounced the dogleg is for the second stage).

Interesting! It wouldn't make sense for these to be going into 53.2 degrees (Group 4), and probably not the current 53 degree shell (Group 1), so perhaps the newly authorized 53 degree shell, or even the newly authorized 43 degree shell?

[kevin-rf]

Now that there are 4 5-x missions,  that is more missions than needed to finish shell 1. Making, the mini Gen 2's  the most likely option. 

Considering the US east of the Mississippi is mostly wait listed,  43 degrees would give SpaceX the most bang for the buck. That's Mass, New York, and all points south.

[Ken the Bin]

NGA notice.

172149Z DEC 22
NAVAREA IV 1383/22(11,26).
WESTERN NORTH ATLANTIC.
FLORIDA.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, ROCKET LAUNCHING
   280930Z TO 281219Z DEC, ALTERNATE
   290904Z TO 291153Z, 300839Z TO 301128Z,
   310814Z TO 311103Z DEC, 010749Z TO 011037Z,
   020723Z TO 021012Z, 030658Z T0 030947Z JAN 23.
   IN AREAS BOUND BY:
   A. 28-40.34N 080-38.63W, 28-42.00N 080-32.00W,
      28-23.00N 079-50.00W, 28-13.00N 079-49.00W,
      28-30.51N 080-33.04W.
   B. 26-08.00N 075-45.00W, 26-10.00N 075-43.00W,
      26-00.00N 074-18.00W, 25-37.00N 074-15.00W,
      25-19.00N 074-35.00W, 25-20.00N 075-07.00W.
2. CANCEL THIS MSG 031047Z JAN 23.//

[zubenelgenubi]

NGA notice.
<snip>

NextSpaceFlight, updated December 23:
Launch December 28 circa? 4:45 am EST = ~09:45 UTC, from SLC-40.

[OneSpeed]

NGA notice.

LHA map from the NGA notice.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/raul74cz/status/1606452899676131331

LHA map for #Starlink Group 5-1 from CCSFS SLC-40 NET 28 Dec 09:45 UTC, altern.29 Dec to 03 Jan. B1062.11 planned landing with estimated fairing recovery ~660km downrange. Dogleg to final inclination 43° according S2 debris reentry area south of Cape Town. bit.do/LHA22

[Ken the Bin]

These two NGA Space Debris notices (the same notice for two different Navigational Areas) arrived overnight.  They appear to be for this launch.  The notices are dated December 20 but the emails are dated December 24.

202202Z DEC 22
HYDROLANT 3288/22(57,61).
EASTERN SOUTH ATLANTIC.
SOUTHWESTERN INDIAN OCEAN.
DNC 01, DNC 02.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, SPACE DEBRIS
   0850Z TO 1355Z DAILY 28 DEC THRU 03 JAN 23.
   IN AREA BOUND BY
   35-48.00S 055-48.00E, 33-51.00S 055-30.00E,
   42-00.00S 007-17.00E, 43-57.00S 007-38.00E.
2. CANCEL THIS MSG 031455Z JAN 23.

202202Z DEC 22
HYDROPAC 3673/22(57,61).
EASTERN SOUTH ATLANTIC.
SOUTHWESTERN INDIAN OCEAN.
DNC 01, DNC 02.
1. HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS, SPACE DEBRIS
   0850Z TO 1355Z DAILY 28 DEC THRU 03 JAN 23.
   IN AREA BOUND BY
   35-48.00S 055-48.00E, 33-51.00S 055-30.00E,
   42-00.00S 007-17.00E, 43-57.00S 007-38.00E.
2. CANCEL THIS MSG 031455Z JAN 23.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/spaceoffshore/status/1606634429325123592

Departure! A Shortfall of Gravitas droneship departed Port Canaveral last night to support Starlink 5-1 NET Dec 28th. Tug Crosby Skipper is towing.

[mandrewa]

https://twitter.com/raul74cz/status/1606452899676131331

LHA map for #Starlink Group 5-1 from CCSFS SLC-40 NET 28 Dec 09:45 UTC, altern.29 Dec to 03 Jan. B1062.11 planned landing with estimated fairing recovery ~660km downrange. Dogleg to final inclination 43° according S2 debris reentry area south of Cape Town. bit.do/LHA22

So that gives us, or it implies, the final altitude.  Group 5 will end up with an altitude of 530 km at an inclination 43.0 degree. 

This is implied by the recent permission that SpaceX has received to put up their 2nd generation constellation at 530 km with a 43.0 degree inclination and also 525 km with a 53.0 degree inclination and 535 km with a 33.0 degree inclination.

[OneSpeed]

These two NGA Space Debris notices (the same notice for two different Navigational Areas) arrived overnight.  They appear to be for this launch.  The notices are dated December 20 but the emails are dated December 24.

Yes, the space debris coordinates do match the 43° inclination for this launch.

[Ken the Bin]

L-3 weather forecast >90% 'Go' for December 28.  90% 'Go' for December 29.  Booster Recovery Weather risk is Moderate for December 28.  All other Additional Risk Criteria are Low for both days.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/spaceoffshore/status/1607399994176475136

Doug departed Port Canaveral around 1am this morning to support Starlink 5-1

[FutureSpaceTourist]

L-2 launch weather forecast, no real change still > 90% GO

[jketch]

If there are really 54 satellites on this launch, they can't be too much bigger than v1.5

https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1607538105841778688

CelesTrak has pre-launch SupGP data for the #Starlink Group 5-1 launch from Cape Canaveral on 2022-12-28 at 09:40:10 UTC. Deployment of 54 satellites is set for 2022-12-28 at 09:59:01.940 UTC: https://celestrak.org/NORAD/elements/supplemental/. Data is available at: https://celestrak.org/NORAD/elements/supplemental/table.php?FILE=starlink-g5-1.

[scr00chy]

Looks like they're just regular v1.5 sats, except they're being launched to the new V2 orbital shell.

[Zed_Noir]

Looks like they're just regular v1.5 sats, except they're being launched to the new V2 orbital shell.

Maybe some of the 54 comsats are prototype comsats with Starlink v2 components for orbital hot test.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1607597706452795393

This is a very odd situation lol.
1) Starlink 5-1 is headed to an inclination of 43º. It's carrying 54 satellites, which rules out all known V2 variants, while the same inclination rules out V1.5 satellites for the V1 constellation. Only Starlink V2 has a shell at 43º.

SpaceX's last Starlink launch of 2022 is a bit of a mystery https://teslarati.com/spacex-last-starlink-launch-2022-mystery/ by @13ericralph31

The G5-1 name SpaceX uses makes no sense. Only one Starlink constellation has five approved shells, and V1 shell #5 is at 97.6º.[/

SpaceX does not have permission to launch or operate V1.x satellites at 43º. SpaceX has never mentioned V1.x-sized V2 sats to the FCC.

https://twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1607597709728550913

Musk has explicitly stated that smaller V1 satellites + F9 launches make Starlink "financially weak" and could cause SpaceX to go bankrupt. Even if SpaceX had mentioned them a single time to the FCC, V1-sized V2 satellites would not make much sense as a result.

The only explanation I can think of that isn't fully insane is that Starlink 5-1 is a batch of V1.5-sized satellites reminiscent of V0.9 that are meant to test some limited parts of the V2 design before full-scale launches.

https://twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1607597712555544576

Still doesn't make much sense with no mention at all in FCC correspondences. And 54 one-off prototypes sounds like a very expensive way to test V2 hardware in a way that wouldn't even necessarily enable the 1:1 qualification of most full-size components.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1607597708344426496

The G5-1 name SpaceX uses makes no sense. Only one Starlink constellation has five approved shells, and V1 shell #5 is at 97.6º.

SpaceX does not have permission to launch or operate V1.x satellites at 43º. SpaceX has never mentioned V1.x-sized V2 sats to the FCC.

twitter.com/planet4589/status/1607614695199981575

Actually it has, but it implied only a single satellite. It described a Gen2 sat called F9-1 to be launched on Falcon 9 and with the mass  and dimensions of the V1 sats.

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1607615045847982081

This was in an FCC filing about Gen2 earlier in 2022.
  I see two possibilities:
 - there are actually a whole batch of F9-1 style Gen2 sats and the filing was misleading (not for the first time0
- There are 53 V1.5 sats and 1 V2/F9-1 sat on the launch.

twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1607631458885332992

Oh wow, I missed that tidbit! Big ask but do you happen to know which filing? Does seem like the likeliest option now, though there are still some holes - namely 53 V1.5 sats in orbits the V1 constellation is not permitted to use.

https://twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1607632157564088322

I'm not 100% clear on those rules, though. I've always gotten the impression that they're fairly rigid. i.e. V1.5 sats are approved for use in the Gen1 constellation, but I don't think that means SpaceX can automatically launch & use V1.5 sats to Gen2 inclinations.

twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1607632858193211392

Logically, V1.5 sats are much smaller and pose a smaller debris threat than V2 sats, but I also don't get the feeling that "seems like it would be fine" would convince the FCC when its partial Gen2 grant makes no mention (that I saw) of V1-sized V2s.

https://twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1607636394977161216

Ok you are totally correct! I did not read closely enough and the Oct 2022 filing with supplemental info did indicate that there are THREE Gen2 variants, one of which sounds identical to V1.5 w/ a mass of 303 kg.

Edit to add:

https://twitter.com/13ericralph31/status/1607647027093188609

Credit to Jonathan for the correction, I was sorely mistaken! There is indeed a third "V2" variant that sounds an awful lot like a rebadged V1.5 satellite.
https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/welcome.do

[Alexphysics]

I don't see what Jonathan says about SpaceX filling for a single satellite, I must have missed it, but there are now FCC permits for up to 4 Group 5 missions and all have the same landing coordinates for the booster, it doesn't seem like Group 5-1 is a one-off.

[gongora]

Jonathan just misunderstood the document, and all of that information has already been posted upthread.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

L-1 weather forecast is unchanged, still >90% GO

[r8ix]

I think many people (including me) thought F9-1 referred to v1 (or 1.5) series Starlinks, and was comparing them to v2(F9) and v2(SS), i.e., comparing current versions to future versions. But it appears it may have been referencing 2 different iterations of v2(F9) as well as the StarShip version. It is still possible, perhaps even likely, that F9-1 is essentially identical to StarLink v1.5.

[gongora]

For those who never looked at the document and just look at the table, this is the text that appears before the table.

The tables below present information for the current form factors of SpaceX Gen2
satellites: two of which will be launched initially on Falcon 9 rockets and one that will be launched
on Starship. For convenience, these satellites are labeled satellites F9-1, F9-2, and Starship,
respectively. Note that to better reflect a non-maneuverable satellite in a tumbling deorbit a scaling
factor has been applied to the area-to-mass ratios used with NASA’s Debris Assessment Software
(“DAS”). Specifically, a factor of 0.5 has been applied to the two larger satellites and a factor of
0.516 has been applied for the smallest one. Following the tables, SpaceX includes sample logs
from its DAS analyses for each of the current Gen2 form factors.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The key about which sat version is being used (F9-1 or F9-2) would be number of sats being launched. This is because of mass and volume ~2X factor of difference between them. Do we know the number of sats yet for this launch?

You could almost then think of the initial F9-1 as a set of V1.99 sats to test out the various new hardware/software to be used on the larger V2 sats without launching them in enough numbers as in ~50 or even more to do all the designs validation.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/tgmetsfan98/status/1607848085996060675

Tomorrow, SpaceX will launch the first Starlink Gen 2 mission. While the satellites on board are likely identical to those launched previously, the destination orbit is used only by the Gen 2 constellation.

Full details from @Alexphysics13:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/12/spacex-starlink-5-1-launch/

[Bean Kenobi]

The key about which sat version is being used (F9-1 or F9-2) would be number of sats being launched. This is because of mass and volume ~2X factor of difference between them. Do we know the number of sats yet for this launch?

You could almost then think of the initial F9-1 as a set of V1.99 sats to test out the various new hardware/software to be used on the larger V2 sats without launching them in enough numbers as in ~50 or even more to do all the designs validation.

54, same as recent launches.

Source : https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1607538105841778688?cxt=HHwWgIDUmfzYj88sAAAA

[raptorx2]

I don't see what Jonathan says about SpaceX filling for a single satellite, I must have missed it, but there are now FCC permits for up to 4 Group 5 missions and all have the same landing coordinates for the booster, it doesn't seem like Group 5-1 is a one-off.

Just passing thru here, not sure this has been discussed upstream from here.  I suspect so, but didn't see anything.  The whole reason for launching V2.0 compliant (VBand) Starlink Satellites at this moment is strictly for establishing ITU Spectrum Priority. It is a race against Kuiper who shows launching the first 2 VBand satellites in Feb. I believe at least 2 satellites are required on-orbit functioning for ITU spectrum priority assignment. So the satellites that are launched will need to operate on the spectrum in which ITU priority is sought.  VBand.  ITU approved inclination for V2.0 includes 148 inclinations.  We are talking ITU not FCC. So I have always been directed to more of the EROS C3 #1 launch from Vandenberg on Dec. 30th.  EROS C-3 #1 is only 400kg to a Sun-Synchronous Orbit with RTLS. So there is an available 4000kg of mass on this launcher with RTLS and according to reports here, It is headed to a ~148 inclination launch
EROS C3#1 launch came from nowhere in mid-December, after they yanked the booster 1061.11 on Nov. 18th that was already upright on the launch pad with OCISLY on station in the Pacific.  So perhaps 2 or 3 full-sized V2.0 configured vertically on the dispenser,  with EROS C3#1 on top?  V2.0 mass is something like 1,200kg?? Which would bring the total satellite mass to 4,000kg plus dispenser. ?

[virtuallynathan]

I don't see what Jonathan says about SpaceX filling for a single satellite, I must have missed it, but there are now FCC permits for up to 4 Group 5 missions and all have the same landing coordinates for the booster, it doesn't seem like Group 5-1 is a one-off.

Just passing thru here, not sure this has been discussed upstream from here.  I suspect so, but didn't see anything.  The whole reason for launching V2.0 compliant (VBand) Starlink Satellites at this moment is strictly for establishing ITU Spectrum Priority. It is a race against Kuiper who shows launching the first 2 VBand satellites in Feb. I believe at least 2 satellites are required on-orbit functioning for ITU spectrum priority assignment. So the satellites that are launched will need to operate on the spectrum in which ITU priority is sought.  VBand.  ITU approved inclination for V2.0 includes 148 inclinations.  We are talking ITU not FCC. So I have always been directed to more of the EROS C3 #1 launch from Vandenberg on Dec. 30th.  EROS C-3 #1 is only 400kg to a Sun-Synchronous Orbit with RTLS. So there is an available 4000kg of mass on this launcher with RTLS and according to reports here, It is headed to a ~148 inclination launch
EROS C3#1 launch came from nowhere in mid-December, after they yanked the booster 1061.11 on Nov. 18th that was already upright on the launch pad with OCISLY on station in the Pacific.  So perhaps 2 or 3 full-sized V2.0 configured vertically on the dispenser,  with EROS C3#1 on top?  V2.0 mass is something like 1,200kg?? Which would bring the total satellite mass to 4,000kg plus dispenser. ?

I have no idea how all of this approval works, but the FCC did not authroize the 148 degree shell, and did not authoize V Band.

[crandles57]

https://twitter.com/tgmetsfan98/status/1607848085996060675

Tomorrow, SpaceX will launch the first Starlink Gen 2 mission. While the satellites on board are likely identical to those launched previously, the destination orbit is used only by the Gen 2 constellation.

Full details from @Alexphysics13:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/12/spacex-starlink-5-1-launch/

Perhaps that seems reasonable given the following quote:

The number of satellites flying on Starlink Group 5-1 suggests this mission is flying the F9-1 satellite configuration which would allow them to use hardware and processes similar to launching Starlink v1.5 satellites under the Gen 1 constellation.

However there is another quote in the NASAspaceflight article which says

The document detailed that “while SpaceX will use technically identical satellites on both rockets, the physical structures will be tailored to meet the physical dimensions of the rockets on which they will be launched.”

To me this suggests that F9-1 type satellites will have all the technical specifications and features of the other v2 satellites (just hobbled by physical dimensions) and so would be rather different than the v1.5 satellites. But perhaps I am misinterpreting that? 303Kg sounds very close to v1.5 satellite mass, would there likely be larger differences to accommodate different band hardware?

Perhaps the shorter simpler question is: What would launching identical to v1.5 satellites achieve?

[gongora]

Launching identical sats would potentially give them twice the throughput in certain frequency bands where they're not allowed to have overlapping beams from the same constellation.

[Alexphysics]

EROS C3#1 launch came from nowhere in mid-December, after they yanked the booster 1061.11 on Nov. 18th that was already upright on the launch pad with OCISLY on station in the Pacific.  So perhaps 2 or 3 full-sized V2.0 configured vertically on the dispenser,  with EROS C3#1 on top?  V2.0 mass is something like 1,200kg?? Which would bring the total satellite mass to 4,000kg plus dispenser. ?

Just because we didn't know previously about the EROS-C3 mission it doesn't mean it has any special mystery around it. The reason for the delay to Starlink Group 2-4 and them switching boosters has nothing to do with any of the theories you're presenting.

[alugobi]

What was the reason for the delay to Starlink 2-4?

[Alexphysics]

What was the reason for the delay to Starlink 2-4?

Hardware issues, can't go into more details but there's nothing obscure behind it as the poster suggests

[Elthiryel]

The official launches website has been updated:
https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=sl5-1

SpaceX is targeting Wednesday, December 28 at 4:40 a.m. ET (9:40 UTC) for a Falcon 9 launch of 54 Starlinksatellites to low-Earth orbit from Space Launch Complex 40 (SLC-40) at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. If needed, there is a backup opportunity available on Thursday, December 29 starting at 4:14 a.m. ET (9:14 UTC).

The first stage booster supporting this mission previously launched GPS III Space Vehicle 04, GPS III Space Vehicle 05, Inspiration4, Ax-1, Nilesat 301, and four Starlink missions. Following stage separation, the first stage will land on the A Shortfall of Gravitas droneship, which will be stationed in the Atlantic Ocean.

This launch marks the first of Starlink’s upgraded network. Under our new license, we are now able to deploy satellites to new orbits that will add even more capacity to the network. Ultimately, this enables us to add more customers and provide faster service – particularly in areas that are currently over-subscribed.

A live webcast of this mission will begin about five minutes prior to liftoff.

Mission timeline:

HR/MIN/SEC   EVENT
00:01:12   Max Q (moment of peak mechanical stress on the rocket)
00:02:29   1st stage main engine cutoff (MECO)
00:02:32   1st and 2nd stages separate
00:02:39   2nd stage engine starts
00:02:44   Fairing deployment
00:06:44   1st stage entry burn start
00:07:00   1st stage entry burn complete
00:08:26   1st stage landing burn start
00:08:38   2nd stage engine cutoff (SECO-1)
00:08:47   1st stage landing
00:18:43   Starlink satellites deploy

Webcast:

[RocketLover0119]

Seems like it’s not V2 sats, just a new orbit:

Maybe check your sources before writing a whole article on it 

[Alexphysics]

Not sure what you mean by that or if you're even talking about my article at all, the new orbits are part of Starlink's second generation constellation. 43 degree shell is the one being used on this mission to be more precise. Using v2 sats or not, the mission is going into Starlink's second generation constellation.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/spaceoffshore/status/1607924182938943489

ASOG droneship is positioned 660 km downrange to recover B1062 for the planned Starlink launch tonight at 4:40am ET.

Downrange weather is a watch item according to SpaceX.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/alexphysics13/status/1607890490816450561

The Falcon 9 for the Starlink Group 5-1 mission is vertical at SLC-40 as seen on @NASASpaceflight's Space Coast Live Fleetcam. However, SpaceX is yet to confirm they're on track for launch tonight

nsf.live/spacecoast

A few minutes later:

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1607894750304309250

Targeting Wednesday, December 28 for Falcon 9’s launch of 54 Starlink satellites to low-Earth orbit from SLC-40 in Florida; teams are keeping an eye on weather conditions for booster recovery → spacex.com/launches

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/john_winkopp/status/1608016670991196160

The @SpaceX #Falcon9 for #Starlink 5-1 has come alive with sound. The sky is incredibly beautiful. Let's hope recovery area is green.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

[GWR64]

What is the advantage of the southern trajectory over the usual northern one?

[FutureSpaceTourist]

SFN live stream has started

[scr00chy]

What is the advantage of the southern trajectory over the usual northern one?

The booster landing in a different area which has generally calmer sea states during winter months.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/1608025248347062274

F9/Starlink 5-1: Launch director is go for propellant loading

[FutureSpaceTourist]

NSF is live

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/nextspaceflight/status/1608026732027875330

Launch time to-be-announced by SpaceX. Propellant loading started slightly early, so they have adjusted the launch time.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1608027386960023555

Targeting 4:34 a.m. ET for Falcon 9's launch of Starlink from Florida; a live webcast of this mission will begin ~5 minutes before liftoff spacex.com/launches/missi…

[GWR64]

What is the advantage of the southern trajectory over the usual northern one?

The booster landing in a different area which has generally calmer sea states during winter months.

Thank you. However, it doesn't look like that at windy.com at the moment. Maybe this is inaccurate or just temporary.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

T-20 min vent

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1608028627475521536

T-20 minute vent. Launch time has been moved UP six minutes.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

SpaceX stream is now live

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Jessie is doing the commentary

https://twitter.com/whoisheartbreak/status/1608031086793351169

Number 60 🚀

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Strongback retracting

[FutureSpaceTourist]

S1 LOX load complete

[FutureSpaceTourist]

S2 LOX load complete

[FutureSpaceTourist]

LD GO for launch

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Liftoff!

[FutureSpaceTourist]

MaxQ

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1608033806388269057

[FutureSpaceTourist]

MECO, separation & S2 ignition

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Fairing sep

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1608034629243609089

Staging 1-2.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

T+5

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/johnkrausphotos/status/1608033953721552898

Final rocket launch of the year for Florida’s Space Coast. Bring on 2023! 🚀💯

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Entry burn

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Landed!

[FutureSpaceTourist]

SECO and nominal insertion

[FutureSpaceTourist]

SpaceX webcast ended (as usual before Starlink deployment)

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1608035908812701696

SpaceX Falcon 9 B1062's 11th landing. Touchdown on drone ship "A Shortfall Of Gravitas"

https://youtube.com/watch?v=0nEMDWv-pUk

[zubenelgenubi]

Weather at ASOG at T-1 minute; wind-blown rain illuminated by barge spotlight.

[zubenelgenubi]

Answer to why news of successful satellites deployment is delayed; remember this is a launch to the southwest of the Cape, not to the northeast and paralleling the Atlantic coast.

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1608038178518335488

We'll confirm satellite deployment after we regain ground station coverage in ~50 minutes.

Launch time to the second?

[Galactic Penguin SST]

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1608038178518335488

We'll confirm satellite deployment after we regain ground station coverage in ~50 minutes.

Launch time to the second?

https://twitter.com/tskelso/status/1608035423846301698?s=46&t=WUcRLyIG9Rf1l90CSPLlgQ

~09:34:38 UTC

[Thorny]

Photo from Rockledge...

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/madeonearthfou1/status/1608039283369336832

@SpaceX launch of #Starlink Group 5-1 on a #Falcon9 rocket from Cape Canaveral SFS @SLDelta45 as viewed from Tallahassee FL 250 miles away on a chilly morning.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

twitter.com/johnkrausphotos/status/1608042919197347841

Falcon 9 launches 54 Starlink satellites to orbit from Florida at 4:34 a.m. this morning — the first launch in a new upgrade to the Starlink network to increase capacity for existing and future customers

https://twitter.com/johnkrausphotos/status/1608042995017711619

This image consists of two long exposure photos taken in succession: one for the stars, one for the launch, then overlaid in post-processing

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/johnpisaniphoto/status/1608042494889185282

One last launch from Cape Canaveral for 2022. SpaceX has launched another batch of Starlink satellites to orbit after a phenomenal year of commercial, human and company spaceflight missions. There is just one more scheduled launch for SpaceX from California on December 30th 🚀

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/spacecoast_stve/status/1608045799648133123

With Santa now safely out of everyone's airspace, SpaceX wastes no time launching more Starlink satellites!

This stacked image from Cocoa Beach Pier includes 1st and 2nd stage flight, as well as the 1st stage entry burn.

Mission overview: nasaspaceflight.com/2022/12/spacex…

[zubenelgenubi]

Payload separation confirmed as signal is acquired at Guam ground station.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1608050003616075777

Deployment of 54 Starlink satellites confirmed!

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1608050353131642880

Falcon 9 launches 54 Starlink satellites to low-Earth orbit; completes SpaceX’s 60th mission of 2022!

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Many congratulations to SpaceX! 60 launches in a year with 100% mission & landing success is an amazing achievement.

Here’s one Elon target that was bang on time:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1508540042817376256

SpaceX Falcon team is making excellent progress – aiming for 60 launches this year!

[zubenelgenubi]

Congratulations to SpaceX and the entire launch campaign team!

Thank you, NSF webcasters!  Thank you, FST, for your launch thread coverage!

[Alexphysics]

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1608038178518335488

We'll confirm satellite deployment after we regain ground station coverage in ~50 minutes.

Launch time to the second?

https://twitter.com/tskelso/status/1608035423846301698?s=46&t=WUcRLyIG9Rf1l90CSPLlgQ

~09:34:38 UTC

For what's worth for today's NSF stream the T0 time on our clock was set for 4:34:05am EST and the liftoff occurred only one second off from the clock so not sure if maybe Kelso did the wrong math or SpaceX further changed the clock compared to what he has.

[vaporcobra]

Starlink 3-4 vs Starlink "5-1": virtually identical

[SpaceFinnOriginal]

https://twitter.com/johnkrausphotos/status/1608033953721552898

Final rocket launch of the year for Florida’s Space Coast. Bring on 2023! 🚀💯

The final will be EROS C3 on December 30.

[GWR64]

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1608038178518335488

We'll confirm satellite deployment after we regain ground station coverage in ~50 minutes.

Launch time to the second?

https://twitter.com/tskelso/status/1608035423846301698?s=46&t=WUcRLyIG9Rf1l90CSPLlgQ

~09:34:38 UTC

For what's worth for today's NSF stream the T0 time on our clock was set for 4:34:05am EST and the liftoff occurred only one second off from the clock so not sure if maybe Kelso did the wrong math or SpaceX further changed the clock compared to what he has.

Possibly the dogleg in the trajectory was not considered.
The exact shape of the dogleg was also probably unknown before launch.

[Alexphysics]

https://twitter.com/johnkrausphotos/status/1608033953721552898

Final rocket launch of the year for Florida’s Space Coast. Bring on 2023! 🚀💯

The final will be EROS C3 on December 30.

EROS is launching from Vandenberg not Florida

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/_mgde_/status/1608065880847486977

As the Mother of Fire awakens, the exhaust remnants from this morning’s flight of a Falcon 9 catch her first rays, illuminating vibrantly in the eastern sky.

https://twitter.com/mhaskellphoto/status/1608066821810278401

There’s just something to love about that post early morning launch sunrise.

[crandles57]

Also congratulations for 62 boosters launched, twice last years record of 31.

This also equals biggest % rise of 100% from 9 to 18 in 2017 over 2016 and from 3 to 6 in 2014 over 2013.  (Umm yes, this is since 2010 as that has infinite % rise of 2 over nothing but then that can never be beaten.)

[FutureSpaceTourist]

twitter.com/johnkrausphotos/status/1608084127680544769

It is so fun to plan a photo, set up the shot, and then sit back and watch a nighttime rocket launch. Using one camera, with no other handheld/static cameras to attend to, makes that a bit easier.

Here’s a short moment of my thoughts during this morning’s Falcon 9 launch 🚀

https://twitter.com/johnkrausphotos/status/1608084841517522945

And then seeing the result on the back of the camera… priceless! Every time. (Even when it doesn’t work; luckily it did this time.)

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/sonicgabe/status/1608053242658983936

This morning’s launch of @SpaceX Starlink 5-1 as viewed from @StPeteFL. Got the reentry burn and a bunch of satellites, too.

[jcm]

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1608038178518335488

We'll confirm satellite deployment after we regain ground station coverage in ~50 minutes.

Launch time to the second?

https://twitter.com/tskelso/status/1608035423846301698?s=46&t=WUcRLyIG9Rf1l90CSPLlgQ

~09:34:38 UTC

For what's worth for today's NSF stream the T0 time on our clock was set for 4:34:05am EST and the liftoff occurred only one second off from the clock so not sure if maybe Kelso did the wrong math or SpaceX further changed the clock compared to what he has.

As you note Kelso posted that there was a last minute update to the launch time, and implied it was 0934:38 UTC.  You say 0934:05.  Stephen Clark on spaceflightnow.com says 0934:00. Would be nice to resolve this!

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1608118870107209728

Congratulations SpaceX Falcon team on 60 successful launches this year!!

Edit to add:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1608145311347707905

They did it!

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/tskelso/status/1608159155038355458

Just received confirmation from @SpaceX that launch time was 2022-12-28 at 09:34:00 UTC with a deployment time of 09:52:51.940 UTC. Not surprising to see a 38s lag on the 'live' feed. All data has been updated on CelesTrak as we await the first ephemeris-based SupGP data.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1608172397265313792

On rereading the FCC filings, it seems more clear to me that the satellites from today's launch are "Gen 2 F9-1" satellites which are partial Gen2 payloads on Gen 1.5 buses.
 Looking forward to the satellite names showing up on Celestrak. I predict all will be Starlink 6xxx.

[OneSpeed]

Here are two comparisons with the Starlink 5-1 mission.

First is with the recent Starlink 4-37 mission to a 53.2° orbital inclination. The accelerations through the boost phase are basically identical, although 5-1 has less loft, and so has a 6 second shorter flight time.

The second stage accelerations are also basically identical, with no visible evidence of any dogleg manoeuvre. 5-1 inserts at an altitude of 211km and velocity of 7,473m/s, compared to 4-37 at 236km and 7,515m/s respectively.

The second comparison is with Starlink 4-5 on Jan 6th earlier this year. This was the first Starlink mission from Florida with a Southeast launch azimuth, intended to improve the odds of favourable weather for booster and fairing recovery. However, a second stage dogleg was required North of the Bahamas to achieve her 53.2° orbital inclination.

Starlink 5-1 launched instead to a 43° inclination. The booster plot for Starlink 4-5 and 5-1 reiterates the substantial booster thrust increase achieved in recent launches.

Meanwhile, the second stage plot highlights the reduction in acceleration of 4-5 during the dogleg, with no visible reduction by 5-1. If 5-1 did perform a dogleg, it was so gradual and slight as to be invisible in the webcast telemetry.

Lastly, I've attached an anigif of stills from the Mission Control Audio webcasts for 4-5 and 5-1, which highlights the difference in ground tracks. Open the attachment in a web browser to view the animation.

[vaporcobra]

Starlink 3-4 vs Starlink "5-1": virtually identical

I didn't have a 4-37 screenshot on hand and someone pointed out that the only visible difference between the 3-4 and 5-1 satellites was actually present on Starlink 4-37 four months later. So the 5-1 satellites are 100% identical to past V1.5 satellites (as far as we can see).

https://twitter.com/VirtuallyNathan/status/1608130820841304065

[Josh_from_Canada]

After looking at the serial numbers of the satellites on this launch, they look to be v1.5 satellites. I'm guessing that SpaceX isn't ready to start launching the F9 sized v2.0 satellites (called F9-2 in the FCC request) so they are starting to launch v1.5 satellites into the Gen 2 constellation. The reason for this is the lower inclination orbital shells allow them to have more satellites covering the parts of the world where the Gen 1 constellation doesn't have enough bandwidth for customers. Having both Gen 1 and Gen 2 constellations overlap each other allows SpaceX to increase the capacity of the overall constellation. In order to launch v1.5 satellites into Gen 2 they needed a separate approval then the Gen 1 constellation so these satellites are called F9-1 in the FCC request.

[Robotbeat]

There are 3 Gen2 satellites. F9-1, which are essentially the same hardware as v1.5;
 And mass 303kg, F9-2 which mass 800kg and the starship 2000kg ones.

The ones launched are not “Gen1”, they are all Gen 2.

[ChrisC]

NSF needs a "haha" button.

Anyone new dropping in here to post their opinion about the V2-or-not of these satellites would be well advised to read the earlier pages of this thread.  Pay extra attention to talk about what was actually licensed by the FCC.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1608269663099817984

OK, I guessed wrong. Today's Starlinks have names from Starlink-4643 to Starlink-5434, mixed in with the IDs from other recent launches and so clearly off the same production line. Whatever SpaceX may imply, they are just V1.5 sats launched to the V2 Group 5 orbit.

[GWR64]

SpaceX has claimed there that it would launch Gen. 2 satellites. hmm 

https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=18914073

Upcoming Gen2 System Launch Plans
SpaceX currently anticipates that it will begin launching Gen2 satellites on December 28,
2022. This launch will be followed by several additional launches in January and February
2023. In each of these launches, SpaceX expects to launch at least 10 Gen2 satellites equipped
with VHF tracking beacons for use only during LEOP or in an emergency, and while SpaceX is
seeking authorization for up to 450 satellites, it anticipates that the total number in operation at
any one time will be significantly lower.

SpaceX appreciates the Commission’s attention to this matter and urges it to process the
Amendment application expeditiously to enable SpaceX to operate safety-enhancing VHF
beacons in the United States to support critical LEOP and emergency operations for its Gen2
constellation.

and attachments there:
https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATAMD2022121600175&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number

edit: quote expanded

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX has claimed there that it would launch Gen. 2 satellites. hmm 

https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=18914073

Upcoming Gen2 System Launch Plans
SpaceX currently anticipates that it will begin launching Gen2 satellites on December 28,
2022.

and attachments there:
https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATAMD2022121600175&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number

The hardware is essentially identical, but they are Gen2. F9-1, 303kg each. Gen2.

[mlindner]

SpaceX has claimed there that it would launch Gen. 2 satellites. hmm 

https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=18914073

Upcoming Gen2 System Launch Plans
SpaceX currently anticipates that it will begin launching Gen2 satellites on December 28,
2022.

and attachments there:
https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATAMD2022121600175&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number

People need to stop confusing "Gen 2" with "version 2". "Gen 2" is about orbital shells and licensing. "Version 2" is about satellite design.

[GWR64]

There it is about VHF tracking beacons on Gen2 satellites, which were obviously not available or not used up to now.
I have now expanded the quote.

[Lee Jay]

SpaceX has claimed there that it would launch Gen. 2 satellites. hmm 

https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=18914073

Upcoming Gen2 System Launch Plans
SpaceX currently anticipates that it will begin launching Gen2 satellites on December 28,
2022.

and attachments there:
https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATAMD2022121600175&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number

People need to stop confusing "Gen 2" with "version 2". "Gen 2" is about orbital shells and licensing. "Version 2" is about satellite design.

Above it was mentioned that it was also about frequency band used.  Is that accurate?

[mn]

SpaceX has claimed there that it would launch Gen. 2 satellites. hmm 

https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=18914073

Upcoming Gen2 System Launch Plans
SpaceX currently anticipates that it will begin launching Gen2 satellites on December 28,
2022.

and attachments there:
https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATAMD2022121600175&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number

People need to stop confusing "Gen 2" with "version 2". "Gen 2" is about orbital shells and licensing. "Version 2" is about satellite design.

If it's the same hardware to a different shell, why are only 10 sats Gen 2?

As quoted above

In each of these launches, SpaceX expects to launch at least 10 Gen2 satellites

[Bean Kenobi]

SpaceX has claimed there that it would launch Gen. 2 satellites. hmm 

https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=18914073

Upcoming Gen2 System Launch Plans
SpaceX currently anticipates that it will begin launching Gen2 satellites on December 28,
2022.

and attachments there:
https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATAMD2022121600175&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number

People need to stop confusing "Gen 2" with "version 2". "Gen 2" is about orbital shells and licensing. "Version 2" is about satellite design.

If it's the same hardware to a different shell, why are only 10 sats Gen 2?

As quoted above

In each of these launches, SpaceX expects to launch at least 10 Gen2 satellites

"At least" doesn't mean "only" 

[crandles57]

People need to stop confusing "Gen 2" with "version 2". "Gen 2" is about orbital shells and licensing. "Version 2" is about satellite design.

That is a problem but, sorry for disagreeing, I am not sure that covers it all correctly.

It seems to me that it is more correct to say:
 
Only v2 satellites are allowed to be launched to generation 2 orbits and therefore these satellites are v2 more specifically v2(F9-1) and it appears that these v2(F9-1) are identical to v1.5 satellites.

Your alternative nomenclature that these are version1 satellites launched to generation 2 orbits might work as a naming scheme, but officially only v2 satellites can be launched to generation 2 orbits so you have an anomaly in your naming scheme.

I guess it is possible that some people think that some satellite types being both v1 and v2 is also an anomaly. Perhaps a majority of people think that is a worse anomaly, but I am thinking that is just how it is. (Edit: and, given a choice, it is best to avoid a naming scheme that goes against what we understand of the technicalities.)

Feel free to further debate this or not. I think it would be nice to get a clear official line, but if people want to tell me to shut up and stick with the v2 vs gen 2 distinction I'll accept that.

[alugobi]

Abbott and Costello talk satellites. 

[OceanCat]

SpaceX has claimed there that it would launch Gen. 2 satellites. hmm 

https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=18914073

Upcoming Gen2 System Launch Plans
SpaceX currently anticipates that it will begin launching Gen2 satellites on December 28,
2022.

and attachments there:
https://licensing.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/ws.exe/prod/ib/forms/reports/swr031b.hts?q_set=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number/%3D/SATAMD2022121600175&prepare=&column=V_SITE_ANTENNA_FREQ.file_numberC/File+Number

People need to stop confusing "Gen 2" with "version 2". "Gen 2" is about orbital shells and licensing. "Version 2" is about satellite design.

Above it was mentioned that it was also about frequency band used.  Is that accurate?

As far as the FCC is concerned it's ok to launch v1.5 satellites that don't utilize all Gen2 frequencies today as long as 3,750 (50% of the licensed 7,500) Gen2 satellites utilizing all frequencies are operational by December 1, 2028 and 7,500 are operational by December 1, 2031. The dates are from the FCC order.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/spaceoffshore/status/1608629930379874305

ASOG droneship is en route to Port Canaveral with the last booster recovery of the year - B1062!

ETA looks approx dawn on Dec 31st but all subject to change as usual.

[mlindner]

People need to stop confusing "Gen 2" with "version 2". "Gen 2" is about orbital shells and licensing. "Version 2" is about satellite design.

If it's the same hardware to a different shell, why are only 10 sats Gen 2?

As quoted above

In each of these launches, SpaceX expects to launch at least 10 Gen2 satellites

I'd say that "expects" is different than "has". I'd say on this launch all of the satellites were part of generation 2 based on what SpaceX said in their stream and on the web page for the launch.

People need to stop confusing "Gen 2" with "version 2". "Gen 2" is about orbital shells and licensing. "Version 2" is about satellite design.

That is a problem but, sorry for disagreeing, I am not sure that covers it all correctly.

It seems to me that it is more correct to say:
 
Only v2 satellites are allowed to be launched to generation 2 orbits and therefore these satellites are v2 more specifically v2(F9-1) and it appears that these v2(F9-1) are identical to v1.5 satellites.

Your alternative nomenclature that these are version1 satellites launched to generation 2 orbits might work as a naming scheme, but officially only v2 satellites can be launched to generation 2 orbits so you have an anomaly in your naming scheme.

I guess it is possible that some people think that some satellite types being both v1 and v2 is also an anomaly. Perhaps a majority of people think that is a worse anomaly, but I am thinking that is just how it is. (Edit: and, given a choice, it is best to avoid a naming scheme that goes against what we understand of the technicalities.)

Feel free to further debate this or not. I think it would be nice to get a clear official line, but if people want to tell me to shut up and stick with the v2 vs gen 2 distinction I'll accept that.

I'm not completely disagreeing, but where is the official FCC document that says that SpaceX cannot launch version 2 satellites to the existing orbits? I'm not aware of any such document.

I don't think that is at issue with this launch however as SpaceX said multiple places that this is a "second generation" launch. I think everyone is in agreement that this was a "second generation" launch. The only disagreement is if the satellites were any different, and what version numbering should be used on the satellites. As Jonathan McDowell noted, the satellite serial numbers are still standard v1.5 serial numbers.

As far as the FCC is concerned it's ok to launch v1.5 satellites that don't utilize all Gen2 frequencies today as long as 3,750 (50% of the licensed 7,500) Gen2 satellites utilizing all frequencies are operational by December 1, 2028 and 7,500 are operational by December 1, 2031. The dates are from the FCC order.

Wouldn't it be equally true to say that the FCC doesn't care about the design of the satellite launched to first generation orbital shells as long as they don't broadcast on frequencies other than what is allowed? Put another way, v1.5 satellites could be capable of broadcasting in these other frequencies with only a software update required. Given that they're using software defined radios, in effect, that would not be an incorrect thing to say. (Unless there's some aspect of the v1.5 design that obviates the ability to broadcast in certain frequencies.) A simple software update pre or post-launch could enable the additional frequencies.

[crandles57]

I'm not completely disagreeing, but where is the official FCC document that says that SpaceX cannot launch version 2 satellites to the existing orbits? I'm not aware of any such document.

I don't think that is at issue with this launch however as SpaceX said multiple places that this is a "second generation" launch. I think everyone is in agreement that this was a "second generation" launch. The only disagreement is if the satellites were any different, and what version numbering should be used on the satellites. As Jonathan McDowell noted, the satellite serial numbers are still standard v1.5 serial numbers.

I am not aware of any such document either, but I didn't think I had said that. (Sorry if it was confusing)

I was saying SpaceX had requested to launch v2 satellites to gen 2 orbits and been given permission for that.
Therefore these satellites are v2. Due to mass of the different types of v2 and 54 being launched on a F9 we know they are more specifically v2(F9-1)

All the evidence we have does seem to point towards these v2(F9-1) being identical to v1.5 (mass, area, serial numbers in same sequence etc)

I took your
People need to stop confusing "Gen 2" with "version 2". "Gen 2" is about orbital shells and licensing. "Version 2" is about satellite design.

as indicating that was the entirety of the nomenclature problem and you were therefore saying the satellites launched were v1 satellites launched to gen 2 orbits.

It is quite likely that I was reading too much into that as you could well be accepting that they were nominally v2 satellites that were launched(though identical to v1.5).

AIUI SpaceX asked for permission to launch v1 satellites to generation 1 orbits and was granted permission.
They also asked for permission to launch v2 satellites to generation 1 orbits and was granted permission.

I am not aware of other permissions granted.
So I am thinking it is ok to launch v1.5 satellites to gen 2 orbits only if they are called v2 satellites and fit the information provided for v2 satellites which they do.

[GWR64]

Where does the term "version 2" come from?
SpaceX uses the term Gen2 satellites in the December 21 letter that I linked. As I used it too.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57553.msg2444770#msg2444770
The application: "...VHF tracking beacons for use only during LEOP or in an emergency..." includes some FCC filings. (from 15th and 16th Dec.) An overview is in the letter.

Perhaps only SpaceX knows exactly what Gen2 satellites mean.

There is a small gap before the 5000 in the satellite serial numbers. Maybe there was a little change.
The 5xxx satellites have been launched since mission 4-35.
Individual 4xxx were still launched. At mission 5-1 there were only 3 satellites with 4xxx serial numbers.

About 2000 Gen2 satellites with 43° and 53° inclination are to be equipped with  direct-to-cellular payload. (1.9GHz range)
Probably later the heavier series.

[crandles57]

Where does the term "version 2" come from?
SpaceX uses the term Gen2 satellites in the December 21 letter that I linked. As I used it too.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57553.msg2444770#msg2444770
The application: "...VHF tracking beacons for use only during LEOP or in an emergency..." includes some FCC filings. (from 15th and 16th Dec.) An overview is in the letter.

Perhaps only SpaceX knows exactly what Gen2 satellites mean.

Ok, if no-one has an official answer to "Where does the term "version 2" come from?"
then that gives a third nomenclature scheme:

There are 'Generation 2 orbits'.
There are 'Generation 2 satellites' which are just satellites flown or to be flown to Generation 2 orbits.
There is no version 2, at least not yet / only in development.

So we can refer to the satellites launched on 5-1 as either 'Gen 2' or more specifically 'Gen 2 (F9-1)' or perhaps also as v1.5 type satellites.

Yes, it is possible that SpaceX has a different definition of 'Generation 2 satellites' which could lead to yet other nomenclature schemes but the above definition seems the obvious one to me.

Sorry if I confused things with my previous two schemes which didn't cover all the possibilities.

[mn]

I must be missing something. (I admit I did not watch the launch broadcast)

Why are we so sure that there isn't some Gen2 hardware changes in the same external form factor as Gen1.

There could be internal changes that are testing some Gen2 technologies and they are starting to launch a few (up to 10) of these new satellites together with a bunch of Gen1 hardware? Wouldn't that be typical and logical for SpaceX?

[crandles57]

I must be missing something. (I admit I did not watch the launch broadcast)

Why are we so sure that there isn't some Gen2 hardware changes in the same external form factor as Gen1.

There could be internal changes that are testing some Gen2 technologies and they are starting to launch a few (up to 10) of these new satellites together with a bunch of Gen1 hardware? Wouldn't that be typical and logical for SpaceX?

A major part is
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1608269663099817984

OK, I guessed wrong. Today's Starlinks have names from Starlink-4643 to Starlink-5434, mixed in with the IDs from other recent launches and so clearly off the same production line. Whatever SpaceX may imply, they are just V1.5 sats launched to the (edit: V2Gen 2) Group 5 orbit.

Another part is


Then there is that they only launch a maximum of 54 v1.5 sats, if there were any F9-2 types at 800kg, there wouldn't be enough room/mass to have 54 satellites in the payload of 5-1.

As far as we know, they do not have permission to launch any other type of satellites to gen 2 orbits.

If there were two types of F9-1 that were sufficiently similar that SpaceX saw no reason that they needed permission to launch another satellite type then it seems reasonable to think it would have a different serial number sequence.

With all that, Occam's razor is certainly pointing to them all being identical to v1.5

[AmigaClone]

I will admit that using the nomenclature above, it appears that Starlink v2 type F9-1 might use the same satellite bus as the Starlinks 1.5. Just because the serial numbers used are within the range used by Starlink 1.5 satellites, that does not mean that F9-1 is completely identical to Starlink 1.5.

Is there any proof that the payload (basically, the antennas, the receivers and transmitters) for the F9-1 version of Starlink V2 are the same ones being used by Starlink 1.5?

[crandles57]

Only maths works with proofs. Science works with evidence.

I should have mentioned
Last I knew, the mass of v1.5 satellites was believed to be 303kg or very near that.
It seems a strange coincidence if Gen 2 F9-1 also has a mass of 303kg?

Well I don't know - perhaps it is possible for 'the antennas, the receivers and transmitters' to be a different presumably better version but still have same mass (close enough not to change the 303kg figure anyway)?

If the serial numbers come from a production line as suggested that might be better evidence than if they don't.

I am not offering proof, but I am thinking all the evidence and Occam seems to point towards them being identical to v1.5.

[mn]

I must be missing something. (I admit I did not watch the launch broadcast)

Why are we so sure that there isn't some Gen2 hardware changes in the same external form factor as Gen1.

There could be internal changes that are testing some Gen2 technologies and they are starting to launch a few (up to 10) of these new satellites together with a bunch of Gen1 hardware? Wouldn't that be typical and logical for SpaceX?

A major part is
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1608269663099817984

OK, I guessed wrong. Today's Starlinks have names from Starlink-4643 to Starlink-5434, mixed in with the IDs from other recent launches and so clearly off the same production line. Whatever SpaceX may imply, they are just V1.5 sats launched to the (edit: V2Gen 2) Group 5 orbit.

Another part is


Then there is that they only launch a maximum of 54 v1.5 sats, if there were any F9-2 types at 800kg, there wouldn't be enough room/mass to have 54 satellites in the payload of 5-1.

As far as we know, they do not have permission to launch any other type of satellites to gen 2 orbits.

If there were two types of F9-1 that were sufficiently similar that SpaceX saw no reason that they needed permission to launch another satellite type then it seems reasonable to think it would have a different serial number sequence.

With all that, Occam's razor is certainly pointing to them all being identical to v1.5

A: Jonathan McDowell is making informed guesses. Having the same sequence of serial numbers doesn't guarantee that they are the same. Especially when they are just making small changes to start testing Gen 2 hardware

B: SpaceX very clearly presents them as 3 versions of Gen2 satellites and the F9-1 name has nothing to do with previous V1.5 satellites, it's just what they chose to call these 3 versions in this document for convenience. Yes we know they launched 54 satellites and yes obviously if they are Gen2 they would be what they present as F9-1 in the referenced document.

SpaceX was quite clear, why do we have to insist that they didn't mean what they said? Without any evidence that I've seen so far.

It doesn't seem like a stretch to me at all that the first Gen2 satellites will have the same mass as the previous versions, depending on what is actually changed.

If you have circumstantial evidence vs what SpaceX explicitly stated I'll take what they said until proven otherwise.

[mn]

SpaceX stated to the FCC that they will launch up to 10 Gen 2 satellites in this launch.

If Gen2 means orbit, how can 10 sats go to one orbit while the rest of the sats from the same launch go to the Gen 1 orbit?

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX stated to the FCC that they will launch up to 10 Gen 2 satellites in this launch.

…

Do you have an exact quote for this from SpaceX? The precise wording matters to answer your question.
…because this quote says “at least 10,” not “at most 10.”… and the sentences include other wording.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57553.msg2444770#msg2444770

…In each of these launches, SpaceX expects to launch at least 10 Gen2 satellites equipped with VHF tracking beacons for use only during LEOP or in an emergency…

[mn]

SpaceX stated to the FCC that they will launch up to 10 Gen 2 satellites in this launch.

…

Do you have an exact quote for this from SpaceX? The precise wording matters to answer your question.
…because this quote says “at least 10,” not “at most 10.”… and the sentences include other wording.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57553.msg2444770#msg2444770

…In each of these launches, SpaceX expects to launch at least 10 Gen2 satellites equipped with VHF tracking beacons for use only during LEOP or in an emergency…

Yes you are correct that they said at least and not up to. I stand corrected.

Now please tell me how that changes anything?

[crandles57]

A: Jonathan McDowell is making informed guesses. Having the same sequence of serial numbers doesn't guarantee that they are the same. Especially when they are just making small changes to start testing Gen 2 hardware

B: SpaceX very clearly presents them as 3 versions of Gen2 satellites and the F9-1 name has nothing to do with previous V1.5 satellites, it's just what they chose to call these 3 versions in this document for convenience. Yes we know they launched 54 satellites and yes obviously if they are Gen2 they would be what they present as F9-1 in the referenced document.

SpaceX was quite clear, why do we have to insist that they didn't mean what they said? Without any evidence that I've seen so far.

It doesn't seem like a stretch to me at all that the first Gen2 satellites will have the same mass as the previous versions, depending on what is actually changed.

If you have circumstantial evidence vs what SpaceX explicitly stated I'll take what they said until proven otherwise.

Yes "SpaceX very clearly presents them as 3 versions of Gen2 satellites"

Gen 2 satellites not v2 satellites.

The natural assumption about 'Gen 2 sats' seems to me that it is satellites launched or to be launched to gen 2 orbits.

If they were different SpaceX would likely be calling them v2 or v1.6 or something. If they haven't given a different version number and are just saying Gen 2 which refers to the orbit then the natural assumption until shown otherwise is that there is no new version launched.

It is possible that there is something different about the satellites compared to v1.5, but how many hoops do you want to jump through to maintain this belief/hypothesis.

Hoop 1 If they were different versions, SpaceX would probably call them a different version rather than the rather awkward gen 2 satellites.
Hoop 2. If they were different versions they may well have a different serial number sequence to clearly distinguish them.
Hoop 3 If they are some upgraded versions on some of the sats, they may be different enough that SpaceX would have needed to show them as a different versions in one of the documents we have.
Hoop 4 If there are some upgraded parts, it is possible that the mass would have appeared to be slightly different to the mass we suspect for v1.5

The simpler alternative is that they are identical to v1.5.

>If you have circumstantial evidence vs what SpaceX explicitly stated I'll take what they said until proven otherwise.

My version is that SpaceX explicitly stated they are gen 2 sats (not v2 sats). The simplest interpretation is that gen 2 sats are simply sats going to gen 2 orbits. That SpaceX has not talked about v2 sats speaks volumes that these are not yet ready for launch.

So I am the one taking what SpaceX has explicitly stated, and I'll take my simple interpretation of what they have explicitly stated over your complex multi hoop speculative interpretation until shown otherwise.


I currently think SpaceX has not used v2 only gen 2 in the documents we have seen. For the moment I accept that I was initially wrongly pushing a v2(F9-1) description while accepting they are likely identical to v1.5. If someone shows me they have deliberately used a v2 description rather than generation 2 then I will accept I am wrong again.

[OceanCat]

As far as the FCC is concerned it's ok to launch v1.5 satellites that don't utilize all Gen2 frequencies today as long as 3,750 (50% of the licensed 7,500) Gen2 satellites utilizing all frequencies are operational by December 1, 2028 and 7,500 are operational by December 1, 2031. The dates are from the FCC order.

Wouldn't it be equally true to say that the FCC doesn't care about the design of the satellite launched to first generation orbital shells as long as they don't broadcast on frequencies other than what is allowed? Put another way, v1.5 satellites could be capable of broadcasting in these other frequencies with only a software update required. Given that they're using software defined radios, in effect, that would not be an incorrect thing to say. (Unless there's some aspect of the v1.5 design that obviates the ability to broadcast in certain frequencies.) A simple software update pre or post-launch could enable the additional frequencies.

Software defined radio is a broad term. It does not necessarily mean the radio is digital front to back. An arbitrary number of elements can still be analog. Starlink terminals are also software defined and yet the latest filing for the high performance model seeking to authorize communications with Gen2 satellites still lists only Ku frequencies. Yes, it's possible v1.5 in group 5-1 are capable of using Ka for user links but it's unlikely in my opinion.

SpaceX stated to the FCC that they will launch up to 10 Gen 2 satellites in this launch.

…

Do you have an exact quote for this from SpaceX? The precise wording matters to answer your question.
…because this quote says “at least 10,” not “at most 10.”… and the sentences include other wording.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57553.msg2444770#msg2444770

…In each of these launches, SpaceX expects to launch at least 10 Gen2 satellites equipped with VHF tracking beacons for use only during LEOP or in an emergency…

Yes you are correct that they said at least and not up to. I stand corrected.

Now please tell me how that changes anything?

All G5-1 satellites are Gen2 but not all of them could have been equipped with VHF tracking beacons.

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX stated to the FCC that they will launch up to 10 Gen 2 satellites in this launch.

…

Do you have an exact quote for this from SpaceX? The precise wording matters to answer your question.
…because this quote says “at least 10,” not “at most 10.”… and the sentences include other wording.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57553.msg2444770#msg2444770

…In each of these launches, SpaceX expects to launch at least 10 Gen2 satellites equipped with VHF tracking beacons for use only during LEOP or in an emergency…

Yes you are correct that they said at least and not up to. I stand corrected.

Now please tell me how that changes anything?

With respect to WHAT? I’m not even sure what your point is, here.

From what I can tell, all these satellites that were just launched are Gen2 F9-1, and at least 10 of them probably have that VHF tracking beacon on them. Your comment about them being “at most 10 Gen 2 satellites” made no sense to me, and so I corrected it. That’s it. That’s my point. I still don’t know what yours is.

[crandles57]

SpaceX stated to the FCC that they will launch up to 10 Gen 2 satellites in this launch.

If Gen2 means orbit, how can 10 sats go to one orbit while the rest of the sats from the same launch go to the Gen 1 orbit?

I think everyone believes that all 54 sats on launch 5-1 went to 43 degree inclination orbit which is a gen 2 orbit. None went to a gen 1 orbit, so we don't need to argue over 'how'.

Obviously, at least 10 could mean all of them whereas up to 10 is definitely not all of them.
With 'At least 10' they could all still be identical by all having them.
With 'Up to 10' they could all still be identical by none having them.
So I certainly see potential for it to change the argument needed.


Do we know if v1.5 includes (or could include) these VHF tracking beacons?

[OceanCat]

Do we know if v1.5 includes (or could include) these VHF tracking beacons?

SpaceX was still working on them as of July 1st. They were developed in response to the loss of 38 satellites:

Thirty-Eight SpaceX Satellites Reentered from the Launch on February 3, 2022—On February 3,
2022, SpaceX launched 49 satellites into an orbit with a perigee of approximately 210 km. Every
satellite achieved controlled flight, but due to a geomagnetic storm, the satellites experienced an
increased atmospheric drag approximately 50% higher than all previous launches. As a result,
while SpaceX was able to command 11 of the satellites to a drag-stable attitude sufficient to ride
out the storm, the other 38 satellites reentered the Earth’s atmosphere and demised.
 Since this event, SpaceX has updated the flight software of our satellites to accommodate similar space
weather events in the future and is working toward a solution whereby satellites will include an
independent position “beacon” to improve ground antenna pointing.

From their report.

An ITU filing was made on August 23rd. The application covers 29988 satellites so I assume it does not cover gen1 orbits. I found VHF frequencies only in that application. I was not able to find another VHF application filed by Germany.

[crandles57]

SpaceX was still working on them as of July 1st. They were developed in response to the loss of 38 satellites:

Thirty-Eight SpaceX Satellites Reentered from the Launch on February 3, 2022—On February 3,
2022, SpaceX launched 49 satellites into an orbit with a perigee of approximately 210 km. Every
satellite achieved controlled flight, but due to a geomagnetic storm, the satellites experienced an
increased atmospheric drag approximately 50% higher than all previous launches. As a result,
while SpaceX was able to command 11 of the satellites to a drag-stable attitude sufficient to ride
out the storm, the other 38 satellites reentered the Earth’s atmosphere and demised.
 Since this event, SpaceX has updated the flight software of our satellites to accommodate similar space
weather events in the future and is working toward a solution whereby satellites will include an
independent position “beacon” to improve ground antenna pointing.

From their report.

An ITU filing was made on August 23rd. The application covers 29988 satellites so I assume it does not cover gen1 orbits. I found VHF frequencies only in that application. I was not able to find another VHF application filed by Germany.

Thank you for that reply.

So are we now agreed that I was wrong to push 'identical' to v1.5?
Sorry about that.

Does this seem a separate upgrade than the road to v2 under development?

Is there any evidence for there being any upgraded parts on the 5-1 launch to help with testing v2?

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/spaceoffshore/status/1609167250933563392

Doug arrived at Port Canaveral just after 2am this morning with both fairing halves from Starlink 5-1.

Via nsf.live/spacecoast

[SPKirsch]

twitter.com/SpaceOffshore/status/1609011738652938241

Finishing 2022 with one last booster arrival!

ASOG still tracking towards tomorrow morning from early. Updates to follow 🌊

https://twitter.com/SpaceOffshore/status/1609144021598846977

Tracking towards 9 - 10am ET this morning.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/spaceoffshore/status/1609201096639107073

ASOG droneship on the approach to Port Canaveral this morning with B1062. Should hopefully arrive in the next two hours - it's a foggy day!

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/jennyhphoto/status/1609218079552151552

B1062 making its way back to Port Canaveral after launching Starlink 5-1.

📷: Me for @SuperclusterHQ
@SpaceOffshore

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1609240088126291970

Falcon 9 B1062 arriving back into Port Canaveral.

nsf.live/spacecoast

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/spaceoffshore/status/1609242597498707968

Welcome back B1062. 40 booster returns to Port Canaveral in 2022 completed successfully! 🤯

Happy New Year!!

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/julia_bergeron/status/1609255733656276998

Booster 1062 returned to Port Canaveral this afternoon bringing an end to the Starlink 5-1 mission. Today's recovery views include a dolphin as well as people and ships for scale.

@NASASpaceflight recap:
nasaspaceflight.com/2022/12/spacex…

[mn]

SpaceX stated to the FCC that they will launch up to 10 Gen 2 satellites in this launch.

…

Do you have an exact quote for this from SpaceX? The precise wording matters to answer your question.
…because this quote says “at least 10,” not “at most 10.”… and the sentences include other wording.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57553.msg2444770#msg2444770

…In each of these launches, SpaceX expects to launch at least 10 Gen2 satellites equipped with VHF tracking beacons for use only during LEOP or in an emergency…

Yes you are correct that they said at least and not up to. I stand corrected.

Now please tell me how that changes anything?

With respect to WHAT? I’m not even sure what your point is, here.

From what I can tell, all these satellites that were just launched are Gen2 F9-1, and at least 10 of them probably have that VHF tracking beacon on them. Your comment about them being “at most 10 Gen 2 satellites” made no sense to me, and so I corrected it. That’s it. That’s my point. I still don’t know what yours is.

Whether it said up to 10 or at least 10, either way to me it means 'some but not all'. And that precludes Gen2 being a reference to the orbit. That's all I was trying to say.

And yes I know that 'at least' could end up being all of them. So @candles57: Are you suggesting that SpaceX filed to send some satellites to the Gen2 orbit and then after the filing some genius rocket scientist discovered that you can't do that so they ended up sending all sats to the Gen2 orbit. Or did they intend to send all satellites to the Gen2 orbit, but wrote 'at least 10' for some mystical reason?

On 2nd thought, I guess you are reading this as all are Gen2 but at least 10 will have the additional VHF antenna, I'll admit you may be right and I read it all wrong.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Here's my attempt at a press kit from the archived web page. If someone can do a better job, please do!

https://web.archive.org/web/20221229035034/https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=sl5-1

[mlindner]

Where does the term "version 2" come from?
SpaceX uses the term Gen2 satellites in the December 21 letter that I linked. As I used it too.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57553.msg2444770#msg2444770
The application: "...VHF tracking beacons for use only during LEOP or in an emergency..." includes some FCC filings. (from 15th and 16th Dec.) An overview is in the letter.

Perhaps only SpaceX knows exactly what Gen2 satellites mean.

There is a small gap before the 5000 in the satellite serial numbers. Maybe there was a little change.
The 5xxx satellites have been launched since mission 4-35.
Individual 4xxx were still launched. At mission 5-1 there were only 3 satellites with 4xxx serial numbers.

About 2000 Gen2 satellites with 43° and 53° inclination are to be equipped with  direct-to-cellular payload. (1.9GHz range)
Probably later the heavier series.

Version 2 has been used by Elon on a couple of occasions, notably in everday astronaut interviews. It's also in multiple FCC filings.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/tskelso/status/1610705159457509377

CelesTrak has GP data for 58 objects from the launch (2022-177) of 54 #Starlink Group 5-1 satellites from Cape Canaveral on Dec 28 at 0934 UTC: celestrak.org/NORAD/elements…. GP matching against the SupGP data shows good orbits for all but 1 satellite: https://celestrak.org/NORAD/elements/supplemental/starlink.match.txt

[Chinakpradhan]

https://twitter.com/tskelso/status/1610705159457509377

CelesTrak has GP data for 58 objects from the launch (2022-177) of 54 #Starlink Group 5-1 satellites from Cape Canaveral on Dec 28 at 0934 UTC: celestrak.org/NORAD/elements…. GP matching against the SupGP data shows good orbits for all but 1 satellite: https://celestrak.org/NORAD/elements/supplemental/starlink.match.txt

why 58?? 1-2 is Starlink tension rods but 4 more than 58 how?? Any debris from mission??

[Comga]

CelesTrak has GP data for 58 objects from the launch (2022-177) of 54 #Starlink Group 5-1 satellites from Cape Canaveral on Dec 28 at 0934 UTC: celestrak.org/NORAD/elements…. GP matching against the SupGP data shows good orbits for all but 1 satellite:

why 58?? 1-2 is Starlink tension rods but 4 more than 58 how?? Any debris from mission??

Starlink launches each use four tensioning rods.
Look at the orbital decay charts from jcm, etc. for any previous Starlink launch.