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

[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?