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

[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.