Dillon@Dillonshrop06🚨Following the Successful Launch of Starlink 6-90 from Florida, much of the Middle-South USA region will have a chance to witness the De-orbit sequence Times ↓ Venting Start 2132:00 UTC Venting End 2335:30 UTC SDe-Orbit Burn 2335:35 UTC What To Expect ↓ A fuzzy "orb-like" appearance propagating from Northwest to Southeast across the sky prior to a "puff of smoke" often appearing as a smoke ring advancing the 2nd Stage Who Is Eligible To View ↓ The interactive Event Map highlights the region where you can view the event at >5 degrees above the horizon 🗒️ It is possible for areas slightly outside the shaded area to view this event if atmospheric conditions absolutely permit it Event Map🔗→https://bit.ly/45JI59x
SpaceX@SpaceXDeployment of 29 @Starlink satellites confirmed
SpaceX@SpaceXFalcon 9 launches 29 @Starlink satellites from Florida
Liftoff from pad 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station occurred shortly before sunset at 5:01 p.m. EST (2201 UTC). The liftoff broke the pad turnaround record for SpaceX, following close on the heels of the NROL-77 mission, two days, two hours, 44 minutes and 55 seconds earlier. The previous record of two days seven hour 29 minutes and 10 seconds was set back in October.
Kiko Dontchev@TurkeyBeaver#161Congrats to the @SpaceX Falcon pad and final integration team for setting a new launch to launch record!!! 50 hours and 44 minutes from the NROL-77 launch to SL6-90 at Pad 40. The rocket was actually ready to fly at roughly 40 hours, but we needed to wait for the optimal deployment t-zero. Love seeing us continue to improve on our speed, efficiency, safety and reliability!We once thought it was crazy town to launch from the same pad in two days. Now it feels crazy not to be launching from the same pad multiple times a day. 🚀🚀🚀Physics is the only constraint. Everything else is just an engineering challenge waiting to be solved.
So, the 2-hour wait wasn't caused by rushing the LV to the Pad or missing something. The "optimal deployment t-zero" criteria caused the delay.QuoteKiko DontchevCongrats to the @SpaceX Falcon pad and final integration team for setting a new launch to launch record!!! 50 hours and 44 minutes from the NROL-77 launch to SL6-90 at Pad 40. The rocket was actually ready to fly at roughly 40 hours, but we needed to wait for the optimal deployment t-zero. Love seeing us continue to improve on our speed, efficiency, safety and reliability!We once thought it was crazy town to launch from the same pad in two days. Now it feels crazy not to be launching from the same pad multiple times a day. 🚀🚀🚀Physics is the only constraint. Everything else is just an engineering challenge waiting to be solved.
Kiko DontchevCongrats to the @SpaceX Falcon pad and final integration team for setting a new launch to launch record!!! 50 hours and 44 minutes from the NROL-77 launch to SL6-90 at Pad 40. The rocket was actually ready to fly at roughly 40 hours, but we needed to wait for the optimal deployment t-zero. Love seeing us continue to improve on our speed, efficiency, safety and reliability!We once thought it was crazy town to launch from the same pad in two days. Now it feels crazy not to be launching from the same pad multiple times a day. 🚀🚀🚀Physics is the only constraint. Everything else is just an engineering challenge waiting to be solved.
Quote from: catdlr on 12/12/2025 02:44 amSo, the 2-hour wait wasn't caused by rushing the LV to the Pad or missing something. The "optimal deployment t-zero" criteria caused the delay.https://x.com/TurkeyBeaver/status/1999320947283624438QuoteKiko Dontchev@TurkeyBeaver#161Congrats to the @SpaceX Falcon pad and final integration team for setting a new launch to launch record!!! 50 hours and 44 minutes from the NROL-77 launch to SL6-90 at Pad 40. The rocket was actually ready to fly at roughly 40 hours, but we needed to wait for the optimal deployment t-zero. Love seeing us continue to improve on our speed, efficiency, safety and reliability!We once thought it was crazy town to launch from the same pad in two days. Now it feels crazy not to be launching from the same pad multiple times a day. 🚀🚀🚀Physics is the only constraint. Everything else is just an engineering challenge waiting to be solved.I replied to that post on X with an assumption that waiting for the optimal payload deployment may have been the cause of more than half of Starlink launch slips.Weather and ground issues have definitely played a factor in Starlink launch slips, but now I feel that percentage is less than waiting for the optimal payload deployment.
So, the 2-hour wait wasn't caused by rushing the LV to the Pad or missing something. The "optimal deployment t-zero" criteria caused the delay.https://x.com/TurkeyBeaver/status/1999320947283624438QuoteKiko Dontchev@TurkeyBeaver#161Congrats to the @SpaceX Falcon pad and final integration team for setting a new launch to launch record!!! 50 hours and 44 minutes from the NROL-77 launch to SL6-90 at Pad 40. The rocket was actually ready to fly at roughly 40 hours, but we needed to wait for the optimal deployment t-zero. Love seeing us continue to improve on our speed, efficiency, safety and reliability!We once thought it was crazy town to launch from the same pad in two days. Now it feels crazy not to be launching from the same pad multiple times a day. 🚀🚀🚀Physics is the only constraint. Everything else is just an engineering challenge waiting to be solved.
Quote from: ZachS09 on 12/12/2025 03:00 amQuote from: catdlr on 12/12/2025 02:44 amSo, the 2-hour wait wasn't caused by rushing the LV to the Pad or missing something. The "optimal deployment t-zero" criteria caused the delay.https://x.com/TurkeyBeaver/status/1999320947283624438QuoteKiko Dontchev@TurkeyBeaver#161Congrats to the @SpaceX Falcon pad and final integration team for setting a new launch to launch record!!! 50 hours and 44 minutes from the NROL-77 launch to SL6-90 at Pad 40. The rocket was actually ready to fly at roughly 40 hours, but we needed to wait for the optimal deployment t-zero. Love seeing us continue to improve on our speed, efficiency, safety and reliability!We once thought it was crazy town to launch from the same pad in two days. Now it feels crazy not to be launching from the same pad multiple times a day. 🚀🚀🚀Physics is the only constraint. Everything else is just an engineering challenge waiting to be solved.I replied to that post on X with an assumption that waiting for the optimal payload deployment may have been the cause of more than half of Starlink launch slips.Weather and ground issues have definitely played a factor in Starlink launch slips, but now I feel that percentage is less than waiting for the optimal payload deployment.I agree with you. But my personal impression is that launch slips during the Window due to "optimal payload deployment" were due to Collision Avoidance, and they had to find an opportunity that allowed safe passage to orbit. These Starlink launches always have a dozen or more opportunities, more than any other launches. I was always wondering why so many are available. Now we know.
Collision avoidance in regards to other Starlinks in orbit, which is ironic.
Quote from: ZachS09 on 12/12/2025 03:12 amCollision avoidance in regards to other Starlinks in orbit, which is ironic.Since Starlinks comprise more than half the satellites in orbit, we would expect them to create more than half of the collision avoidance problem. At least SpaceX intends to move to bigger satellites, which provide much more bandwidth without needing more satellites. I suspect they max out at about 40,000 satellites, but bandwidth will continue to increase as the satellites are replaced.It gets a lot worse as additional constellations are launched.
Michael Nicolls@michaelnicollsxWhen satellite operators do not share ephemeris for their satellites, dangerously close approaches can occur in space. A few days ago, 9 satellites were deployed from a launch from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in Northwestern China. As far as we know, no coordination or deconfliction with existing satellites operating in space was performed, resulting in a 200 meter close approach between one of the deployed satellites and STARLINK-6079 (56120) at 560 km altitude. Most of the risk of operating in space comes from the lack of coordination between satellite operators - this needs to change.4:01 PM · Dec 12, 2025
Jonathan McDowell@planet4589Looks like 56120 and 67001 came close around 0642:04 UTC Dec 12, 1600 km SW of Baja, based on the TLEs. We don't know which sat of the 9 launched by LJ-1 is the one the US is tracking as 67001. @michaelnicollsx
Jonathan McDowell@planet4589The response by @cas_space which seems reasonable. Launch coordination can't account for satellite positions two days after launch. SpaceX's normal position is "we avoid automatically using the TLEs". So is the real problem that the TLEs don't come out soon enough?
CAS Space@cas_spaceIf confirmed, this incident occurred nearly 48 hours after payload separation, by which time the launch mission had long concluded. CAS Space will coordinate with satellite operators to proceed. This calls for re-establishing collaborations between the two New Space ecosystems.
Our team is currently in contact for more details. All CAS Space launches select their launch windows using the ground-based space awareness system to avoid collisions with known satellites/debris. This is a mandatory procedure. We will work on identifying the exact details and provide assistance as the LSP.
Sawyer Merritt@SawyerMerritt·Dec 12SpaceX is on track to surpass 10,000 @Starlink satellites in orbit by February 2026.Starlink V3 will be 20kW and launched at scale around Q4 next year:• Gigabit connectivity• Will add 60 Tera-bits-per-second of downlink capacity to the Starlink network• 20X the capacity
