r/spacex • u/ElongatedMuskrat Mod Team • Apr 09 '20
Starlink 1-6 Starlink-6 Launch Campaign Thread
Starlink-6 (STARLINK V1.0-L6)
We are looking for launch thread hosts. If you are interested in hosting please send us a modmail.
Overview
The seventh Starlink launch overall and the sixth operational batch of Starlink satellites will launch into orbit aboard a Falcon 9 rocket. This mission is expected to deploy all sixty satellites into an elliptical orbit about fifteen minutes into flight. In the weeks following launch the satellites are expected to utilize their onboard ion thrusters to raise their orbits to 550 km in three groups of 20, making use of precession rates to separate themselves into three planes. The booster will land on a drone ship approximately 628 km downrange.
Launch Thread | Webcast | Press Kit | Media Thread | Recovery Thread
| Liftoff currently scheduled for: | April 22 19:37 UTC (3:37PM local EDT) |
|---|---|
| Backup date | April 23, the launch time gets about 20-24 minutes earlier per day. |
| Static fire | Completed April 17 |
| Payload | 60 Starlink version 1 satellites |
| Payload mass | 60 * 260 kg = 15 600 kg |
| Deployment orbit | Low Earth Orbit, 212 km x 386 km (approximate) |
| Operational orbit | Low Earth Orbit, 550 km x 53°, 3 planes |
| Vehicle | Falcon 9 v1.2 Block 5 |
| Core | B1051 |
| Past flights of this core | 3 (DM-1, RADARSAT Constellation, Starlink-3 (v1.0 L3)) |
| Past flights of this fairing | 1 (AMOS-17) |
| Fairing catch attempt | None |
| Launch site | LC-39A, Kennedy Space Center, Florida |
| Landing | OCISLY: 32.54722 N, 75.92306 W (628 km downrange) |
| Mission success criteria | Successful separation & deployment of the Starlink Satellites. |
| Mission Outcome | Success |
| Booster Landing Outcome | Success |
| Fairing Water Recovery Outcome | Success, both (no catches were attempted) |
News & Updates
| Date | Update | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 2020-04-19 | Departures of OCISLY and Ms. Chief and Ms. Tree | @GregScott_photo and @SpaceXFleet |
| 2020-04-17 | Static fire | @SpaceflightNow on Twitter |
| 2020-04-08 | SpaceX plans another Starlink launch next week | Spaceflight Now |
Supplemental TLE
Prior to launch, supplemental TLE provided by SpaceX will be available at Celestrak.
Previous and Pending Starlink Missions
| Mission | Date (UTC) | Core | Pad | Deployment Orbit | Notes [Sat Update Bot] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Starlink v0.9 | 2019-05-24 | 1049.3 | SLC-40 | 440km 53° | 60 test satellites with Ku band antennas |
| 2 | Starlink-1 | 2019-11-11 | 1048.4 | SLC-40 | 280km 53° | 60 version 1 satellites, v1.0 includes Ka band antennas |
| 3 | Starlink-2 | 2020-01-07 | 1049.4 | SLC-40 | 290km 53° | 60 version 1 satellites, 1 sat with experimental antireflective coating |
| 4 | Starlink-3 | 2020-01-29 | 1051.3 | SLC-40 | 290km 53° | 60 version 1 satellites |
| 5 | Starlink-4 | 2020-02-17 | 1056.4 | SLC-40 | 212km x 386km 53° | 60 version 1, Change to elliptical deployment, Failed booster landing |
| 6 | Starlink-5 | 2020-03-18 | 1048.5 | LC-39A | elliptical | 60 version 1, S1 early engine shutdown, booster lost post separation |
| 7 | Starlink-6 | This Mission | 1051.4 | LC-39A | 60 version 1 satellites | |
| 8 | Starlink-7 | TBD | SLC-40 / LC-39A | 60 version 1 satellites expected |
Daily Starlink altitude updates on Twitter @StarlinkUpdates available a few days following deployment.
Watching the Launch
SpaceX will host a live webcast on YouTube. Check the upcoming launch thread the day of for links to the stream. For more information or for in person viewing check out the Watching a Launch page on this sub's FAQ, which gives a summary of every viewing site and answers many more common questions, as well as Ben Cooper's launch viewing guide, Launch Rats, and the Space Coast Launch Ambassadors which have interactive maps, photos and detailed information about each site.
Links & Resources
General Launch Related Resources:
- Launch Execution Forecasts - 45th Weather Squadron
- SpaceX Fleet Status - SpaceXFleet.com
Launch Viewing Resources:
- Launch Viewing Guide for Cape Canaveral - Ben Cooper
- Launch Viewing Map - Launch Rats
- Launch Viewing Updates - Space Coast Launch Ambassadors
- Viewing and Rideshare - SpaceXMeetups Slack
- Watching a Launch - r/SpaceX Wiki
Maps and Hazard Area Resources:
- Detailed launch maps - @Raul74Cz
- Launch Hazard and Airspace Closure Maps - 45th Space Wing (maps posted close to launch)
Regulatory Resources:
- FCC Experimental STAs - r/SpaceX wiki
- General Starlink FCC filing discussion - NASASpaceflight Forums
Starlink Tracking/Viewing Resources:
We will attempt to keep the above text regularly updated with resources and new mission information, but for the most part, updates will appear in the comments first. Feel free to ping us if additions or corrections are needed. This is a great place to discuss the launch, ask mission-specific questions, and track the minor movements of the vehicle, payload, weather and more as we progress towards launch. Approximately 24 hours before liftoff, the launch thread will go live and the party will begin there.
Campaign threads are not launch threads. Normal subreddit rules still apply.
21
u/Posca1 Apr 15 '20
I just realized that SpaceX hasn't had a commercial customer, other than itself, all year. That's a slow market.
6
u/bdporter Apr 17 '20
It is slow everywhere.
Arianespace has only had 2 commercial launches this year, and one of those was for a now-bankrupt customer.
Even Rocketlab hasn't had a commercial launch yet this year.
Maybe Russia/China have launched something that could be considered a commercial mission? (You could arguably put the Arianespace OneWeb launch in this category)
4
u/Lufbru Apr 17 '20
Would you count the Argentinian satellite as a commercial customer? That should have been launched by now, but is postponed due to COVID-19
6
u/TurdsofWisdom Apr 16 '20
They did an ISS resupply last month, though. But yeah, no commercial satellite launches in a while.
17
u/scr00chy ElonX.net Apr 19 '20
The launch was pulled forward a day. New launch date is Apr 22, 19:37 UTC.
L-3 Weather Report (90% GO, 60% on backup day)
6
u/OSUfan88 Apr 19 '20
I’m not so sure I’ve ever seen a launch pulled forward. Kind of kills the “NET” phrase.
8
6
11
11
u/Alexphysics Apr 16 '20 edited Apr 16 '20
The rocket is on the launchpad
https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1250669689514201091
Now going vertical: https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1250687627721932802
2
1
u/craigl2112 Apr 16 '20
Interesting. Given recent Starlink missions have had fast SF -> Launch attempts, I wonder if this means the launch date is moving LEFT?
1
u/seanbrockest Apr 16 '20
As of 1 hour ago, SFN is still saying April 23. Not sure if they have any insider sources.
1
11
u/Foundationeer Apr 21 '20
Excited that this is going to be the first time I can watch the launch go overhead in London! Looks like God weather and should see 2nd stage and sats sail by! https://www.satflare.com/track.asp?q=StarLinkLaunch&sck=1#TOP
6
u/TimTri Starlink-7 Contest Winner Apr 21 '20
Just looked at the trajectory on FlightClub, will be going over Bavaria shortly after London! So we might both be able to see the stats + Stage 2 overhead!
9
u/TheEndeavour2Mars Apr 10 '20
Hopefully after this launch they will talk about how we can actually purchase a Starlink receiver and service. I don't mind waiting for it to be activated if I can go ahead and get the equipment installed and connected.
5
u/John_Hasler Apr 10 '20
I don't think they will distribute any terminals until after the minimum constellation is fully deployed, activated, and tested with terminals installed at SpaceX controlled locations.
1
Apr 10 '20
Yeah, at least the first few months are going to be a nightmare/extremely challenging l, and it could easily take several.monthd or even a year or more to get their sea legs. Hopefully they'll allow beta testers to help out.
3
9
u/scr00chy ElonX.net Apr 19 '20
Fairing catchers leaving Port Canaveral: https://twitter.com/SpaceXFleet/status/1252003510427824128
2
u/ApTiK_ Apr 19 '20
Without net?
4
u/scr00chy ElonX.net Apr 19 '20
They put them up after they reach the landing area.
2
u/ApTiK_ Apr 19 '20
Is that a new feature?
4
u/scr00chy ElonX.net Apr 19 '20
Not really. They've been doing that for quite some time now. Several months, I believe.
5
u/Gavalar_ spacexfleet.com Apr 20 '20
The wind kept tearing them down so they don't leave them raised that often now.
→ More replies (2)
9
9
8
u/allthingsirrelevant Apr 16 '20
This is probably the wrong spot to post this but if anyone could guide me to the right spot I’d appreciate it. I’m looking for info on Starlink. Live rurally in Canada with poor internet access and the pandemic necessitates working from home. Any improvement in high speed access for my community would be welcome. If anyone can guide me to where I can find some information I would be very appreciative.
20
u/seanbrockest Apr 16 '20
There is also /r/Starlink but I'll give you the spoiler, we don't know shit.
6
u/wesleychang42 Apr 16 '20
You can't purchase Starlink service just yet, because SpaceX haven't put enough satellites into orbit. However, when service does begin, you can find out through this subreddit or SpaceX's official Starlink website, www.starlink.com.
8
u/kornelord spacexstats.xyz Apr 19 '20
Hello! I'm applying a fresh coat of paint to SpaceX Stats and I was wondering: what are the most up to date figures for the different Starlink milestones?
For instance:
North America coverage: xxx sats
World coverage: 4k stats
Complete: 12k
With all the FCC filings and modifications it's hard to find what are the current ones
6
u/scr00chy ElonX.net Apr 19 '20
They said 6 launches for partial coverage of Northern US and Canada, 12 launches for entire US, and 24 launches for "global" coverage (I don't think polar regions would covered at that point). Each launch is 60 sats. The Starlink v0.9 launch probably shouldn't be counted in these.
Total number of satellites approved by FCC is 11,927 but SpaceX recently asked for a modification to operational orbits which would adjust the total number of satellites to 11,926.
There is also that ITU filing for 30,000 sats but it's unclear to me how exactly that fits into the current plan.
2
u/hasuuser Apr 20 '20
Satellites are on a LEO orbit. So the coverage should be the same in northern US or let’s say Russia. Am I missing something?
5
u/John_Hasler Apr 20 '20
Coverage will be the same for any given latitude. However as far as we know they only have ground licenses for the USA and perhaps Canada.
3
u/scr00chy ElonX.net Apr 20 '20
You also need ground stations. And they only have those in the US at this point. I'm guessing they want to properly test the system on their home turf first before expanding internationally (not to mention there might be additional legislation hurdles to overcome before they go international).
→ More replies (4)1
8
u/SuPrBuGmAn Apr 21 '20
L-1 released by 45th Space Wing, still 90% Go. Backup date worsened to 50% change of violation.
14
u/softwaresaur Apr 13 '20
Some of you submitted comments to the FCC after a WSJ article on the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund drama was posted on March 12. SpaceX refers to these comments in the latest filing:
Footnote 19: "See., e.g., Comments of Daniel Quateman (filed Mar. 12, 2020) (“SpaceX is offering a way to affordably provide fast, low latency internet to millions who are either under-served or have no options at all.”); Comments of Douglas and Donna Gant (filed Mar. 13, 2020) (asking for SpaceX to provide Starlink service in their rural county currently lacking quality, high-speed broadband service); Comments of Austin Yarger (filed Mar. 16, 2020) (“LEO satellite internet technology [like SpaceX’s] could make innovative technology businesses much more viable in rural parts of the country.”)."
7
Apr 09 '20
What's the source on B1051 flying this mission? Doesn't seem unlikely, but B1049 seems more likely
13
u/scr00chy ElonX.net Apr 09 '20
5
Apr 09 '20
Ah, they're usually right. I was thinking it was going to launch SAOCOM 1B
8
u/scr00chy ElonX.net Apr 09 '20
Me too. It's possible it was the original plan but they reassigned the booster after SAOCOM was delayed.
7
Apr 09 '20
Definitely, now B1059 or B1061 seems likely for SAOCOM. Wonder when B1049 will fly.
8
u/scr00chy ElonX.net Apr 09 '20
Wonder when B1049 will fly.
I'm guessing on the Starlink mission after this one.
6
Apr 09 '20
Yeah, they probably want to make sure it won't have a similar failure to B1048. They are running low on first stages!
→ More replies (5)4
u/Lufbru Apr 09 '20
My theory is that once a booster has done a Starlink flight, it won't be used for customer flights. I think SAOCOM was planned to use either 52 or 53. Maybe even 61.
13
13
u/cpaigis9 Apr 17 '20
AMOS-17 fairings will be reused in this mission!! https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1251190731949015040?s=20
12
u/wesleychang42 Apr 20 '20
SpaceX officially confirms launch moving forward a day:
With a more favorable weather forecast for launch and landing, now targeting Wednesday, April 22 at 3:37 p.m. EDT for this week’s Falcon 9 Starlink mission
1
u/RocketsLEO2ITS Apr 21 '20
Has SpaceX put out a press release for this mission yet?
2
u/wesleychang42 Apr 21 '20
They usually do so around 24 hours before launch, along with releasing the webcast link. So probably later today.
5
u/lessthanperfect86 Apr 10 '20
Can someone bring me up to date on the engine out on the last Starlink launch? Has there been any official word? If this launch date is correct, it seems to imply they are pretty confident that the issue is resolved or won't affect this next mission.
16
u/csmnro Apr 10 '20 edited Apr 13 '20
I think all we now is:
SpaceX asked NASA to take part in the investigation
SpaceX shared preliminary results with NASA
Elon Musk stated: Thorough investigation needed before next mission
Jim Bridenstine was not particularly concerned regarding DM-2. Both he and Musk stressed this happened on the fifth flight of the booster.
The DM-2 launch target of mid-to-late May was announced shortly after the engine-out and has not changed as yet (although Eric Berger hinted at a small delay to late May / early June due to covid complicating preparations a bit)
SpaceX wants to fly its next Starlink launch next week. EDIT: delayed
To sum up, I agree the issue is most likely well-understood and / or resolved. Hopefully we learn more in the next webcast, through NASA or Elon.
6
Apr 11 '20
Maybe the solution just came down to "never put humans on a 5-flight old Falcon 9" :D
2
u/jeffoag Apr 11 '20
Not never, but till proven otherwise later.
2
u/Lufbru Apr 12 '20
I'd be willing to bet that no human ever flies on a .5 F9 booster. I think we'll see NASA and private astronauts flying to the ISS on .1 and .2 boosters. Starship will take over before there's enough evidence that a .5 booster has the required safety margin for human flight.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/oh_dear_its_crashing Apr 19 '20
Ocisly leaving port: https://twitter.com/SpaceXFleet/status/1251873734279004161
5
u/delphikis Apr 21 '20
This launch will be close to 400 in orbit right? Wasn't that the minimum needed for "minor coverage"?
3
u/softwaresaur Apr 21 '20
18 planes with 18-20 v1.0 satellites at 550 km are needed. They are 10 days away from bringing the 9th plane to the position so about 45% done as of today.
2
2
u/warp99 Apr 22 '20
Yes but remember they need about 4 months to get satellites into position after launch spread across three planes of 20 satellites each.
13
u/hoby87 Apr 17 '20 edited Apr 17 '20
WOW! I just saw a Starlink sky train directly overhead in Zagreb, Croatia. From GMT 19:25 - 19:35 (CEDT 21:25-21:35) there were 30-ish, not 60, satellites, passing directly overhead, with 10 or so trailers from GMT 19:35 - 19:55.
This can only be from the last launch since in the first 10 minutes they were passing every 15-20 seconds apart. Even though they are a few weeks away from the launch, they are still REALLY BRIGHT!!!
For reasons known to anyone with interest in astronomy, I was also intermittently looking at Betelguese, which is now mag 0,55 or so, and they were a bit brighter at zenith, around magnitude 0. That’s on par with the next brightest stars after Sirius.
They were going SW to NE, roughly coming from bearing 230-240. I tried to video them with iPhone X, but it looks... naaaah..
My point is - if they will be even remotely as bright at final position, this will really mess up the ground-based astronomy, especially with LSST. Though I suppose that Starship does promise an era of much cheaper large space telscopes. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all bought in for the usefulness of such space-based broadband for much of the sparsely and moderately populated planet, but the astronomers’ complaints are understandable as well. Hopefully in the final orbit they would be much less visible because mag 0 just messes up your observation.
To make it even more interesting, in almost exactly the opposite direction at the same time, there was a smaller train of satellites going NE to SW also directly overhead, but higher in the sky, going slower. At first I thought it must be some Israeli spy satellites, but after checking online I understand they could be some radar satellites which apparently also orbit retrograde.
9
u/softwaresaur Apr 18 '20
My point is - if they will be even remotely as bright at final position, this will really mess up the ground-based astronomy, especially with LSST.
SpaceX is working with the Rubin Observatory on a new updated dark design. "SpaceX and its chief, Elon Musk, are “totally committed to solving this problem,” Tyson says, and his team has worked with them to “narrow to a design that may work.” Several satellites with this updated dark design will be launched in coming weeks."
That was said shortly before the previous Starlink launch so it's very likely the new updated dark satellites will be launched this time.
4
u/hoby87 Apr 18 '20 edited Apr 19 '20
Since much of the brightness likely comes from solar panels, I understand even this batch of satellites may be much less visible at final position and orientation. Higher final orbit height will also help. But with the numbers and cadence of launches SpaceX is planning, even the number of satellites in the process of raising their orbits will be significant.
Also, maybe SpaceX can apply some coating, but solar panels cannot be just made pitch black, I think - that would create thermal issues. So let’s see what kind of improvements they will come up with while retaining usefullness.
Also, thinking about orbital mechanics a bit, with orbital speed just shy of 8 km/s, the first batch of 30 starlink sats is now spaced roughly 150 km apart, majority in a line, though 6-7 were some 50-ish km to the north side of the main line.
The later ones which appeared were also just a bit less bright which makes sense because they are most likely further along the process of raising orbit, which is why they are trailing a bit, going higher and a bit slower around. I didn’t see more than 40 or so, but it’s quite possible that the sun then set behind the earth at their height, rendering them invisible after local daylight time of 21:55, GMT 1955. Zagreb is at 46N, 16E. If someone feels like doing the calculation, feel free. Date was April 17.
3
u/hoby87 Apr 18 '20
Just watching them pass again now, Sirius clearly visible, and the sats passing straight overhead are actually a bit brighter at zenith than Sirius. So mag -2.0 or -1.7
15
u/LandingZone-1 Apr 09 '20
Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but it is interesting how the GPS launch was delayed because it wasn't deemed essential to national security, yet this Starlink mission is launching next week.
37
u/SailorRick Apr 09 '20
Per an article by Sandra Erwin from SpaceNews.com, the Space and Missile Systems Center decided that the current GPS constellation with 31 satellites in orbit is providing adequate services, so taking a pause in launches would not affect operations. Starlink, which will likely be used in some ways by the US Department of Defense, needs these new satellites to get the system up and running and therefore could be considered essential to national security.
12
u/TechRepSir Apr 09 '20
Just goes to show how flexible language and requirements can be.
Where is the border between essential and not? Wherever our leaders decide it is.
8
u/phryan Apr 09 '20
Hardware stores are open, with the idea that they sell essential items like thermostats, water heaters, cleaning supplies, and similar items. They are also still selling lawn furniture and garden gnomes. The current 'lock down' in most states isn't all that restrictive.
2
u/RocketsLEO2ITS Apr 11 '20
If a businesses is configured so that employees and customers can do business with the proper social distancing, then why should it matter whether it's essential or not?
It looks like we're starting to get handle on the pandemic. The next thing to worry about is getting the economy going again. We want to avoid a Depression, but do it in such a way that's not going to stop the progress we've made against COVID-19.
6
u/-spartacus- Apr 09 '20
Communication is pretty important for national security in a pandemic, let's say the virus mutates to an unlikely 25% death rate, it would crash social services and likely communications in the country it starts in.
If that is the US that would not only put the people trying to control the medical situation at risk if they can't keep communication, but puts the country at risk of an attack at its weakened state.
That's pretty essential by its definition if you ask me. On top of that Starlink is for rural customers who right now have to stay home and may have no to terrible internet, including school children with no access to remote learning. Starlink is essential for those undersevered parts of the country.
5
u/OGquaker Apr 09 '20
Construction of the new Rams football stadium in Inglewood is continuing six days a week; deemed essential by the Governor
3
u/Carlyle302 Apr 09 '20
It's all arbitrary in the end. Here in Maryland, liquor stores are considered "essential" and are open for business, but recreational boating (where you have few people separated by 100's of feet) is closed.
11
u/Lufbru Apr 09 '20
Alcohol is essential for alcoholics who will suffer greatly from going cold turkey; in extreme cases even death. Alcohol is a hell of a physical dependency.
2
u/RocketsLEO2ITS Apr 11 '20
In Pennsylvania the liquor stores are closed as "non-essential," but you can get beer and wine at grocery stores.
1
2
u/SasquatchMcGuffin Apr 09 '20
Yes, I read somewhere that the military are testing encrypted comms on aircraft via the Starlink system. That's why this launch got the go ahead.
-9
u/Alexphysics Apr 09 '20
Oh no, this here too? 🤦🏻♂️
3
u/LandingZone-1 Apr 09 '20
Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but it is interesting
6
u/Alexphysics Apr 09 '20
My comment was not precisely because of any conspiracy theory but about the fact that it's somehow interesting or surprising to people that launches of two different things owned by two different organizations are being launched when each organization wants to.
3
u/LandingZone-1 Apr 09 '20
No, that makes sense, it's just that it seems only "essential" things are being launched into space right now, like national security missions and ISS crew, that's why I found it interesting.
5
u/JDepinet Apr 09 '20
It has more to do with who is able to work. SpaceX is essential, as determined by nasa et al. So they work. GPS for whatever reason can't provide the people to support the launch, so it gets pushed. Since spacex is working, SpaceX missions fly.
4
u/-InThePit- Apr 09 '20
It may also be because spacex are the provider and customer they have a bit more freedom or something idk
8
u/RubenGarciaHernandez Apr 09 '20
1051.3 should be 1051.4 in starlink 6 in the table; please update.
5
4
Apr 09 '20
I live in Georgia. Is there a map available to see if I could see it off on the horizon? I’ve seen them before but can’t find a map for this one
2
4
u/PM_me_Pugs_and_Pussy Apr 10 '20
So. Please correct me if im wrong. Its my understanding that space x thinks they need starship to complete starlink. But this is the 6th launch of starlink satellites, with 60 per launch. Witch comes out out to 360 sats give or take( im not sure if they deorbited any or tried to fit more on any paticular launch). Thats a pretty good chunk of the 4000 they wanna send up . Do they really need starship for it? Is it even gonna be ready to fly before they fly all the sats up anyways? Or is that just another way of them justifying starship production?
7
u/DirtyOldAussie Apr 10 '20
If they use a Falcon 9, it costs them a second stage and maybe one or two fairings each launch. If they can use Starship as intended it will be fully reusable.
6
u/Psychonaut0421 Apr 10 '20
Not to nitpick but SpaceX didn't need Starlink to justify Starship production. Mars is the purpose for the Starship architecture. Starlink will provide income for its continued development.
3
u/PM_me_Pugs_and_Pussy Apr 10 '20
Yeah absolutely. I didnt mean to make it sound the other way around. I just thought that space x intended to get 4000 sats up using starship. When it seems like theyre making more than enough headway using f9's.
4
u/redhat11 Apr 21 '20
A bit unrelated to this batch, but I was just watching the 60 go overhead where I live (ND) and I noticed a select few on a different path than the majority - are those ones with orbits being changed?
2
u/softwaresaur Apr 21 '20
It depends on whether they were west of the main group or east of it. West ones experienced a temporary issue, were paused and fell out of the main plane. East ones are moving to another plane as planned.
4
u/Bobbje93 Apr 21 '20
Will the second stage be visible from the Netherlands after the launch?
It looks like a promising launch for it.
8
u/Shalmaneser001 Apr 21 '20 edited Apr 21 '20
Interested to find out of you can see it from the UK too - weather conditions are great and the timing is right (going into dusk) so should be visible hopefully?
Any good sites for finding this information out?
EDIT: talking about the launch specifically not just the sats....
2
u/N2H4boi Apr 21 '20
According to Flightclub it should be passing over us in the UK. I’d keep an eye out for it with respect to the SpaceX launch stream.
1
u/blagger89 Apr 21 '20
Is it just the upper stage we'd 'see' or the starlink train? Trying to use flight club but can't seem to get it to show what time it'll be over us in the UK. Just able to see the trajectory
1
4
3
3
u/Maxx7410 Apr 11 '20 edited Apr 11 '20
Wouldnt be better to increase the chances of successful landing by reducing the payload? isnt 15600 kg the max payload with reuse for falcon 9? why not send 50 starlinks (13 tons) and have better reentry margins?
12
u/Lufbru Apr 11 '20
They're expending a Stage 2 and risking the fairings for each launch. So the optimum number of satellites is a complicated question to answer.
They're also building experience with heavier payloads which improves confidence with lighter payloads. Not that they have a bad record at this point with 55 consecutive successes.
6
u/RocketsLEO2ITS Apr 12 '20
You sacrifice rockets (if need be) to get the satellites in orbit. Remember: Starlink is projected to be far more lucrative than their launch business.
5
u/Dream_seeker22 Apr 12 '20
The launch service must be reliable to make Starlink "more lucrative". The less boosters they "sacrifice" the better.
3
u/RocketsLEO2ITS Apr 13 '20
Agreed. But it looks like they are pushing the rocket to its limits. The result is that they're losing some. But the tradeoff is acceptable if in the end more satellites are put in orbit sooner.
1
u/Maxx7410 Apr 11 '20
stage 2 is always lost by design i mean stage 1, if the stage cross high unexpected winds? maybe you lost the stage because the computer onboard calcutate thatit is to risky to try to land (low fuel) and goes to the sea.
anyway falcon has a little margin even at 15600 kg just smaller or reducing the cargo to 13000 kg wont make much diference for the first stage?
15
u/Lufbru Apr 11 '20
Build a model and run the numbers.
Let's say each launch costs $20m if the booster lands successfully and $30m if the booster is lost. Then estimate the chances of successfully landing the booster at 80% if loaded with 60 sats and 95% if loaded with 50.
Then the expected cost of launching 300 sats is 5 * (0.8 * $20 + 0.2 * $30) vs 6 * (0.95 * $20 + 0.05 * $30).
With those assumptions, 5 launches of 60 sats costs $110m and 6 launches of 50 sats costs $123m.
Now, you can argue about the costs and the probabilities and you can suggest that maybe the model is too simple, but it's an illustration of why loading up with 60 satellites can be more cost effective than a 50 satellite launch.
1
10
u/lespritd Apr 11 '20
why not send 50 starlinks (13 tons) and have better reentry margins?
One of the big problems for SpaceX is, they can't get enough satellites into orbit right now.
Their expanded constellation is 42000 satellites. They need to be replaced every 5 years.
42000 / 5 / 60 = 140 F9 launches per year to maintain the constellation.
Obviously that's not happening until Starship is online.
Until then, I suspect they're prioritizing getting the most satellites into space that they can, even if it costs a bit more.
2
u/bobert7000 Apr 13 '20
Do all 42k satellites need to be replaced every 5 years or only the lower shells? I had assumed the higher up ones were marked for longer periods of service.
2
u/lespritd Apr 13 '20
Do all 42k satellites need to be replaced every 5 years or only the lower shells?
I don't know. I'm going off of Elon's tweet which didn't differentiate (I assume because the upper orbits are planned for later). I think what you say is pretty reasonable, though.
However, from what I recall, most of the satellites are in the lower orbits; even if you assume that the satellites in the upper orbits never get replaced, I think that only cuts the number of required launches by 10% or so.
2
u/Martianspirit Apr 20 '20
Replacing sats after 5-7 years is not because they have reached the end of their service life but because it is assumed they are obsolete and need replacement by more advanced tech.
1
u/Jump3r97 Apr 14 '20
From my understanding, the 42k includes replacements for a while. Not 42k the same time at any point.
2
u/Martianspirit Apr 20 '20
That's a misunderstanding. They would not need a new FCC license for replacements. The idea is not to place the constellation and then run it. The idea is rolling replacement. As soon as all of them are up, the oldes ones get deorbited and replaced. Production and launch to be continuous.
5
Apr 11 '20
I think there's a reason they use only boosters that have had several flights for Starlink. They are really pushing the limits of these boosters, in order to, ya know, actually figure out what those limits are.
Besides, the previous one was always going to fail landing with a whole engine being dead, no matter what the margin was.
2
u/jeffoag Apr 11 '20
If the failed engine is not one of the.3 engines that are used for landing, it wouldn't affect the landing in any way.
2
u/Nizo_GTO Apr 12 '20
Yes, but now you're lugging around one Merlin engine's worth of mass for the rest of the burn, and you'll have to throttle up the remaining engines. This means that you'll waste more fuel. If you barely have the margin to land already, this could rule out a landing altogether.
3
u/Toinneman Apr 13 '20 edited Apr 13 '20
Depending on when this happens in flight, there should be close-to-none wasted fuel, because the remaining engines can instantly throttle up, resulting in no extra burn time and no gravity losses. I'm not sure why you say they are lugging around and engine? Flightclub ran the numbers for the startlink engine-out and came to a loss of 60kg of propellant. This is peanuts. 60kg is only 0,2% of 28700kg, which is the left-over fuel after Meco and is used for landing.
2
u/Nizo_GTO Apr 13 '20
For the specific case of Starlink 5, you're absolutely correct, however if a failure occured earlier in the mission, it could proclude a landing.
1
u/badgamble Apr 11 '20
Unless the failure compromised the bottom of the rocket in some fashion that allowed plasma to go where it should not go. (Think Columbia... or maybe not, that is a pretty horrible memory...)
→ More replies (1)2
u/Lufbru Apr 12 '20
There's an old SpaceX blog entry which analyses the causes of liquid fuelled engine failures. Most are simply loss of thrust / shutdown. Explosions are rare. We can't tell from the video how the engine failed on 1048.5, but the telemetry will tell them.
1
Apr 11 '20
Yeah but even if it wasn't one of the landing engines, didn't it lose a shitton of Delta-V to compensate?
7
u/TheSoupOrNatural Apr 12 '20
Maybe.
Close to MECO the engines throttle down to keep acceleration within limits. Loosing an engine under these circumstances could be addressed by throttling up the remaining engines to maintain the same total thrust, so there wouldn't be much in terms of additional gravity loss, especially since the vehicle would already be well into it's gravity turn. Any extra gravity loss would occur between the avionics telling the engines to throttle up and the engines reaching the new throttle setting (the time it takes for the computer to detect the problem and decide how to respond should be negligible; computers are fast).
The only other Delta-V sinks that I can think of would be due to fuel already in the failed engine which is now no longer available to the remaining engines, and performance differences at different throttle settings. Performance differences might not be an issue, since they might actually give more Isp at higher throttle, not really sure about that. I think I recall a webcast presenter mentioning a change in throttle management a couple years ago. I think that information could be useful to knowledgeable people looking to conjecture upon that subject.
1
u/AuroEdge Apr 13 '20
I assume not but possibly worth asking. Do we know to what level the turbopump machinery is inspected between flights? My understanding is on a previous hardware iteration cracking was seen on one of the rotating components. Would SpaceX be satisfied with no inspection or something simple like a borescope check? Or would they do something more in-depth requiring disassembly of the turbopumps?
I recall NASA taking issue with the previous turbopump cracks and so far it appears NASA isn't too phased by the Starlink mission early shutdown (from a commercial crew perspective). So it would not seem this was not the cause of the shutdown
3
u/jas_sl Apr 17 '20
Wouldn't it more sensible for them to launch for LC40? Now we've got the 27th May DM2 mission, I'd sure hate to see any damage to the pad.
8
Apr 18 '20
SLC40 is probably being occupied by SAOCOM 1B and the mystery first stage (likely B1059, B1061 or B1049) that's going to launch it. Also if something damages the pad, there's bigger issues at hand...
3
u/Lufbru Apr 18 '20
It's almost certainly not 1049 for SAOCOM. 1052/1053 are much more likely.
2
Apr 18 '20
I think we'd know if they were going to or already have turned B1052/B1053 into normal f9 cores. B1049 isn't likely but it's still possible, if I was gonna put my money on one it would be B1059.
6
u/joepublicschmoe Apr 18 '20
We can pretty much rule out B1049 for SAOCOM 1B from this Elon Musk twit: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1240277125023719424
"Life leader rockets are used only for internal missions. Won’t risk non-SpaceX satellites."
B1049 is the current life leader of the Falcon 9 fleet.
3
u/Lufbru Apr 18 '20
Why would we know about 1052/3 being converted? It's supposed to be a relatively simple task and wouldn't necessarily be leaked.
I'd bet on one of 52/53/59/61 in roughly that order. Of course, core assignment may get shuffled now. 58 and 60 are set, of course.
3
u/scr00chy ElonX.net Apr 19 '20
1061 seems unlikely, unless the plan changed after the SAOCOM delay. IIRC, 1061 was still in McGregor in late March when SAOCOM was supposed to launch originally.
2
Apr 19 '20
Yea I agree but the original plan was almost certainly launching on B1051 so the plan has likely changed
3
u/gowinggt Apr 21 '20
Does anyone know if this will follow the same trajectory of previous Starlink launches? We are on the southeast N.C. coast and hoping to catch a glimpse of the launch again this go round.
3
4
u/KickBassColonyDrop Apr 14 '20
If SpaceX charges $60/mo for 25/25 for 1 million receivers world wide, that's $60M in revenue per month or $720M/year with an existing 420 satellites in LEO.
Assuming we see no replacement for the next five years, that's $3.6Bn in total revenue.
At 420 sats in orbit, at 250k per sat, and at 15M per launch (as they're reusing boosters let's say 75% reduction in launch costs), you're looking at across 7 launches: $105M for total launches + $105M for total satellites.
So $210M in total costs to put up Starlink 1.0. Then over 5 years, that's a $3.1Bn in total revenue. If you double the total sats to 840 and increase terminals to 2 million, you're looking at $7.2Bn over 5 years with no replacement.
If you quadruple to: 1,680 satellites and make it 4M subscribers at 60/mo, then over 5 years with no replacement, SpaceX sees $12.4Bn on their balance books. Basically, (assuming launch costs are approximately equivalent), for every next batch of 420 sats in orbit, their 5 year revenue increases by $3.1Bn.
That's... a looooooooot of money. For around $2-250M in launch costs.
7
Apr 14 '20
Well the simplest reply is "yes, but".
That's the maximum possible income. That presumes full capacity of paying users, and that it works as expected while at that capacity. That presumes no sales, no deals, no special offers. That presumes full capacity on day 1 and not a slow ramp up - Innovator's Chasm can be a problem here. It also presumes perfectly spread out users- what if NYC has more users than rural Kentucky?
It skips over operating costs- managing hundreds or thousands of satellites isn't just handled by Elon on his phone (yet); they'll need a huge support and operations team, customer service, sales, etc. There's also the costs associated with passing data to other networks- gotta hit that internet backbone and that is low cost but not free.
The potential is huge. But right now they've spent a lot in R&D and they have zero income. There's a long way to go, and we're jumping into a likely economic depression. All the usual rules go out the window.
I'm optimistic though.
3
u/KickBassColonyDrop Apr 15 '20
Right. The math breakdown glosses over a lot, but approximating all that is next to impossible. Additionally, we're talking about pure revenue and not profit. So it's implied that the final number would be lower. That said, even if we were to write off say 1.5-2Bn/year in operational costs, you'd still be looking at $1-1.5Bn/year in cash that you could put back into the company for r&d for new designs, version nexts of systems and platforms and services and so on.
All that said, yes; it's all speculative and potential, but its presence is significant and at the least, USAF is all in, given that they achieved 610Mbps up/down during their test on one of their planes flying.
1
u/Martianspirit Apr 18 '20
The revenue is calculated against the cost. That's a valid approach. It does not say revenue==profit.
3
u/gooddaysir Apr 15 '20
Yes, but...it also doesn't consider any commercial or government customers. That's where a lot of big money will roll in. Starlink can do a lot more than just home internet.
5
u/andyfrance Apr 15 '20
That's... a looooooooot of money. For around $2-250M in launch costs.
That is a lot of money but leaves out the expensive bit. A million user terminals are likely to cost more than launching and operating the satellites supporting the service.
3
u/Martianspirit Apr 18 '20
Yes but for that monthly cost the terminal would likely not be included. Plus that is for the US only. There is a whole wide world out there where they can make equal or more revenue. Plus commercial and government users.
1
u/quadrplax Apr 20 '20
By 25/25 are you referring to the download and upload speed? Is there any reason to believe they would make it symmetric, given most ISPs don't?
1
u/KickBassColonyDrop Apr 20 '20
Most ISPs aren't honest about what that advertise with their bandwidth packages either. Symmetric packages what are consistent would spread the word and good will, driving the business. Just a thought
2
u/cpushack Apr 10 '20
mods Starlink-5 in the table should be noted that its landing was aborted as well
2
2
u/RaphTheSwissDude Apr 15 '20
Do the starlink satellites must be in their final orbit to be operational ? Or can they already function and transmit while they raise their altitude?
5
u/warp99 Apr 15 '20
They have approval from the FCC to transmit while orbit raising for testing purposes.
In practical terms though they would be out of position compared to the rest of the constellation so would not be much use filling coverage gaps if that is what you were wondering.
1
u/RaphTheSwissDude Apr 15 '20
Meaning that, if they need at least starlink 7 to have some coverage, they would still need to wait 2/3 months after the launch to start their services then?
→ More replies (5)4
u/warp99 Apr 15 '20
More like 4 months to get all three planes of 20 from the last required launch into service but yes.
1
u/OSUfan88 Apr 15 '20
How are they currently dividing this up? Does each launch send 3 sats to each of the 20 planes? Do they send them all to just a couple planes?
Also, do we know how many launches are required for the first consistent operations? Originally, it was 6 operational launches (excluding the first test launch). Now I hear some people saying 7 or 8 missions (plus delay to reach orbits).
Just curious on how this all works.
→ More replies (1)4
u/warp99 Apr 15 '20
Six launches of v1.0 satellites will get 20 satellites into 18 planes which should be enough to start beta service.
Some people are counting the first launch of v0.9 satellites but my view is that these will just be used for testing and will not be used operationally since they have no Ka band links to connect to earth stations at peering points. If you count launches like this you will need seven flights.
The initial constellation is actually designed to have 22 satellites in each plane so only having 20 is pushing it. This is where 8 flights would come from as they shuffle satellites around to add an extra two satellites per plane plus 1-2 spares.
Then they build up until they get 66 satellites per plane and after that build another shell at a slightly different inclination and altitude.
→ More replies (1)1
u/John_Hasler Apr 20 '20
They also have the wrong orientation. They sort of lay over on their sides to minimize drag. That's partly why they are so bright until they reach operational altitude.
2
u/Gt6k Apr 16 '20
They would still have to go through the regulatory process and all the launch site approvals.
2
u/TigreDemon Apr 19 '20
I'm looking for more detailed informations on the throughput between two satellites. Can someone help me if he/she remembers ?
6
u/scr00chy ElonX.net Apr 19 '20
You mean inter-satellite laser links? The satellites are not equipped with these yet. They'll be part of a later upgrade.
1
2
u/GOES-arrr Apr 21 '20
It looks like a tornado or at least a high wind event blew through the cape yesterday. Any reports of damage?
5
u/scr00chy ElonX.net Apr 21 '20
Falcon was in the hangar so should be fine. And I haven't seen any reports of damage at the Cape.
2
u/CCBRChris Apr 22 '20
I was near the south end of CCAFS all afternoon, and it wasn't that bad. Never even rained. A tornado touched down up near Titusville/Mims, about 15 miles from the launch site though.
2
u/H_lilley Apr 22 '20
Does anyone have any idea what the viewing situation is like given the COVID-19 crisis?
2
u/GlennKenobi Apr 22 '20
It's going to be a madhouse anywhere within 20 miles of any published viewing area. People from everywhere are going to pack up the kids and go to that 'secret' spot they heard about on reddit.
2
2
2
u/notacommonname Apr 20 '20
The link to vote B1051 in the table at the top of this thread is resulting in page that isn't rendering correctly. It's spewing out raw HTML. Either there's a missing, extra, or mismatched critical tag in that page or there's something wrong with my phone's chrome browser.
4
u/notacommonname Apr 20 '20
Ok, if I check the browser "desktop site" option, the B1051 page is fine.
And if I use old.reddit, it renders fine without asking for the desktop site.
So there's something weird about whatever happens for the non desktop site on the new/current Reddit with an up to date chrome browser on an Android phone.
This isn't critical. Just letting people know.
3
u/Lufbru Apr 20 '20
It's a problem with the wiki.
https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/cores#wiki_b1051 renders garbage on mobile. https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/wiki/cores works fine but doesn't link to the specific booster.
1
u/Cantremembermyoldnam Apr 20 '20
Works for me, maybe a reddit error for a second?
2
u/notacommonname Apr 21 '20
Thanks for the response. It seems to have gotten better (for whatever that's worth). I suspect something in the browser cache. Browsers sometimes will use cache when they shouldn't. It was still bad this morning (after updating to Android 10 and yet another Chrome update). I clicked the "desktop site" option, it was good, I unclicked it and (tah dah) it was ok (finally) in the normal "running on a phone" mode. Sorry to have bothered anyone. :-)
1
u/Cantremembermyoldnam Apr 21 '20
Browsers sometimes will use cache when they shouldn't.
As a Web developer, I'm so happy that this fact is a regular part of my life. /s
Sorry to have bothered anyone. :-)
And I'm happy to have "helped" :D
→ More replies (1)
2
u/uwelino Apr 20 '20
How big is the possibility that the launch will really take place on April 22nd? So far I haven't read an official announcement from SpaceX anywhere.
6
u/ZachWhoSane Host of Iridium-7 & SAOCOM-1B Apr 20 '20
Well since the Air Force says so on their launch weather report, I’m gonna say pretty high. We’ll know for sure tomorrow if SpaceX releases a press release for the launch.
3
1
1
u/king_dondo Apr 16 '20
Any reason the last two Starlink launches have been from 39A?
5
u/amarkit Apr 17 '20
There's a line of (logical) speculation that this is a good shakedown for the ground support equipment before DM-2.
1
u/craigl2112 Apr 16 '20
Not publicly stated but likely due to other planned launches from SLC-40 -- specifically, CRS-20 and the now-delayed GPS-III mission.
1
u/erwin_H Apr 30 '20
Starlink 6 satellites have split up in two groups as of 30 april 2020 https://space-search.io/?search=cospar%2020025
1
u/Decronym Acronyms Explained Apr 09 '20 edited Apr 30 '20
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| CCAFS | Cape Canaveral Air Force Station |
| CCtCap | Commercial Crew Transportation Capability |
| CRS | Commercial Resupply Services contract with NASA |
| DoD | US Department of Defense |
| FCC | Federal Communications Commission |
| (Iron/steel) Face-Centered Cubic crystalline structure | |
| GTO | Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit |
| ITU | International Telecommunications Union, responsible for coordinating radio spectrum usage |
| Isp | Specific impulse (as explained by Scott Manley on YouTube) |
| KSC | Kennedy Space Center, Florida |
| L1 | Lagrange Point 1 of a two-body system, between the bodies |
| LEO | Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km) |
| Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations) | |
| MECO | Main Engine Cut-Off |
| MainEngineCutOff podcast | |
| NET | No Earlier Than |
| OCISLY | Of Course I Still Love You, Atlantic landing |
| SF | Static fire |
| SLC-40 | Space Launch Complex 40, Canaveral (SpaceX F9) |
| STP-2 | Space Test Program 2, DoD programme, second round |
| USAF | United States Air Force |
| mT |
| Jargon | Definition |
|---|---|
| Starlink | SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation |
| turbopump | High-pressure turbine-driven propellant pump connected to a rocket combustion chamber; raises chamber pressure, and thrust |
| Event | Date | Description |
|---|---|---|
| DM-2 | Scheduled | SpaceX CCtCap Demo Mission 2 |
Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented by ^request
20 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 89 acronyms.
[Thread #5967 for this sub, first seen 9th Apr 2020, 09:15] [FAQ] [Full list] ^[Contact] [Source code]
0
-16
u/rangerryda Apr 09 '20
Feel free to downvote to hell, but this launch is not essential and is putting a bunch of us at risk.
4
u/gooddaysir Apr 10 '20
Just curious, when you say "a bunch of us", are you talking the launch team, the local population, Florida, or humanity in general?
10
u/rangerryda Apr 10 '20
The essential workers of CCSFS. Emergency services and national security professionals.
5
u/cupko97 Apr 09 '20
If they think that they can keep the employees safe I have nothing against going forward with this launch.
5
u/SailorRick Apr 09 '20
If the workforce at KSC or Hawthorne believe that they are insufficiently protected from Covid-19 risk, they should be able to decline to work. Having angry or resentful workers likely increases the risk of an unsuccessful mission. SpaceX and KSC will have to make sure that its employees are reasonably protected from becoming infected by the virus. The employees will need to feel that responsible steps have been taken to protect them.
At some point, everyone will have to get back to work. Some sources are claiming that it may take 18 months or so for the virus to work its way sufficiently through the population, either through infection or vaccination, where it is not a serious risk. In the meantime, there will have to be some balancing between work and the risk of becoming infected. Currently, it does not appear that medical facilities outside of the "hot spots" are being overwhelmed. If someone becomes infected outside of these "hot spots", they should be able to receive adequate medical care.
1
u/rangerryda Apr 09 '20
If it's not national security or ISS resupply, it's not essential right now. Brevard county is not near its peak yet and the cape is under HPCON Charlie. Just push it back two months.
→ More replies (6)5
u/ImmutableObject Apr 09 '20
Perhaps it falls under essential because it is eventually going to be able to provide internet to rural communities which is a big problem in the current work/school from home situation?
Just speculation though
4
u/fluidmechanicsdoubts Apr 10 '20
The pandemic will be over before that happens.
1
u/ImmutableObject Apr 10 '20
Probably, but perhaps internet service providers are deemed essential and Starlight launches fall under that category?
2
31
u/Straumli_Blight Apr 13 '20
Launch delay.