Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday May 24 2019, @02:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the let's-do-the-starlink-agaaaain dept.

[Update (20190524_025416 UTC): Launch successful so far, booster landing successful, second stage is now in coast phase, satellite deployment coming up in about 40 minutes. Correction on YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riBaVeDTEWI.]

On May 20th, SpaceX tweeted: "Now targeting May 23 for launch of Starlink from Pad 40 in Florida".

According to Spaceflightnow:

May 23/24 Falcon 9 • Starlink 1
Launch time: 0230-0400 GMT on 24th (10:30 p.m.-12:00 a.m. EDT on 23rd/24th)

Launch site: SLC-40, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida

A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will launch 60 satellites for SpaceX's Starlink broadband network. Scrubbed on May 15 and May 16.

The launch will be Live-Streamed on YouTube:

Scheduled for May 23, 2019

SpaceX is targeting Thursday, May 23 for the launch of 60 Starlink satellites from Space Launch Complex 40 (SLC-40) at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. SpaceX's Starlink is a next-generation satellite network capable of connecting the globe, especially reaching those who are not yet connected, with reliable and affordable broadband internet services.

The launch window opens at 10:30 p.m. EDT on May 23, or 2:30 UTC on May 24, and closes at 12:00 a.m. on May 24, or 4:00 UTC. A backup launch window opens on Friday, May 24 at 10:30 p.m. EDT, or 2:30 UTC on May 25, and closes at 12:00 a.m. on May 25, or 4:00 UTC. Falcon 9's first stage for this mission previously supported the Telstar 18 VANTAGE mission in September 2018 and the Iridium-8 mission in January 2019. Following stage separation, SpaceX will attempt to land Falcon 9's first stage on the "Of Course I Still Love You" droneship, which will be stationed in the Atlantic Ocean. Approximately one hour and two minutes after liftoff, the Starlink satellites will begin deployment at an altitude of 440km. They will then use onboard propulsion to reach an operational altitude of 550km.

Previous coverage:
SpaceX to Launch 60 Starlink Satellites at Once, and More,
SpaceX to Launch 60 Starlink Satellites: Postponed 1 Day Due to Upper Altitude Winds
SpaceX *was* going to Try Starlink Launch Again Today; Mission Scrubbed.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday May 24 2019, @03:20PM (5 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday May 24 2019, @03:20PM (#847101) Journal

    SpaceX has said that Falcon 9 costs $62 million to launch, and Falcon Heavy $90 million to launch. These definitely don't reflect SpaceX's real costs. If they can use the hardware repeatedly (the main goal of Block 5), the extra Falcon Heavy cost becomes the cost of refilling the side boosters for the most part. The use of either rocket expends the upper stage, but all of the boosters will be recovered (hopefully with no dumb drone ship accidents like the last Falcon Heavy launch).

    If a Falcon Heavy launch ultimately costs only 10% more for SpaceX, but they can fit at least 7 more flatsats in the payload fairing because of it, then they should launch Starlink using Falcon Heavy. This could have a side benefit of increasing U.S. confidence in Falcon Heavy, important if it is going to get a contract to send a bunch of stuff to the Moon.

    The main issue is the payload fairing volume. It's the same for both Falcon 9 and Heavy, and it's pretty small. BFR/Starship blows that out of the water. It could probably lift 300-400 of these satellites, with payload mass being the constraint. It would also lower costs due to full reusability. Finally, using BFR for Starlink launches could help demonstrate that the rocket works. They could even put less than 60 flatsats (to cut losses if it blows up) on initial test flights and still save money vs. a Falcon 9 launch.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday May 24 2019, @04:19PM (4 children)

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Friday May 24 2019, @04:19PM (#847144)

    This makes sense. I see why FH has to use the same payload fairing as F9, its basically the same rocket.

    At this point BFR is at the same level as SLS. Mostly on paper with parts testing being done. I am not sure New Glenn is even close to that stage. I guess Falcon Heavy is the way to go on these.

    --
    "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday May 24 2019, @04:53PM (3 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday May 24 2019, @04:53PM (#847167) Journal

      Two orbital Starship prototypes are being built simultaneously now:

      SpaceX’s orbital Starship gains a nose as East Coast prototype makes progress [teslarati.com]

      Raptor engine production is ramping up, and a vacuum-optimized version appears to be back on the table:

      SpaceX’s space-optimized Starship engine could be ready sooner than later [teslarati.com]

      Starhopper testing is underway, with another test possible on May 31.

      I would not be surprised to see it head to orbit this year, long before SLS goes anywhere. Although that doesn't include the big booster and it certainly doesn't look like a polished spacecraft. However, if they build a third, substantially complete prototype with retractable fairing and all the other bells and whistles, they could use it to launch Starlink satellites. Since it's fully reusable, they only need to build one as long as they don't blow it up. Or perhaps one per launch site so that satellites can be built and launched from each location.

      One point of interest is that the Starship will supposedly be able to get into low Earth orbit without the booster, although payload mass may be little to non-existent. There's not much more we can say about that until we get more details, but it could qualify as a single-stage-to-orbit reusable spaceship.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday May 24 2019, @06:17PM (2 children)

        by nitehawk214 (1304) on Friday May 24 2019, @06:17PM (#847259)

        I thought Starship needed to be on top of BFR to get in to space? The current prototype is just a 3rd stage that can take off from Mars and fly around on Earth, but not get into orbit, much less escape velocity.

        And is it capable of deploying satellites? I thought Starship was a crew capsule.

        I am more concerned with SLS and BFR. Even if the Orion capsule or Starship or whatever the heck capsule Boeing is making all don't pan out; at least we have some heavy lift rockets to put new stuff into space.

        --
        "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday May 24 2019, @08:12PM (1 child)

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday May 24 2019, @08:12PM (#847329) Journal

          Big Falcon Rocket = Big Falcon Spaceship (Starship) + Big Falcon Booster (Super Heavy).

          Starship is designed to take off from Mars, Moon, etc. without the booster. But it's so powerful, that it may be able to get from terra firma to low Earth orbit by itself, and still have enough fuel to land back on Earth. It just won't be able to carry anywhere near 100+ tons of payload to LEO if it does that.

          Normal use of Starship is supposed to be: It uses a booster which returns to Earth early on, the Starship reaches some distance in Earth orbit, and two Starships (one being a "fuel tanker" version) can dock butt to butt to transfer fuel, allowing one Starship to continue and land 100+ tons on almost any solar system destination. Moon and Mars being obvious ones, but nothing's stopping it from going to Callisto or Titan. In some cases, mulitiple refuels may be required for it to get all the delta-v it needs.

          Low Earth orbit is easier since it should never need a refuel to carry the first 100 or so tons there. Maybe we can come up with a scenario where a huge ~300 ton payload gets into extremely low Earth orbit and is boosted by a refuel, but that's unlikely to happen since payloads aren't currently designed to be so massive.

          There will be a cargo version of BFR. I would expect the cargo version to come before the manned version since it is less sophisticated. Instead of a self-contained life support system and various living quarters and controls, and an exit that includes a crane for lifting people/cargo/robots out, cargo version just needs to open up a huge exit in the fairing and reattach itself (fairing will not separate from the spacecraft/upper stage as with Falcon 9 and other rockets).

          The illustrations here [teslarati.com] will give you an idea of how the cargo version should look.

          In my opinion, the cargo version is more important since it will be able to fit giant space telescopes (JWST) within the 9-meter fairing without folding, or even bigger telescopes like ~15-meter LUVOIR-A with some folding. It would also be capable of launching lots of Starlink satellites, which will be a top priority for the company if it becomes the big revenue generator that they predict.

          There is an additional place for cargo: rear/aft cargo [i.redd.it] in the bottom surrounding the Raptor engines. These could be replaced by additional Raptor engines on future variations.

          All details subject to error/change.

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday May 24 2019, @08:31PM

            by nitehawk214 (1304) on Friday May 24 2019, @08:31PM (#847341)

            Ahh ok, I think the specs have changed since the last time I looked at it. I wasn't aware Starship was designed as a SSTO.

            Also, a 9m fairing would be awesome. I think SLS block 1B is only 8.5 New Glenn is only supposed to be 7, if it ever flies.

            People always talk about tonnage to orbit, which while important, isn't useful if the spacecraft can't fit on the rocket.

            --
            "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh