SpaceX to Launch 53 Starlink Satellites Tonight
VANDENBERG SPACE FORCE BASE, Calif. (SpaceX PR) — SpaceX is targeting today, Thursday, October 27 for a Falcon 9 launch of 53 Starlink satellites to low-Earth orbit from Space Launch Complex 4E (SLC-4E) at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. The instantaneous launch window is at 6:14 p.m. PT (01:14 UTC on Friday, October 28), and a backup opportunity is available on Friday, October 28 at 5:52 p.m. PT (00:52 UTC on Saturday, October 29).
The first stage booster supporting this mission previously launched Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich, DART, and five Starlink missions. Following stage separation, the first stage will land on the Of Course I Still Love You droneship, which will be stationed in the Pacific Ocean.
You can watch the live launch webcast starting about 5 minutes before liftoff.
73 responses to “SpaceX to Launch 53 Starlink Satellites Tonight”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hrm…
I wonder if anyone has mentioned this possibility…
Prologue
Clearly, SpaceX will be pumping ever more Starlinks into space, wanting Starship into the act as soon as possible. So Starship might be good enough for SpaceX in the early days of development, not not for many other customers. Those customers will still prefer to use Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy for their payloads. Heck, if the early Starships are specialized for only Starlink deployment, other customers won’t be able to use Starship even if they wanted to!
SpaceX acknowledged that possibility years ago; that even though SpaceX wants to replace Falcon with Starship, that they would accommodate customers who prefer Falcon, leading to an over-lapping phase where both types of rockets could fly for years.
So here is my idea/question:
Starship has a significant down-mass payload capability (50 MT?), that will remain mostly unused. So has there been any consideration of using Starships to recover the expended upper stages of Falcon launches? So rather then send those Falcon upper stages to disposal orbits, maybe they could be preserved and eventually recovered in orbit by Starships for eventual reuse? Expending one upper stage per week has got to be expensive for SpaceX!
That might possibly apply to other upper-stages too, besides the Falcon 9. Many upper stages of many rockets might be recovered for reuse by Starships. Would other rocket companies be willing to pay for that recovery service?
There ain’t that many Falcon upper stage in graveyard orbits. AFAIK almost all SpaceX LEO mission have the upper stage dispose off in the oceans, Retrieving space junk from graveyard and geostationary orbits requires the Starship refilled propellant tanks in order to get to those orbits from LEO. Space junk retrieval will likely an add-on task following a direct to GEO payload deployment to begin with, IMO.
My suggestion is for recovery of Falcon upper-stages launched after the introduction of the Starship.
Would only even be a possibility if the orbits matched, or nearly so. Which is pretty unlikely in most cases.
Now if they were parked higher and thus more time was available, then maybe… But even so, Falcon S2s are not built with re-use in mind, and developing that upgrade path for them would be redundant vs Starship.
A nice idea, but one without much of a future.
no one knows how much down mass capability starship has maybe zero if they start expending the top stage
No flight tests of the thermal control systems in what close to two years? Tiles are still falling off on the pad. Lot’s of work yet to be done. I stopped giving predictions for Starship back in March because I thought it was going to fly this year. I should have listened to myself from 2021. From the looks of things now we won’t have flights until ’23 and probably no real reflights until closer or even into ’24. Falcon was developed standing on the previous decades of LV development. This is terra incognito. Space X needs a lot more time, and it should be no surprise that they need it.
https://selenianboondocks.c…
They would have been well served to do a smaller precursor vehicle to work out bugs.
Oh goodness that was a light rehash of years of arguments on this blog about the viability of BFR going back 5 years now. SpaceX made maximal use of old LockMart, STS/USA, and McDonnell D people and their experiences on the established launch stable to make Falcon into what it is today. We said that SS/SH was going to be all Elon after he fired the BFR team and broke up the tooling for the carbon Starship. Twitter is going to detract Elon from SS/SH. His investors will demand it, and the problems of Twitter are intractable and unsolvable. It may also be tempting for him as attempts to ‘fix’ things as those ‘fixes’ will involve taking things apart and blaming other people for Twitter’s failures. While doing launch vehicle development on the scale of SS/SH require creation and construction. Elon’s big role in this is pushing the technology before it’s ready. I assure you there’s a huge cadre of engineers on SS/SH and are screaming and yelling that their systems are not ready for flight. The fights are probably intense. To your point about test flights on Falcon ….. Hell’z yes, that was the secret of making booster recovery work. And SpaceX was lucky enough to convince his customers to pay for that testing and development program and accept the risk. The joke was on them of course as Falcon 9 made Starlink a viable option which of course has put GEO development on hold as they hold their breath to see what comes from the LEO super constellations.
“I assure you there’s a huge cadre of engineers on SS/SH and are
screaming and yelling that their systems are not ready for flight.” <– I assure you, you have no concept whatsoever of how SpaceX does things, and why their approach to development is superior.
“Ready for flight” means, “will we learn enough from the expected failures to justify expending the hardware ?”, it does not mean, “I lose my job and am a failure if my part of this fails in an unplanned for way.”
How/when the system fails compared to how/when it is expected to is the data being sought. Not a first time perfect flight.
“And SpaceX was lucky enough to convince his customers to pay for that testing and development program and accept the risk.” <– What risk do you pretend there was?
Are you serious. You see no risk for the payload for the additional systems for flyback to potentially effect the flight during boost? You seriously think these systems all exist in isolation? Ha! Okay.
I know they are quiescent on launch, and represent only weight to carry — less risk than a charged battery. Any additional risk they pose is dwarfed by the other risks they have already demonstrated are retired. You show where their R&D caused some particular increase in insurance premiums.
I also recognize the significance of the fact 2 of 3 of their losses were the result of physics not in NASA’s database — not from their pushing any envelopes; and, that a third was the result of contractor fraud not caught until after the fact.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c… Well now that I know you believe that I know what world you live in. Dream on there fella.
A non-responsive meme. You must have nothing substantive to detract factually from the facts I referenced.
Let’s go to the basics for you. Rocket engines are applying compressive forces to the body of a rocket. That force is not uniform and sets up vibrations all through the vehicle. From 1000 of Hz to sub Hz. Those vibrations travel all through the vehicle bounce off mechanical joints and cause secondary vibrations etc. When you’re in your car and some part of your car starts to vibrate and make noise, what’s the first thing you do if it’s within reach? You touch it, and the vibration goes away. You add mass to the system, and the vibration mode changes to something less annoying. That’s the same effect as adding systems to any launch vehicle. You change the vibration modes. Dig it? Shock and vibe is only one aspect of vehicle design that can’t be isolated from anything else. There’s the obvious like aerodynamics. So you see Tom, you’re not really thinking this out very well are you? And there’s even more feedback to consider. Rockets are not linearly independent as you fantasize them to be.
You can imagine a lot — none of it is relevant reality, and you addressed no fact I pointed out, RE the three catastrophic losses outside of tesing. Your pathological skepticism is nothing I have any business respecting.
I could see them trying to fly in Nov because well there are economic pressures to fly but I could also see them going into next year. (or launching on Xmas you know elon is a work aholic and before long another desperate tweet will appear)
what it looks like to me is however that they are a long way from trying. what they are doing now is important but small stuff pad fits and test…and we dont seem to be anywhere close to a full up 33 engine fire, which I suspect will cause the tiles to go roaring off the vehicle
whats amazing to me anyway is the stuff that they have had to figure out from “testing”, the water suppression and the “shields” going up around the legs is something a blind man could think of but oh well. what it strikes me as is that they are striving for the earliest flight with the least margin as possible
I have low hopes for the first test flight now
With engine ignition sequencing being a thing, and propellant pressurization on the pad also being an issue, I’d say Space X is in the early N1 stage of flight readiness. If they fly soon I would expect a N1 style result and all the complication and angst that would come with that.
yeah from what I have seen they are no where close to trying all 33 …yet oddly enough they are still producing boosters. kind of expensive if a major redesign has to occur. its unlikely they fly soon. something is stopping them from full pressurization even with N2.
hope you are well. life is very good for me. just superb
And yet, for all your baseless predictions, SN24 and SN25 have their tiles . . .
It’s like you don’t have the foggiest idea what you are going on about.
Actually he does. For all the years of your fanboys going on about how Starship was going to fly to orbit on Elon’s schedule and how he had no idea what he was going on about, and then after those flights never happened, how it was going to happen ‘this’ year for sure and that all the naysayers are ignorant louts, and then when that years flights did not go on how absolutely certain this new year was going to be the year …. he’s be pretty darn right. And you fanboys have been absolutely wrong. So here we are with another year closing out and the likes of you telling us that we have no idea of what we speak. Sorry, you and others like you have lost.
” Sorry, you and others like you have lost. ” <– Seems not to be in the cards this November, no.
” For all the … been absolutely wrong.” <– You’ll find yourself unable to name what he’s been “right” about, and considering Starship has been in development about 3 three years … SpaceX isn’t late with it yet.
If you are able to recall, he was about three months ago insisting SpaceX had abandoned for all time full reusability for Starship, and was taking all the tiles off everything.
He’s a joke on himself.
You do realize that this all started with BFR that was supposed to have been flying by 2019 don’t you? And that there have been a chain of first orbital flights bandied about and believed by fanboys every since don’t you?
You do realize the Starship vehicle was announced in 2019, right?
“And that there have been a chain of first orbital flights bandied about and believed by fanboys every since don’t you?” <– What nonsense are you going on about?
Starship descends from BFR which was started in 2017. You’re forgetting your basic history Tom. Starship did not pop out of nowhere in isolation all on its own. Now go find the initial projected launch dates for Starship. Go ahead.
“Starship descends from BFR which was started in 2017.” <– No, it does not. When they went to stainless steel that was a clean slate restart.
For that matter, they started from Raptor 1 but — since hardware furthering development was less needed at that point — they removed many, many sensors and pipe fittings and consolidated valves from discrete valve bodies into valve plates, overall removing 20 tons total from the vehicle while raising chamber pressure to 300 bar from 250 bar, and raising thrust to 230 tons per. The engine rich problems the first Raptor 2s showed have not been seen in months, they apparently have that licked. It’s the same overall launch profile concept, but a different vehicle.
Yes. The stainless steel decision was taken in late 4Q 2018 and announced publicly in Jan. 2019.
Yes the stainless steel vessel was a clean slate design? Or yes in opposition to my “no” ?
“No, it does not. When they went to stainless steel that was a clean slate restart.”. Wrong – geometry and stage 1 : stage 2 mass ratios are very similar and scaled for a similar design point. So is overall delta V of the system. They just changed the material for the dry mass portion of the rocket equation because of thermal issues and ease of manufacturing and cost of raw construction material.
Seriously? That the thing has the same main task does not mean it was not a clean slate design. If you had a point, you could show what carbon fiber parts Starship still uses from the earlier design.
You can’t.
But you can be very, very silly.
No matter what you make a rocket out of it’s a machine that conserves momentum in free space. d/dt (mv) = 0 . That’s it. They’re simple machines. Materials, GNC, propellants, engine power etc don’t change that, nor do they change the outcome all that much. They allow us to tweak things around the margins depending on the scale of the vehicles desired delta V and chosen final mass range of the system. BFR/SS/SH is simply an attempt to change to scale to allow us to change things not around the margins but in larger chunks.
None of which even to the extent true justifies your claim the Starship system is “late” when it is clean sheet design starting apparently in Q4 of 2018.
“No matter what you make a rocket out of it’s a machine that conserves momentum in free space. d/dt (mv) = 0 . That’s it.” <– So what?
It’s still true every bit of the carbon fiber design was scrapped when they went to stainless steel.
What you are calling a design is a bare notion by which nothing can be cut or bent, and at that nothing which differentiates it from every liquid rocket since Goddard.
I not only said it, but Musk, SpaceX and all your fan boys said it at one time or another. You all accepted his dates and argued they would happen. When they did not happen, you simply forgot you accepted past dates and only looked at the date in the future and accepted that as the new standard that always was.
No. Musk talking about one project which was cancelled does not apply to a replacement project.
It’s still true every bit of the carbon fiber design was scrapped when they went to stainless steel.
Has he demonstrated to be right about SpaceX giving up on making the upper stage of Starship reusable?
If they start flying throw away Starships he will be. Nobody can be right on anything since they’re not even doing test flights. The only people right so far are the folks who said there would be no flights.
Sorry it is hard to treat posts like this seriously.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
That all depends on your definition of ‘waste’. Some people look at that effort as a waste if it’s not contributing to the final working design. They view the art of engineering as being capable of ruling out cast away attempts at flight articles as being best exercised in analysis and design. Musk would rather learn from hardware. IMO they are not mutually exclusive. It’s a matter of taste, or a sense of aesthetic in operations. As for my sense of taste, I accept that both approaches are just fine and both opinions are correct as a reflection of how primitive we are in this type of launch vehicle development. These scale ups are not linear. The whole argument of creating super loads of propellant in order to vastly increase payload margin is a opening shot at understanding how much the design problems change. Also consider that BFR/SS/SH crossed the line into the total energy release of tactical nuclear weapons. This is all new and previous experience does not give us a full picture of what’s to come between desire and working systems. Wrong turns will be made. Calling those wrong turns ‘wrong’ or a ‘waste’ is a matter of subjective opinion.
Waste is sinking billions into a known obsolete concept, aka, SLS.
“hey view the art of engineering as being capable of ruling out cast away attempts at flight articles as being best exercised in analysis and design. Musk would rather learn from hardware. IMO they are not mutually exclusive. It’s a matter of taste, or a sense of aesthetic in operations. ” <– That has nothing to do with it. SLS is in no desirable parameter any advancement of the late ’70’s shuttle, it is stupidity carefully designed, and was so no later than FH launching — and was anticipatably so from the outset.
I don’t disagree that SLS is massively expensive. And that it was doomed to be so as it’s predicated on Shuttle hardware. However you’re arguing a comparative value argument assuming SS/SH is going to work and come out less expensive than SLS. SS/SH is starting to look like SLS circa 2017 WRT scheduling. Things are opening up not converging toward an operational system. I think you’ll be able to make the argument that SS/SH is less expensive and more capable than SLS. But, we’re not quite yet there and there’s a lot of real world capability yet to be proven.
I did not mention the Starship. SLS was made hopelessly obsolete — to the extent the program should have been simply cancelled — the instant of the and no later than the FH launching.
lol
No, he doesn’t. The major delays have all been GSE-related. They still are. Both the Starship and the Super Heavy have been significantly redesigned and improved twice during the time GSE bothers have dominated the critical path.
Uhhhh ” Both the Starship and the Super Heavy have been significantly redesigned…..” Exactly! In your own words he’s been right.
yeah we have not even gotten to the flying yet. and if they cannot manage the GSE think how bad the flying will be
see how it works out. pretty confident. we need Musketers though
You’re always confident Bob. What you need to work on is being right.
actually I am correct a great deal of the time it comes from a commitment to truth and not people and decades in this business and a grasp of how human spaceflight really is
.
“actually I am correct a great deal of the time” <– But not here and about anything you can quote.
that includes here. you folks are to big of fan boys
Observing reality and being a “fan boy” are two different things.
yes indeed
Reality is there is no evidence Space is abandoning reusability for Starship, and no evidence they have a payload mass problem.
there is for both but we can see how it works out St. Elon will save us 🙂 just after he gets finished at twitter
“there is for both” <– Never that you can cite.
You are inferring a factual claim on the basis of next to no evidence, and what you do cite and you opinion is more than conflicted by other evidence.
see how it works out see you have to believe. I dont
I do see how it works out. SLS is billions spent for a system which will at most launch four times at a program cost of about $73k / pound if they launch that many times and max out their payload every time — and the first launch is a placeholder payload of no worth.
There is nothing any SLS can do in those first four launches which you can’t do launching an FH at most nine times, and that will cost under $1bn.
All of that is a fact, not a matter of belief.
It gets worse for you as soon as Starship is operational even if the upper stage is expended the first several flights, and worse still when it is not.
I do see how it works out. SLS is billions spent for a system which will at most launch four times at a program cost of about $73k / pound if they launch that many times and max out their payload every time — and the first launch is a placeholder payload of no worth.”
ah you think that the politicians want a space program. they dont. they want a jobs program. put it another way. they would not spend the same money on X amount of Falcon launches because it does not funnel money and benefits like they want. its making the space industrial complex great again 🙂
” No Oler, I don’t think they want a space program. ” <– I think their hand will become forced by the ludicrous corruption inherent to the cost per pound of the SLS.
there is no corruption in SLS development. there is a lot of conservative engineering. but the entire plan is costly. Orion 2 billion SLS 2 billion and the lander probably about the same. and its all non reusable. what we will end up with is a “plan” that the budget can support, assuming musk can stay in business at these cost levels.
My guess is that the failure of Musk HLS will be the nut that forces change. lets see
“there is no corruption in SLS development” <– It is the only reason it is being done.
It gets worse for you as soon as Starship is operational even if the upper stage is expended the first several flights, and worse still when it is not.
it will be a decade before it is operational carrying people if it works
the space senators want federal money in their poor regions because that brings federal benefits. Musk doesnt give good benefits 🙂
“it will be a decade before it is operational carrying people if it works” <– Genuine nonsense from you. Why on Earth would it take more than a year or two?
“the space senators want federal money in their poor regions because that brings federal benefits. Musk doesnt give good benefits :)” <– So what?
you need to prove I am wrong, I dont need to prove I am correct. fly safe another day flying tomorrow
But reality has often proved you wrong. You need to beat your track record.
To be fair, Tom, reality often proves your assertions wrong, too.
Uhuh.
When I am wrong, it is because I didn’t know something, or something I “knew” was in fact wrong. Oler has no facts backing up his wilder claims whatsoever.
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
Marcus House apparently feels he has reason to think some vehicles have no tiles because they will stay in orbit.
The thought that I think has been discussed a bit, if not a brain fart on my part, is using the Falcon upper disposal for stage reentry testing. Either seeing what tricks can get the stage almost intact to the ocean or carrying a secondary for that testing. Wouldn’t have to declare or share anything if done right. Does anyone know if this is a serious possibility?
It would impact Starship recoverability calculations if such is taking place. A prior test regime is a bit different from depending totally on simulations and good design work.
If the economics work, SpaceX would likely do what you suggest. Shotwell suggested more than a year ago that Starship could be used to clear Earth orbital space of derelict upper stages. With some modest lengthening of the cylindrical portion of the Starship payload bay, it would be possible to store three F9 2nd stages. One Starship mission to recover three F9 upper stages would certainly improve the economics of the operation even above just retrieving the stages in the first place.
Ships are after all is said and done made to scavenge economic opportunities out of the medium they work in. This idea is one of those synergies that can come about without too much effort once the SS/SH system proves itself at minimal performance. It will have deep economic impact on any flights where the Falcon stage completes its flight in LEO. The case might be harder to make for stages left in GTO. Perhaps early tanked Starships might go for expensive Centaurs left in GTO. This is an exciting idea, and one which I expect to hear announced shortly after the first operational flights of Starship. Good thinking.
Thanks.
I’m mindful of the difficulties of making recovery of upper-stages work. So the economic case might be limited. Stages in high graveyard orbits wouldn’t be practical to recover, unless a Starship was going to that orbit anyway for some other primary mission? And don’t most GTO stages end up reentering the atmosphere? So nothing to recover there even with a primary GTO mission Starship.
Because of the sheer volume of Falcon launches, and SpaceX devotion to reuse, this Starship downmass scheme might only apply to recovery of Falcon 9 upper-stages. But even then changes in planning, so that those upper-stages are parked in orbits for more convenient recovery by Starship, would probably be necessary. At worst, it would give Starship useful targets for developing the capacity for downmass payload operations of Starships!
I see a many upper stages in one type of GTO or another. Even old Soviet boosters are out there still. The worth of grabbing them? But if Starship launches only cost millions and a new Vulcan upper stage costs $10’s of millions …. who knows.
Niice