Connect with us

SpaceX

SpaceX’s Falcon 9 to launch new Starlink satellites from Florida this spring

Falcon 9 could support SpaceX's first dedicated Starlink launch as early as April or May 2019. (SpaceX)

Published

on

NASASpaceflight.com reports that SpaceX is tentatively on target for the dedicated launch debut of its first (relatively) operational Starlink satellites as early as mid-May, indicating that the company might actually meet an extremely ambitious deadline set last year by CEO Elon Musk.

Although the CEO had briefly hinted that SpaceX would launch at least one additional round of prototype satellites – complementing the two launched in February 2018 – before moving to dedicated Starlink missions, all signs point to this mystery case being a dedicated Falcon 9 launch. Whether or not the aggressive mid-May schedule holds, the first launch of operational Starlink satellites would be a huge milestone for SpaceX’s low Earth orbit (LEO) internet constellation, meant to eventually provide high-quality, affordable broadband access to almost anyone on Earth.

Linking the stars in phases

In November 2018, SpaceX filed a modification to the license it been previously granted by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) in March, requesting that it be allowed to dramatically change the first phase of its Starlink satellite constellation. In short, SpaceX wanted to find a faster and cheaper way to deploy its first Starlink satellites as quickly as possible.


“[SpaceX] will utilize key elements from its experimental satellites, such as its sophisticated phased-array antennas and its advanced Hall-effect thrusters, as the foundation of a more efficient and cost-effective architecture that can rapidly accelerate deployment for the overall constellation while optimizing space safety.” – Starlink FCC license modification request, SpaceX, 11/8/2018


This modification almost certainly arose as a direct result of CEO Elon Musk’s June 2018 ultimatum, in which he reportedly fired Starlink executives deemed uncooperative in order to rapidly speed up the constellation’s time-to-market. In fact, according to Reuters, Musk challenged the Starlink team to begin launching the constellation’s first operational satellites just one year later (June 2019), an extraordinary aspiration standing a handful of months after the group had launched its first two early satellite prototypes. According to a source the spoke with Reuters, Musk reportedly clashed with several managers, preferring an approach that launched simpler, cheaper satellites as quickly as possible instead of methodically iterating through multiple prototypes to arrive at an optimal solution the first time.

While both sides presumably have good reasons for their stubborn preferences, Musk may well be in the right at the end of the day, particularly given the sheer level of competition to complete LEO internet constellations and begin serving customers. An overly cautious approach could risk being so late to market that multiple competitors, ranging from relatively established entrants OneWeb and Telesat to more obscure companies like WorldVu and Space Norway. Barely a week ago, OneWeb completed the first successful launch of its constellation, placing six demonstration satellites in orbit to prove their technology and reduce risk prior to commencing operational launches with 30+ satellites apiece. Furthermore, both Tesla and SpaceX have more or less flourished while using the same approach, evidenced by a culture of continuous improvement where both electric cars and rocket engines are constantly upgraded and improved upon. Falcon 9 famously features a bevy of versions or “blocks”, culminating recently in Falcon 9 Block 5’s major reusability and reliability optimizations.

SpaceX’s Falcon 9 family, 2010 to 2019. (Wikipedia)

A little crazy, but it works

Whether or not Musk can be more than a little crazy, it’s nearly impossible to coherently deny the fact that his strategy of delivering a minimum viable product as quickly as possible and gradually improving it over time has a polished record of success. Once again, Falcon 9 is the best and most relevant example in the context of Starlink. SpaceX’s now-workhorse rocket began in a form (Falcon 9 V1.0) nearly unrecognizable compared to its most recent edition, featuring far less performance, no reusability, and an older and less capable version of Merlin. Falcon 9 V1.1 was a radical – almost clean-sheet – departure from the first vehicle and was significantly more powerful while also offering structures that could support grid fins and landing legs. V1.1 also moved to Merlin 1D (M1D, MVacD), optimized for more power, efficiency, and reusability, as well as greater ease of manufacture. Several additional iterations later, and – while Block 5 does share a great deal of heritage with its predecessors – Falcon 9 is also a near-total redesign, replacing or dramatically changing nearly all critical systems aside from the basic structure of its aluminum alloy propellant tanks.

In short, when Elon Musk and other SpaceX engineers originally conceived of Falcon 9 in the early 2000s, 2018’s Falcon 9 Block 5 was effectively the rocket they were imagining. Rather than spending countless hundreds of millions of dollars to privately design, test, and redesign multiple prototype iterations, Musk et al built a minimum viable product, began launching payloads for paying customers (both government and commercial), and used the company’s reputation, commercial success, and flight experience to shape Falcon 9 into the industry leader it is today.

Put simply, there is no reason to think that the same approach will not prove equally fruitful when applied to satellites instead of rockets. While SpaceX has yet to receive an FCC grant for its Starlink modification request, the company summarized its updated strategy in the November 2018 filing. The request effectively “relocates” the first phase of its 4,425 (now 4209) satellite LEO constellation, moving 1584 satellites from an 1100 km to 550 km orbit and simplifying the design of the first operational spacecraft by using just one spectrum segment (Ku-band) instead of two (Ku- and Ka-band). Hardware to exploit that additional spectrum will be developed and added to Starlink satellites and ground hardware down the road. As such, regardless of how unrefined SpaceX’s first operational Starlink satellites could be, the launch will be just as much of a milestone.

Advertisement
-
SpaceX’s first two Starlink prototype satellites are pictured here before their inaugural launch, showing off a thoroughly utilitarian bus and several advanced components. (SpaceX)

SpaceX will also be able to demonstrate a truly unique aspect of Starlink that helps bolsters its competitive advantage: vertically integrated production and launch of its satellites. Based on FCC permit requests filed last month, SpaceX plans to conduct the first dedicated launch from its Florida-based LC-40 pad, with the Falcon 9 booster landing more than 600 km (370 mi) offshore on drone ship Of Course I Still Love You (OCISLY). Assuming SpaceX is targeting the 550 km orbit described in its Starlink license modification, this allows the payload mass to be roughly baselined alongside the company’s Iridium NEXT missions, which sent a bit less than 10,000 kg (22,000 lb) of satellite and dispenser to an orbit of ~650 km, a relatively similar orbit and mission concept. However, Falcon 9’s Iridium NEXT drone ship recoveries typically happened more like 250 km (155 mi) off of the West Coast, indicating that SpaceX’s inaugural dedicated Starlink launch will require significantly more performance out of the rocket.

Arianespace’s Ariane 6 is shown here with a massive proposed dispenser for OneWeb’s internet satellites. SpaceX’s own solution will likely look quite a bit similar.

In other words, Starlink’s operational debut could very well be the heaviest payload SpaceX has yet to launch on a single mission. Weighing less than 500 kg apiece with a dispenser (per Iridium NEXT) around 10% of the total payload mass, SpaceX will likely launch anywhere from 20-40 Starlink satellites at once, depending on the final mass of these first spacecraft and their custom-built dispenser. While delays from the late-April to mid-May launch target are arguably quite likely, the fact that the first operational Starlink launch is tentatively scheduled even less than half a year away bodes very well for tangible constellation progress in 2019.


Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Tesla gives the Roadster an official “Go for launch” demonstration date

Tesla teased an October 1 Roadster reveal, reviving years of delayed SpaceX thruster hover promises.

Published

on

By

Concept rendering of a Tesla Roadster with SpaceX Package via Grok
Concept rendering of a Tesla Roadster with SpaceX Package via Grok

Tesla teased an October 1 event date for its next generation Roadster, posting an image on X Saturday that shows the car lit up like it is sitting on a launch pad, with the date “10.01” stamped across the bottom and the caption “Go for launch.” A countdown clock on Tesla’s Roadster order page now points to the same date, which falls on a Thursday. The company has not said where the event will happen or whether it will be streamed at the moment. Stay with us @Teslarati for live updates.


Tesla has since sent formal invitations to reservation holders confirming the event will take place in Waco, Texas, about 90 minutes north of its Austin headquarters, based on a digital ticket shared on X by Sawyer Merritt. Tesla did not name the exact venue, though Waco sits close to SpaceX’s McGregor, Texas, rocket test site, previously reported as the planned location for a Roadster thruster demonstration. The invite sets the reveal for 8:30 p.m. Eastern on October 1, requires RSVPs by midnight on September 16, and limits entry to guests 21 and older. Invitations are non-transferable.

The tease follows nine years of a project defined by unimaginable specs along with slipped dates. Musk first showed the second generation Roadster in November 2017 as a surprise reveal at the end of the Tesla Semi event, promising a 0 to 60 mph time under two seconds, a top speed above 250 mph, 620 miles of range from a 200 kWh battery, and production starting in 2020. At last November’s shareholder meeting, Musk set an April 1 demo date and joked the choice gave him “deniability” if it slipped again, which it did, moving first to late April, then to “a month or so,” then to August.

Tesla Roadster SpaceX Package’s 1.1-second 0-60 mph launch visualized in concept video

Whatever Tesla shows on October 1 is expected to center on the SpaceX developed thruster package Musk has described since 2018. Internally code named A71, a nod to the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird, the system reportedly uses cold gas thrusters fed by a composite overwrapped pressure vessel, the same tank design SpaceX uses on Falcon 9. Musk has said a thruster equipped Roadster could hit 60 mph in about 1.1 seconds under roughly 2.75 g of launch force, well past the 1.9 second figure quoted for the standard car. That version reportedly will not be street legal and has reportedly been discussed as a limited run sold through a track only program.

The standard Roadster is still expected to carry the original $200,000 base price and $250,000 Founders Series tier, both set when Tesla opened $50,000 and $250,000 reservations in 2017. Tesla VP of Vehicle Engineering Lars Moravy has confirmed production will happen at Gigafactory Texas, with Musk targeting 2027 or 2028, 12 to 18 months after whatever the company demonstrates next month.

Continue Reading

News

SpaceX tells the FCC that Starship Flight 14 is going to orbit

SpaceX filed with the FCC for Starship Flight 14, its first true orbital launch attempt.

Published

on

By

SpaceX has asked the Federal Communications Commission for permission to fly Starlink terminals during Starship’s fourteenth flight test, and the filing lays out a genuine trip to orbit, something the program has never attempted.

Every Starship flight so far, including Flight 13’s successful splashdown in the Indian Ocean on July 24, has flown a suborbital arc that ends with the ship reentering the atmosphere within the same hour it launches. The FCC paperwork describes a mission profile built around an actual orbital insertion instead.

The payload is the other half of the story. Flight 13 carried 20 production Starlink V3 satellites, but because that mission never reached orbit, the satellites reentered along with the ship rather than joining the constellation, something Teslarati covered in detail after SpaceX released footage shot from one of those satellites as it drifted away from Starship in space. Flight 14 is designed to close that gap. If the orbital insertion holds, the roughly 20 V3 satellites onboard would separate into an operational orbit and could eventually go into service, each one rated for about 1 terabit per second of downlink capacity by SpaceX’s own account.

SpaceX announces new Starbase for ‘thousands of Starship launches annually’

Elon Musk first flagged the orbital attempt during SpaceX’s August 4 earnings call, the company’s first as a public entity following its June IPO under the ticker SPCX. He also floated catching the ship with the Starbase tower on the same flight, an idea he walked back on August 20, saying the catch attempt would more likely come “in a few months,” as Teslarati reported at the time. Flight 14 will instead target a splashdown for the ship in the Indian Ocean, the same recovery method used since Flight 12.

Hardware has been catching up to the ambition. Booster 21 completed a full 33-engine static fire on August 28, and Ship 41 finished its own six-engine test the week before. An airspace briefing circulated to pilots on August 20 listed September 15 as the target date, later than the end of August window Musk mentioned on the earnings call, though SpaceX has not confirmed a launch date publicly and Starship schedules routinely slip while hardware and FAA paperwork line up.

The FCC filing itself does not guarantee a launch date. It covers communications authority, and not flight readiness, considering SpaceX still needs Ship 41 fully stacked and cleared by the FAA before Flight 14 can fly. But the filing is a real marker of intent and it puts a specific regulatory process behind what had so far only been Musk’s word on the earnings call.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

SpaceX would not exist if this crucial early launch failed, Musk says

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX

Elon Musk recently restated a fact that still defines SpaceX’s origin story: if Falcon 1’s fourth launch had failed, the company would not exist. The comment answered a reminder that after three consecutive losses, SpaceX had money for only one more attempt.

On X, Peter Diamandis said that the present-day acknowledgement of SpaceX’s success does not discount the rough start the company had. “Almost nobody remembers that Elon’s first rocket failed three times, and there was money for exactly only one more attempt.”

Musk said, “If the 4th launch had failed, SpaceX would not exist.”

In late 2008, the firm was nearly out of cash. Another failure would have ended payroll, closed the Hawthorne factory, and left the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as unfinished drawings.

The first flight lifted off from Omelek Island on 24 March 2006. Thirty-three seconds later, a corroded aluminum fitting on a fuel line leaked. Kerosene ignited around the Merlin engine, control was lost, and the vehicle came apart. The small DARPA payload, FalconSAT-2, survived the short flight only to land on a storage shed near the pad. Investigators later traced the fitting to a materials mix-up that should never have reached the rocket.

Flight 2, on 21 March 2007, looked far better at first. The first stage burned cleanly and handed off to the Kestrel-powered upper stage. The vehicle crossed 100 kilometers and reached a peak of about 289 kilometers. Then propellant slosh in the second-stage tank started a circular coning motion that grew until the engine shut down. Telemetry faded as the stage tumbled, and SpaceX had reached space but not orbit. Over the next year, the team redesigned everything from the ground up, including tanks, baffles, and the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C.

That engine flew on Flight 3 on 2 August 2008. The first stage performed almost perfectly and reached 217 kilometers. After main-engine cutoff, leftover fuel in the cooling channels produced a faint residual thrust, roughly 10 pounds per square inch of chamber pressure. On a Texas test stand, the effect was invisible beneath ambient air pressure. In vacuum it was enough to push the spent first stage back into the second stage after separation. The stages collided, the upper stage spun, and the mission was lost. Musk later said a slightly longer delay before staging would have saved the flight.

Six weeks later, the team assembled Flight 4 from remaining parts and flew it on 28 September 2008 at 23:15 UTC. The payload was Ratsat, a 165-kilogram aluminum mass simulator built in-house. Staging was delayed so residual thrust could decay. The Kestrel ignited, the fairing split away, and nine and a half minutes after liftoff the vehicle was in orbit. After a coast, the second stage restarted, settling into a 621-by-643-kilometer path at 9.35 degrees inclination. Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach Earth orbit. Musk called the insertion “middle of the bull’s-eye.”

SpaceX restores a Falcon 1 rocket for 10th anniversary of first launch success

That success unlocked NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services award later that year. Without it, there would have been no Falcon 9, no reusable first stages, and no Dragon cargo or crew flights to the International Space Station. Launch prices would have remained far higher. Starlink’s constellation would not exist; broadband from low Earth orbit would still be a paper concept.

Ride-share markets, high launch cadence, and the current pace of lunar and Mars hardware would be years behind. Communications, Earth observation, and the cost of putting anything into space would look more like the 2000s than the 2020s.

One extra second of residual thrust in August 2008 would have written a different decade.

Continue Reading