/sci/ - Science & Math

So when do I get to gas my shitcunt ISP?

>>10664882
where do you live? If they don't do intersat communications for a while, you might not be able to be served

>>10664882
Atleast a year from now because Starlink needs ~800 for complete coverage. I hope however Starlinks opens up region by region earlier than that though. I don't want to keep paying comcast anymore.

Here's hoping that they will livestream the deployment process.

In other news, I heard that they recently rearmed Mr Steven. How many more times do you think they will attempt fairing recovery with the net before they succeed/give up?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/spacex-rockets-were-imperiled-by-falsified-reports-prosecutors-say-11558576047?mod=e2tw

>An engineer at an upstate New York company who was responsible for ensuring the quality of parts for Elon Musk’s space venture has been charged with falsifying inspection reports.

>Records furnished by SpaceX identified seven NASA space flight missions that were affected by parts that SpaceX purchased from PMI, according to prosecutors.

anyone know if this has had tangible effects? (yet?)

>>10664953
I wonder if this man has had any "unusual" financial activities going on recently. Or was he just being lazy about the reports.

>>10664953
Wasn't another supplier for Orbital ATK recently busted for doing the same thing?

>>10664986
Not Orbital:
>Supplier fraud and falsified test reports cost NASA $700M
https://www.intouch-quality.com/blog/supplier-fraud-and-falsified-test-reports-cost-nasa-700m
>A recent joint investigation involving NASA and the U.S. Justice Department has revealed a serious fraud committed by NASA’s supplier. Aluminum manufacturer Sapa Profiles Inc. (SPI) and its corporate parent Sapa Extrusions Inc. (SEI) admitted that they defrauded their customers, namely NASA, by falsifying test results.
>According to the investigation, SPI falsified thousands of critical tests from 1996 to 2015. The company sold unqualified aluminum to hundreds of customers, including NASA. Their customers depended on these test results and certifications to ensure the reliability of the aluminum they purchased.
>The investigators found that SPI employees falsified the test results in order to:
>Conceal the inconsistent quality of aluminum extrusions produced by SPI, avoid the costly scrapping of metal and accompanying production delays, improve SPI’s and SEI’s profits, and receive bonuses that were calculated in part based on a production metric.
>SPI has agreed to pay a fine of $46 million to the U.S. government and other commercial customers.
Wonder if that was what caused SpaceX to investigate their own supply chain and find this guy out?

>>10664993
>Wonder if that was what caused SpaceX to investigate their own supply chain and find this guy out?
That was my first thought too, but I imagine they already learned their lesson with CRS-7.

>>10664953
Yeah there was something about that last year, it's already over

>>10664993
>SPI has agreed to pay a fine of $46 million to the U.S. government and other commercial customers.
If that fine isn't more money than they made selling that out of spec. garbage, it's useless.

>>10665011
I think it is. It would be kinda pointless to not fine them like that.

>>10664876
Does this thing have a particular launch window? Why did they delay for a week?

>>10665018
They wouldn't be the first to get just a slap on the wrist.

>>10665023
you try updating 60 satellites

>>10665023
>Why did they delay for a week?
Weather.

>>10664993
It was Orbital. (now purchased by Northrop Grumman)
>The bad parts were used in the making of Taurus XL, a rocket that was supposed to deliver satellites studying the Earth’s climate during missions carried out in 2009 and 2011. The launch vehicle’s fairing didn’t fully open, causing the unsuccessful launch

>>10665011
>Embezzles 700m
>Has to pay 46m fine

Surely that will teach them

>>10665035
it's the same as updating 1

>>10665045
I think you got the numbers wrong. The failure cost NASA $700m, the company didn't steal nearly that much.

>>10664882
Never, satellite Internet will never be Mainstream, it's for rich fucks who want to have highspeed Internet in their Weekend residences in the countryside.

>>10665408
I don't see why. 25 million customers at $100 a month would give them their annual revenue goal, and they'll have the entire planet's population as potential customers.

>>10665416
Because satellites have horrible bandwidth, 800 satellites can serve Maybe ~100.000 households with high Speed Internet.

So if you wanted to serve 25 Million People, you'd Need something like 200.000 satellites in Space.

>>10665424
I don't know the basis for your assertion and it sounds dubious, but I don't have the means to dispute it, either.

>>10664899
They will

>>10665023
Software bug fixes/update

>>10665555
>>10665424
Correct it if I'm wrong, but
For Starlink,
60 sats = 1 Tbps
There will be around 12000 sattelites in the constellation.
So whole constellation is 200 Tbps.
That is 1MBps if 25 million used it at the same time. But 25 million won't use it at the same time, so 10MBps is a reasonable average with the current constellation. Better than nothing, I guess?

Caveats - Assumed rest of the constellation will have the same bandwidth, and ignored inter sat links

>>10665424
-t.
Retard

HughesNet owns ~20 satellites total(many are decades old) and they have 1.3M subscribers in the US and provide ~high speed 25m-100M down/3M up satellite internet and they are in geostationary orbit.

Viasat has ~3 satellites that provide 1 Tbps each and they provide highspeed 100 Mbps access to ~600K subscribers.

>>10665766
Erroneous calculations. Starlink isn't aiming for 1 Mbps, they're aiming for Gbps, modern highspeed satellite access. They want couple millions of the subscribers base + be integrated into the local 4G/5G networks(especially for rural).

>>10665807
a big chunk will be offloading network load or whatever

>>10665926
That's exactly what Starlink is aiming for for the first few batches. They want to partner up with mobile towers/hotspots. But overtime I think they want their own backbone. T3s will still be the backbone of majority of the world, but I think Starlink will bypass this process once their intra-satellite communication system becomes active.

8 hours

>>10666219
clearly it's only 6 hours away

A new era is beginning
It looks just like old one

>>10665807
Those sell data caps you fucking idiot. Enjoy your 100GB for 500 Dollars.

>>10665807
>Starlink isn't aiming for 1 Mbps, they're aiming for Gbps,

No they're not, they specifically stated in their FCC filings that they are going to offer 50Mbits to consumers, you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

>>10666776
Data caps are incredibly stupid to have. The only reason they're acceptable is that companies tend to have monopolies in certain areas. Hopefully Starlink will change that.

>>10666792
That's the only way you can make money with satellite internet, you charge people 10 Dollars for checking their mails.

>>10664899
They're gonna keep trying until Falcon 9 is retired.

>>10666813
>That's the only way you can make money with satellite internet, you charge people 10 Dollars for checking their mails.
Why? I'm not familiar with the economics of satellite internet. I'd figure that the cost to maintain a satellite is pretty small once it's up there.

>>10666845
Building it isn't, and as I already said the bandwidth isn't good. So you need to distribute the cost over as many customers as possible which you do by selling data caps. "Subscriber" means somebody who booked 500Mbit to check his mails, not somebody who is using it to stream HD movies on Netflix every night.

>>10666865
Starlink is designed to be (relatively) cheap to throw up in the sky, gives better performance, and they get the advantage of doing their own launches, which nobody else has. (BO may have that eventually... when they finally launch something orbital)
old-sat is going to adapt or die

I wonder if the project manager knows those things don't go to space! It would be fascinating if he had no idea and his employees did!

>>10666845
you have to replace the entire constellation every five years. Well, not “have” to but spacex will

>>10666972
wut

>>10666972
Why wouldn't they go to space?

>>10666865
That's the old way, anon

>>10666973
By 5 years, if SpaceX has Starship ready, it will already be a gamechanger.

2 hour 22 minutes

why am I lying in bed refreshing /sci/ waiting for the launch when I should be doing my C++ homework?

>>10667205
Because you've yet to master setting your alarm clock, anon.

>>10665807
I said MB, not mb

less than an hour to go

>>10666865
>bandwidth
Considering you aren't using that word correctly, your opinion has been disregarded.
Try again.

>>10667436
45 mins

20 bings left!
sort of quiet in here. Should be an exciting launch; heaviest payload SpaceX has launched EVER, cool deployment, etc

>>10667504
I want to see big boom

>>10667510

NEW LINK:

https://youtu.be/riBaVeDTEWI

OLD LINK BAD

>>10667516
CAN CONFIRM OLD LINK BAD NEW LINK GOOD

>>10667516
Thanks anon.

>>10667516
weird, the other link was the one from spacex.com/webcast earlier today

>>10667516
Jesus what a shit show. Can't even get a livestream right. This is why SpaceX can't be trusted to further America's interests in space.

>>10667521
Apparently they had trouble with Youtube and couldn't get that stream to start, lol.

whos paying for this meme project?

>>10667523
Calm down dude. It's just one small mistake.

>>10667528
NSA

>that """woman"""
oof

7 minutes.


Almost missed it as I was watching some video and forgot about it.

AAAA
MY FIRST /SCI/ SPACE X THREAD!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzucrpURpnU

How did that ogre get in?

new animation

one panel

>autonomous debris/collision avoidance based on DoD data
>unfolds a solar cell array

SICK

>>10667529
Yeah, and small mistakes in the aerospace industry mean dead astronauts. That might be fine for second rate space programs, but is unacceptable when flying Americans. We need to rely on trusted aerospace firms, such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin, not second rate hacks like Elon Musk.

Do you reckon launching in complete darkness has any effect on the core's ability to land, and the fairings to be caught by the net?

No issues detected with weather/rocket so far.

>>10667551
Core landing is entirely dependant on GPS, and it's been done at night before. Dunno about fairings.

>>10667551
no

>>10667550
Messed up YouTube stream =/= Dead astronauts

Go to bed, troll.

>>10667551
Core uses radar so light doesn't matter.

>>10667551
For the core, no way. There's no way they were pulling that off based on visual data.

>Elon gonna fire more rockets
>DART gonna start soon
>MOON
>MARS


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I CAN'T HANDLE IT!

>>10667554
Is the ship carrying the net autonomous?

>>10667523
lol
Remember how they've shown double view from the same booster on maiden falcon heavy launch? What a disgrace. All the other heavy lifters that come back... oh wait

2 minutes lads

>>10667562
>ASDS
>A
>Autonomous

>>10667559
It still amazes me that such complicated feats can be achieved in pitch black conditions.

>>10667562
>>10667564
whoops my bad I can't read. No, it's manned by an actual crew and piloted by a captain

>>10667556
It goes to show the immaturity of SpaceX.

LIFT OFF

Feels comfy, finally I was born when Humanity finally went to space

WERE ON OUR WAY TO THE MEMENET BOYS

How many you used to browse /kspg/ back in its heyday?

>>10667585
From humble beginning to the painful end

>the city lights
>the glow on the fins
kino

here comes B1049!

>>10667588
I wonder what that snake guy is up to these days

The satellite separation is going to be so dope!

That view from the first stage camera when the second stage lit up was pure kino

Fucking sats after the fairing deployed looked like it had something beating like a heart.
I'm fucking scared now

>Pressing F5 to refresh the network into the new memenet

how long will they lose droneship telemetry today?

>>10667597
Skynet will soon be complete and fully operational.

This shit gives me hope for humanity

>>10667605
>Elon's only reason to launch the new net constellation is to stabilize the droneship telemetry

SPARKS

COME ON TARS

That looks bad. Remember when the grid fins were partially melted that one time?

Let's hope the booster makes it safely.

L A N D E D

IT'S SO TENSE!

landed

>lands
>no one clapped until the camera feed came through

>Reuse-ability is a meme!
>It'll never work!
OLD SPACE BTFO!

Now to afk 34 minutes.

>Those plebs that turn off the stream after stage 1 lands

big boy lands after hefting big payload, nice

wub wub

>>10667629
The comms guy even confirmed it. Either the crowd is a bunch of bumbling morons or we have access to audio channels they dont.

What the fuck was that sound coming from the engine? It looked like it was shaking.

god damn that was badass

>>10667631
NOOO BUT SLS HELPS MAKE JOBS IN OVER 1000 DISTRICTS WE NEED IT FOR AMERICAN WORKERS

>me and the boys watching the gridfins in the microwave sparking.

>>10667635
T+45mins la
Unless the Stage 2 fucks up there's nothing interesting on the stream

>>10667627
How many times has this one been used before?

>>10667648
Until Elon announces on stream that the net beta test starts tonight

>>10667649
2, this was the third flight

>>10667638
Pretty much. The audio on the webcast that we hear from him isn't streamed into the immediate area. They literally only hear those official background callouts and see video.

>>10667648
Sat deploy will be interesting to see.

>>10667629
>>10667638
We're visual creatures, we tend to believe in what out eyes can see, so most everyone don't celebrate until they can actually see the rocket

>in "space"
>no stars

>>10667658
>"what's camera exposure?"

>>10667655
I had the shrek cosplayer in mind when I made that post.

Could see main flight and Stage 1 firing from NC coast. Too far to see Stage 1 landing. Its burn was super bright.

>>10667672
you lucky bastard

Russian ICBM intercept in 30

My biggest question is why haven't they released an animation of the deployment procedure.

>>10667678
*Comcast ICBM intercept in 30...

>>10667680
Maybe they want to keep that proprietary so competitors dont setup their own cheap networks, idk

NIGGER THERE BETTER BE A DEPLOYMENT STREAM

>>10667680
Maybe so that the deployment is more exciting to see since we (outside of SpaceX) don't know what to expect?

>>10667685
Pretty hard for competitors to setup a cheap network without their own reusable rockets. BO is the only one capable of this whenever they feel like getting around to doing anything.

>>10667691
>BO is the only one capable of this
BO has an orbital rocket?

At T + 20:35 it made a little poof that fit perfectly with the music. Was that to correct orientation or something?

new tunes, nice. this is jamming

>>10667693
>Whenever they feel like getting around to doing something

>>10667693
Hopefully they will in 2 years. Fingers crossed.

>>10667693
BO has boatload of bezobucks

Fuck, I missed it because the fucking spacex web page pointed to the old broken video.
At least I haven't missed deployment yet.

WHEN ARE THEY DEPLOYING?

>>10667716
T+45m if I recall correctly

is there an animation/chart somewhere that shows the final orbits of these 60 sats? I want to know how long until I can give Spectrum the finger.

>>10667719
I thought it was more like T+1h2m

>>10667585
>>10667588
Im sorry idiot, but you have stumbled into a fighter of the mind, and no matter how much you insist on being a violence builly, i have read books all my life so i have an armor against idiots. Youre inferior non knowledge powers do nothign to me, so prepare to fight with thoughts or be declared inferiors to me dear sir.

>>10667720
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEIUdMiColU

>>10667720
nigga back I lived in Wyoming spectrum was the shit. Now I live in buttfuck california and Im stuck with fucking mediacom

>>10667725
But do we know the orbits of these initial 60?

>>10667720
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EwVdD1LSYA

>>10667724

next engine fire is coming up on the screen lads

>>10667712
Same

>>10667728
no idea

God damn warm earthers. Look at the Spacex map, and you'll clearly see the whole planet is snow covered.

>>10667703
Bezo's ex will will shrink their budget.

>>10667712
>he doesn't just use the launch thread "bongs from this post" as a reference

>>10667729
these are assumptions by some dude, remember

>>10667742
Obviously the Earth is covered in coconut shavings.

>>10667724
Ah yes, this is probably why it faded into obscurity. Good times.

>>10667745
Not just random assumptions, but rather optimal deployment for max coverage.

Fuck you Comcast

>>10667728
The initial 60 are version "0.9" if I remember correctly. I don't think they will necessarily be used for commercial use, but more to finalize conceptual designs and be test dummies for final tweaks. They will probably move around a bit to try different things.

~5 more minutes now

>>10667745
it was on a different computer hooked up to a real TV, faggot, and it had a tiny chicklet thing for a keyboard

>that momentary shot of the stack looking down on the Earth
Kino.

>>10667755
lol

shid

The second stage engine is venting something? Is that normal?

>>10667757
starman vibes

DETAILS

>>10667753
I'm going to guess these will probably get commanded to de-orbit eventually, if they're still working well enough to maneuver, since they don't have the auto-deorbit design yet

>>10667758
and real speakers for the music too of course

>>10667763
Sexy

Also live is back.

>>10667763
I can see the folded up solar panels, those look pretty flimsy

smol burn

15 minutes?!

>the reflection of the earth in the shiny foil
kino

15 more minutes till next update @ t+1 hour.

PAYLOAD DEPLOYMENT IN 15 BINGS!

>>10667777
Nice quads

>>10667571
Streaming is not mission critical. It is at the bottom of the priority stack.

>>10667777
checked

>>10667759
A million
A gosh darn million

>3 second burn
nani the fuck, is this ksp

>>10667761
yes

>>10667772
They are surprisingly durable.
Although, there is no wind resistance in space to worry about.

>>10667694
Probably

>>10667777
checkerino

>>10667781
Just ignore him. He wants to cause drama. Seriously, anyone who thinks what he's talking about have really messed up priorities or is trolling.

So, what private company has the largest fleet of satellites? Where does this single launch put Spacex in the rankings? How long until they're the largest satellite operator by craft number? A handful of launches?

>>10667796
SpaceX will have the largest fleet of satellites if this pulls through.

>>10667781
this music is critical to me though

>>10667796
the total 12,000 bird constellation will be six times more than the total number of operational sats currently

>>10667798
Iridium has 82 up right now. Spacex will have, what, 60+2?

>>10667796
>>10667798

Planet Labs has a few hundred teeny tiny imaging sats, I think. In the realm of big-boy satellites, though, according to this wiki list, tonight's launch might put Spacex at the top in a single launch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_communication_satellite_operators

>>10667810
Indians did like 70 at once. Plus, SSO-A... that was like 64?

>>10667810
Ah, damn, that's just commsat operators. My bad.

antarctica spotted :3

DUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDU

>>10667818
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiHDmyhE1A

>>10667616
Won't happen now that they've swapped to titanium

Live again for deployment

deployment time

IT'S HAPPENING

official cgi

Anyone see that sun rays? Holy fuck, looks awesome.

OH FUCKING NO

>crowd goes awwwww
>lol just trolling, expected loss of signal
Look at that fucker go

>>10667830
Space KINO

well that was unexpected

Nani I wasn't expecting that.

FUCK YEAAAA that was awesome

>>10667834
I'll get that webm later once the youtube video can be downloaded proper.

OUR MEME SATELLITES WILL BLOT OUT THE SUN

it was like shiny space poop

>Expected sats to be deployed individually one at a time
>SpaceX just dumps the whole rack at once because fuck it

that unfolding butterfly of satellites was the first death knell of the telecom monopolies

>>10667833
Why have a bulky deployment bus when you can simply

D R I F T

>expected loss of signal conveniently hides moment if deployment

>>10667843
They have internal engines, so it will sort itself out in proper orbit.

>>10667833

Well that explains why they didn't have an animation.

>>10667845
MULTI-SAT DRIFTING!!!

>1000 spacex sats
>1000 amazon sats
>1000 oneweb sats
rip exosphere

>>10667843
I was expecting that too, but once you think about it, if each sat was launched individually, it could knock the second stage out of proper orbit.
They dumped them all at once, will let them float apart, then use on-board thrusters (or something like that, I forget specifics) to allow better space.

>Air Force Kessler Sat 1 successfully deployed and ready for activation on command

now what
when do traditional isps start giving a shit
>>10667855
you mean like 12,000 starlink sats

>>10667844
Literally sent chills down my spine, I can't fucking wait.

>open hatch
>dump shit out
>here's your satellite network bro

How do we crowdfund the /sci/ cube sat to broadcast shitposts from space

>>10667855
>Earth becomes NEET planet
>who needs deep space when you have super internets

>>10667858
I thought they said 400 for light coverage, 1200 for full?

>>10667785
Yeah what the fuck I didn't think they could spool up quick enough for that

>SpaceX accidentally setup the staging wrong and meant to stage the rack LAST
>All 60 sats stuck on the rack because someone fucked up the staging in KSP

>>10667856
Krypton-based ion drives. apparently it's cheaper than Xenon or Argon

>>10667855
The founding fathers didn't have spaceflight and didn't intend to fly above the atmosphere.

No one needs high altitude capacity flight.

>>10667868
>someone presses twice space on accident and dumps the satelites while still in the atmosphere

>>10667865

>>10667861
Isn't that the plan for starship? Or are they going to use the you only live twice chomper

ITS LIVE

I GOT THE MEME INTERNET

HOLY SHIT ITS AMAZING

>>10667870
I know you're joking, but I'm certain there are some people who don't want spaceflight for silly reasons like that.

Did SpaceX figure out the laser link system yet?

>>10667879
Shut up

>>10667855
>Only 6 oneweb sats in space
>Amazon/BO still hasn't put shit into orbit

In one mission, SpaceX is years ahead of the competition. Everyone else should literally just stop before burning money.

>>10667884
t. Comcast.
>I fucking hate Starlink Internet. It's the biggest piece of shit ever.

>>10667810
If all those satellites are confirmed operational, it'll be time to put a new #1 on that chart.

Sweet

>>10667833
>60 satellite payload
>just yeet the whole thing into the void at once

>>10667883
I think they said in the next batch or two they will test it. Its not on this batch for sure.

>>10667843
>Which one is going to be first? At the far end? At the near end? Oh! Never mind! All of them!

>>10667892
That's definitely a SpaceX thing. Anyone else would probably try to make some kind of complicated rack that deploys each satellite individually.

>>10667885
imagine if everyone was trying to lay their own water lines all right next to each other
lmao free market

based

>>10667899
Congress. Each satellite gets a differently designed deployment rack from a different district.

>Sats deployed
>/sci/ autists haven't hacked the network yet

>>10667904
This will be an AMERICAN deployment rack. Each part was made in a different state and was painstakingly delivered to this one state to be partially assembled, delivered to another state to finish the assembly, and then finally delivered to the state that has the launch pad! This is the most efficient way of doing things.

>>10667899
Why waste time, do lot thing when few thing do trick?

You know, that really is an effectively simple dispersion mechanism: just put the stage into a non-roll spin and then let all the satellites go at once; they'll all have a smooth gradient of different velocities when they're let go and will spread out without risk of colliding with each other.

Be free, frens.

Imagine NASA doing this single Starlink launch. It would cost $1 billion dollar. $500 million for the satellites, $500 million for rockets.

>>10667888
No, it's just that 60 sats isn't enough yet

>Everyone at SpaceX will party over the weekend
>Except the one guy Elon assigns to monitor the status of the constellation sats

>>10667906
>Be Elon
>Get tired of shit internet
>Start a company to make high speed internet satellites
>The first deployment went by without a hitch
>"Oh boy! I can't wait to watch some cat vid-"
>Some random asshat on a Indonesian knitting forum has hacked my internet and flooded it with gigabytes of dolphin porn
>MRW

>>10667915
this is also why the sats were curving away to the right

>>10667903
Mars is smaller and they're starting with a basically fresh radio spectrum so they can use whatever frequencies they want and don't have to answer to the FCC on Mars

>>10667921
Elon with party with that guy for his birthday.

FUCK, I was tired and ready to go to sleep but this launch and that deployment have got me more awake than I've been all day.

Starman in his car, suspended above the earth, was inspiring. But this is awe, I think, in the real sense of the word. The potential here is terrifying, in a way, but I want to see where it goes.

>>10667875
If the initial deployment is at 452 km, how do the satellites get up to 550? Do they have enough thrust for that?

>>10667929
They have hall effect thrusters, they can slowly spiral their way up with the years of burn time they have

>>10667929
Krypton HALL thrust + solar panel

Highlights coming through slowly.

>>10667935
>>10667834

any pics of the actual sattelites? how big are they

>>10667941
Bigger than your penis

>>10667944
epic win

>>10667941
Each one without the solar array deployment is similar size to a 4 door sedan car in length/width but has the height of a feet or two. Once the solary array is deployed, the length doubles.

>>10667585
I've still got the silly Hullo planet-moon system it made.

>>10667939
That glare effect from the Sun looks awesome

Don't forget to pay your respects to the second stage that enabled this mission.

F

>>10667951
The what

>>10667949
For the win

>>10667941
according to a 17 foot diameter fairing and satellites stacked side by side 30 feet high

each satellite can be up to 6 feet by 12 feet

>>10667962

>>10667969
I fucked up I meant the satellites were in stacks of 30, not 30 feet high

>>10667963
I'll let the height map of Hullo do the talking

>>10667977
Bueno

>>10667977
>>10667982
Ona scale of "ruined forever" to "oh god why" that's a solid "please"

next F9 launch is early June, some Canadian radar thingies. 11th tentatively

fairings recovered

>>10668015
Is it just me or does it look like there's a pool of water inside the fairing?

>>10668012
>Leaf on Falcon 9 fairing

>>10668019
nah

website is up https://www.starlink.com

>>10668035
I dumped the hi res images in the spaceflight general

also:
""Starlink is targeted to offer service in the Northern U.S. and Canadian latitudes after six launches, rapidly expanding to global coverage of the populated world after an expected 24 launches. SpaceX is targeting two to six Starlink launches by the end of this year."

>>10668070
>1 more year
oh god yes

Just got here, holy kek they yeeted the whole payload at once, kind of expected that but still hilarious.

>>10668074
>This bitch in orbit
>YEET!

I hope you don't live *too* far north lol

>>10668070
Fuck. My Comcast contract expires in 3 months. If only SpaceX can speed up their deployment.

>>10668085
Surely 12,000 satellites is enough to cover the poles. Antarctica desperately needs better internet

>>10668089
at least at McMurdo, quake LAN tournaments used to be pretty common. Amundsen gets like 2 hr of shitternet per day from a polar orbiting sat

stacking method is obvious here; three stacking pegs

>>10668093
seen here

>>10668094
>Literally a sheet of metal with electronics stuck on.

>>10668098
aluminum housing, casted I'd imagine. Can see the strengthening shape here

>>10668015
Did they actually catch them or just pull them out of the water?

>>10668085
>Starlink
LOL more like Buttlink
One Web is better IMHO

>>10668109
pulled them out of the water. Elon says they're fine for re-use that way.

REAL chads stay up for another 3 hours for orbit raise confirmation

>>10668112
After all their studies, they reinforced the fairings to be reused even with water damage.

>>10667920
Well good thing SpaceX will just keep launching these as they control the entire manufacturing and launch infrastructure and the funding is secured to the point that they had far more bids than they asked for.
There is literally nothing stopping this anymore.

>>10668129
In 2-3 years there will be competition in space, along with the ground isps competing. It's gonna be great

uh

>>10668139
whatthefuckamIreading.png

>>10668035
>Starlink is the first krypton propelled spacecraft ever flown
Neat

>>10667939
This is hands down my favorite pic/gif/webm of the year so far. Simply beautiful and a showcase of countless hours of engineering.

>>10668123
So they haven't reached the right orbit?

>>10668192
They deployed in a super low orbit so that any that broke would burn up quickly, and they can spread them out via the orbit raise burn
Only one burn for that because lol ion thrusters

>>10668192
>Payload mass & destination orbit: >13,620kg, 440km (satellites will raise to 550km after deployment)
plan from the beginning

>>10668112
>Elon says

You muskrats and your anilingus really disgust me.

>>10668209
"A SpaceX spokesperson" fine by you then?

>>10668112
>>10668128
I still don't believe them on that, but I'm sure they'll make a big deal of it when it happens

>>10668219
the 2nd FH launch fairings are supposedly going to be the first ones re-used (for a starlink launch). Today's launch were new fairings however.

>>10668099
Are those reaction wheels?

>>10668211
"Quoting engineers who actually know their shit" is better

>>10668223
Yeah, looking forward to it
Seems kind of silly with Starship right around the corner?

>>10668234
still a fair number of years of life left in F9. Some customers won't want to swap over for a while. And even if they catch just like six, that's a whopping 36 million dollars saved.

>>10668226
yes

Just watched the launch vid, dat re-entry plasma off the grid fins was awesome.

If anyone is curious

http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/starlink-draft.pdf

>>10667899
And risk that half of them will be damaged during deployment. So smart. These super smart decisions are the reasons Tesla is doing so well.

>>10668481
>Release sats slowly
>Bump
>OH GOD ALL FUNCTION IS LOST AND SATELLITE BIS DEORBITING

Fuck off retard

>>10668494
Yes, yes. Elon very smart, Elon never mistakes. As I said, his super-smart, cost-cutting decisions are also putting Tesla to new heights, as you can see by the fact they are going to run out of cash in 10 months. Super-smart, cost-cutting decisions all around.

>>10668523
Fuck off FUDshill

>>10668526
What the hell is a FUDshill? Is that the newest word that is going around in the Cult to call everybody who thinks Elon is an idiot?

OOOOOoooo NO ! my safespace/echochamber cant say shit for the launch soo lets whataboutism Tesla.... I will show them all how everything is going to hell soon !!!

>>10668546
Basically. FUD ("Fear Uncertainty Doubt") is what they call everything Tsla Shorts say - but now it's expanded to anything remotely anti-Musk.

Embarrassing samefag

>>10668523
Haha yeah any day now bro it's all going to come crashing down, remember to short your Tesla stock.

>>10668625
I don't "short stock" whatever the fuck that is, I just think Elon is a chronical case of Dunning-Kruger and his cultish, scientifically illiterate fanbase is the biggest cancer in the internet right now.

>>10667907
There's 60 in the stack, so let's have each one built in a different state! The remainder can be either the largest states make a second one, or from favored allies. Perhaps they can be made in Russia to keep their space workers employed!

>>10668654
If you don't know something as basic as what stock shorting is, you are completely unqualified to discuss a subject like corporate finances. Dunning-Kruger indeed.

>>10668706
No, a Dunning-Kruger would be somebody who pretends who know what shorting stock is, although you don't know what it is, or how you do that. I very clearly told you what I don't know, so that is the exact opposite of Dunning-Kruger, you idiot.

It's also really fucking funny you think corporate Finance and stock speculations are the same Thing. Dunning-Kruger indeed.

>>10668198
>>10668197
Are they in desired orbit now?

>>10668841
they got a hall effect thruster, it'll take a couple weeks

>>10668035
Christ that website is slow.
I fucking hate web developers, niggers load 2gb of javascript frameworks to show a fucking picture.

>>10668932
does it do more than show that image of the starlink constellation? Because i don't know how to get it to do anything else

>>10668939
Scroll down?

>>10668954
i tried to click the arrow

>>10668964
welcome to internet in 2019.
I had to download the entire website to extract the images to post here; a regular resource inspection wouldn’t cough them up

>>10668821
Short-selling is the act of borrowing stock from a broker (for a fee of course) selling it, and then rebuying it at a later date, to return to the broker. The more the stock price declines by that date, the more money you make. If the price of the stock goes up, well you then lose money. Any of the major brokerages can set up a short account for you if you want one.

And given how closely tied corporate finances are to stock speculation, knowing enough to competently discuss the financial situation of a company, but not know something basic like short-selling is just bizarre.

And anyways, to tie this back to the actual satellite launch, Starlink is going to be extremely desirable to the high-frequency trader types, who are willing to pay big bucks to shave a bit of latency off their transactions. They already have shelled out for direct microwave links between major cities like London & Frankfurt, to gain that small edge over fiber-optic cable (which isn't a straight line, and light only goes 2/3rds C in glass); Starlink can provide that same advantage on long-haul routes like New York-Singapore and such.

>>10669011
You just needed to look harder, OR look in the Network tab as the page loads.

>>10669059
alright well explain this to me; how do I modify js/threed.js to uncomment //ringPointMesh.rotation.x = -53 * toRAD; ?
For some reason they are using the old orbits for the globe thing. I want to see the new 53° paths, not the current 60° ones.

>>10669265
If you're on Chrome, look into the devtool's local override feature. Once you have that set up, go to sources and make the changes you want to threed.js then ctrl + s to save it. When you reload, Chrome should use the local modified version.

>>10668841
We haven't heard anything lol

>>10668939
You can spin the globe with the starlink sats on it
It responds to keyboard (arrow keys) and mouse

>>10668098
>literally the perfect satellite design

>>10668523
Tesla has been 10 months from bankruptcy forever dude.