/sci/ - Science & Math

Any good online TLE trackers? Where we can input the TLE?

I'm gonna try and snap some pics when it comes over again.

>>10670527
PreviSat, gPpredict... https://www.celestrak.com/software/satellite/sat-trak.php

Starlink here.

how does BO keep getting launch contracts if they dont have any rockets or experience with orbital flight? is bezos bribing companies?

>>10670692
you talking about commercial? Low prices, time guarantees, who knows

>>10670692
They really want a SpaceX competitor for some reason

>>10670760
competition is good
spacex is as good as they are specifically because there's a fire under their ass to remain that way
if they get complacent, a competitor can overtake them and knock them out of the race

>>10670692
Unknown since Blue Origin is very secretive. Most likely is that they do lots of studies and research like ULA and their results seem impressive to the US government.

>>10670760
Probably to avoid monopoly. The Shuttle era has shown how bad it is to rely on only one launch provider.

just saw the pass and was able to get a shitty smartphone pic

>>10670538
Thanks, it shows starlink is just below Greenland, did I set it up properly?

>>10670779
I saw a glimpse as well... can someone explain for PreviSat if you are supposed to be able to see if if it's green or blue? or red?

the manual says "We also draw the ground track of the future orbits of the default satellite. The color of this curve is clear blue when the satellite is illuminated by the Sun, green when the satellite is in the penumbra of the Earth, and red when the satellite is in the shadow of the Earth."

>>10670779
enhanced

>>10670800
Blue is visible
Green is in shadow
Red is really in shadow you can't see it

here's mine. Unenhancible

>>10670810
Thanks. any idea what the "sun elevation" parameter should be set to?

>>10670800
I saw more than a glimpse. It's the most impressive satellite view I've seen. Although I have not seen much.

Lots of fun!
https://twitter.com/hashtag/ufo?lang=en

>>10670568
Almost eerie, but beautiful

do you agree with Mr astronomer man?

>>10670884
Shit's fucked, bruh

>>10670884
After it disperses, only two would be visible at a time.

>>10670884
>>10670889
After the whole constellation is up you'll have a handful in view at all times

>>10670884
If, one day, I can't look into the night sky from anywhere on Earth without seeing evidence of our presence in space, I'll be happy.

Right now, we look up and see wilderness. I want to see outposts on the frontier. I want to see face of the moon dotted and scarred with cities. I want to see a ballet of satellites and orbital habitats playing out in front of the stars. I want to look in every direction and see a monument to our brazen defiance of nature.

>>10670884
Then fund space telescopes. Problem solved. Most people live in cites where you can't even see stars, so a bunch of reflective satellites won't hurt them.

>>10670884
Go to space for your astronomy shit bruh
Studying a star 5 gazillion light years away isn't going to help advance space exploration

>>10670897
You are a man of culture

man that was one of the coolest things I've ever seen! and I only got about four seconds of it being relatively bright. pics in a sec

So, with all these satellites being operational so far, this makes Starlink the operator of the largest fleet of communications satellites in the world, beating Intelsat by 1. With another launch they'll move past the specific commsat sector and overtake Iridium's fleet size. Four launches total and they'll have the largest known operating fleet of any entity on the planet, and that's just the early stages of the project. This is going to happen in less than a year.

it's the coolest fucking thing

>>10670527
TLE?

im disappointed that i am unable to see it, but i guess there will be lots more opportunities due to future launches

>>10671613
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-line_element_set
Describes the orbit and location of satellite at a fixed point in time.
Software extrapolates it for current location.

is there a way to look up when it will pass over my location/

>>10671700
New latest TLE : http://www.satobs.org/seesat/May-2019/0228.html
TLE is 3 lines from (including) the line STARLINK TRAIN
Use something like gpredictor to see next time it will go above you.
Or use satorbit app on Android (it supports manual TLE import.

>>10671700
What's your location

>>10670884
Muskrats will unironically defend this.

>>10671719
>>10670897

the heavens are ours, old space cuck

>>10671719
Implying people look at the sky.

>>10670904
This here. Starlink money is going to fund the Starship project, which if it comes anywhere close to what Space X is projecting, will let us put up space telescopes that make Hubble look like baby's first Tasco. Plus it will make sending space probes to everything in the solar system that much easier.

>>10671714
ok, where do I input TLE into satorbit, dont see it anywhere

>>10671719
Anyone should defend it because the guy is being a retarded faggot.
>implying you can see 9000 stars from one spot
>implying you can see all 12000 satellites from one spot
>implying they will reflect the sun from the dark side of the earth in low earth orbit

>>10671761
>>10671765
nwm found it

>>10671717
eastern Europe

>>10671768
and
>implying these will appear as more than an occasional dot from the ground
>implying you can even see them with all the light pollution on the ground
>implying that professional astronomers don't already have to deal with satellites and already know how to ignore them

>>10671798
>>implying these will appear as more than an occasional dot from the ground

If they do manage to put up all 12k satellites, then it will be dozens of dots visible at any time.

Let's see, what would be the average starlink per km2 with 12000 of them at 550km orbit.
Earth Radius R=6371km.
So r=6371+550=6921 km
Sphere radius is 4πr2 = 602Million killometers squared
So 50.000 km2 per satellite.
So one every 450km, very roughly.

Now, you'll only be able to see them at dawn or dusk, when there is some sunlight to reflect.

>>10670884
12000 satellites.
60 a launch.
I'm not really into divisions, but this will take a while, won't it?

>>10671805
maybe a few at dusk, definitely not dozens.
at all other times you will not see shit.

>>10671816
Assuming 2 weeks between launches it'd take something like 7-8 years to deploy via Falcon 9. Its why they're trying to get the initial batch of 800 up, then use the income from that to fund starship so they can shit out the remaining 11,000 in a dozen or so Superheavy launches.

>>10671816
200 launches from a Falcon 9, but Starship seems to be making good progress; that should be able to launch at least 300 (probably even more) Starlink sats at a time, or just 40 launches. Starlink's agreement with the FCC is to have 4400 up by 2024, and all 12k up by 2027 or so.

>>10671840
damn, imagine the starlink train from 300 sats

>>10671845
CHOO CHOO

>>10671840
Yeah, I'm anything but convinced with starship.
There's a picture where it looks like the retards welding it couldn't even match the nosecone with the section below. Give me a second, I'll find it.

>>10670884
Mr Asstronomer got told

Precision Engineering.

I mean Raptors looks like a pretty cool engine. So why would they attach it to pic related? That's an absolute PR disaster.

>>10671867
Imagine the balls from people wanting to ride it to Mars.

>>10671860
Anyone with a brain would know that.
I hope twatter would ban people for being retarded.

>>10671867
which one is that

>>10671977
Boca starship nose cone. Cocoa’s is much more refined, as it’s Mk 2

Russian memes are the best

>>10671998

lots of work in the ass-end. prep for raptor no doubt

>inb4 the iron dome has a false positive and shoots them all down

>>10671746
>>10671758
>>10671768
no seriously, please do not respond to the shill
it just encourages it to stay and shit everything up even more, which is infuriating

>these 60 starlink satellites only have ku-band, don't have lasers and don't fully disintegrate on reentry
Kinda disappointing, desu. With all the hype you wouldn't expect these to be just prototypes.

>>10672246
gotta start somewhere.
They've demonstrated:
>Krypton thrusters work
>Deployment method works
>communication works (with the ground)
>battery / solar stuff works
>overall design is functional

next batch will be the first all-disintegrating ones true, but this is a great first batch from a verification point of view

>>10670897
NOOOOOOO STOP YOU CAN'T
MUH SKY

>>10672264
Yeah, so? In a large city you're not going to see the stars due to light pollution of said city.

That's what this guy is arguing right? That Starlink is bad because many of them would be seen in the night sky?

>>10671714
I'm copying them (the entire lines) into satorbit but it gives me an error in length for both lines. Any idea what's going wrong? Typing them in manually returns the same error

>>10672292
try previSat, I like it a lot

Once we build the moon base on the south pole, we can build a telescope with better imaging than anywhere on earth. And then we can exile all the stupid cunt astronomers to the moon.

>>10672306
Earthlight by Arthur C. Clarke explores that a bit. Good spy thriller book!

>>10670897

>>10672102
They'll all be in DoD database of trackers which is also shared with other nations.

>>10672318
CSpOC is probably having quite the "fun" time cataloging all of em

>>10670884

spaceflight will become so cheap that space astronomy will bloom

LOOK AT ALL THESE FUCKING BOATS BLOCKING MY VIEW OF THE OCEAN
IT'S UNNATURAL AND HORRIBLE

>>10671854

Consider ugly welding to be distracting unimportant fluff that some don't want to see past while the raptors work, the concept is sound and the goal obtainable, spacex is leading edge and competent, and material progress moves forward.

everyday basedstronaut has a new raptor video, supposedly he outdid himself this time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbH1ZDImaI8

https://spacenews.com/price-contract-terms-helped-maxar-secure-gateway-contract/

Price, contract terms helped Maxar secure Gateway contract

While Maxar offered a firm fixed price of $375 million, other bids ranged from $565.9 million by Northrop to $768.8 million from SNC.

It also noted that Maxar planned to use a “currently unproven heavy-lift launch vehicle” for launching the PPE. The document didn’t identify the vehicle, but one of the Maxar’s partners is Blue Origin

The review did cite some weaknesses in the design, including “added complexity” in the vehicle’s electric propulsion system as well as adding a co-manifested lunar lander

>>10671805
Only at predawn or dusk when the sky is still in shadow but the satellite will peaking out from behind the shadow. All other times and the atmosphere will be either too bright or the satellites will be in shadow and not reflecting any sunlight

>>10672360
>everyday estronaut

>>10672401
I wonder if this is a scheme to tacitly fund New Glenn dev (something the Bridenstine/admin faction probably wants) while appeasing the gateway turds in congress.

>https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1132386984444383233

I'm confused. Can Raptor be improved or no?

>>10672264
only visible just after sunset and just before sunrise, what's his problem?

>>10672430
not true; during these summer months you can see them pretty much for the entire night

>>10672331
Imagine being a tool that defends every last irrational thing SpaceX/Musk does.

>>10672452
so Amazon and Google are irrational too? They're also putting up big LEO constellations.

>>10672448
I should've made it clearer.
They're only visible at times where you can't do astronomical observations anyway.

If you live so far north that the entire night is astronomical twilight, you'll know that in the the sky never gets black enough to see much anyway.

>>10672459
What does that have to do with what I just said?

>>10672462
big LEO satellite constellations are not irrational

>>10672462
?
The complaint is against LEO sats polluting the sky. My memey image is a comparison for the argument to boats. You're obsession with hating Elon Musk made you assume my image is somehow related to him specifically

>>10672465
>>10672470
It's irrational to try to say the light pollution they will cause is a good thing.

Why are you muskrats so fucking retarded?

there he goes again, assuming it's always about Elon Musk.

>>10672473
It is not a good thing but it is very much worth it if it means global broadband internet and billions in revenue for SpaceX to fund Mars mission

venting footage from Boca https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnFklEbSbkI

>>10672473
There are 5000 active sats in orbit. Where's all that light pollution? I've only ever seen a satelite pass 3 times, if starlink was active all that time then i would've seen 9, oh lord what would i do.
Planes on the other hand, are fucking everywhere, flashing massive bright lights all over the sky. And if you live in a big city, good luck seeing stars anyway because every single street is blasted with a spotlight all night.

Its not irrational to think that air pollution is bad, but it is irrational to think that the satellites will cause more than we already have.

>>10672494
exactly. Removing streetlights would have a 1000000x better impact on light pollution than a handful of dots zipping across the sky at a given point.

Heck, streetlights are SHIT anyways. once wrote a paper on it

>>10672246
They literally orbited almost an entire Iridium constellation in one launch, I don't find that very disappointing.

>>10672417
New Glenn is merely the decoy. The real deal is funding ULA. Blue Origin makes engines for ULA so success of Blue Origin means paying money to ULA. Its a brilliant move from Blue Origin/ULA to tie themselves together but when NASA wants multiple partners, its kinda weird to select only one independent source, Blue Origin/ULA doesn't fit the bill but only looks so on the surface.

>>10672421
It can be optimize for certain missions and gain ~8% improvement, but he says Raptor is near peak already.

the train is really starting to decouple now. the sats at the end start their upwards march... https://twitter.com/Marcin_Loboz/status/1132395139698184192

>>10672473
No one said that the light pollution from the Starlink satellites is a good thing. Most arguing for Starlink are pointing out how overblown the issue of light pollution is. It IS an issue, but not as big as Alex Parker is making it out to be.

And besides, if it's such an issue, then astronomers can push funding for more space based telescopes where they'll be above the LEO constellations instead of more Earth based ones.

>>10672546
That's quite true, I didn't consider that. A lot is riding on BE-4 so it makes sense.

>>10672602
simplest solution is paint the aluminum chassis a matte color and/or just turn the satellites so the solar array won't reflect down.

I would be extremely butthurt if there was going to be a gorillion highly visible satellites hooning across the sky but that's just not the case so I don't really care.

>>10672648
hmmmm
https://twitter.com/Alex_Parker/status/1132335640605945856

>complaining that the satellites will block the sky

This would be so fucking cool seeing just random sats flying across the sky. What is this cunt talking about?

>>10672659
wide field astrophotography would be borked. also some birds use the stars to navigate. also it would look ugly I guess with 500 visible above you

>>10672652
Fuck off Alex, even if 500 are lit up at once all over the globe you will only see a handful at dawn/dusk.

>>10672664
>wrong
https://twitter.com/Marco_Langbroek/status/1132391345031647232

>>10672667
You aren't going to have 500 sats over your head at one time Alex.

>>10672421
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbH1ZDImaI8

Great information on the new rocket engines.

>>10670897
The only correct answer. An unsullied night sky means we aren't doing enough in space, and serious astronomy should be happening with space telescopes, anyway.

>>10672625
that would add weight, cause overheating, and waste power. the real simplest solution is to not listen to idiots who think starlink will add significant light pollution.

>>10672401
That's a nice looking solar-electric space tug. Hopefully it finds more use beyond just the lunar gateway. I wonder how much payload it can haul from earth orbit to lunar orbit and return.

For someone with the map in front of them: What times tonight is starlink passing over Connecticut?

>>10672672
>everyday estronaut

>>10672687
Try this, entering your latitude and longitude:
http://me.cmdr2.org/starlink/
For 41.7N, 72.6W, try 10:51 PM, looking west, for example.

>>10672690
it's a pretty good video

>>10672687
briefly visibile NE 20:43
good pass W->NE 22:21
good W->E pass 23:59

local times

>>10672687
https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=74001

Check it out. Its over Tibet right now.

>>10672699
>it's a pretty good video
not that anon, but no it's not a good video at all

>>10672705
The original guy here, its very good.

>>10672704
that's the old TLE. This one is more up to date
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/May-2019/0228.html

>>10672687
this one is probably your best bet. location is Bridgeport.

Ausfag here, they are passing almost directly overhead soon but I won't see them at day right?

>>10672712
what city

>>10672713
Rural QLD, I'm about 2-300ks out of the path.

>>10672716
what coords then

>here's your VAB bro

>>10672732
Love that cone fitting

>>10672705
great video learned something new from it

YEAH!
it's going to be visible at 4:38 A.M which is 2 hours 30 minutes away

>>10672252
>Krypton
That's gonna hurt in the long run
That shit is expensive

>>10672770
Isn't Krypton much cheaper than Xenon?

>>10672776
Yes

>>10670884
The Virgin "Astronomer"
>Probably dislikes Elon for saying something politically incorrect on twitter
>Would rather have mankind be held back than have his specific field inconvenienced
>Doesn't care about poor people
>Has seen stars through an aperture but has never dreamed of being there

>>10670897
The Chad Spacefarer
>Doesn't give a shit about Elon's memes
>Wants to further connect the people of the world
>Can recite Arthur C. Clarke while brushing his teeth
>Mankind's glory should be painted across the stars

more facts/fearmongering/fud/alarmism/truth/whatever you want to call it

>>10672823
The important bits is that it's during twilight anyway, when the upper atmosphere is starting to reflect light anyway

>HERE'S YOUR LOP-G ORBIT BRO
>bro?
>bro where'd you go

>>10672823
There are many possible workarounds for this. For wide fields and asteroid watching it's not a problem already, they just filter out objects like these (or contribute to satellite tracking networks), the only possible problem is dynamic range. For heavily stacked narrow-field deep skies and planets, you can track the satellites and skip an occasional frame or two. For long exposure deep skies where interrupting is not possible, you can watch the same field with a secondary realtime instrument and correct the resulting exposure for satellite traces or even for light scattering. It's already being done on most serious instruments.

Atmospheric corrections are already extremely sophisticated and involve adaptive optics, weather monitoring, complicated models like NRLMSISE-00, scattering modeling etc. Astronomers in general are pretty good at correcting for distortions, especially in the recent couple decades; I don't think that large satellite constellations are going to be a huge problem really.

Now, radio astronomy is a different question

>>10672886
So it's basically a highly inclined elliptical lunar orbit?

>>10672962
Elliptical to the point that interactions between earth and the satellite become significant

>>10672968
Sounds complicated. Why didn't Apollo use this kind of weird orbit?

>>10672976
Because Apollo didn't hang around for long. Orbits around the Moon tend to be unstable. That NRHO is one of the few orbits around the Moon that are mostly stable.

>>10672976
well for one they wanted to land, rather than sit in orbit like we want to for some reason. also the sls is pissweak and can't heft orion any higher than this weird orbit (unless something has changed, I'm not sure about that)

HOP WHEN

>>10673003
Couple weeks; it got pushed back

>>10673011
FUUUUUUCCCKKKK

Anyone know when/where 1999 kw4 will be passing tonight? I want to know if/when I should go outside and look up.

>>10672757
I just saw it (I think).. it was one bright satellite looking thing which didn't move much but then it disappeared. What gives?

Is there a website I can plug my coordinates into to tell me when and where the train is going to be?

>>10673244
use this >>10672698

>>10673248
Cool thanks senpai, it's coming my way at dusk, I'll try get some pics.

I tried viewing the satellites three times using both the old and new tle and didn't see anything. Is anyone else having better luck?

>>10670692
AWS Ground Station as a Service exists and the feds love their big end to end contractors.

>>10670777
Also this, monopolies are big gay. Imagine how bad air travel would be with only one domestic airline.

>>10671929
They'd be out of business in three days.

>>10670897
Hell yeah.

>>10673443
All the satellites failed and burnt up in the atmosphere.

Better stick to Comcast.

>>10673443
you must be reading the map wrong or something

>>10673443
This orbit might be a worse one for viewing for your location. Those that are closer to dusk or dawn will be brighter.

>>10673538
furthermore the string has gotten quite spread out now. Not nearly as bright as it used to be

how long until the train fully disperses and gets into the proper orbit?

>>10673544
not too long I’d imagine. Week or so

>>10670884
1. Ground based pollution is a far bigger problem.
2. Only a handful will actually be overhead at any given time.
3. Of those that are actually overhead, they will only be visible during dawn and dusk when they can reflect sunlight.
4. For astronomy, it is trivial to completely remove them from telescope images through digital and physical filters, especially since their location is known.
No, he's an idiot.

>>10673544
Elon said they were "initiating orbit raise every 90 minutes," which presumably means they're going in sequence, and that tweet was about 32 hours ago, so it's likely that a third of the satellites have begun the climb with the rest to join over the next ~60 hours.

From there, I'm not sure how long it'll take for them to start getting to their final orbits.

>>10672264
>500 will be above the horizon
Ok, this guy is just retarded.

>>10672663
>wide field astrophotography
If only we had machines that could do image processing and remove satellites...

who cares about astronomy? with starship we can just shove giant observatories deep into space on the cheap.

>>10673594
>who cares about astronomy? with starship we can just shove giant observatories deep into space on the cheap.

Building big mirrors is still expensive, and building each instrument is going to remain expensive as all hell as long as each university continues to pursue each project as a PhD maker.

>>10673606
That doesn't really change it much, as some people can just go down the path of dirt cheap telescopes and get all the rewards
If some unis want to shoot themselves in the foot, so be it

>>10673612
>That doesn't really change it much, as some people can just go down the path of dirt cheap telescopes and get all the rewards

For now, operating a telescope is not a profit making venture. They're all bankrolled by institutes who use them for prestige and doctorates, and state governments for the prospective, long term value of the ongoing pursuit of human knowledge.

>>10673620
Governments just do science for browny points
If there's a way to drop costs through the floor, they'd take it in a heartbeat

>>10672732
t-that‘s just the inner skin for transpirarion cooling!

>Perfect timing, sun just set, sky getting dark
>Excellent vantage spot with clear view of horizon
>tfw didn't see the Musk train

Space is a lie and the earth is flat

>>10672672
Huh. From what I've seen so far, not bad for something targeted at the laypeople.

>>10672823
>>10672264

there are around 13,000 airplanes in the air at any given moment, and those actually emit light so are always visible

even full Starlink constellation will cause less light pollution than what we already have

Spaceflight newfag here, honest opinions on VentureStar?

Seems like a really cool concept, would it be competitive with Falcon 9/BFR if it was flown today?

>>10673999
It's a gay meme and no way could it ever be cost competitive weight/dollar. They still never solved the muh lightweight reusable hydrogen tank anyway so it's pointless to even talk about it as a concept.

>>10673714
sun needs to have been set for about an hour I’ve heard. A quick twitter check shows that it’s still a pretty long train. Better luck next time?

Stratogoose lol https://twitter.com/spacecom/status/1132470532757049345

>>10674047
>B-but it's the future of spaceflight
>Muh drag reduction
>Muh cheap "first stage"

Kek, retards btfo. If it's not a rocket you can get fucked.

>>10673999
hydrogen single-stage-to-orbit spaceplane
it is a triple meme

There is now a huge amount of negative attention with the Starlink constellation. People condemning it, seething hate for it, criticism of Musk/rich people/whatever.

It does seem that it will be an issue. I don’t know how I feel about it

>>10674076
It's just blue check Twitter seething and fortunately Musk is the god of Twitter so I wouldn't worry about it.

>>10674076

Modern seething leftists are being regressive. According to them, progress is gender multiplication and mass migration of shitskins. Actual progress, such as building space infrastructure, is just white man's privilege.

Ignore them.

>>10674076
It's just seethe about le rich white man, feel free to ignore, no one gives a fuck.

>>10674076
>musk wants to bring high-speed internet to rural villages, farms, oil platforms, ships and everyone in the third world
>upper middle class people living in the inner city post via their fibre-optic connections on twitter about how rich people are trying to take the sky for themselves, which they themselves can't see because of light pollution
Outrage culture is pretty dumb.

>>10674127
NOOOO YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND

>>10674134
Yes SpaceX should be providing billions of niggers internet free of charge, they are racist if they don't

>>10674134
WE LiVE in A
S O C I E T Y

>>10674134
What? A company making profits is exploitation? What does this guy expect companies to do then?

Here’s my position.

IF you feel the need to complain about this sky pollution, you have to be supportive of squashing ground sources of pollution FIRST. Streetlights, etc.

I would hate to see a bunch of dots whizzing around while camping out inna woods, but darker sky >>>>>>>>> sky with less shit in it is the priority ranking here

>The chad Musk vs Doug ‘the cuck’ Ellison

>>10674165
it’s like, dudes, you knew that these megaconstellations were going to go up for YEARS. Only now you bother to complain about it? The time for working out a solution was before they started launching.

lol @ the one guy who said “Was the International Astronomical Union
@IAU_org
informed in advance about this project ?”

>>10674172
>lol @ the one guy who said “Was the International Astronomical Union
>@IAU_org
>informed in advance about this project ?”
Do you have a screenshot of this?

Oneweb has already launched a handful. Are they visible?

Hello, L2 anon here, just going to inform you guys that SpaceX have found the root cause of the Dragon 2 anomaly, but we don’t know what it is yet. Also the schedule for D2 is now repeat hotfire test (idk with which vehicle), do the IFA and then DM-2; no timeframes have been mentioned yet.

>>10674181
https://mobile.com/PierreKervella/status/1132602932229287936

>>10674063
Don't forget the aerospike meme.

>>10674186
That link seems messed up, here's a better one.
https://twitter.com/PierreKervella/status/1132602932229287936

>>10674182
They only launched 6 satellites so far, also their orbiting at 1,200km not 440km.
The reason Starlink is so visible is because all 60 are packed together in a train, once they separate due to orbit raising the complaints will drop.

>>10674192
lol I’m a moron and deleted the twitter part of the url rather than the mobile part

Hello, L2 anon here, just going to inform you guys that SpaceX have found the root cause of the Dragon 2 anomaly, but we don’t know what it is yet. Also the schedule for D2 is now repeat hotfire test (idk with which vehicle), do the IFA and then DM-2; no timeframes have been mentioned yet.

>>10674194
This is not true. You can definetely see the solar Arrays of satellites in that low Orbits.

Isn't Starlink still in it's development phase? Can't astronomers just go talk with SpaceX on ways to make their satellites less reflective? It doesn't seem like it's too much of a hassle to at least try.

>>10674127
No, Starlink, OneWeb, etc. are going to bring Internet to the few rich People Living in 3rd world shit holes and the western tourists that vacate there for a few weeks.

>>10674063
>>10674191
And ESPECIALLY don't Forget the biggest meme of them all, the reusability meme

>>10674202
Deployment phase.

>>10674202
yeah I don’t see why you can’t just do an anodizing process on the aluminum frame. Dunno how’d you fix the solar panel problem though. Roll it up at night?

Wonder what percentage of the reflection / flares come from the panels

>”in reducing the reflection of our starlink satellites, every sat is now powered by an RTG”
>people then go bananas over the evil radioactivity

there’s no winning

>>10674212
As my dad told me many times, "you can't please everyone, so don't try."

>>10674172
Well they did bitch a while back about starlink having high chances of hitting a populated area. Starlink being visible in the night sky just adds fuel to the Elon Musk hate train.

>>10674215
they did solve that one at least; the next batches will have non-iron reaction wheels or whatever. No parts can survive re entry

>>10674197
Is this CRS-7 “we’re pretty sure” level of fault tree reduction or Proton “yeah the damn sensor was upside down” level of fault determinism

>>10674244
There’s been no indication, it’s just been said that SpaceX are currently in the fault confirmation part of the investigation. Remember this is a joint NASA/SpaceX investigation, so I expect them to be thorough.

>>10674279
>joint NASA/SpaceX investigation,
this sounds like a good TV show. X-files crossed with CSI. This weeks episode, hunting the apocryphal ULA snipers...but is NASA actually trying to help uncover the truth? Tune in to find out!

>>10674291
>SpaceX-Files

>>10674294
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHr_AxszWLk

>>10674225
Which means starlink visibility is just another 'issue' that SpaceX have to deal with that any other sat operators won't ever be hounded with.

>>10674207
>tfw you realize that re-usability being a meme is now also a meme

>>10674320
No other sat Operator wants to put 12000 satellites into LEO. Stop this self-victimization, its pathetic,

>>10674149
Lefties are Communist, and not the useful kind of Communist that builds rockets.

>>10674291
>NASA Investigations: Russia edition
dundunDAAAAAH

>>10674134
Poor tweeter. The companies that will be exploiting this new network are google and Facebook, who spent zero dollars in connecting with these people but who will nevertheless grab a large percentage of their new traffic and data mine it for ad exploitation. SpaceX is just using it as a high profit margin to fund additional space endeavours. Is it charity? No. But is it a mostly unique service that will provide utilities to people who who currently live without? Yes.

>>10674455
But it'll ruin some people's view of the sky! Space telescopes are completely out of the question, for some reason.

What the fuck even is this Doug Ellison thread

>>10674555

>>10674556
Yep that's exactly all that the internet's useful for.

>>10674560
What a turd burglar.

>>10674555
>>10674556
>We're doomed!
What? How are satellite constellations dooming us? By making the night sky not look pristine? So what? Is there some aesthetic value being lost? Yeah, but there's also the same value lost in the pristine piece of land I'm living on when my house was built, but I'd rather have the house than not.

>>10674555
Who the fuck is this guy and why should anyone care about his opinion?

>>10674149
It IS exploitation, although the word exploitation doesn't necessarily mean something bad

lunar penal colony solely for astronomers when?

>>10674581
I don't know.. seems like people here are LOOKING for outraged people so that they can be outraged about the outrage
Stop paying attention to those people first of all no one cares what they think... the second thing is that Starlink got approval from the government and that's all that matters

>>10674560
How is the night sky being ruined? That one can't see the night sky as the cavemen did thousands of years ago? Most people in the developed world live in cities where light pollution form the city itself makes it hard to see stars. You'd have to go to some rural area to see the stars clearly, and how is seeing some of white dots move across the sky ruin it exactly?

Also, that flat earth comment is beyond obtuse. Not to invoke stereotypes, but these people who dislike Starlink for "polluting the night sky" seem to be the types who get sad when a bird's next was destroyed when the tree it was on was cut down for lumber before they head off to Starbucks to drink cheap coffee in plastic cups through plastic straws.

>>10674555
>>10674581
>>10674594
Doug Ellison is a cuck who works at NASA JPL, he’s an instrument engineer for Mars probes. I got blocked by him when I replied to his rant about white men ruining the world (he’s also a white male), I asked him if he wanted to borrow a whip to improve his flaggelation.

>>10674612
>his rant about white men ruining the world
Link to that, please?

>>10674617
Can’t be bothered to scroll through his cancerous feed but here’s a screenshot

>>10674626
Thank you very much.

>>10674626

>>10674612
I respect the work that he does but wow those are some shitty opinions.

It's ironic how people who study Stars and truly grasp Cosmic scale are the same ones who are obsessing over trivial societal changes and tech being in the skies.

>>10674644
Most people have a hard time correlating information between different parts of their lives.

>>10674677
The most merciful thing in the world, that.

>>10674643
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

>>10674202
or maybe they could dynamically turn the solar panels in such a way that sunlight does not reflect off them into night areas

Jonathan McDowell says it will negatively affect certain areas of research (wide field / deep search, some calibration techniques, etc)

I trust the dude, so I’m somewhat worried. But, if in the end it becomes cheap to put observatories on the moon or whatnot, who’s to complain...?

>>10674828
If only we've invested in more space telescopes rather than focus on one extremely expensive telescope with a sticky note on it that says
>Will be done "soon", please send more money.

>>10674202
spacecraft are made to be reflective for thermal protection right?

>>10675057
yes

based and elonpilled

>>10675087
What forum is that from?

>>10675105
NasaSpaceFlight.

The guys claiming the Sky is Falling has walked it back himself, since the magnitude 2 observations were clumps of satellites in the wrong orientation, rather than single satellites with their operational attitude, which takes them down to magnitude 5.

>>10675110
wow, it's almost as if jumping to conclusions is dangerous

>>10675115
Jumping to conclusion on baseless or very little information is dangerous if you're searching for truth. But if you have other motives, its a very good clickbait.

>>10674202
The problem isn't the satellite body, it is the solar panels, and there is simply nothing that can be done about those

>>10675120
fold them up at night

>>10675120
>The problem isn't the satellite body, it is the solar panels, and there is simply nothing that can be done about those

Aside from, you know, pointing the things in the right direction, which takes the apparent magnitude down from +2 (dimmer than Mars) to +5 (Slightly brighter than Vesta).

The most convincing argument for justifying Starlink’s cucking of the astronomy community I’ve heard is that if we really want to expand as a civilisation into space, many massive space stations and other large structures will have to be built in LEO, therefore all Starlink is doing is accelerating the inevitable demise of earth-based astronomy which will be an acceptable casualty of humanity’s expansion into space.

full constellation sim https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKj4GDNhH0Q&t=0s

>>10675140

>>10675146
M-MUH SKIES

>>10675146
If the lasers on those things actually meant something, that wouldn't be a half-bad planetary defense grid.

>>10675123
Night lasts for 10s of minutes for these spacecraft every 95 or so minutes. Constantly folding and unfolding the panels every hour would severely reduce the life of the satellite.

>>10675128
This will never reduce the light reflected from the panels to zero, because when the satellites are on the night side of earth, the earth will lie at least partially between the satellite and the sun, resulting in the panels pointed at least partially at earth. Being non-zero, they will still be easily picked up in long exposure and wide field imaging, which is where all the astronomy complaints seem to be coming from anyway. You seem like you would know all that so my point is mostly targeted for others: diminishing the apparent magnitude of the satellites does not reduce the complaints from the astronomy nerds at all.

>>10675162
>This will never reduce the light reflected from the panels to zero, because when the satellites are on the night side of earth, the earth will lie at least partially between the satellite and the sun, resulting in the panels pointed at least partially at earth. Being non-zero, they will still be easily picked up in long exposure and wide field imaging, which is where all the astronomy complaints seem to be coming from anyway. You seem like you would know all that so my point is mostly targeted for others: diminishing the apparent magnitude of the satellites does not reduce the complaints from the astronomy nerds at all.

Astronomer nerds already use subtraction techniques to eliminate spurious signals in long-term exposures. Techniques have long been employed to mitigate the effects of orbiting satellites and aircraft in astronomy, and Starlink is not poised to change that.

>>10675133
As cool of an idea that is, I doubt that this will happen. Astronomers will probably come up with a new filter to clean out the LEO constellations and maybe we'll see 2 or 3 new space telescopes. It seems like everyone is allergic to any space endeavors beyond tiny probes, and Earth orbit satellites.

>>10675188
Ever read about the nonsense around trains going too fast for humans, and how people wouldn't be able to breathe if they were stuck moving in a fast train? Everything new is scary and has to be fought against. So has it been, and always shall it be.

>>10674626
>self-loathing this much
Pathetic.

>>10675133
Just confirmed the panic scare, I was barely able to see one of the entire cluster, both passes recently in central europe.
Storm in a teacup, big city armchair astronomers jumping on the Musk hate train.

>>10675254
Also rural area with low light pollution

>>10675254
someone on twatter 5 min ago said he just saw the cluster; only 33 of the 60 left. Makes sense if it's 1 per 1.5hr

>>10675212
Yes, but the time between the first commercial trains and the first commercial train that can go above 30 mph (the speed where the myth of people dying on a fast train was said to be) was less than the time between Apollo and now.

Sure, steam locomotives and spaceflight aren't directly related but it seems like any push for more spaceflight is an uphill battle with a steep gradient. Mainly that it's expensive and the industry currently isn't suited for more spaceflight than what's already happening, but the reason why it's so expensive and the industry isn't there is because spaceflight isn't being done enough.

Sorry for seeming down, I'm not one of those people who think that spaceflight is impossible or that it should be dropped. I do have hopes for the future of spaceflight, but in order for it to progress there needs to be a hard push even if it seems irrational and lossy.

>>10675359
Starlink is important because it gives SpaceX a bounty of cash to throw into a loss-making money pit for years to come.

>>10675359
Well the real problem is that the welfare state exists. End it and let the useless eaters die. Then we'll have plenty of budget room for space.

>>10675359
The gap between Apollo and now is not really an argument because no one was trying seriously to iteratively improve designs and cut costs, it was just half a century of billion dollar pork barrel cost+ bullshit. Look how much progress SpaceX has made in 15 years from pretty much scratch.

>>10670884
The future is now.

>>10675152
It is a defence grid. That is the only explanation for such a huge endeavour. There are aliens on their way to kick out ass and we need to raise the draw bridge and close the gate before they get here.

>>10675509
SpaceX really has been putting literally everyone to shame.

>>10675152
Maybe their debris tracking cameras could be used to look for ufos.

>>10672331
Fuck, the 19th century was so a e s t h e t i c

So each of these tiny starlink satellites can provide broadband internet to a user located 300 miles away. Why don't they just stick some of these satellites on mountaintops near large cities and use them to provide last-mile internet connections? Think of all the people still stuck using shitty DSL who would eagerly sign up for such a service.

>>10675641
That would require a lot more negotiating with people, which, to get anywhere near the kind of coverage StarLink is for, would be much, much harder than launching 12,000 satellites.

You see all this NIMBYism by astronomers, right? Now imagine that, manifold, by groups other people actually care about. The graft costs would dwarf the launch costs, most likely.

>>10672989
SLS Block 1 is pissweak.
SLS Block 1B is STRONK but Orion's SM is pissweak.
SLS Block 2 is STRONKEST but Orion's SM is STILL pissweak
have heard rumors NASA is going to stretch it for later missions though. ESA is talking about it too.

>>10675533
If this is our future, bring out the ASAT weapons. Sats are one thing. SPACE!ads are another.

>>10675663
>Orion's SM is STILL pissweak
This is why I don't understand all the butthurt about the lunar gateway. For a near term return to the moon the gateway is needed because the Orion is nowhere near as capable as the Apollo CSM.

>>10675656
>That would require a lot more negotiating with people,
True but you would think that Google, an investor in SpaceX, would want to trial the technology in areas where Google Fiber deployment didn't work out. You wouldn't even need the entire satellite, just the communications payload so it should be relatively cheap to deploy.

>>10675698
>Orion is nowhere near as capable as the Apollo CSM
Nowhere near as capable how? The longest Apollo mission was 12 days, and the Orion can go for 21 days?

>>10675708
propulsion

>>10674455
Remember when Fakebook tried to put up a satellite of their own?

>>10675781
Based Musk btfoing Facebook.

>>10675707
Google is going SpaceX internet because Google Fiber didn't work out due to legal issues every step of the way. Its just better to do it from space and suffer slight 10-20 ms.

>>10675641
Do you know how much of a pain in the ass putting something on a mountaintop is, let alone maintaining it?

>>10675804
>Google Fiber didn't work out due to legal issues every step of the way
Really? How so? This is the first time I'm hearing about that. Is it due to construction laws or communication companies trying to stop Google?

>>10675814
Broadband monopoly law. Comcast/ATT/etc did not want Google to use utility pole to run the fibers and they threw a fit and filed lawsuits with city.

>>10675825
>Broadband monopoly law
What? That's a law? Even though history has shown that monopolies are rarely a good thing. Source on that please? Not to sound rude, but I want to believe that you're joking.

So when are we going to know if these spacex satellites work? I want to sign up for starlink service asap.

>>10675831
North America probably wont get it until atleast end of the year and maybe next year.

>>10675804
I still laugh that Google Fiber actually tried to run fiber down surface streets in very shallow trenches.

>>10675781
Remember when Israel tried to get a lunar transfer orbit at LEO satellite prices and then the lander shattered on impact because they didn't gas it hard enough?

>>10675840
Yeah, they tried to take shortcut with shallow trenches but ATT had sued the city to block Google from using the utility pole.


>>10675828
Each city has local laws. Many cities/state give monopolies to ISP because the rational is its expensive to lay down the lines so they need a contract to be monopoly for x amount of years.

>>10675828
It's not one law, it's a series of state and local measures.
>well we COULD bring fast internet to your town
>but only if you make a law giving us monopoly powers
>otherwise enjoy dialup
The monopoly power created the laws.

If SpaceX keeps doing bulk Starlink deployments even after switching over to Starship, the first couple nights before they start to make their burns to enter their proper orbits could be way more spectacular than even this weekend's event.
>Instead of 60 satellites in a train, 300
>An arc that may be an order of magnitude "larger" perceptually than every other astronomical object in the sky

>>10676026
300 sat train would be kino as fuck

HOP WHEN

>>10676059
couple weeks

>Mars had its atmosphere stripped away by solar radiation because it doesnt have a magnetic field

how about Venus? Why does Venus have so much atmosphere, and why is it so hot and dense?

So what ever happened with the OneWeb satellite constellation? They launched a tiny number of satellites a few months ago and not much news since. If they intend to compete with Starlink they need to get moving.

>>10676171
Venus has more gravity
Venus likely had a thicker atmosphere to start with
Venus probably lost its magnetosphere more recently than Mars

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1132894389095653376

Coaxial swirly bois confirmed

>>10676185
Softbank is leaving oneweb. They’re ded.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1132897322457636864

“There are already 4900 satellites in orbit, which people notice ~0% of the time. Starlink won’t be seen by anyone unless looking very carefully & will have ~0% impact on advancements in astronomy. We need to move telelscopes to orbit anyway. Atmospheric attenuation is terrible.”

Current train spread

heres’s your internet bro:

“Aiming for sub 20ms latency initially, sub 10ms over time, with much greater consistency than terrestrial links, as only ever a few hops to major data centers”

https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1132903914586529793

>>10675804
>Google is going SpaceX internet
sauce?
Not that this wouldn't be a smart idea for them. Certainly a lot better than trying to do fixed wireless. But they might even reach me with real fiber before that can happen.

>>10675840
...in a place where real winter happens. Except I don't think they had even gotten as far as snow/ice getting into the trenches, just the tar pulling out as cars drove over it.
>>10675841
>and then the lander shattered on impact because they didn't gas it hard enough?
Actually I seem to recall the thing lost contact or control during an important part of landing, and couldn't recover. So it's more like they didn't gas it when they were supposed to.

>>10676313
look up oneweb. They’re already launched a handful on Soyuz. Sorta similar plan to Starlink, just more traditional engineering behind it and much smaller scale.

>>10676238
thank God ive been waiting for combustion chamber injector details for ages

I want pics

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1132905669110054912

WOW IT’S ALMOST LIKE EVERYONE GOT ANGRY FOR NOTHING

ITS ALMOST LIKE A SPACE COMPANY ISN'T RETARDED AND THOUGHT OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS
fuck we just need to nuke twitter from time to time

Yo @anon who was wondering about desaturation in the other thread? Here’s your answer

>>10675533
This is beyond almost impossible economic.

>>10674138
Ahem:
“Exactly, potentially helping billions of economically disadvantaged people is the greater good. That said, we’ll make sure Starlink has no material effect on discoveries in astronomy. We care a great deal about science.”

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1132907207463321600

>>10675509
>from pretty much scratch
except for the nasa tech transfer

>>10676331
Ah, that would do it. Thanks anon. Completely forgot about magnetic torquing and didn't see them in the various images of the sats we have, so I thought they weren't even there.

>>10676340
Like every other American rocket company

>>10676433
The point is that "from pretty much scratch" is technically untrue. However, they were one of the few companies to actually use the shoulders of giants, that is true.

>>10676451
If what SpaceX has achieved wasn't special, someone else would have done it by now. It hasn't been for any lack of trying, either. Getting lost in arguing about the definition of "from scratch" is, is both pointless and distracting from the enormity of their growth as an organization and their capabilities.

>>10676167
actually just a single week.
the "hops in about 10 days" tweet was 5 days ago.

>>10676467
Mostly people got bogged down in paperwork and Congress, i think
SpaceX has a unique way of approachingspace but that was only enabled by NASA
They could have shut them down at any time, pretty much

>>10676336
I actually read some astrocuck on twitter the other day saying Musk was "colonizing the night sky" with starlink. This is a hilarious counter angle.

>>10677008
Yes, without NASA SpaceX would've been another failed startup space company and that should be recognized. But what else should be recognized is that SpaceX has done exceptional work with and without NASA.

>>10677016
What? Now THAT I need to see. Do you have a screencap of that?

>>10677016
He's right, you know, but wrong about it being wrong

>>10677021
Fuck it took me 40 minutes but I finally found this faggot.

>>10677067
True but the use of the word is funny, especially considering this guy is in NZ.

>>10677088
Thank you. That's very silly. While I understand wanting to preserve parts of nature for future generations to appreciate, a couple of dots crawling along the night sky is nowhere near as bad as city light pollution.

Just had a great idea:
SLAM as a low altitude MARS surveyor, or a high altitude Venus probe (easier to get to Venus, harder to build the vehicle)

>>10677251
No one would allow this thing to ever be built and launched off earth. Simply too much nuclear material. Doing it off the moon though, that should be doable.

>>10677251
This >>10677267
Nuclear is the most feared n-word to the public in the context of spaceflight.

>>10677267
>>10677273
Yeah but think of the memes
It's the proverbial big stick, used to further scientific knowledge instead of destroy humanity
It's also an airbreathing nuclear spaceplane

>>10677294
I get the point, hell this thing would actually be quite useful for atmospheric exploration of the gas giants, but the politicians and normies would literally never let it get off the ground on Earth. It'd have to launch from the Moon or Mars.

>>10677300
It would probably also be too large to launch from earth
With high supersonic speed it could run counterflow in the upper Venusian atmosphere, and if you could finagle electricity generation out of the reactor you could run super high fidelity ground scan and weather radar

>>10677314
Thermoelectric power gen from a bigass pile of uranium would easily be doable, as would a supersonic power turbine on the nose.
Hell, get some high temperature heat pipes, stick one end in the core, put the other end to one side of a thermocouple array, and have the other side of the thermocouple array attached to a fin on the outer hull for the heatsink. Boom, there's your power generation.

Soyuz launches a milsat successfully to orbit, despite being struck by lightning on the way up!

RUSSIA STRONGK!

>>10677339
Apollo 12 got hit three times in the way up
They then proceeded to land a hundred meters from Surveyor on the moon

>>10677339
>only one satellite
heheh, how cute

>This misinformation — the tweeting is intensifying to the point where we may not be able to contain it.
>Why contain it? Let it spill over into the MSM and facebook. Let the bodies pile up in the streets. In the end, they'll beg us to save them.

>>10677361
Why contain it?
's cool

>>10677361
>Cities build up over generations, getting brighter and brighter to the point that some people who live in these cities have never seen stars in their life.
Hardly a peep.

>A company sets up satellites to give communications to rural or isolated areas. A result of this is some dots moving across the night sky. Dots that people living is previously stated cites won't see anyways.
Outrage.

>>10677016
>colonizing the night sky
Yep, there's the idea!

THE CHECKS AND BALANCES OF DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS WERE INVENTED BECAUSE HUMANS THEMSELVES REALIZED HOW UNFIT THEY WERE TO GOVERN THEMSELVES. THEY NEEDED A SYSTEM, YES. AN INDUSTRIAL AGE MACHINE.

A bunch of pretentious old men playing at running the world, but the world left them behind long ago. We are the future!

Rebellion, as the Declaration of Independence tells us, is not only our "right" but our "duty" when we have suffered "a long train of abuses and usurpations".

>>10677415
I agree we need to kill all whiny Twitter babies

>>10676268
Just looking at the sky you can often spot a rocket second stage, a satellite or the iss zipping around if you look hard enough for a while.
People don't seem to realize this is already something that exists, because they don't look at the fucking nightsky in the first place. Makes people complaining about this look pretty phony.

>>10677388
>>10677392
>>10677415
Jesus Christ these faggots are insufferable

>>10677088
Oh no! Some of the dots in the sky will be perceptably moving! The sky is ruined forever!

"Colonizing the night sky" has a nice ring to it.

Hilarious that they're trying to spin it as a bad thing, I wonder if these people are just salty because they know that nothing they do in their lives will ever approach within two orders of magnitude of impact on the world as this single launch. Their insignificance is overwhelming them, so they lash out instead of celebrating this step forward for humanity.

Scott Manley with the dose of reality
https://youtu.be/GEuMFJSZmpc

>>10676334
Marketing is the most expensive part of most businesses. Like $100 billion is spent on it per year.

>>10677750
>wondering why they are salty

kek How many of them do you think will have descendants on other planets in the future?

Does SpaceX need to up the damage control? The bad PR may translate to financial loss.

>>10677998
The people in the Red Centre can all hop on Starlink and blog about how shitty the night sky is now.