Launch Thread: SpaceX Falcon 9 - Starlink-L10 & SmallSat Rideshare #3 (Planet Labs SkySats 19-21)

[Anonymous No.12021133]

Re-re-re-re-re-used booster edition

Livestream: https://youtu.be/jTMJK7wb0rM
Launch: Tuesday August 18 10:31 AM EDT / 14:31 UTC
Probability of violating weather constraints: 20% (https://www.patrick.af.mil/Portals/14/Weather/Falcon%209%20StarlinkV1_0-L10%20L-1%20Forecast%20-%2018%20Aug%20Launch.pdf?ver=2020-08-17-074812-500))
Backup launch: ~+1 day
Launch vehicle: SpaceX Falcon 9 with first stage B1049.6 (prior launches: Starlink-L7, Starlink-L2, Starlink V0.9, Iridium-8, Telstar 18V)
Launch pad: SLC-40, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, USA
Fairings: Used, from Starlink-L3
Fairing recovery: Probable
First stage landing: On droneship 'Of Course I Still Love You'

Payload: 58 SpaceX Starlink satellites & Planet Labs SkySats 19, 20, 21
Payload mass & destination orbit: ~15,600 kg (~260 kg / Starlink sat); 210 x 366 km @ ~53°; Starlink sats will eventually orbit-raise to 550 km
Starlink-L10 TLE: https://www.celestrak.com/NORAD/elements/supplemental/starlink-11.txt
>https://www.starlink.com
>https://www.spacex.com/launches/index.html
>https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/starlink-v1-0.htm
>https://www.planet.com/pulse/skysats-19-21-to-launch-on-spacex-falcon-9-rideshare-mission/

Launch viewing guide for Florida: http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4_Atlas_5_Falcon_9_Launch_Viewing.html
SpaceX twitter: https://twitter.com/SpaceX

This will be the 58th landed first stage, 39th re-flight of a first stage, and 91st Falcon 9 launch. It is the 13th SpaceX orbital launch of 2020. This is the first sixth flight of a Falcon 9 booster.

[Anonymous No.12021135]

[Anonymous No.12021148]

LAUNCH, LANDING AND DEPLOYMENT

All Times Are Approximate

HR/MIN/SEC EVENT
00:01:12 Max Q (moment of peak mechanical stress on the rocket)
00:02:33 1st stage main engine cutoff (MECO)
00:02:36 1st and 2nd stages separate
00:02:43 2nd stage engine starts (SES-1)
00:03:12 Fairing deployment
00:07:02 1st stage entry burn complete
00:08:42 1st stage landing
00:08:51 2nd stage engine cutoff (SECO-1)
00:12:32 SkySat 21 deployment
00:13:02 SkySat 20 deployment
00:13:32 SkySat 19 deployment
00:45:57 Starlink satellites deploy

[Anonymous No.12021177]

37 min to stream start

[Anonymous No.12021196]

>>12021177
That's until the time of the launch, which is approximately at the bottom of the hour. The stream will probably start in about 15 minutes.

[Anonymous No.12021213]

>>12021196
you're right, didn't catch that. sometimes it coincides with the stream start, sometimes the launch time

[Anonymous No.12021226]

Live!

[Anonymous No.12021227]

it's time

[Anonymous No.12021232]

[Anonymous No.12021235]

[Anonymous No.12021238]

[Anonymous No.12021239]

>>12021235

[Anonymous No.12021240]

I have a nervous feeling about this one guys

[Anonymous No.12021242]

[Anonymous No.12021245]

>>12021240
Ripe old F9 stage 1 age ain't 6 launches. Once it gets to ~10 I'd start to worry

[Anonymous No.12021246]

>>12021240
No need to worry.

[Anonymous No.12021247]

not norminal

[Anonymous No.12021249]

>senior certification engineer
what does this mean exactly

[Anonymous No.12021250]

jessy got sacked then

[Anonymous No.12021252]

>>12021240
I dreamed a few nights ago about a Falcon Protoning a few seconds after launch. That probably won't be the case, but I'm a bit spooked.

[Anonymous No.12021253]

>no kate tice gf
why

[Anonymous No.12021256]

slc40 sure is a dump compared to 39a

[Anonymous No.12021259]

>>12021249
Certifies that all activities are diverse enough.

[Anonymous No.12021260]

>tfw no john insprucker gf

[Anonymous No.12021262]

>>12021260
he's a late night sort of presenter

[Anonymous No.12021263]

kate is probably my #2 commentator after john. think she did the ultra comfy starhopper streams

[Anonymous No.12021268]

seas looked a bit bumpy there

[Anonymous No.12021274]

>>12021268
Poseidon is in cahoots with oldpsace.

[Anonymous No.12021277]

take the shot

[Anonymous No.12021280]

>>12021277
>But Lord Shelby, the target just deployed a smoke screen! I can't see it!

[Anonymous No.12021282]

fairing has a US flag on it

[Anonymous No.12021284]

>>12021133
Sweet! Made it in t-30

[Anonymous No.12021285]

[Anonymous No.12021286]

here we go!
Go go go B1049

[Anonymous No.12021289]

wow the camera is shaking

[Anonymous No.12021291]

birb spotted

[Anonymous No.12021292]

>>12021289
From the wind?

[Anonymous No.12021293]

BIRD
SPOTTED

[Anonymous No.12021295]

Looking nominal

[Anonymous No.12021298]

absolute unit of a mach cone

[Anonymous No.12021299]

This angle is awesome

[Anonymous No.12021300]

sexy camera angle there. could see the supersonic buffer air effect thing.

[Anonymous No.12021307]

>blue danube starts blasting from S1

[Anonymous No.12021309]

Why is SpaceX the only rocket company/organization/country doing live streams with actual rocket? Every other seems to be showing only 3d render after the initial lift off.

[Anonymous No.12021315]

>>12021309
Rocket Lab does. ULA does. Shuttle used to.

[Anonymous No.12021316]

>>12021309
Because old space sucks dick

[Anonymous No.12021317]

>>12021309
doesn't really give you any data that can be fed back into the rocket's system, so it's dead weight in that regard

[Anonymous No.12021318]

>>12021309
Every other company don't really care about publicity as much.

[Anonymous No.12021320]

>>12021309
No sense of style

[Anonymous No.12021321]

dang it! foiled again!

[Anonymous No.12021322]

>>12021309
They spent a lot of money to have State of The Art 3D Visualization™ based on Real Flight Data© to throw it out now.

[Anonymous No.12021326]

the view of stage 1 rapidly falling back to earth and all the little clouds below gives me a fear of heights

[Anonymous No.12021330]

LANDED!

[Anonymous No.12021332]

nailed it

[Anonymous No.12021334]

lol 6th landing kek

[Anonymous No.12021336]

BULLSEYE
SIXTH LANDING

[Anonymous No.12021337]

Landed nice!!!

[Anonymous No.12021339]

My god what a gorgeous landing

[Anonymous No.12021341]

>>12021239
Was there ever any doubt?

[Anonymous No.12021344]

Looks like a bullseye too!

[Anonymous No.12021345]

>only a polite applause for the rocket landing on a floating platform in an ocean

Truly we have come so far

[Anonymous No.12021346]

what was this booster's first flight?

[Anonymous No.12021347]

>6th landing
A falcon 9 costs 300 million to build. That rocket has saved SpaceX 1.8 billion dollars now

[Anonymous No.12021348]

Shit just werks, the feed doesn't even cut out anymore

[Anonymous No.12021349]

That landing looked kind of fast compared to the others.

[Anonymous No.12021351]

>>12021133
NOW THAT’S ANOTHER HAPPY LANDING

[Anonymous No.12021354]

>>12021334
>thunderf00t btf0

[Anonymous No.12021356]

She cute

[Anonymous No.12021355]

>>12021326
You mean this?

[Anonymous No.12021363]

>>12021347
how can oldspace even compete

[Anonymous No.12021366]

Another perfect landing for the 6th time.

Reminder, today's launch marks 100th launch anniversary for SpaceX

[Anonymous No.12021367]

It's just so routine now

How long till they stop bothering to stream them

[Anonymous No.12021368]

>>12021367
NEVER
EVER

[Anonymous No.12021369]

>>12021354
>WHAT?! NOOOOO!!! SPACEX IS USING A FALSE ECONOMY!!! THE SHUTTLE FAILED THUS SPACEX MUST FAIL!!!!

[Anonymous No.12021370]

SIX LANDINGS WHOOOO

>>12021346
Telstar 18 vantage

[Anonymous No.12021371]

>>12021347
I think you might be off by an order of magnitude there, bud. Also the booster is not the whole rocket.

[Anonymous No.12021374]

i just don't understand this reusable rocket meme

[Anonymous No.12021373]

>>12021346
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches

[Anonymous No.12021375]

>>12021356
Kate ENTICE

[Anonymous No.12021377]

>>12021347
and they cost like 28 million per launch (internally), and probably like 16 million per launch with fairing recovery. getting under ten million per launch with starship is looking super possible

[Anonymous No.12021378]

>>12021355
yes, it's cool when earth is just passing below but seeing it fall back makes me clench

[Anonymous No.12021380]

What happens to the top part of the rocket does it re crash into the ocean or drift off into space

[Anonymous No.12021382]

Star light satellites! Now that's a cool name

[Anonymous No.12021383]

UND ZIS IS ZEE PART OF STARLINK WHERE VE DANCE

[Anonymous No.12021385]

"starlight satellites"

[Anonymous No.12021387]

d i s c o

[Anonymous No.12021390]

>>12021367
When Starship is flying, there's just going to be a 24/7 Boca Chica Spaceport stream because the launches will be too frequent to do a dedicated stream for all of them.

[Anonymous No.12021392]

>>12021370
when was that?

[Anonymous No.12021396]

>>12021382
*starlink

>>12021380
they get caught in big boats https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kesCAxPSWcY

[Anonymous No.12021398]

>>12021366

[Anonymous No.12021400]

>>12021390
24/7 electro study/chill with SpaceX

[Anonymous No.12021401]

>>12021396
that seems hard as fuck to do

[Anonymous No.12021405]

>>12021392
September 10th, 2018

>>12021401
it's incredibly hard. luckily if they miss the boat, the fairings float so they usually pluck them out of the ocean

[Anonymous No.12021406]

>>12021398

[Anonymous No.12021407]

>>12021380
If you mean the second stage, that deorbits itself and burns up

[Anonymous No.12021410]

>>12021405
>September 10th, 2018
oh wow

[Anonymous No.12021411]

>>12021380
Upper stage? That shit burns up. There's no feasible way to reuse a classic upper stage rocket. Hence why they're developing starship.

[Anonymous No.12021412]

>>12021401
It is, they haven't caught the fairing many times and often have to fish them out of the ocean
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfm_ytIcuPk

[Anonymous No.12021416]

>>12021355
>right grid fin getting so roasted that it loses whole chunks of grid
intense

[Anonymous No.12021419]

>>12021398

[Anonymous No.12021422]

>>12021416
the old gridfins were such junk

[Anonymous No.12021423]

>>12021416
Those are the old fin design. I think those were aluminium and they moved to titanium on the never ones

[Anonymous No.12021424]

>>12021405
So that means this old girl's 2nd birthday (launchday?) is coming up soon

[Anonymous No.12021425]

[Anonymous No.12021430]

[Anonymous No.12021433]

>reuse this
>reuse that
>deduct this
>write-off that
It should be called the Falcon-Whine launch system the way they're cutting corners

[Anonymous No.12021435]

Super comfort launch and cute gf

[Anonymous No.12021437]

>>12021433
good morning senator

[Anonymous No.12021438]

>>12021430
>When the payload can't pinpoint that stray comma

[Anonymous No.12021442]

ay S2 is flying backwards

[Anonymous No.12021447]

>>12021442
The most technologically advanced satellite deployment sequence ever conceived:
The Ol' Spin n' Yeet

[Anonymous No.12021449]

>american space superiority flying directly over europe

[Anonymous No.12021456]

>>12021447

[Anonymous No.12021462]

>>12021433
t. Boing

[Anonymous No.12021467]

[Anonymous No.12021470]

12 min or so to deploy

[Anonymous No.12021478]

>>12021433
>NOOO YOU CANT JUST SAVE MONEY YOU HAVE TO PISS AWAY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF EQUIPMENT EACH LAUNCH!! MUH CONTRACTORS!!

[Anonymous No.12021480]

>>12021478
Yes anon, for more jobs for our districts!

[Anonymous No.12021493]

time for the yeet

[Anonymous No.12021495]

came for the launch, stayed for the music

[Anonymous No.12021498]

fairing caught!

[Anonymous No.12021499]

Looks like they caught a fairing!

[Anonymous No.12021500]

CAUGHT
A
U
G
H
T

[Anonymous No.12021505]

SHINY AND CHROME

[Anonymous No.12021508]

>>12021430
>"RESULTS OVER RHETORIC!"
>has neither results nor rhetoric
What did they mean by this?

[Anonymous No.12021510]

basedx does it again

[Anonymous No.12021514]

that's a wrap; next F9 launch is on the 29th?

[Anonymous No.12021516]

So I have to ask, is the tension rod release disturbs the video feed somehow or are they still trying too hide it even after we all saw it previously?

[Anonymous No.12021520]

>>12021516
I think they're trying to hide it

[Anonymous No.12021533]

Someone on Plebbit/NSF thinks Raptor only stopped at 130 bar because the test stand ran out of fuel.


>Looks like it stopped because the test site had exhausted its fuel supply..

>If it had an inexhaustible supply, then you would expect the output power to increase, and then ‘hold steady’ at some value, before winding down at the end of the test.

>This graph shows that it never reached its final steady state value, it looks like it still had more to offer..

>It goes to 150, is steady, then raises to 250, before rising slowly but steadily to 330, before ending at that point.

>( of course various different outcomes were possible:

>1: it would have levelled off just after the present max point.. and carried on at that level until the end of the test.

>2: it would have carried on going further up still, before levelling off.. and carried on at that level until the end of the test.

>3: it would have carried on going up further, before the engine exploded..

>We don’t know yet which of those scenario’s.
( or perhaps some other scenario ) would have played out..

>Further tests would be needed to extend the knowledge of what this engine is actually capable

[Anonymous No.12021538]

>>12021533
*330 bar, not 130
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/ibzz0x/digitised_data_from_raptor_330_bar_firing/

[Anonymous No.12021541]

>>12021520
Considering you can still see the release on SpaceX's official stream on Youtube, I doubt they're hiding it.

[Anonymous No.12021551]

>>12021533
I'm talking out of my ass here but wouldn't it be just as likely that one of the gorillian sensors that have hooked up detected an out of range value and went "SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING"?

[Anonymous No.12021559]

>>12021541
Yeah, thats a possibility. All we know is, that engine has a lot more juice than the results suggest. And according to musk, theyve just built an engine with more improvements over SN40.

[Anonymous No.12021563]

did y'all notice the wobbly bits when the sats deployed?

[Anonymous No.12021583]

>>12021563
Oh you mean like always?

[Anonymous No.12021616]

What would a hypergolic starship look like?

[Anonymous No.12021622]

>>12021616
Shit

[Anonymous No.12021630]

>>12021616
Russian

[Anonymous No.12021644]

>>12021563
The black ones? Those are the new visors.

[Anonymous No.12021647]

>>12021616
Wait a couple of years and see what China is up to.

[Anonymous No.12021674]

>>12021616
Chinese village seeking.

[Anonymous No.12021678]

>>12021674
>>12021647
>>12021630
>>12021622
CHINESE STARSHIP RIPOFF WHEN?

[Anonymous No.12021680]

>>12021678
They're still working on their Falcon 9-alike.

[Anonymous No.12021740]

>>12021499
>you will never have a space enthusiast waifu

[Anonymous No.12021793]

>>12021354
who?

[Anonymous No.12021968]

>>12021551
Highly possible, but these tests usually run with certain "OH SHIT STOP" functions disabled for the purpose of failure, or at least pushing the boundaries.
Over a minute of hard thrust (and 50 seconds at 250+ bar) will drink fuel like a fat kid in a mountain dew factory.

[Anonymous No.12022013]

>>12021968
SuperHeavy HardThrust

[Anonymous No.12022104]

>>12021133
How do we make sure we don't Kessler ourselves with all these internet sat constellations?

[Anonymous No.12022121]

>>12022104
Orbital lasers to remove debris.

[Anonymous No.12022271]

>>12021411

They were looking into something inflatable, maybe a inflatable reentry shield or a decelerator and parachutes or mid air recover I forget the scuttlebutt, to recover the second stage but abandoned that to focus on Starship.

[Anonymous No.12022298]

>>12022121
This is serious. Look at England in the early industrial revolution. They polluted the environment and were high on their own farts and disregarded morality. Now look where we’re at. We could be living in a very different world.

[Anonymous No.12022317]

>>12022298
This isn’t even to go into the early thinkers of the 1800s who saw all of this coming, if we had made non explosive systems based on free market completion rather than communism and or corporate control we wouldn’t be fucked.

[Anonymous No.12022321]

>>12022317
Exploitive* fuck the poz phone.

[Anonymous No.12022338]

>>12022121
Wouldn't a laser just turn the object into a wake of debris making it 100000000000000000000000000000000000000 times worse?
Btw starlink is gonna deorbit if you don't actively keep it out of the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.12022368]

>>12022338
>>12022104
not this guy but hear me out
what about ground based magnets.

[Anonymous No.12022374]

>>12022338
Did you shoop out the wings? Looks like a perfect starfighter now

[Anonymous No.12022533]

>>12022338
You retard it wouldn't be that powerful just enough to push it into a faster decaying orbit
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1000936114001010

[Anonymous No.12022603]

Status update: caught one of the fairing, other had to be fished out.

[Anonymous No.12022610]

>>12021345
there's always that ONE guy who claps at stage sep. probably the dude that is in charge of making the separation hardware

[Anonymous No.12023826]

>>12022104
Make distinctions.

1) Either Sats must come down naturally after 10 years
2) If its > 10 years, it must have solar panels that must utilize electric thrusters to push the sats back down to earth and burn up.
3) If not above, then it must be GEO sats which must be pushed away from GEO

When you have no distinctions, you get a muddy picture of what's going on. With distinctions, classifications, you get a clear picture on what to do.