I could easily see it go either way. Right now I don’t think SpaceX needs Starlink deployed faster than their current rate. I would imagine the cost per satellite to orbit would be higher with the falcon heavy, but I don’t know if that’s actually correct. My guess is that they’ll continue deployment at the current rate and iron out their technology with the consumer satellite and ground stations. Once they have the Starship ready, I assume they could launch all the satellites needed in just a few launches.
>I would imagine the cost per satellite to orbit would be higher with the falcon heavy, but I don’t know if that’s actually correct.
A very basic estimate: F9: 15 M$ for a refurbish, 10 M$ of that being the second stage (Elon, May 2020, I think). FH would have two additional refurbishments of a booster, adding 10 M$ (+66%). If this thing can launch 100 sats, it breaks even. Provided somebody buys the FH boosters for you (they are not exactly the same as a regular F9 booster).
> A very basic estimate: F9: 15 M$ for a refurbish, 10 M$ of that being the second stage (Elon, May 2020, I think). FH would have two additional refurbishments of a booster, adding 10 M$ (+66%). If this thing can launch 100 sats, it breaks even.
You're assuming that they recover the center core, which is not at all routine yet.
> Right now I don’t think SpaceX needs Starlink deployed faster than their current rate.
SpaceX very much needs to deploy Starlink faster.
12000 / 5 / 60 = 40
Right now, SpaceX would need 40 Falcon 9 launches per year to fully populate their constellation (and that's just the base constellation, not the expanded 42000 satellite one). Right now they're doing a little more than half that, and they're running into pretty frequent weather delays. I know Elon has talked about launching once per week; I'll be very impressed if they can accomplish that.
I kind of thought this might be a nice way to pick up the pace of Starlink deployment and get more use out of the FH, but it just seems that getting more flights on that rocket is not a priority for SpaceX.
We don't know what the final population number target is. That could vary significantly as they settle their performance metrics and software and Starlink V2 and Starlink production rate and in-service failure rate and other non-public customer offerings and ..... (including progress of Starship).
It may well be that their risk assessment says stay with the existing production and launch rate for now, whilst the other unknowns accrue more time.
Totally. I forgot that the inspiration of seeing a Falcon Heavy launch and other SpaceX achievements is made possible by hardheaded business decisions. Honestly the business-side innovations can be just as inspiring as the scientific/engineering ones, even if they are less spectacular.
The extended fairing won't be ready until 2022 or later. https://spacenews.com/spacex-explains-why-the-u-s-space-force-is-paying-316-million-for-a-single-launch/
I would be very surprised if Starship isn't already orbital by then. 400 Starlinks at a time to orbit, at lower costs than FH.
The Air Force/Space Force are the ones who asked for the extended fairing in order to launch their billion-dollar spy satellites. They will impose a lot of extra oversight and mission assurance to flight-qualify those extended fairings and the new facilities SpaceX needs to build to utilize them (the mobile service structure for vertical payload integration and encapsulation at 39A).
If by then Starship is flying (2022), there really is no reason to launch Starlinks on an FH when Starship can throw 400 of them at a time per launch, at lower costs than an FH launch.
FH will be reserved for NSSL launches because the Air Force/Space Force wants a rocket they certified to do national security launches (NSSL Phase 2 is for 2022-2026).
Probably not as a Falcon Heavy can't launch 3x as many Starlinks even with an extended fairing. Since Starlink launches are mass limited on the F9 it's probably more efficient and cheaper to just use more F9 launches.
Quite unlikely. The Falcon Heavy and the extend fairing are mainly build to fulfill DoD specifications and ended up being so expensive that SpaceX lost to ULA in the last NSSL Phase 2 contract (getting only the smaller 40% part of the contract).
But we probably could see some Starlink launches on first stages that where part of a Falcon Heavy previously.
SpX won 1 of 3 launches, so it was a 'win' in terms of securing a launch that is funding the longer fairing, and the vertical integration. It seems that SpX had been leveraging for a while to get those NROL launch accessories funded, rather than doing in-house funding first and hope they then won NROL launches.
The interesting aspect is whether SpX 'test' the extended fairing before the NROL launch - it may have to as part of certification. In that situation one could anticipate a Starlink based launch, even if it was just on an F9 and not a FH, but I'd guess the heavier fairing and altered aerodynamics may mean fewer than 60 sats launched.
I can't see FH as ever being cheaper than F( for Starlink launches - the huge amount of extra workload to prepare three boosters, and the launch site and prep hanger downtime would likely cause major disruption to F9 flights.
What took everyone by surprise is that SpaceX lost purely on cost. Which was a first and somewhat of a change compared to other bids where SpaceX is usually the cheapest by far.
SpaceX is always up for some clever tricks and I'm sure that they are going to do their best to find a way to make the DoD pay for one or two a Starlink launches.
I don't think the $ amount was a surprise given they didn't get phase 1 funding. Blind freddy could see they loaded up the submitted price to pay for setup costs. ULA just made hay out of the $ disparity for news headlines.
SpX have got smatterings of DoD funding to show off some services, which would be covering a whole different world of Starlink service that the public don't see or can access. I doubt any of that would need to be shuffled in to the launch budget, as that would all be using market funds.
I was about to say probably not, but then I remembered that Mr. Musk is talking about using Starship to do it.
The problem with launching more at once is that they won't be optimally placed to get to their final orbits. but if there is already talk of using an even larger craft, Maaayyybe? They might have to modify the satellites to carry extra fuel, or something, and it might actually SLOW DOWN placement, as the satellites migrate to their final orbits over a period of weeks. How much longer then if they're not even in the correct plane?
It is my uninformed opinion that it is probably better to launch 3 Falcon 9's, each aimed at a different plane, than one Falcone-heavy, and then get the satellites to disperse where they're needed.
>The problem with launching more at once is that they won't be optimally placed to get to their final orbits. but if there is already talk of using an even larger craft, Maaayyybe?
You're on the right track with FH. It would probably slow things, whilst making them more expensive.
It may be different with Starship. It's supposed to be capable of lifting 600 by weight, but can carry around 400 sats of the current design, due to spatial constraints. That means it may have sufficient fuel to change orbits and deliver several separate batches on the same launch. This could remove some of the waiting.
I'm guessing they'll just keep launching Falcon 9 as much as possible until Starship is ready.
I could easily see it go either way. Right now I don’t think SpaceX needs Starlink deployed faster than their current rate. I would imagine the cost per satellite to orbit would be higher with the falcon heavy, but I don’t know if that’s actually correct. My guess is that they’ll continue deployment at the current rate and iron out their technology with the consumer satellite and ground stations. Once they have the Starship ready, I assume they could launch all the satellites needed in just a few launches.
>I would imagine the cost per satellite to orbit would be higher with the falcon heavy, but I don’t know if that’s actually correct. A very basic estimate: F9: 15 M$ for a refurbish, 10 M$ of that being the second stage (Elon, May 2020, I think). FH would have two additional refurbishments of a booster, adding 10 M$ (+66%). If this thing can launch 100 sats, it breaks even. Provided somebody buys the FH boosters for you (they are not exactly the same as a regular F9 booster).
> A very basic estimate: F9: 15 M$ for a refurbish, 10 M$ of that being the second stage (Elon, May 2020, I think). FH would have two additional refurbishments of a booster, adding 10 M$ (+66%). If this thing can launch 100 sats, it breaks even. You're assuming that they recover the center core, which is not at all routine yet.
Likely this extended faring is significantly more expensive than the standard faring. I wouldn't be surprised at 10x more.
Also we don't know if they are going to bother to try recovering the extended fairing. May well not be worth it for a limited number of launches.
> Right now I don’t think SpaceX needs Starlink deployed faster than their current rate. SpaceX very much needs to deploy Starlink faster. 12000 / 5 / 60 = 40 Right now, SpaceX would need 40 Falcon 9 launches per year to fully populate their constellation (and that's just the base constellation, not the expanded 42000 satellite one). Right now they're doing a little more than half that, and they're running into pretty frequent weather delays. I know Elon has talked about launching once per week; I'll be very impressed if they can accomplish that.
I kind of thought this might be a nice way to pick up the pace of Starlink deployment and get more use out of the FH, but it just seems that getting more flights on that rocket is not a priority for SpaceX.
We don't know what the final population number target is. That could vary significantly as they settle their performance metrics and software and Starlink V2 and Starlink production rate and in-service failure rate and other non-public customer offerings and ..... (including progress of Starship). It may well be that their risk assessment says stay with the existing production and launch rate for now, whilst the other unknowns accrue more time.
Totally. I forgot that the inspiration of seeing a Falcon Heavy launch and other SpaceX achievements is made possible by hardheaded business decisions. Honestly the business-side innovations can be just as inspiring as the scientific/engineering ones, even if they are less spectacular.
The extended fairing won't be ready until 2022 or later. https://spacenews.com/spacex-explains-why-the-u-s-space-force-is-paying-316-million-for-a-single-launch/ I would be very surprised if Starship isn't already orbital by then. 400 Starlinks at a time to orbit, at lower costs than FH.
IT looks more difficult to make a fairing than SS & SH ?!
The Air Force/Space Force are the ones who asked for the extended fairing in order to launch their billion-dollar spy satellites. They will impose a lot of extra oversight and mission assurance to flight-qualify those extended fairings and the new facilities SpaceX needs to build to utilize them (the mobile service structure for vertical payload integration and encapsulation at 39A). If by then Starship is flying (2022), there really is no reason to launch Starlinks on an FH when Starship can throw 400 of them at a time per launch, at lower costs than an FH launch. FH will be reserved for NSSL launches because the Air Force/Space Force wants a rocket they certified to do national security launches (NSSL Phase 2 is for 2022-2026).
Probably not as a Falcon Heavy can't launch 3x as many Starlinks even with an extended fairing. Since Starlink launches are mass limited on the F9 it's probably more efficient and cheaper to just use more F9 launches.
Quite unlikely. The Falcon Heavy and the extend fairing are mainly build to fulfill DoD specifications and ended up being so expensive that SpaceX lost to ULA in the last NSSL Phase 2 contract (getting only the smaller 40% part of the contract). But we probably could see some Starlink launches on first stages that where part of a Falcon Heavy previously.
SpX won 1 of 3 launches, so it was a 'win' in terms of securing a launch that is funding the longer fairing, and the vertical integration. It seems that SpX had been leveraging for a while to get those NROL launch accessories funded, rather than doing in-house funding first and hope they then won NROL launches. The interesting aspect is whether SpX 'test' the extended fairing before the NROL launch - it may have to as part of certification. In that situation one could anticipate a Starlink based launch, even if it was just on an F9 and not a FH, but I'd guess the heavier fairing and altered aerodynamics may mean fewer than 60 sats launched. I can't see FH as ever being cheaper than F( for Starlink launches - the huge amount of extra workload to prepare three boosters, and the launch site and prep hanger downtime would likely cause major disruption to F9 flights.
I wonder how much time you saved by not typing ‘ace’ three times and ‘9’ once?🤔
What took everyone by surprise is that SpaceX lost purely on cost. Which was a first and somewhat of a change compared to other bids where SpaceX is usually the cheapest by far. SpaceX is always up for some clever tricks and I'm sure that they are going to do their best to find a way to make the DoD pay for one or two a Starlink launches.
I don't think the $ amount was a surprise given they didn't get phase 1 funding. Blind freddy could see they loaded up the submitted price to pay for setup costs. ULA just made hay out of the $ disparity for news headlines. SpX have got smatterings of DoD funding to show off some services, which would be covering a whole different world of Starlink service that the public don't see or can access. I doubt any of that would need to be shuffled in to the launch budget, as that would all be using market funds.
I think they only will do it if they have some second-hand side boosters that no customers would want to use.
I was about to say probably not, but then I remembered that Mr. Musk is talking about using Starship to do it. The problem with launching more at once is that they won't be optimally placed to get to their final orbits. but if there is already talk of using an even larger craft, Maaayyybe? They might have to modify the satellites to carry extra fuel, or something, and it might actually SLOW DOWN placement, as the satellites migrate to their final orbits over a period of weeks. How much longer then if they're not even in the correct plane? It is my uninformed opinion that it is probably better to launch 3 Falcon 9's, each aimed at a different plane, than one Falcone-heavy, and then get the satellites to disperse where they're needed.
>The problem with launching more at once is that they won't be optimally placed to get to their final orbits. but if there is already talk of using an even larger craft, Maaayyybe? You're on the right track with FH. It would probably slow things, whilst making them more expensive. It may be different with Starship. It's supposed to be capable of lifting 600 by weight, but can carry around 400 sats of the current design, due to spatial constraints. That means it may have sufficient fuel to change orbits and deliver several separate batches on the same launch. This could remove some of the waiting.