As expected the latest SpaceX record, for the 16th successful flight and landing of booster B1058 (the 206th landing) was achieved this morning in their usual gloriously routine and boring way from liftoff through parking orbit with the landing included. Every step called exactly as expected and when expected. Full video here.
Screen capture from the end of the video.
The launch time moved around after Saturday night's post. Originally, it had been set for 4:36 AM ET on Sunday the 9th (0836 UTC). While I was writing that post, it moved to 8:36 PM ET on the 9th or 0036 UTC on the 10th. Yesterday, while waiting for the coverage to start it moved again, to 11:58 PM on the 9th, 0358 UTC on the 10th. This was reported to be in response to weather in the area.
The launch went on time at 11:58 last night. The trajectory was to the southeast, 43 degree inclination angle, and the 22 V2-Mini satellites were deployed a little over an hour after launch, raising the total number of Starlink satellites launched to 4768 - note that is not the number of operational satellites in the constellation, although it's close. Satellites that don't pass their first tests on orbit are re-entered and destroyed, plus there was a group of 40 lost due to a solar storm in February of '22.
While only 22 of the V2 mini-satellites were launched, these are able to provide up to 4x more capacity than the older versions of the satellite. The Starlink network now has over 1.5 million users, so the increased capacity is needed while they bring the Starship program up to speed which will eventually launch the larger full-size V2 Starlink satellites.
Finally, in Saturday's post, I identified this booster as 1049 based on some previous posts. Teslarati calls it 1058 and cross-checking that number against my posts seems to agree. There seems to be more reason to call it 1058 than 1049. I'm going to assume I was wrong and it really is 1058.
Sixteen launches for the same booster likely does wonders in bringing down the cost per launch. By using it for Starlink satellites they are minimizing any liability for losses in case there is a failure. Smart risk management.
ReplyDeleteUndoubtedly cuts the price. I've heard that their real cost to launch is under $20 million but can't confirm that. They've mentioned the fairing costs, though. Like this launch used two recovered fairing halves and each half costs $5 million. Instead of use once and throw them out, they get several uses. I've heard of fairings with over five uses and that means the cost was under $1 million per. Multiply that for the rest of the booster.
DeleteI use Starlink at my home - I'd rather send my money to somebody that is making a difference and is not woke then a soulless company that doesn't give a rip about customers and is fully into the DIE and other useless virtue-signalling "causes".
ReplyDeleteThey have had to throttle my link lately, I also have noted that Dishy is now pointed in a new direction - I keep track of such things - to pick up other orbital tracks. This has happened three different times, BTW.
I'm sure SpaceX is doing what it can to provide the best bandwidth possible, especially due to their successes!
I'm sticking with them, I've had no beefs with them even though when I had the V1 system it was always shutting the WiFi router down. They replaced my system! With a V2, no less.
I sure can't complain !! Go SpaceX!
I've been keeping an eye on the Starlink.com/map page and the area around me has been marked "wait list" as long as I can recall. I hear good and not so good things about it. The dreaded dropouts are the only thing I'm concerned about - after about 25 years with an always-on coax cable connection.
DeleteHe's just running circles around the competition. It doesn't even look fair. Any thoughts on the new plasma engine they're working in England?
ReplyDeleteAny thoughts on the new plasma engine they're working in England?
DeleteI haven't seen enough real details to have anything worthwhile to say.