-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
SpaceX F9 - Starlink Group 6-1 - SLC-40
- Thread starter 808?
- Start date
No, all of them are going down. Here is what graph should look like, green lines are tension rods (time scale is longer, but idea is same):
And here is today’s graph. Sats in the red circle look dead and are in random attitudes, decay depends where solar panels are pointing → different drag, greens are deorbiting. (I added the Reds and Greens, and are not in the original graph Index of /space/con/star)
And here is today’s graph. Sats in the red circle look dead and are in random attitudes, decay depends where solar panels are pointing → different drag, greens are deorbiting. (I added the Reds and Greens, and are not in the original graph Index of /space/con/star)
Last edited:
Those satellites were at orbital speed. They wouldn't de-orbit unless SpaceX wanted it to happen. It is possibly because there was an issue with the Hall Effect thrusters but it could be something to do with some other aspect of the satellite.
Satellites are deployed at low orbit where atmospheric drag is quite high, example tie rods come down less than a month. Also actual astronomer (Who's site these graphs are from) says that it looks like natural decay:
But also that ~70km more height means, it takes several months before natural deorbit:
New scale make graph looks less bad but don't change much:
But also that ~70km more height means, it takes several months before natural deorbit:
New scale make graph looks less bad but don't change much:
So if they have stabilized at that orbit, and the rest of the batch are heading that direction... is it possible that an orbit at 365km is the intended destination? Wikipeida says:
Perhaps the first two were a test of the new thruster capability? Would there be any reason to launch higher and then bring them down? Some sort of contingency plan if the thrusters didn't perform?
Perhaps the first two were a test of the new thruster capability? Would there be any reason to launch higher and then bring them down? Some sort of contingency plan if the thrusters didn't perform?
Article on this:
spacenews.com
SpaceX experiencing problems with first upgraded Starlink V2 satellites
The first set of larger second-generation Starlink satellites is experiencing problems that could require SpaceX to deorbit at least some of them.
spacenews.com
Now with second launch of the V2MINI, the first group look like this:
Few of them continue in natural decay, 62 and 54 are done their deorbit burns. (62 is already destroyed in reentry). 68 42 and 51 are raising their orbits.
Few of them continue in natural decay, 62 and 54 are done their deorbit burns. (62 is already destroyed in reentry). 68 42 and 51 are raising their orbits.
This was apparently the version 2 mini test run. The fact SpaceX sent up a second batch says they've learned enough from this first batch. The only thing we know for certain is that Elon said they were running this batch through a series of tests before they fully raise them.
