SpaceX launches more Starlink satellites, misses booster landing

https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/17/spacex-successfully-launches-60-more-starlink-satellites-but-misses-booster-landing/

by ajaviaad • 6 years ago

176 188 6 years ago

techcrunch.com

throwaway77384• 6 years ago

Also discussed here I think: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22348251

jasoncartwright2• 6 years ago

Since when is 32MB of GIFs on a webpage OK?

krallja• 6 years ago

How did it affect you? I just loaded the page on my three year old smartphone, and didn’t even notice the extra bandwidth or CPU usage.

dmerrick• 6 years ago

It's pretty annoying for people on devices without unlimited data

jasoncartwright2• 6 years ago

I'm in an AirBnB in the countryside, it saturated the available bandwidth whilst showing me a bad quality dithered video at around 1FPS

krastanov• 6 years ago

The fact that it has terrible color rendering and it is 20x the size of what would have been a video with proper colors is very much embarrassing.

zamalek• 6 years ago

That's like 5 coffees worth of bandwidth in some countries, especially where mobile data is concerned.

kaiwen1• 6 years ago

OTH, I'm connecting from a ship in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with metered data. I regret loading that page.

Avamander• 6 years ago

It's just wasteful.

notatoad• 6 years ago

If i clicked that link on my phone, i would have used up 10% of my data budget for the month.

1014047• 6 years ago

Pretty standard on many image boards nowadays. Though usually they would just call it .gif and it really is a mp4 or webm.

close04• 6 years ago

Maybe the URL can be replaced with something more decent than techcrunch, like Arstechnica: https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/spacex-making-rocket...

the84722• 6 years ago

Most chan-style image boards are honest about the file formats they use, no pretending about webms being gifs.

hinkley• 6 years ago

Take a look at the network tab for your average site with a 'hero' at the top.

Crying can be therapeutic, I am told.

caymanjim2• 6 years ago

It's absurd that they embedded long videos as animated GIFs. I wanted to fast-forward to see the failed landing, but the "video", being a GIF, couldn't be skipped ahead.

oh_sigh• 6 years ago

I wonder why browsers don't give you the ability to control gifs, at least by right clicking -> "show advanced controls" or something like that.

ancorevard2• 6 years ago

Converting GIF to MP4 creates a much better user experience and lowers file size:

  ffmpeg -i input.gif -movflags faststart -pix_fmt yuv420p -vf "scale=trunc(iw/2)*2:trunc(ih/2)*2" output.mp4

LeoPanthera• 6 years ago

That makes a basic MPEG-4 video file, you probably want to specify h.264 by adding these switches:

-codec:v libx264 -preset slow -crf 23

Increase "crf" for a smaller file, decrease it for better quality.

jayd16• 6 years ago

Any word on when the Starlink service becomes available?

partiallypro• 6 years ago

Supposedly this fall in the US. That is according to people I've talked to on /r/starlink

gpm7• 6 years ago

From what I've gathered:

They should have enough satellites in the sky, at the right positions, to start offering limited service around the start of July. This is based off of Elon's statement that they need 6 launches worth of satellites, educated guesses on launch dates, assuming that satellites need to move into their operational positions after that 6th launch, and will take the same amount of time to do so as previous launches.

They hope to be ready to help out with emergency service connectivity this hurricane season, which starts roughly speaking in August. That gives them around a months buffer, which sounds reasonable.

They don't seem to yet be making huge moves to get ground stations up and running, advertising to consumers, etc. This leads me to believe that the initial service will not be consumer oriented (probably as they work out the kinks). We know they're interested in emergency services, and we know the military is interested, these are likely to be higher paying and more forgiving customers to start with since they aren't competing with traditional ISPs at all. For them, somewhat unreliable service is better than no service.

hadtodoit• 6 years ago

The soft-launch of service this year is only expected to cover northern Canada and the south of South America.

1014047• 6 years ago

Question isn't so much "when" as it is "where".

For now, the sats will depend on ground stations to signal relay, until there are enough satellites (few thousand) to have them communicate between them via laser.

rleahy22• 6 years ago

Do we know if SpaceX has taken any steps to address the issue with Starlink satellites affecting astronomers' view of the night sky? https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/02/spacex-s...

jve• 6 years ago

Yes, we know: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1228598015247536129

@elonmusk: albedo will drop significantly on almost every successive launch

ForHackernews2• 6 years ago

"Funding secured."

8bitsrule• 6 years ago

"Albedo" sounds like visible light. That's fine for those guys. Then there's x-ray and above, and infrared- and radio- below. Doubt they'll be able to make those sats soak up all EM radiation. And a few thousand of them will also be bouncing ground-based signals back down in all directions ... forget about isolation from earth-based sigs in basins.

I don't recall any beforehand news of this being publicly discussed.

zionic• 6 years ago

Yes:

1) Future sats will continue to get progressively lower albedo

2) The sats brightness is much higher in their "orbit raising" phase then their "service" phase.

Slikey2• 6 years ago

They are actively working on reducing reflectivity but there will always be an impact and honestly any effort to improve it will be well appreciated by me. However, even though I love the work astronomers do and the view of a clear sky into the stars, I must say I prefer global Internet availability over making astronomers clean their data from satelite datapoints. Most discussions about this leave the goal of Starlink out of the picture. If this can bring Internet access to every spot on Earth, the immediate benefit for humanity is clear.

izacus2• 6 years ago

If this can bring Internet access to every spot on Earth, the immediate benefit for humanity is clear.

In which part of the earth are you missing the internet coverage so horribly?

monadic23• 6 years ago

However, even though I love the work astronomers do and the view of a clear sky into the stars, I must say I prefer global Internet availability over making astronomers clean their data from satelite datapoints.

That’s great because apparently nobody but SpaceX has any say in what happens.

justapassenger• 6 years ago

You can view that as benefit to humanity.

Or you can view that as private, for profit corporation trying to make money in a way that’s impacting our ability to do a scientific research.

izacus2• 6 years ago

Is shoveling so much trash over non-american land actually legal?

nexuist3• 6 years ago

Nobody owns space.

Mountain_Skies3• 6 years ago

No one wants to get into a real estate battle in space. At least not yet. Maybe some day it will make sense to some nation but right now fighting that battle is a negative sum game.

gpm7• 6 years ago

Explicitly so by the outer space treaty.

Not that these launches are launching trash, or launching very much in the grand scheme of things either.

NikolaNovak2• 6 years ago

First, I don't think space is either American or Non-American land :)

Second, I imagine outer space treaty covers this in much similar way that treaties governing international waters do.

Third, to a certain degree "satellite trash" is in the eye of beholder - I don't think there's any more or less legality in this, than in ISS, TV and comms satellites, GPS, etc all flying all around the world.

new2628• 6 years ago

They just follow the uber/airbnb model -- do it quickly before the regulation catches up and it is too late to fix the damage.

SiempreViernes4• 6 years ago

They've done a bit, enough that the public won't be severely affected. But as it stands: no, the techbros will simply kill large parts of ground based astronomy to stream gifs to rural California.

Astronomers are not very happy about it http://astronomersappeal.wordpress.com/2020/01/09/astronomer... but so far there is mostly resignation that big tech will indeed destroy the sky.

TomMarius• 6 years ago

I'm sure you know rural California is not the only place without stable and fast internet access. And while that is one usage that will probably dominate in the developed world, have you considered the possibilities in Africa, Asia and the oceans?

pharke2• 6 years ago

I think everyone making these comments is going to be eating their words in about 10 years when orbital telescopes are so cheap and plentiful that even third grade classrooms will be booking time for observations.

ForHackernews2• 6 years ago

It's really pretty bad: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-curse-of-elon-musk...

At the very least, there should be some kind of international treaties governing this. The night sky is a common good.

6nf2• 6 years ago

there should be some kind of international treaties governing this

There are

rtsil2• 6 years ago

It's a matter of perspective.

I know people living in remote and even not so remote areas for whom cheap and easy internet access would literally be a live changer, and who wouldn't care less about astronomers having their work more difficult as a consequence, because, again, it would be a literal life-changing event for them in terms of personal safety, agriculture, income or education.

mrfusion• 6 years ago

(Not sure I should respond if this is a troll attempt) but they’re def working on it. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1228598015247536129

ridewinter• 6 years ago

SpaceX should put some telescopes into orbit for public use as a goodwill gesture here.

_Microft5• 6 years ago

We have never seen the actual release of the Starlink satellites.

During every launch the hosts on the stream state that an unfortunate unexpected loss of signal happened but since the stream is stable before and after payload separation, this would be surprising. One might have thought that the vehicle was just at an unfortunate point in the trajectory where no connection was actually possible but today's payload separation event was far earlier and the video cut off anyways.

It is a bit surprising since the mechanism does not seem that sophisticated.

nexuist3• 6 years ago

I'm guessing it might be censored for national security reasons. The same mechanism that successfully deploys 60 satellites could probably also successfully deploy 60 warheads. Or 60 nefarious spy satellites.

skybrian2• 6 years ago

It's a good question about something that is probably not a coincidence! But immediately moving to speculating about a conspiracy theory seems like hiding a good question with a fake answer.

It seems better to keep it unanswered and remain curious.

the84722• 6 years ago

They say it's a simple tension mechanism, nothing fancy. The attachment of the satellite stack is not even within the camera's FoV.

I'm guessing it's just a vibration issue.

quotemstr• 6 years ago

Is a deployment bus really that complicated? It's what, a girder with a couple of solenoids or explosive bolts?

hoorayimhelping• 6 years ago

The same mechanism that successfully deploys 60 satellites could probably also successfully deploy 60 warheads

We've had missiles that could do that since 1970. They're called MIRVs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...

1014047• 6 years ago

Of all the different parts a ICBM is made of, I doubt that the warhead release mechanism is the most difficult.

Mountain_Skies3• 6 years ago

Maybe there is some secret sauce they don't want known.

huhtenberg2• 6 years ago

... which is fine and understandable, but they should really stop with this "oh, we lost a feed" bullshit. It's obnoxious.

1014047• 6 years ago

I've been watching SpX stuff for so many years now, I am pretty sure they would just say so if that was the case.

angstrom• 6 years ago

Delta = 0

Alright guys. The competition will never figure out they need to stop before the rocket reaches the ground!

mrtnmcc• 6 years ago

Right the tension rod release mechanism isn't shown. The tension rods are chucked away as space junk which the announcer probably doesn't want to talk about. Also agree it's kind of secret sauce. Much simpler than oneweb's corncob dispenser.

anotheryou2• 6 years ago

you mean the seconds before this?:

https://youtu.be/vFTg3-40Mfg?t=745

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/spacex-releases-60...

or for this launch?

_Microft5• 6 years ago

Putting Starlink launches on different screens and letting them run synchronized from the time that the video cuts off: the confirmation of tension rod release and payload separation and the video coming back happens almost at the same time.

Today: https://youtu.be/8xeX62mLcf8?t=1489

January, 29th: https://youtu.be/1KmBDCiL7MU?t=4414

January, 6th: https://youtu.be/HwyXo6T7jC4?t=4390

November, 11th: https://youtu.be/pIDuv0Ta0XQ?t=4549

May, 25th: https://youtu.be/riBaVeDTEWI?t=4579

dvdbloc• 6 years ago

I thought this was because video was provided by line of sight antennas and as Starlink satellites are released the 2nd stage flips end over end while releasing them thus breaking the line of sight.

modeless• 6 years ago

Vibration. The deployment probably disturbs the telemetry connection for a second. The same thing used to happen for landings. The camera would always cut out right as the booster reached the barge because the vibration interrupted the telemetry connection temporarily.

1014047• 6 years ago

Like we never saw the actual landing of the F9 on a droneship until very recently. I remember being very surprised when the camera suddenly DIDN'T stop working and you could actually see the F9 actually land.

m4rtink2• 6 years ago

Some of the early landings have been shown from drones, NASA aircraft cameras (hello Canberra!) or from a recording from the rocket itself.

ChuckMcM3• 6 years ago

Perhaps it is related to USML 1.121[1] Category XV.4(a)?

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/121.1

DarthGhandi• 6 years ago

Are you claiming these sats dont exist? Or simply that a for profit company didn't record for it so noncustomers could watch it for free?

_Microft5• 6 years ago

It is a bit surprising since the mechanism does not seem that sophisticated.

I am hinting there at a clever solution that they do not want to show (or a solution that they must not show because of regulations).

pintxo• 6 years ago

Watched the launch this morning from the Saturn V stands at KSC, wow!

deegles• 6 years ago

Any news on the inter-satellite links?

shaklee37• 6 years ago

Elon says they're using boats now, which, if you read between the lines, it means that's not working.

ChuckMcM3• 6 years ago

I love how the headline isn't "SpaceX has more operating satellites in orbit than any other company." or "SpaceX launches 240 satellites in 90 days." it is "SpaceX fails to land the booster stage on their latest flight."

That is pretty amazing to me.

Razengan• 6 years ago

The Tall Poppy Syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome

hawaiianbrah4• 6 years ago

This says that Planet Labs has over 300 satellites: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/private-company-launches-la...

ChuckMcM3• 6 years ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starlink Shows 302 Starlink satellites although only 240 are v1.0, next month with the Starlink 6 mission it will be moot :-)

SpaceX launches more Starlink satellites, misses booster landing

Related Stories