Assuming this September, SpaceX does its first launch and it explodes
during descent.

How many succesfull launches would it take before SpaceX can start to
accept commercial payloads? (since ability to land doesn't matter for
launhing satellites) ?

Can SpaceX launch to equatorial orbit from Boca Chica?

And assuming that the payload bay is similar to the Shuttle, could
spaceX re-use its existing 2nd stage and sateliute/2nd stage interface
and use springs to push it out of the cargo bay once doors are open? Or
would it need totally new system to get satellite to destination?


(I assume Starship won't itself deliver to geostationary or even GPS altitudes).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Remember when JF Mezei bragged outrageously? That was Wednesday:

Assuming this September, SpaceX does its first launch and it explodes
during descent.

How many succesfull launches would it take before SpaceX can start to
accept commercial payloads? (since ability to land doesn't matter for launhing satellites) ?

I'd expect 2-10 Starlink launches before any customer. And it could be
more.

Can SpaceX launch to equatorial orbit from Boca Chica?

And assuming that the payload bay is similar to the Shuttle, could

That's a big assumption, given how little we know about the freight
Starships. We've heard of the alligator, and seen renderings, and
we've seen a test nosecone chopped open in a way that suggests
shuttle-like payload doors, but we could also see something like the
Dragon front hatch, with some adjustment to where the thrusters and
tankage are located.

Only recently have we heard anything about how many Starlink satellites
SpaceX is planning on stuffing the bird with. These will be the Gen2
kites, 850-1250 kg each, and Teslarati pencils that out to 120 boxes.

spaceX re-use its existing 2nd stage and sateliute/2nd stage interface
and use springs to push it out of the cargo bay once doors are open? Or
would it need totally new system to get satellite to destination?

(I assume Starship won't itself deliver to geostationary or even GPS altitudes).

It could, with refueling, and there will be payloads where that's the appropriate choice. There aren't now, but there will be.

/dps

--
"That’s where I end with this kind of conversation: Language is
crucial, and yet not the answer."
Jonathan Rosa, sociocultural and linguistic anthropologist,
Stanford.,2020

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2021-08-25 22:55, Snidely wrote:

It could, with refueling, and there will be payloads where that's the appropriate choice. There aren't now, but there will be.

Does it make sense to launch 2 super heavies, one to refuel starship o
it can deliver payload to geostationay altitude and then come back?

People complained about Shuttle being inefficient because of its total
weight vs payload. Won't the same argument apply to Starship being used
to deliver satellite to Geo?

And in turn of Starlink, once it goes into a mode of constantly
replacing satellites that fall down, does launching Starship with a
gazillion gapacity only to deliver 10 in a particular orbital plane make
sense?


or is the plan to launch 120 new ones to a new orbital plane and abandon
all satellites in old orbital plane neary? Again, seems wasteful.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 26-Aug-21 10:03 am, JF Mezei wrote:

Can SpaceX launch to equatorial orbit from Boca Chica?

No - to launch to equatorial orbit, you need to be on the equator, or at
least be very close to it.

Sylvia.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Lo, on the 8/25/2021, Snidely did proclaim ...

On Wednesday or thereabouts, Sylvia Else declared ...

On 26-Aug-21 10:03 am, JF Mezei wrote:

Can SpaceX launch to equatorial orbit from Boca Chica?

No - to launch to equatorial orbit, you need to be on the equator, or at
least be very close to it.

Or you need to be very careful where you do the plane changes, which means at a higher orbit.

Boca Chica can /theoretically/ launch to pretty much the same orbits as
Cape Canaveral, but /practically/ will launch south to southeast until launching over populated areas is not a risk.

/dps

--
The presence of this syntax results from the fact that SQLite is really
a Tcl extension that has escaped into the wild. <http://www.sqlite.org/lang_expr.html>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Remember Wednesday, when JF Mezei asked plainitively:

On 2021-08-25 22:55, Snidely wrote:

It could, with refueling, and there will be payloads where that's the
appropriate choice. There aren't now, but there will be.

Does it make sense to launch 2 super heavies, one to refuel starship o
it can deliver payload to geostationay altitude and then come back?

It depends on the payload.

People complained about Shuttle being inefficient because of its total
weight vs payload. Won't the same argument apply to Starship being used
to deliver satellite to Geo?

It depends on the payload.

And in turn of Starlink, once it goes into a mode of constantly
replacing satellites that fall down, does launching Starship with a
gazillion gapacity only to deliver 10 in a particular orbital plane make sense?

or is the plan to launch 120 new ones to a new orbital plane and abandon
all satellites in old orbital plane neary? Again, seems wasteful.

Why abandon the old satellites while they are still working?

Go watch Scott Manley deploy the current orbital planes.

But yes, Teslarati reports that the SpaceX Gen2 docs seem to show 120 satellites into a single plane. I think I'm not over-reading when I
say that Gen2 will be in higher orbits, so you can have a full Gen2
plane shadowing a not-done-for-yet Gen1 plane, but then ... as Scott
Manley points out ... the higher altitude will precess at a different
rate.

But it's all about having multiple Starlinks pass over you while you're
passing data. If some of those are grey-haired Gen1s and some are
young and shiny Gen2s, is that a problem?

/dps

--
Yes, I have had a cucumber soda. Why do you ask?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday or thereabouts, Sylvia Else declared ...

On 26-Aug-21 10:03 am, JF Mezei wrote:

Can SpaceX launch to equatorial orbit from Boca Chica?

No - to launch to equatorial orbit, you need to be on the equator, or at least be very close to it.

Or you need to be very careful where you do the plane changes, which
means at a higher orbit.

/dps

--
Rule #0: Don't be on fire.
In case of fire, exit the building before tweeting about it.
(Sighting reported by Adam F)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 26-Aug-21 3:49 pm, Snidely wrote:

Remember  Wednesday, when  JF Mezei asked plainitively:

On 2021-08-25 22:55, Snidely wrote:

It could, with refueling, and there will be payloads where that's the
appropriate choice.  There aren't now, but there will be.

Does it make sense to launch 2 super heavies, one to refuel starship o
it can deliver payload to geostationay altitude and then come back?

It depends on the payload.

People complained about Shuttle being inefficient because of its total
weight vs payload. Won't the same argument apply to Starship being used
to deliver satellite to Geo?

It depends on the payload.

The problem with the Shuttle wasn't its small payload fraction, but the
fact that each launch cost as much as the budget of a small country. It
might as well not have been reusable.

If you have a reusable vehicle that can be launched at a reasonable
cost, then all that matters is whether the payload justifies that cost.
The overall mass of the vehicle is neither here nor there.

Sylvia.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)