[HN Gopher] SpaceX launches more Starlink satellites, misses boo...
___________________________________________________________________
SpaceX launches more Starlink satellites, misses booster landing
Author : ajaviaad
Score : 138 points
Date : 2020-02-17 16:51 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (techcrunch.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (techcrunch.com)
| jasoncartwright wrote:
| Since when is 32MB of GIFs on a webpage OK?
| ancorevard wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| AnssiH wrote:
| FFmpeg defaults to H.264 for .mp4.
| [deleted]
| krallja wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| It's pretty annoying for people on devices without unlimited
| data
| jasoncartwright wrote:
| I'm in an AirBnB in the countryside, it saturated the
| available bandwidth whilst showing me a bad quality dithered
| video at around 1FPS
| wilg wrote:
| Sounds okay to me. Seems like a minor deal.
| krastanov wrote:
| 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.
| Avamander wrote:
| It's just wasteful.
| zamalek wrote:
| That's like 5 coffees worth of bandwidth in some countries,
| especially where mobile data is concerned.
| kaiwen1 wrote:
| OTH, I'm connecting from a ship in the middle of the Pacific
| Ocean with metered data. I regret loading that page.
| vezycash wrote:
| Unlock origin. Go to settings. Look for "Default
| Behaviour". Under it, you'll find an option to block media
| larger than any size you choose.
|
| I put 100KB for mine.
|
| Also, you can install the Firefox extension called Video
| Image Block. It's a real data saver.
|
| Lastly, look up bandwidth hero. Can help compress images on
| a server before it gets to you. I'm using free heroku tier
| for mine.
| jlmorton wrote:
| On the plus side, in a couple years you'll have a Starlink
| 600mbps spot beam all to yourself.
| notatoad wrote:
| If i clicked that link on my phone, i would have used up 10%
| of my data budget for the month.
| 101404 wrote:
| Pretty standard on many image boards nowadays. Though usually
| they would just call it .gif and it really is a mp4 or webm.
| [deleted]
| the8472 wrote:
| Most chan-style image boards are honest about the file
| formats they use, no pretending about webms being gifs.
| close04 wrote:
| Maybe the URL can be replaced with something more decent than
| techcrunch, like Arstechnica:
| https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/spacex-making-
| rocket...
| caymanjim wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| caymanjim wrote:
| Not sure why you're being downvoted. I agree, it would be
| nice to be able to pause/rewind/fast-forward/speed/slow
| animated GIFs. I don't want to encourage this abusive use
| of GIFs, but sometimes I want to control even short
| animated GIFs, to see individual frames or something. I
| have a plugin that disables autoplay, and stops animated
| GIFs from looping endlessly, but it'd be nice to pause and
| rewind.
| hinkley wrote:
| Take a look at the network tab for your average site with a
| 'hero' at the top.
|
| Crying can be therapeutic, I am told.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Any word on when the Starlink service becomes available?
| gpm wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| The soft-launch of service this year is only expected to
| cover northern Canada and the south of South America.
| gpm wrote:
| I've seen this simulation of what initial coverage should
| look like (ignoring ground stations):
|
| https://streamable.com/3lbqj
|
| Southern Canada/Northern US is where I presume they will
| actually do testing, but they should be able to provide
| reasonable-ish (eyeballing at >80%) uptime across most of
| the world provided they can get ground stations.
|
| They'll continue to launch satellites past the first 6
| launches too, so coverage should dramatically improve by
| the end of the year compared to a June or August launch.
| 101404 wrote:
| 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.
| partiallypro wrote:
| Supposedly this fall in the US. That is according to people
| I've talked to on /r/starlink
| Twirrim wrote:
| Starlink satellites that are already impacting astronomy.
| Yay....? https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/starlink-
| sate...
| paranoidrobot wrote:
| Unfortunately I don't think there's a good way to have a ton of
| stuff in space (even if it's not Starlink satellites
| specifically), and not to block the view for ground based
| astronomy.
|
| I think that while there's perhaps more difficulty and more
| cost - there's probably a lot more advantages to having these
| in space.
|
| No atmospheric interference/absorbtion issues. No ground-based
| light interference from nearby cities. No weather or time of
| day observing restrictions. No issues with trampling
| sacred/sensitive indigenous sites. Able to get very very large
| synthetic apertures combining telescopes in earth + lunar
| orbit. (Plus sol-earth lagrange points too, I guess)
|
| Starlink seems to be the first to exploit the drastically
| lowered launch costs to launch a lot more stuff into space at
| once.
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| It's just unrealistic to propose that astronomers put their
| telescopes in space instead. There's no way to put a
| telescope with a 30-meter-diameter primary mirror in space. I
| don't know how many decades away that capability is, but it's
| way beyond our technical capabilities now.
|
| Large-aperture ground-based telescopes have huge advantages
| over space telescopes in many technical areas (and
| disadvantages in others). Eliminating them would be a huge
| blow to astronomy.
| pharke wrote:
| > There's no way to put a telescope with a 30-meter-
| diameter primary mirror in space... it's way beyond our
| technical capabilities now.
|
| I don't think it's that far off, the primary mirror for
| Hubble was 2.4m and the big telescopes you're talking about
| are made up of mirror segments around 10m in size. The
| Falcon 9's payload fairing is 5.2m diameter and 13m long
| and the proposed Starship fairing would be 9m diameter by
| 19m high. SpaceX is currently proving they are capable of
| sustaining a rapid launch cadence and have already proved
| they're capable of docking with the ISS. If someone built a
| modular space telescope, they'd be the first ones to call
| to get it into orbit for assembly.
|
| Cost has been a severe bottleneck to getting science into
| space for so long that we seem to have become convinced
| that it will always be so. These Starlink launches are the
| first real steps in proving that it need not be so.
| 101404 wrote:
| So are cities.
|
| And?
| rleahy22 wrote:
| 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...
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| 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.
| pharke wrote:
| 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.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| Will you also claim that cheaper transistors will lead to
| more compilers? Because that's the sort of thing you just
| claimed.
| TomMarius wrote:
| 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?
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| Most people that can _afford_ space internet live in
| cities, and of the rural ones almost all live in wealthy
| countries.
|
| Rural populations in Africa barely have _electricity_ , the
| idea that they could pay for that Musk space internet that
| brings salvation is just _obscene_.
| jve wrote:
| Yes, we know:
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1228598015247536129
|
| > @elonmusk: albedo will drop significantly on almost every
| successive launch
| ForHackernews wrote:
| "Funding secured."
| bpodgursky wrote:
| I don't think TSLA would have a lot of trouble securing
| their $420 funding, given the current $800 stock price.
| zionic wrote:
| 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.
| Slikey wrote:
| 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.
| monadic2 wrote:
| > 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.
| dtparr wrote:
| Are you unaware of the federal licenses required for these
| satellites to be deployed, or do you just mean they were
| granted without taking astronomers' wishes into account?
|
| Edit: This is a sincere question. Several comments on this
| story indicate people don't believe there's any regulation
| as to what happens in space.
|
| Edit 2: While I'm editing things, here's the FCC Record for
| the original Starlink proposal in case you're curious what
| some of the objections brought up during the original
| comment period were.
| https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-38A1.pdf
| Mostly it looks like other satellite operators worried
| about interference, orbital debris concerns, and there was
| a note about potential impacts on radio astronomy.
| Alupis wrote:
| > Are you unaware of the federal licenses required for
| these satellites to be deployed
|
| Astronomers are in other countries besides the US... and
| these satellites are going to span the globe impacting
| everyone everywhere.
| izacus wrote:
| > 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?
| stickfigure wrote:
| California, about an hour outside of SF.
|
| The quality of internet service falls off precipitously as
| you leave urban city limits.
|
| It's better than it could be - when we decided to move "to
| the country", we almost bought a property where the only
| internet option was HughesNet. From all reports, HughesNet
| is incredibly expensive and barely usable. A big plus for
| the place we landed is that we can get "rural wireless
| broadband" - basically a point-to-point wifi signal bounced
| off of a solar-powered relay on a hill, to a set of towers
| on a faraway ridge, run by a folksy two-man ISP. It's
| expensive, unreliable, and slow compared to what I left in
| SF. But it's better than HughesNet and there's no data cap.
|
| I don't know what to expect from Starlink, but I'm hopeful.
| Even if it's just a reliable 10Mbit connection I'll be
| ecstatic.
| markvdb wrote:
| I feel for you. Our holiday house is about 30km beyond
| the middle of nowhere, but the 4g uplink is reliable.
| Plus we have to share it with very very few others...
|
| If we ever need more, I'll probaby do just like the
| folksy two-man ISP you describe...
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Most airlines will end up using it to stream telemetry as a
| backup and for areas where primary telemetry communication
| channels aren't viable. IIRC, it doesn't work near the
| poles but for everywhere else it would be good for knowing
| the last position when a flight vanishes.
| penagwin wrote:
| Something like over 40% of the world's population doesn't
| have internet access.
| Slikey wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage#/media/
| F...
|
| More supply drives down prices. Don't even mention current
| satelite Internet. Those operate via GSO satelites with
| seconds of ping and a way higher pricing considering SpaceX
| wants to be competitive with broadband pricing.
| nexuist wrote:
| Forests, the Arctic, much of Africa, Asia, every ocean?
| monk_e_boy wrote:
| Vallies. Villages. Beaches.... Has this person never
| traveled?
| 6nf wrote:
| About 90% of Australia too
| logosmonkey wrote:
| My mom's house in rural Arkansas. I mean basically if you
| live outside of a large city you have 1 choice of
| internet access and it's usually hot garbage and over
| priced.
| [deleted]
| daedalus_j wrote:
| 30 minutes away from Microsoft main campus in Redmond WA,
| (and just a bit further away from Google/Amazon campus' in
| the area)
|
| Best available internet is a 3mbit down, 1-if-you're-lucky-
| mbit up DSL connection from CenturyLink with latency that
| jumps into the 2.5+ _second_ range when it rains hard.
| Which, fortunately it never does in the pacific northwest.
| :-D
|
| And no, traditional satellite is a no-go, even if it was an
| affordable option. We have these things called "mountains"
| you see, and the satellites are only at certain spots in
| the sky, sadly occluded by a couple billion tons of rock
| and tree.
|
| To reiterate, this is within commuting distance of "big
| tech" HQs.
|
| Starlink can't come fast enough. Existing ISPs need to feel
| the pain of screwing their customers so bad for so long.
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| Sounds like a mostly-US problem that would be better
| solved by proper regulation of markets. But nah, that'd
| be crazy socialism stuff.
| skissane wrote:
| It is absolutely not a "mostly-US problem". We have the
| same problem in Australia. A lot of places only option
| was crappy ADSL. Then new (centre-left) government
| announced a project (NBN) to install fibre-to-the-
| premises (FTTP) to the majority of the population.
| Massive, very expensive project, that was going to take a
| long time. Quite predictably, the centre-right party
| attacked it as costing too much money. Six years later,
| the centre-right win election, and thus far only a small
| number of lucky people had got their FTTP installed. New
| government decides FTTP was too expensive, replaces it
| with crappy fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) instead, which slows
| to a crawl whenever the node is oversubscribed (happens a
| lot due to the growing popularity of video streaming).
| And it tells other people that any fixed line solution
| was too expensive for them, and forces them on to
| wireless or satellite. Some people even got told they
| were losing their ADSL and having it replaced with a less
| reliable wireless or satellite connection.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| ... poor internet bandwidth or accessibility in remote
| region... is a "US only problem"??
|
| I make it a point to not sound snarky or sarcastic on HN,
| we have a pretty good standard of discourse here - but
| that just seems a ludicrous statement to make, and I'm
| frankly curious what consideration went into it, as
| opposed to a knee-jerk reaction?
|
| I don't think technology will solve all the world's ills;
| I agree that regulation of markets is a useful measure to
| undertake in certain situations; I don't find "Socialist"
| a swear word; but if ever there was a problem with a
| technical solution, then accessibility of internet in
| remote solution is almost the canonical use-case.
| Regulation of markets will not bring the Interwebs to
| remote or underdeveloped parts of the world.
|
| Now... if we want to discuss whether bringing the
| Intertubes to all the world is a worthy goal or not;
| whether it is worth the compromises and risks a massive
| constellation of satellites will impose; sure, that's a
| productive tops to examine. But if we accept for sake of
| argument that internet in remote or underdeveloped parts
| of the world is a goal, I'm curious to see how market
| regulation will make that happen better and faster than a
| giant freakin' laser... I mean, giant freakin'
| constellation of satellites :).
| [deleted]
| izacus wrote:
| Is shoveling so much trash over non-american land actually
| legal?
| nexuist wrote:
| Nobody owns space.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| 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.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| They just follow the uber/airbnb model -- do it quickly
| before the regulation catches up and it is too late to fix
| the damage.
| gpm wrote:
| 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.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| 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.
| rtsil wrote:
| 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.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| Who will pay for that big complicated ball of light streaks
| so that the internet will become cheap?
|
| Is it those rural users currently aren't profitable enough
| to supply otherwise?
| rtsil wrote:
| Based on the prices I've been hearing, yes. $100/month or
| less for a GB/s connection shared between dozens of
| houses or more. Or an astute entrepreneur will create a
| cybercafe or resell it. The small businessmen can also
| afford it (since they already have satellite TVs), and
| they stand to make the most from it financially. The
| possibilities are many.
|
| And it's not a problem of profitability for some, it's a
| problem of availability. Some could afford what their
| urban compatriots pay for internet, but that's simply not
| possible.
| 6nf wrote:
| > there should be some kind of international treaties
| governing this
|
| There are
| [deleted]
| throwaway77384 wrote:
| Also discussed here I think:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22348251
| _Microft wrote:
| 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.
| 101404 wrote:
| 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.
| modeless wrote:
| 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.
| dvdbloc wrote:
| 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.
| nexuist wrote:
| 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.
| the8472 wrote:
| 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.
| hoorayimhelping wrote:
| > _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.
| ..
| gpm wrote:
| MIRVs are almost certainly covered by ITAR, so the fact
| that they exist doesn't really change anything...
| skybrian wrote:
| 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.
| gpm wrote:
| "Conspiracy theory" is an exaggeration. Lots of things
| rocketry related are covered by ITAR and are not allowed
| (by law) to be shown to non-green-card holders. SpaceX is
| pretty careful to comply with ITAR restrictions. It would
| not surprise me in the slightest if the US government had
| decided that satellite deployment mechanisms were one of
| those things covered, or if SpaceX's legal department
| decided that they weren't sure they weren't covered.
| DEADBEEFC0FFEE wrote:
| If that were true, they would simply say as much. What
| possible advantage would there be to offer a bullshit
| reason?
|
| A far more likely reason is that it's technically hard,
| and/or not a priority.
| gpm wrote:
| I tend to agree, but that doesn't mean keeping quiet
| about ITAR is "conspiracy theory" level of
| ridiculousness.
|
| Possible advantages could be avoiding looking like they
| are putting pressure on the US government to change it,
| avoid getting into debates about whether or not ITAR
| prohibits it, avoiding looking like they are a workplace
| that is heavily bogged down by security clearance issues,
| etc.
| ColanR wrote:
| I don't think it's intellectually honest to label something
| as a conspiracy theory and brush it aside without
| discussion.
| quotemstr wrote:
| Is a deployment bus really that complicated? It's what, a
| girder with a couple of solenoids or explosive bolts?
| 101404 wrote:
| If I remember correctly, SpX is one of the few (only) who
| doesn't use explosives for their fairing separation or sat
| releases. Just some springs, because "they can be tested
| before the flight".
| ben_w wrote:
| Given the nose cone fairings cost $6 million [0], I don't
| think _anything_ in space tech can be non-complicated and
| useful at the same time.
|
| [0] If it were literally any other company in space, I
| would accuse them of porkbarrelling. SpaceX looks like it
| is genuinely concerned with cost, so I don't think that's
| happening in this case.
| 101404 wrote:
| Of all the different parts a ICBM is made of, I doubt that
| the warhead release mechanism is the most difficult.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Maybe there is some secret sauce they don't want known.
| angstrom wrote:
| Delta = 0
|
| Alright guys. The competition will never figure out they need
| to stop before the rocket reaches the ground!
| 101404 wrote:
| 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.
| huhtenberg wrote:
| ... which is fine and understandable, but they should
| _really_ stop with this "oh, we lost a feed" bullshit. It's
| obnoxious.
| SEJeff wrote:
| How many other launch providers before SpaceX even _had_
| feeds of their launches or their payload separations?
|
| People really should stop complaining about the really cool
| thing SpaceX does, but not perfectly.
| huhtenberg wrote:
| Doing very cool stuff is not a reason enough to be
| disrespectful towards your audience.
|
| During one of the first booster landing attempts a
| presenter lady was staring at her monitor, saw the
| booster crash and then proceeded to blatantly lie that
| the feed was lost... while the jumbotron behind her back
| was showing the whole thing in real-time and the audio
| picking up the crowd in SpaceX going "Oooooh".
|
| Then, there are their inane explanations that they keep
| losing the feed from the landing platform because the sea
| is rippled. The heck. If you are going to lie, come up
| with something a bit more plausible. A Plasma ball
| interference from the plume or something. Better yet,
| just say that we are going to delay the feed by 10
| seconds and we will may withhold any part of it as we
| wish. Everyone would be perfectly fine with that. It's
| their feed and it's awesome that they share anything.
| Just don't BS. There's literally no need to do that.
| anotheryou wrote:
| 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?
| _Microft wrote:
| 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
| shantara wrote:
| From my understanding, the second stage starts spinning
| just before the release of Starlink satellites to give the
| stack the momentum necessary for the clean separation. This
| could explain the loss of camera feed. Internal SpaceX
| telemetry is likely being transmitted over a separate
| channel and remains uninterruptible.
| _Microft wrote:
| Yes, they spin it to disperse the satellites. The loss of
| video depending on the rotation is a good idea and indeed
| it looks like the video is failing frequently before the
| separation event as well. See
| https://youtu.be/HwyXo6T7jC4?t=4286
| deegles wrote:
| Any news on the inter-satellite links?
| pintxo wrote:
| Watched the launch this morning from the Saturn V stands at KSC,
| wow!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-02-17 23:00 UTC)