Wow. This is like the Stainless Steel Starship. Just when I assume something is a settled convention with no prospects for innovation, they decide to move fast and break things again.

SpaceX always starts by looking at the problem it wants to address in the broadest possible way and then laser focusing on details. Indeed it is within imagination at least that SpaceX may be intending to launch a fewer units version of this product for use by a Mars colony and explorers. What I really want to know though is the difference between Iridium and Starlink in Earth user interface. I never considered going with Iridium because of the high cost of the on Earth units to communicate with it. We still seem a long way from Star Trek communicators.

The ground station has been described as a pizza box sized phased array. So not a handheld unit but small enough to mount on a ship or airliner (the roof of a Tesla?), or for a remote building or cell tower. I'll be interested to see if they manage to make the tracking robust enough to get live video back from OCISLY during landings unlike the current (Inmarsat?) units!

The frunk of a Tesla is a nice place to put a pizza box (and I do mean food.) So it seems possible that Tesla could build the receivers straight into the frunk lid of their vehicles.

Its not widely known, and most people refuse to believe it but its not a signal loss that takes out the video feed, its spacex cutting the live feed to avoid the potential for a live streaming a crash landing. This became obvious last year when the signal cut out and switched to the announcers talking with the mission room directly behind them, in the shot you could see all of the monitors with the live feeds, including the one on the drone ship as the rocket landed, it literally never cut out and showed the live video of the landing when it was supposed to be out. There is no way they could have had live video of the landing when there was supposed to be no signal. I dont remember the mission but within about 10-15 seconds the camera guy noticed and zoomed the camera in to cut out the mission room so all you saw was the hosts talking. Anyone that watched the missions live and followed along in the news should have seen people talk about it. The general public and many spacex fans dont know about it.

What you saw in the background was probably not a live feed. Remember the landing event is recorded on the ship even if the satellite link is interrupted and can then be uploaded as soon as the link comes back.

timing is critical here, Id have to find the video again to be sure, but im pretty sure they had it split screen at the time and when it dropped out they went to single screen and in the background the smoke was clearing in the video, i dont recall there being any obvious out of sync issues, i remember it as being timed correctly. i could be wrong, memory can be a funny thing, but i dont imagine myself making that kind of mistake. Nobody else watching and commenting thought it was out of sync either, everyone thought it was 100% spacex cutting the feed on purpose based off of what we all saw.

Im not sure the video even exists anymore, the last time they had an "oops" with recording, they swapped the video out altogether. (they had the wrong camera feed for a side booster of BFR in the live view, they redid the video and used the correct one) I actually have a gif i found of the original footage, within 6 hours or so they had replaced the original footage.

I don't even smirk at the Star Trek reference. Too many things both tangible and conceptual 'imagined' in that series came to be. The writers were far more visionary than your standard Hollywood effort. Especially back then.

That will be another challenge. Current proven tech seems to place this "fixed surface equipment" at no lower than a $10K price point ... fine for business, industry, government and military ... but not for residential. A comparison with Telsat's LEO plan discusses a very conservative plan that is not using cutting edge components: https://spacenews.com/teles.... Unless there is a cost breakthrough in reliable ground equipment expect that the consumer will get to Starlink broadband from Starlink compliant antennas at cell towers with 5G. This would only happen at towers beyond planned fiber installations. Then a $200 5G home radio/router would give you maybe 10Mbps. But recall that Starlink's capacity, while large, is far less than the major ISPs. So only a fixed number of 10Mbps user can fit within a 10km x 10km box ... expect some high pricing at first for those who demand high QoS.

Physics first principles at play here

Nice thinking out of the box. Kudos SpaceX.

If a normal person thought outside the box, they might think circle. Only someone who truly thinks outside the box would make it look like a box.

True innovation!

Like Volvo: "Boxy, but Safe!"

It's only a couple of days ago that we were guessing the number based on Gwen's "dozens" quote, and saying how amazing it would be if they were able to launch 24 at a time, and that would mean they could get a whole load of them up if they managed six launches in the year.

But now we're looking at sixty per launch, and there's still room in the fairing for more.

There are several other companies looking to launch similar services using a similar constellation of satellites. The people in charge of those companies will have just collectively soiled themselves when they saw this picture.

I also loved how so many "experts" were commenting that they could get 20 sats at best with a 2 to 3 ton dispenser. When will people learn that SpaceX is doing work by first principles. Throw out the norms and enjoy the show.

I had heard 44 for F9 and maybe 66 for FH...so this is a big WOW!
Do the math on this approach with mostly-reusable F9, and it makes the OneWeb concept look questionable.

I expect future versions to be thicker and heavier as they add more capability. But the format should hold, just fewer satellites in the stack.

This is already confirmed. These ones are smaller because they need them *now* and they need more of them per launch to keep costs down. they couldnt wait another few years for full development. not having all of the hardware needed on these doesnt affect their overall plan.

If we just made them twice as thin we can launch 120.......

They need to take on Apple as a consultant on this.

Amazing technological and design feat. Got to admire the constant innovational thinking and the constant will and culture of Elon's organisation to support and implement high risk ideas and solutions that bring about major changes in how we do things.
Luv it!

What SpaceX really has been doing that is a core innovation is semi mass produce identical components, such as the rocket engines then packaging them together with redundancy and artificial intelligence so if one component fails others can in computer speed take over the work of that component. In fact I bet that if enough rocket engines fail SpaceX has even allowed for sacrificing the landing of reusable components if that fuel and/or engines is needed to fulfill its mission. In contrast we have seen what happens with highly complex systems with little to no redundancy and perhaps only a single rocket engine. The mission fails when one thing breaks down. In my view this is the genius of SpaceX. It saves money not just from reuse but also from mass manufacturing instead of treating each rocket engine as boy we pray this one doesn't die. What is involved is a totally different way of looking at problems from the start of trying to find a solution. If Boeing had done that with its 737-Max MCAS system it never would have used only two angle of attack sensors, because they cannot have a majority electronic vote, so you are guessing which sensor is bad, and Boeing is changing the MCAS system because of that failure of forethought about failure. At least that is how I see things from just the news I have read.

Think of it like when an airplane has 2 engines it can still land safely using the remaining engine but because of added structural stress and greater effort required to maintain control it lands at the closest airfield it can, yet unlike say a B-52 with something like 8 engines, it cannot afford for the only other engine to fail. A B-52 can still fly with 2 failed engines. SpaceX is like that B-52.

The 737-Max problem was worse than you described. The aircraft already HAS multiple angle of attack sensors - but the software was designed to only use ONE of them...AND past history said that these things have a high failure rate...so flat out, this is incompetence in the software department.

Worse, in at least one of the two crashes - the airline knew that they had one bad sensor - but the other one was OK and they didn't know how critical it was to replace it. Even if you have three sensors and a "voting" system, that does you no good if one of them fails and nobody fixes it right away...because then another one fails and the voting system says "Oh - these two (failed systems) seem to agree" and it'll then actively ignore the good one.

Voting systems aren't always the answer though...what happens if the voting circuit fails? Do you triplicate that too and add a voting system for the voting systems?

The new Tesla self-driving computer is interesting for that reason - they DUPLICATED (but didn't TRIPLICATE) the computer cores so they have redundancy in the event of a failure. So how do they decide who wins? Doubtless there is something more subtle going on here - and that (in general) is what you need.

So I don't think the 737-MAX needs additional sensors - just smarter software for monitoring them - and something that says "If one of my two AOA sensors has failed - then I'm refusing to take off until it's fixed!".

The failure of the software is embarrassing, I just saw an Air Disasters on Smithsonian with a plane that had the same issue. Software "glitch" they couldn't determine why. They couldn't even find anything with the code except the computer changed two parameters, on its own, for altitude and speed, confusing them, one for the other Making the plane pitch down, while the pilots fighting it up, eventually stalling and crashing into the ground. Go figure. This is why you need 3 computers checking each other playing "paper scissors rock" constantly with the flight commands lol

"Software "glitch" they couldn't determine why. They couldn't even find anything with the code except the computer changed two parameters, on its own, for altitude and speed, confusing them, one for the other Making the plane pitch down, while the pilots fighting it up, eventually stalling and crashing into the ground. Go figure."

Didn't think about how much recent events are the coming to life of the movie 2001 Space Odyssey.

HAL

IMHO Tesla using only double critical systems because it will be required for robo taxi, and they may use one in shadow mode. But I do not think they use them for real for safety. As on Falcon 9 they using 4 to make sure they can operate after one fail (and this one will restart anyway)

This probably applies to the manufacturing and testing of the satellites as well. They are making so many and are launching so many on the same flight, keeping cost per launched satellite down, that a much higher than normal failure rate is probably still highly profitable.

I'm thinking they are skimping on the level of clean manufacturing, on testing and probably a lot of other things as well.

A accepted 10% failure instead of 1% if they can halve the cost per satellite will save them billions.

By lowering the altitude that they'll orbit at - SpaceX are guaranteeing a shorter life for each one. After all, part of the reason here is to avoid failed satellites becoming space junk. So there must be "planned obsolesence" going on here.

Satellites will suffer atmospheric drag and eventually burn up - whether they are good or failed. Providing they are sufficiently profitable and cheap, then new ones can be launched continually to replace them. If launch costs are low - then you can make them cheaper by not bothering to make them reliable. This also fits with the SpaceX and Tesla approach of continuous improvement. Since you have to replace the satellites that burn up - you can continually improve the design over time.

Radically reduced launch costs make for radically new thinking - and that's a good thing!

You are of course correct, the lower altitude satellites will have a shorter life due to greater friction. After all even deep space is not empty. It has at least one hydrogen atom per cubic meter. My guess is this batch of satellites is strictly for testing since they can't be retrieved and changed, so that is even sooner to be intentionally sent down to burn up than planned obsolescence.

SpaceX has already done at least one satellite replacement launch for Iridium, the grandfather of satellite phone services. Eventually time and micrometeorites take too much of a toll or a satellite runs out of all but the fuel needed for an intentional burn to its demise even if everything stays working. They all need some maneuverability.

I had not read about satellite failures, but all of the communications satellites have extra transponders they can switch 2 if one being used fails. You are correct though about the critical nature of clean rooms. The cleanest ones used in making semiconductor memory have such clear air that people are NEVER allowed in the room, and it takes 6 months of filtering air to get out particulates before they can even be used. All the work in those is done by robots, just as if the rooms were radioactive. There are of course less clean clean rooms used for less demanding needs and in processes leading up to the super clean room. The negative of fault tolerance being failed components though means you are paying more to get into orbit as every kg or ounce counts.

great insights on this project...surprised you knew the deal with Boeing MCAS, that flaw seems to be above the traditional media's ability to explain things to the public.

If you read enough account one story or another is going to reveal an important detail, and I made reading my retirement hobby. I have also written over a decade of my career 250,000 lines of code just to get my own information duties done, so it is easier to recognize careless programming. I saw that in one of the systems I got data from with lots of links to deleted data that was no longer anywhere but on paper. Sources that report more narrowly focused news like this Teslarati site also give more technical kinds of details. Science is well covered at https://www.sciencedaily.com/ Space activities by https://www.space.com/ etc. I recall putting the details together through 4 separate stories, and I also live in the same state as Boeing so we get more news on Boeing than most places are interested in. On Space X an article about its actual executive that turned SpaceX from an idea of Elon Musk to a successful business, Gwynne Shotwell, was very informative as well for that specific business. I read about that in Bloomberg Business Week magazine profile as I recall.

Pick your sources wisely and the news just makes more sense. Needless to say, I avoid FoxNews which is 99% opinion for the Murdoch family and 1% news, but I have found Google news useful.

4,3,2,....1. When that moment happens and those rocket engines lift the thing off the ground, now with a 30,000 lb payload, the pressures and temperatures being handled by that machine are beyond our imaginations. Think Uncle Morty when he blew that gasket that killed him. To me it seems they've already gone beyond the limits of the physicality of the components. I'll bet they're looking for completely different ways to do this. Something radical? You bet.

You are also underestimating materials science. Remember just how hard it was to find a way to make a heat shield that allowed manned spaceflights to return to Earth without burning up in the atmosphere, and since then materials science has advanced much beyond that. Besides most of the force you talk about actually goes out the rockets as exhaust, and container technology is well established for storing both solid state and liquid fuels. There are though some parts that do have to be replaced with each rocket engine use.

You are shorting my imagination. I can even appreciate the corona of the sun is hotter than the sun itself, and both are way beyond what would be required to melt everything on or in Earth. Failure would actually be certain if the rocket were beyond the physical limits of its components, but SpaceX does replace some components with each reuse. They just try and make the most expensive components as durable as possible. It is though a company with no fear of doing innovation and it hires a lot of young recently graduated Physics Ph.D.'s, including one I met who has held on to his SpaceX stock even as he moved to a higher paying employer.

Meanwhile, over at Chryco/Fiat.....
If I worked in the industry and wasn't on the Tesla team, I'd be looking out the window all day trying to figure out how to change that. This legacy automaker meltdown is going almost as fast as Arctic ice.

That is a bit of an exaggeration, but there are several reasons Chrysler never broke out of 3rd of the big automakers. Tesla will have just as much competition as they had, which is why it does its best to keep innovating. A lot of the job losses in the Big 3 automakers are actually due to increased automation and robot use and to moving some sourcing and manufacturing out of the USA to not carry the same legacy costs.

With no other company anywhere near reusable rocket technology. SpaceX is set to dominate all forms of space to ground communication. There simply can be no other outcome.

Take that a step further. They literally have to exploit their advantage as much as possible in the very tiny window while they have it. This is kinda like them maximising the value of that time they'll keep their advantage by quickly completing new profit makers.

And once they takeover the market, they will be able to offer the cheapest prices with global coverage, nobody will be able to compete and they will all likely quickly go out of business. Even with a competing satellite system, the competitions costs will be FAR higher then spacex. without their own reusable rocket launch system they simply cant compete. When the next gen satellites go live and costs come down further, all of the ground based internet providers will go the way or the dodo as well and i for one cant wait to see comcast fail, they are beyond a horrible company.

As the market is never free, wait for Comcast and the others to start firing legal and political missles. There are trillions at stake.

Arianespace is "sponsored" by multiple governments and thus cannot go bankrupt. it can only experience, 'temporary downtime' during redesign.

Yes, its a small caveat, a govt may want to keep a service open and may pay to do so.

I don’t think it’s a tiny window. No one else is near launching satellites with reusable rockets.
Even when they start launching it will take some time to prove the rockets are safe.
I don’t know what the time advantage is but it must be
3-5 years minimum.
Star link will be nearing completion in 5 years

You are forgetting Blue Origin, their reusable heavy-lift New Gleen is just a couple of years away. Competition is good.

bfr/starship will be flying by then and BO will be priced out. BO hasnt even done any kind of rocket testing(no orbital paths, and has not even gone to space or been in orbit. ) BO has allot of catching up to do and is risking allot with their rocket.

I'm not saying the New Glenn is better than SuperHeavy/StarShip, but that what Eric said about nobody being close to reusability is wrong.

BO have done their tests on ground tests and suborbital flights. If they feel confident with that good for them. Yes, it´s risky, must be nice to not need to generate profits thanks to Bezos fortune.

Their development is very secretive, but BO is bidding to the Air Forces new launches for 2020+, so they expect to be close to deliver full-reusable rockets.

Competition is good, it will keep SpaceX on their toes, always innovating to be ahead.

New Glenn is as bigger Falcon 9, is not close to reusability of Starship (BFR), for it you need not only first stage, but second, and in New Glenn even third (it have it in one of configuration if I remember correctly )

Ok, The original poster was right and I was wrong.

Nobody, absolutely nobody, is any close to build a reusable rocket besides SpaceX. /s