4 ms·
They have conclusively demonstrated that relying on a small number of satellites in the small number of launches concentrates too much risk. Unfortunately the d
by kylecordes 10y ago
They have conclusively demonstrated that relying on a small number of satellites in the small number of launches concentrates too much risk. Unfortunately the demonstrated this accidentally blowing up a satellite.
In the long run though, success at scale with a system like this relies on the typically guaranteed losses. A certain percentage of rockets will fail, a certain percentage of satellites will fail, a robust system will be designed to accommodate this.
(Of course, and this is probably the topic of a totally different thread, the tolerance for this must change dramatically when there are people in there.)
- nraynaud 10y agothere is still the issue of space junk, more satellites, more launches, more mishaps, more junk. And now you have more junk to create more mishaps. I'm not saying I want more concentration, I'm just saying that the path to de-centralisation is not that clear cut (at there is a threshold were we have to talk about CO2 emissions).
- fapjacks 10y agoYeah I'm really surprised no one else has mentioned the issue of space junk. SpaceX won't be the last company that wants to put thousands of these things into orbit.
- andygates 10y agoJunk prevention is addressed in the details of the proposal, deliberate deorbiting early, but if not they'll decay nicely. It's still as many satellites as are currently flying at all, but they have considered it.