2 ms·

Yes, but that would mean they're not launching anything else... the mind boggling part to me was that they're planning on over doubling the number of satellites

by soperj 9y ago

Yes, but that would mean they're not launching anything else... the mind boggling part to me was that they're planning on over doubling the number of satellites in space in the span of 6 years.

acchow 9y ago
> would mean they're not launching anything else.. Falcon 9 payload to LOE is 22,800kg.
- Tuna-Fish 9y ago
  The orbits these satellites will fly in will make them almost impossible to launch alongside other payloads. Other than maybe a few weather satellites, simply put no-one else will want to fly where they are flying. Of course, the high payload of the boosters and the low weight of a single satellite in this constellation will mean that SpaceX will launch a lot of them per one rocket.
Tuna-Fish 9y ago
The rate SpaceX builds rockets is roughly half of the rate Roscosmos (their closest competitor) builds them. Despite this, this year SpaceX got really close to them in launches (18 vs 20), simply because they could reuse 5 boosters instead of having to build new ones for every launch. Starting with the launch of Bangabandhu-1 on top of the B1046 core on 24th of this month, SpaceX will start launching satellites on top of the new Block 5 versions of their boosters. They are not designed to be reused once or twice with teardowns that approximate what was done with the Shuttles between the launches, they are designed to be reused "many" times, with refits every 10th launch. What blows my mind about SpaceX is not just that costs are going to come down, it's just how much the worldwide space launch capacity is going to go up when they continue mass-producing rockets without discarding them, growing their fleet of launchers by ~1 every two months. (Factoring in the customers who want the performance of flying expendable).
- nasredin 9y ago
  How sad. Seems like rockets are one of the few things Russia was still good at. Now the only thing I can think of is their new nukes.

by soperj 9y ago

Yes, but that would mean they're not launching anything else... the mind boggling part to me was that they're planning on over doubling the number of satellites in space in the span of 6 years.

acchow 9y ago

> would mean they're not launching anything else.. Falcon 9 payload to LOE is 22,800kg.

Tuna-Fish 9y ago
The orbits these satellites will fly in will make them almost impossible to launch alongside other payloads. Other than maybe a few weather satellites, simply put no-one else will want to fly where they are flying. Of course, the high payload of the boosters and the low weight of a single satellite in this constellation will mean that SpaceX will launch a lot of them per one rocket.

Tuna-Fish 9y ago

The rate SpaceX builds rockets is roughly half of the rate Roscosmos (their closest competitor) builds them. Despite this, this year SpaceX got really close to them in launches (18 vs 20), simply because they could reuse 5 boosters instead of having to build new ones for every launch. Starting with the launch of Bangabandhu-1 on top of the B1046 core on 24th of this month, SpaceX will start launching satellites on top of the new Block 5 versions of their boosters. They are not designed to be reused once or twice with teardowns that approximate what was done with the Shuttles between the launches, they are designed to be reused "many" times, with refits every 10th launch. What blows my mind about SpaceX is not just that costs are going to come down, it's just how much the worldwide space launch capacity is going to go up when they continue mass-producing rockets without discarding them, growing their fleet of launchers by ~1 every two months. (Factoring in the customers who want the performance of flying expendable).

nasredin 9y ago
How sad. Seems like rockets are one of the few things Russia was still good at. Now the only thing I can think of is their new nukes.