3 ms·

SpaceX recently updated their plans to put most satellites between 300 and 400km. That ensures a quick deorbit of the satellites and debris and cuts down the pi

by _ph_ 8y ago

SpaceX recently updated their plans to put most satellites between 300 and 400km. That ensures a quick deorbit of the satellites and debris and cuts down the ping times.

Rooster61 8y ago
Interesting. That does make me feel a bit more secure about the whole thing, but it does raise the question of how much they will need to invest in orbital upkeep/replacement of decayed spacecraft. I can see this getting expensive quick.
- dr_orpheus 8y ago
  Definitely expensive, but it is likely still much less expensive than putting all of the satellites in to the higher orbit. It takes a lot more fuel to get the satellites in to the higher orbit, as well as still having enough fuel to get it back down to de-orbit the satellite. Plus, in the ~1100 km orbit you are getting in to the lower Van Allen belt where the radiation will degrade electronics much more quickly. This can be mitigated with radiation-resistant parts and more shielding, but it adds a lot more cost.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  There are new technologies like air breathing ion engines and electrodynamic tethers, which have the potential to sustain low orbit satellites for years.
shaklee3 8y ago
they filed that because it's believed that they have mechanical problems on the satellite. Not because they wanted to: https://mobile.twitter.com/TMFAssociates/status/1060760801005326342 https://mobile.twitter.com/TMFAssociates/status/106076080100...
- regnerba 8y ago
  Isn't the lower orbit even better for them in terms of latency though? So long as the orbit doesn't decay faster than the planned 5 year life span of the sats, it's actually a win.
  - shaklee3 8y ago
    The lower orbit means the satellite coverage on Earth is smaller now, so they need more satellites to compensate for delivering the same capacity in a given area. It's better in terms of latency, but it's not a significant difference.
    - regnerba 8y ago
      Very good point, thanks for responding.

by _ph_ 8y ago

SpaceX recently updated their plans to put most satellites between 300 and 400km. That ensures a quick deorbit of the satellites and debris and cuts down the ping times.

Rooster61 8y ago

Interesting. That does make me feel a bit more secure about the whole thing, but it does raise the question of how much they will need to invest in orbital upkeep/replacement of decayed spacecraft. I can see this getting expensive quick.

dr_orpheus 8y ago
Definitely expensive, but it is likely still much less expensive than putting all of the satellites in to the higher orbit. It takes a lot more fuel to get the satellites in to the higher orbit, as well as still having enough fuel to get it back down to de-orbit the satellite. Plus, in the ~1100 km orbit you are getting in to the lower Van Allen belt where the radiation will degrade electronics much more quickly. This can be mitigated with radiation-resistant parts and more shielding, but it adds a lot more cost.
stcredzero 8y ago
There are new technologies like air breathing ion engines and electrodynamic tethers, which have the potential to sustain low orbit satellites for years.

shaklee3 8y ago

they filed that because it's believed that they have mechanical problems on the satellite. Not because they wanted to: https://mobile.twitter.com/TMFAssociates/status/1060760801005326342 https://mobile.twitter.com/TMFAssociates/status/106076080100...

regnerba 8y ago
Isn't the lower orbit even better for them in terms of latency though? So long as the orbit doesn't decay faster than the planned 5 year life span of the sats, it's actually a win.
- shaklee3 8y ago
  The lower orbit means the satellite coverage on Earth is smaller now, so they need more satellites to compensate for delivering the same capacity in a given area. It's better in terms of latency, but it's not a significant difference.
  - regnerba 8y ago
    Very good point, thanks for responding.