>If I understand correctly, the number of bright satellites will be proportional to the launch rate, not the total quantity in orbit. Because the constellation

>If I understand correctly, the number of bright satellites will be proportional to the launch rate, not the total quantity in orbit. Because the constellation needs constant replenishment, the launch rate (and hence the # of brighter satellites) will have to reach a steady state that is directly proportional to the size of the constellation. We can extrapolate that in the future this rate will actually be significantly higher than it is currently: They currently have permission to launch around 12,000 sats. They're launching around 250 per year. The current launch rate is only sustainable if each satellite lasts for 50 years. If you expand that to the proposed 42,000 constellation, 250 new satellites per year is only sustainable with a MTBF of around 150-200 years per satellite, which is nigh impossible in low Earth orbit. Using a lower (but still very generous and optimistic) MTBF of 10 years, Starlink will need to launch 4,200 satellites every year, about ~15x higher their current launch cadence. > the majority of the remaining satellites are destined for much higher (and dimmer) orbit Just about all of the satellites they've orbited so far are hanging out around 550km. SpaceX initially got permission to go as high as 1300km, but they've since changed their mind. The new plan (still pending FCC approval I believe) is to keep all of the satellites between 300-550km. So the future satellites will be as low or lower than the current ones.