6 ms·

SpaceX: World record number of satellites launched

135 points by edward 6y ago

shripadk 6y ago
"The number beats the previous record of 104 satellites carried aloft by an Indian vehicle in 2017" Does this vehicle not have a name? Or is the reporter too lazy to look it up? BBC never fails when it comes to its Anti-India stance.
- cody8295 6y ago
  PSLV-C37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSLV-C37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSLV-C37
- wlesieutre 6y ago
  The mission was PSLV-C37, but they also didn't tell you that the SpaceX flight was F9-106 or that it flew on booster B1058. Would you describe that as the BBC's anti-American stance at work? Or maybe the serial numbers tacked on to the missions aren't really newsworthy, and anyone who wants more specific details can type "104 satellites" into google? I vouched you comment back up because I think it's worth linking, but no need to ascribe some sort of malicious motive to the BBC here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSLV-C37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSLV-C37 https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/2403 https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/2403
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - shripadk 6y ago
    > but they also didn't tell you that the SpaceX flight We know it is a SpaceX flight. I have never seen any news story call it an "American flight". Have always seen news stories attribute to the organization: NASA/SpaceX/Virgin Galactic etc. I would have ignored the slight had the story at least mentioned ISRO. And this is a report by the "Science Correspondent". This would be a bare minimum expectation. > I vouched you comment back up because I think it's worth linking, but no need to ascribe some sort of malicious motive to the BBC here. Thanks for vouching. Well BBC has held an anti-India stance for quite a long time[1]. Even positive stories are spun around to paint India in a negative light. And it is not just the BBC. A huge section of the Western media indulges in this behavior. So felt like calling them out. Even if I am the lone voice here. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Indian_sentiment#BBC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Indian_sentiment#BBC
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- aparsons 6y ago
  Not sure why you’re offended, but on the world stage, India is largely a joke.
  - dang 6y ago
    Nationalistic flamewar is not ok here, regardless of whether another comment started it. It just leads to hell, so please don't post like this to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 6y ago
  "Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." Nationalistic flamewar is particularly not where we want to go here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
ortusdux 6y ago
Estimates are that the spacex starship could launch 240 starlink satellites. I can't imagine how many cubes they could hold.
- m4rtink 6y ago
  So one current generation Starlink satellite is estimated to weight about 260. One one unit cubesat weighs 1 kg. So discounting small details like deployment mechanisms and volume: 260 x 240 = 62400 cubesats for one Starship launch by weight.
  - stretchcat 6y ago
    I know these cubesats don't stay up for long in LEO, but at what point does it become too many cubesats?
    - mrfusion 6y ago
      How can we spin this as a bad thing, right?
      - stretchcat 6y ago
        I'm not spinning anything, and the scenario I'm responding to (62k satellites in one launch) has not occurred. I've been a fan of SpaceX for years, but apparently even a whiff of anything short of pure adoration is enough to send some fanboys into a tizzy. It's tiresome.
        kitsunesoba 6y ago
        > I've been a fan of SpaceX for years, but apparently even a whiff of anything short of pure adoration is enough to send some fanboys into a tizzy. It's tiresome. I think it's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction leftover from when SpaceX was still trying to get its foot in the door and was more vulnerable to the whims of public opinion (since early on, it was wholly dependent on NASA contracts which strong public pressure could get cut). Spaceflight is also one of those subjects that tends to attract opinions and fears more based in sensationalized headlines and Hollywood depictions than reality. This is natural since space isn't exactly accessible to general public, but it can be frustrating for enthusiasts, especially since unfounded claims spread much more widely and quickly than corrections do. All that said, no company is above criticism and I do not encourage fanboyism.
Jabbles 6y ago
Are satellites the size of books required to have a method of self de-orbiting? Or are they in orbits that have limited lifespans?
- acover 6y ago
  The orbits have a 5 year life span and the satellites can deorbit. The satellites actually use propulsion to stay in their orbit! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink
  - titzer 6y ago
    This[1] suggests an orbit of 500-600km can a lifetime anywhere from 10-100 years. That's not short. [1] https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/orblife.htm https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/orblife.htm The 5-year lifespan is for them to be intentionally deorbited. If they die, they become debris subject to atmospheric drag and other forces.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Thats a great link I think it's inportant to note that a traditional 3 ton sattelite and a cubesat will have totally different lifetimes, and that articles appears to assume a larger satellite
      - titzer 6y ago
        Yea, I saw that. It seems the key thing is the ratio of surface area to mass. It seems reasonable for a smaller satellite to have higher surface area to mass, and thus deorbit faster, but I don't have a handy link to that data.
        m4rtink 6y ago
        The Planetary Society Lightsail 1 mission was a 3U cubesat and went down really quickly from LEO once it unfurled its solar sail - IIRC it basically multiplied its cross-section 300 times.
_Microft 6y ago
Something that might not be obvious for people not following space flight closely: this was a launch into a polar orbit from Florida. In the past these would have launched from Vandenberg airforce base in California because there is a clear path towards the south from there. So, how is SpaceX doing that now? They are conducting a so-called „dog leg“ maneuver. This trajectory leads the rocket further out to the east over the ocean before it turns south. This is to avoid to fly over land/populated area. This had not been done in decades if I remember correctly. More stuff: the first Starlink satellites for polar orbits also launched on this flight. As I understand these were the first ones to have inter-satellite laser links too. (I can’t imagine what an improvement cheap and high bandwidth satellite Internet must be for stations in Antarctica.) https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1353408098342326276 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1353408098342326276
- wmf 6y ago
  The landing also looked pretty close to Cuba.
- herodoturtle 6y ago
  This was an incredibly insightful comment, thank you. I've been following SpaceX relatively closely; as a South African I've cheered on Elon since his PayPal exit - and so for example I had friends over for dinner on the night of the twin Falcon landing (and more recently the crewed Dragon mission). Please forgive my fanboyism, but now that I've read your points that you've just made, it has shed a whole new (fascinating) light on something I was already passionate about. Incredible times we're living in. Ad astra.
  - JshWright 6y ago
    Polar launches out of Florida are not some special SpaceX magic. It has more to do with the capabilities of the Eastern Range.
    - herodoturtle 6y ago
      Yeah, I hear ya. This was not the 0x5F3759DF of rocket science. My friends and I are simply rooting for a fellow South African. Everything SpaceX do is special SpaceX magic to us. And those live-streaming youtubers from the NASA channel are a fun bunch. Their commentary during the static fire tests the other day kept us company whilst we were working - good fun. I guess I'm just easy to please.
sha1 6y ago
More space trash. Thanks, Mr Musk.

135 points by edward 6y ago

"The number beats the previous record of 104 satellites carried aloft by an Indian vehicle in 2017" Does this vehicle not have a name? Or is the reporter too lazy to look it up? BBC never fails when it comes to its Anti-India stance.

cody8295 6y ago
PSLV-C37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSLV-C37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSLV-C37
wlesieutre 6y ago
The mission was PSLV-C37, but they also didn't tell you that the SpaceX flight was F9-106 or that it flew on booster B1058. Would you describe that as the BBC's anti-American stance at work? Or maybe the serial numbers tacked on to the missions aren't really newsworthy, and anyone who wants more specific details can type "104 satellites" into google? I vouched you comment back up because I think it's worth linking, but no need to ascribe some sort of malicious motive to the BBC here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSLV-C37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSLV-C37 https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/2403 https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/2403
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- shripadk 6y ago
  > but they also didn't tell you that the SpaceX flight We know it is a SpaceX flight. I have never seen any news story call it an "American flight". Have always seen news stories attribute to the organization: NASA/SpaceX/Virgin Galactic etc. I would have ignored the slight had the story at least mentioned ISRO. And this is a report by the "Science Correspondent". This would be a bare minimum expectation. > I vouched you comment back up because I think it's worth linking, but no need to ascribe some sort of malicious motive to the BBC here. Thanks for vouching. Well BBC has held an anti-India stance for quite a long time[1]. Even positive stories are spun around to paint India in a negative light. And it is not just the BBC. A huge section of the Western media indulges in this behavior. So felt like calling them out. Even if I am the lone voice here. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Indian_sentiment#BBC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Indian_sentiment#BBC
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
aparsons 6y ago
Not sure why you’re offended, but on the world stage, India is largely a joke.
- dang 6y ago
  Nationalistic flamewar is not ok here, regardless of whether another comment started it. It just leads to hell, so please don't post like this to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang 6y ago
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." Nationalistic flamewar is particularly not where we want to go here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

ortusdux 6y ago

Estimates are that the spacex starship could launch 240 starlink satellites. I can't imagine how many cubes they could hold.

m4rtink 6y ago
So one current generation Starlink satellite is estimated to weight about 260. One one unit cubesat weighs 1 kg. So discounting small details like deployment mechanisms and volume: 260 x 240 = 62400 cubesats for one Starship launch by weight.
- stretchcat 6y ago
  I know these cubesats don't stay up for long in LEO, but at what point does it become too many cubesats?
  - mrfusion 6y ago
    How can we spin this as a bad thing, right?
    - stretchcat 6y ago
      I'm not spinning anything, and the scenario I'm responding to (62k satellites in one launch) has not occurred. I've been a fan of SpaceX for years, but apparently even a whiff of anything short of pure adoration is enough to send some fanboys into a tizzy. It's tiresome.
      - kitsunesoba 6y ago
        > I've been a fan of SpaceX for years, but apparently even a whiff of anything short of pure adoration is enough to send some fanboys into a tizzy. It's tiresome. I think it's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction leftover from when SpaceX was still trying to get its foot in the door and was more vulnerable to the whims of public opinion (since early on, it was wholly dependent on NASA contracts which strong public pressure could get cut). Spaceflight is also one of those subjects that tends to attract opinions and fears more based in sensationalized headlines and Hollywood depictions than reality. This is natural since space isn't exactly accessible to general public, but it can be frustrating for enthusiasts, especially since unfounded claims spread much more widely and quickly than corrections do. All that said, no company is above criticism and I do not encourage fanboyism.

Jabbles 6y ago

Are satellites the size of books required to have a method of self de-orbiting? Or are they in orbits that have limited lifespans?

acover 6y ago
The orbits have a 5 year life span and the satellites can deorbit. The satellites actually use propulsion to stay in their orbit! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink
- titzer 6y ago
  This[1] suggests an orbit of 500-600km can a lifetime anywhere from 10-100 years. That's not short. [1] https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/orblife.htm https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/orblife.htm The 5-year lifespan is for them to be intentionally deorbited. If they die, they become debris subject to atmospheric drag and other forces.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Thats a great link I think it's inportant to note that a traditional 3 ton sattelite and a cubesat will have totally different lifetimes, and that articles appears to assume a larger satellite
    - titzer 6y ago
      Yea, I saw that. It seems the key thing is the ratio of surface area to mass. It seems reasonable for a smaller satellite to have higher surface area to mass, and thus deorbit faster, but I don't have a handy link to that data.
      - m4rtink 6y ago
        The Planetary Society Lightsail 1 mission was a 3U cubesat and went down really quickly from LEO once it unfurled its solar sail - IIRC it basically multiplied its cross-section 300 times.

_Microft 6y ago

Something that might not be obvious for people not following space flight closely: this was a launch into a polar orbit from Florida. In the past these would have launched from Vandenberg airforce base in California because there is a clear path towards the south from there. So, how is SpaceX doing that now? They are conducting a so-called „dog leg“ maneuver. This trajectory leads the rocket further out to the east over the ocean before it turns south. This is to avoid to fly over land/populated area. This had not been done in decades if I remember correctly. More stuff: the first Starlink satellites for polar orbits also launched on this flight. As I understand these were the first ones to have inter-satellite laser links too. (I can’t imagine what an improvement cheap and high bandwidth satellite Internet must be for stations in Antarctica.) https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1353408098342326276 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1353408098342326276

wmf 6y ago
The landing also looked pretty close to Cuba.
herodoturtle 6y ago
This was an incredibly insightful comment, thank you. I've been following SpaceX relatively closely; as a South African I've cheered on Elon since his PayPal exit - and so for example I had friends over for dinner on the night of the twin Falcon landing (and more recently the crewed Dragon mission). Please forgive my fanboyism, but now that I've read your points that you've just made, it has shed a whole new (fascinating) light on something I was already passionate about. Incredible times we're living in. Ad astra.
- JshWright 6y ago
  Polar launches out of Florida are not some special SpaceX magic. It has more to do with the capabilities of the Eastern Range.
  - herodoturtle 6y ago
    Yeah, I hear ya. This was not the 0x5F3759DF of rocket science. My friends and I are simply rooting for a fellow South African. Everything SpaceX do is special SpaceX magic to us. And those live-streaming youtubers from the NASA channel are a fun bunch. Their commentary during the static fire tests the other day kept us company whilst we were working - good fun. I guess I'm just easy to please.

sha1 6y ago

More space trash. Thanks, Mr Musk.