4 ms·

If their primary mission was observation, they would be an incredible astronomical resource. However, I think that given the fuel constraints and SLA they aim t

If their primary mission was observation, they would be an incredible astronomical resource. However, I think that given the fuel constraints and SLA they aim to provide, I would be shocked if they used any fuel to orient for extraterrestrial observation.

jillesvangurp 5y ago
I think that SpaceX has convincingly proven that it is not that expensive to send up thousands of satellites. So, anyone interested in launching a telescope satellite could do worse than talk to them to see if they could help out. Also, given enough money, I don't see why SpaceX would not be using their satellite network for more than communication. Positioning is another interesting use case for them, for example.
- shantara 5y ago
  Another thing that SpaceX has proven with Starlink is that the benefits of economy of scale could be applied to satellite production and the aerospace industry in general. It is so incredibly wasteful that the companies and governments keep coming up with unique designs for the satellites serving similar purposes. Imagine if we had a standard design template for an optical telescope that could be cheaply and easily mass produced and launched by the thousands.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    As someone mentioned above, weak signals require large receivers.
  - giantrobot 5y ago
    > It is so incredibly wasteful that the companies and governments keep coming up with unique designs for the satellites serving similar purposes. Common satellite chassis has been a thing for decades. StarLink and other systems like it benefit from mass production and economies of scale. Each block of StarLink satellites is identical. They also have a singular task and everything about them is optimized for it. Most satellites are not identical copies of one another even if they have "similar" roles. Mass production is less desirable as you'd end up with unoptimized designs which means wasted mass or reduced capabilities.
- Diederich 5y ago
  > not that expensive to send up thousands of satellites It's relatively inexpensive for SpaceX to do it, but their external prices are still quite high, even if cheaper than the competition.
- devnulll 5y ago
  For the amortized cost of 1 strategic modern bomber, or a submarine, or an aircraft carrier, the DOD or US NRO could easily just pay SpaceX to do this. At the nation state scale, this constellation has proven to be trivially cheap. The resulting arms race would be... interesting and would probably get us closer to Kessler Syndrome quickly.
  - sumtechguy 5y ago
    I would be shocked of DoD was not buying its own version of the same thing. There is even a company out there that has shown they can do it...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - jcims 5y ago
      Why buy their own when they can just hitch a ride. They could add a 'little black box' with access to the streams of IQ samples coming off of the array elements to do their own work without impacting operations.
  - didericis 5y ago
    One thing that makes me less scared about Kessler Syndrome than other environmental problems is that there’s a very strong and immediate economic incentive to clean things up and prevent things from getting dirty by the people at risk of making things dirty. If you can’t do maintenance on or launch satellites, that destroys the industry’s source of income. The consequences for pollution from other industries is usually longer term and less dramatic/direct on the business itself, if it even effects the core business directly. I think all the effort put into monitoring space debris and the amount of attention things like starlink is getting speaks to this.
    - shagie 5y ago
      Starlink isn't at the top of my list for "likely Kessler Syndrome starters" because its a rather low orbit. They're at 550km up. From https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/orblife.htm https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/orblife.htm puts it at likely a 10 year lifespan with some variation. The published lifespan of a satellite is 5 years. Its the stuff in the 700km to 900km range that's a problem. http://stuffin.space http://stuffin.space https://www.satview.org/spacejunk.php https://www.satview.org/spacejunk.php - and you'll see things like STARLINK-1204 already getting deorbtied ( https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=45203 https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=45203 - note its perigee is 204.0 km - its already well below the other orbits) https://in-the-sky.org/spacecraft.php?id=45203 https://in-the-sky.org/spacecraft.php?id=45203 for more on that satellite. Starlink-61 appears to be one of the oldest ones still in orbit - https://in-the-sky.org/spacecraft.php?id=44249 https://in-the-sky.org/spacecraft.php?id=44249 though its on its way down and you can see the type of impact and the duration of the "ok, this is going down". Even with the maximum starlink, that's 1,700 satellites that will last about 10 years. The 2007 China anti-satellite test created approximately 150,000 debris at 865km. Those are in an orbit that is on the order of 500 years. Starlink isn't going to be the cause of Kessler Syndrome. --- In hunting this up, I also found https://planet4589.org/astro/starsim/index.html https://planet4589.org/astro/starsim/index.html which is relevant to the main topic - the impact on astronomy.
- shaklee3 5y ago
  SpaceX has not shown anything is cheap yet since they're not a public company and you can't see their financials. yes, they're reusing parts of the rocket, but as musk said recently, it's much more expensive than they want. engineers aren't free, and they're pretty much only launching their own payloads while not having great returns.
mlyle 5y ago
Does it take any fuel? Isn't fuel used to desaturate reaction wheels?

jillesvangurp 5y ago

I think that SpaceX has convincingly proven that it is not that expensive to send up thousands of satellites. So, anyone interested in launching a telescope satellite could do worse than talk to them to see if they could help out. Also, given enough money, I don't see why SpaceX would not be using their satellite network for more than communication. Positioning is another interesting use case for them, for example.

shantara 5y ago
Another thing that SpaceX has proven with Starlink is that the benefits of economy of scale could be applied to satellite production and the aerospace industry in general. It is so incredibly wasteful that the companies and governments keep coming up with unique designs for the satellites serving similar purposes. Imagine if we had a standard design template for an optical telescope that could be cheaply and easily mass produced and launched by the thousands.
- mcguire 5y ago
  As someone mentioned above, weak signals require large receivers.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  > It is so incredibly wasteful that the companies and governments keep coming up with unique designs for the satellites serving similar purposes. Common satellite chassis has been a thing for decades. StarLink and other systems like it benefit from mass production and economies of scale. Each block of StarLink satellites is identical. They also have a singular task and everything about them is optimized for it. Most satellites are not identical copies of one another even if they have "similar" roles. Mass production is less desirable as you'd end up with unoptimized designs which means wasted mass or reduced capabilities.
Diederich 5y ago
> not that expensive to send up thousands of satellites It's relatively inexpensive for SpaceX to do it, but their external prices are still quite high, even if cheaper than the competition.
devnulll 5y ago
For the amortized cost of 1 strategic modern bomber, or a submarine, or an aircraft carrier, the DOD or US NRO could easily just pay SpaceX to do this. At the nation state scale, this constellation has proven to be trivially cheap. The resulting arms race would be... interesting and would probably get us closer to Kessler Syndrome quickly.
- sumtechguy 5y ago
  I would be shocked of DoD was not buying its own version of the same thing. There is even a company out there that has shown they can do it...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jcims 5y ago
    Why buy their own when they can just hitch a ride. They could add a 'little black box' with access to the streams of IQ samples coming off of the array elements to do their own work without impacting operations.
- didericis 5y ago
  One thing that makes me less scared about Kessler Syndrome than other environmental problems is that there’s a very strong and immediate economic incentive to clean things up and prevent things from getting dirty by the people at risk of making things dirty. If you can’t do maintenance on or launch satellites, that destroys the industry’s source of income. The consequences for pollution from other industries is usually longer term and less dramatic/direct on the business itself, if it even effects the core business directly. I think all the effort put into monitoring space debris and the amount of attention things like starlink is getting speaks to this.
  - shagie 5y ago
    Starlink isn't at the top of my list for "likely Kessler Syndrome starters" because its a rather low orbit. They're at 550km up. From https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/orblife.htm https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/orblife.htm puts it at likely a 10 year lifespan with some variation. The published lifespan of a satellite is 5 years. Its the stuff in the 700km to 900km range that's a problem. http://stuffin.space http://stuffin.space https://www.satview.org/spacejunk.php https://www.satview.org/spacejunk.php - and you'll see things like STARLINK-1204 already getting deorbtied ( https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=45203 https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=45203 - note its perigee is 204.0 km - its already well below the other orbits) https://in-the-sky.org/spacecraft.php?id=45203 https://in-the-sky.org/spacecraft.php?id=45203 for more on that satellite. Starlink-61 appears to be one of the oldest ones still in orbit - https://in-the-sky.org/spacecraft.php?id=44249 https://in-the-sky.org/spacecraft.php?id=44249 though its on its way down and you can see the type of impact and the duration of the "ok, this is going down". Even with the maximum starlink, that's 1,700 satellites that will last about 10 years. The 2007 China anti-satellite test created approximately 150,000 debris at 865km. Those are in an orbit that is on the order of 500 years. Starlink isn't going to be the cause of Kessler Syndrome. --- In hunting this up, I also found https://planet4589.org/astro/starsim/index.html https://planet4589.org/astro/starsim/index.html which is relevant to the main topic - the impact on astronomy.
shaklee3 5y ago
SpaceX has not shown anything is cheap yet since they're not a public company and you can't see their financials. yes, they're reusing parts of the rocket, but as musk said recently, it's much more expensive than they want. engineers aren't free, and they're pretty much only launching their own payloads while not having great returns.

mlyle 5y ago

Does it take any fuel? Isn't fuel used to desaturate reaction wheels?