6 ms·

Lost 200 but launched 345, almost all of which are the latest upgraded version. The satellites are designed to last 5 years (the lifetime is limited by propella

Lost 200 but launched 345, almost all of which are the latest upgraded version. The satellites are designed to last 5 years (the lifetime is limited by propellant because of atmospheric drag at their low altitude) and the first batches were launched 4 years ago now. As the constellation matures they will be de-orbiting satellites about as fast as they launch them. Seems to me like the long term viability of Starlink (if it's not already profitable) will be assured if Starship meets its goals. They'll be able to launch way more satellites at once, for less per launch, and with faster turnaround.

threatripper 3y ago
How many satellites can be launched at once? I assume that the number of satellites per orbit will be limited and changing the orbit would take extra fuel that either the launch vehicle or the satellite has to provide.
- bagels 3y ago
  They typically launch 60 on Falcon 9, last time I checked.
- raesene9 3y ago
  The article says average of 50
usrusr 3y ago
Launch way more, and I'd imagine the sweet spot for the amount of fuel each satellite gets to shift up considerably: with a launch the size of starship they can saturate the orbits reasonably reachable from that launch for decades (spares remain in higher orbits with less drag I think) and giving one satellite more fuel is cheaper than deploying two satellites with less fuel each. And achieve far more than twice the runtime, because the fuel complement in today's starlinklings is certainly quite far from 100% mass fraction. The current compromise is far quick global reach running on F9, with a generous dose of iteration.
- youngtaff 3y ago
  Until all those sats re-enter, burn up and pollute the upper atmosphere
  - alex_duf 3y ago
    Wasn't there debate around their aluminium frame reacting with the upper atmosphere? The ozone layer maybe? 4 or 5 years of lifetime for literal tons of satellites is definitely not sustainable
    - onethought 3y ago
      Perhaps they could find a way to refuel the constellation?
      - modeless 3y ago
        Unfortunately the physics of this don't work very well. And at least for now the satellites are getting generational upgrades frequently, so the old satellites are obsolete. Maybe in the far future it will make sense to try this, but not anytime soon.
        onethought 3y ago
        Pie in the sky: in the future when they have the ability to put large starship fuel tankers into orbit, they could match the orbits of starlink and have some kind of drone move between satellites and tanker.
  - sjducb 3y ago
    5200 tonnes of micrometeorites hit the earth each year. Star link isn’t going to make a difference. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-study-shows-how-much-space-dust-hits-earth-every-year/?amp=true https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-study-s...
    - 3y ago
raesene9 3y ago
What's not clear from the article is whether the ones lost were old ones or newer ones. If they're losing ones that were close to their max. life anyway that's possibly no great loss, however if they were newer satellites on top of expected attrition that's more of a concern.
justapassenger 3y ago
> Seems to me like the long term viability of Starlink (if it's not already profitable) will be assured if Starship meets its goals. They'll be able to launch way more satellites at once, for less per launch, and with faster turnaround. This is just wishful thinking without any data backing it up.
- onethought 3y ago
  Starship is substantially bigger than falcon 9, with significant more mass to orbit capability. And runs on a cheaper propellant. Also Elon has publicly stated starlink s long term viability requires starship. Which data are you looking for?
  - justapassenger 3y ago
    Elon publicly stated many, many, many things… Starship is part of economic equation (or just a diversion when it comes to starlink, as they were suppose to go bankrupt already if starship wasn’t flying biweekly last year, and people didn’t cancel their holiday plans to report to work, according to the Musk himself), but saying that it solves the profitability of the business, is like saying that low price of fuel solves profitability of the logistics business.
    - onethought 3y ago
      I don’t think anyone said that. It’s just intuitively obvious it makes starlink much more viable when you can launch more/bigger version of it with more fuel for less cost. Not sure about the rest of that axe you wish to grind.
      - justapassenger 3y ago
        > I don’t think anyone said that It’s exactly what op said and caused me to engage in this thread. “Seems to me like the long term viability of Starlink (if it's not already profitable) will be assured if Starship meets its goals”
mlindner 3y ago
It's unfortunate that this misinformation is being upvoted on this site. The headline is completely incorrect, as is the statistics they're using to base the article on. https://twitter.com/Marco_Langbroek/status/1705562829225410697 https://twitter.com/Marco_Langbroek/status/17055628292254106... https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html There has only ever been 350 starlink satellites that have deorbited, and only 8 within the last two months.

threatripper 3y ago

How many satellites can be launched at once? I assume that the number of satellites per orbit will be limited and changing the orbit would take extra fuel that either the launch vehicle or the satellite has to provide.

bagels 3y ago
They typically launch 60 on Falcon 9, last time I checked.
raesene9 3y ago
The article says average of 50

usrusr 3y ago

Launch way more, and I'd imagine the sweet spot for the amount of fuel each satellite gets to shift up considerably: with a launch the size of starship they can saturate the orbits reasonably reachable from that launch for decades (spares remain in higher orbits with less drag I think) and giving one satellite more fuel is cheaper than deploying two satellites with less fuel each. And achieve far more than twice the runtime, because the fuel complement in today's starlinklings is certainly quite far from 100% mass fraction. The current compromise is far quick global reach running on F9, with a generous dose of iteration.

youngtaff 3y ago
Until all those sats re-enter, burn up and pollute the upper atmosphere
- alex_duf 3y ago
  Wasn't there debate around their aluminium frame reacting with the upper atmosphere? The ozone layer maybe? 4 or 5 years of lifetime for literal tons of satellites is definitely not sustainable
  - onethought 3y ago
    Perhaps they could find a way to refuel the constellation?
    - modeless 3y ago
      Unfortunately the physics of this don't work very well. And at least for now the satellites are getting generational upgrades frequently, so the old satellites are obsolete. Maybe in the far future it will make sense to try this, but not anytime soon.
      - onethought 3y ago
        Pie in the sky: in the future when they have the ability to put large starship fuel tankers into orbit, they could match the orbits of starlink and have some kind of drone move between satellites and tanker.
- sjducb 3y ago
  5200 tonnes of micrometeorites hit the earth each year. Star link isn’t going to make a difference. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-study-shows-how-much-space-dust-hits-earth-every-year/?amp=true https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-study-s...
  - 3y ago

raesene9 3y ago

What's not clear from the article is whether the ones lost were old ones or newer ones. If they're losing ones that were close to their max. life anyway that's possibly no great loss, however if they were newer satellites on top of expected attrition that's more of a concern.

justapassenger 3y ago

> Seems to me like the long term viability of Starlink (if it's not already profitable) will be assured if Starship meets its goals. They'll be able to launch way more satellites at once, for less per launch, and with faster turnaround. This is just wishful thinking without any data backing it up.

onethought 3y ago
Starship is substantially bigger than falcon 9, with significant more mass to orbit capability. And runs on a cheaper propellant. Also Elon has publicly stated starlink s long term viability requires starship. Which data are you looking for?
- justapassenger 3y ago
  Elon publicly stated many, many, many things… Starship is part of economic equation (or just a diversion when it comes to starlink, as they were suppose to go bankrupt already if starship wasn’t flying biweekly last year, and people didn’t cancel their holiday plans to report to work, according to the Musk himself), but saying that it solves the profitability of the business, is like saying that low price of fuel solves profitability of the logistics business.
  - onethought 3y ago
    I don’t think anyone said that. It’s just intuitively obvious it makes starlink much more viable when you can launch more/bigger version of it with more fuel for less cost. Not sure about the rest of that axe you wish to grind.
    - justapassenger 3y ago
      > I don’t think anyone said that It’s exactly what op said and caused me to engage in this thread. “Seems to me like the long term viability of Starlink (if it's not already profitable) will be assured if Starship meets its goals”

mlindner 3y ago

It's unfortunate that this misinformation is being upvoted on this site. The headline is completely incorrect, as is the statistics they're using to base the article on. https://twitter.com/Marco_Langbroek/status/1705562829225410697 https://twitter.com/Marco_Langbroek/status/17055628292254106... https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html https://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html There has only ever been 350 starlink satellites that have deorbited, and only 8 within the last two months.