4 ms·
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
by 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 agoUntil all those sats re-enter, burn up and pollute the upper atmosphere
- alex_duf 3y agoWasn'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 agoPerhaps they could find a way to refuel the constellation?
- modeless 3y agoUnfortunately 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 agoPie 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 ago5200 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...
- mattashii 3y agoWith 22.8 tonnes per Falcon 9 launch, and 50 of those per year? That's 1140 tonnes /year of new debris in the upper atmosphere, a 21% increase. I'd say that is quite a significant change.
- 6nf 3y agoAlmost none of it hits the earth. They burn up in the atmosphere.
- Brybry 3y agoSo in ~5 years they've launched 5113 satellites[1]: 2 * 400 kg + 60 * 227 kg + 1665 * 260 kg + 2987 * ~300 kg + 399 * 800 kg = 1663 metric tons So if they all burned up today it would be around a 6% yearly increase, globally? (1663 / 5200 * 5). And that's probably the most forgiving estimate I could come up with, I think your ~20% number is more accurate for future projection purposes given most of the mass was launched in a much shorter timespan. Then the real question is what effect does space dust have on the earth's atmosphere (if any). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Starlink_and_Starshield_launches https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Starlink_...
- usrusr 3y agoGiven a choice between bigger fuel containers burning up empty and more copies of all the other parts burning up I know what I would pick. The current very short lived design is a compromise to get to operational coverage fast and for quick rollout of improved designs. Future generations with a larger mass fraction for fuel won't get multiple orders of magnitude more runtime (in orbits that low this would require some bussard drive equivalent..), but a generous multiplication.