26 ms·

SpaceX files for new 29,988-satellite W-band network

70 points by ortusdux 3y ago

kylehotchkiss 3y ago
Last night, I looked into the night sky from southern California (not like a super bright night sky or anything) and saw 3-4 satellites going by. That used to feel so rare and special. Now it's like seeing airplanes.
ortusdux 3y ago
Direct link to the filing: https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/DisplayPublication/53068 https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/Displ... Longer article: https://ts2.space/en/spacex-plans-to-deploy-thousands-of-satellites-in-earths-orbit/ https://ts2.space/en/spacex-plans-to-deploy-thousands-of-sat...
- thatcherc 3y ago
  Are the pictures in that second link from a diffusion model? They look flashy but they don't look like any spacecraft I recognize (and are weirdly asymmetric) and especially don't look like the Starlink satellites SpaceX has launched so far, which look more like [1]. [1] - https://spacenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Starlink-Screenshot-1200x674.png https://spacenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Starlink-Sc...
  - b112 3y ago
    The are larger, because each is going to hold significant compute power, all driven by solar and internal magno-derived, gravatic driven ancillary power systems.
  - marcellus23 3y ago
    Definitely looks like it. There's also no source on the images, and each image has a different-looking spacecraft.
  - vel0city 3y ago
    Yeah, and the strange solar panel placement on the last one really solidifies to me these are AI generated images. Weird filler to this article.
jpgvm 3y ago
W-Band is definitely interesting. Wish they had more competition but SpaceX is just crushing it when it comes to execution.
- Metus 3y ago
  As an amateur, that follows SpaceX from a distance, what makes the W-band so interesting?
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    The first satellite to fly W Band was in 2021. It supports much higher data rates but has atmospheric attenuation issues. This would be the first commercial use of it. It's possible SpaceX is using this to reduce downlink bottlenecks. https://web.archive.org/web/20231012142827/https://re.public.polimi.it/retrieve/handle/11311/820925/407896/The%20challenge%20of%20using%20the%20W%20band%20in%20satellite%20communication_11311-820925_Riva.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20231012142827/https://re.public... https://connectivity.esa.int/news/first-wband-transmission-space https://connectivity.esa.int/news/first-wband-transmission-s... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_band https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_band
    - lazide 3y ago
      It also has a history of active military use, especially for detecting weapons.
      - toomuchtodo 3y ago
        Excellent callout. Might be a component of Starshield. Hard to say until the RF is active in the wild or FCC filings are public (is it possible SpaceX is filing in Tonga to sidestep FCC public filings on the tech?). Would be wild if this system will be able to provide global airspace radar surveillance to the US DoD with high precision. https://www.space.com/spacex-starshield-satellite-internet-military-starlink https://www.space.com/spacex-starshield-satellite-internet-m... https://www.spacex.com/starshield/ https://www.spacex.com/starshield/
demondemidi 3y ago
How many satellites can we put up there before we get one giant game of snooker?
- danparsonson 3y ago
  Seriously. 30,000! They should just go ahead and call it the Kessler Network
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    I never understand why people are so obsessed crying about Starlink and Kessler Syndrome when any rational thought about it instantly suggest that this is practically impossible to happen. Do you also worry Supervolcano anytime anybody digs a hole?
    - danparsonson 3y ago
      OK. Do you have any actual counterargument, or just your sense of disbelief? > Do you also worry Supervolcano anytime anybody digs a hole? No. The risk is not remotely comparable.
- olivermuty 3y ago
  Put 29 988 people spread out on the globe (slightly larger since we are further out in the radius, but lets ignore that). Do you still wonder? Probably you could put a few million up there before collision is a worry. Space debris and blocking observatories is a much larger problem.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    > Put 29 988 people spread out on the globe... ... and then have them run at 17,000 miles per hour.
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      ... on highly predictable and known paths.
generalizations 3y ago
> The filing, submitted through the Kingdom of Tonga, marks the first time SpaceX has used Tonga for this purpose. Why did SpaceX do this? What's significant about Tonga?
- Karawebnetwork 3y ago
  I'm thinking 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai eruption and tsunami "Southern Cross Cable reported that the eruption may have broken the Tonga Cable System, which connects Tonga to Southern Cross's trans-Pacific cable in Fiji.[196] Southern Cross cited a fault in the international cable 37 km (23 mi) from Nukuʻalofa, and a further fault in a domestic cable 47 km (29 mi) from Nukuʻalofa.[197] New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern had earlier stated that an undersea cable serving Tonga was affected, probably due to power cuts, and authorities were urgently attempting to restore communications.[198] The chair of the Tonga Cable System, Samiuela Fonua, stated that repair crews would not be cleared to access the site of the faults before volcanic activity ceased at Hunga Tonga; with additional preparation time necessary for the repairs, internet services could be unavailable for over two weeks after the eruption."
- stainablesteel 3y ago
  [flagged]
- ortusdux 3y ago
  Lax regulations, presumably. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongasat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongasat : "Tongasat is the licensed agent of the Kingdom of Tonga responsible for making and coordinating Tonga's satellite filings to the International Telecommunication Union and then licensing those satellite filings to international satellite operators for their commercial use, in effect a flag of convenience for space. Tonga was the sixth-largest claimant of orbital slots due to Tongasat's efforts.[1] In 2002, Tongasat launched the Esiafi 1 satellite; as of 2015, a satellite in its spot was still in operation." Starlink named this constellation ESIAFI II. Starlink provided free internet services to Tonga last year after a devastating volcanic eruption and tsunami. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/musks-starlink-connects-remote-tonga-villages-still-cut-off-after-tsunami-2022-02-23/ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/musks-starlink-co...
NKosmatos 3y ago
Wow, an extra 30 thousand satellites on top of the already planned 42 thousand starlinks! Well, since we can’t be the spacefaring civilization we dreamed of and we’re stuck on this planet, we might as well fill up the sky with a million satellites so that we can’t leave earth.
- api 3y ago
  Space is big. We would have to put tens of millions of satellites up there to have any impact on our ability to leave Earth and even then the collision risk would be low. It's sort of like the asteroid belt. You picture this belt of rocks, but in reality the distance between the rocks is so vast that it would take days, weeks, or months to travel between them even with powerful rockets. All these new-generation communication satellites are intentionally placed in low somewhat unstable orbits too. This is done for two reasons. One is to minimize latency. You want them as low as they can possibly be to minimize distance between them and the ground. The other reason is so they will naturally deorbit after a while (when they are long past their design life). So even if the ability to intentionally deorbit them at EOL fails they will still not stay up there forever. They do have a negative impact on terrestrial astronomy though. Astronomers using ground based telescopes need to ignore satellite tracks or remove them with post-processing.
  - imchillyb 3y ago
    > Estimates predict that there could already be over 100 trillion pieces of old satellites orbiting the planet that are untracked. This presents a major risk to other satellites. Hundreds of collision avoidance maneuvers are performed by satellites each year to avoid clashes that would not only cause damage to operational satellites or even destroy them, to would also generate even more space junk. > https://www.space.com/nasa-scientists-space-junk-treaty https://www.space.com/nasa-scientists-space-junk-treaty Your dismissive attitude towards space debris is the polar opposite of leading scientists. NASA and other space agencies have been lobbying to make politicians understand the immediate and long term dangers of orbital debris.
    - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
flexie 3y ago
Yes, technologically, this is amazing. But I honestly think it's sickening that a company controlled by one man is allowed to send 30,000 pieces of junk into space. The fact that the one man who controls it is a billionaire demagogue (yes, by now Musk is a political leader) with his own media company just makes it worse. Tesla's revenue in 2 days are roughly the same as the yearly GDP of Tonga. Space X's revenue is 10 times the GDP of Tonga. There will be no real oversight of this billionaire on the loose.
- ramraj07 3y ago
  The semi good news is these seem low enough orbit that even with everything they could do they don’t last longer than a few years/decade. https://cybernews.com/news/starlink-lost-200-satellites/ https://cybernews.com/news/starlink-lost-200-satellites/
  - rewmie 3y ago
    > (...) longer than a few years/decade. Also known as a lifetime.
    - keep_reading 3y ago
      A decade is a lifetime? I knew the life expectancy in the USA was contracting but I didn't think it was that bad
  - inemesitaffia 3y ago
    That article and subsequent ones I've seen from that site are disinformation
- sschueller 3y ago
  It should not be possible for a single human to amass any amount over a billion maybe even less. We managed a global cooperate min. tax rate of 12.5% we can manage to also tax billionaires down to billion. Stock can be converted to voting only, don't let them borrow against their stock etc. etc.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
throw0101b 3y ago
The 6 GHz (~Wifi 6E) of the satcom world? > In terms of communications capability, W band offers high data rate throughput when used at high altitudes and in space. (The 71–76 GHz / 81–86 GHz segment of the W band is allocated by the International Telecommunication Union to satellite services.) Because of increasing spectrum and orbit congestion at lower frequencies, W-band satellite allocations are of increasing interest to commercial satellite operators, although no commercial project has yet been implemented in these bands. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_band https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_band Certain frequencies in the band seem to be used for near-distance radar: > However, W-band radar, a relative newcomer in maritime navigation and operating at 76-77GHz, provides the most impressive imagery and accuracy, which is becoming increasingly crucial in the ever more cluttered environs of offshore, nearshore, and inland waterways. It has a range of 500m and is resistant to adverse weather conditions. * https://www.ship-technology.com/comment/why-w-band-radar-is-a-viable-supplement-to-gnss/?cf-view https://www.ship-technology.com/comment/why-w-band-radar-is-... Automotive applications too: * https://www.mtu.edu/mtri/research/project-areas/transportation/safety/radar-w-band/ https://www.mtu.edu/mtri/research/project-areas/transportati...
- wrigby 3y ago
  I chuckled at this, because 6 GHz was until recently widely used by the satellite industry (C-band) for ground to spacecraft uplinks. They've had to vacate it as the spectrum has been re-allocated for terrestrial use (LTE-A, WiFi 6E, etc.). This is a great thing, too - 4-6 GHz is pretty much ideal for terrestrial use. C-band was wasted in space. Ka-band (18-30 GHz) used to be the new frontier for satcom - it was what everyone was excited about the last time I worked in the industry (2014). The advances in mm-wave devices over the last decade are mind boggling.
lucascacho 3y ago
What happened to the remaining 12 satellites to complete 30K? Did they run out of budget?
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  I presume that the number 29988 is derived from some engineering design process that has some goal other than "make pleasingly round numbers"
rastafarigpu 3y ago
This makes me sick to the gut. Every creature and person shares this space and as Illogical or logical this may sound, I don't my "share" of the sky and universe to be polluted. I refuse to allow a company to bombard me with radio frequencies most of which is probably going to be used for nonsensical you/tube/porn, movies etc. I don't want anyone to pollute/do anything to my share of the planet/universe without me having a say in it.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  You should hear how many radio waves exploding stars are sending…
  - rastafarigpu 3y ago
    And the award for the smartest smart ass answer goes to @mensetmanusman
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago
      Little prods of science education can go a long way! I think it’s cool that white noise is just the universe chilling.
- asynchronous 3y ago
  Space is like, really really big. And these satellites are extremely small, cubesats don’t take up much room in the sky.
  - dreamcompiler 3y ago
    Near-earth space is not that big, especially when it contains 50,000 objects whizzing around at 25,000 km/hour. Starlink had to make 25,000 collision avoidance maneuvers in just 6 months [0] -- and that's just Starlink. If you're a satellite operator, collision avoidance is a full-time job. And the likelihood of collisions increases exponentially with the number of satellites. [0] https://www.space.com/starlink-satellite-conjunction-increase-threatens-space-sustainability https://www.space.com/starlink-satellite-conjunction-increas...
dreamcompiler 3y ago
By way of comparison, there are currently about 8900 total active objects (read: working satellites) in orbit around Earth and 35700 pieces of debris [0] or as-yet-unidentified junk [1]. That's only stuff at least 10cm in diameter, which is about the smallest object that can be tracked. There are several orders of magnitude more objects smaller than that. So this plan would more than quadruple the number of active satellites in orbit. Not quadruple Starlink's satellites, but quadruple the total number of all satellites in operation. Ruining our view of the night sky -- as bad a problem as that is -- is nothing compared to Kessler Syndrome [2]. But we'll probably have to learn that the hard way. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris [1] https://www.space-track.org/ https://www.space-track.org/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
- kasdi 3y ago
  Unfortunately, this seems to be the future. While now the sky is largely empty with an occasional plane, in the future it will be filled with drones. It already happened with cars. A century ago the land was mostly quiet, now you usually have a loud and busy street somewhere in the vicinity. And in the farther future, it will be spaceships in the solar system (and maybe beyond).
justinclift 3y ago
https://archive.li/Z0j87 https://archive.li/Z0j87
34679 3y ago
A network of satellites this large, if used for planetary defense from ICBMs, could prevent the destruction of humanity. It wasn't particularly feasible until Falcon 9 came along, but now, the only question is why not? Getting humans to another planet before we all vaporize ourselves is a stated goal of SpaceX.
- immmmmm 3y ago
  ICBM detection by radar and satellite is old technology, and an essential part of the MAD doctrine. You’re proposal would only make sense if all actors have access to their own. Also net incoming energy flux due to anthropogenic climate change, this year, is 2W/m*2. I let you do the maths (multiplie by earth surface) but think it’s close to 20’000 megaton eq TNT per day.
barelyauser 3y ago
Regarding space junk, can't we laser them out of existence? Or use laser to ablate their surface and put them into reentry orbit? That, I suppose, requires a orbit based laser.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  No but you can use ground lasers to push things higher to avoid a collision. I guess you could do the same thing from space with a big laser. But that not really viable. If you already going for a space base based solution why use a laser in the first place? There are better solutions for that.
- dreamcompiler 3y ago
  It's a ground-based laser, and it's been proposed. (It's ground-based because powerful orbiting lasers tend to make people very nervous.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_broom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_broom
jauntywundrkind 3y ago
SpaceX, not Starlink? Starlink is basically privately owned by Musk afaik, where-as SpaceX has much more diverse ownership, yes?
- tullianus 3y ago
  Starlink is not a separate company from SpaceX
Zigurd 3y ago
Do the numbers work? For Starlink to be viable it has to compete with terrestrial connectivity. So, once they have enough inter-satellite-capable satellites up, they can cover the oceans and remote areas where ground stations are impractical. What kind of TAM does that add up to? ISPs in the US rank very low in customer satisfaction, but is that enough to get people to use satellites to replace normal terrestrial links?
- Uzza 3y ago
  TL;DR Yes, the numbers work out. Starlink is not intended to replace terrestrial connectivity. It is intended to provide service to everyone on the planet that can not get terrestrial connectivity, and those areas that can never get terrestrial connections, like oceangoing vessels and airplanes. But let's crunch some back of the envelope numbers. SpaceX currently are allowed to launch 7500 Gen2 Starlink satellites. A Falcon 9 can fit 22 of them in one launch, requiring ~341 launches. The satellites have a planned lifetime of 5 years, meaning the entire constellation would have to be replaced in that time frame. So costs then. Musk has given out $15 million as best case marginal cost for Falcon 9 back in 2020. But let's be conservative and say $25m per launch currently. That's $8525m in total for launches. The satellites themselves are estimated to cost between $200-300k each for the original v1, but the v2 probably costs a bit more, so let's say $500k each. That adds up to $3750m for the satellites. So the totals then is $12275m over the span of 5 years, or ~$2.5 billion yearly. The subscription cost is currently $110, but it fluctuates depending on the capacity in an area, so let's just use $100 as a simple round number. Each subscriber would bring in $1200 a year in revenue, so that means SpaceX would need ~2.1 million subscribers to cover the cost of replacing their currently allowed 7500 Gen2 satellites. It doesn't include the SpaceX operated ground stations that connect to the rest of the internet, but they're probably a smaller part of their total costs. The user terminals are now being sold at a profit. As of last month, SpaceX announced they had over 2 million subscribers, and reports from earlier this year indicated that they have passed the operational break even point for Starlink, which means my conservative numbers are much higher than the real numbers. There's also a lot of countries where it's not available yet, and given that it's a global system, the marginal cost for connecting a new country is very low, only requiring ground stations to be built. So to conclude, yes, the numbers add up and they're in a good spot right now. Once they get Starship operational the numbers should change dramatically though, since launch costs are the main cost right now, and Starship would reduce that significantly.

70 points by ortusdux 3y ago

Last night, I looked into the night sky from southern California (not like a super bright night sky or anything) and saw 3-4 satellites going by. That used to feel so rare and special. Now it's like seeing airplanes.

ortusdux 3y ago

Direct link to the filing: https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/DisplayPublication/53068 https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/Displ... Longer article: https://ts2.space/en/spacex-plans-to-deploy-thousands-of-satellites-in-earths-orbit/ https://ts2.space/en/spacex-plans-to-deploy-thousands-of-sat...

thatcherc 3y ago
Are the pictures in that second link from a diffusion model? They look flashy but they don't look like any spacecraft I recognize (and are weirdly asymmetric) and especially don't look like the Starlink satellites SpaceX has launched so far, which look more like [1]. [1] - https://spacenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Starlink-Screenshot-1200x674.png https://spacenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Starlink-Sc...
- b112 3y ago
  The are larger, because each is going to hold significant compute power, all driven by solar and internal magno-derived, gravatic driven ancillary power systems.
- marcellus23 3y ago
  Definitely looks like it. There's also no source on the images, and each image has a different-looking spacecraft.
- vel0city 3y ago
  Yeah, and the strange solar panel placement on the last one really solidifies to me these are AI generated images. Weird filler to this article.

jpgvm 3y ago

W-Band is definitely interesting. Wish they had more competition but SpaceX is just crushing it when it comes to execution.

Metus 3y ago
As an amateur, that follows SpaceX from a distance, what makes the W-band so interesting?
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  The first satellite to fly W Band was in 2021. It supports much higher data rates but has atmospheric attenuation issues. This would be the first commercial use of it. It's possible SpaceX is using this to reduce downlink bottlenecks. https://web.archive.org/web/20231012142827/https://re.public.polimi.it/retrieve/handle/11311/820925/407896/The%20challenge%20of%20using%20the%20W%20band%20in%20satellite%20communication_11311-820925_Riva.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20231012142827/https://re.public... https://connectivity.esa.int/news/first-wband-transmission-space https://connectivity.esa.int/news/first-wband-transmission-s... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_band https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_band
  - lazide 3y ago
    It also has a history of active military use, especially for detecting weapons.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Excellent callout. Might be a component of Starshield. Hard to say until the RF is active in the wild or FCC filings are public (is it possible SpaceX is filing in Tonga to sidestep FCC public filings on the tech?). Would be wild if this system will be able to provide global airspace radar surveillance to the US DoD with high precision. https://www.space.com/spacex-starshield-satellite-internet-military-starlink https://www.space.com/spacex-starshield-satellite-internet-m... https://www.spacex.com/starshield/ https://www.spacex.com/starshield/

demondemidi 3y ago

How many satellites can we put up there before we get one giant game of snooker?

danparsonson 3y ago
Seriously. 30,000! They should just go ahead and call it the Kessler Network
- panick21_ 3y ago
  I never understand why people are so obsessed crying about Starlink and Kessler Syndrome when any rational thought about it instantly suggest that this is practically impossible to happen. Do you also worry Supervolcano anytime anybody digs a hole?
  - danparsonson 3y ago
    OK. Do you have any actual counterargument, or just your sense of disbelief? > Do you also worry Supervolcano anytime anybody digs a hole? No. The risk is not remotely comparable.
olivermuty 3y ago
Put 29 988 people spread out on the globe (slightly larger since we are further out in the radius, but lets ignore that). Do you still wonder? Probably you could put a few million up there before collision is a worry. Space debris and blocking observatories is a much larger problem.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > Put 29 988 people spread out on the globe... ... and then have them run at 17,000 miles per hour.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    ... on highly predictable and known paths.

generalizations 3y ago

> The filing, submitted through the Kingdom of Tonga, marks the first time SpaceX has used Tonga for this purpose. Why did SpaceX do this? What's significant about Tonga?

Karawebnetwork 3y ago
I'm thinking 2022 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai eruption and tsunami "Southern Cross Cable reported that the eruption may have broken the Tonga Cable System, which connects Tonga to Southern Cross's trans-Pacific cable in Fiji.[196] Southern Cross cited a fault in the international cable 37 km (23 mi) from Nukuʻalofa, and a further fault in a domestic cable 47 km (29 mi) from Nukuʻalofa.[197] New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern had earlier stated that an undersea cable serving Tonga was affected, probably due to power cuts, and authorities were urgently attempting to restore communications.[198] The chair of the Tonga Cable System, Samiuela Fonua, stated that repair crews would not be cleared to access the site of the faults before volcanic activity ceased at Hunga Tonga; with additional preparation time necessary for the repairs, internet services could be unavailable for over two weeks after the eruption."
stainablesteel 3y ago
[flagged]
ortusdux 3y ago
Lax regulations, presumably. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongasat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongasat : "Tongasat is the licensed agent of the Kingdom of Tonga responsible for making and coordinating Tonga's satellite filings to the International Telecommunication Union and then licensing those satellite filings to international satellite operators for their commercial use, in effect a flag of convenience for space. Tonga was the sixth-largest claimant of orbital slots due to Tongasat's efforts.[1] In 2002, Tongasat launched the Esiafi 1 satellite; as of 2015, a satellite in its spot was still in operation." Starlink named this constellation ESIAFI II. Starlink provided free internet services to Tonga last year after a devastating volcanic eruption and tsunami. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/musks-starlink-connects-remote-tonga-villages-still-cut-off-after-tsunami-2022-02-23/ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/musks-starlink-co...

NKosmatos 3y ago

Wow, an extra 30 thousand satellites on top of the already planned 42 thousand starlinks! Well, since we can’t be the spacefaring civilization we dreamed of and we’re stuck on this planet, we might as well fill up the sky with a million satellites so that we can’t leave earth.

api 3y ago
Space is big. We would have to put tens of millions of satellites up there to have any impact on our ability to leave Earth and even then the collision risk would be low. It's sort of like the asteroid belt. You picture this belt of rocks, but in reality the distance between the rocks is so vast that it would take days, weeks, or months to travel between them even with powerful rockets. All these new-generation communication satellites are intentionally placed in low somewhat unstable orbits too. This is done for two reasons. One is to minimize latency. You want them as low as they can possibly be to minimize distance between them and the ground. The other reason is so they will naturally deorbit after a while (when they are long past their design life). So even if the ability to intentionally deorbit them at EOL fails they will still not stay up there forever. They do have a negative impact on terrestrial astronomy though. Astronomers using ground based telescopes need to ignore satellite tracks or remove them with post-processing.
- imchillyb 3y ago
  > Estimates predict that there could already be over 100 trillion pieces of old satellites orbiting the planet that are untracked. This presents a major risk to other satellites. Hundreds of collision avoidance maneuvers are performed by satellites each year to avoid clashes that would not only cause damage to operational satellites or even destroy them, to would also generate even more space junk. > https://www.space.com/nasa-scientists-space-junk-treaty https://www.space.com/nasa-scientists-space-junk-treaty Your dismissive attitude towards space debris is the polar opposite of leading scientists. NASA and other space agencies have been lobbying to make politicians understand the immediate and long term dangers of orbital debris.
  - 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

flexie 3y ago

Yes, technologically, this is amazing. But I honestly think it's sickening that a company controlled by one man is allowed to send 30,000 pieces of junk into space. The fact that the one man who controls it is a billionaire demagogue (yes, by now Musk is a political leader) with his own media company just makes it worse. Tesla's revenue in 2 days are roughly the same as the yearly GDP of Tonga. Space X's revenue is 10 times the GDP of Tonga. There will be no real oversight of this billionaire on the loose.

ramraj07 3y ago
The semi good news is these seem low enough orbit that even with everything they could do they don’t last longer than a few years/decade. https://cybernews.com/news/starlink-lost-200-satellites/ https://cybernews.com/news/starlink-lost-200-satellites/
- rewmie 3y ago
  > (...) longer than a few years/decade. Also known as a lifetime.
  - keep_reading 3y ago
    A decade is a lifetime? I knew the life expectancy in the USA was contracting but I didn't think it was that bad
- inemesitaffia 3y ago
  That article and subsequent ones I've seen from that site are disinformation
sschueller 3y ago
It should not be possible for a single human to amass any amount over a billion maybe even less. We managed a global cooperate min. tax rate of 12.5% we can manage to also tax billionaires down to billion. Stock can be converted to voting only, don't let them borrow against their stock etc. etc.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

throw0101b 3y ago

The 6 GHz (~Wifi 6E) of the satcom world? > In terms of communications capability, W band offers high data rate throughput when used at high altitudes and in space. (The 71–76 GHz / 81–86 GHz segment of the W band is allocated by the International Telecommunication Union to satellite services.) Because of increasing spectrum and orbit congestion at lower frequencies, W-band satellite allocations are of increasing interest to commercial satellite operators, although no commercial project has yet been implemented in these bands. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_band https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_band Certain frequencies in the band seem to be used for near-distance radar: > However, W-band radar, a relative newcomer in maritime navigation and operating at 76-77GHz, provides the most impressive imagery and accuracy, which is becoming increasingly crucial in the ever more cluttered environs of offshore, nearshore, and inland waterways. It has a range of 500m and is resistant to adverse weather conditions. * https://www.ship-technology.com/comment/why-w-band-radar-is-a-viable-supplement-to-gnss/?cf-view https://www.ship-technology.com/comment/why-w-band-radar-is-... Automotive applications too: * https://www.mtu.edu/mtri/research/project-areas/transportation/safety/radar-w-band/ https://www.mtu.edu/mtri/research/project-areas/transportati...

wrigby 3y ago
I chuckled at this, because 6 GHz was until recently widely used by the satellite industry (C-band) for ground to spacecraft uplinks. They've had to vacate it as the spectrum has been re-allocated for terrestrial use (LTE-A, WiFi 6E, etc.). This is a great thing, too - 4-6 GHz is pretty much ideal for terrestrial use. C-band was wasted in space. Ka-band (18-30 GHz) used to be the new frontier for satcom - it was what everyone was excited about the last time I worked in the industry (2014). The advances in mm-wave devices over the last decade are mind boggling.

lucascacho 3y ago

What happened to the remaining 12 satellites to complete 30K? Did they run out of budget?

mcpackieh 3y ago
I presume that the number 29988 is derived from some engineering design process that has some goal other than "make pleasingly round numbers"

rastafarigpu 3y ago

This makes me sick to the gut. Every creature and person shares this space and as Illogical or logical this may sound, I don't my "share" of the sky and universe to be polluted. I refuse to allow a company to bombard me with radio frequencies most of which is probably going to be used for nonsensical you/tube/porn, movies etc. I don't want anyone to pollute/do anything to my share of the planet/universe without me having a say in it.

mensetmanusman 3y ago
You should hear how many radio waves exploding stars are sending…
- rastafarigpu 3y ago
  And the award for the smartest smart ass answer goes to @mensetmanusman
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    Little prods of science education can go a long way! I think it’s cool that white noise is just the universe chilling.
asynchronous 3y ago
Space is like, really really big. And these satellites are extremely small, cubesats don’t take up much room in the sky.
- dreamcompiler 3y ago
  Near-earth space is not that big, especially when it contains 50,000 objects whizzing around at 25,000 km/hour. Starlink had to make 25,000 collision avoidance maneuvers in just 6 months [0] -- and that's just Starlink. If you're a satellite operator, collision avoidance is a full-time job. And the likelihood of collisions increases exponentially with the number of satellites. [0] https://www.space.com/starlink-satellite-conjunction-increase-threatens-space-sustainability https://www.space.com/starlink-satellite-conjunction-increas...

dreamcompiler 3y ago

By way of comparison, there are currently about 8900 total active objects (read: working satellites) in orbit around Earth and 35700 pieces of debris [0] or as-yet-unidentified junk [1]. That's only stuff at least 10cm in diameter, which is about the smallest object that can be tracked. There are several orders of magnitude more objects smaller than that. So this plan would more than quadruple the number of active satellites in orbit. Not quadruple Starlink's satellites, but quadruple the total number of all satellites in operation. Ruining our view of the night sky -- as bad a problem as that is -- is nothing compared to Kessler Syndrome [2]. But we'll probably have to learn that the hard way. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris [1] https://www.space-track.org/ https://www.space-track.org/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

kasdi 3y ago
Unfortunately, this seems to be the future. While now the sky is largely empty with an occasional plane, in the future it will be filled with drones. It already happened with cars. A century ago the land was mostly quiet, now you usually have a loud and busy street somewhere in the vicinity. And in the farther future, it will be spaceships in the solar system (and maybe beyond).

justinclift 3y ago

https://archive.li/Z0j87 https://archive.li/Z0j87

34679 3y ago

A network of satellites this large, if used for planetary defense from ICBMs, could prevent the destruction of humanity. It wasn't particularly feasible until Falcon 9 came along, but now, the only question is why not? Getting humans to another planet before we all vaporize ourselves is a stated goal of SpaceX.

immmmmm 3y ago
ICBM detection by radar and satellite is old technology, and an essential part of the MAD doctrine. You’re proposal would only make sense if all actors have access to their own. Also net incoming energy flux due to anthropogenic climate change, this year, is 2W/m*2. I let you do the maths (multiplie by earth surface) but think it’s close to 20’000 megaton eq TNT per day.

barelyauser 3y ago

Regarding space junk, can't we laser them out of existence? Or use laser to ablate their surface and put them into reentry orbit? That, I suppose, requires a orbit based laser.

panick21_ 3y ago
No but you can use ground lasers to push things higher to avoid a collision. I guess you could do the same thing from space with a big laser. But that not really viable. If you already going for a space base based solution why use a laser in the first place? There are better solutions for that.
dreamcompiler 3y ago
It's a ground-based laser, and it's been proposed. (It's ground-based because powerful orbiting lasers tend to make people very nervous.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_broom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_broom

jauntywundrkind 3y ago

SpaceX, not Starlink? Starlink is basically privately owned by Musk afaik, where-as SpaceX has much more diverse ownership, yes?

tullianus 3y ago
Starlink is not a separate company from SpaceX

Zigurd 3y ago

Do the numbers work? For Starlink to be viable it has to compete with terrestrial connectivity. So, once they have enough inter-satellite-capable satellites up, they can cover the oceans and remote areas where ground stations are impractical. What kind of TAM does that add up to? ISPs in the US rank very low in customer satisfaction, but is that enough to get people to use satellites to replace normal terrestrial links?

Uzza 3y ago
TL;DR Yes, the numbers work out. Starlink is not intended to replace terrestrial connectivity. It is intended to provide service to everyone on the planet that can not get terrestrial connectivity, and those areas that can never get terrestrial connections, like oceangoing vessels and airplanes. But let's crunch some back of the envelope numbers. SpaceX currently are allowed to launch 7500 Gen2 Starlink satellites. A Falcon 9 can fit 22 of them in one launch, requiring ~341 launches. The satellites have a planned lifetime of 5 years, meaning the entire constellation would have to be replaced in that time frame. So costs then. Musk has given out $15 million as best case marginal cost for Falcon 9 back in 2020. But let's be conservative and say $25m per launch currently. That's $8525m in total for launches. The satellites themselves are estimated to cost between $200-300k each for the original v1, but the v2 probably costs a bit more, so let's say $500k each. That adds up to $3750m for the satellites. So the totals then is $12275m over the span of 5 years, or ~$2.5 billion yearly. The subscription cost is currently $110, but it fluctuates depending on the capacity in an area, so let's just use $100 as a simple round number. Each subscriber would bring in $1200 a year in revenue, so that means SpaceX would need ~2.1 million subscribers to cover the cost of replacing their currently allowed 7500 Gen2 satellites. It doesn't include the SpaceX operated ground stations that connect to the rest of the internet, but they're probably a smaller part of their total costs. The user terminals are now being sold at a profit. As of last month, SpaceX announced they had over 2 million subscribers, and reports from earlier this year indicated that they have passed the operational break even point for Starlink, which means my conservative numbers are much higher than the real numbers. There's also a lot of countries where it's not available yet, and given that it's a global system, the marginal cost for connecting a new country is very low, only requiring ground stations to be built. So to conclude, yes, the numbers add up and they're in a good spot right now. Once they get Starship operational the numbers should change dramatically though, since launch costs are the main cost right now, and Starship would reduce that significantly.