3 ms·

I looked it up - Starlink plan s to eventually have 42,000 satellites. These are small and cheap, that's why so many are needed. It seems likely that the EU is

I looked it up - Starlink plan s to eventually have 42,000 satellites. These are small and cheap, that's why so many are needed. It seems likely that the EU is planning for a smaller number - perhaps much smaller - of more powerful satellites. So comparing costs like the probably doesn't make sense.

slaw 2y ago
Starlink satellites are not small. > Starlink satellite is roughly 260 kilograms. Iridium System satellite is 680 kilograms.
- perihelions 2y ago
  The current generation is v2 mini, which is ~740 kg. It's no smaller than Europe's IRIS2 concept (which are unknown, but can't be heavier than 820 kg—see my sibling comment). (And just in case anyone's lost track: SpaceX has already launched over ten times more v2's than the entire (proposed) IRIS2. This is not a case of EU opting to do "fewer, but larger" satellites; they're simply just not competing in the same league).
  - esperent 2y ago
    Well, that brings up two questions: 1. Does the weight of the satellite mean much? The bandwidth/concurrent users etc. is what matters. I know I started this by using the word "small", but I wasn't actually thinking about weight when I wrote that, but rather, capacity. 2. Did the EU itself say anywhere that this is supposed to be competitive with Starlink? Or did the article just frame it that way to gets clicks?
- esperent 2y ago
  I think 260kg is small for a satellite. For comparison, GPS satellites weigh around 1000kg. Google's AI results told me that there are standard classifications for satellites, with 10-100kg being "micro" and 100-500kg being "small". I wasn't able to verify that elsewhere though. But in any case, what I really meant was lower capacity per satellite. Until we can get numbers to compare the capabilities of each satellite, comparing launch costs doesn't mean anything. It's almost certain that Starlink will have lower costs, but probably not as much lower as people are trying to imply here, given that I also found some claims that the entire Starlink fleet of satellites is expected to run 100-200 billion USD.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I think a better comparison would be the US department of defense starshield constellation, for which SpaceX was awarded approximately 1.8 billion to build. I could not find much detail on the number and capabilities of the satellites, but they do launch alongside starlink. However, it looks like the big money is in additional communication contract services, with up to 13 billion for the next 10 years [1] https://www.satellitetoday.com/government-military/2024/11/22/spacexs-starshield-has-received-most-task-orders-for-space-force-pleo-services-so-far/ https://www.satellitetoday.com/government-military/2024/11/2...

slaw 2y ago

Starlink satellites are not small. > Starlink satellite is roughly 260 kilograms. Iridium System satellite is 680 kilograms.

perihelions 2y ago
The current generation is v2 mini, which is ~740 kg. It's no smaller than Europe's IRIS2 concept (which are unknown, but can't be heavier than 820 kg—see my sibling comment). (And just in case anyone's lost track: SpaceX has already launched over ten times more v2's than the entire (proposed) IRIS2. This is not a case of EU opting to do "fewer, but larger" satellites; they're simply just not competing in the same league).
- esperent 2y ago
  Well, that brings up two questions: 1. Does the weight of the satellite mean much? The bandwidth/concurrent users etc. is what matters. I know I started this by using the word "small", but I wasn't actually thinking about weight when I wrote that, but rather, capacity. 2. Did the EU itself say anywhere that this is supposed to be competitive with Starlink? Or did the article just frame it that way to gets clicks?
esperent 2y ago
I think 260kg is small for a satellite. For comparison, GPS satellites weigh around 1000kg. Google's AI results told me that there are standard classifications for satellites, with 10-100kg being "micro" and 100-500kg being "small". I wasn't able to verify that elsewhere though. But in any case, what I really meant was lower capacity per satellite. Until we can get numbers to compare the capabilities of each satellite, comparing launch costs doesn't mean anything. It's almost certain that Starlink will have lower costs, but probably not as much lower as people are trying to imply here, given that I also found some claims that the entire Starlink fleet of satellites is expected to run 100-200 billion USD.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I think a better comparison would be the US department of defense starshield constellation, for which SpaceX was awarded approximately 1.8 billion to build. I could not find much detail on the number and capabilities of the satellites, but they do launch alongside starlink. However, it looks like the big money is in additional communication contract services, with up to 13 billion for the next 10 years [1] https://www.satellitetoday.com/government-military/2024/11/22/spacexs-starshield-has-received-most-task-orders-for-space-force-pleo-services-so-far/ https://www.satellitetoday.com/government-military/2024/11/2...