SpaceX Says 12,000 Satellites Isn't Enough, So It Might Launch Another 30,000 (arstechnica.com) 142
SpaceX is seeking permission to launch another 30,000 low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellites for its Starlink broadband network, which would be in addition to the nearly 12,000 satellites the company already has permission to launch. But it's too early in the process to determine whether SpaceX is likely to launch most or all of the additional 30,000 satellites. Ars Technica reports: The Federal Communications Commission made the requests on SpaceX's behalf, as is standard practice, in a series of filings with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) last week. (Here's an example of one of the filings.) The 30,000 satellites would operate "at altitudes ranging from 328 kilometers to 580 kilometers," SpaceNews reported yesterday. The filings are known as coordination requests. As SpaceNews noted, the ITU coordinates spectrum "to prevent signal interference and spectrum hogging." SpaceX's filings could help the company reserve spectrum before other operators claim it, but it's an early step in the process and doesn't commit SpaceX to launching all 30,000 satellites.
SpaceX's constellation alone would dwarf the total number of satellites orbiting Earth today. As of January 2019, about 8,950 satellites had been placed into Earth orbit since 1957, and about 5,000 of those were still in space, according to the European Space Agency (ESA). Only about 1,950 of those are still functioning. If SpaceX proceeds with the additional 30,000 satellites, it would have to seek FCC permission and provide more technical detail, including plans to minimize debris and prevent collisions. SpaceX is designing its satellites to burn up completely during atmospheric re-entry in order to prevent physical harm from falling objects.
SpaceX's constellation alone would dwarf the total number of satellites orbiting Earth today. As of January 2019, about 8,950 satellites had been placed into Earth orbit since 1957, and about 5,000 of those were still in space, according to the European Space Agency (ESA). Only about 1,950 of those are still functioning. If SpaceX proceeds with the additional 30,000 satellites, it would have to seek FCC permission and provide more technical detail, including plans to minimize debris and prevent collisions. SpaceX is designing its satellites to burn up completely during atmospheric re-entry in order to prevent physical harm from falling objects.
Wide space (Score:2)
Re:Wide space (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wide space (Score:4, Insightful)
unlikely. while 30,000 sounds a lot but in reality it is quite sparse. to put into perspective if you placed them on earth instead of space (obviously far less area here) then each satellite would have the equivalent of 17,000 square km's to play in. In space that number is way way larger.
Only takes one collision to set off a chain reaction.
Re:Wide space (Score:4, Insightful)
unlikely. while 30,000 sounds a lot but in reality it is quite sparse. to put into perspective if you placed them on earth instead of space (obviously far less area here) then each satellite would have the equivalent of 17,000 square km's to play in. In space that number is way way larger.
Only takes one collision to set off a chain reaction.
no it doesn't. a chain reaction would require them to be in perfect synchronised distance from the earth and for a collision to perfectly target the next satellite over 100km away with pinpoint accuracy and for that 1 in a billion chance to happen repeatedly. I would think you are more likely to win the lotto 10 times in a row.
Re: (Score:2)
When two satellites collide, it does not simply bump the satellite into a new path, both satellites shatter into a very large number of pieces moving very quickly. Those pieces then collide with other satellites, further multiplying the number of pieces.
Re:Wide space (Score:4, Insightful)
These satellites are in circular low earth orbits. If two collide, nearly all the debris either goes into a non-circular orbit which dips into the atmosphere, or does not retain enough velocity to stay in orbit.
Even for the tiny fraction of particles that end up in circular orbits with enough velocity, they will experience significant friction in LEO, and the orbits will degrade.
Re: (Score:3)
The orbits are almost never completely circular. They're elliptical, and disturbed by LEO atmosphere and electromagnetic effects. They don't _remain_ circular. I agree that a disturbed orbit is much harder to plan for and avoid accidental overlaps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on speeds, specific orbit, and height (LEO is a fairly big range). Some LEO satellites could stay up for hundreds of years unassisted. Others may be pulled down in a decade or less.
Re:Wide space (Score:4, Informative)
So you're saying a collision results in a net gain of kinetic energy? You watch too many movies.
First - satellites usually move in the same direction - from west to east. Yes there are variations of inclination and polar orbits do exist, but most satellites trace this west to east orbit. So most of the velocity component of any satellite will be in this direction. You will not be seeing "head on collisions" of any satellite. Actual collisions are likely to be much gentler than at orbital velocities as one satellite catches up and "bumps" into another one.
Satellites are not made from high explosives and will not detonate on impact. They are satellites not warheads. Sure, deformation could happen and bits could break off, but a pair of satellites shattering into billions of pieces from a collision is a fantasy. Colliding satellites would not suddenly reverse their trajectories or instantly change altitudes - most of the resulting fragment(s) of the collision would continue along a vector that is the resultant of the addition of the velocity vectors of the original satellites. In fact - it's pretty much guaranteed that deviation from this new vector is inversely proportional to the mass of the fragment. You won't get half a satellite suddenly turning 90 degrees in a different direction, although some microscopic bits and pieces might.
Satellites are not soap bubbles. They are hit by micrometeorites all the time and although the damage is cumulative over time, it's not likely that a single impact will completely disable a satellite. Solar flares are a much greater threat to satellites than micrometeorites are. Also - micrometeorites are likely to be traveling at much greater speeds than any micro-debris from a collision. Like I said - you are not going to be getting any head-ons. Satellites move roughly in the same direction for the component with the greatest magnitude.
And finally: "Space is big. I mean REALLY big..."
Re: (Score:2)
First - satellites usually move in the same direction - from west to east. Yes there are variations of inclination and polar orbits do exist, but most satellites trace this west to east orbit. So most of the velocity component of any satellite will be in this direction.
Picture two orbits 180 degrees apart, i.e. crossing the opposite poles simultaneously, ascending the equator one half "wavelength" apart, and descending it one half "wavelength" apart. Ignore the earth rotating underneath, you're in the orbits' frame of reference.
They have to keep synchronous, so they must keep precisely at the same altitude.
Now this would be pretty dumb to put the satellites on these orbits precisely so that they cross the equator at the same time, and there is no need to do it, but I can
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. I'm pretty sure he meant polar orbits.
2. Israel launches classified satellites on retrograde orbits. There are a few others, too. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX Starlink constellation plan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Note the polar orbits.
Re: (Score:2)
If you did it.I don't know of any satellite that travels from east to west. Let me know when you find one.
I never proposed that. But inclined orbits go up the north pole then down to the south pole and back. One eastbound satellite going south can very much cross an eastbound sat going north.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a wildly optimistic view. When two satellites are 10 degrees of inclination apart, the collision speed is already 1 km/s. That's more than enough kinetic energy to shatter both into tiny fragments.
They are hit by micrometeorites all the time
Emphasis on the micro. Those are fragments smaller than 1 gram we're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's weird that you're so confident about something not happening which has already happened in the last few years. How is this getting upvoted?
So you're saying a collision results in a net gain of kinetic energy? You watch too many movies.
Uhhh, have you ever seen a car accident? When you have random transmission of energy some pieces accelerate and some decelerate. As a whole there can be no net gain while half gain and half lose energy. The result is a cloud of debris: https://i2.wp.com/www.spacesaf... [wp.com]
The iridium-Cosmos collision resulted in 1,000 pieces >4" in diameter. It was not "gentl
Re: (Score:2)
The odds of failures propagating faster than debris deorbits is, of course, heavily modeled. The primary factor, at least as important as the number of live satellites in orbit, is the presence / reliability of their deorbiting system. So long as a satellite is alive and can maneuver, collisions are generally not a problem. Many satellites don't have a system to deorbit at all, however, and you have to wait (depending on the satellite) years, decades, or even effectively indefinitely for it to happen.
If S
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Elliptical orbits will result. Sooner or later one will intersect. Then two.
Re: (Score:2)
1 km/s = 2200 mph approximately.
A .308 round might have a muzzle velocity of 3000 fps, about 2400 mph. And a .308 isn't that fast a bullet. A light load 6.5 Creedmoor comes out at 3020 fps. Ordinary .223/5.56 NATO comes out at 3240 fps. A .22-250, my favorite hi velocity round, comes out around 3700 fps on average, 2500 mph about.
Just as importantly, however, is mass, and therefore energy. A 1g fragment at 3700fps isn't the same as a 100g fragment at 2500 fps. Big pieces don't have to be fast. And for
Re: (Score:2)
unlikely. while 30,000 sounds a lot but in reality it is quite sparse. to put into perspective if you placed them on earth instead of space (obviously far less area here) then each satellite would have the equivalent of 17,000 square km's to play in. In space that number is way way larger.
Only takes one collision to set off a chain reaction.
no it doesn't. a chain reaction would require them to be in perfect synchronised distance from the earth and for a collision to perfectly target the next satellite over 100km away with pinpoint accuracy and for that 1 in a billion chance to happen repeatedly. I would think you are more likely to win the lotto 10 times in a row.
Go learn some orbital mechanics and what happens to space debris. Tell us what happens to devices that manage to turn into various pieces of space junk. Which pieces are accellerated, and which are decelerated. Your offhand claims of odds just exposes that you don't know as much as you think you do.
Although if you wish to provide the math - I'll listen.
Re: (Score:2)
your lack of knowledge is also being exposed. This isn't a movie. 2 items hundreds of kilometres apart in low earth orbit even in a collision where they shatter would still require extremely unlikely trajectories to hit another satellite as they will rapidly have a decaying orbit or be propelled into deep space, either way it would be extremely unlikely for them to get the correct trajectory or hold a position that would allow them to hit any further satellites. Your lack of knowledge of orbital mechanics for someone that claims to know about it is mind boggling.
Okay, now debunk the Kessler syndrome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The problem that some of y'all have is that you have some sort of idea that these satellites are like hardened ball bearings. When in fact they are likely to spall or otherwise break off pieces. At that time some pieces will be accelerated, and some slowed. Conservation of energy is a real bitch.
Next these altered velocities will raise or lower orbits, certainly put some in elliptical orbits. Regardless the debris will not stay i
Re: (Score:2)
Hmph.
LEO Satellite Zero is struck by a discredited* projectile. Debris is scattered above, below, and along previous orbital path. Spreading, impacts on neighboring satellites occur. Each increases the rate and number of impacts. Some move the targets more than they can recover from, new orbits, unexpected paths, other satellites are impacted well outside of the intended paths.
You can't control this chaos. Hilarity ensues.
Dammit, I cannot win the lottery soon enough, to bankroll a space garbage truck projec
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Faux-intelligence. (aka The Slashdot Special). Collisions result in debris. https://i2.wp.com/www.spacesaf... [wp.com]
Two satellites colliding is improbable. 1,000 pieces of debris >4" like the Iridium-Cosmos accident means 1,000x more chances of further collisions. And while those 1,000 pieces may not be big enough to completely destroy a satellite and create 1,000 more pieces alone, they are enough to disable a satellite and make it unable to maneuver away from other satellites or more debris.
Re: (Score:2)
ahhh a chain reaction by its very nature is not "one collision", it is one collision setting off more collision. That would be about the same chance of 100 people firing their gun in the air where 2 bullets collide which in turns sends of a chain reaction to hit the other 98 bullets. absolutely impossible, no. but the odds are so small I think most calculators would error out with and overflow to work out the odds of that happening. This isn't a movie set where such ridiculous odds are almost certain to happen.
Seriously - you are trying to explain orbital mechanics with a shooting a bullet into the air? It is nothing short of amazing the random peopel on Slashdot that have no concept nor understanding of orbital mechanics yet speak as if they are the people who came up with it.
AC, your amusingly wrong thoughts on orbital mechanics are a lot closer to Cartoon physics than anything I could come up with.
Re: (Score:2)
It's never worth arguing with AC. Even after AC was banned, AC still sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
It's never worth arguing with AC. Even after AC was banned, AC still sucks.
True, that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you're a fucking illiterate retard. We can see that by your typing alone. Go ahead with the math, it's obvious to everybody else BESIDES YOU that you're a fucking poser.
It is rather odd that random people on Slashdot are so certain about orbital mechanics. At the moment, I have standard orbital mechanics, NASA, verifiable experience and the so called Kessler effect on my side. You make an extraordinary claim. You know what that means, assuming you are science literate. Let's have you accept a challenge.
What I am speaking of is the Kessler effect. Disprove it.
Describe the results of satellites colliding.
What are the effects of collisions of satellites.
What role does
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, space may be huge. But what about communications with these satellites? Much of the spectrum is reserved for different tasks. Is there going to be enough available to properly control this many sats? Especially if competitors want to do the same thing.
As an amateur astrophotographer, I'm not looking forward to these sat constellations. Sigma stacking may alleviate some of the issue, but still...
And all this trouble only because some countries (even supposedly first-world) can't properly handle resourc
Re: (Score:2)
The bigger issue is the amount of launches required. SpaceX is putting up 60 satellites in one go, which to maintain a constellation of 42,000 with a operating lifetime of 5 years each would require about 3 launches per week indefinitely.
Of course any unexpected failures may result in them needing extra launches to deal with them.
Even assuming they can get the cost down far enough that's a lot of pollution to be putting out.
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX is putting up 60 satellites in one go, which to maintain a constellation of 42,000 with a operating lifetime of 5 years each would require about 3 launches per week indefinitely.
That has bothered me too. OTOH, I think Space X used the Falcon 9 Block 5 for that launch which has a payload of ~50,000 pounds. If they used a Falcon Heavy with a payload of 150,000 pounds, could get that launch schedule down to 1 launch per week. It still doesn't seem doable but I suppose that depends on their subscription profits.
Re: (Score:2)
Even one a week is a lot, and 42,000 disposable satellites every 5 years is a lot of material.
I'm kinda surprised that the economics work out for it. Maybe it's a loss leader to get their overall launch cost down by creating volume.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm kinda surprised that the economics work out for it. Maybe it's a loss leader to get their overall launch cost down by creating volume.
I'll try to make the numbers work, but my source selections may be FoS. In this thread ...
...
...
https://www.googl [google.com]
https://www.reddit.com/r/Starl... [reddit.com]
Posters suggests the throughput for each satellite is 20 Gbps, so 1200 Gbps for each launch of 60.
Assuming they can spread that 1200 Gbps out to 9600 subscribers of 1Gbps service (is that too liberal? Conservative?) at $50 a month for five years yields
$50 × 12mo × 5yr × 9600clients = $28.8 million in revenue per launch.
According to
You're confusing Price and Cost (Score:2)
A falcon 9 launch doesn't cost anywhere close to $62M. That's the base price SpaceX charges for one, but it includes a very healthy profit margin to do things like recoup investment, fund future investment, and ensure sufficient assets to survive unexpected losses. The actual cost is far, far cheaper - the exact numbers aren't publicly shared as far as I know, but the estimates I've seen run somewhere around $28M for a new vehicle, and under $15M for a re-flown one (the majority of which is the always-new s
Re: (Score:2)
The global internet access market is over $1T per year, and growing, with large swaths of the planet unconnected or underconnected. Even taking a small fraction of the market is worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, but I wonder how competitive it will be. The parts where there is no cabled access are not going to pay much for internet access, and the parts where there is cabled access are going to vastly out-strip it for speed. Also you will need equipment to access it, where as most people already have a phone line at least into their house.
Maybe it will be worth it but it really feels like a scheme to get launch costs down.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you expect cabled access to be faster than satellite? There's no physical reason that needs to be true. Both the satellites and the user terminals use phased arrays to generate quite narrow beams, so there's not that much competition for bandwidth, and with so many satellites they can manage quite staggering throughput. Existing satellite service is slow (in different ways) for reasons that don't apply to Starlink: low-orbit constellations mostly don't use highly directional antennas (hard when yo
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX considers both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy obsolete. They're switching to Starship, with a ~150t fully reusable payload to LEO.
More to the point, SpaceX wants to justify frequent launches. They want to have a reason to keep their rockets busy. :)
Re: (Score:2)
A friend of mine who works at SpaceX has joked that the real reason Musk wants Starship/SuperHeavy is because it could put 400 Starlink birds up with a single launch.
Mind you, even at the incredibly fast rate Musk is pushing Starship, I expect Starlink will begin paid service before the first time Starship puts any payload into orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course any unexpected failures may result in them needing extra launches to deal with them.
Three of the initial 60 have already failed, but I think that is mostly growing pains.
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Even assuming they can get the cost down far enough that's a lot of pollution to be putting out.
I think the only concerning pollution will be to stargazers. I think the benefits outweigh those costs. That's just me.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.quora.com/On-a-Boe... [quora.com]
That seems like a lot but according to...
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
on average, there are ~10000 of these size airliners in the air at any given moment. So in terms of air pollution, it's a gnat's fart in a hurricane.
Re: (Score:2)
Even a lot of people trying to deliberately spot them with the naked eye failed, esp. after they spread out. And SpaceX plans to take more measures to reduce their visibility. I don't expect people in general to notice a change to the night sky. Ground-based telescopes of course will, but as launch costs continue to fall, we'll be seeing more of a push to space-based telescopes (also, ground-based telescopes already use algorithms to remove satellite trails from their datasets)
In terms of night sky pollu
Re: Wide space (Score:2)
Re: Wide space (Score:2)
They'll be going up mostly at 7x that rate on Starship/Heavy, both of which run on methane which will be "farmed" at the launchsite from atmospheric CO2, seawater, and Tesla solar cells.
Each Starship/Heavy stack can be launched three times a day and they've currently building four of them.
Re: Wide space (Score:2)
*they're not they've. :/
Forgot to mention the cryo O2 as the other output of the fuel-making stack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
each satellite would have the equivalent of 17,000 square km's to play in.
Yeah, but since they are traveling at 7.8 km/s, they are covering that 17,000 sq km quickly...
Re: (Score:2)
Gets the ping down and ensures everyone gets some much needed bandwidth.
The alternative has been used for years. Got "a" huge sat and try that high above the earth position.
Limited bandwidth is shared by many more users, costs are up and ping is huge.
Re: (Score:2)
One has to assume that SpaceX isn't just going to be throwing them into random positions and velocities, but rather they will be guided into carefully selected orbits such that they are evenly spaced and unlikely to collide with each other.
No doubt that will be something of a challenge, but SpaceX has solved much harder problems than that already, so I'm confident they can meet it.
Re:Wide space (Score:4, Interesting)
They're also constantly monitored and will be deorbited as soon as their fuel starts to run low.
This isn't like unguided space junk.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How long does permission last? (Score:3)
This could be OK but it should only be granted on a "use it or lose it before year 2030" or whatever basis. Perpetual ownership of any limited natural resource is actually wrongheaded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit complicated. Once granted you have 7 years to start using the frequency, but even then you have to work with governments and other companies to make it inter-operable. You can't just camp the frequency.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue you raised about IPv4 was recognized and resolved over two decades ago through the creation of a less provincial, more far reaching standard. That isn't going to work on the EM spectrum.
You seem to be confusing limited with scarce. EM spectrum is relatively scarce, yes, but it is not limited. There is a huge difference, legally, and more importantly, economically, between "limited" and "scarce." Unlike oil and other finite natural resources, the EM spectrum is going to be exploitable for a long
Get ready to be radiated (Score:2)
Can't leave my house anymore without my aluminium hat. =/
Re: (Score:2)
Reader quotes from Ars (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. That's a lot of satellites and a lot of launches. If they have a 5-year lifespan, it will still require 8400 satellites a year to maintain the system. Assuming 60 satellites per Falcon 9 launch, that's 140 launches per year ( almost 12 per month or 3 per week).
edit: the above numbers are loosely based upon a constellation total of 42,000 satellites, not just the new 30,000.
Starship should be able to launch around 300 at a time. So figure on 28 annual launches just for Starlink. It's still an impressive number, especially considering the production volume for the birds themselves.
Falcon 9 would indeed be untenable as the launch system for that many satellites in LEO. But SpaceX has already publicly stated they intend to use Starship Cargo for Starlink launches. They will be able to put up enormous numbers in a single launch. Starship's ballpark target cargo capacity is 100,000 kg, which they hope to improve to 150,000 kg in later revisions. Falcon 9 can put 16,800 kg into LEO when the first stage is reused. Starship should start out being able to put a factor of 6 more Starlink
reflectors what about positioning ? (Score:2)
basically these look to be a network of powered reflectors (steered) thats nice I hope they are building into it some sort of positioning and if so it looks like GPS superiority will end...
Who owns space (Score:2)
" it would have to seek FCC permission "
Those satellites will be orbiting the whole planet, not just the USA.
Won't the other (space capable ) countries object?
Re: (Score:2)
polution (Score:2)
we really have a hard time cleaning up after ourselves, don't we?
"As of January 2019, about 8,950 satellites had been placed into Earth orbit since 1957, and about 5,000 of those were still in space ... Only about 1,950 of those are still functioning."
more than half of the satellites are just waste, garbage, polution. i guess nobody at the time even had the smallest though what to do with them when they reached end-of-life (i though the general concencus was - burn them up - but this is clearly not the case
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of those satellites are orbiting too far from earth for re-entry to be feasible. Once you're in a high enough orbit, it takes quite a lot of delta-v (change of velocity, essentially "maneuvering") to dip your orbit low enough to re-enter on any useful time scale. End-of-life geostationary satellites are actually usually boosted into a higher orbit (called a "graveyard orbit") that is far easier to reach than the atmosphere.
How long until... (Score:2)
How long until the Starlink broadband network turns into a giant waste of time and money---like the Hyperloop tunnel which is just a regular tunnel now.
Yeah, Musk is a total failure and you're awesome (Score:2)
Spectrum (Score:2)
And with a large number of them needing a clear frequency without interfering with other satellites where are they going to get the required spectrum?
Re: (Score:2)
And with a large number of them needing a clear frequency without interfering with other satellites where are they going to get the required spectrum?
You could just RTFM [fcc.gov].
They don't interfere with each other. They're in low Earth orbit, so low that the majority of satellites don't even have line of sight with each other. Those that do aren't transmitting at each other. They're using phased array antennas to talk to quite a small patch on the ground.
Where are they going to get the required spectrum? From the FCC.
10.7-12.7 GHz (space-to-Earth), 12.75-13.25 GHz (Earth-to-space), 13.85-14.5 GHz (Earth-to-space), 17.8-18.6 GHz (space-to-Earth), 18.8-19.3 GHz (space-to-Earth), 19.7-20.2 GHz (space-to-Earth), 27.5-29.1 GHz (Earth-to-space), and 29.5-30 GHz bands (Earth-to-space).
There you go.
Round trip time (Score:2)
Whats the average round trip time for these bad boys? They don't suffer from refraction pushing through glass right?
Re: (Score:2)
What this should be telling you is that with Starship, launch costs will be so low they don't matter. As they get the cost per sat down, it will be a case of "rocket's not full, pack the extra space with Starlink sats."
There's good money to be made from low-latency sat internet, but preventing city areas from being saturated would take far more than 30k sats, so every sat will be more customers they can support.
Re: (Score:2)
What this should be telling you is that with Starship, launch costs will be so low they don't matter. As they get the cost per sat down, it will be a case of "rocket's not full, pack the extra space with Starlink sats."
There's good money to be made from low-latency sat internet, but preventing city areas from being saturated would take far more than 30k sats, so every sat will be more customers they can support.
I'll discuss the costs per launch being so low that payload doesn't matter until we have some actual data on that. I read that one time, Nuclear power electricity was going to be so cheap that we wouldn't have meters on our houses
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that it won't matter at all, but that the cost of satellites themselves will be the dominant cost. Plus, from SpaceX's point of view, once a customer has paid for a launch of a partial payload, and they can't find buyers for the remaining space, it really is "free" to put their own stuff there to fill up the rocket.
Re: (Score:2)
saturating orbital planes with satellites
You would need a hell of a lot more than 30,000 satellites to do that. The only orbital space in danger of any type of "saturation" is geosynchronous orbit since, quite by definition, it requires an exact altitude so that orbital velocity matches the rotation of the earth. The good thing is that the circumference of a circle gets bigger the further out you go (I think someone worked out the number once while eating pie or something), so there's plenty of room left on that big ring for many years yet...
Re: (Score:2)
saturating orbital planes with satellites
You would need a hell of a lot more than 30,000 satellites to do that. The only orbital space in danger of any type of "saturation" is geosynchronous orbit since, quite by definition, it requires an exact altitude so that orbital velocity matches the rotation of the earth. The good thing is that the circumference of a circle gets bigger the further out you go (I think someone worked out the number once while eating pie or something), so there's plenty of room left on that big ring for many years yet...
Yes. It helps to visualize different orbits first as shells. There is a lot more space for individual satellites as you increase the distance from what they are orbiting.
After the initial visualization, we have to discard that shell idea, because many orbits are elliptical, and we then have circumpolar, equatorial and different inclination of orbits, so they can have intersections.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_p... [nasa.gov]
Yes, there is alot of space, but also yes, there is a lot of stuff up there. And the t
Re: (Score:2)
It definitely works. There are plenty of companies that offer it already, and more that have tried and failed. It is more of a cost issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ahaha literally all you have is "BUT ELON MUSK!!! DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR"
some people really can't tell when they're the absolute dregs of the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Already Enough (Score:2)
That's not the case. A fully-loaded Falcon 9 can carry about 60 of these in a dispenser. We're looking at *many* fully-loaded Starship/Heavys deploying 420 at a time to get up to capacity.
This isn't a hobby - it's a seriously huge business that will fund the Mars development projects. There's also a Federal deadline to get the first 14000 up in the next couple years.
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW... Starlink sats (when folded for launch) are about the size of a large-ish rectangular dinner table, but several times as thick. They're scarcely cubesats. They're a lot smaller (in both volume and mass) than a typical communication satellite, and are vastly cheaper, but they're still pretty big. 60 of them pretty much max out a Falcon 9's reusable payload limit, meaning each one is probably at least a couple hundred kilos (400+ pounds).
Source: I've toured the factory in person. I don't remember the e
Re: (Score:3)
Amen. I bet the Astronomers are going to lose their shit over this. They have enough problems with the current crop of satellites.
Re: (Score:2)
It will be interesting to see China's reaction. They won't be too happy about having uncensored broadband being made available in their country. Maybe SpaceX can turn it off as the satellites pass over them.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention some of the more fundamentalist countries in the middle east. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like you can just whip out a smartphone and get service from one of these satellites. The user terminals are described as being roughly the size of pizza boxes. You can't exactly smuggle them into China in your hand luggage.
Additionally, the satellites use extremely directional beams (from phased array antennas) to connect to users. It's not a matter of "turn them off" over China; the beams need to be precisely aimed and track the user as the satellite flies overhead. If the service has no subscrib
Re: Already Enough (Score:2)
There's a plan in the works to put optics on the back of each Starlink satellite to build the largest telescope array the world has ever seen.
Telescopes belong in space. Besides Starlink, Starship is going to be able to loft space telescopes of immense size. With on-orbit refueling, deployment to a Lagrange Point is feasible.
Astronomers won't be disappointed.
Re: (Score:2)
--I say, if he wants to launch 42K satellites, let him. But then he has to take over ALL space orbital debris and satellite collision monitoring, including Extinction Event asteroid/comet monitoring.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
640K or 655,360 (640 x 1024), not 64,000.
and there's no evidence Mr. Gates ever said it. But he did say other dumb things!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: elon musk's midgame is better than his haters' (Score:2)
the meta of space science shifting to smaller, distributed, and more robotic
English much??
Re: Collusion probability is extremely low (Score:2)
People don't conceive of scale well.
Even on the surface of the geoid, 45,000 widgets equally spaced have an astonishing amount of distance between them.
Re: That's a waste of money (Score:2)
Their customers will be:
People who pay too much for Internet.
People who can't get decent Internet.
People who need more reliable Internet.
People who need Internet in many locations globally.
People who need uncensored Internet.
People who want to suport the Mars project.
People who need the lower latency that space offers.
Everybody who is happy with their current provider remains unaffected.