Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications The Internet

SpaceX Unveils 'V2 Mini' Starlink Satellites With Quadruple the Capacity (arstechnica.com) 89

Posted by BeauHD from the new-and-improved dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: With Starlink speeds slowing due to a growing capacity crunch, SpaceX said a launch happening as soon as today will deploy the first "V2 Mini" satellites that provide four times more per-satellite capacity than earlier versions. Starlink's second-generation satellites include the V2 Minis and the larger V2. The larger V2s are designed for the SpaceX Starship, which isn't quite ready to launch yet, but the V2 Minis are slimmed-down versions that can be deployed from the Falcon 9 rocket. "The V2 Minis are smaller than the V2 satellites (hence the name) but don't let the name fool you," SpaceX said in a statement provided to Ars yesterday. "The V2 Minis include more advanced phased array antennas and the use of E-band for backhaul, which will enable Starlink to provide ~4x more capacity per satellite than earlier iterations."

SpaceX didn't specify the amount of data that each V2 Mini satellite can provide, but its first-generation satellites were designed for an aggregate downlink capacity of 17 to 23Gbps per satellite. The Federal Communications Commission recently gave SpaceX approval to launch 7,500 of the 30,000 planned second-generation satellites. A SpaceX Falcon 9 launch tentatively scheduled for today would put 21 V2 Minis into orbit. The larger V2 satellites that can't launch until Starship is ready will be able to send signals directly to cell phones, a capability that'll be used by SpaceX and T-Mobile in a partnership announced in August 2022. "Each Starlink V2 Mini satellite weighs about 1,760 pounds (800 kilograms) at launch, nearly three times heavier than the older Starlink satellites," notes Spaceflight Now. "They are also bigger in size, with a spacecraft body more than 13 feet (4.1 meters) wide, filling more of the Falcon 9 rocket's payload fairing during launch."

UPDATE: SpaceX successfully launched the first batch of "V2 Mini" Starlink satellites. "A Falcon 9 rocket hauled the 21 Starlink satellites into a 230-mile-high (370-kilometer) orbit after lifting off from pad 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station at 6:13:50 p.m. EST (2313:50 GMT) Monday," reports Spaceflight Now. "SpaceX delayed the launch from earlier Monday afternoon to wait for radiation levels to abate following a solar storm that sparked dramatic auroral displays visible across Northern Europe and Canada." You can watch the launch here. Elon Musk also shared video of the first V2 satellites to reach orbit.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SpaceX Unveils 'V2 Mini' Starlink Satellites With Quadruple the Capacity More

SpaceX Unveils 'V2 Mini' Starlink Satellites With Quadruple the Capacity

Comments Filter:

  • Cool, but, erm... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    We now have whatsit, two companies very busily filling near-Earth orbits with space junk-to-be. So many objects, in fact, that astronomers are noticing their pretty pictures are getting a tad stripey.

    Maybe it's time we came up with a decent solution for cleaning up the junk?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Tx ( 96709 )

      Starlink satellites are low enough that they get enough atmospheric drag to de-orbit themselves and burn up in pretty short order, I think each satellite is only up there for four or five years. It's the stuff up in geostationary orbit that stays up there for decades that you need to worry about.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        SpaceX can't just let them go into an uncontrolled de-orbit. They have to keep enough fuel available to de-orbit them through the orbits of other satellites in a safe manner. How well that works is unproven as the satellites haven't been up long enough to see what the effect of de-orbiting thousands a year is. Other operators have already had to take action to avoid collisions with Starlink satellites on the way up, and the system for notifying other orgs isn't really designed for thousands of notifications

        • Yes, they can and do let them de-orbit uncontrolled. When at end of life, they lower them to a low orbit then passivate them, shut them down, and let them re-enter within, I think, a week. They can do this because everything in the satellites breaks down into either very light items, dust, or gas, so it isn't an issue if they re-enter over an inhabited location.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            You are confirming what I said. They lower them until they are ready to de-orbit, which means passing through the orbits of many other satellites on the way.

            Since the exact composition of the satellites is secret it's hard to predict exactly what effect that gas and dust will have. Generally speaking the effect of releasing stuff into the upper atmosphere is magnified compared to releasing it at ground level, hence why aircraft contribute so much to climate change.

        • At this point space access is becoming so cheap it's better to just suck up an occasional collision and replace the destroyed satellites, than to limit access to orbit. And before you start going on about Kessler syndrome, no, that can't happen at altitides as low as Starlink does.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            It certainly can happen at the altitudes that Starlink operates at. While if unpowered the satellites will de-orbit naturally in around 5-6 years, the threat to manned space stations during that time means they would probably have to be abandoned. During that time launching would be difficult and anything sent up would have a good chance of being trashed, including the Starlink network itself.

            The more immediate issue is that Musk is using "AI" to avoid collisions, and it's not working. Other satellites are

            • If you collide two satellites the debris has velocity vectors that are close to various combinations of the two original vectors. In LEO that means 99% of the stuff goes down into atmosphere before a full orbit, not after 5 years. Only the stuff which keeps close to original velocity vectors of the collided satellites stays up for any appreciable amount of time, but those tend to be big (and few) chunks mostly with grazig hits.

              Plus, we've blown up satellites before, in higher orbits too. The world is not

      • It's all part of Space X's meticulous attitude towards environmental protection :-(

      • It's the stuff up in geostationary orbit that stays up there for decades that you need to worry about.

        Those are also far lower orbital velocities.

  • Space X V2 Mini ? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Crashmarik ( 635988 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @03:05AM (#63329233)

    Anybody else feel that was an unfortunate choice of headline for a rocket ?

  • Why BeauHD links to that crappy SpaceflightNow video instead of the original SpaceX stream with much better quality and views... I wouldn't say it's a mystery, it's just his usual lack of work ethic, posting the first link that shows up on a google search.

  • If I recall my history correctly... (Score:3)

    by Miles_O'Toole ( 5152533 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @04:30AM (#63329287)

    They were successfully launching V2s about 70 years ago.

  • Typical billionaire idea. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JamesTRexx ( 675890 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @04:45AM (#63329289) Journal

    Lets launch a large amount of polluting rockets into orbit to fill it with more junk.

    And for what?

    • Re:Typical billionaire idea. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TomGreenhaw ( 929233 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @05:09AM (#63329305)
      Q) And for what?
      A) For those who have no other alternative to a good Internet connection

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Don't attribute this to altruism. Musk is doing to it support SpaceX.

        As for providing a good internet connection, a 56.6k modem was good once. Starlink is already slow compared to fibre, and because it's shared spectrum there will always be a limit on how fast it can be and how many people it can serve in a given area. Longer term I wouldn't want to rely on satellite internet to provide everyone with a "good" internet connection, given in places it's already oversubscribed, and the speed even at the best of

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by blahabl ( 7651114 )

          Don't attribute this to altruism. Musk is doing to it support SpaceX.

          Yes, the wonderful thing about capitalism is that it's pretty much the only system which motivates common people rather than hardcore altruists to do good for humanity. And profit themselves too. You, I'm guessing, do your job purely for altruistic feelings, and refuse a paycheck when offered, right? Or are you just a hypocrite, as is common among leftists?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Capitalism isn't the only system that motivates people to do good for humanity. The most famous example is the Fully Automated Luxury Communism of Star Trek. Freed from the need to earn to survive, most humans turn their efforts towards bettering the galaxy they live in. Not just a few billionaires and corporations whose objectives happen to temporarily align with humanity's.

            In any case, it remains to be seen if Starlink is good for humanity or not. Really depends what happens up in space and what effect de

            • Capitalism isn't the only system that motivates people to do good for humanity. The most famous example is the Fully Automated Luxury Communism of Star Trek.

              Ummmm... You do know Star Trek is a work of fiction, right? Yes, in fiction communism absolutely can work. And nowhere else. But let's focus on this nasty thing called, you know, the real world.

              And even as a kind of thought experiment, its economy is built around a device that can *literally* make stuff out of nothing? So yes, feel free to abandon capitalism once you invent a Star Trek-esque replicator, but not a damn second before.

              • Re: (Score:3)

                by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                Well, if you want to talk real world examples, look at the European system. Socialism and capitalism, and generally speaking the ones with more socialism and tighter controls on capitalism are the ones that are doing the most for humanity.

                Simply relying on capitalist's goals aligning with humanities is a bad idea. The EU forces them to, and it works. Call that what you like.

                • Well, if you want to talk real world examples, look at the European system. Socialism and capitalism, and generally speaking the ones with more socialism and tighter controls on capitalism are the ones that are doing the most for humanity.

                  Simply relying on capitalist's goals aligning with humanities is a bad idea. The EU forces them to, and it works. Call that what you like.

                  Huh? USA does way more scientific research than EU, USA is the one trying to keep the world from going to shit not EU, USA is where most of the new inventions and technological advancement take place. What does EU make? Better cheeses? I guess, if you like them stinky and mouldy. And a lot of hot air, can't beat EU in that.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                    Europe is doing plenty to keep the world from going to shit thank you. As for R&D, the Chinese were filing the most patents last time I checked.

                    • Europe is doing plenty to keep the world from going to shit thank you.

                      LOL. You morons pretty much funded Putin's current war, by decades of buying his hydrocarbons. Please at least STFU while adult countries sort out the situation.

                      As for R&D, the Chinese were filing the most patents last time I checked.

                      I love that tiny bit of self-awareness on your side: you know that EU isn't even in the race here, and most you can do is root for Chinese :DDDD

                • Socialism and capitalism, and generally speaking the ones with more socialism and tighter controls on capitalism are the ones that are doing the most for humanity.

                  And so what are they doing for humanity?

                  And before you answer, remember that the US was warning Europe for a long time to wean itself off of Russian gas because the signs of Russia's belligerence began 15 years ago, but because they were so hell bent on getting cheap oil and gas, they kept increasing their dependence, and Germany even remained in denial up to several days after the war started, to the point that they remained Putin's biggest source of funding until the pipeline was blown up.

                  Now go on and te

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                    European countries are doing more for climate change. That's for humanity.

                    As for R&D, it was Europe that provided many of the COVID vaccines. Most of the work on the Pfizer one was actually done by BioNTech in the EU. There was the AstraZenica one too.

                    • European countries are doing more for climate change. That's for humanity.

                      Yes. Except I thought the goal was to stop climate change, not do more for it.

                      As for R&D, it was Europe that provided many of the COVID vaccines. Most of the work on the Pfizer one was actually done by BioNTech in the EU.

                      Here's a hint: it's called a "Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine" not a "BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine" for a reason.

                      There was the AstraZenica one too.

                      Ah yes, the clot shot that stupidly through association ruined the reputation of legit [*] vaccines, and had to be hastily withdrawn in much of civilized world. Proud of it?

                      [*] you know, the ones with 99% efficacy, not sth like 70%

                    • European countries are doing more for climate change. That's for humanity.

                      And how are they doing that? Cheating on diesel emissions? Oh wait, that doesn't help. How about banning GMO? Oh wait, that also does the opposite. How about replacing nuclear energy sources with Russian oil and gas? Oh, sorry, that's not it either. What about pushing electric cars to the masses? Oh wait, that was America.

                      Well I'm out of ideas, let's hear yours.

                      Oh and let's not get into the whole thing about emissions cheating being de-facto legal in Europe at the time with even regulators themselves being

            • Capitalism isn't the only system that motivates people to do good for humanity. The most famous example is the Fully Automated Luxury Communism of Star Trek. Freed from the need to earn to survive, most humans turn their efforts towards bettering the galaxy they live in. Not just a few billionaires and corporations whose objectives happen to temporarily align with humanity's.

              Being autistic, at times I don't have a very good sarcasm detector, so I have to ask:

              Are you fucking serious? Because if you are, it's an incredible level of stupid to argue that fiction is a real world example of anything. Particularly given we see people every day who have not a thing to worry about for survival, and in return they do nothing like you suggest, in fact quite the opposite.

        • Re:Typical billionaire idea. (Score:4, Informative)

          by Camaro ( 13996 ) on Tuesday February 28, 2023 @08:51AM (#63329575)

          Sure, StarLink is a business venture to support SpaceX activities. I'll grant you that. But I'm a StarLink customer, and a happy one at that. I came from a legacy satellite internet service that offered 10Mbit down, 100GB soft cap, and latency around 750ms. I now get 200Mbit down (and sometimes close to 300), no cap, and 75ms latency. A WISP put up a tower two months after we set up our StarLink system, and still does not offer the performance that StarLink does in our area but it happy to charge the same price. (100Mbit for $139Cdn)

          Do not discount what StarLink is bringing to rural areas just because "it's not fibre". StarLink is not for those who have access to better alternatives. It's for those of us who don't have access to anything else, and likely won't see it for many years, and we're very happy to have it. There are some areas of the southeast US (and a few other smaller spots) that are congested, but there are a lot more of us, a silent majority you might say, that are far better off than before StarLink.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Helps drive down the cost of launches for SpaceX. This is Musk's MO. For example, the Cybertruck is using steel that SpaceX also uses, not because it's the best material for the job but because he wants to create volume demand and drive the price down.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • For example, the Cybertruck is using steel that SpaceX also uses, not because it's the best material for the job but because he wants to create volume demand and drive the price down.

          sounds memey enough that musk could have said some bollocks like that

          Yes, totally memey. How dare he try and standardize his materials instead of using a custom-tailored, different alloy for everything, like any good govt agency suckling on taxpayer's teat would use!

          And in the meantime, because of memey stuff like that it'd cost 150M$ to launch Orion on Falcon Heavy (yes, it'd have to be man-rated first) than the 2B$ (per-launch, *excluding* development cost!) of SLS.

          But I guess not being memey is worth any price, right?

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • But I guess not being memey is worth any price, right?

              are you related to the guy or something? whyd you take that so personally?

              Guess I'm triggered by stupid. Especially when said stupid is (presumably) allowed to vote.

              • Comment removed based on user account deletion

                • i mean, either the guy actually believes he can change the price of steel, or its another one of his memey bollocks comments. ikea probably buy more steel in a year than him.

                  It's called "discounts for buying in bulk". And if you think "steel" is what Musk buys, and competes for that with Ikea, then yeah, you don't have a clue. He's probably like 80% of world's market for that one specific alloy he wants, and there's definitely a place for economics of scale to kick in.

                  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
                    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
                    • Wow, you really are dense. Let me repeat: the market of "whatever steel that's not too bendy" is a completely separate market from "that one specific high-performance alloy that Musk needs and probably like 3 suppliers in the world even make". No, you don't make "cultery" out of high performance rocket-grade steel alloy that costs 10x more than normal steel. No, Musk isn't manipulating the price of Ikea's "whatever-not-too-bendy" steel. No, Ikea isn't buying the high-performance steel that Musk uses.

          • SpaceX gets billions in subsidies. We’re financing his materials research. https://subsidytracker.goodjob... [goodjobsfirst.org]

            The truth is he sketched up the cybertruck, made promises, then told engineers to make it happen. It’s 3 years overdue now.

            • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

              by blahabl ( 7651114 )

              SpaceX gets billions in subsidies. We’re financing his materials research. https://subsidytracker.goodjob... [goodjobsfirst.org]

              Ummmm... You do know the difference between "billions" and "millions"? Ah, sorry, nevermind, forgot I'm talking to a leftist. Well, let me explain. A "billion" is, oh, only about 1000x more than a "million". And the link you provided cites 5M, not B, in subsidies. Bit more in loans, but, you know, you have to repay those.

              Savings the govt got to make on just one military launch on Falcon instead of whatever they'd use instead paid both back many times over.

              The truth is he sketched up the cybertruck, made promises, then told engineers to make it happen. It’s 3 years overdue now.

              Again, I know you're a leftist, but you do know th

              • Scroll to the bottom, dickhead. Over $5 billion.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by fgouget ( 925644 )

                  Scroll to the bottom, dickhead. Over $5 billion.

                  "TOTAL $5,630,574" so $0.006 billion when rounding to the nearest billion. You also get the same amount by adding up the itemized list at the bottom of your page.

                  If you're looking for billions in "subsidy" look no further than Boeing and Northrop Grumman: $2 billion per launch [arstechnica.com] the SLS qualifies as pure subsidy.

                  We’re financing his materials research.

                  Did you know that you also "subsidized" your car manufacturer's material research? And also the research of your computer's chipmaker? And again when you bought your smartphone, etc. That's just how

                • Scroll to the bottom, dickhead. Over $5 billion.

                  $5,630,574. That's 7 digits. That's millions not billions. Unless we're seeing different webpages which at this point I'm seriously considering, because even leftists are not this dense. Ah who the hell am I kidding, of course they are.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DrXym ( 126579 )

        We'll see about price when it launches. Recall Musk said it would cost $40,000 but I'll be surprised if it launches and costs less than $50000 in the crappest configuration with much more nickel and diming on top of that.

        • A loaded Honda Accord is $40K now, so yeah a $40K fullsize electric pickup sure isn't happening, not Cybertruck or any other brand.

        • We'll see about price when it launches. Recall Musk said it would cost $40,000 but I'll be surprised if it launches and costs less than $50000 in the crappest configuration with much more nickel and diming on top of that.

          More like $70k, but that's far from the top range of what gasoline-powered pickups cost, and at the bottom of diesel prices. And the market for pickups at those prices is huge. I expect Cybertruck's durability and ability to act as a mobile power source to make it quickly become a very popular work truck.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by fgouget ( 925644 )

        For example, the Cybertruck is using steel that SpaceX also uses,

        Source?

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • The Starlink satellites are in low earth orbit, so the satellites will deorbit quite fast. So there is not much of an issue with space junk.

      The rockets themselves use around 600 tons of propellant (oxygen and RP-1) per a launch https://www.spaceflightinsider.com/hangar/falcon-9/ [spaceflightinsider.com]. A transatlantic flight uses around 200 tons of fuel. So a single launch is adding less than the equivalent of three transatlantic flights of which there are over a thousand daily https://www.eurocontrol.int/news/celebrating-100- [eurocontrol.int]

    • Lets launch a large amount of polluting rockets into orbit to fill it with more junk.

      And for what?

      Fast, reliable Internet service available anywhere on the planet, including the tops of mountains, the centers of oceans, etc.

      Starlink is awesome. It's a gamechanger. Work from home? Try work from wherever you want. I spent most of last summer working from a camp trailer in the mountains, powered by solar panels, and will do the same this coming summer. In a few years I'll be living on and working from a sailboat, cruising the South Pacific.

      There are lots of things about Musk's ventures to criticize, bu

    • So I can have Internet service. Those weather satellites come in handy also.

  • It's called 'Mini' but it's 4 times heavier and it doesn't fit into the current rocket?

    Is my irony detector on the fritz?

    • These are the mini ones compared to the V2 iterations they plan on launching on Starship.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by grogger ( 638944 )
      I think it is your text-to-voice translator that is on the fritz. The v2 is 4 x more capable and does fit in the current rocket - otherwise it would have been difficult to launch it. Do you think they just strapped it to the side of the rocket? The next version Starlink is much more capable and fits in the next version of the rocket. At that point weight will not matter in the slightest.

  • Typical that this would be named after the Nazi super-weapon. Iâ(TM)d expect no less from this guy.

  • One of the more significant features of these spacecraft is their use of Argon Hall-effect Thrusters. Most Hall-effect thrusters use Xenon as a propellent. SpaceX in its V1 sats used Krypton instead. That reduced propellant costs by roughly a factor of 10. Argon now reduces the cost by two more orders of magnitude. Argon is approximately 1000 times cheaper than Xenon.

    This could be a breakthrough that is as significant to the build and operational costs of satellites as reusability of the launch vehicle

Slashdot Top Deals

If you didn't have to work so hard, you'd have more time to be depressed.

Close