[HN Gopher] SpaceX: World record number of satellites launched
___________________________________________________________________
SpaceX: World record number of satellites launched
Author : edward
Score : 99 points
Date : 2021-01-24 18:12 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.co.uk)
| Jabbles wrote:
| Are satellites the size of books required to have a method of
| self de-orbiting? Or are they in orbits that have limited
| lifespans?
| MayeulC wrote:
| Usually, a satellite that launches from a country has to abide
| by that country's regulations.
|
| As a requirement for getting regulatory approval to launch your
| satellite, I think you have to submit a debris management plan,
| which can include raising a geostationary satellite to a
| graveyard orbit after EOL (GEO is really far from earth, it
| would take a lot of fuel to de-orbit them), or lower a low-
| earth orbit to an altitude at which it would decay in a few
| weeks or years.
|
| Generally, I think these small satellites are quite cheap both
| to launch and manufacture, do not have a great lifespan, and
| certainly not have lots of fuel. So they are most likely
| intended for LEO, and a low one with that, where atmospheric
| drag is small, but could bring a satellite down in a few (~5-7)
| years. Hopefully smaller than the rate at which the operator
| renews them.
|
| Picking LEO has many benefits: lower latency, higher bandwidth,
| smaller antennas, higher resolution for pictures, with a few
| drawbacks: more earth shadow, faster ground velocity, smaller
| coverage for earth sensors.
| acover wrote:
| The orbits have a 5 year life span and the satellites can
| deorbit. The satellites actually use propulsion to stay in
| their orbit!
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink
| titzer wrote:
| This[1] suggests an orbit of 500-600km can a lifetime
| anywhere from 10-100 years. That's not short.
|
| [1] https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/orblife.htm
|
| The 5-year lifespan is for them to be intentionally
| deorbited. If they die, they become debris subject to
| atmospheric drag and other forces.
| acover wrote:
| Interesting. Spacex says it's 5 years for the 550km orbit
| without propulsion. Maybe the orbit isn't perfectly
| circular or something else changes the maths.
|
| wiki citation - https://spacenews.com/starlink-failures-
| highlight-space-sust...
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Thats a great link
|
| I think it's inportant to note that a traditional 3 ton
| sattelite and a cubesat will have totally different
| lifetimes, and that articles appears to assume a larger
| satellite
| herodoturtle wrote:
| So like little space drones? But way more subtle I guess.
| Like a mini blowtorch prodding this little thing along, and
| in the background, a giant view of Earth, below.
|
| And some clouds. Children love clouds.
| ortusdux wrote:
| Estimates are that the spacex starship could launch 240 starlink
| satellites. I can't imagine how many cubes they could hold.
| m4rtink wrote:
| So one current generation Starlink satellite is estimated to
| weight about 260. One one unit cubesat weighs 1 kg.
|
| So discounting small details like deployment mechanisms and
| volume:
|
| 260 x 240 = 62400 cubesats for one Starship launch by weight.
| stretchcat wrote:
| I know these cubesats don't stay up for long in LEO, but at
| what point does it become too many cubesats?
| Chickenosaurus wrote:
| There are more than 1 billion cars on earth. Cubesats are
| smaller than a car and can be distributed in an additional
| dimension (altitude). I think there is little risk of
| oversaturation currently.
| vkou wrote:
| Cars spend most of their time at rest, don't travel at
| cosmic speeds, and when they collide, don't send tens of
| thousands of pieces of shrapnel flying around the world
| for months/decades.
| gregoriol wrote:
| Cars seem to have a lot in common actually: satellites
| are "at rest" most of the time, it just that this rest
| could be a hazard as some point; but a car parked badly,
| around a sharp turn or in the middle of the highway would
| be a hazard as well. Cars can collide too, they can leave
| debris, which can become dangerous themselves for other
| cars, or pollute the nature around from leaks, ...
|
| The only reason I'd say cars are in a "better" situation
| is simply because we can clean up. We don't do it yet
| with satellites.
| MayeulC wrote:
| Well, cars can park (and stay parked most of the time).
| Cars generally do not go offroad.
|
| Also, cars do not go 8 km/s (30 Mm/h, 17k mph). That
| really compensates the actual satellite size. And a
| single debris can ruin your day at these speeds.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| This CalPoly presentation takes an ecological view and
| suggests that constellations of several hundred or more
| could be too many, if poorly managed. I would hope that we
| could manage orders of magnitude more safely with
| planning/control software and good thinking. http://mstl.at
| l.calpoly.edu/~workshop/archive/2016/Spring/Da...
| mrfusion wrote:
| How can we spin this as a bad thing, right?
| stretchcat wrote:
| I'm not spinning anything, and the scenario I'm
| responding to (62k satellites in one launch) has not
| occurred. I've been a fan of SpaceX for years, but
| apparently even a whiff of anything short of pure
| adoration is enough to send _some_ fanboys into a tizzy.
| It 's tiresome.
| jeffparsons wrote:
| > [...] even a whiff of anything short of pure adoration
| is enough to send some fanboys into a tizzy. It's
| tiresome.
|
| I think it's more that the question you asked, _in the
| way you asked it_, is so oft-repeated and shallow that
| it's indistinguishable from concern trolling or other
| similar kinds of low effort drive-by sniping.
|
| Of course that doesn't mean that your question was
| insincere. But consider that pretty much anyone who has
| shown the slightest bit of interest in spaceflight has
| probably seen nearly that exact question hundreds, if not
| thousands of times. It's nearly as common as "why are we
| spending money on space when there are still so many
| problems to fix down here on Eaaaaarth?" It's likewise
| not a constructive question, and it's just not reasonable
| to expect a positive response.
|
| EDIT: By the way, I do find the question of what to do
| about all the stuff already zipping around in various
| Earth orbits, and how we regulate the addition of new
| satellites to be a really interesting and important
| topic. It's only that I've never seen "how much X is too
| much X" -- especially when asked in response to a report
| of someone doing X -- generating meaningful discussion.
| How about... "if one country regulates its own space
| industry to mitigate addition of new LEO debris (limits,
| tracking, investing in clean-up tech), then at least some
| other countries will just ignore it. Are there any
| existing multilateral agreements in place for this stuff
| specifically, or maybe agreements in other domains that
| have successfully avoided similar kinds of tragedy of the
| commons down on Earth? Nuclear disarmament and ocean
| protection aren't working perfectly, but have had some
| positive impact..."
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Ehh, your phrasing was dangerously close to the "how many
| is too many" political rhetoric that typically connotes
| not only the existence of a moral boundary but having
| already crossed the boundary and caused significant
| damage. That's what set people off, not "a whiff of
| anything short of pure adoration."
|
| A small change, like tweaking the phrasing to "is there a
| limit?," would have avoided the landmine and signaled
| that you were looking for a good faith engineering
| discussion rather than political headbutting.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| > I've been a fan of SpaceX for years, but apparently
| even a whiff of anything short of pure adoration is
| enough to send some fanboys into a tizzy. It's tiresome.
|
| I think it's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction leftover from
| when SpaceX was still trying to get its foot in the door
| and was more vulnerable to the whims of public opinion
| (since early on, it was wholly dependent on NASA
| contracts which strong public pressure could get cut).
|
| Spaceflight is also one of those subjects that tends to
| attract opinions and fears more based in sensationalized
| headlines and Hollywood depictions than reality. This is
| natural since space isn't exactly accessible to general
| public, but it can be frustrating for enthusiasts,
| especially since unfounded claims spread much more widely
| and quickly than corrections do.
|
| All that said, no company is above criticism and I do not
| encourage fanboyism.
| herodoturtle wrote:
| > I think it's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction leftover
| from when SpaceX was still trying to get its foot in the
| door and was more vulnerable to the whims of public
| opinion (since early on, it was wholly dependent on NASA
| contracts which strong public pressure could get cut).
|
| > Spaceflight is also one of those subjects that tends to
| attract opinions and fears more based in sensationalized
| headlines and Hollywood depictions than reality. This is
| natural since space isn't exactly accessible to general
| public, but it can be frustrating for enthusiasts,
| especially since unfounded claims spread much more widely
| and quickly than corrections do.
|
| Well said.
|
| > All that said, no company is above criticism
|
| Agreed.
|
| > and I do not encourage fanboyism.
|
| Nah man, it's cool to be a fanboy of SpaceX. But I think
| the point is that we're not overly sensitive to criticism
| of SpaceX.
| m4rtink wrote:
| Good point, if you put too many in one place it might cause
| a gravitational collapse & create a new singularity.
| enchiridion wrote:
| What are the implications of that?
| ksec wrote:
| If LEO space were priced as real estate / property and
| assuming there are currently little restriction to zoning.
| SpaceX is about to own most of it.
|
| I am thinking of it like a Game of Monopoly but SpaceX
| currently has anywhere from 5 - 10 rounds of head start if
| not more.
|
| Interestingly once you start thinking about it. If TSMC
| were blown up by CCP. Samsung and Intel would caught up to
| their progress and volume within 2 years time.
|
| Compare to SpaceX AFAIK There are currently _nothing_
| remotely close to SpaceX 's offering within 3-4 years time
| frame.
| ortusdux wrote:
| By those calculations, todays launch could have brought 15600
| cubesats to orbit.
| childintime wrote:
| did you mean 420 satellites? https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-
| president-teases-starship-s...
| _Microft wrote:
| Something that might not be obvious for people not following
| space flight closely: this was a launch into a polar orbit from
| _Florida_. In the past these would have launched from Vandenberg
| airforce base in California because there is a clear path towards
| the south from there. So, how is SpaceX doing that now? They are
| conducting a so-called ,,dog leg" maneuver. This trajectory leads
| the rocket further out to the east over the ocean before it turns
| south. This is to avoid to fly over land /populated area. This
| had not been done in decades if I remember correctly.
|
| More stuff: the first Starlink satellites for polar orbits also
| launched on this flight. As I understand these were the first
| ones to have inter-satellite laser links too.
|
| (I can't imagine what an improvement cheap and high bandwidth
| satellite Internet must be for stations in Antarctica.)
|
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1353408098342326276
| wmf wrote:
| The landing also looked pretty close to Cuba.
| herodoturtle wrote:
| This was an incredibly insightful comment, thank you.
|
| I've been following SpaceX relatively closely; as a South
| African I've cheered on Elon since his PayPal exit - and so for
| example I had friends over for dinner on the night of the twin
| Falcon landing (and more recently the crewed Dragon mission).
|
| Please forgive my fanboyism, but now that I've read your points
| that you've just made, it has shed a whole new (fascinating)
| light on something I was already passionate about.
|
| Incredible times we're living in.
|
| Ad astra.
| shripadk wrote:
| "The number beats the previous record of 104 satellites carried
| aloft by an Indian vehicle in 2017"
|
| Does this vehicle not have a name? Or is the reporter too lazy to
| look it up? BBC never fails when it comes to its Anti-India
| stance.
| dang wrote:
| " _Eschew flamebait. Don 't introduce flamewar topics unless
| you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated
| controversies and generic tangents._"
|
| Nationalistic flamewar is particularly not where we want to go
| here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| aparsons wrote:
| Not sure why you're offended, but on the world stage, India is
| largely a joke.
| dang wrote:
| Nationalistic flamewar is not ok here, regardless of whether
| another comment started it. It just leads to hell, so please
| don't post like this to HN.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| cody8295 wrote:
| PSLV-C37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSLV-C37
| wlesieutre wrote:
| The mission was PSLV-C37, but they also didn't tell you that
| the SpaceX flight was F9-106 or that it flew on booster B1058.
| Would you describe that as the BBC's anti-American stance at
| work? Or maybe the serial numbers tacked on to the missions
| aren't really newsworthy, and anyone who wants more specific
| details can type "104 satellites" into google?
|
| I vouched you comment back up because I think it's worth
| linking, but no need to ascribe some sort of malicious motive
| to the BBC here.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSLV-C37
|
| https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/2403
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-24 23:01 UTC)