[HN Gopher] Starlink satellites being lowered from 550 km to 480 km
___________________________________________________________________
Starlink satellites being lowered from 550 km to 480 km
Author : wmf
Score : 35 points
Date : 2026-01-01 19:58 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| jagaerglad wrote:
| So instead of having to launch new satellites to replace the
| deorbited ones ever couple of years, do they have to send new
| ones every couple of months? Or can the functioning ones maintain
| their orbits somehow and this is only for the malfunctioning
| ones?
| lefra wrote:
| They have an ion thruster to compensate for atmospheric drag.
| m4rtink wrote:
| There has been some research (IIRC by ESA) for using the
| upper atmosphere to feed a ion engine. That way you should be
| able to put satellites even lower as long as they have enough
| power from solar panels and are functional.
| manmal wrote:
| They have ion thrusters that prevent them from losing altitude
| as long as they are operational.
| jws wrote:
| It sounds like this corresponds to an atmospheric contraction.
| They are lowering to avoid extending the lifetime of possible
| debris, but that also probably means the regular lifetime is
| not shortened. They are just staying in the designed density to
| match their designed service lives. The field of view of the
| satellites will be reduced, but presumably they have enough
| units up there to maintain full coverage.
|
| This is distinct from the FCC application they have made for
| another Starlink shell in VLEO (~330km) for another 15000
| satellites to better serve cellular phones.
| verzali wrote:
| At 480km there will be increased drag, even as we get closer
| to the solar minimum. The trade-off may be between using
| propellant for collision avoidance vs using it to counter
| altitude loss and for station keeping.
|
| Maybe it is also linked to the falling altitude of the ISS?
| 480km is about the upper bound of its altitude but they seem
| unlikely to actually raise it that high before it is
| deorbited.
| wmf wrote:
| Usually orbits are reserved years in advance. AFAIK this kind of
| move is unprecedented (although everything about Starlink is
| unprecedented since it's the first megaconstellation).
|
| Two weeks ago, a Starlink satellite exploded. SpaceX believes it
| wasn't caused by a collision which means the explosion was
| probably caused by a malfunction in the satellite itself. Now
| 4,400 Starlink satellites are moving to a lower orbit for
| "safety". Is this an emergency change to account for a design
| flaw that they just discovered?
| vipa123 wrote:
| How much Delta-V would that take, and how much would they
| typically have onboard at the start of their life?
| GeertB wrote:
| I wonder if this will improve latency and signal strength
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-01 23:01 UTC)