Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX: World record number of satellites launched

bbc.co.uk

21–30 of 57 posts

Re: SpaceX: World record number of satellites launched

#21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know these cubesats don't stay up for long in LEO, but at what point does it become too many cubesats?

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.

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.

Re: SpaceX: World record number of satellites launched

#22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can we spin this as a bad thing, right?

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.

> 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.

Re: SpaceX: World record number of satellites launched

#23
post #13
post #8

Are satellites the size of books required to have a method of self de-orbiting? Or are they in orbits that have limited lifespans?

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

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.

Re: SpaceX: World record number of satellites launched

#24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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…

> 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.

Re: SpaceX: World record number of satellites launched

#25
post #4
post #3

Estimates are that the spacex starship could launch 240 starlink satellites. I can't imagine how many cubes they could hold.

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.

By those calculations, todays launch could have brought 15600 cubesats to orbit.

Re: SpaceX: World record number of satellites launched

#26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can we spin this as a bad thing, right?

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.

> [...] 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..."

Re: SpaceX: World record number of satellites launched

#27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can we spin this as a bad thing, right?

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.

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.

Re: SpaceX: World record number of satellites launched

#29
post #4
post #3

Estimates are that the spacex starship could launch 240 starlink satellites. I can't imagine how many cubes they could hold.

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.

What are the implications of that?

Re: SpaceX: World record number of satellites launched

#30
post #23
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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

Post reply on HN