How much Delta-V would that take, and how much would they typically have onboard at the start of their life?
Starlink satellites being lowered from 550 km to 480 km
11–20 of 46 posts
Re: Starlink satellites being lowered from 550 km to 480 km
#12I wonder if this will improve latency and signal strength
Re: Starlink satellites being lowered from 550 km to 480 km
#13How much Delta-V would that take, and how much would they typically have onboard at the start of their life?
Drag is constantly pulling them down so maybe they won't have to use any propellant.
Re: Starlink satellites being lowered from 550 km to 480 km
#14That would surely also mean their expected lifespan is shorter too? Faster decay doesn’t just affect dead satellites
Idk seems like a strange move and the stated reason seems flimsy
Re: Starlink satellites being lowered from 550 km to 480 km
#15great move, we're continually about 2 days away from kessler if we lost maneuvering control on a constellation like starlink (ofc that's vanishingly unlikely, but it's important to understand that continual maneuvering is what keeps space accessible to humanity)
anything we can do to lower that risk is a good move, and dropping 70km of elevation for the largest satellite constellation is definitely going to make a dent in the risk profile
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.09643
i hope to see progress with air breathing ion engine satellites in the coming years to further lower the minimum altitudes that these constellations can operate at
Re: Starlink satellites being lowered from 550 km to 480 km
#16great move, we're continually about 2 days away from kessler if we lost maneuvering control on a constellation like starlink (ofc that's vanishingly unlikely, but it's important to understand that continual maneuvering is what keeps space accessible to humanity) anything we can do to lower that risk is a good move, and dropping 70km of elevation for the largest satellite constellation is definitely going to make a de…
> we're continually about 2 days away from kessler if we lost maneuvering control on a constellation like starlink
To be clear, we’d be at risk of losing those specific orbits for a few years. Nothing would block all orbits much less access to space. And nothing above those orbits would be any more statistically likely to suffer an impact afterwards.
Re: Starlink satellites being lowered from 550 km to 480 km
#17That would surely also mean their expected lifespan is shorter too? Faster decay doesn’t just affect dead satellites Idk seems like a strange move and the stated reason seems flimsy
> would surely also mean their expected lifespan is shorter too?
Are Starlinks being deörbited due to propellant exhaustion?
In many respects, Starlink satellites are small servers. They’re probably profitable to replace quicker than decay would force them to be.
Re: Starlink satellites being lowered from 550 km to 480 km
#18Usually 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…
> Usually orbits are reserved years in advance
Because planning missions took years to plan. Holidaygoers book hotels months and sometimes a year or more in advance. Business travelers don’t. That doesn’t make the latter unusual, just a different use case.
> Is this an emergency change to account for a design flaw that they just discovered?
Zero evidence or precedent for this.
Re: Starlink satellites being lowered from 550 km to 480 km
#19So 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?
They have ion thrusters that prevent them from losing altitude as long as they are operational.
> ion thrusters that prevent them from losing altitude as long as they are operational
Unintentional tautology. A satellite is by definition operational as long as it can station keep.
That said, yes, they should be able to station keep with ions alone. But also, ion propulsion still requires propellant. Until we figure out orbital magnetic suspension, it’s all reaction engines.
Re: Starlink satellites being lowered from 550 km to 480 km
#20Is this potentially a response to Russia's posturing around anti satellite weapons?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/intelligence-agencies-sus...