Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

earthsky.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 347 posts

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#31

Post by nicce »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

> Soon, McDowell told us, there will be up to 5 satellite reentries per day Starlink’s next-generation V3s, which will require Starship to launch, weigh in around 2 metric tonnes [1]. (They’re currently “around 260 and 310 kilograms” [2].) “Every day, Earth is bombarded with more than 100 tons [91 metric tons] of dust and sand-sized particles” [3]. So we’re talking about a 2 to 10% increase in burn-up by mass. (Not a…

There is a limit how much satellites LEO/GEO can hold unless every satellite has perfect dodging system. Called as Kessler syndrome [1], and one estimate is around 70k satellites. So it is a race who can get the most satellites orbiting, because after a certain point, there is no "space" anymore, and anyone who tries to launch after that point, will be blamed for destroying the satellites of the others. Winner takes all.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#32

Post by j45 »

londons_explore wrote: post #7
chermi wrote: post #6

[flagged]

0.018% of the worlds population have starlink subscriptions. Yet 100% put up with the atmospheric pollution of a lot of mass being plasmified on the way back to earth, the light pollution, the lack of other services delivered with that spectrum, etc. One might ask how the 99.982% of us will be compensated.

It's less about percentage.

Economic opportunity is largely shifting towards not only having internet access, but performant internet access.

Costs will come down. There will be alternatives.

But they might have taken much longer to come to market without something like this.

I'm not a fanboy, but there's obviously a lot of people who have worked hard to make Starlink a reality.

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#33

Post by adastra22 »

bwestergard wrote: post #26
SoftTalker wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The satellites are mostly metal and silicon I would guess, not too different from asteroids.

If someone has the time, I'd love to see the total amount of lead added to the atmosphere by burning up satellites compared to the amount from other anthropogenic sources.

Rough napkin math would be negligible impact. The amount of lead in a satellite is very small, if not actually zero. The amount of lead added by burning coal is about 30 tonnes per day.

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#34

Post by dgs_sgd »

nicce wrote: post #31
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

> Soon, McDowell told us, there will be up to 5 satellite reentries per day Starlink’s next-generation V3s, which will require Starship to launch, weigh in around 2 metric tonnes [1]. (They’re currently “around 260 and 310 kilograms” [2].) “Every day, Earth is bombarded with more than 100 tons [91 metric tons] of dust and sand-sized particles” [3]. So we’re talking about a 2 to 10% increase in burn-up by mass. (Not a…

There is a limit how much satellites LEO/GEO can hold unless every satellite has perfect dodging system. Called as Kessler syndrome [1], and one estimate is around 70k satellites. So it is a race who can get the most satellites orbiting, because after a certain point, there is no "space" anymore, and anyone who tries to launch after that point, will be blamed for destroying the satellites of the others. Winner takes…

I’m just a layman, but why can’t they increase the orbital radius to solve this problem? Like, if the current “layer” is too full, have the new satellites orbit further out?

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#35

Post by adastra22 »

josefritzishere wrote: post #29

I am not convinced that Starlink will continue to exist long term. They reported break even in 2023 but I don't think that included the ongoing cost of replacing satillites.

Their accounting does include that cost.

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#36

Post by bryanlarsen »

josefritzishere wrote: post #29

I am not convinced that Starlink will continue to exist long term. They reported break even in 2023 but I don't think that included the ongoing cost of replacing satillites.

They reported cash flow positive. "Cash flow positive" is a much stronger statement than "profitable" because it doesn't let you play games with amortization. So it included the ongoing cost of replacing satellites plus 100% costs of putting up new ones for future use where normal accounting would allow you to amortize those costs.

SpaceX is obviously quite profitable. They're obviously spending many billions annually on salaries, Starlink launches and Starship development yet they haven't raised significant money via debt or equity financing rounds in the last few years.

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#37

Post by thrance »

chermi wrote: post #6

[flagged]

Musk and his right-wing propaganda platform plays a big part in the destruction of Western democracy. He deserves the hate he is receiving. Providing internet to an insignificant fraction of the global population does not even begin to offset that.

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#38

Post by svmt »

Y-bar wrote: post #11
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

> Soon, McDowell told us, there will be up to 5 satellite reentries per day Starlink’s next-generation V3s, which will require Starship to launch, weigh in around 2 metric tonnes [1]. (They’re currently “around 260 and 310 kilograms” [2].) “Every day, Earth is bombarded with more than 100 tons [91 metric tons] of dust and sand-sized particles” [3]. So we’re talking about a 2 to 10% increase in burn-up by mass. (Not a…

Asking from a place of ignorance on my part, but does the chemical composition of the satellites versus asteroids/dust have any adverse effects?

Bloomberg ran a piece about this in March: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2025-space-orbit-satellit...

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#39

Post by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF »

nicce wrote: post #31
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

> Soon, McDowell told us, there will be up to 5 satellite reentries per day Starlink’s next-generation V3s, which will require Starship to launch, weigh in around 2 metric tonnes [1]. (They’re currently “around 260 and 310 kilograms” [2].) “Every day, Earth is bombarded with more than 100 tons [91 metric tons] of dust and sand-sized particles” [3]. So we’re talking about a 2 to 10% increase in burn-up by mass. (Not a…

There is a limit how much satellites LEO/GEO can hold unless every satellite has perfect dodging system. Called as Kessler syndrome [1], and one estimate is around 70k satellites. So it is a race who can get the most satellites orbiting, because after a certain point, there is no "space" anymore, and anyone who tries to launch after that point, will be blamed for destroying the satellites of the others. Winner takes…

A land grab. That might explain the desire to put anything in space, even something useless like mirrors to reflect sunlight
Post reply on HN