SpaceX: World record number of satellites launched(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
SpaceX: World record number of satellites launched
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55775977
56 comments
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.
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.
Polar launches out of Florida are not some special SpaceX magic. It has more to do with the capabilities of the Eastern Range.
Yeah, I hear ya.
This was not the 0x5F3759DF of rocket science.
My friends and I are simply rooting for a fellow South African.
Everything SpaceX do is special SpaceX magic to us. And those live-streaming youtubers from the NASA channel are a fun bunch.
Their commentary during the static fire tests the other day kept us company whilst we were working - good fun.
I guess I'm just easy to please.
This was not the 0x5F3759DF of rocket science.
My friends and I are simply rooting for a fellow South African.
Everything SpaceX do is special SpaceX magic to us. And those live-streaming youtubers from the NASA channel are a fun bunch.
Their commentary during the static fire tests the other day kept us company whilst we were working - good fun.
I guess I'm just easy to please.
Sure, but the first polar launch from Florida since 1969 happened this August on a Falcon 9, so they do have a role in making this a reality.
Did anyone else fly that trajectory actually since August or is it SpaceX only so far ?
Did anyone else fly that trajectory actually since August or is it SpaceX only so far ?
> This had not been done in decades if I remember correctly.
Not in decades at the Cape, perhaps.
I can't recall exactly who (maybe India/ISRO?) Do it frequently due to dropping first stages on neighbours being a faux Pas.
Not in decades at the Cape, perhaps.
I can't recall exactly who (maybe India/ISRO?) Do it frequently due to dropping first stages on neighbours being a faux Pas.
Back in ~1969 they did drop stages on Cuba IIRC.
Other than that no one really drops stages on neighbors - China drops them on their own (evacuated) villages on land and other rockets are often designed the way they are due to the need of not dropping stages on people - Shavit launching westwards or PSLV/GSLV staging in a specific way to avoid dropping stages on some inhabitted islands.
Other than that no one really drops stages on neighbors - China drops them on their own (evacuated) villages on land and other rockets are often designed the way they are due to the need of not dropping stages on people - Shavit launching westwards or PSLV/GSLV staging in a specific way to avoid dropping stages on some inhabitted islands.
Finally might be a way out of paying the exorbitant data charges, and obscure usage requirements, of Iridium.
The landing also looked pretty close to Cuba.
this was their _second_ polar orbit mission from Florida
first was SAOCOM 1B back in August 2020: https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/08/31/spacex-launches-first-...
first was SAOCOM 1B back in August 2020: https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/08/31/spacex-launches-first-...
Thanks, that’s right.
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.
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.
I know these cubesats don't stay up for long in LEO, but at what point does it become too many cubesats?
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.atl.calpoly.edu/~workshop/archive/2016/Spring/Da...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Other cars can steer around a badly stopped car. Satellites can't. A better analogy would be if once they entered their lane, cars would have to travel down it at their maximum speed, without being able to steer, or brake. Under those constraints, I, uh, wouldn't get into a car.
Cars are also not phased if they run over a loose bolt. The same can't be said for satellites.
> We don't do it yet with satellites.
Basic orbital mechanics indicates that we won't ever be able to clean up Kessler-syndrome space debris in a remotely-economical manner. There'd be too much of it, and it would travel at vastly disjoint orbits.
Orbit changes are extremely expensive.
Cars are also not phased if they run over a loose bolt. The same can't be said for satellites.
> We don't do it yet with satellites.
Basic orbital mechanics indicates that we won't ever be able to clean up Kessler-syndrome space debris in a remotely-economical manner. There'd be too much of it, and it would travel at vastly disjoint orbits.
Orbit changes are extremely expensive.
Satellites have propulsion and sometimes adjust orbit.
Maybe a bolt wont break your car, but a nail will flatten your tire.
And most of the time we don't clean much the highways: a lot of small debris end up here and there...
The problem is indeed that cleanup is expansive and not interesting when it's not such a big hazard, but after some time the sum of those small hazards become a big problem, and the sum of cleanups almost impossible.
Maybe a bolt wont break your car, but a nail will flatten your tire.
And most of the time we don't clean much the highways: a lot of small debris end up here and there...
The problem is indeed that cleanup is expansive and not interesting when it's not such a big hazard, but after some time the sum of those small hazards become a big problem, and the sum of cleanups almost impossible.
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..."
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..."
> 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Good point, if you put too many in one place it might cause a gravitational collapse & create a new singularity.
What are the implications of that?
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.
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.
Sounds like a good investment opportunity. Would invest if it was possible.
did you mean 420 satellites? https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-president-teases-starship-s...
The starship design evolved quite a lot since October 2019 when this Arthas published. Was it even to be made of steel back then?
Are satellites the size of books required to have a method of self de-orbiting? Or are they in orbits that have limited lifespans?
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.
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.
I wonder what regulations would need to be followed if spacex did their launches from a modified oil rig in international waters?
American regulations. Because of ITAR, SpaceX cannot legally export any of their development or manufacturing. This means they are, and will always be, subject to all the other American regulation too.
And there is precedent that even if an American company launches their satellite from somewhere that is not the USA, they still have to follow all the American regulation. See FCC and Swarm Technologies over the SpaceBee 1-4 launch.
And there is precedent that even if an American company launches their satellite from somewhere that is not the USA, they still have to follow all the American regulation. See FCC and Swarm Technologies over the SpaceBee 1-4 launch.
Probably the regulations of the country the oil rig is registered in.
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
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.
[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
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
Yea, I saw that. It seems the key thing is the ratio of surface area to mass. It seems reasonable for a smaller satellite to have higher surface area to mass, and thus deorbit faster, but I don't have a handy link to that data.
The Planetary Society Lightsail 1 mission was a 3U cubesat and went down really quickly from LEO once it unfurled its solar sail - IIRC it basically multiplied its cross-section 300 times.
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...
wiki citation - https://spacenews.com/starlink-failures-highlight-space-sust...
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.
And some clouds. Children love clouds.
"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.
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.
"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
Nationalistic flamewar is particularly not where we want to go here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
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
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]
[deleted]
aparsons(1)
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