SpaceX’s Starlink satellite internet constellation has lost more than two hundred satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO) since July, according to data from a satellite tracking website. This is the first time that Starlink has lost a significant number of satellites in a short time period, and these losses are typically influenced by solar flares that cause changes in orbit and damage or destroy the spacecraft. The nature of the satellites, i.e. their model, is unclear, and if they are the newer Starlink satellites that SpaceX regularly launches, then the firm will have to conduct at least nine Falcon 9 launches to make up for the satellites lost.

Since it is a SpaceX subsidiary, Starlink has rapidly built the world’s largest LEO satellite internet constellation and the world’s largest satellite constellation by rapidly launching them through the Falcon 9 rocket. However, upgrades to the spacecraft and constraints with the Falcon 9 have reduced the number of satellites that the firm can launch, with its latest launches seeing roughly 22 satellites per launch for a nearly one-third reduction over the 60 satellites that SpaceX launched during the early days of the Starlink buildout.

The newer satellites are second-generation spacecraft that SpaceX received the launch authorization from the FCC less than a year back. They are more powerful and are thus larger and heavier than the earlier satellites, which limits the Falcon 9 ability to squeeze large numbers inside a single payload fairing.

Satellites in orbit or space have to face off against various hazards that can damage or put them out of commission. SpaceX faced one such event in February 2022, when a solar flare damaged at least 40 of the recently launched satellites. SpaceX confirmed this and shared that the heat from the solar flare increased atmospheric density and made it impossible for the satellites to maintain their trajectory.

  • geosocoOP
    link
    fedilink
    41 year ago

    I understand a lot more about this than you’re assuming.

    I’ve seen this Linus video, plus I’ve seen projects like these work and have a good grasp on the cost. The Linus video can’t explain any of that, And he’s pretty clueless in general.

    There’s a reason google and other companies use wireless and cell for this exact reason. Building ands maintenance is cheaper than satellites.

    Your estimates assume totally new infrastructure, but that’s not the case for most rural communities. They have existing infrastructure that can be upgraded. You’re also wrongly assuming they’re going to put up towers across this distance. They would only put them where needed.

    More importantly this is in comparison to satellites, which are even more expensive and this particular low orbit has a short lifespan.

    It’s not a solution for the cabin in the top of Mount Everest or the middle of the ocean, but as i said in my original reply they are best for the vast majority of people.

    There is a need for satellite communication comms, but we have it already today. I’m just not convinced this particular project is worth the cost.

    Again most importantly, there’s not a ton of evidence that people living in remote areas want broadband.

    • @deleted
      link
      English
      11 year ago

      Totally agree.

      They must have cellular coverage to begin with so they don’t probably need towers.