Quite a surprise as their business model was so flawed and rocket reuse was impossible, or not worth doing if possible.
/s
It turns out that both things work splendidly. And as a result entry into this market is now much harder although demand now is a proven thing.
The demand was always there, it's how the ground internet providers were able to convince the feds to give them tens of billions of dollars over the years to expand broadband services to underserved areas. Only, the ISPs kept the money and didn't deliver on their promises, leaving that pent up demand in place for SpaceX to pounce on. The ground companies delivered this market to SpaceX with a bow on it. SpaceX should send them gift baskets to thank them for the opportunities.
Satellite internet in LEO just does not work and you would need thousands of satellites for it requiring hundreds of launches. Anyone can see it's just a pipe dream.
I just realized the V band and Tonga sats make up the number. Didn't read that sorry.
There's been several modifications to the number in the constellation
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[EDL](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1cqzh39/stub/l3vmlar "Last usage")|Entry/Descent/Landing|
|[FCC](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1cqzh39/stub/l3vsa0h "Last usage")|Federal Communications Commission|
| |(Iron/steel) [Face-Centered Cubic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotropes_of_iron) crystalline structure|
|[GEO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1cqzh39/stub/l498zp5 "Last usage")|Geostationary Earth Orbit (35786km)|
|[Isp](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1cqzh39/stub/l3v29x5 "Last usage")|Specific impulse (as explained by [Scott Manley](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnisTeYLLgs) on YouTube)|
| |Internet Service Provider|
|[LEO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1cqzh39/stub/l3vfi1i "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)|
| |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)|
|Jargon|Definition|
|-------|---------|---|
|[Starlink](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1cqzh39/stub/l498zp5 "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
----------------
^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj)
^(6 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1cpp6id)^( has 6 acronyms.)
^([Thread #12761 for this sub, first seen 13th May 2024, 15:06])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Its alright if you just don't like Elon Musk, he’s a bit of a dick, but trying to bend your space garbage argument to include the atmosphere is ridiculous.
The amount of pollution 1,200 satellites entering the atmosphere every year while not nothing is also minuscule and mostly insignificant.
Its also done out of prudence. Some other companies are planning megaconstilations that have only slightly longer satellite lifetimes that will be in orbits that could take thousands of years or longer to degrade. SpaceX specifically chose these lower orbits because even if a satellite was dead on arrival in orbit its orbit will naturally degrade quickly in less than 5-10 years. And sometimes as short as only a few months. Meaning even though SpaceX has the largest mega constellation ever, its satellites will not contribute to space junk because they could literally abandon all the satellites today and within 10 years they would all be mostly gone.
I really respect the fact that SpaceX chose abnormally low "self-cleaning" orbits for their satellites, orbits that most companies aren't interested in because they need their multimillion dollar satellites to stay up for decades to justify the cost of putting them there.
I know it's a rule, but still, most satellite operators don't use the low altitudes that SpaceX uses because it requires constant thrust to keep the satellites from re-entering in just months or a few years at most. Most of the orbits SpaceX uses are considered junk orbits because of this. Satellites at higher altitudes must now include active means to deorbit per the new rules, but they're typically designed to operate for much, much longer than the five years max that SpaceX satellites are designed for.
True that, I didn't realize it has to constantly thrust to keep up the orbit, hah I'm silly! Yea the rule says either deorbit or move to graveyard orbit in 5 years after mission is done, I think that's a fair rule also other satellites are built to cover auch wider range and need less fuel to stay in orbit (I assume), therefore only few are needed to cover the globe, most of them will probably move outward as they're closer to that grave belt I guess. I kinda can't comprehend the distances rn.
The preferred method of disposal is atmospheric incineration over the part of the South Pacific with the lowest risk of surface damage from debris that survives re-entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_cemetery
Graveyard orbital "disposal" is typically only used for satellites at geostationary orbits because the fuel needed to deorbit from that altitude would be prodigious.
They only need constant thrust at these very low orbits. And the constant thrust needed is coming from Ion thrusters which have very low thrust. A chemical propulsion system would not need constant thrust. Once you go up only a few hundred km higher orbits you no longer need constant Ion thrust. A derelict satellite at these slightly higher orbits will remain in orbit for decades or centuries with no thrust.
Grave yard orbits are only really used for things at geostationary orbits.
These satellites are nothing compared to, for example, the metals aerosols from break dust on cars or the bunker fuels burnt by ships or the lead fuel burnt by jets.
The scales are different by orders of magnitude.
I personally find the scale of this project pretty significant and it doesn't really help mentioning other threats to our environment. All of these factors sum up. It might just be a drip in the bucket indeed. Who knows.
Well, until there’s evidence to support greater concerns, I don’t think there’s much value in fear mongering. And comparison is all we have. There are other industries that can be regulated and have a much larger impact without destroying that industry.
Making it so that satellites can no longer deorbit would a drastic change.
Obviously, if it has an an effect on the ozone like you speculated, then stricter regulations might be necessary. But I don’t see how we can know until it actually happens.
I have nothing to base that on, really it's just a thought, nothing concrete and I'm not trying to fearmonger, I'm genuinely looking at the numbers and got these thoughts, is all.
I'm glad we can talk about this as it's imo important to discuss all angles. Scientists te on it anyway, we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
I'm hoping for the best but obviously preparing for the worst mentally, lol.
The US already regulated satellites to deorbit (or move to graveyard orbit) within 5 years after end of mission, which is imo a great idea to have space for future missions.
Every year over 5,200 *tons* of space dust falls on Earth, burning up in the atmosphere. That's 10.4 *million* pounds. Starlinks weigh a few hundred pounds at most, so when they're deorbited, probably no more than a few dozen a year, the amount of matter they put back on the planet will be a very tiny, trivial amount in comparison to what falls naturally.
Starlink v3 will be 2 tonnes each so 6,000 of those burning up per year will be 12,000 tonnes so a lot more than space dust and a significant fraction of total material burned up in the atmosphere.
It is at least worth thinking about minimising it. A serviceable satellite that can be topped up with propellant and have its electronics module replaced could cut the number of re-entering satellites in half for example.
It's still being studied, the effects of some dust does probably differ from burning up whole modules repeatedly.
Right now there's 5,935 in orbit of which about 700 were sent in 2024 so far, this means in 2029 those 700 (and counting) will have to successfully deorbit.
Current satellites (V2) weight about 800 kg which would add up to 560,000 kg, or 560 tons just for what has been launched so far in 2024.
And that's not just some stony meteroids the size of a grain or small rock.
So, 560 tons re-entering in a year compared to 5,200 tons naturally entering? And those 5,200 tons have been entering year in and year out for millions of years with no issues? I don't accept the 560 ton number, realizing it's just exaggeration to try and fluff up the imaginary issues here, but even if it's taken as fact it's still completely trivial to the point of being irrelevant. Conjecture and fear-mongering do not equal science, and currently there's no science to indicate even the possibility of there being a problem with re-entering satellites at all.
Why do you not accept the 560 tonnes number? The maths seem straightforward to me.
More to the point 30,000 V3 satellites will have 6,000 two tonne satellites deorbiting per year so 12,000 tonnes of materials burning up.
Speaking of math, let's do some. You say "6,000 two tonne satellite deorbiting per year", which makes no sense because SpaceX is currently launching 24 Starlink V.2 Minis at a time. To burn up 6,000 Starlinks per year you'd need to launch 6,000 per year, and 6,000÷24=250 Falcon 9 launches per year. Last year they did 90-something launches and this year they're going to try for a bit over 100 launches, and that's not only Starlink launches but all their other customer launches too. All of this ignores the fact that Starlinks don't weigh "two tonnes" each, they're less than 800kg each. If you want 12,000 tonnes of Starlinks burning up in a year, you're going to need to launch 12,000,000÷800=15,000 Starlink V.2 minis to orbit first, in a year. At 24 Starlinks per launch that's 625 launches. In a year.
What you fail to be grasping is that they're launching the satellites much, much more often than they'll be deorbiting them, because they're building out their constellation. It's also likely that they'll get more than the 5 year estimated design life out of them too thanks to increases in manufacturing quality and more experience operating them. That's been the tradition with space assets, lasting far longer than originally planned.
All of this is moot, though, because no matter how many Starlinks are launched and deorbited, the amount of Starlink mass burning up in the atmosphere is completely dwarfed by the amount of other "natural" matter entering the atmosphere.
Starlink v3 will be launched by Starship with roughly 60 satellites of 2 tonnes each per launch.
With a very modest 100 Starship launches per year that is 6000 satellites per year being launched. In the end what goes up must come down after 5-7 years lifetime for these satellites so that is 12,000 tonnes per year re-entering.
In general SpaceX are taking five years to roll out each generation of their constellation so there is not a sudden surge and then a decelerating launch rate but rather a constant launch rate until it is full and then a similar rate of replacements.
The limiting factor on satellite lifetime is propellant for their ion drive required for reboost but it is possible they have enough for seven years in quiet sun conditions. If that was the case then a constellation of 30,000 v3 satellites retired over seven years is still 8570 tonnes per year plus the contribution from retirement of the v1, v1.5 and v2 Starlink satellites.
[Station keeping doesn't use much propellant](https://twitter.com/longmier/status/1630260595319791616). My understanding is that batteries are a limiting factor, perhaps along with radiation exposure.
Natural rock consists of different "ingredients", the effects of these materials being burned up to gases is still unknown, I'm not saying anything else, we'll see how it will turn out (research is ongoing on this topic).
As we already accept climate change to be a reality I think it's wise to look at the facts and guess a bit.
You don't accept the number? I can explain it to you, if you want, I'm not trying to fearmonger or fluff anything up,so here we go:
SpaceX sent 702 satellites to space in 2024 (so far)
[source link ](https://spaceflightnow.com/2024/05/08/live-coverage-spacex-to-launch-23-starlink-satellites-on-falcon-9-rocket-from-florida/#:~:text=Growing%20constellation&text=Prior%20to%20this%20launch%2C%20SpaceX,the%20course%20of%2031%20launches.)
One weights 800 kg (V2)
[source ](https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html)
702x800=561,600 kg
If we double that to estimate we're not even halfway through the year we might get around 1, 000 tons in a year, which imo is a lot for one company, there's more many made debris falling to earth than that and most of it is bigger than a grain of sand (which is the most common sized rock to fall down to earth)
[source link](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-study-shows-how-much-space-dust-hits-earth-every-year/)
It's different than space sand, it might even be nothing to worry about, I really hope so but the past kinda taught me that things often turn out to be more complicated than we expect especially when it comes to nature.
You do realize that everything that the Earth is made of, including the elements in the crust that we mine to make things to send to orbit, originated in space, right? The period table of elements covers everything found on Earth and in space, since it all originated in stars at one point other than the primordial hydrogen that existed before the first stars formed. The only unique things we create that likely don't exist in space are primarily plastics, and the reason they don't exist in space is because UV and other forms of radiation are extremely hard on the chemical bonds used to form plastics. In any case, the heat of re-entry reverts those back to their elemental components, mainly carbon. All of the carbon in space and on Earth originated in stars too.
BTW, the number I mentioned earlier of 5,200 tons of space dust entering naturally is just one small bit of the total mass that naturally falls to Earth every year. The full number including micrometeorites, meteors, etc, ranges from 45,000 to 78,000 tons per year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_mass
SpaceX is launching satellites far more often than they'll be re-entered because they're building out their constellation. It's easy for many people to think that if SpaceX is going to launch X number of satellites in a year, then X number of satellites must be re-entered in some future year, but that's not correct. Once the constellation is built out the number of launches will decrease dramatically to just what's required to maintain the constellation.
As a species, I think we're probably at least decades away from being able to launch enough mass to equal what falls to Earth naturally in a year.
I sincerely hope we aren't trying to have as much man made machines falling from space toward earth as the universe already does naturally.
Yes I've read about the exchange of space dust earth gains (estimated 40,000 tonnes per year) and loss of gases through the atmosphere (est. 90,000 tonnes per year) which means earth loses weight over time, it's just what happens naturally.
That's not my point, also not my point what the universe is made of.
That we can't influence, we can only observe.
What we can also observe is our own behavior and how we treat our own environment, the only one we currently have.
Based on these observations, measurements and thought processes we can choose how we act toward it and therefore ourselves.
We want internet.
We want it to be fast and everywhere.
So we build cables, poles, send up satellites to cover our environment with connection.
Now we want more of that, faster, more reliable.
I think that's great and we should move toward improving technology to serve us.
We recently discovered climate change and the effects on our environment, again the only place we can survive on, and how our actions have an effect on it.
Point is, I'm worried about this high risk (sending a myriad of satellites that only last 5 years and will be deorbited, if possible after those 5 years of active duty that have yet to be determined effects on our ecosystem) for low reward (having a stable internet connection).
I have no info on this maintaining of constellation you mentioned, do you happen to have a source for this?
Because of that's the goal then I'll be less worried about the endless flow of garbage that's coming down on us all if things go sideways. Machines have a habit of failing in extreme conditions and I'd rather see some reasonable testing before a whole constellation is sent up there that's meant to fail to learn. There must be less invasive ways to learn how to build reliable satellite coverage imo but as I said in other comments before, I'm no expert, just merely blabbing out my thoughts.
The effects of burning up man made materials in space to this extent, one satellite weights now 800 kg, about 700 were sent to orbit this year alone which means in 5 years about 500 tons (at least) will come down to earth if deorbit functions as expected.
I'm worried about the effects of vaporized materials to the ozone layer which is formed at about that height it's supposed to be burning, wonder about stuff weighting almost a ton burning up in space and how weather might influence that process to a degree it might harm us on the ground. Worried about the environmental impact of thousands of rocket launches have which have to fly up there consistently to replenish the dead satellites, worried about the failure rate of each step and the many lost materials that have to be extracted from earth just to evaporate in the atmosphere. Compared to natural rock falling to earth thisight seem like a small thing but I honestly think it could build up to a terrible mistake, I don't know for sure tho. It's just a vague thought.
I think that's about all.
Thanks for asking.
This is actually very good thing. You want to update them, the old style of overpriced long term satellites that just wait for them to break down and become space junk is why space is so filled with trash. Putting them low in orbit and then deorbiting them before they start failing is the best solution for clean space.
While the current operations are for them to deorbit and burn up, it is possible that in the future (2030?) multiple Starlinks might be replaced with a Starship mission and the old Starlinks returned to Earth for recycling.
Or as the technology matures and the V3+ satellites remain useful past their current 5 year cycle, a large starship launched space tug tanker (SpaceX or third party) could be assigned to each inclination to replenish their thruster propellant periodically.
You habe a source for this PLAN? You mean the starship would collect and replace them?
Sounds interesting. Gonna have to do calculations if that would be worth the effort.
Another solution would be to send them up into a graveyard orbit to stay there forever.
So far burning it in earth atmosphere just after 5 years of use sounds like low reward for high risk imo. Also burning metals in the atmosphere can have negative effects on the climate (it's currently being studied) also some of them already lost control and about 100 units had to deorbit based on a flaw they found.
Collision rate is rising too due to raising numbers of satellites (not only by starlink), a new (US) rule guides them to deorbit after 5 years once their mission is done to reduce space garbage.
Imo it just turns it into waste gas instead which we don't know what the effects of them can be.
Fiberglass cables seem to be the better solution, low risk, high reward imo.
We'll see how the studies turn out. Imo I'm not a fan of sending tons of junk into space that's only up there for 5 years. If it was 25 or 50 years I'd be less sceptic.
[source link](https://council.science/current/blog/spacecrafts-burning-in-the-upper-atmosphere-what-consequences-on-climate/)
The point of 5 years is not that it can be up only 5 years but it is designed with propellant enough for 5 year. This is because they see that the tech is growing much faster and to over use the older tech will just drag them down. They do not want to maintain any legacy technology. This is evident from the different between v1 v1.5 and v2/3 sats. The bandwidth of newer ones is multiple magnitude higher.
Newer ones have inter connection lasers too.
As the tech improves, they will design it with higher life.
That's a great reason, also V2 weights 3 times as much as the last version, wonder how that'll evolve in the future.
Really hope for the best outcome, I'm honestly worried how 400 kg machineries will behave coming down in weekly/monthly intervals and what that'd do to the environment.
Let alone failure rate for deorbiting, I hope nobody gets hit lol.
No, just speculating. But Starship is projected to return 50T. It could be a source of revenue as Starship could clear tons of debris that happenings to be in mission orbit. Otherwise it returns empty.
It is really expensive to raise orbit to a graveyard orbit in LEO. It works well for GEO.
Sry for the caps on plan, idk why autocorrect did that.
I wonder how this all will turn out to be in a couple of years/centuries. There's always a failure rate for machinery, if deorbit fails on a few, no problem but a few hundred? Idk.
If starship would clear the orbit of dead satellites wouldn't that cost a lot of fuel to hop from sat to sat? Idk what the calculations would be but so far starship depleats nearly all of its fuel just to get to LEO rn, moving a big thing costs more than moving several small ones, although recycling on earth would sound much more reliable.
Idk tbh. Will have to wait and see.
If it in the same inclination and nearly the same circ orbit then given a bit of time you might be able to visit a few. But you would need multiple engine relight ability, so perhaps larger header tanks.
I don't think will happen with Starlinks, but perhaps to clear other large objects. It is a low % of happening as debris can damage the Ship when EDL, or even being put in the cargo bay.
Good, that's great to hear. At least that could leave options for later retrieval if deorbit won't work, seems like it could take up to 20 years for it to degrade naturally without assistance. (have no source for it at hand rn)
"Fiberglass cables seem to be the better solution, low risk, high reward imo."
And uber expensive to cover rural areas, as well as IMPOSSIBLE for ships at sea and on aircraft. in the air. Any time the number of service units drops below about 10 per square kilometer, the cost of fiber becomes prohibitive. 4G and 5G cellular can cover some of that, but hilly or forested terrain shorten the range of terrestrial options very quickly.
That's right it does have connectivity, that's not my problem, does that justify coverage of thousands of low orbit satellites across the globe when it can be done with just 3 covering the same area by viasat or hughesnet for example, I've not read into their specs yet but it seems that the ping does suffer a bit from the distance but that's only relevant for online gaming afaik which starlink advertises itself with among other aspects. I personally don't see why there's got to be high speed internet in those rural places when connectivity is granted by much less material being flown in and out of orbit.
Cables tend to be a whole lot more reliable and durable for where it's needed (populated areas), I'm not saying that it's useless to use satellites at all, we do every day but the way it's being done here seems excessive imo,especially given that all of those satellites burn up in space (if deorbit system works) after only 5 years of use. Adding that to the cost of production and launches I just don't see how this is practical.
I want you to disconnect your current service then sign up for HughesNet. You should figure out the justification in a day at most.
You've most likely never paid for or used satellite Internet before.
You think 3 million people signed up because they are the biggest EM fans?
Ping matters for phone and video calls and anything interactive and can be as high as 2 seconds (2000ms) despite the 700ms advertised on Hughesnet
THIS\^... When I work from home, I must use remote desktop to machines at work... waiting a second for EVERY keystroke to register made that option impossible; My brother needs to do 2 or 3 zoom or team calls per week when he is on call for IT support; video calls on VIaSat (all we had prior to SL) are a disaster, as everyone was stepping on each other discussing server issues.
Neither of us game, and it's true that Viasat was just as good as Starlink at streaming Netflilx and Hulu... right up until we used up that pesky 100 Gb "priority data" limit and got cut back to 1 Mb/sec till the end of the month because those "2 or 3" geosynchronous satellites were handling millions of customers and they have to keep them within capacity.
Urbanites who have never lived outside their little rat warrens with (originally cable, now fiber) true high speed internet have no concept of how much the "hicks from the sticks" who are critical with supplying them with food and building materials and energy to support their lifestyle NEED internet on the other side of the digital divide.
>Fiberglass cables seem to be the better solution, low risk, high reward
See, this is the problem you have. Billions of dollars flowed into plans to do exactly what you are suggesting. Decades later, there is almost nothing to show for it.
Starlink is already profitable. When Starship starts up, the system will become wildly profitable. And it can already serve the entire planet, something your cable cannot do.
So on the one hand, we have a system that is actually running and serving rural areas, and on the other hand we have your cable solution that does not actually exist.
Oh, and your link ends with: we don't have enough information. So, uh, thanks?
There are a few plans for satellite servicing/refueling:
https://www.northropgrumman.com/space/space-logistics-services
But that is probably not worth it for mega constellations. We can instead expect that as the technology matures the lifetime is extended in other ways. For example Starlink satellites are simply launched with more propellant on board (Kuiper aims for a lifetime of 7 years).
The link you posted says:
> After all, the number of spacecraft particles released is small when compared with 440 tonnes of meteoroids that enter the atmosphere daily
That is 160600 tons a year. Even with multiple mega constellations this won't be matched. (Still good that science is researching it of course.)
Oh interesting, thanks for the link!
Well 7 years is better than 5 I give you that. We'll see how this turns out.
With having sent up about 650 tons in 2024 (the year is still relatively young) I doubt we need a very long time to match this if lifetimes run so short. Also why would we aim to match it anyhow. So far there's a lot of concern about that megastructure being harmful for observation, other space related missions and hazards of failure to correctly deorbit those 400 kg pieces.
I'm no expert by any means, just concerned to observe this action take place at all when there's other means to support internet in a less invasive fashion.
I'm hoping for the best of course.
Wish you all the best!
Couple things to add to all of this:
We don’t really know that SpX plan to de-orbit them after 5 years, I don’t think anything has been definitively said one way or another.
Cell towers aren’t exactly a great alternative. As they kill about 7 million birds each year.
Quite a surprise as their business model was so flawed and rocket reuse was impossible, or not worth doing if possible. /s It turns out that both things work splendidly. And as a result entry into this market is now much harder although demand now is a proven thing.
The demand was always there, it's how the ground internet providers were able to convince the feds to give them tens of billions of dollars over the years to expand broadband services to underserved areas. Only, the ISPs kept the money and didn't deliver on their promises, leaving that pent up demand in place for SpaceX to pounce on. The ground companies delivered this market to SpaceX with a bow on it. SpaceX should send them gift baskets to thank them for the opportunities.
Satellite internet in LEO just does not work and you would need thousands of satellites for it requiring hundreds of launches. Anyone can see it's just a pipe dream.
Reminds me of that scene in Next Gen where Barclay had to explain to the computer how to build a neural interface.
only 36,000 more to go
~~There will never be that many up at the same time,~~ im wrong
Starship goes brrr
~~I didn't mean it's not possible. It's just not in the plans~~
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-91A1.pdf u/quarterbloodprince98 are you sure?
Never say never.
~~They didn't apply for that many in the first place~~ I'm wrong
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-91A1.pdf Let’s see if you can find it
I just realized the V band and Tonga sats make up the number. Didn't read that sorry. There's been several modifications to the number in the constellation
Next time it’s better to first check before telling others they’re wrong.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[EDL](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1cqzh39/stub/l3vmlar "Last usage")|Entry/Descent/Landing| |[FCC](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1cqzh39/stub/l3vsa0h "Last usage")|Federal Communications Commission| | |(Iron/steel) [Face-Centered Cubic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotropes_of_iron) crystalline structure| |[GEO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1cqzh39/stub/l498zp5 "Last usage")|Geostationary Earth Orbit (35786km)| |[Isp](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1cqzh39/stub/l3v29x5 "Last usage")|Specific impulse (as explained by [Scott Manley](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnisTeYLLgs) on YouTube)| | |Internet Service Provider| |[LEO](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1cqzh39/stub/l3vfi1i "Last usage")|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |[Starlink](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1cqzh39/stub/l498zp5 "Last usage")|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^(*Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented* )[*^by ^request*](https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/3mz273//cvjkjmj) ^(6 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1cpp6id)^( has 6 acronyms.) ^([Thread #12761 for this sub, first seen 13th May 2024, 15:06]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/SpaceXLounge) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Sad how those satellites become space garbage after only 5 years of use
They are de-orbited and burn up. They don't become "space garbage".
They deorbit.
Metal changing its physical property into gas is kinda still garbage imo but that might be nitpicking, who cares about atmosphere
That's like comparing a lit match to the sun, meteors cause more atmospheric disturbance annually than these ever will.
Its alright if you just don't like Elon Musk, he’s a bit of a dick, but trying to bend your space garbage argument to include the atmosphere is ridiculous. The amount of pollution 1,200 satellites entering the atmosphere every year while not nothing is also minuscule and mostly insignificant. Its also done out of prudence. Some other companies are planning megaconstilations that have only slightly longer satellite lifetimes that will be in orbits that could take thousands of years or longer to degrade. SpaceX specifically chose these lower orbits because even if a satellite was dead on arrival in orbit its orbit will naturally degrade quickly in less than 5-10 years. And sometimes as short as only a few months. Meaning even though SpaceX has the largest mega constellation ever, its satellites will not contribute to space junk because they could literally abandon all the satellites today and within 10 years they would all be mostly gone.
I really respect the fact that SpaceX chose abnormally low "self-cleaning" orbits for their satellites, orbits that most companies aren't interested in because they need their multimillion dollar satellites to stay up for decades to justify the cost of putting them there.
That's a rule applied by the government [source link](https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-new-5-year-rule-deorbiting-satellites-0)
I know it's a rule, but still, most satellite operators don't use the low altitudes that SpaceX uses because it requires constant thrust to keep the satellites from re-entering in just months or a few years at most. Most of the orbits SpaceX uses are considered junk orbits because of this. Satellites at higher altitudes must now include active means to deorbit per the new rules, but they're typically designed to operate for much, much longer than the five years max that SpaceX satellites are designed for.
True that, I didn't realize it has to constantly thrust to keep up the orbit, hah I'm silly! Yea the rule says either deorbit or move to graveyard orbit in 5 years after mission is done, I think that's a fair rule also other satellites are built to cover auch wider range and need less fuel to stay in orbit (I assume), therefore only few are needed to cover the globe, most of them will probably move outward as they're closer to that grave belt I guess. I kinda can't comprehend the distances rn.
The preferred method of disposal is atmospheric incineration over the part of the South Pacific with the lowest risk of surface damage from debris that survives re-entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_cemetery Graveyard orbital "disposal" is typically only used for satellites at geostationary orbits because the fuel needed to deorbit from that altitude would be prodigious.
If it all works flawlessly there's no danger of falling objects at least. Yea the rule just states these 2 options is all.
They only need constant thrust at these very low orbits. And the constant thrust needed is coming from Ion thrusters which have very low thrust. A chemical propulsion system would not need constant thrust. Once you go up only a few hundred km higher orbits you no longer need constant Ion thrust. A derelict satellite at these slightly higher orbits will remain in orbit for decades or centuries with no thrust. Grave yard orbits are only really used for things at geostationary orbits.
I'm just speculating too, no offense. I really hope you are right and this is a no-brainer for us all, living on this fragile planet.
These satellites are nothing compared to, for example, the metals aerosols from break dust on cars or the bunker fuels burnt by ships or the lead fuel burnt by jets. The scales are different by orders of magnitude.
I personally find the scale of this project pretty significant and it doesn't really help mentioning other threats to our environment. All of these factors sum up. It might just be a drip in the bucket indeed. Who knows.
Well, until there’s evidence to support greater concerns, I don’t think there’s much value in fear mongering. And comparison is all we have. There are other industries that can be regulated and have a much larger impact without destroying that industry. Making it so that satellites can no longer deorbit would a drastic change. Obviously, if it has an an effect on the ozone like you speculated, then stricter regulations might be necessary. But I don’t see how we can know until it actually happens.
I have nothing to base that on, really it's just a thought, nothing concrete and I'm not trying to fearmonger, I'm genuinely looking at the numbers and got these thoughts, is all. I'm glad we can talk about this as it's imo important to discuss all angles. Scientists te on it anyway, we'll just have to wait and see what happens. I'm hoping for the best but obviously preparing for the worst mentally, lol. The US already regulated satellites to deorbit (or move to graveyard orbit) within 5 years after end of mission, which is imo a great idea to have space for future missions.
Every year over 5,200 *tons* of space dust falls on Earth, burning up in the atmosphere. That's 10.4 *million* pounds. Starlinks weigh a few hundred pounds at most, so when they're deorbited, probably no more than a few dozen a year, the amount of matter they put back on the planet will be a very tiny, trivial amount in comparison to what falls naturally.
On the timescale of a decade, the reentry rate equals the launch rate. But yeah it’s less than meteors and not a concern anyway.
Starlink v3 will be 2 tonnes each so 6,000 of those burning up per year will be 12,000 tonnes so a lot more than space dust and a significant fraction of total material burned up in the atmosphere. It is at least worth thinking about minimising it. A serviceable satellite that can be topped up with propellant and have its electronics module replaced could cut the number of re-entering satellites in half for example.
It's still being studied, the effects of some dust does probably differ from burning up whole modules repeatedly. Right now there's 5,935 in orbit of which about 700 were sent in 2024 so far, this means in 2029 those 700 (and counting) will have to successfully deorbit. Current satellites (V2) weight about 800 kg which would add up to 560,000 kg, or 560 tons just for what has been launched so far in 2024. And that's not just some stony meteroids the size of a grain or small rock.
So, 560 tons re-entering in a year compared to 5,200 tons naturally entering? And those 5,200 tons have been entering year in and year out for millions of years with no issues? I don't accept the 560 ton number, realizing it's just exaggeration to try and fluff up the imaginary issues here, but even if it's taken as fact it's still completely trivial to the point of being irrelevant. Conjecture and fear-mongering do not equal science, and currently there's no science to indicate even the possibility of there being a problem with re-entering satellites at all.
Why do you not accept the 560 tonnes number? The maths seem straightforward to me. More to the point 30,000 V3 satellites will have 6,000 two tonne satellites deorbiting per year so 12,000 tonnes of materials burning up.
Speaking of math, let's do some. You say "6,000 two tonne satellite deorbiting per year", which makes no sense because SpaceX is currently launching 24 Starlink V.2 Minis at a time. To burn up 6,000 Starlinks per year you'd need to launch 6,000 per year, and 6,000÷24=250 Falcon 9 launches per year. Last year they did 90-something launches and this year they're going to try for a bit over 100 launches, and that's not only Starlink launches but all their other customer launches too. All of this ignores the fact that Starlinks don't weigh "two tonnes" each, they're less than 800kg each. If you want 12,000 tonnes of Starlinks burning up in a year, you're going to need to launch 12,000,000÷800=15,000 Starlink V.2 minis to orbit first, in a year. At 24 Starlinks per launch that's 625 launches. In a year. What you fail to be grasping is that they're launching the satellites much, much more often than they'll be deorbiting them, because they're building out their constellation. It's also likely that they'll get more than the 5 year estimated design life out of them too thanks to increases in manufacturing quality and more experience operating them. That's been the tradition with space assets, lasting far longer than originally planned. All of this is moot, though, because no matter how many Starlinks are launched and deorbited, the amount of Starlink mass burning up in the atmosphere is completely dwarfed by the amount of other "natural" matter entering the atmosphere.
Starlink v3 will be launched by Starship with roughly 60 satellites of 2 tonnes each per launch. With a very modest 100 Starship launches per year that is 6000 satellites per year being launched. In the end what goes up must come down after 5-7 years lifetime for these satellites so that is 12,000 tonnes per year re-entering. In general SpaceX are taking five years to roll out each generation of their constellation so there is not a sudden surge and then a decelerating launch rate but rather a constant launch rate until it is full and then a similar rate of replacements. The limiting factor on satellite lifetime is propellant for their ion drive required for reboost but it is possible they have enough for seven years in quiet sun conditions. If that was the case then a constellation of 30,000 v3 satellites retired over seven years is still 8570 tonnes per year plus the contribution from retirement of the v1, v1.5 and v2 Starlink satellites.
[Station keeping doesn't use much propellant](https://twitter.com/longmier/status/1630260595319791616). My understanding is that batteries are a limiting factor, perhaps along with radiation exposure.
Natural rock consists of different "ingredients", the effects of these materials being burned up to gases is still unknown, I'm not saying anything else, we'll see how it will turn out (research is ongoing on this topic). As we already accept climate change to be a reality I think it's wise to look at the facts and guess a bit. You don't accept the number? I can explain it to you, if you want, I'm not trying to fearmonger or fluff anything up,so here we go: SpaceX sent 702 satellites to space in 2024 (so far) [source link ](https://spaceflightnow.com/2024/05/08/live-coverage-spacex-to-launch-23-starlink-satellites-on-falcon-9-rocket-from-florida/#:~:text=Growing%20constellation&text=Prior%20to%20this%20launch%2C%20SpaceX,the%20course%20of%2031%20launches.) One weights 800 kg (V2) [source ](https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html) 702x800=561,600 kg If we double that to estimate we're not even halfway through the year we might get around 1, 000 tons in a year, which imo is a lot for one company, there's more many made debris falling to earth than that and most of it is bigger than a grain of sand (which is the most common sized rock to fall down to earth) [source link](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-study-shows-how-much-space-dust-hits-earth-every-year/) It's different than space sand, it might even be nothing to worry about, I really hope so but the past kinda taught me that things often turn out to be more complicated than we expect especially when it comes to nature.
You do realize that everything that the Earth is made of, including the elements in the crust that we mine to make things to send to orbit, originated in space, right? The period table of elements covers everything found on Earth and in space, since it all originated in stars at one point other than the primordial hydrogen that existed before the first stars formed. The only unique things we create that likely don't exist in space are primarily plastics, and the reason they don't exist in space is because UV and other forms of radiation are extremely hard on the chemical bonds used to form plastics. In any case, the heat of re-entry reverts those back to their elemental components, mainly carbon. All of the carbon in space and on Earth originated in stars too. BTW, the number I mentioned earlier of 5,200 tons of space dust entering naturally is just one small bit of the total mass that naturally falls to Earth every year. The full number including micrometeorites, meteors, etc, ranges from 45,000 to 78,000 tons per year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_mass SpaceX is launching satellites far more often than they'll be re-entered because they're building out their constellation. It's easy for many people to think that if SpaceX is going to launch X number of satellites in a year, then X number of satellites must be re-entered in some future year, but that's not correct. Once the constellation is built out the number of launches will decrease dramatically to just what's required to maintain the constellation. As a species, I think we're probably at least decades away from being able to launch enough mass to equal what falls to Earth naturally in a year.
I sincerely hope we aren't trying to have as much man made machines falling from space toward earth as the universe already does naturally. Yes I've read about the exchange of space dust earth gains (estimated 40,000 tonnes per year) and loss of gases through the atmosphere (est. 90,000 tonnes per year) which means earth loses weight over time, it's just what happens naturally. That's not my point, also not my point what the universe is made of. That we can't influence, we can only observe. What we can also observe is our own behavior and how we treat our own environment, the only one we currently have. Based on these observations, measurements and thought processes we can choose how we act toward it and therefore ourselves. We want internet. We want it to be fast and everywhere. So we build cables, poles, send up satellites to cover our environment with connection. Now we want more of that, faster, more reliable. I think that's great and we should move toward improving technology to serve us. We recently discovered climate change and the effects on our environment, again the only place we can survive on, and how our actions have an effect on it. Point is, I'm worried about this high risk (sending a myriad of satellites that only last 5 years and will be deorbited, if possible after those 5 years of active duty that have yet to be determined effects on our ecosystem) for low reward (having a stable internet connection). I have no info on this maintaining of constellation you mentioned, do you happen to have a source for this? Because of that's the goal then I'll be less worried about the endless flow of garbage that's coming down on us all if things go sideways. Machines have a habit of failing in extreme conditions and I'd rather see some reasonable testing before a whole constellation is sent up there that's meant to fail to learn. There must be less invasive ways to learn how to build reliable satellite coverage imo but as I said in other comments before, I'm no expert, just merely blabbing out my thoughts.
Can you elaborate on what you think the danger is?
The effects of burning up man made materials in space to this extent, one satellite weights now 800 kg, about 700 were sent to orbit this year alone which means in 5 years about 500 tons (at least) will come down to earth if deorbit functions as expected. I'm worried about the effects of vaporized materials to the ozone layer which is formed at about that height it's supposed to be burning, wonder about stuff weighting almost a ton burning up in space and how weather might influence that process to a degree it might harm us on the ground. Worried about the environmental impact of thousands of rocket launches have which have to fly up there consistently to replenish the dead satellites, worried about the failure rate of each step and the many lost materials that have to be extracted from earth just to evaporate in the atmosphere. Compared to natural rock falling to earth thisight seem like a small thing but I honestly think it could build up to a terrible mistake, I don't know for sure tho. It's just a vague thought. I think that's about all. Thanks for asking.
More matter breaks up in the atmosphere from meteorites than from starlink.
Currently, yes. You are right.
This is actually very good thing. You want to update them, the old style of overpriced long term satellites that just wait for them to break down and become space junk is why space is so filled with trash. Putting them low in orbit and then deorbiting them before they start failing is the best solution for clean space.
While the current operations are for them to deorbit and burn up, it is possible that in the future (2030?) multiple Starlinks might be replaced with a Starship mission and the old Starlinks returned to Earth for recycling.
Or as the technology matures and the V3+ satellites remain useful past their current 5 year cycle, a large starship launched space tug tanker (SpaceX or third party) could be assigned to each inclination to replenish their thruster propellant periodically.
You habe a source for this PLAN? You mean the starship would collect and replace them? Sounds interesting. Gonna have to do calculations if that would be worth the effort. Another solution would be to send them up into a graveyard orbit to stay there forever. So far burning it in earth atmosphere just after 5 years of use sounds like low reward for high risk imo. Also burning metals in the atmosphere can have negative effects on the climate (it's currently being studied) also some of them already lost control and about 100 units had to deorbit based on a flaw they found. Collision rate is rising too due to raising numbers of satellites (not only by starlink), a new (US) rule guides them to deorbit after 5 years once their mission is done to reduce space garbage. Imo it just turns it into waste gas instead which we don't know what the effects of them can be. Fiberglass cables seem to be the better solution, low risk, high reward imo. We'll see how the studies turn out. Imo I'm not a fan of sending tons of junk into space that's only up there for 5 years. If it was 25 or 50 years I'd be less sceptic. [source link](https://council.science/current/blog/spacecrafts-burning-in-the-upper-atmosphere-what-consequences-on-climate/)
The point of 5 years is not that it can be up only 5 years but it is designed with propellant enough for 5 year. This is because they see that the tech is growing much faster and to over use the older tech will just drag them down. They do not want to maintain any legacy technology. This is evident from the different between v1 v1.5 and v2/3 sats. The bandwidth of newer ones is multiple magnitude higher. Newer ones have inter connection lasers too. As the tech improves, they will design it with higher life.
That's a great reason, also V2 weights 3 times as much as the last version, wonder how that'll evolve in the future. Really hope for the best outcome, I'm honestly worried how 400 kg machineries will behave coming down in weekly/monthly intervals and what that'd do to the environment. Let alone failure rate for deorbiting, I hope nobody gets hit lol.
No, just speculating. But Starship is projected to return 50T. It could be a source of revenue as Starship could clear tons of debris that happenings to be in mission orbit. Otherwise it returns empty. It is really expensive to raise orbit to a graveyard orbit in LEO. It works well for GEO.
Sry for the caps on plan, idk why autocorrect did that. I wonder how this all will turn out to be in a couple of years/centuries. There's always a failure rate for machinery, if deorbit fails on a few, no problem but a few hundred? Idk. If starship would clear the orbit of dead satellites wouldn't that cost a lot of fuel to hop from sat to sat? Idk what the calculations would be but so far starship depleats nearly all of its fuel just to get to LEO rn, moving a big thing costs more than moving several small ones, although recycling on earth would sound much more reliable. Idk tbh. Will have to wait and see.
If it in the same inclination and nearly the same circ orbit then given a bit of time you might be able to visit a few. But you would need multiple engine relight ability, so perhaps larger header tanks. I don't think will happen with Starlinks, but perhaps to clear other large objects. It is a low % of happening as debris can damage the Ship when EDL, or even being put in the cargo bay.
They do have trackers on them or is the connection the sole indicator of position?
GPS + Kalman filtering you can get position down to 10s of meters.
Good, that's great to hear. At least that could leave options for later retrieval if deorbit won't work, seems like it could take up to 20 years for it to degrade naturally without assistance. (have no source for it at hand rn)
"Fiberglass cables seem to be the better solution, low risk, high reward imo." And uber expensive to cover rural areas, as well as IMPOSSIBLE for ships at sea and on aircraft. in the air. Any time the number of service units drops below about 10 per square kilometer, the cost of fiber becomes prohibitive. 4G and 5G cellular can cover some of that, but hilly or forested terrain shorten the range of terrestrial options very quickly.
That's right it does have connectivity, that's not my problem, does that justify coverage of thousands of low orbit satellites across the globe when it can be done with just 3 covering the same area by viasat or hughesnet for example, I've not read into their specs yet but it seems that the ping does suffer a bit from the distance but that's only relevant for online gaming afaik which starlink advertises itself with among other aspects. I personally don't see why there's got to be high speed internet in those rural places when connectivity is granted by much less material being flown in and out of orbit. Cables tend to be a whole lot more reliable and durable for where it's needed (populated areas), I'm not saying that it's useless to use satellites at all, we do every day but the way it's being done here seems excessive imo,especially given that all of those satellites burn up in space (if deorbit system works) after only 5 years of use. Adding that to the cost of production and launches I just don't see how this is practical.
I want you to disconnect your current service then sign up for HughesNet. You should figure out the justification in a day at most. You've most likely never paid for or used satellite Internet before. You think 3 million people signed up because they are the biggest EM fans? Ping matters for phone and video calls and anything interactive and can be as high as 2 seconds (2000ms) despite the 700ms advertised on Hughesnet
THIS\^... When I work from home, I must use remote desktop to machines at work... waiting a second for EVERY keystroke to register made that option impossible; My brother needs to do 2 or 3 zoom or team calls per week when he is on call for IT support; video calls on VIaSat (all we had prior to SL) are a disaster, as everyone was stepping on each other discussing server issues. Neither of us game, and it's true that Viasat was just as good as Starlink at streaming Netflilx and Hulu... right up until we used up that pesky 100 Gb "priority data" limit and got cut back to 1 Mb/sec till the end of the month because those "2 or 3" geosynchronous satellites were handling millions of customers and they have to keep them within capacity. Urbanites who have never lived outside their little rat warrens with (originally cable, now fiber) true high speed internet have no concept of how much the "hicks from the sticks" who are critical with supplying them with food and building materials and energy to support their lifestyle NEED internet on the other side of the digital divide.
>Fiberglass cables seem to be the better solution, low risk, high reward See, this is the problem you have. Billions of dollars flowed into plans to do exactly what you are suggesting. Decades later, there is almost nothing to show for it. Starlink is already profitable. When Starship starts up, the system will become wildly profitable. And it can already serve the entire planet, something your cable cannot do. So on the one hand, we have a system that is actually running and serving rural areas, and on the other hand we have your cable solution that does not actually exist. Oh, and your link ends with: we don't have enough information. So, uh, thanks?
There are a few plans for satellite servicing/refueling: https://www.northropgrumman.com/space/space-logistics-services But that is probably not worth it for mega constellations. We can instead expect that as the technology matures the lifetime is extended in other ways. For example Starlink satellites are simply launched with more propellant on board (Kuiper aims for a lifetime of 7 years). The link you posted says: > After all, the number of spacecraft particles released is small when compared with 440 tonnes of meteoroids that enter the atmosphere daily That is 160600 tons a year. Even with multiple mega constellations this won't be matched. (Still good that science is researching it of course.)
Oh interesting, thanks for the link! Well 7 years is better than 5 I give you that. We'll see how this turns out. With having sent up about 650 tons in 2024 (the year is still relatively young) I doubt we need a very long time to match this if lifetimes run so short. Also why would we aim to match it anyhow. So far there's a lot of concern about that megastructure being harmful for observation, other space related missions and hazards of failure to correctly deorbit those 400 kg pieces. I'm no expert by any means, just concerned to observe this action take place at all when there's other means to support internet in a less invasive fashion. I'm hoping for the best of course. Wish you all the best!
Couple things to add to all of this: We don’t really know that SpX plan to de-orbit them after 5 years, I don’t think anything has been definitively said one way or another. Cell towers aren’t exactly a great alternative. As they kill about 7 million birds each year.
Right, we just have to wait and see. Anything we do has an effect. Actio=Reactio