SpaceX: World record number of satellites launched
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
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.)
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.
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.
Did anyone else fly that trajectory actually since August or is it SpaceX only so far ?
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.
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.
first was SAOCOM 1B back in August 2020: https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/08/31/spacex-launches-first-...
So discounting small details like deployment mechanisms and volume:
260 x 240 = 62400 cubesats for one Starship launch by weight.
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.
> 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.
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..."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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
wiki citation - https://spacenews.com/starlink-failures-highlight-space-sust...
And some clouds. Children love clouds.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nationalistic flamewar is particularly not where we want to go here.