Hacker News Reader

Comment by elif | Hacker News Reader

Wow they are now clearly selling a product that depends upon starlink 2.0 satellites which depend upon starship for launch. Starship tests haven't even attempted a static fire on their launch platform let alone a stacked launch attempt.

Not to mention, their launch calculations include re-use based upon a completely invented and also untested catching apparatus.

Talk about going all in...

View on HN

The V1.5 Starlink sats have the laser interconnects, and I suspect they would be able to launch enough of those with Falcon 9 to cover at least the most popular corridors (North America <-> Europe crossing).

Good catch!

They have almost 1000 laser satellites up now. I had no idea.

Why do they depend on Starship for launch?

Are the new satellites too big for the current rockets?

Yes, and you cannot use current starlink in middle of the ocean

Starlink v1.5 has lasers, and that is what they have been launching since January of last year.

This doesn't depend on 2.0 satellites at all. I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Musk companies have a habit of going all in, then claiming they didn't when the bill comes due. So far it has worked, but I wouldn't bet on the coverage expanding much for the next 2 years.

Right: coverage will increase to places that would add the shitload of high-ticket subscribers they will need to be able to continue operating at all, once the first tranche of birds drops out.

Do you have a citation for them being too big for SpaceX’s current rocket lineup? Very curious about this

Elon on everyday astronaut:

"Falcon neither has the volume nor the mass [to] orbit capability required for Starlink 2.0," Musk said.

It's not clear to me whether this means physically or economically; i.e., could the 2.0 satellites be put into orbit by Falcon but not at a cost that would make it worth it?

It is always a mistake to assume his tweets mean anything specific. He means they won't be launching 2.0 birds on Falcon, full stop. Reasons are slippery things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com