SpaceX Might Have Lost 200+ Starlink Satellites In Just 2 Months Shows Data
SpaceX Might Have Lost 200+ Starlink Satellites In Just 2 Months Shows Data
More than 200 of SpaceX's Starlink satellites might have burned up in space shows data from a satellite tracking website.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
Okay, so is this actual news, or just reporting on the fact that starlink satellites have a 5 year lifespan by design? Because this reads like the numerous other articles out there that are ignoring the fact that satellites need fuel to stay in low earth orbit, and that fuel eventually runs out.
I dislike musk as much as the next guy, but let’s not pretend this is something it isn’t.
I get your point, but I suspect there's more here than just lifespan. I don't think we know the reason but the article says this:
As a comparison, only 248 satellites had burned up at the start of this year, so the number destroyed during the last two months is higher than the figure for the first seven months of the year.
If 200 over the span of 2 months is "normal" then I have questions about the financial viability of the project.
It kinda depends on what we are considering a starlink satellite. They did launch a batch of satellites that experienced some issues, and some of them did come down. Iirc those were new models that were going up for the first time.
That said, I wouldn’t be too concerned about it. Firstly because we are talking about less than a percentage point of the total, and second because once the bugs are ironed out, a different company that isn’t run by a moron will likely step in to do a better job.
Firstly because we are talking about less than a percentage point of the total
(200 / 5000) * 100 = 4%
Ah, fair enough. Not sure why I thought there were more in total. In fact I think there may be less than 5k.
By the way, what happens to these satellites once they reach their planned lifespan and run out of fuel?
There is sufficient drag in Low Earth Orbit for the crafts to deorbit without station keeping, meaning they burn up in the atmosphere within a few months/years depending on atmospheric conditions.
Thank you for the explanation!
Yeah, if you want to avoid that, you need to go way up into more expensive and less effective orbits