Comments
ACCount82 t1_j252gik wrote
SpaceX is not fucking around.
They already dominate the launch industry now - with world-beating performance metrics and a decade worth of technological lead in reusability. They plan to dominate it harder still. Starship, their most ambitious rocket to date, has its first full flight scheduled for ~Q1 2023. Definitely something to look forward to.
VinceSamios t1_j254tue wrote
It's gonna be fuuuuucking nuts!
compromiseisfutile t1_j25duyj wrote
Is blue origin even considered a serious competitor anymore ? It seems like SpaceX is just miles ahead of them at this point
gopher65 t1_j25g51m wrote
We don't know yet who will be future contenders. There are many possibilities, like Rocket Lab and Relativity. Blue is so well funded compared to most other space companies (or even divisions of big companies) that they're likely to survive in some capacity. Whether that's as an engine maker like Aerojet, a station or tug manufacturer, or a rocket company, or all of the above... we'll see.
Enjoyitbeforeitsover t1_j27vzyx wrote
At the end of the day Blue Origin got Bezos somewhere up there. William Shatner seemed like he just took some Psilocybin shrooms and had the same look of excitement
tanrgith t1_j25xez5 wrote
They never were and they won't be anytime soon
Like, even if BO manages to get their New Glenn rocket flying within the next few years and SpaceX fails at making Starship, it would take years and years before BO builds up the experience and capability to launch rockets at the kind of cadence that SpaceX is able to do it right now
And if SpaceX's Starship actually becomes operational and can be launched for less than a 100 million (which is far more than any reasonable estimate for a fully reusable rocket system), then no one is touching SpaceX for decades
tms102 t1_j280lu5 wrote
I remember when blue origin tweeted "welcome to the club" or something like that when SpaceX landed their booster for the first time after and orbital mission. It seems even more ridiculous now.
compromiseisfutile t1_j290ey5 wrote
Hadn’t SpaceX already achieved that many times before bezos tweeted it?
tms102 t1_j29ir6b wrote
I don't think so. But the thing is SpaceX was attempting landings while doing actual missions and going to orbit. While blue origin only did like a relatively medium hop and landing at that point with a prototype vehicle.
So it was a pretty ridiculous tweet anyway.
[deleted] t1_j274cxr wrote
[removed]
mooslar t1_j25fqcx wrote
They honestly never have been. Only on paper when discussing future plans. They’ve never even gone to orbit.
compromiseisfutile t1_j25o7l7 wrote
I wonder how Jeff bezos feels about his company being pretty irrelevant next to SpaceX. It wouldn’t surprise me if he is delusional enough to think they’ll actually catch up to them in the near term
Jaker788 t1_j28fxzc wrote
They're older than SpaceX by a couple years too.
I_Has_A_Hat t1_j25i7cm wrote
It's like asking if a golf cart company is a serious competitor to Ford.
IIRC, Blue Origin can't even get anything into orbit. Their rockets basically go up, kiss space for a moment, and then go back down. This was a few years ago so maybe they've developed beyond that, but what is even the point when that's all you can accomplish?
AgreeableTurtle69 t1_j25ls5x wrote
They have an entirely different niche imo. They should focus on tourist flights 100% and make it all about space tourism.
Jaker788 t1_j28g8ix wrote
The problem is they wanted to go orbital all along. They thought the suborbital ride was a stepping stone in technology and would ultimately get them there smoother than SpaceX. It turned out their engines were a dead end and didn't help in developing BE-4, it also did nothing with the tech of landing an orbital class booster going much faster and on a parabolic arc.
tomatotomato t1_j27eqcv wrote
I wonder why Blue Origin is moving so slowly. They have almost infinite funding from Bezos and still weren't able to deliver for many years.
Lanky-Awareness-7450 t1_j27n0uy wrote
Blue Origins is only a competitor in Jeff Bezos mind. For everyone else, BO has lived up to it’s initials…. they just stink.
UniversalMomentum t1_j25u0lv wrote
I think 3d printing might make it so it's not that hard to get to SpaceX levels of cheap and beyond without as much specialized hardware, especially for the smaller more common payloads.
Tricky_Invite8680 t1_j26wqkd wrote
3d printing to withstand temperatures and pressures of space vehicles, technically extruding metal is 3d printing but other, cheaper, forms seem would suffer from inherent material defects.
NickGerrz t1_j26ypyo wrote
Two different space companies. Blue origin focuses more on tourist recreation as far as I can tell.
sky_blu t1_j24xqee wrote
I know someone who works in counter terrorism for the US and they were saying the government is actually a really big supporter of starlink because it provides people over seas with a much more trustworthy connection back to us. Just an interesting angle on starlink I didn't hear before
FeedMeACat t1_j25fagg wrote
I am curious how long ago they said that. The gov announced plans to build their own after Musks stunt.
robtbo t1_j28dj75 wrote
What stunt?? The asking for help in paying for providing internet to war torn countries and battle zones?
Starlink already has operations within the US military. They can just pay spacex , no need to reinvent the wheel.
sky_blu t1_j25j9jk wrote
I think it was some time mid October?
Edit: to be unnecessary exact I went back and looked, it was oct 7th
pwnasaurus11 t1_j272m2c wrote
What “stunt” are you talking about?
williamscastle t1_j278pbf wrote
Him wanting to be paid for providing a service like every other contractor in the world
Jaker788 t1_j28gfeo wrote
They were supposed to get paid, but the contract fell through. SpaceX was fighting to get properly paid, and the DOD also wanted to as well. There were issues that had to be ironed out.
But also the government is very much happy to take Starlink over their own constellation. SpaceX even created the Starshield network for high security and private comm
Tricky_Invite8680 t1_j26x3s1 wrote
the government doesn't build that shot, they just write specs for someone else to build it.
iamda5h t1_j27r34t wrote
They’ve been planning a network like this for the military for years, and already have gen 1 up and running with limited coverage.
UniversalMomentum t1_j25uumf wrote
I think that will wind up being one of it's more profitable uses because I don't see how it's beating landlines or even cellular long term. It sounds impressive, but it doesn't actually have a lot of subscribers which suggests real demand might be kind of low since it's generally more expensive than cable and less flexible than cellular so people have to be in the ever more rare areas that don't have cable internet AND where people want to pay for cellular phones AND satellite internet while most people without cable will settle on cellular only.
To me it will be hard to find a lot of profit in the model because it's complex and cable and cellular keep expanding, but for mission critical stuff in remote areas it could easily be the best option.. it's just that's kind of a low volume market for that amount of work.
[deleted] t1_j2752pd wrote
[removed]
more_beans_mrtaggart t1_j28j3u4 wrote
I had starlink for a bit, then 5G reached my area and that was the end of that.
Starlink is slow, and occasionally quick. It was never quick when I needed it to be.
Bdrax23 t1_j29x4y4 wrote
Well yeah...it's not fully operational yet. Fixed wireless is gonna be better as long as you have line of sight. My best effort is always fast enough. And we can't get cell service here so it works best for us
MudSling3r42069 t1_j250ryl wrote
Other than the fact the ceo is eccentric and leads trust issues when it comes to contracts fast out blacking out Ukraine was questionable.
toastedcrumpets t1_j25g5n2 wrote
There were two parts to that Ukraine blacking out story. First was that they were charging for starlink after providing free initial access (terminals were bought by someone else). To be fair, this was clearly stated at the beginning, is normal capitalism, and the only reason the change was painful was because the service was so useful. This should have been a simple case of starlink's CEO saying someone has to pick up the tab but they'd offer it at cost, and it should have been a PR win.
The second was that starlink is blacked out in any areas under russian control, or being contested by Russia. This included the front lines for Ukraine which was a point of complaint. This is something outside starlink's control, embargoes against tech support of Russia are clear. You can bet the US government/military is telling starlink exactly when and where to enable it's service. For example, Starlink is active in Iran precisely to support US interests thanks to special exception even though this is illegal due to the overall sanctions in place.
All of this could have been handled by a competent PR department, but it's not something Elons companies have, deliberately so.
sky_blu t1_j2541s2 wrote
My assumptions are either
The public's idea of starlinks's involvement is Ukraine is not accurate (could be many reasons why)
My friends division has some very specific niche benefits from starlink that don't apply to Ukraine.
FeedMeACat t1_j25f0hs wrote
This is why the gov announced plans to build their own. Elon tried to price gouge when the service was critical and the military doesn't like that. They pay an extended helping hand back in contracts down the line. That is how they do things.
MightyMoonwalker t1_j25xwxn wrote
If the government builds their own, Elon Musk will still be the one getting rich building it and maintaining it. You think the owner of the only tech that could launch thousands of sattelites is bummed at the prospect of the government wanting to build something that requires thousands of sattelites?
AwesomeLowlander t1_j26ejh8 wrote
Looking at what the US govt spends in their space and military budgets... You really think they'll save any money by doing it themselves?
Canuck-overseas t1_j249cbn wrote
With every launch, SpaceX put up more gear than entire counties.
NostalgiaForgotten t1_j24l1x9 wrote
I don't think any counties have their own space programs.
DuckRebooted t1_j2572cp wrote
We're well and truly fucked when Slough gets it's space program
[deleted] t1_j24v9oa wrote
[deleted]
boobsolete t1_j24weec wrote
Counties not countries
[deleted] t1_j24wr0f wrote
[deleted]
BizzyM t1_j255etu wrote
No, but they have gear, and SpaceX is launching more than they have.
Wet_FriedChicken t1_j25pyzf wrote
Hate the man all you want. He is heavily involved in countless mind blowing projects for human advancement. 60 flights in one year with reusable rockets?! That is straight out of science fiction. And yes, I know Elon is not the brains behind everything but he is a damn good delegator.
KickBassColonyDrop t1_j24xfar wrote
They're aiming for 100 F9 launches for 2023. That will keep ramping until Starship onlines.
ovirt001 OP t1_j246wmn wrote
> SpaceX launched the first batch of a new generation of Starlink satellites into orbit early Wednesday (Dec. 28) and nailed a rocket landing at sea to mark a record 60th flight of the year. > A Falcon 9 rocket topped with 54 upgraded Starlink internet satellites — the first generation 2 (Gen2) versions of the SpaceX fleet — lit up the predawn sky with a smooth launch at 4:34 a.m. EST (0934 GMT) from the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. > "Under our new license, we are now able to deploy satellites to new orbits that will add even more capacity to the network," Jesse Anderson, a SpaceX production and engineering manager, said during live launch commentary. "Ultimately, this enables us to add more customers and provide faster service, particularly in areas that are currently oversubscribed." > About eight minutes after liftoff, the Falcon 9 first stage returned to Earth with a landing on the SpaceX drone ship A Shortfall of Gravitas in the Atlantic Ocean, where rough recovery weather threatened to delay the launch. The touchdown marked a successful end to SpaceX's 60th launch of SpaceX in 2022, nearly doubling the 31 launches set as a SpaceX record in 2021. > The Falcon 9 first stage on this mission made its 11th flight with Wednesday's launch. The booster previously flew five Starlink missions, launched two U.S. GPS satellites, the Nilesat 301 commercial satellite and carried two different private astronaut crews on the Inspiration4 and Ax-1 missions, SpaceX has said. > The company will also attempt to recover the two payload fairing halves that made up the Falcon 9's nose cone, which had both flown before, for later reuse, Anderson said.
Surur t1_j247l95 wrote
When they promised a launch a week in the beginning of the year that seemed unlikely, but they managed to exceed even that ambitious target.
BTW, do these satellites have inter-satellite lasers or not? It seemed unclear from what I have been reading.
JustAPairOfMittens t1_j24rtbp wrote
Yes their new spec does. I'm thinking the previous gen had a variation of Lazer tech as well but someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Sats take about 90 days to begin connecting to the Starlink network and reach their proper orbit, so any benefit is felt usually in the next season.
Just as an example I was having a tough time with about 5-8 disconnects a day of 5-15 seconds each last winter.
By the summer it was 2 per day.
Fall it was 3-5 a week.
Now it's maybe once a week when an owl or crow land on my satellite or some massive snowstorm and it dips for a few seconds once.
I've always had 100% visibility no obstructions. No hardware faults. Starlink support told me to expect these improvements over time.
Lasers will certainly enhance stability further.
ovirt001 OP t1_j249axz wrote
I haven't found a clear answer either but I suspect they've been deploying only second-gen satellites (which have the laser comm capability).
Surur t1_j24e25v wrote
I have heard them called Starlink 1.5 satellites because they are the same size as the version 1 satellites.
gopher65 t1_j25gtju wrote
Yes, all the v1.5 and beyond Starlink have had laser links. They have enough laser capable sats in orbit now that they've been able to open up some locations that aren't within reach of base stations. As the older Starlink sats deorbit over the next few years they'll be replaced with versions with lasers as well.
VinceSamios t1_j254ytp wrote
I believe they've had laser links between says for quite a while.
Surur t1_j255hqk wrote
Ah, you are right. They just turned them on 60 days ago.
https://wccftech.com/starlink-turns-on-laser-satellites-for-region-with-fourth-month-long-night/
danske11 t1_j27saem wrote
SpaceX is kicking some serious ass, it is still truly unbelievable everytime a booster lands (or better two boosters land).
Does anyone know how many launches a falcon booster can do until they retire it? Or is it basically keep launching til they find something broken post launch inspection?
EddyNash211 t1_j268ep1 wrote
I just saw them pull in the docks half of the nose cone. I am working on one of the landing barges next to where they docked.
I woke my daughter up for her 7th birthday to go outside and watch the launch. Fucking sweet.
GixxerTrav t1_j24mhmv wrote
Hopefully they put one over WV so can get off the damn waiting list
Reddit-runner t1_j265q6r wrote
That's not how satellites low Earth orbit work....
GixxerTrav t1_j267hg1 wrote
I bet you’re dying to explain it, too
Reddit-runner t1_j267suw wrote
Ja, wäre in diesem Fall aber vermutlich Perlen vor die Säue.
GixxerTrav t1_j26iir6 wrote
Yep, he’s one of those guys. 10-4 over and out
Reddit-runner t1_j27zg06 wrote
Would you honestly be interested in learning how orbits work?
bstarr2000 t1_j25chmm wrote
How long after launch do the satellites get released into orbit?
mooslar t1_j25glc3 wrote
They reach orbit in less than 10 minutes. Satellites themselves aren’t deployed for another hour or two after that
Gopherfinghockey t1_j27ogq3 wrote
It's very cool. I was even on Starlink internet for about a year until Verizon 5G became available at my homestead.
I am curious what impact all these launches have had on climate change.
cubnextdoor t1_j281gvx wrote
One was launched from VSFB where I live, about an hour ago. It was quite loud and shook our bed for about 10 or so minutes, then there was a big sonic boom when the launch reentered for landing.
https://www.spacelaunchschedule.com/launch/falcon-9-block-5-eros-c3/
AutoModerator t1_j246k52 wrote
This appears to be a post about Elon Musk or one of his companies. Please keep discussion focused on the actual topic / technology and not praising / condemning Elon. Off topic flamewars will be removed and participants may be banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
FuturologyBot t1_j24axbe wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/ovirt001:
> SpaceX launched the first batch of a new generation of Starlink satellites into orbit early Wednesday (Dec. 28) and nailed a rocket landing at sea to mark a record 60th flight of the year. > A Falcon 9 rocket topped with 54 upgraded Starlink internet satellites — the first generation 2 (Gen2) versions of the SpaceX fleet — lit up the predawn sky with a smooth launch at 4:34 a.m. EST (0934 GMT) from the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida. > "Under our new license, we are now able to deploy satellites to new orbits that will add even more capacity to the network," Jesse Anderson, a SpaceX production and engineering manager, said during live launch commentary. "Ultimately, this enables us to add more customers and provide faster service, particularly in areas that are currently oversubscribed." > About eight minutes after liftoff, the Falcon 9 first stage returned to Earth with a landing on the SpaceX drone ship A Shortfall of Gravitas in the Atlantic Ocean, where rough recovery weather threatened to delay the launch. The touchdown marked a successful end to SpaceX's 60th launch of SpaceX in 2022, nearly doubling the 31 launches set as a SpaceX record in 2021. > The Falcon 9 first stage on this mission made its 11th flight with Wednesday's launch. The booster previously flew five Starlink missions, launched two U.S. GPS satellites, the Nilesat 301 commercial satellite and carried two different private astronaut crews on the Inspiration4 and Ax-1 missions, SpaceX has said. > The company will also attempt to recover the two payload fairing halves that made up the Falcon 9's nose cone, which had both flown before, for later reuse, Anderson said.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/zy7rag/spacex_launches_54_upgraded_starlink_internet/j246wmn/
[deleted] t1_j24upsg wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j24xtx2 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j27m32q wrote
[removed]
Impossible34o_ t1_j26d7wt wrote
Despite the shit show with Musk, SpaceX is still an incredible company and the hard working engineers deserve every bit of respect for doing the impossible day in and day out. Gwen Shotwell, the president of SpaceX, especially deserves some recognition because she has been practically keeping the company running since the beginning and especially now when Elon is off playing his stupid games with twitter.
ahchx t1_j26rem6 wrote
it never fails, reddit cant leave elon alone for a single Tesla/SpaceX post, reddit has become more annoying than elon itself, at least the guy knows more about rockets and cars than 100% of the ceos in the whole planet, why? because he really like what he does and he has an objective, even if reddit hate him so much, of course the engineers does all the work, but the same can be saying of all the companies out there, but guess what, why nobody has matched Tesla/SpaceX so far? because they haven't someone with vision and energy as elon, even with all his flaws.
Tricky_Invite8680 t1_j26ymnc wrote
i guess she's the one to blame for the starship delays and lawsuits though she gets cover for it because of musks notoriety,
https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/spacex-starship-growth-paused-environment
[deleted] t1_j24m0kg wrote
[deleted]
Surur t1_j24sgfv wrote
You people are both obsessed and deranged.
philipwhiuk t1_j24u57u wrote
The crewed launches (the bit NASA actually pay for) are substantially cheaper than Boeing and Boeing hasn’t actually gotten crew to orbit yet.
NickGerrz t1_j26yjb5 wrote
I do not like star link, it is polluting the sky. Why do they need so many F-ing satellites?
turbo_nudist t1_j276tjp wrote
it’s pretty much designed to not contribute at all to space junk. i don’t get this argument at all, the benefit of a system like starlink already is way outweighing the downsides for astronomy, given that we’ve already seen just about everything there is to see from earth
BugAfterBug t1_j28lwra wrote
Yes and no.
Places like the Keck Observatory in Hawaii are still immensely productive. Recently it found a new black hole close to earth and clouds on Saturns moon Titan
These discoveries have been in conjunction with James Webb, and we will definitely be relying on space telescopes more in the future than earth based telescopes. This was inevitable with or without satellite interference.
But we definitely cannot say we’ve learned everything there is to learn by looking up at the stars from earths surface.
I can’t speak to the interference that satellites like Starlink would cause. But earth based observatories are still immensely valuable.
[deleted] t1_j277p4m wrote
[removed]
FlatRobots t1_j24r67o wrote
I don't get it, how can Starlink ever be profitable? I've seen various calculations and they all look terrible. 🤔
johnla t1_j24ssck wrote
What are you looking at? They have over 1 million Starlink subscribers. They charge $100/month. That's $100M each month. 2020 article from Forbes said they earn $80M per launch. They're profitable right now. But to your point they spent crazy amounts of money. They're not worried about cashflow right now though.
VinceSamios t1_j2557hn wrote
What they charge for a launch, and what it costs space for a launch, are veeeery different numbers.
NotShey t1_j2781ip wrote
What do you mean? Their costs are so much lower than everyone else's that they can pretty much charge whatever they feel like and people will pay it. You're not suggesting they are launching at a loss are you?
VinceSamios t1_j27ud30 wrote
Definitely not at a loss. I'd be surprised if launch costs including satellites was more than £20m per launch. They're mass manufacturing satellite's, they're reusing rockets, etc.
johnla t1_j27hf6f wrote
According Elon and other SpaceX guy, they suggest their cost is in the $10M range. Even if we double it to $20M. They still profit $47M since they charge $67M per launch.
I know there are tons of upfront costs of building those rockets. They’ve reused them so often now that I’m pretty sure they have paid for themselves a couple times over now.
Source for Launch cost: https://www.science.org/content/article/spacex-now-dominates-rocket-flight-bringing-big-benefits-and-risks-nasa
Source for launch price: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/23/spacex-raises-prices-for-launches-and-starlink-due-to-inflation.html
[deleted] t1_j284707 wrote
[removed]
FlatRobots t1_j2bgsfa wrote
I don't get it. Why do they earn money with launches when they put their own satellites into orbit? Where does that money come from? Not a "gotcha", I genuinely don't get it.
johnla t1_j2ci9gw wrote
Their satellites provide Internet service which they sell.
bulboustadpole t1_j24suil wrote
They're also selling their hardware at a massive loss. I've seen estimates that they lose around $500 per dish they sell based on tech channels tearing them down.
trolldango t1_j24tc2r wrote
How many months of a subscription does that take to pay down? 5? How long will the average subscriber stay — a year? A decade? Until the well-loved Comcast decides to build into their remote location?
bulboustadpole t1_j25oj75 wrote
No idea, but it seems to be around $100 a month. Considering Elon said starlink would need to use starship to not go bankrupt, I have no idea how this company will survive. Next you get into the issue with scaling this which is the biggest hurdle. To get more revenue you need more subscribers. More subscribers means you will need to launch more satellites. This gets you into basically a feedback loop. They've probably burned through billions so far and I can't see any viable way of recouping that loss in the future.
AmIHigh t1_j265qya wrote
What do you mean you don't know how it'll survive?
They complete starship.
They can keep getting investments in the meantime.
Reddit-runner t1_j266hv0 wrote
>Elon said starlink would need to use starship to not go bankrupt, I have no idea how this company will survive
By using Starship to get more Starlink sats into orbit, presumably.
bulboustadpole t1_j267pui wrote
It was supposed to be flying already and it isn't. That's a big deal. It still hasn't made a full test flight.
Reddit-runner t1_j268b89 wrote
Since NASA is betting their entire crewed lunar landing missions on it, I'm quite confident Starship will launch next year or at least in 2024.
It's not like SpaceX only has one single rocket. The first of their two Starship factories is almost up and running.
bulboustadpole t1_j26i7kk wrote
>I'm quite confident Starship will launch next year or at least in 2024.
And I'm confident we'll be on mars come 2025
And I'm confident Tesla's will be used as robotaxis in 2020.
And I'm confident the CyberTruck will roll off the line in 2021.
And I'm confident that hyperloop is the future and not a scam shell corporation
I'm confident about a lot of things.
NotShey t1_j27rdsp wrote
The main thing holding it up currently are environmental concerns around the launch site. Red tape essentially. The rocket has already done low altitude flights and static fires. It appears to work. It's quite a bit further along than SLS was a year before it's first mission. I'm well familiar with the concept of 'Elon time' but Starship flying next year is well within the realm of plausible, as long as they can iron out the launch site issues.
Reddit-runner t1_j280ql8 wrote
If you have any doubts about Starship you really should call NASA an give them a warning! They are betting two crewed lunar landing missions on Starship.
.
>And I'm confident that hyperloop is the future and not a scam shell corporation
You are confident about many things, but you seem to forget that Musk has nothing to do with Hyperloop beyond the one white paper he presented years ago and a small public competition. He never invested in any Hyperloop company or even touched the topic ever again.
You really don't have to like Musk. But don't lie to yourself and others about facts.
DerWeltenficker t1_j24t898 wrote
they aren't "yet"
Sh36fjk374fjc t1_j24qnhz wrote
We keep throwing stuff up into orbit. Isn’t it all going to start running into each other.
Edit: two replies so far, one says yes, one says no with a cute analogy about the chemist’s. I say work it out amongst yourselves and get back to us.
Edit: You can keep downvoting. Doesn’t change the fact that stuff is already colliding up there.
Edit: I get downvoted and the guy who called everyone an idiot gets upvoted. What a time to be alive.
hawklost t1_j24tvfk wrote
There are about 12.3 thousand satellites orbiting in space
Now, if you were to take 12 thousand people and have them run around the US, would you be worried they would hit each other?
Since most might try to counter. Yes, the satellites are moving quicker, but at the same time, they are in orbits at different levels too.
So imagine that everyone is in a huge building, the biggest you have ever seen. Now imagine that that building has 100 copies of it physically (orbital distance of space). Now put those 12k people in any of the 100 buildings randomly and tell them to walk or run around, but I'd they see another, to intentionally avoid them.
That is what space is like
Frozenthia t1_j26xe85 wrote
That changes when those people can break into a thousand pieces and travel at thousands of miles per hour.
hawklost t1_j274rdr wrote
I assume you didn't bother reading the post afterwards explaining that extra piece for the person.
Secondly, the reason I am using a building size multiplied by 100 is for the idea of someone walking around AS IF they were moving such speeds, but Also that you need to take into account different orbits, which is effectively hundreds of different 'buildings' in the example I gave (Would have chosen floors, but people don't experience super large single story buildings so wouldn't get the vastness as easily). So the 'thousands of miles per hour' part is already there.
To give you context Otherwise. The US alone has 100,000 flights a day. The US is approximately 6.1% of the world by landmass. Planes can travel up to 500 or so mph. while satellites go at 17,000 mph. There are about 12.5k satellites over earth. Satellites also go above the earth by about an extra 10-20% (important because amount of space grows). So to give an idea without using people as an analogy.
To give you an idea, the likelihood of 2 planes crashing in mid-air in the US is far more likely than 2 satellites crashing in orbit. Even when you take speeds into consideration.
Frozenthia t1_j2by5pg wrote
The biggest thing is that you don't need to just worry about other satellites, and the second is that the orbital material can exist at any altitude that satellites are orbiting at.
In terms of debris that can cause Kessler syndrome, 100k is a miniscule number. At the speed of a satellite, it does not take much to do serious damage and destruction. Your planes only have to worry about 100k planes, while satellites have to worry about motes of dust. If planes had to worry about that as well, we'd have serious issues flying at 500mph.
And United States Space Surveillance Network has identified this:
36500 space debris objects greater than 10 cm
1000000 space debris objects from greater than 1 cm to 10 cm
130 million space debris objects from greater than 1 mm to 1 cm
A single satellite being destroyed can be enough to turn 1 satellite into thousands, perhaps even tens or hundreds of thousands of pieces of individual debris that can then annihilate the rest at the same orbital level over time.
The change in momentum can be enough to cause concern.
This is such a very deeply important topic that it really does require a lot of protection, planning, redundancies, etc. SpaceX just doesn't seem like it has done enough to address this. There's a reason that NASA has moved more slowly and beat private companies to Mars, and it's because every single detail - every single detail of material science, chemistry, thermodynamics, physics, etc, has been meticulously vetted to the letter.
Falsely believing as a private company that "Wow, they're all foolish, this was easy, all we had to do was shove some satellites at this other altitude" and not putting enough merit in Kessler syndrome is a very big mistake.
Sh36fjk374fjc t1_j24ujwo wrote
Interesting points! Idk though, this NASA dude mentioned above thought it was quite possible.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
Edit: “On average one satellite is destroyed by collision with space junk each year.[22][24] As of 2009 there had been four collisions between catalogued objects, including a collision between two satellites in 2009.[4].”
Sounds like it is more than just a probability but a reality.
hawklost t1_j24vbht wrote
Yes it is possible. Although the fear is less two satellites crashing into each other and more the fear that a satellite will break up and create thousands of little pieces that could crash into More satellites.
To take the analogy I used before farther.
Now imagine two people Do run into each other, either because one wasn't paying attention or by malicious design. Now picture 1000 hyperactive kids being produced off of that collision. They aren't going to pay attention and will just run around bouncing off the walls, jumping between buildings as they want.
Yes, some will leave the buildings altogether, but many will be around due to orbital dynamics (not getting into that here). So now each person walking around has to watch for other people, And screaming children who don't pay attention (literally can't they aren't self driving).
Surur t1_j24sxnx wrote
The thing about Space, it's big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
Sh36fjk374fjc t1_j24tv9j wrote
Yeah but we’re not putting earth satellites by mars, they’re orbiting earth (by definition) so the area involved is much smaller than “Space.”
Surur t1_j24vvyb wrote
So there are 1.5 million cellphone towers in the world, and that is just on land.
An orbital shell 500km up has a surface area of 593 million km2.
So if SpaceX managed to get 40,000 satellites in orbit, that would be one satellite every 15,000 square km. That is one satellite for the same surface area as Connecticut or 10 for Illinois.
That is a lot of Space between each satellite.
Drdontlittle t1_j24woms wrote
Starlink was designed from the start with this in mind. They are at a considerable lower orbit with much greater air resistance. These satellites need active station keeping and will de orbit in a year or so without it.
NuttyFanboy t1_j24s964 wrote
Possibly. That's why there are regulations in place to either deorbit decommissioned satellites, or use the remaining fuel to move them into stable graveyard orbits. It's a real concern.
And then there's something called the Kessler syndrome.
DukeOfGeek t1_j24vn4w wrote
Starlink at least is low orbit and decays and falls out after a few years so it can't really add to the Kessler effect. BUT....Space X is going to make it way cheaper to put stuff in any orbit, so peoples concerns about the growing tonnage in orbit isn't misplaced.
NotShey t1_j277jfu wrote
>peoples concerns about the growing tonnage in orbit isn't misplaced.
Yes. Yes it is. People have no sense of scale.
Own-Oil-7097 t1_j24u9wx wrote
Reddit is a forum for discussion open to everyone, not an expert panel Q&A event.
Sh36fjk374fjc t1_j24vdcy wrote
Is someone feeling excluded from the discussion?
Own-Oil-7097 t1_j24x0d6 wrote
What an odd thing to say
Sh36fjk374fjc t1_j250d1e wrote
I literally have no idea what you’re getting at or what point you’re making. A lot of nuance is lost by text. If you have a criticism or point come out with it.
KickBassColonyDrop t1_j24y1j2 wrote
Space is so massive that if you were to take the orbital diameter of Earth/Moon and deconstruct all the resources within, and turn into a mini Dyson sphere with an internal atmosphere, the internal surface area of this shell, would be large enough to support 100 trillion trillion people each with space equivalent of a small farm and still have enough space left to question "what do we do with the rest?“
By the same token, surface area of Earth's orbital plane is so huge, that the probability of a satellite collision is crazy low. It only goes up when you have state actors firing ASATs at existing hardware and creating hyper velocity debris fields.
Lecturnoiter t1_j255i0c wrote
Yes it will. All these idiots don't understand that people live in a few specific places on the planet and that's where most of the satellites are focused. We also can only put them so high or so low in orbit, it's complicated and there's not a lot of usable space available.
There are procedures to de-orbit old satellites but even small collisions create debris clouds that can last for hundreds of years. We get a bunch of those going and we can't safely launch any more. The parties involved are usually pretty careful but it only takes a handful of people making a handful of mistakes to ruin space for everyone.
NotShey t1_j277reg wrote
>small collisions create debris clouds that can last for hundreds of years.
All of these satellites are at extremely low altitudes. There is measurably dense atmosphere in these orbits. Without active station keeping they will deorbit due to air resistance in about a year.
[deleted] t1_j24w0cz wrote
[deleted]
RobertAngelo t1_j25ctiw wrote
Space junk is not to be celebrated! They’re spying on you and you are applauding their efforts!
4Bpencil t1_j25qyhn wrote
Providing stable high speed internet at lower cost than bullshit telecommunications companies to those in rural areas is definitely something to be celebrated
FeedMeACat t1_j25fv9e wrote
I am curious about the new orbits, but the current satellites are low enough they will just fall out of orbit.
sabrtoothlion t1_j25r6gx wrote
Honestly, it's wild that it's okay for someone to just do what they want in space. How is this not illegal somehow? Changing the night sky and creating possible surveillance that puts every country's shady effort to shame. What Elon did in Ukraine with the free internet is really something but if we step back for a second and just look at it from a distance he has already meddled in world politics and warfare between two countries he isn't even a citizen of. His power is already off the charts.
I don't think that kind of power is meant to be in the hands of a single man. The guy already has starlink and now he's working on neuralink and no one bats an eye? If/when some evil billionaire decides to enslave humanity we won't even protest, we will celebrate them as our savior.
TDEboys t1_j25zkk7 wrote
> no one bats an eye
Um, eyes are being batted. All over the internet. Kind of a crazy statement to make given the Elon uproar over the last couple of months.
sabrtoothlion t1_j264cda wrote
People are going nuts over twitter though... There was no uproar about starlink
Reddit-runner t1_j266vkj wrote
>Honestly, it's wild that it's okay for someone to just do what they want in space. How is this not illegal somehow?
You have never heard about the FAA, haven't you.
Maybe you should look up that this agency does before you continue spewing nonsense on the Internet.
Tricky_Invite8680 t1_j27138a wrote
why is it wild? spacex has to contend with NASA and the FAA. NASA is a member of an international coalition of space-capable countries.
cjeam t1_j24ndtl wrote
Bloody hell 60 launches a year? From one company? This article suggests that last year there were only 144 attempted launches in total https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/01/thanks-to-china-and-spacex-the-world-set-an-orbital-launch-record-in-2021/