Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CMDR_Shazbot t1_j9rasrx wrote

Reply to comment by fastspinecho in What will be the environmental impact of de-orbiting 42,000 Starlink satellites every five years? (Explanation in post) by OvidPerl

Yep, also people aren't factoring in that the initial approval is best effort. Maybe they applied for 42k and claim they have a 5 year lifespan, but the reality is they want them to last longer and would be much happier doing it with fewer satellites. 5 years is under certain conditions and likely lowballed, if they don't need to do collision avoidance maneuvers could be longer, if there's a lull in space weather could be longer, if there's a lot of that could be shorter.

The gen 2s require starship, which is much MUCH larger than falcon, meaning fewer launches to expand the network and more users per satellite, more fuel per satellite which extends the lifespan, etc.

13

DaoFerret t1_j9sanh7 wrote

Starship also opens up orbital recovery/refueling as a possibility, both of which would also jiggle the equation around.

5

CMDR_Shazbot t1_j9sfwb3 wrote

Ya that would be insanely interesting to be able to go up and just...scoop whole sats for refurb and return. Calculating the conjunction, the entire landing leg with enough-but-not-too-much fuel with the added mass, and securing it in the vehicle to survive re-orbit wold be... challenging.

2