US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for SpaceX Starlink unit

Re:US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for SpaceX Sta... by danbruc on Wednesday December 13, 2023 @12:05PM (#38630347)

Starlink is nothing that you deploy and then you are done. When you have launched the last satellite, then the first ones launched will have reached the end of their lifespan and you essentially have to start over, deploy the entire constellation once again as the satellites reach the end of their lifespan one by one. With a lifespan of say 5 years, you will have to deploy the entire constellation once every 5 years, with 12k satellites you are looking at replacing 200 satellites each month, forever. That sounds possible without Starship but I can also imagine that being able to use Starship is necessary for the economical viability in the long run.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for SpaceX Sta... by lupusreal on Wednesday December 13, 2023 @12:08PM (#38630396)

Their lifespan when active is longer than 5 years because they have thrusters. 5 years is if they're dead and left to decay

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for SpaceX Sta... by Faark on Wednesday December 13, 2023 @12:52PM (#38631247)

5 years to deorbit passively is correct, but the expected service life is in somewhat similar. Best quote i've got on hand right now is wikipedia:

> "...implement an operations plan for the orderly de-orbit of satellites nearing the end of their useful lives (roughly five to seven years) at a rate far faster than is required under international standards.

Obviously there are many unknowns in factors like hardware reliability or fuel consumption.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for SpaceX Sta... by danbruc on Wednesday December 13, 2023 @12:38PM (#38630974)

All the numbers I have seen were 5 to 7 years of operational lifespan but I can not find a primary source from SpaceX at the moment. I think I also read that there are plans to increase the lifespan eventually with larger satellites, deployed using Starship.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for SpaceX Sta... by madaxe_again on Wednesday December 13, 2023 @02:06PM (#38632541)

I’ve got news for you about Earth-based networking gear. You don’t just install it and forget about it forever - you replace and upgrade, almost continuously, and lifespans are frequently significantly less than five years.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for SpaceX Sta... by pid-1 on Wednesday December 13, 2023 @04:27PM (#38634360)

Tell that to your local telco carrier. I bet my ass they have network equipment runnning with zero updates for well over a decade.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for SpaceX Sta... by JumpinJack_Cash on Wednesday December 13, 2023 @02:49PM (#38633258)

A 1000Gbps cable laid down in the ground will be able to support 1000Gbps even 50 years from now provided that it doesn't get truncated by accident or Earthquake

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for SpaceX Sta... by throwaway4aday on Wednesday December 13, 2023 @03:59PM (#38634054)

a cable is pretty useless without all of the other hardware

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for SpaceX Sta... by oittaa on Wednesday December 13, 2023 @05:18PM (#38635001)

That "cable laid down" is vacuum of the space in this situation. It's not going to disappear.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for SpaceX Sta... by danbruc on Thursday December 14, 2023 @03:29AM (#38639101)

Of course, any system will need maintenance. My point was that you need the capacity to do the maintenance and you have to be able to do it cost effectively. That means in the case of Starlink it might actually be important to have Starship available because only this way they have the necessary capacity or cost effectiveness to maintain the constellation while using Falcons might not be good enough. I also say might, I of course don't know, I was just addressing the question why availability of Starship might be a relevant factor.

[ Parent | on HN ]