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.
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.