200

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TheMadnessKing@lemdro.id 37 points 1 year ago

I srsly dont want the internet infra to be controlled by the dick headed person.

[-] cricket97@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

You just don't know about the other dickheads in charge.

[-] I_Miss_Daniel@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Luckily he's not the majority stakeholder.

[-] TheMadnessKing@lemdro.id 3 points 1 year ago

I'm not touching it even with a 2ft pole. I don't want every website to be throttled except Twitter.

[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] geosoco@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] serratur@lemmy.wtf 3 points 1 year ago

Firstly because we are talking about less than a percentage point of the total

(200 / 5000) * 100 = 4%

[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

Ah, fair enough. Not sure why I thought there were more in total. In fact I think there may be less than 5k.

[-] Etienne_Dahu@jlai.lu 2 points 1 year ago

By the way, what happens to these satellites once they reach their planned lifespan and run out of fuel?

[-] Haquer@lemmy.today 11 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] Etienne_Dahu@jlai.lu 3 points 1 year ago

Thank you for the explanation!

[-] KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, if you want to avoid that, you need to go way up into more expensive and less effective orbits

[-] DavidGA@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

This is a complete non story. They have a design life of only a few years. They have already been replaced in orbit with upgraded ones.

Total clickbait.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Wow, I didn't realize they're already at more than 5000 satellites. Crazy numbers.

[-] HurlingDurling@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

"And this is how we trapped ourselves in our own planet"

[-] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Well at least it's a habitable planet, right?

[-] FleetingTit@feddit.de -2 points 1 year ago

Has been, until end of last year. Now? Not so much.

The way politics are moving rn I can imagine the big funny happening soon, which could trigger a new ice age though.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Gsus4@feddit.nl 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's ok, we were already trapped in our planet. There is no planet B..unless you don't mind living in high-tech caves :) on Earth they're called "vaults".

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Im fine with it, so long as we all get extra water chips we should be good.

[-] TheBlue22@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Do they deorbit? Or did musk just pollute our orbit for no reason whatsoever?

[-] kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

They deorbit very quickly.

[-] TheBlue22@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That's good. Happy to hear that.

[-] figaro@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago

And then... just... drop somewhere?

[-] skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago

No, they vaporize on reentry.

[-] figaro@lemdro.id 2 points 1 year ago

Ah ok lol, that makes more sense

[-] Coreidan@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I’m no expert by any means but it seems incredibly wasteful that we build satellites, then expel tons of CO2 into the atmosphere to get them into orbit, only for them to just burn up after a few years.

We can’t even reclaim the material because it literally burns and disintegrates as it’s falling out of orbit.

Seriously what the fuck are we doing???

[-] Black_Gulaman@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago

Burning things creatively.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Every time I read anything about starlink, it all just seems so quintessentially American.

You've got effective monopolies of communication infrastructure, which causes everyone to be underserved, and instead of just fixing the monopoly problem, you fire off infinite rockets full of cell towers that burn up in a year

[-] Gerula@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

So billionaires filling Earth 's orbit with junk ...

[-] tills13@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

luckily LEO junk will be pulled into Earth's atmosphere without propulsion

[-] cricket97@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

This place hates Elon Musk so goddamn much they suddenly become experts on satellites. I bet Musk has very little to do with the day to day at Starlink.

[-] vind@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

One can hate Musk and Starlinks separately.

They ruin our night sky and make Kessler syndrome worse and worse.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

These are also mostly irrelevant to Kessler syndrome. At such low orbits, any debris is cleaned out in months or only a couple years

[-] cricket97@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The number of satellites in orbit right now should have next to 0 impact on your view of the night sky. This can be proven with some pretty simple equations. Should we get rid of GPS satellites too?

[-] rez_doggie@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago
[-] cricket97@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

what is this supposed to prove. Go outside at night and look, they're not clogging up the sky. At the very worst they're a faint little line you can barely see. I think that is worth giving internet to unserved areas of the world.

[-] db2@sopuli.xyz -1 points 1 year ago

This is the first time that Starlink has lost a significant number of satellites in a short time period

It's an Elon debacle, it's probably been a problem from day one that he's happily shoveled other people's money at instead of fixing it or admitting he's a moron.

[-] cricket97@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Musk is a minority stakeholder in Starlink. This place hates Musk so much that they'll criticize and actual innovative company serving the underserved.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Jagermo@feddit.de -3 points 1 year ago

Big Brainy in chief probaly thought the could cut down on latency if they move the orbits closer to the atmosphere and no one cares enough to correct him.

[-] KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

This just sounds like regular LEO attrition, these satellites are small and "simple" so they were never going to last long (not trying to defend musk here, starlink is full of issues)

[-] Jagermo@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Probably. It would be funny, though :)

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
200 points (94.6% liked)

Technology

60284 readers
3452 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS