244

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
[-] echo64@lemmy.world 96 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

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 35 points 1 year ago

I'm angry at you because I'm about to defend an Elon Musk project... But Starlink is used in many countries. (in)Famously in Ukraine. The idea has merit for anyone living in remote areas (northern Canada, war-torn areas, etc.).

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

Ukraine is a fantastic example of how bad the whole thing is playing out. Remote areas are always better served by actual infrastructure investment however.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 year ago

It doesn't help to have infrastructure if it's destroyed by war.

[-] Kichae@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

The idea has merit for anyone living in remote areas (northern Canada, war-torn areas, etc.)

I will grant you war torn areas, and remote islands, but rural continental communities are better served with terrestrial infrastructure. Just because someone's willing to fill the sky with space junk as a means of masturbation doesn't mean it's the best solution for public infrastructure.

[-] aBundleOfFerrets@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 year ago

Laying 200km of fiber for a town of ~1000 will always be more expensive than it is worth (for an ISP) and that math only gets worse when you look at last-leg hookups for people spread out ~5km apart around the area and not living directly in the town.

[-] Sekoia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 1 year ago

... which is maybe why things that are essentially critical to a developed country's lifestyle probably shouldn't simply be companies. If we go off of "it's not profitable", public transport wouldn't be any good, postal services would suck, etc.

The internet should be a public service like mail.

Also, in the US they paid the ISPs to hook everyone up to fiber, and then they just... didn't.

[-] virr@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Over a long enough term it will be worth it.

But as a said elsewhere neither electricity nor phone being run to rural US homes was cost effective for companies. So the US decided that was shit and paid for it to get done. Started to do the same for internet access. Phone companies refused, used the money for other purposes, inflated prices faster the inflation, etc. and yet neither FTC nor congress held them accountable. Other countries have done the same thing for power and phone, there is nothing fundamentally different about physical internet access stopping anyone from doing the same thing.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

It will never be commercially viable to run a cable into the extreme rural reaches of North America. People just don’t understand the scale of the expanse.

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

Neither was running phone lines or electricity in the rural US, but we did it anyway because it was better for the country.

[-] CoderKat@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I agree for some definitions of rural, but I don't know if you have an idea on just how remote rural can mean. Try looking around northern Ontario in Google maps if you've never done it before. It's fascinating. So many tiny towns that are only reachable by boat or plane. They're not islands, but they might as well be, with how isolated they are.

But even for towns that aren't nearly so remote, no company is going to lay down quality infrastructure to accommodate every random farm that is spread several dozens of kilometers away from the nearest city. Even without capitalism, it's an expensive use of resources to connect isolated areas.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Building rural infrastructure is incredibly expensive. I grew up about 25 miles from the nearest city, and to this day there are still no cell towers or broadband in the area. Just dial up internet that maxes out at 28.8 baud running over copper twisted pair. It's frankly archaic.

My parents inquired with the local telco, and for 7 miles of fiber I believe they wanted to charge somewhere around $13 million for their rural neighborhood - just for the trenching. For like 20 farms.

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

I lived in a semi-rural area that had fiber access 1 mile away on the same road and they refused to run it unless i paid them $20k. The area was separated by a railroad track, which required permits and they didn't want to deal with it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch 14 points 1 year ago

As much as this is true, this is also a solution that's doesn't have a lot of alternatives for very isolated areas. You can technically run undersea cables to everywhere, but it's actually faster and easier to have LEO satellites serve places like Antarctica. Some smaller island nations, the middle of Africa, etc.

There are problems with every solution, but this was always an inevitable solution for worldwide communication.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I wouldn't say I'm underserved (I live in a tech hub). Overcharged? Definitely.

Rural folks do have a hard time without satellite though, and one thing a lot of Europeans do not viscerally realize about the States is how big the country is, and how much empty space there is.

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

Even as someone living on the east coast of the US, I'm always surprised when I visit the Midwest and Central US to see just how much "nothing" there is. At least compared to the relative density of driving up and down the northeast corridor

[-] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 7 points 1 year ago

I kinda wish the Capitalism dev team would patch out the ExternalitiesAreHardToTrack cheat code. It's been abused for centuries and yeah, it's hard to fix, but there are quite a lot of upvotes on its bug tracker, and only a few billionaire downvotes.

[-] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 38 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] TheMadnessKing 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] 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?

load more comments (4 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.

[-] db2@sopuli.xyz 8 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)
[-] 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
244 points (94.9% liked)

Technology

59438 readers
3767 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS