SpaceX Breaks Annual Launch Record

SpaceX made it through its second attempt to launch 46 satellites on Friday (July 22), breaking a record along the way. The launch allowed SpaceX to surpass its 31 record launches of 2021 with a 32nd record launch in 2022, and still counting. Space.com reports: The two-stage Falcon 9 rocket, which induced a scrub at T-46 seconds on Thursday (July 21), lifted off successfully from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California Friday. Liftoff took place at 1:40 p.m. EDT (1740 GMT or 10:40 a.m. local time at the launch site) amid severely foggy conditions on the west coast. Falcon 9's first stage also completed its mission, landing atop the "Of Course I Still Love You" droneship in the Pacific Ocean as planned, about 8.5 minutes after launch. The report notes that SpaceX has launched more than 2,800 individual Starlink satellites to orbit as the company seeks to build out its satellite-internet service.

Space junk?

[Catvid-22]

It seems like an awful lot of spacecraft to be placing in orbit. What are our guarantees that these won't turn into space junk? Is there a system for gracefully de-orbiting them when they malfunction or reach their EOL?

Yes there is a plan

[SuperKendall]

Yes there is a plan [google.com]

Re:

[Catvid-22]

Right (then again I'm not rocket scientist). I got this one from the Starlink site itself [spacex.com]. So it seems that space junk isn't the problem, since Newton, if not SpaceX, will clean that up for us at such low orbital altitudes. Still, aren't you worried, you'll get hit by one of those falling birds?

Re:

[johngen86]

The satellites are designed and tested to be 100% demisable, meaning they entirely burn up on re-entry, and no component will reach the ground.

Re:

[Catvid-22]

The satellites are designed and tested to be 100% demisable, meaning they entirely burn up on re-entry, and no component will reach the ground.

You mean capable of being leased [wiktionary.org]? Yeah, I know what you mean. That meaning seems to be a new definition that Starlink wants to propagate. When I was skimming the Starlink blog earlier, I read it as "dismissible", and I got this weird image of satellites being fired just before they EOL.

Re: Yes there is a plan

[ArmoredDragon]

Interesting is the fact that by placing them in such a low orbit they (almost completely) can't contribute to a Kessler scenario. In other words, in the event of catastrophic failure or collision, they're basically guaranteed to burn up within a week.

Also almost the entire constellation will effectively be replaced every 5 years, so unlike the normal status quo, no obsolete birds occupying orbital slots for decades at a time.

Re:

[angel'o'sphere]

Still, aren't you worried, you'll get hit by one of those falling birds?
Nope. They are to small to reach the ground, they burn up in the atmosphere.

Re:

[nospam007]

"Still, aren't you worried, you'll get hit by one of those falling birds?"

You obviously didn't watch 'Dead like me'.

Re:Space junk?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Is there a system for gracefully de-orbiting them when they malfunction or reach their EOL?

It's called "an atmosphere".

Re:

[Catvid-22]

Yes, after reading the Starlink blog (see my second post), I now realize the satellites were actually designed to fall down. So it's not the junk that's the problem, but ensuring that whatever reaches the ground is fine enough not to injure any cats or chickens.

Re:

[nospam007]

"It seems like an awful lot of spacecraft to be placing in orbit. What are our guarantees that these won't turn into space junk? "

If you want a guarantee, buy a fridge.

Congratulations to Boeing

[backslashdot]

For being able to maintain a straight face while getting their congressmen to keep funding their disposable one-time use rockets that cost more per launch than SpaceX's entire Starship development budget. Truly a remarkable achievement.

Re:

[radarskiy]

Being the second source on a government contract is an excellent way to make money if you have no self-respect.