Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Communications Space Businesses United States Technology

SpaceX Launches 60 Starlink Satellites On Thrice-Flown Rocket, Sticks Landing (space.com) 137

SpaceX's fifth Falcon 9 rocket of the year successfully launched from Cape Canaveral this evening, sending 60 internet-beaming satellites into space. Space.com reports: Following the successful launch, the rocket's first stage gently touched down on a floating platform at sea, marking the company's 40th booster recovery. It was the third flight for this particular booster, marking just the second time SpaceX has flown a Falcon 9 first stage more than twice. The third time was a charm for SpaceX as the Falcon 9 lifted off at 10:30 p.m. EDT (0230 GMT on May 24) from Space Launch Complex 40 at Florida's Cape Canaveral Air Force Station here, following several delays: first a 24-hour delay due to high upper-level winds on May 15, and then a weeklong delay so SpaceX could give the onboard satellites a software software upgrade. Tucked inside the rocket's nose cone were 60 satellites -- the first batch of SpaceX's Starlink megaconstellation, which the company hopes will help provide affordable internet coverage to the world. Each of the Starlink satellites weighs 500 lbs. (227 kg). The 60-spacecraft haul is the heaviest payload that a Falcon 9 has yet hoisted to orbit, SpaceX representatives have said. The aerospace company plans to launch nearly 12,000 of these satellites in total, "which will park themselves in low-Earth orbit and beam internet coverage to the world below," the report says. "There will be two Starlink flocks: one constellation of 4,409 satellites and a second constellation of 7,518 satellites, according to an agreement with the FCC."

The one caveat is that the FCC approvals require SpaceX to launch half of the planned satellites within the next six years.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SpaceX Launches 60 Starlink Satellites On Thrice-Flown Rocket, Sticks Landing

Comments Filter:
  • by AlanObject ( 3603453 ) on Friday May 24, 2019 @12:29AM (#58645890)

    Does someone have specs that they can post a link to about what exactly those satellites do? What radio bands and protocols are they using and what kind of bandwidth?

    That's a lot of satellites they are planning to pitch up there but there are a lot more people down on the ground that might use it. I'm skeptical that the system can really serve enough people to make a difference.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Pollution is a real problem. 12,000 satellites is a lot, more than twice the number in orbit today. And it's not just Musk who wants to put them up, other companies want their constellations too. It's going to get crowded up there.

      And then there is the jamming. Don't expect countries like China, Russia and North Korea to allow unfettered satellite internet access from a US company. Even in democratic countries there are legal site blocks in effect.

      And all for high latency, high contention internet access th

      • by robbak ( 775424 ) on Friday May 24, 2019 @05:22AM (#58646404) Homepage

        For latency, low-altitude satellite is going to beat almost all optic fiber internet. Remember that light travels at C in glass. The final constellation will be sending data using lasers through space, which will travel at C. So if your packets are traveling more than 3000km, StarLink (or other low-altitude satellite internet) is going to get them there faster.

        Yes, contention in big cities will be a problem - there, cables still win. But even there, Starlink will be a useful part of the backhaul solution - with all those satellites, there's lots of capability, and it will be especially important delivering packets to and from regional areas. Outside of big cities, this will be near unbeatable, and for isolated areas - well, for much of the planet, this will be the first real high-speed internet.

        • Slashdot's horrible software swallowed my 2/3 unicode character.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          lasers through space

          Which are much lower bandwidth than photons through fibre optic because of slower switching times and less multiplexing.

          So if your packets are traveling more than 3000km

          Which is extremely rare thanks to CDNs. Akamai, Cloudflare etc.

          Starlink will be a useful part of the backhaul solution

          The bandwidth will be inadequate.

          well, for much of the planet, this will be the first real high-speed internet.

          That's where it will make the biggest difference, but you have to wonder if putting up 12,000 satellites (and the rest from other companies, who all want their own 12k constellations) is better than just deploying cheap fibre. They can bypass all the costly international legal issues with satell

          • by Anonymous Coward

            robbak pointed out:

            well, for much of the planet, this will be the first real high-speed internet.

            Prompting AmiMoJo to respond

            That's where it will make the biggest difference, but you have to wonder if putting up 12,000 satellites (and the rest from other companies, who all want their own 12k constellations) is better than just deploying cheap fibre. They can bypass all the costly international legal issues with satellites, even though it's an inferior solution.

            WTF?

            C'mon, d00d, I understand you dislike Musk, but give to me a break. Robbak very perceptively pointed out that the Starlink system (and its competitors, when and if they actually - y'know - get off the ground) will bring usable internet access to much of the world that doesn't currently have it. You counter with "cheap fiber."

            Want to explain how you're proposing to deploy "cheap fiber" to the Amazon rain forest? Or the vast rainforests of the Congos? Or the Gobi desert? Or the

          • by hublan ( 197388 )

            lasers through space

            Which are much lower bandwidth than photons through fibre optic because of slower switching times and less multiplexing.

            Lolwutnow? All high-bandwidth fiber optic communication systems use lasers (laser diodes). However, in space you're not bounded by the refractive attenuation mess of fiber and the significantly lower speed of light in glass. The only thing you have to worry about is having good aim and tracking.

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              You are instead bound by divergence of the beam and requiring a much higher power laser which is less easy to switch at extremely high speeds, or to multiplex over different wavelengths.

      • by lgw ( 121541 ) on Friday May 24, 2019 @08:38AM (#58647236) Journal

        Pollution is a real problem. 12,000 satellites is a lot, more than twice the number in orbit today. And it's not just Musk who wants to put them up, other companies want their constellations too. It's going to get crowded up there.

        Once again, AmiMoJo find a reason to reject anything that makes life better for people. Why do we have these luddites on /.?

        SpaceX is hardcore on preventing debris in orbit. 12,000 sats is nothing compared to the amount of debris in low orbit. Aluminum flakes from solid rocket boosters are the biggest offenders (looking at you, space shuttle). Large/expensive sats are all armored now, because impacts from small debris are so frequent.

        SpaceX won't even use exploding bolts for stage separation. Everything is hydraulic, despite that weighing more, just to ensure no additional debris.

        Please at least try to make a distinction between pollution and progress.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Why do you always assume people you disagree with are basically evil and trying to make things worse for everyone?

          In a follow-up comment I pointed out that I think there are better ways to bring internet to the world.

          • by lgw ( 121541 )

            quote>Why do you always assume people you disagree with are basically evil and trying to make things worse for everyone?

            Just people whose posting history supports that belief.

            In a follow-up comment I pointed out that I think there are better ways to bring internet to the world.

            Feel free to build that out with your money.

      • by ColaMan ( 37550 )

        Pollution is a real problem. 12,000 satellites is a lot, more than twice the number in orbit today.

        It's less than you think. Imagine 12,000 people running around the entire surface of the Earth. How often will they run into each other?

        • by jon3k ( 691256 )
          Now move those people 340 miles off the ground out in to space so they're even FURTHER apart. Oh and then realize there are dozens of orbital planes so when you finally do find another person to run into you realize they're miles and miles above you.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    ...for any purpose their hardware can support - including surveillance of bands they do not use for commercial public data services. You'd have to imagine something so expensive would be dual-purposed from inception.

    It's just good governance, bang for buck so to speak.

    • by mridoni ( 228377 )

      ...for any purpose their hardware can support - including surveillance of bands they do not use for commercial public data services..

      ... or surveillance of bands they do use for commercial public data services.

      FTFY

  • Iridium will have to bow out of this round. End of an era where every byte was expensive.

    • Starlink is going to require antennas the size of a pizza box.
      Iridium has it down to the size of a phone.
      So they might have a couple of years left.

      • The Directv and Dish satellites require dishes about the same size, so I'm not seeing a problem with that.

        I live in a bigger town and have decent internet, but if I can get a better pipe for a decent price through Starlink I'll switch in a heartbeat.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    when simple "upgrading software" is not enough:
    > so SpaceX could give the onboard satellites a software software upgrade.

  • ... so what went wrong on the first two launches?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      The first one was canceled due to high winds, the second wasn't really cancelled but the launch was postponed because they wanted to do a software update on the satellites before they launched them.

      • by quenda ( 644621 )

        Yes. I got a bit thrown by reading "It was the third flight for this particular booster, marking just the second time SpaceX has flown a Falcon 9 first stage more than twice. The third time was a charm for SpaceX ..." Rather poorly written IMHO.
         

  • by Sqreater ( 895148 ) on Friday May 24, 2019 @05:40AM (#58646468)
    I believe the 12,000 satellites in low Earth orbit ostensibly to provide internet coverage must really be part of a secret plan to counter global warming by blocking the sun. SpaceX can't fool me.
  • by Nocturrne ( 912399 ) on Friday May 24, 2019 @06:08AM (#58646584)

    Winnie the Pooh (Xi) will not be able to press his giant red "NO" button anymore.

    • This is why China developed anti-satellite weapons. They knew someone would launch the Internet into space one day. They have the means to protect the great firewall.
    • by Strider- ( 39683 )

      Just like with Iridium, Starlink won't work in China (or russia for that matter). SpaceX doesn't have landing rights for those countries, so under international law can't sell service there. The best they're likely able to do would be to provide service, through a domestic terminal. This is how Iridium started providing service in Russia a few years back. They built a dedicated terminal in Russia, that all non-DISA (DoD) phones downlink through when in Russian territory.

  • As if we don't have enough junk floating up there, and why want 12,000 more pieces of junk up there?
  • so what happened to SpaceX's second stage? Will it / did it return somewhere? Or retro-burn to slow down and burn up soon in the atmosphere? Or was it left in orbit?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Virtually all Falcon 9 Second stages do a retro-burn and disintegrate in the atmosphere. There are even some Youtube videos showing them doing their burn and then depressurizing their tanks so they don't explode when things get toasty.

      • Virtually all Falcon 9 Second stages do a retro-burn and disintegrate in the atmosphere. There are even some Youtube videos showing them doing their burn and then depressurizing their tanks so they don't explode when things get toasty.

        I seem to recall they didn't originally purge their tanks, but started doing so in order to avoid the visual of a stage going boom being caught in a telescope somewhere. Apparently disintegration boom and left-over fuel boom are pretty different looking.

        Or maybe I dreamed it. I can't find a source.

  • I wonder where's that Anonymous Moron that claimed that Falcon 9 couldn't possibly lift such a payload because it only launched 10 tonnes with Iridium.

No man is an island if he's on at least one mailing list.

Working...