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.
The one caveat is that the FCC approvals require SpaceX to launch half of the planned satellites within the next six years.
500 pounds of what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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
Latency will not be a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Correction - light travels at 2/3 C in glass (Score:2)
Slashdot's horrible software swallowed my 2/3 unicode character.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:3)
"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 tribal areas of Pakistan, or the rural areas of India? Or, for that matter, to ships crossing the Pacific? Or cattle ranchers on the Argentine pampas?"
the same way you got electricity and laptops and satellite dishes there?
The way you get electricity, laptops and satellite dishes there is on ships, trucks and planes. How do you plan to use ships, trucks and planes to deliver Internet service? I guess you can ship in spools of fiber, even airdrop them, but then you still have to dig miles and miles of trenches, or put up thousands of poles, or similar, building out massive persistent networks that have to be extended to every location, and then maintained in perpetuity.
No, it's much,much easier just to airdrop solar panel
Re: Latency will not be a problem (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:500 pounds of what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:(Ku) (Score:4, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access
You know, since google went away let me route around your laziness..
You, Sir, are wrong! Not at all Ku band.
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-354775A1.pdf
Once they're in space they can be used... (Score:1)
...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.
Re: (Score:2)
...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 inconsolable. (Score:2, Insightful)
Iridium will have to bow out of this round. End of an era where every byte was expensive.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
err (Score:1)
when simple "upgrading software" is not enough:
> so SpaceX could give the onboard satellites a software software upgrade.
"The third time was a charm..." (Score:2)
... so what went wrong on the first two launches?
Re: (Score:3)
they were postponed due to high winds.
you fucking imbecile.
Profanity is the last refuge of the inarticulate fuckwit. But at least you write better than the /. editor.
Re: (Score:2)
Profanity is the last refuge of the inarticulate fuckwit. But at least you write better than the /. editor.
But you know how to write inarticulate. So I guess that just makes you a fuckwit?
Eyyyy
Re: (Score:2)
Thankyou for explaining the self-referential joke. That makes it *so* much funnier.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It's a very clever ruse (Score:5, Funny)
Non-evil-dictator internet in China (Score:3)
Winnie the Pooh (Xi) will not be able to press his giant red "NO" button anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Just say NO. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
second stage? (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
16.8 metric tonnes...lovely. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no image of this intriguing satellite design exists except for one Musk tweet of 60 packed in the Falcon 9 nose cone
Really? [spacenews.com] Seriously, really? [kinstacdn.com]
Re:I do like spaceX (but hate Musk) (Score:5, Interesting)
As any CEO ever, he promises more than he delivers. However what he does deliver are a boy's dreams said boy had been told all his life were impossible.
So yeah, he's a CEO. We've got a lot of those that do not offset thwir doichebaggery in any form with net gain for society. So why is it Musk especially that has some really ferocious haters?
Re:I do like spaceX (but hate Musk) (Score:5, Interesting)
He also gets shit done, which most other CEOs don't.
And so, people don't just dislike him. You can dislike a regular CEO but perceive him as the usual useless high-ranked arsehole. Musk, on the other hand, is successful, so people both dislike him and are envious of him (more than of others), which results in some deeply-installed hatred. A productive CEO? Outrageous!
Re:I do like spaceX (but hate Musk) (Score:5, Interesting)
I will admit I AM envious but I'll be damned if I didn't wish ALL CEOs made me envious in this way.
Can you imagine this world if that was the case?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
So why is it Musk especially that has some really ferocious haters?
that's pretty easy...he's got some really...old-fashioned...ideas about the relationship between a company and its employees. Like, 19th century old. Exploitation is not a good thing, and as long as he continues to exploit labor, he is not going to be well-liked on the left. His whole business plan -- creating a self-sustaining vertically integrated economic infrastructure (read: monopoly) so that he can tap the vast resources of space -- is copied from the tactics of 19th century industrialists [wikipedia.org] like Co
Re: (Score:2)
he's got some really...old-fashioned...ideas about the relationship between a company and its employees. Like, 19th century old. Exploitation is not a good thing, and as long as he continues to exploit labor, he is not going to be well-liked on the left. His whole business plan -- creating a self-sustaining vertically integrated economic infrastructure (read: monopoly) so that he can tap the vast resources of space -- is copied from the tactics of 19th century industrialists like Cornelius Vanderbilt
Those are two entirely different, unrelated things.
From what I hear, yes, Musk companies are excessively demanding when it comes to employee time. That is indeed a problem. It isn't sustainable long term, either, at least on an individual basis. Perhaps enough labor can be rotated through that kind of exploitation to build successful companies, but there isn't an infinite supply.
Vertical integration, on the other hand, is far more valuable than idiot MBAs would have you believe. Building all the pieces
Re: (Score:2)
ULA pork fills a lot of bellies.
Re: (Score:2)
As any CEO ever, he promises more than he delivers. However what he does deliver are a boy's dreams said boy had been told all his life were impossible.
So yeah, he's a CEO. We've got a lot of those that do not offset thwir doichebaggery in any form with net gain for society. So why is it Musk especially that has some really ferocious haters?
Aww....Elon is kinda squirrelly, but can't fault him for not pushing the envelope in regards to space. The only worry I have with this big constellation of LEO internet satellites is the increasing amount of orbiting objects, both junk and active hardware. 12,000 devices is gonna be a headache to avoid unless they are in an orbit that nothing else needs to be.
Re:I do like spaceX (but hate Musk) (Score:5, Insightful)
What rock have you been living under? Electric cars? Major car manufacturers had played with them for a decade or so, but always found a "reason" to toss them aside and double down on their ICE vehicles. Teslas long term viability as a mass market vehicle manufacturer is up in the air, but at least they've broken the facade that EV's aren't viable and now virtually every manufacturer is offering an EV of some kind. Rockets? SpaceX pretty much single handedly reshaped the launch market. Launch costs had been increasing drastically for years, mostly controlled by defense contractors or state ran industries. SpaceX has cut launch costs in half and it's probably far from over.
Re: (Score:1)
The real kicker for electric and hybrid cars will be the used market. I can buy a 30 year old junker with 200k miles for a couple hundred bucks and drive around just fine.
What is the shelf life of electric and hybrid cars? If they do not last long enough to live in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th hand markets then I don't think we will ever see them anywhere near the saturation level of ICE.
If you can only sell new or almost new cars without spending thousands of dollars for a new battery or motor then it will al
Re:I do like spaceX (but hate Musk) (Score:4, Insightful)
What is the shelf life of electric and hybrid cars? If they do not last long enough to live in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th hand markets then I don't think we will ever see them anywhere near the saturation level of ICE.
There are a couple of Model S vehicles that have passed 400K miles. Supposedly the Model 3 is rated to run for 1M miles. Is that working for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, how much does it cost?
Can I get it for a few hundred dollars? Couple thousand at most.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I nice way of saying we will soon find out as more EV are purchased used and sold.
Re: I do like spaceX (but hate Musk) (Score:1)
Re: I do like spaceX (but hate Musk) (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, how much does it cost?
Can I get it for a few hundred dollars? Couple thousand at most.
Retaining value is a good thing.
First you complain that EVs don't last. When people point out that they do, then you complain that they last too well and don't lose value.
You are not being consistent. You are just trolling for something to complain about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct of course - but I suspect we'll see a thriving aftermarket for flex-fuel generator conversion kits. 10-20 miles worth of battery, kept topped off by a compact high-efficiency generator that can operate right at its maximum-efficiency band? You don't need all that much power, a Tesla cruising at highway speeds only draws around 10-15kW (13-20hp), generate more than that and the driver can flip a switch to recharge the battery on the highway.
And of course there's *lots* of options for how to
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're missing the point - we're talking about people currently buying run-down beat-up cars for a few hundred dollars, with all the problems that involves, because they can't afford anything better. Spending even a few thousand dollars on a new battery pack is not going to be an option.
Though perhaps if it's cheap enough to replace the batteries piecemeal it might work - a few hundred for one good battery-block to at least get you around town if you plan charging carefully, and you can add more as
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't part of the problem with batteries is that they lose their ability to hold the same 100% charge? Buying a used electric vehicle may come with the problem of shorter range unless you buy a new battery and hopefully those costs go down enough to compete. It will have to compete with that 30 year old junker with 200k miles for a few hundred.
Re: (Score:2)
I can buy a 30 year old junker with 200k miles for a couple hundred bucks and drive around just fine.
"Just fine" is debatable. The reason you can get such a car for a couple hundred bucks is that it's not trustworthy. EVs will be good for hundreds of thousands of reliable miles. The batteries degrade, true, but they do so in a slow, predictable fashion. In a decade or two you'll be able to buy an old Tesla that, when new, would go 300 miles on a charge and will now only go 250. Or maybe only 200. But within its reduced range, it will still be extremely reliable because there's so much less to break.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally think that Musk is a self-promoting twat, but I am a fan of SpaceX. Say what you will about that D-Bag, he does know how to group the right people around him to make him a F-Ton of cash.
Right there with you.
It's funny - sometimes I think about how messed up the world is (and it really is), but this is still a very cool time to be alive.
Re:I do like spaceX (but hate Musk) (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares? He's doing good work nobody else could be arsed to do.
What a shame... accelerate Humanity by a few decades and get bitched at for it based on Public Relations missteps... C'est la vie.
Re: (Score:2)
AC for the win. Please show us on the doll where the Rocket Man bad-touched you.
Re: (Score:2)
He touched my Moon parts. :(
Then he told me my Mars bar was next.
Re: (Score:2)
wow man you built a super soaker in high school. that completely legitimizes your embarrassing whimpers of jealousy towards Elon Musk. luckily, you'll die angry and alone and confused, unable to understand why everyone in your life ended up unable to tolerate your presence in the end.
Re: I do like spaceX (but hate Musk) (Score:2, Insightful)
Look at this objectively. A lot of us had ideas in high school after flipping thru our honors physics texts. Musk (and the people surrounding him) though has actual satellites orbiting the planet. He has electric cars on the road and not bespoke examples either but mass production consumer products.
Yes he also exaggerates, the cars donâ(TM)t really drive themselves; as a practical matter you canâ(TM)t really buy that $35k model, I have yet to ride a bullettrain thru a reduced air pressure tube
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
A few decades? What has Musk actually done?
- Reusable rockets. A nice advance, other companies were working on them but Space X definitely helped them arrive a few years earlier by creating more competition.
- Electric cars. Well Tesla still hasn't really delivered on its affordable model, where as other manufacturers like Nissan/Renault and Hyundai/Kia have been offering those for years. Tesla certainly made EVs more attractive but offering some desirable cars, but only really accelerated the adoption by a
Re: (Score:2)
What have you done Mr. Sourpuss?
Re: (Score:2)
- Reusable rockets. A nice advance, other companies were working on them but Space X definitely helped them arrive a few years earlier by creating more competition.
You are seriously delusional. No "competitor" is anywhere close to doing what Musk has done with the Falcon 9. Blue Origin is a joke. SLA is far more expensive and hasn't put out a new rocket design in decades. That's not because Musk is any sort of genius. He just put in investments and built a company to realize a vision. Anybody could have done the same...but they didn't. And now while some competitors are trying to catch up with the Falcon 9, Musk has moved onto the BFR. So I think the SpaceX lead will
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I personally think that Musk is a self-promoting twat...
Those are the kind of people who can get giant things done. Think of Carnegie, Jobs, and the original Tesla.