> > They are supposed to automatically de-orbit in ~5 years (atmospheric drag) > if they are DOA based on a quick search. That does mean that they are > space junk for a while but not permanent space junk. >
Sorta. At 500km, an uncontrolled object can take around 10 years to deorbit naturally. It's a function of cross sectional area, mass, and drag coefficient. An uncontrolled object will also, over time, slowly orient itself to a position of least drag, which thereby extends the curve. This is also subject to natural atmospheric density fluctuations. 5 years for a spent bird at 550km is most likely the best possible case, and won't be the norm. On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 4:32 AM Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > They are supposed to automatically de-orbit in ~5 years (atmospheric drag) > if they are DOA based on a quick search. That does mean that they are > space junk for a while but not permanent space junk. > > > On 19 Jun 2023, at 17:44, b...@uu3.net wrote: > > > > Heh, its kinda sad that noone mentions space environment impact at all. > > How that 40k sats will pollute already decently pulluted orbit. > > > > I wonder if decommision process will be clean (burn in atmosphere). > > If there will be failure rate, we will end up w/ dead sats at orbit. > > > > I really wonder if thats really necessary. I think that money could be > > better spent building earth infra reaching those under-serviced places. > > Cheaper, easy maintenance, less centralization. > > > > We also need orbit for more importand sats out there than internet. > > GPS, earth monitoring infra, space telescopes, R&D. > > > > > > ---------- Original message ---------- > > > > From: Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> > > To: Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> > > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > > Subject: Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of > Data Caps > > Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2023 21:11:53 -0400 > > > >> > >> The principal barriers to another launch are a successful test of the > >> new water deluge system, and qualifying a more advanced flight > >> termination system. > >> > > > > The fact that not only they tested WITHOUT a water deluge system the > first > > time, OR a flame trench, is why the Cult of Musk will continue to hold > them > > back. It's fascinating to me to watch him 'discover' solutions to > problems > > solved 50 years ago that he chose to ignore. > > > > The environmental impact was far less than believed. An analysis of > >> the dust spread across town was shown to just be sand, not vaporised > >> fondag, > >> as thought. > >> > > > > The easily predictable environmental damage around the launch area still > > exists and is significant, and will take them months to clean up via the > > terms of their contract with the state of Texas. > > > > There is really massive construction going on, replacing the existing > >> megabay, the damaged tanks are being replaced rapidly, the launch site > >> has been dug out and partially repaired, and a new launch license was > >> issued for the next 6 months last week. > >> > > > > Also here, the fact that they even have LOX and CH4 thanks THAT CLOSE to > > the pad itself is borderline negligent, but still absolutely mind > > boggling. > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 8:04˙˙PM Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 5:16˙˙PM Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more > >> capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that is going to > >> really drive down the launch cost. > >>> > >>> > >>> Starship is years away from being flight ready. The most recent test > >> launch from Texas was not a 'successful failure' as widely portrayed in > the > >> media. Reputable people who have been working in this field for decades > >> have pointed out tons of massive problems that are not quick fixes. > >> > >> 1) I agree that they are years from flight ready, however the > >> improvements in the queue for the next launch are already impressive. > >> A lot of nay-saying concerns have been addressed since the launch. > >> > >> The environmental impact was far less than believed. An analysis of > >> the dust spread across town was shown to just be sand, not vaporised > >> fondag, > >> as thought. > >> > >> While the everyday astronaut and starbase_csi can be thought of as > >> fanbois, they are also producing the most quality reporting and > >> analysis that exists: > >> > >> https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut > >> https://twitter.com/CSI_Starbase > >> > >> They are good folk to track. > >> > >> Eric Burger is a more conventional tech journalist covering all of > space: > >> > >> https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace > >> > >> https://arstechnica.com/author/ericberger/ > >> > >> There are an amazing number of individuals reporting on daily > >> progress, with live video feeds. > >> > >> There is really massive construction going on, replacing the existing > >> megabay, the damaged tanks are being replaced rapidly, the launch site > >> has been dug out and partially repaired, and a new launch license was > >> issued for the next 6 months last week. > >> > >> The principal barriers to another launch are a successful test of the > >> new water deluge system, and qualifying a more advanced flight > >> termination system. The next ship and booster will possibly be tested > >> next month, and these have replaced the hydrolic controls with > >> electric and have better motor shielding in general. > >> > >> Yes, an utterly amazing amount of things need to go right to launch a > >> spaceship, but ... my best bet for another launch of starship would be > >> early september. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 6:56˙˙PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Whether or not it makes business sense isn't really what I was talking > >> about. I was talking about the home dish costing $1k. That sounds like > it > >> could easily be reduced significantly unless there is some underlying > tech > >> reason. > >>>> > >>>> Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more > >> capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that is going to > >> really drive down the launch cost. > >>>> > >>>> But your calculations don't take into account that they are not at > >> anywhere close to a full constellation: they are only at 4k out of the > 40k > >> they need so they literally can't support higher numbers. Their new > >> generation of satellite is also suppose to be doing some in-orbit > routing > >> or something like that which would I would assume will really help on > the > >> bandwidth front. How much that affects their maximum subscriber base > when > >> they are fully deployed I don't know but it's bound to be a lot more > >> possible subs than they have now. > >>>> > >>>> I mean, this could be a spectacular flop like Iridium but a lot has > >> changed in 20 some years not least of which is the cost of launch. > >>>> > >>>> Mike > >>>> > >>>> On 6/17/23 2:53 PM, Tom Beecher wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics are > >> the real economics. I'm pretty sure they've been purposefully throttling > >> demand because they still don't have the capacity so it would make > sense to > >> overcharge in the mean time. Is there something inherent in their cpe > that > >> makes them much more expensive than, say, satellite tv dishes? I can see > >> marginally more because of the LEO aspect, but isn't that mainly just > >> software? It wouldn't surprise me that the main cost is the truck roll. > >>>> > >>>> - Starlink currently reports around 1.5M subscribers. At $110 a month, > >> that's $165M in revenue, > >>>> > >>>> - A Falcon 9 launch is billed out at $67M. A Falcon 9 can carry up to > >> 60 Starlink sats. That's ~667 launches to reach the stated goal of 40k > sats > >> in the constellation. So roughly $45B in just launch costs, if you > assume > >> the public launch price. (Because if they are launching their own stuff, > >> they aren't launching an external paying customer.) > >>>> - The reported price per sat is $250k. > >>>> > >>>> Assuming they give themselves a friendly internal discount, the > orbital > >> buildout cost are in the neighborhood of $30B for launches, and $10B for > >> sats. > >>>> > >>>> - The satellite failure rate is stated to be ~ 3% annually. On a 40K > >> cluster, that's 1200 a year. > >>>> > >>>> That's about 20 more launches a year, and $300M for replacement sats. > >> Let's round off and say that's $1B a year there. > >>>> > >>>> So far, that's a $40B buildout with a $1B annual run rate. And that's > >> just the orbital costs. We haven't even calculated the manufacturing > costs > >> of the receiver dishes, terrestrial network infra cost , opex from > staff , > >> R&D, etc . > >>>> > >>>> Numbers kinda speak for themselves here. > >>>> > >>>>> I mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you > will > >> he does have big ambitions. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Ambition is good. But reality tends to win the day. As does math. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 4:38˙˙PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 6/17/23 1:25 PM, Tom Beecher wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner > >>>>>> rather than later? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Unlikely. They will remain niche. The economics don't make sense for > >> those services to completely replace terrestrial only service. > >>>>> > >>>>> Why would they put up 40000 satellites if their ambition is only > >> niche? I mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you > >> will he does have big ambitions. > >>>>> > >>>>> From my standpoint, they don't have to completely replace the > >> incumbents. I'd be perfectly happy just keeping them honest. > >>>>> > >>>>> As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics are > >> the real economics. I'm pretty sure they've been purposefully throttling > >> demand because they still don't have the capacity so it would make > sense to > >> overcharge in the mean time. Is there something inherent in their cpe > that > >> makes them much more expensive than, say, satellite tv dishes? I can see > >> marginally more because of the LEO aspect, but isn't that mainly just > >> software? It wouldn't surprise me that the main cost is the truck roll. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mike > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 4:17˙˙PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 6/16/23 1:09 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 6/16/23 21:19, Josh Luthman wrote: > >>>>>>>> Mark, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> In my world I constantly see people with 0 fixed internet options. > >>>>>>>> Many of these locations do not even have mobile coverage. > >>>>>>>> Competition is fine in town, but for millions of people in the US > >>>>>>>> (and I'm going to assume it's worse or comparable in CA/MX) there > >> is > >>>>>>>> no service. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> As a company primarily delivering to residents, competition is not > >> a > >>>>>>>> focus for us and for the urban market it's tough to survive on a > >> ~1/3 > >>>>>>>> take rate. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I should have been clearer... the lack of competition in many > >> markets > >>>>>>> is not unique to North America. I'd say all of the world suffers > >> that, > >>>>>>> since there is only so much money and resources to go around. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> What I was trying to say is that should a town or village have the > >>>>>>> opportunity to receive competition, where existing services are > >>>>>>> capped, uncapping that via an alternative provider would be low > >>>>>>> hanging fruit to gain local marketshare. Of course, the alternative > >>>>>>> provider would need to show up first, but that's a whole other > >> thread. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner > >>>>>> rather than later? I don't know if they have caps as well, but even > if > >>>>>> they do they could compete with their caps. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Mike > >>>>>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Podcast: > >> > https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7058793910227111937/ > >> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos > >> > > -- > Mark Andrews, ISC > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org > >