Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

SpaceX Internet Satellite Network: Starlink

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
It does sound like physically disabling Starlink would be fruitless, though, since Elon is confident they could launch satellites safer than missiles could destroy them.
I don’t know what Elon specifically said about that news report, but the orbital debris field produced by just a few destroyed sats could potentially destroy many more.

So far the US, Russia, India, and China, have destroyed sats in orbit. This is wildly irresponsible behavior and there should be an international treaty (It has been proposed) banning such activity. Such destruction could potentially make LEO unusable.
 
So now Starlink (starlink . com / map) exists and instead of trying to type in names the hard way you can just look for the countries that have the darkest gray color to see who isn't in.

fwiw there are less than 10 countries not listed as coming soon.

  • Russia
  • Belarus
  • North Korea
  • China
  • Afghanistan
  • Iran
  • Syria
  • Venezuela
  • Cuba

I wonder if that actually means SpaceX has started the regulatory process in all the other 150 or so countries? If so, that’s impressive.
 
I wonder if that actually means SpaceX has started the regulatory process in all the other 150 or so countries? If so, that’s impressive.
If you hover your mouse over a specific country it will tell you what quarter and year they expect to start service (if less than a year away) or will say 2023 with no quarter mentioned if a better timeline isn't clear.

Dominican Republic says Q2 2022
Columbia says Q2 2022

Nigeria says Q3 2022
Bahamas says Q3 2022
Jamaica says Q3 2022
Ecuador says Q3 2022
Peru says Q3 2022
Japan says Q3 2022
Trinidad and Tobago says Q3 2022

Mozambique says Q4 2022
Barbados says Q4 2022
St. Kitts and Nevis says Q4 2022
St Vincent and the Grenadines says Q4 2022
Panama says Q4 2022
Argentina says Q4 2022
Philippines says Q4 2022
Paraguay says Q4 2022

Alaska says Q1 2023
Northern Canada says Q1 2023
Greenland says Q1 2023
Iceland says Q1 2023
Brazil says Q1 2023 (I guess that's for regular users not the Amazon project)
Estonia says Q1 2023
Finland says Q1 2023
Sweden says Q1 2023
Norway says Q1 2023
Northern Australia says Q1 2023
Nornern Chile says Q1 2023
Southern Chile says Q1 2023

most anything else already has service or says 2023 with no quarter so it's probably further out.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: EVCollies
I don’t know what Elon specifically said about that news report, but the orbital debris field produced by just a few destroyed sats could potentially destroy many more.

So far the US, Russia, India, and China, have destroyed sats in orbit. This is wildly irresponsible behavior and there should be an international treaty (It has been proposed) banning such activity. Such destruction could potentially make LEO unusable.
You have to wonder what Elon and SpaceX would come up with if they made cleaning up LEO a priority. The government would probably spend $10 to $20 billion just to come up with some paper solution. Elon/SpaceX could envision something great in a day and take a year or two to implement it.
 
You have to wonder what Elon and SpaceX would come up with if they made cleaning up LEO a priority. The government would probably spend $10 to $20 billion just to come up with some paper solution. Elon/SpaceX could envision something great in a day and take a year or two to implement it.
c7edd8c24927f5822401c070c95b9f35.jpg
 
The lovely thing about $500M/yr revenue expected now is with all upfront costs already spent plus close to Zero ongoing operational costs. Yes the upfront costs are high, but it will print money with close to zero operational costs, except for replenishing dead satellites. So once fully operational, the launch cadence will come down dramatically.


1654032331219.png
 
The lovely thing about $500M/yr revenue expected now is with all upfront costs already spent plus close to Zero ongoing operational costs. Yes the upfront costs are high, but it will print money with close to zero operational costs, except for replenishing dead satellites. So once fully operational, the launch cadence will come down dramatically.
Starship will reduce the launch cadence but being "fully operational" won't. The Orbit they launch to leaves them up there for ~3 years. Every year they have to put up the same amount they put up the prior year or more (more if they want to grow, the same if they want to replenish, less isn't an option, they need to at least launch 1/3 of the total number of satellites every year).

So if they can launch 200+ on a starship instead of 50+ on a Falcon 9 they can launch 1/4 as many times to keep the same replenishment rate (and reduce launch costs) but they can't just drop to zero and avoid the cost of replacement satellites.
 
Last edited:
Starship will reduce the launch cadence but being "fully operational" won't. The Orbit they launch to leaves them up there for ~3 years. Every year they have to put up the same amount they put up the prior year or more (more if they want to grow, the same if they want to replenish, less isn't an option, they need to at least launch 1/3 of the total number of satellites every year).

So if they can launch 200+ on a starship instead of 50+ on a Falcon 9 they can launch 1/4 as many times to keep the same replenishment rate (and reduce launch costs) but they can't just drop to zero and avoid the cost of replacement satellites.
3 years? Latest FCC filing says 5-7 years.
 
Wow, it is really significant how much of the sky you need to be able to use this. I have pretty darn good access for a rural location and Starlink is complaining about partially obstructed sky.

It is saying that my obstructions are causing regular satellite interruptions, and I'm not sure just how much better I could get it. I might try a short extension on my roof mount once installed to see if an additional 3 feet vertical would change anything.
Yeah, the physics and geometry of the world / sky mean that most of the time satellites are low on the horizon. They spend very little time overhead. The lower over the horizon you can see, the more likely it is that you can see a satellite.

This is true for any satellite service that does not use a high altitude, geosynchronous satellite and instead uses a low-altitude satellite constellation.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Vines
3 years? Latest FCC filing says 5-7 years.

I'd have to do some research to find documentation but as I remember it the original plan was to have higher orbits (hundreds of meters difference) that got changed to lower "higher orbits" that are just tens of kilometers higher.

>SpaceX's plans in 2019 were for the initial 12,000 satellites to orbit in three orbital shells:
  • First shell: 1,440 in a 550 km (340 mi) altitude shell
  • Second shell: 2,825 Ku-band and Ka-band spectrum satellites at 1,110 km (690 mi)
  • Third shell: 7,500 V-band satellites at 340 km (210 mi)
In April 2020, SpaceX modified the architecture of the Starlink network. SpaceX submitted an application to the FCC proposing to operate more satellites in lower orbits in the first phase than the FCC previously authorized. The first phase will still include 1,440 satellites in the first shell orbiting at 550 km (340 mi) in planes inclined 53.0°, with no change to the first shell of the constellation launched largely in 2020.

  • First shell: 1,440 in a 550 km (341.8 mi) altitude shell at 53.0° inclination
  • Second shell: 1,440 in a 540 km (335.5 mi) shell at 53.2° inclination
  • Third shell: 720 in a 570 km (354.2 mi) shell at 70° inclination
  • Fourth shell: 336 in a 560 km (348.0 mi) shell at 97.6° inclination
  • Fifth shell: 172 satellites in a 560 km (348.0 mi) shell at 97.6° inclination

The lower orbits will help ensure the satellites re-enter the atmosphere in a shorter time in case of failure and will enable them to broadcast signals at reduced power levels because they are closer to Earth, which SpaceX said will allow the fleet to be compliant with limits to reduce radio interference with other satellite and terrestrial wireless networks.

End result all the shells go practically at the rate of original first shell (all in the 540 to 570 km range).

It takes multiple months to raise and position, and multiple months to deorbit at EOL. So if you have a 5 year window maybe 4.5 years is the usable life. If it's a 4 year window maybe 3.5 years is the usable life.

Whatever the usable life they have to launch replacements of 1/x years worth every year. I'm wanting to say that is 1/~3 but it might be 1/3.5 or some other smaller fraction. I'm just using a rough memory of math from other forums. I'd have to dig to find the real math.

The important concept is that it requires annual launches in perpetuity (that means means forever and that's a mighty long time). There is no period where they stop launching and start pulling in profits due to lack of launches.
 
Last edited:
The lovely thing about $500M/yr revenue expected now is with all upfront costs already spent plus close to Zero ongoing operational costs. Yes the upfront costs are high, but it will print money with close to zero operational costs, except for replenishing dead satellites. So once fully operational, the launch cadence will come down dramatically.


OK in case my other response didn't make this clear let me put it another way

It took about 16 months to launch the ~1600 version 1.0 satelites which is roughly 100 a month or 1200 a year.

The 1.5 version satellites have done about 700 in a year (they weight slightly more so less went per launch)

2653 were launched total and 2374 are still working.

The goal is to get to about 50,000 satellites

On 15 October 2019, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) submitted filings to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) on SpaceX's behalf to arrange spectrum for 30,000 additional Starlink satellites to supplement the 12,000 Starlink satellites already approved by the FCC

Even if you assume the 2000+ satellites will work forever (and they won't) you have a goal to get to 50,000+.

If you assume every version 2 satellite will last 10 years (and they won't) you end up with something like this

5 year ramp and then level off
2023 launch 10,000+ satellites
2024 launch 10,000+ satellites
2025 launch 10,000+ satellites
2026 launch 10,000+ satellites
2027 launch 10,000+ satellites
2028 launch 5,000+ satellites
2029 launch 5,000+ satellites
2030 launch 5,000+ satellites
2031 launch 5,000+ satellites
2032 launch 5,000+ satellites
and so on

or a 10 year ramp up and level off

2023 launch 5,000+ satellites
2024 launch 5,000+ satellites
2025 launch 5,000+ satellites
2026 launch 5,000+ satellites
2027 launch 5,000+ satellites
2028 launch 5,000+ satellites
2029 launch 5,000+ satellites
2030 launch 5,000+ satellites
2031 launch 5,000+ satellites
2032 launch 5,000+ satellites
and so on


If you assume that the satellites only last 5 years it's even more daunting

2023 launch 10,000+ satellites
2024 launch 10,000+ satellites
2025 launch 10,000+ satellites
2026 launch 10,000+ satellites
2027 launch 10,000+ satellites
2028 launch 10,000+ satellites
2029 launch 10,000+ satellites
2030 launch 10,000+ satellites
2031 launch 10,000+ satellites
2032 launch 10,000+ satellites
and so on

and if you assume a 4 or 3 year lifespan it gets even more expensive to keep them up there.

I don't see any year in the next 10 years that has near zero costs. In fact I expect costs to be rising. Once fully operational, the launch cadence will continue as far as I can see.
 
Last edited:
OK in case my other response didn't make this clear let me put it another way

It took about 16 months to launch the ~1600 version 1.0 satelites which is roughly 100 a month or 1200 a year.

The 1.5 version satellites have done about 700 in a year (they weight slightly more so less went per launch)

2653 were launched total and 2374 are still working.

The goal is to get to about 50,000 satellites

On 15 October 2019, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) submitted filings to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) on SpaceX's behalf to arrange spectrum for 30,000 additional Starlink satellites to supplement the 12,000 Starlink satellites already approved by the FCC

Even if you assume the 2000+ satellites will work forever (and they won't) you have a goal to get to 50,000+.

If you assume every version 2 satellite will last 10 years (and they won't) you end up with something like this

5 year ramp and then level off
2023 launch 10,000+ satellites
2024 launch 10,000+ satellites
2025 launch 10,000+ satellites
2026 launch 10,000+ satellites
2027 launch 10,000+ satellites
2028 launch 5,000+ satellites
2029 launch 5,000+ satellites
2030 launch 5,000+ satellites
2031 launch 5,000+ satellites
2032 launch 5,000+ satellites
and so on

or a 10 year ramp up and level off

2023 launch 5,000+ satellites
2024 launch 5,000+ satellites
2025 launch 5,000+ satellites
2026 launch 5,000+ satellites
2027 launch 5,000+ satellites
2028 launch 5,000+ satellites
2029 launch 5,000+ satellites
2030 launch 5,000+ satellites
2031 launch 5,000+ satellites
2032 launch 5,000+ satellites
and so on


If you assume that the satellites only last 5 years it's even more daunting

2023 launch 10,000+ satellites
2024 launch 10,000+ satellites
2025 launch 10,000+ satellites
2026 launch 10,000+ satellites
2027 launch 10,000+ satellites
2028 launch 10,000+ satellites
2029 launch 10,000+ satellites
2030 launch 10,000+ satellites
2031 launch 10,000+ satellites
2032 launch 10,000+ satellites
and so on

and if you assume a 4 or 3 year lifespan it gets even more expensive to keep them up there.

I don't see any year in the next 10 years that has near zero costs. In fact I expect costs to be rising.

Doesn't this mean that about 10 Starlink satellites per day are going to de-orbit??
 
  • Like
Reactions: nativewolf
Doesn't this mean that about 10 Starlink satellites per day are going to de-orbit??
at some point if you have over 10,000 per year going up you'll have something like 25-30 per day.

They fully burn up before hitting the ground but the ones that burn up in your field of vision might be interesting to watch. Still if they are only visible a few seconds and they cover from pole to pole and 360 degrees around the other way you'd have to really be looking for one.
 
I'd have to do some research to find documentation but as I remember it the original plan was to have higher orbits (hundreds of meters difference) that got changed to lower "higher orbits" that are just tens of kilometers higher.






End result all the shells go practically at the rate of original first shell (all in the 540 to 570 km range).

It takes multiple months to raise and position, and multiple months to deorbit at EOL. So if you have a 5 year window maybe 4.5 years is the usable life. If it's a 4 year window maybe 3.5 years is the usable life.

Whatever the usable life they have to launch replacements of 1/x years worth every year. I'm wanting to say that is 1/~3 but it might be 1/3.5 or some other smaller fraction. I'm just using a rough memory of math from other forums. I'd have to dig to find the real math.

The important concept is that it requires annual launches in perpetuity (that means means forever and that's a mighty long time). There is no period where they stop launching and start pulling in profits due to lack of launches.
Lets say they have to do 5 launches a year at steady state with some 200 satellites in each, what is the cost for these steady state launches plus Starlink costs? Hopefully less than $1B ..?
 
Lets say they have to do 5 launches a year at steady state with some 200 satellites in each, what is the cost for these steady state launches plus Starlink costs? Hopefully less than $1B ..?
Lets say starship launching several times a week gets to $6 million per launch for the ship/fuel.

I'd expect them to be launching 50 launches a year of 200 each, so $300 million for fuel/launch costs

I have no idea how to value the cost of the 10,000 satellites but they'd be mass manufactured by then.

Starlink costs would also include tech support, ground stations, interconnect agreements, corporate overhead, and so on. Maybe someone like @The Accountant could wrap their head around an overview.

I'm not sure what the starlink budget is or what their revenue is.

Keep in mind they are raising prices (no price lock guarantee)

$110 / month residential
$135 / month RV
$500 / month Business (do airlines get this rate?)
$??? / military

And a ton of countries in the loop, before they ever get to steady state they'll gain millions and millions more customers.
 
Last edited:
You have to wonder what Elon and SpaceX would come up with if they made cleaning up LEO a priority. The government would probably spend $10 to $20 billion just to come up with some paper solution. Elon/SpaceX could envision something great in a day and take a year or two to implement it.

The big issue is physics—it takes a lot of time or a lot of propellant (and potentially both) to go fetch a particular piece of debris let alone many pieces of debris. And the more important pieces to fetch (the ones that are higher up) are also harder to get to.

The first order solution is The Wolf sats that go grab debris (including dead sats) and put them in a more favorable orbit for natural decay. Because inclination changes require SOOO much ∆V though , you kinda need The Cleaner sats for each inclination you want to clean up. And of course, initially getting those sats to each of the inclinations is also a ∆V problem.

There’s a world where there’s hundreds of undertaker sats (and refueling depots) doing the job, but on the scale that’s needed to make a difference, it’s a tall order.

The big enabler is a propulsion solution that’s high thrust (so, not EP like all the mega constellations use), uses safe to handle propellant, and is cheap/reliable/long lasting. There’s some promising ‘green’ propellants out there but nothing checks all the boxes yet. One could imagine SX might be able to accelerate the evolution of something like that, but it would be a brand new thing for them.

That said, with Ship’s eventual cost-of-mass math-changer, one could at least imagine a world where SX moves away from mass efficient EP and ‘back’ to some super low cost chemical solution. We’ve already basically moved on from Xenon as a propellant because it’s too expensive, and Krypton (like Starlink currently uses) is quickly getting to that point too. Argon is next, but climbing up the noble gasses inherently gets less efficient from a molecular weight perspective….