Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

40% Positive

Analyzed from 1602 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#satellites#starlink#orbit#data#tons#years#spacex#launches#own#space

Discussion (62 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

tristanjabout 3 hours ago
Starlink has been so successful, it is facing a lot of competition in the next few years. Every major power wants their own, national starlink network.

China's state-backed starlink competitor GuoWang is putting 13,000 satellites in orbit by 2030. They've already started launching satellites.

China's Qianfan plans 15,000 satellites by 2030.

AST SpaceMobile is building their own network.

Amazon Leo plans for 3,000 satellites in orbit, and is already launching satellites.

The EU is building IRIS², explicitly as a Starlink alternative.

Russia, after realizing how critical starlink is on the battlefield, is building its own Rassvet network. They've already launched satellites.

variety8675about 3 hours ago
> Most people likely don’t think about how often they use satellite communications. But that Instagram post you made? You used a satellite.

This article seems to confuse Starlink with ordinary cellular communications

roelschroeven15 minutes ago
Also some, or even many, people think that intercontintental communications use satellites rather than cables.
ivanjermakovabout 2 hours ago
They also might confuse Starlink with GPS satellites which are completely different things.
wrsabout 2 hours ago
The people who want to put data centers in orbit must be either much smarter than me, or much dumber than me, because I just don't get how that makes any technical or economic sense.

Of course, it's possible nobody actually wants to do this, they just want to get funded to do it. (Old joke: "I wish I had enough money to buy an elephant...")

ben_wabout 1 hour ago
From what I've seen (Google paper, IIRC), it only makes sense economically if Musk's stretch goals for price/kg to orbit for Starship become true.

Technically it's fine, just take something like Starlink and use most of the power for compute rather than for comms.

But financially, it depends on price to orbit being extremely low; not just lower than Falcon, but as low as Musk's best public claims about what may be coming at some point.

PunchyHamster30 minutes ago
Yeah but how's that more financially viable than "build your own solar battery farm to power data center on ground"
clumsysmurf18 minutes ago
Perhaps the reasons are not technical. Perhaps it has more to do with jurisdiction, not being physically dependent (or susceptible) to any physical state.
ameliusabout 3 hours ago
How long until they turn a constellation into a giant LED billboard, showing commercials for Tesla?
ridgeguyabout 2 hours ago
Arthur C. Clarke beat them to it - the thought, at least.

Watch This Space - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venture_to_the_Moon

28304283409234about 2 hours ago
Isn't that a scene in The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy?
dwdabout 2 hours ago
Red Dwarf.

A little more destructive pushing suns into supernova to write "Coke is Life" across the sky.

cameldrvabout 1 hour ago
This seems like a recipe for Kessler syndrome.
androiddrewabout 3 hours ago
Let me fix your title:

SpaceX wants investors to think that they will be able to launch millions of satellites.

timschmidtabout 2 hours ago
SpaceX has consistently launched ~90% of the mass to orbit for the whole planet Earth over the last several years[1][2]. There's no one else who could more credibly make such a claim.

1: https://officechai.com/stories/spacex-launched-85-of-all-glo... 2: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2024/05/spacex-launching-87-90...

ben_wabout 2 hours ago
While true, this is insufficient to make the new claim credible. If the proposed satellites only weighed 100kg and remain on orbit for 3 years, to keep a million up requires:

  (150 metric tons/100kg) = 1500 satellites per Starship launch
  1e6/1500 = 666 launches per MTBF (3 years)
  666/(3 years) = 222 Starship launches/year
This is significantly higher than even the current cadence of Falcons.

If the proposed satellites are to be 1 ton, the required launch cadence would be ten times higher.

timschmidtabout 1 hour ago
They've been approved for 44 Starship launches from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, and are aiming for 160 total launches in 2026. They've recently purchased a giant tract of land in Louisana to build a third starport. 222/year is looking doable.
toasty228about 2 hours ago
They launched a grand total of ~10k starlink satellite, there is a long road between 10k and a million.

Musk would be "the most credible" at claiming he'll have 1000 trillion dollar by 2050, it doesn't mean it's credible at all.

timschmidtabout 2 hours ago
They seem to have constructed a rocket with 10x the payload to LEO of the one they used to put those 10k satellites in orbit, and even demonstrated payload deployment. So I'd say 100k looks do-able for them today.

10x that seems aspirational, but not comically so. Folks hate Musk, but that seems to cause them to not see the engineering going on in front of them.

torginusabout 3 hours ago
Yeah I remember reading that what killed the space industry in the 90s-2000s other than the collapse of the USSR and cessation of great power competition was the massive move to digital communications, particularly satellite TV - which mean that a smaller number of satellites could serve the expected demand.
codingdaveabout 4 hours ago
> ... data centres that won’t have an environmental impact here on Earth.

Really? I wonder how they are going to get them up there without rocket launches?

Ekarosabout 3 hours ago
And getting them down. Or allowing them to come down on their own... I doubt that is entirely environmental impact free.
aruggirelloabout 3 hours ago
LEO satellites come down on their own in a few months/years. 100 tons of metal burning in the atmosphere seems a lot, but it's barely the total mass of meteorites falling in 24-48 hours, actually.
ben_wabout 2 hours ago
A million satellites isn't going to be 100 tons; even if they're all on the small side, say 100 kg each, the total is 100,000 tons, therefore by your numbers if they last on orbit for 3 years they'd double to triple the mass rate burning up on aero entry. I think SpaceX actually talking about 1-10 tons/satellite making this more like 10-100x if they last 3 years, but between AI hallucinations getting and Musk's increasing disconnect from reality (let alone political toxicity) this is basically irrelevant. SpaceX won't reach these higher masses to orbit spread over this number of satellites regardless.

Aggravatingly, I have seen research estimating that even the much smaller number of satellites currently in orbit is already enough to be unstable with regard to a Kessler cascade, and any question about the realism of Musk's goals from finance and engineering limits is clearly not enough to prevent this kind of scenario. Which may result in other governments interfering with his ketamine supply to make sure their satellites aren't caught up in one.

Simplest helpful thing for the Kessler problem is "just"* have fewer larger satellites, and if Starship actually delivers the launch costs necessary to make space-based data centres worth the bother vs. just buying some cheap desert land, I anticipate Musk getting managed upwards by his staff in this regard.

* nothing in space is "just"

johneaabout 2 hours ago
Totally sidestepping the issue and refuting the words.

Regardless of how they fall, they still fall on the planet.

And this still ignores the massive atmospheric pollution of chemical rocket launch.

Space elevator would be a big help with launch, but the trash is still dropped on the ground, or in the ocean, in the end.

JPLeRouzicabout 3 hours ago
I wonder about the impact on our health of all the metals that will be present in the atmosphere after several months. For example, it is well known that lead in gasoline has increased crime.
foxglacierabout 2 hours ago
Why are so many people just desperate to imagine environmental, economic, or social harm from any new technology or ambitious projects? Are you all just too old to enjoy the thought of an amazing future that's better than today? Or are you too brainwashed by the negativity in the media and think disasters are the only things that can happen? Or are you just bitter about life and can't have any hope? Or do you just feel smug being a nay-sayer to anything ambitious?
tzsabout 1 hour ago
> Why are so many people just desperate to imagine environmental, economic, or social harm from any new technology or ambitious projects?

Rockets aren't new technology and they are not imagining the environmental harm. It has been known for a long time. It is just that with only ~300 launches per year (and about 35000 launches ever) the harm has not risen to the level of something that has to be limited.

A million data center satellites is a significant increase in that harm. Furthermore data center satellite are expected to have a service life of maybe 3-5 years so there will be an ongoing 200-370k replacements needing to be launched. That's 3.3-6.2k launches per year at 60 satellites per launch.

ReptileManabout 3 hours ago
100 tons is quite a lot of gpus. If they manage to solve such "minor" problems as powering and cooling them they could run for a decade or so without consuming or polluting. The methane burned to get mass into orbit is trivial - a 500MW powerplant burns that much in under a day.
toasty228about 1 hour ago
> 100 tons is quite a lot of gpus

Is it? 100 tons of gb300 rack is ~0.04% of the expected 30GW of new data centers they want to build by 2030... 100 tons of gb300 gives you a measly 10MW data center, it's not even considered a medium sized data center at that point.

Not counting the hundreds of square meters of solar panels and cooling panels you'd need for each rack, you can easily multiply the total weight by 2-5x

They won't run a decade or two either, the failure rate at 3 years is ~50%.

And of course all of that ends up burning down and is completely un recyclable. It just doesn't make any fucking sense no matter how you look at it really.

codingdaveabout 3 hours ago
Yeah, that response trivializes the massive burn that power plants perform each day.

When I worked in a midstream gas company, I recall a meeting when we were explaining the business to some new IT folk, and talking about the plants that process 100K barrels. One new guy in particular literally dropped his jaw and said, "you process 100K barrels of gas a year??" The room looked at him like he was insane and the woman running the meeting politely replied: "No, per day."

So acting as if "it burns less than a power plant" somehow means it is trivial is just a really odd take.

Besides, the methane burn is one piece of the puzzle. There is more to environmental impact than just methane.

ReptileManabout 3 hours ago
Yes it is trivial when humanity is burning 100 million barrels of oil per day and 300 tons of coal per second and 100 tons of natural gas per second.
vkouabout 3 hours ago
The problem isn't GPUs the problem is cooling them.

Look into what percentage of the ISS by weight is radiators, look into how little power it can generate and radiate, and you'll see that space data centers is the shitcoin pitch of 2026.

ericdabout 2 hours ago
ISS is not comparable, we don't have to keep GPUs in human-habitable temp ranges, and radiation speed goes way up with increased temps.
kingleopoldabout 3 hours ago
Also they are not building them in 3D space with current tech. We clearly don't have it. Cars barely drive themselves in cities, they are decade behind building and maintaining a. datacenter in space.
2OEH8eoCRo0about 1 hour ago
SpaceX wants to self-deal artificial demand for launches.
SilverElfinabout 3 hours ago
Should be banned. These companies are destroying a piece of the environment that belongs to all of us - the night sky.
Benderabout 3 hours ago
Along that line people should look into BUG ratings [1] for outdoor lighting, especially city operated lights. [1]

[1] - https://www.landscapeforms.com/ideas/bug-rating-system-101

ameliusabout 3 hours ago
Let's ban ads too, while we're at it.
Keyframeabout 2 hours ago
Where do we sign?
tristanjabout 3 hours ago
Banning Starlink is inadequate and won't change anything. China is building its own larger version with 25,000+ satellites. Russia is building its own network. The EU is building its own network.
ChrisArchitectabout 2 hours ago
March 8th story OP?

Some previous discussion:

A million new SpaceX satellites will destroy the night sky

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47598415

Part of this announcement:

xAI joins SpaceX

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46862170

6d6b73about 2 hours ago
Spacex will cause Kessler syndrom and bring the world economy down.
Advertisement
johneaabout 3 hours ago
There is an upside: this may be the shortest route to eliminating any future launches:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

Sorry Buck Rogers fan bois, should have left this fantasy in the 1950s...

tristanjabout 2 hours ago
Mentioning Kessler syndrome, especially in the case of Starlink LEO satellites, is the classic midwit signal.
tzs42 minutes ago
What makes you think they are talking about Starlink satellites? The 1 million satellites in the article are data center satellites.
LightBug1about 3 hours ago
Oh ffs ... how is the homebrew laser defense industry coming along?

Spec Priority: ability to attach said laser defense instrument to home telescope ... and enable user to blast those madafakkas out of the sky.