This person has posted this multiple times. They keep getting banned then making a new account. They’re trying to drive traffic to their crappy website. So highly doubtful it’s true.
The eventual “end state” for Starlink is to be in an equilibrium state where new satellites are constantly being launched to replace the ones that age out and fail. I have no idea what OP is on about with “not being able to keep up”, though, the constellation is nowhere near that state yet.
Yes, but that probably doesn’t help in the next few years. (Expecting a few more fireballs)
They may need to seriously up the Falcon9 launch cadence or switch back to gen 1 sats. (Unless the better capabilities of the gen 2 sats mean they need less up there - I thought that the number was more due to low coverage due to altitude though)
They’ve already got prototype Starship upper stages built that have the cargo door necessary for launching Starlink satellites from, I think “a few years” is likely a very pessimistic timeframe at this point. If they’re not launching Starlink satellites with Starship at some point next year I will be very surprised.
The problem is that due to the scale of the rocket/explosions the regulators are being more picky - their test rate is much reduced. If their not allowed to launch again for months after the last failure then it could easily take that long.
The conclusion is brain dead. Can anyone even confirm that SpaceX is losing more satellites than they’re launching?
This person has posted this multiple times. They keep getting banned then making a new account. They’re trying to drive traffic to their crappy website. So highly doubtful it’s true.
The eventual “end state” for Starlink is to be in an equilibrium state where new satellites are constantly being launched to replace the ones that age out and fail. I have no idea what OP is on about with “not being able to keep up”, though, the constellation is nowhere near that state yet.
I think the current problem is that as the gen 2 satellites are bigger and heavier they can’t launch as many.
That’s what Starship’s going to be for.
Yes, but that probably doesn’t help in the next few years. (Expecting a few more fireballs)
They may need to seriously up the Falcon9 launch cadence or switch back to gen 1 sats. (Unless the better capabilities of the gen 2 sats mean they need less up there - I thought that the number was more due to low coverage due to altitude though)
They’ve already got prototype Starship upper stages built that have the cargo door necessary for launching Starlink satellites from, I think “a few years” is likely a very pessimistic timeframe at this point. If they’re not launching Starlink satellites with Starship at some point next year I will be very surprised.
The problem is that due to the scale of the rocket/explosions the regulators are being more picky - their test rate is much reduced. If their not allowed to launch again for months after the last failure then it could easily take that long.