HN Explorer

16 comments

[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 36.2 ms ] thread
jagaerglad
So instead of having to launch new satellites to replace the deorbited ones ever couple of years, do they have to send new ones every couple of months? Or can the functioning ones maintain their orbits somehow and this is only for the malfunctioning ones?
wmf
Usually orbits are reserved years in advance. AFAIK this kind of move is unprecedented (although everything about Starlink is unprecedented since it's the first megaconstellation).

Two weeks ago, a Starlink satellite exploded. SpaceX believes it wasn't caused by a collision which means the explosion was probably caused by a malfunction in the satellite itself. Now 4,400 Starlink satellites are moving to a lower orbit for "safety". Is this an emergency change to account for a design flaw that they just discovered?

quailfarmer
You’re comparing to GEO communication sat orbits, which are highly coordinated and expensive real estate, reserved for small numbers of vehicles.
[dead] NedF
[dead]
vipa123
How much Delta-V would that take, and how much would they typically have onboard at the start of their life?
GeertB
I wonder if this will improve latency and signal strength
TGower
Should be about half a millisecond round trip difference. 70 km / speed of light = 233.5 microseconds one way duration.
Havoc
That would surely also mean their expected lifespan is shorter too? Faster decay doesn’t just affect dead satellites

Idk seems like a strange move and the stated reason seems flimsy

quailfarmer
Yes, it’s absolutely a trade off against prop (argon) lifetime, energy spent thrusting, and atomic oxygen degradation of plastic components. The benefits of increased drag for these shells of thousands of vehicles must be worth it.
montjoy
My take is that orbits below 500 km are “cleaned out” and during solar minimum there is less drag going on there. So, it’s a good spot to home your satellites for a while because there isn’t as much junk to maneuver around.
thot_experiment
great move, we're continually about 2 days away from kessler if we lost maneuvering control on a constellation like starlink (ofc that's vanishingly unlikely, but it's important to understand that continual maneuvering is what keeps space accessible to humanity)

anything we can do to lower that risk is a good move, and dropping 70km of elevation for the largest satellite constellation is definitely going to make a dent in the risk profile

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.09643

i hope to see progress with air breathing ion engine satellites in the coming years to further lower the minimum altitudes that these constellations can operate at

mikhailfranco
Presumably this reduces the beam footprint on the ground, hence increases the bandwidth available to individual users in dense urban environments (reduced sharing).
croes
Isn’t that just moving the problem?
hulitu
> Starlink satellites being lowered from 550 km to 480 km

Why stop ? 200 km looks like the right orbit.