zlacker

>>alden5+(OP)
I sit in my hot tub at night and see 1-2+ satellites go over every single time I'm out there.

Which also makes me wonder how many of the shooting stars I've seen recently are just old starlinks burning up.

>>latchk+Vx5
> Which also makes me wonder how many of the shooting stars I've seen recently are just old starlinks burning up.

Probably close to none. The lifetime of the satellites is about 5 years give or take. According to this page [1], a total of 355 satellites have deorbited over the past roughly 5 years. That's an average of about 71 per year or about one every 5 days.

Since planned disposals are done over uninhabited areas (e.g. the pacific ocean), the likelihood of spotting one is very low.

Hope that helps answer your question, even it wasn't necessarily meant seriously :)

    [1] https://starlinkinsider.com/starlink-launch-statistics/

>>qayxc+oB5
>The lifetime of the satellites is about 5 years give or take. According to this page [1], a total of 355 satellites have deorbited over the past roughly 5 years.

Wow ... is it economical to replace the entire constellation every 5 years? How does the business side work? Or is it just a great money-burning party?

>>macspo+Mt7
This is a large part of why they're pushing so hard on Starship. Falcon 9 is great and wildly economical, but it's not enough to make Starlink profitable in the long term. They need Starship to make that happen.

They also want to make Starlink satellites bigger, which also requires Starship's much larger diameter.