
SpaceX just filed a request to run 30k more Starlink satellites in orbit - howard941
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614566/spacex-just-filed-a-request-to-run-30-000-more-starlink-satellites-in-orbit/
======
gpm
Discussion from reddit suggests that this might not be 30k more satellites,
just multiple radios on 1525 satellites.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/dge0xk/we_nee...](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/dge0xk/we_need_to_talk_about_starlink/f3cbwva/)

------
mzkply
This was likely done to discourage any further investment in competing
networks like OneWeb, Telesat, etc.

It'll probably work, especially since SpaceX is also the only network operator
that can control launch costs.

~~~
new_realist
Are launch costs “out of control”? Cannot other networks’ cubesats hitch a
ride with bigger payloads?

~~~
anko
Which launch company would they go with? SpaceX? Even then, they are splitting
costs of the rocket (most expensive part) and fuel, while SpaceX themselves
can just pay for fuel on an already flown booster. SpaceX are also paying
cost, rather than retail prices.

Sure, there are a few more costs, the point being that SpaceX has a supreme
cost advantage.

------
londons_explore
This is probably a speculative application. It looks good to investors ('look
at the potential profit!')

~~~
Hongwei
I think SpaceX is private and has healthy positive cashflow, so this shouldn't
be a factor?

~~~
londons_explore
It isn't so obvious to me that they have positive cashflow.

Their main costs will be employees, and not having a full launch schedule will
have a dramatic impact on the financials.

------
Spinosaurus
It would be silly to think this will actually come to fruition - 30k
satellites would represent a 3000% increase in the number of active satellites
in LEO, which is already by far the most congested orbital altitude.

That said, it would be quite exciting to see all those launches, and the end
goal is a worthy one.

~~~
xyzzyz
Imagine an area of the size of surface of the earth. Put 30k objects of the
size of motorcycle on it. There are currently something like 200 million
motorcycles in the world. Seems like plenty of space, doesn't it?

But wait, you don't actually need to restrict yourself to one spherical
surface. You can place your 30k sattelites anywhere in a Earth's-surface-sized
spherical shell that's 400 miles thick. You could literally put those 30k
sattelites in a single straight line above some point on the earth, and still
have 350 miles of shell thickness left.

Congestion on low Earth orbits is really a non issue, especially if the
satellites are designed to deorbit after their useful lifetime.

~~~
Spinosaurus
I should have been more clear. By "congestion", I was not just considering the
number of satellites, but the number of artificial objects in total regardless
of size, which by many estimates is in the millions.

~~~
gpm
Which makes it even clearer that this isn't an issue... we're not adding
3000%, we're adding 1% (assuming "millions" = 3 million).

------
swiley
This will be the end of android.

GNU/Linux is already available on handhelds that can connect to traditional
networks but this will make things trivial. All android will be is a runtime
that will slowly die as google attempts to weaponise it.

------
portillo
This is complete nonsense. There is not enough demand for all those satellites
and capacity, so it's very hard to understand why they are making such a
filing.

As of today, there is probably ~ 1 Tbps of usable capacity in space
(wordlwide). With such a big constellation they could provide 100x this
capacity, but who is going to buy it? How are they going to compete with
fiber-delivered Internet in big cities? They cannot offer the same QoS, so you
do not want space delivered Internet if you can have it through terrestrial
networks.

~~~
uoaei
Not enough demand? The 3 or 4 billion people without internet don't get to
participate in the conversation?

Big cities could benefit if a lot of the load on existing networks shifts to
Starlink. Better service for everyone.

Not everything is simply competition / winner-take-all in market economics,
even if that's the tendency.

~~~
derekp7
Not to mention, that cell towers may be a lot cheaper to operate over
Starlink.

~~~
elsonrodriguez
Are you sure?

Keep in mind current cell phone coverage is spotty, with many unserved or
underserved areas, and towns where Verizon is clearly better than AT&T, or
vice versa.

Running that kind of cell tower network might be cheaper, but running a cell
phone network that spans every inch of the globe would be an engineering and
logistics feat that would almost be impossible to profit off of.

Even maintenance-wise, servicing a cell tower requires keeping a bunch of
contractors around to drive to drive, fly, or even boat to remote areas, and
climb a hundred feet once they get there. With starlink, they can just
piggyback replacement satellites on customer payloads.

Also, there are around 4 million cell towers in the world to achieve spotty
coverage, whereas starlink is targeting 40k satellites for global coverage.
I'd have to believe that launching 40,000 similar payloads via similar methods
has huge vertical integration advantages over the extremely heterogeneous
approaches we use to put up those millions of towers.

~~~
derekp7
Sorry, I think I was misunderstood. Cell towers that work over starlink (i.e.,
use starlink as an uplink method) may be cheaper than cell towers that use a
landline for an uplink.

So the ideal situation would be Starlink for remote areas, and in medium to
higher density areas put up towers that talk to Starlink, then can speak to
local receivers using terrestrial radio technologies.

