Skip to content

Comment on Starlink quietly lost over $250M in burned satellites this summerparent

Comments

Given a choice between bigger fuel containers burning up empty and more copies of all the other parts burning up I know what I would pick. The current very short lived design is a compromise to get to operational coverage fast and for quick rollout of improved designs. Future generations with a larger mass fraction for fuel won't get multiple orders of magnitude more runtime (in orbits that low this would require some bussard drive equivalent..), but a generous multiplication.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.