8 thoughts on “Starlink”

  1. Some kind of weird Russian LOX/Kerosene rocket engine prototype.
    https://www.translatetheweb.com/?from=&to=en&a=https://fpi.gov.ru/projects/fiziko-tekhnicheskie-issledovaniya/detonatsionnyy-dvigatel/

    There’s a Youtube video on a bench test in there too.

    For something that is supposed to have low fuel consumption the ISP seems kind of low. Anyone understand what’s the point in this?

    I also saw some other video on the same site with some kind of pulsejet or pulse detonation engine or something.

      1. It’s a rotating detonation engine. The point is to be able to implement pressure gain combustion.

  2. I’m more than a little concerned that, per the article, SpaceX was claiming that even fragile shelter would protect people from the prior design.

    People actually do go outside, after all.

    However, the new design is commendable, and looks like it solves the problem of debris dense enough to be an issue.

    I was previously unaware of the size of the Starlink sats; the size and mass of a Tesla model 3. That’s pretty big. To launch thousands of those in a reasonable timeframe, they’d need a lot of launch potential. F9 can’t do it at a feasible flight rate. They’ll need a really big launcher, or, as they call it, a Big F… um, Falcon Rocket. BFR.

    It’s often been questioned whether there’s a market for a BFR class launcher. I think this answers the question.

    1. Yeah I had no idea either. It seems kind of excessive to me.
      I could understand it if it was a global reconnaissance satellite network or something like that.

  3. Obviously, airliners need to be redesigned the occasional crash hurts nobody on the ground.

    1. Might not be a frivolous concern considering the numbers these constellations are supposed to contain.

    2. Airliners do carry cargo, and at one time were favored as a means of elevating powered relays for telecommunications, so the similarities to StarLink are not totally nebulous. However, that linkage itself may make things more difficult. There has been observed a standard rule for thechnology replacement where human lives are involved and government regulations are to be met. A new technology must be at least two to three orders of magnitude safer than what it seems to regulators it is replacing. If not, then it is deemed too risky, …for their own careers! Look at the attitudes towards self-driving cars and self-flying aircraft.

Comments are closed.