Jump to content

Talk:Starlink/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Now SpaceX satellite constellation — was SpaceX satellite development facility

Here's a brief note on an article move that was just completed on the article, where the former "main" article and the former "redirect" switched places.

I created the article SpaceX satellite development facility nearly two years ago, and at the same time, a redirect from SpaceX satellite constellation. The article clearly discussed both, and only one article was needed. I think only a single article is still needed.

Since that time however, it has become clear that the single article is clearly mostly about the new sat constellation, and not about merely just another SpaceX development office. I did a number of article updates and extensive copyedits to the article in order to make the article focus (in the lede and in the history) work with the reverse of the two article names. I then asked an administrator (Huntster to make the double move for us. That move is now complete.

That's the rationale. If any questions, or anyone has other opinions on what makes for a decent article here, pile on. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Prototype development and testing: on MicroSat-1a and MicroSat-1b

There is a public source for more info on MicroSat-1a and MicroSat-1b, the two prototype development sats that SpaceX had originally planned to fly in 2016.

The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulatory agency has a webpage where "experimental" applications may be searched for. That website is: FCC: OET Experimental Licensing System.

The two SpaceX demo sats were may be found searching for either:

  • File Number: 0356-EX-PL-2015
  • Call Sign: WH2XWBu

The current/most-recent SpaceX file for these demosats is at [1] The permite was grated on 22 July 2016.

It is the "FCC FORM 442 - FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION: APPLICATION FOR NEW OR MODIFIED RADIO STATION UNDER PART 5 OF FCC RULES - EXPERIMENTAL RADIO SERVICE" form that SpaceX has filed for these two sats to fly.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

SpaceX has filed regulatory docs

SpaceX has filed the regulatory docs: SpaceNews, 16 Nov 2016. Expect that SpaceNews will likely write up an article soon. N2e (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

According to Trademarkia SpaceX has applied for a trademark on "Starlink" for "Satellite communication and transmission" services. In the near future this article should be renamed SpaceX Starlink and added to the Starlink disambiguation page. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 01:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources that seem to have been missed by editors of this article in the past 12 months or so.

There seem to be a number of sources that appear to have been missed by editors of this article in the past 12 months or so.. I'll start placing them here as I run into them.

  • ArsTechnica the first two Starlink test sats are slated to be launched in a few days (launch is now slated for 21 Feb).
  • GeekWire also on the test sats and the media hunt to find information about these Starlink test sats.

Internet communication satellite characteristics

Can someone take a look at the following quote, taken from FierceWireless.com:

"...where steerable earth station transmit antennas would have a wider geographic impact and significantly lower satellite altitudes magnify the impact of aggregate interference from terrestrial transmissions."

Major run on sentence and I feel there is a conjunction missing somewhere in there. The source also contains the error. Perhaps someone can decipher it and make appropriate corrections? Wes Kyle (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

SpaceX has moved from the original Sat Dev facility

SpaceX has moved from the original satellite development facility. The photo currently in the article ought to perhaps be removed. (I was the editor who originally added that photograph.) What do others think?

SpaceX moved out of that building in mid-August 2018, into a larger facility of ~3 buildings several miles away, where they are doing both development and manufacturing of the satellite constellation. Google maps is showing the change now: original facility "permanently closed", newer facility shown.

There are photos of two of the new buildings recently added to Wikimedia Commons. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

useful video on youtube

I found this video to be incredibly useful for visualizing the startlink proposal. It's really aimed at comparing the previous and new proposals, but it also provides a nice overview/animation of the system. Maybe can be added to the article? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEIUdMiColU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.144.220 (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

That is a good find 70.79.144.220. I'll do some thinking about how that might be integrated to make the article better. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

About the TLE thing

"continued removal of the tle data that everyone in the world is looking for during this historic period of visibility unique to mankind in all of human history seems a little excessive for the reasons of first "nosource" and the when a source is provide for the reason that someone doesn't think it is in the right place.

literally the first time in the history if the world people on the global can see a group of 60 satellites moving across the sky together and the wikipedia page isn't going to give them the TLE data to do it? With millions of people following the launch and every news an science magazine covering it?

You know they wont stay together forever. they are already moving to separate and go into individual orbits. this period will only last a few more days.

pick a place and put the data in! would we have removed how to watch the moon landings during the 1960's because someone didnt like the placement or formatting??

If you dont like the placement of formatting then move it or reformat it! dont remove it! the data itself is correct!

if it gets removed again I will report you to admin for battle editing." was said by 209.179.3.212 (User talk:209.179.3.212)

I moved the user's statement to here. Looks the the issue was resolved :). I also found a NASA site on how to read the TLE data here OkayKenG (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
The information is still badly formatted, and not encyclopedic. There's no indication of its relevance for inclusion in a general encyclopedia article. The histrionics are unnecessary. Very few people have an interest in this tiny slice of information; fewer still would refer to this article for the info -- they would do as an enthusiast like you did, they'd look for the info on a specialized website catering to your interest. I've no doubt that this aspect of the event is thrilling for you - great! - it's of almost no utility in this article. I presume you'll be back in a few days to remove your addition, since as you say, it's only meaningful for a few days? Anastrophe (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
@Anastrophe: To make it clear I'm not User talk:209.179.3.212. All I did was move 209.179.3.212 down here. (before it was placed on the very top as you can see here). Wether the info is needed are unneeded I left to other users to decide. Thanks. OkayKenG (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Sorry just realized you were talking to 209.179.3.212 . Sorry about that. OkayKenG (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Vote: Let's take a vote to see if we need the TLE data (see the data in the box). I would like to get other opinions from those who regularly contribute to this page (if they have the time to do so).

the thing that was added

Orbit tracking

A preliminary orbit description (Two-line element set) of the first 60 satellites has been determined May 24, 2019. It is subject to change over time as the satellites will actively change their orbits.

STARLINK
1 74001U 19644A   19144.95562291  .00000000  00000-0  50000-4 0    06
2 74001  53.0084 171.3414 0001000   0.0000  72.1720 15.40507866    07 [1]

I guess Keep, yes keep the data, Remove, remove the data.

  • Remove. Well the only issue is that since the info changes often, and presumably we have to do this for 20+ launches, it may become too much for us to keep track of. OkayKenG (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove Based on what the OP wrote, this is only going to be of interest for a few days. Amateur astronomers will already either know where to look for the info, or be able to find it trivially. It has no relevance to a general encyclopedia article, for general readers. Anastrophe (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=74001

Propulsion

Do we know the designer or maker of the solar electric thrusters? Propellant mass? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Its from Krypton the native home of superman. All jokes aside since we know this is the first satellite to use ion thrusters which use Krypton as propellent, that could potentially mean its development was from SpaceX but we can’t say for sure. See Fcary's comment below OkayKenG (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Busek makes Hall effect thrusters which can use xenon, iodine or krypton. Those thrusters also have been flown on a number of spacecraft. I don't know (and their web page doesn't say) if they've ever flown one using krypton, or if krypton has only been tested on the ground. I have no idea if Starlink uses Busek thrusters. But it's possible to buy a krypton Hall effect thruster more-or-less off the shelf. Fcrary (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Here's the page and here where Busek mentions krypton as a propellant. (I think this is what you are talking about) OkayKenG (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I thought it was the Krypton Large IMpulse Thruster (KLIMT) because it is the only krypton engine I knew of. My guess is that SpaceX did not have the time and labs to develop their own, and bought either one. I think we'll find out in time. Rowan Forest (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Criticism

Would criticism of the Starlink be appropriate in this article? If so, what section, would this be included?Manabimasu (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

To the best of my (limited) knowledge, all criticisms - thus far - have been speculative. i.e. 'they may interfere with astronomical observations';'there's no way it will be cost effective', and things of that nature. I don't think speculative criticism is warranted for inclusion. Until there's demonstrated problems/downsides, it's no more notable than gossip. I could be wrong however. Anastrophe (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Then SpaceX launched the Tesla on the first Falcon Heavy flight, there was quite a bit of criticism which was demonstrably false. E.g. increasing orbital debris (negligible since it's on a solar orbit) or possible biological contamination of Mars (it's not on an orbit which has any real chance of hitting Mars.) None the less, those criticisms ended up in the Wikipedia article. I didn't like it, but I guess it means baseless speculation is allowed. But so are statements that those criticisms are baseless. Fcrary (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
If it gets significant press coverage in reputable media it is relevant. We can include the replies to the criticism as well (as we did for the Roadster). --mfb (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
The issue got coverage in Space.com now: Here's Why Astronomers Are So Worried About SpaceX's Planned 'Megaconstellation' -- A man without a country (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Early constellation satellite coverage

Prof Mark Handley has an analysis of the Starlink coverage with the early/limited (first 400 sats/6 orbital planes, then first ~800 sats/12 planes). Good explanation! video here. N2e (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

SpaceX plans to use more orbital planes with fewer satellites for the early launches. Pending FAA approval. --mfb (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

End user antenna

I have not followed this topic much but I seem to remember the users will need to install a receiving antenna the size of a briefcase. I screened the article for some key words and could not find anything on this. I think the needed antenna/receptor should be added somewhere, maybe to the "Satellite hardware" or "Global broadband Internet". Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The user terminals will likely be the shape of a medium-size pizza. However, these user devices are years away so SpaceX is not ready to release details. Adding speculation right now seems premature. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
If the receiving terminals are still in development and there is no description available, then I agree that we should avoid speculation. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
They want to sell some of them in 2020. Can't be that far away. --mfb (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

table of satellites

where is the table of satellites? at least, there are 2 in orbit now (or yet deorbited, don't remember). che first bunch of satellites will arrive soon. a table as for GPS satellites is not usefull? --Dwalin (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A table listing every satellite would quickly become unhandy. A table listing every group (every launch?) will work, but I don't think we need that before the next launch. So far there are zero satellites launched that will be part of the constellation. --mfb (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
test ones will not be listed?
if there are till now 0 satellites, isn't the right moment to understand how to list all satellites in a readeable way? and you don't think that listing by group is a whrong way? will de-orbit or switched off everyone in a different moment, and every one has the same moment to put in orbit, but different to de-orbit, and replacement will be everyone in a different moment and different orbit. so, isn't better to decide now when there are no satellites, than when there will be 100 or more?--Dwalin (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure, test satellites can be listed, but do we need a table for two satellites?
No one will create, maintain or read a detailed table for 12,000 largely identical satellites that are replaced at a rate of ~2000/year. The launches are interesting for now and could become a table row each. Grouping by inclination level and maybe orbital plane within a given inclination would also be an option. --mfb (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
if there is too much to add in the table the current status of all satellites, or the position of each (they will be numered in a specific position), could be usefull to add the % of active satellites in each bounh of lauch? as......30/60 active, 10/60 in functional test 10/60 inactive 10/60 deorbited. something like this, but in a better way. --Dwalin (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I understand there will be about 4,500 identical satellites, so such table is useless. What is useful is to note how many will be deployed in each of the 3 layers or spheres, and how many launches and time would that take. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
yes, not say everything about all, but say of each bounch, how many are still operational. no?--Dwalin (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I would like to see in the table not just the number of satellites in a shell but the number of orbital planes. This is especially of interest as it seems that plans are changing, where 24 planes with 66 sats was the original intention in the 550km shell, now it seems the plan is for 72 shells with 22 sats in each. Also the number of shells initially is sometimes reported as 3, sometimes 5, sometimes 8... with the new announcement of 30000 additional birds, I have seen mentions of 17 different orbital shells so far. It would be good to curate an authoritative set of the latest meta information, given that it would not be useful to have data on 42000 individual satellites. Fivey (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Do we need the Booster Number things and "♺" on the Launch table? We might just need to indicate if it was a Falcon 9 or not.  

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

current completition

here says that completition is at 180. but 5 satellites are defunct or deorbited. so completition is <180. the number 180 comes from......--Dwalin (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

This will get more difficult over time and we probably have to round. 180 satellites have been launched, 180 satellites are still in space (not counting the 2 Tintin test satellites). --mfb (talk) 05:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
how 3 dead satellites can be enumered in completition status? be better to say "satellites deployed in this shell". many satellites are in version 0.9, so will lasts fewer than 1.0--Dwalin (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree, I changed it. --mfb (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dwalin: I would expect that the number launched matters for the FCC rules. --mfb (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

aren't rules for active deployment and not for total deployment? as for GTO spots, there are many, but when one is made free, you can use it again. it is not consumed for ever. if coating 2.0 will be better than 1.0, 1.0 will be deorbited faster than expected, and will be replaced with new ones that will use previous spots made now free--Dwalin (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't expect them to deorbit satellites just because of that. In operational orbits they are magnitude 5-6 or so, in the range of other satellites. They have a long list of launches ahead and want to start service soon, deorbiting satellites will slow progress. Ars technica says "requires to launch". I can't open the PDFs from FCC. --mfb (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

coverage

instead of last completition %, can be good to use a status of functionality column? using: building - building/funcional in USA-CANADA - building/functional north emisphere - building/functional world - building/functional high speed world - mainteining actual number of satellites. something like that. --Dwalin (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not how the constellation works. Northern and southern hemisphere are identical by design, and there won't be anything special about the US/Canada either in terms of satellite coverage. --mfb (talk) 09:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

experimental coating version

in L2 there is one of the satellites with an experimental coating. it is still V 1.0 or a V 1.1 or something? (V 1.0.1 or 1.0.a). any sources of it? --Dwalin (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

SpaceX didn't seem to give it a new number, and I don't expect that either. The 60 v0.9 satellites were all different, too, without using different numbers. --mfb (talk)
fine. tnx--Dwalin (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

What bandwidth

Nothing about individual and aggregate bandwidth per satellite ! Some sources say 20 Gbps/satellite ? - Rod57 (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure SpaceX hasn't released any specifics on internal capabilities - yet. Anything at this point would be speculation, which isn't really appropriate to the article. Anastrophe (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
SpaceX do seem to have said on the November launch video that the V1.0 sats have 4x the data throughput of each v0.9 satellite (plus double the number of beams) SpaceX says upgraded Starlink satellites have better bandwidth, beams, and more. - Rod57 (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Which orbital planes are being filled

The table of launches gives the orbital inclination (eg 53°) - How are the different planes identified, and do any sources say which planes are being populated ? If so, could we add it to the table of launches ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It's difficult as the planes change over time, and the rate of change depends on the orbital altitude. To make things worse each launch splits into three orbital planes with 20 satellites each. This website has tracking information, but the position of the ascending node is not tracked correctly as the satellites split up. 24 orbital planes are 15 degrees apart each, we expect the launches to happen in such a way that the final difference between equivalent satellites is 45 degrees. You could go through the individual satellites (e.g. on heavens-above) and make a list of longitudes of the ascending node vs. launch for each group in 550 km, and if you want to do more you can also estimate where the satellites below that altitude will end up with the nominal orbit raising procedure. That would be OR and can't be included in the article, but it would still be interesting to see. Maybe heavens-above.com has some way to access all data together. --mfb (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. 3 planes per launch does make it harder. Seems the planes could be identified by their right ascension of the ascending node (RAAN) - but 3 planes per launch means only a few more launches till all 24 planes are populated so no long term value to track which ones each launch populates, so I withdraw the suggestion. thanks. - Rod57 (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 18 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


– Because the satellite constellation is the primary topic and because "SpaceX Starlink" is not its official name and is rarely, if ever, used in references. Looking at the pageviews of all the "Starlink" articles makes it clear that this page gets way more traffic than any of them, with nothing else coming close (look at both Starlink (satellite constellation) and SpaceX Starlink together since it was recently moved). In addition, there are more pages linking to it (637) than all the other Starlink pages combined (504). These two points easily make it the primary topic according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: it is the primary topic with respect to usage because it is much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined, to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. It will also only become more popular and better known as the service grows and starts being used by consumers.

Furthermore, "SpaceX Starlink" is not an official name that is used in sources. The article was moved to this name recently in a batch with other SpaceX articles (mostly their rocket engines). The move made much more sense for those other articles because they are less well known by their mononyms and that brought them in line with the convention of other rocket engine articles, but I believe Starlink was erroneously lumped into this group. The result of that discussion was "Consensus for the Starlink move is weak and participants suggest it may need renamed in the future" so even in that discussion there was not strong agreement for the move. Yarnalgo talk 18:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Jerm (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Assuming you're arguing that the recent popularity surge is transient, this seems pretty shortsighted. It has gotten a recent popularity surge because it has started becoming operational, and, as has been mentioned, the constellation is only going to increase in notoriety as it continues to grow and start providing service. Also, leaving the recent surge in page views aside, it still seems like the primary topic since far more articles link to it than any other Starlink article and it is also by far the topic with the most search engine results. I hear you that we should be weary of WP:RECENTISM, however that page says that recentism is "writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view". The satellite constellation clearly seems like the topic with the most long-term historical significance. --Yarnalgo talk 18:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • You're totally right. I retract the last part of what I said, but I think the other points stand. I think the stats clearly show that it is the primary topic at the present moment because it is "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined, to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". Your point about recentism seems to be that we don't know that it will continue to be that way in the future, although that seems like looking in a crystal ball as well. --Yarnalgo talk 22:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
It's always possible that something will exceed its historic significance in the future, but that doesn't stop us from using the main article for the main topic today. In its short history of launches Starlink already became the largest satellite constellation ever launched and it lead to many discussions about management of satellite brightness, ownership of space (or lack thereof) and collision avoidance. Even if SpaceX would stop the project tomorrow these won't go away (OneWeb would likely take the lead in constellation size later in this scenario) - it would still be a relevant topic in the future. --mfb (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Again, recentism, and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. It's your personal opinion that Starlink is incredibly important. The views are there, but they are not sustained views over many years. Clearly it's popular NOW, but I am against immediately switching things to primary if they are popular for a short time.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
What exactly in my comment is recentism and CRYSTALBALL? (And what exactly is my personal opinion vs. general notability that stays as I demonstrated?) --mfb (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Mfb. Starlink provoked a debate over mega-constellations, impact on astronomy and orbital debris. Those are issues which are not going away. Given that, and the other items listed in the disambiguation page, making the constellation the primary makes sense. Can you imagine a future where more people would be looking for "a strain of genetically modified maize"? Fcrary (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
"they are not sustained views over many years" — how much time does a topic needs to be the primary topic before we are not demonstrating recentism? This is not defined anywhere, and all that WP:RECENTISM says on the matter is that we should not engage in "edit warring over whether to change an article's well-established title", but this title is clearly not well-established, having just been changed recently with very weak consensus. The views show that the satellite constellation has been the primary topic for almost a year. Do we really need to wait "many years" before making a change? The constellation is not going away, and as others have said it has already become historically significant. --Yarnalgo talk 22:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I suspect a few weeks would be enough to avoid "recentism", but a few months might be better to be on the safe side. There is a way to measure this. I'm sure many people have done it, myself included in the 1990s when things were primitive. You simply look at the hits per day on a site, before and after some relevant and well-publicized event or story. The hits will spike immediately after the event, and then drop off (actually, it's well-fit by an exponential decay). I think this idea of "recentism" is about not responding to those transient spikes. If so, the decay time gives you an idea of how long you should wait. (Yes, I know that's original research, but this isn't going into any actual article, just informing how we should improve them.) Fcrary (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The May 2019 launch produced a short spike with a half life of a few days and a longer bump with a half life of about 1 month. Since then it follows an upwards slope in the monthly view, in the daily view it can be seen that the peaks from launches come faster, each launch increases the daily views and the activity doesn't drop that much between the spikes. --mfb (talk) 01:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

deleted paragraph about Broadcom lawsuit

Under the section Global broadband Internet, there was a paragraph citing a Daily Beast article about how a chip-maker company Broadcom was suing SpaceX for allegedly poaching some engineers from them. I deleted this paragraph, since it seemed to contain text that was copy-pasted from the article, and since it was written not in an encyclopedic style. However, I guess it might still be appropriate to incorporate information from that Daily Beast article, just under a different section (History? Criticism?)? 216.171.18.156 (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 18 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: non-controversial move. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

SpaceX satellite constellation → Starlink – the constellation now has a name used by both the corporation and news media accounts, as shown in source citations in the article. It had been, over the past 3+ yrs, only been known as the "SpaceX satellite constellation"; it seems this older name should now become merely a redirect. N2e (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The target is not free and a google search leads to many different Starlinks. Starlink (satellite constellation)? --mfb (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you are absolutely correct, mfb. It needs a non-ambiguous article name consistent with WP:MOSTITLE. Your suggestion is excellent. I have updated the requested move template, above. Let's see if that "takes". N2e (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, with no conflict remaining, we don't need to ask an admiinstrator. I have moved the page.

... and removed the MOVE request to the admins. N2e (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Note that the proposal was changed so it was moved to Starlink (satellite constellation) OkayKenji (talk • contribs) 14:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to change launch numbering scheme

I would like to humbly propose a change to the numbering scheme of the list of Starlink launches on this page. In the absence of official word from SpaceX, two valid and consistent naming conventions have emerged across the space community, and this Wikipedia page follows neither. This inconsistency has created confusion for the general public. The consistent naming conventions are:

  • Scheme 1 - November 11, 2019 launch is referenced as "Starlink v1.0 L1" (The May 24, 2019 launch is typically called "Starlink v0.9".)
  • Scheme 2 - November 11, 2019 launch is referenced as "Starlink-2" (The May 24, 2019 launch is called "Starlink-1".)

This page references the November 11, 2019 as "Starlink 1" which seems to be a mix of both. It also lists the mission as Flight 3.

The second convention listed above ("Starlink-2") is preferred for the following reasons:

  • The "v0.9" nomenclature is not found in any official public SpaceX literature or communications that I have found.
  • Although they only carried Ku-band antennas (the next batch gained Ka-band antennas), the May 24, 2019 launch contained a full stack of satellites (60) that mostly appear to be operational to this day (although admittedly now at a lower orbit than the rest).
  • Elon Musk referenced these as the "First 60 @SpaceX Starlink satellites" (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1127388838362378241), referenced them as "production design" (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1127390620111081473), then stated that "6 more launches of 60 sats [are] needed for minor coverage" -- all of which implies that the May 24, 2019 satellites will be part of the operational constellation.
  • Regardless of the differences between the initial 60 and any subsequent satellites, tracking the version number is unnecessary because SpaceX has already and will continue to produce design tweaks and upgrades with each launch, but has yet to released a new version number.
  • On Press Kits, SpaceX has consistently referred to the launches as "its nth launch of Starlink satellites" with the index beginning with the May 24, 2019 launch (see https://web.archive.org/web/20200106020728/https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/starlink_press_kit_jan2020.pdf)
  • Starlink.com referenced the November 11, 2019 launch (Starlink-2) as "Starlink Mission #2" (see https://web.archive.org/web/20200123154220/https://www.starlink.com/ - scroll down to bottom of page)
  • TS Kelso of Celestrak, a highly trusted and long-time member of the space coverage community, claims SpaceX requested that he reference the Jan 29, 2020 launch as "Starlink-4" (See https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1221296124654342145)
  • Several other notable websites have adopted this numbering scheme including NASASpaceflight, eoPortal (ESA), and RocketLaunch.Live
  • Jonathan McDowell's launch log (https://planet4589.org/space/log/launchlog.txt) references the individual Starlink satellites in the format of "Starlink [001-01]" with the first set of numbers indexed from the May 24, 2019 launch.

Therefore, I would like to propose the following changes:

  • Update the Flight No. column such that it starts with "0" (for the Tintin mission) and increases from there. The May 24, 2019 mission would be Flight No. 1.
  • Remove the language "nth Starlink launch overall and the n-1th operational batch of Starlink satellites" as this is inaccurate. The May 24, 2019 satellites are operational.
  • Remove the "Mission" column as it is redundant and creates additional confusion.

Prior to making the change I wanted to open it up for comment. I appreciate the consideration of this issue. Spacepat o (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

If you make a list, make it for both naming schemes. And please wait for feedback before making changes.
I think we can live with having both in parallel. "The fifth launch is Starlink-4". Yeah, it's weird, but that's consistent with the use nearly everywhere. In places where no number is necessary we can just not use a number. --mfb (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments.
  • My reasoning for listing the sites was to establish the credibility of Scheme 2. Yes, we could find many sites using various numbering schemes. Respectfully, the scheme used on Wikipedia should be the one that makes the most sense for Wikipedia. The point is to provide information about Starlink in a clear, concise, and consistent manner.
  • Many sites understandably use both schemes in an effort to address the confusion. Prior to my edit, this page used "Starlink 1" to describe the Nov 11, 2019 launch, which follows neither scheme (note the lack of version number). My edit is an effort to bring clarity and consistency to the page. Adopting Scheme 1 ("Starlink v1.0 L1") on this page is a valid option in my opinion.
  • "The first launch had many different batches of satellites, all to test various different options" is a claim I have not seen anywhere else. Can you provide a source? From all I have seen, the May 24, 2019 satellites were the same as the November 11, 2019 satellites, minus the Ka-band antennas. Regardless, we should not expect SpaceX to share details about every technical iteration they perform on these satellites. SpaceX's approach is widely known to be to build, test, iterate, repeat. This is why I posit that, barring any official versioning scheme from SpaceX, tracking the version number is unnecessary and ineffective.
  • The graph you shared is difficult to interpret, so it's best to go to look at the data here.. 36 out of 56 active satellites have maintained a perigee of at least 528 km for 150+ days.
  • Celestrak does not show launch names in the active TLE data, but they do use Scheme 2 when they release the Pre-Launch TLEs based on data provided by SpaceX. The images in this tweet from the most recent launch demonstrate this. (He calls it Starlink-7). I say this only to provide evidence that Celestrak still uses Scheme 2.
With likely hundreds more Starlink launches, is it reasonable to maintain the "The [n]th launch is Starlink-[n-1]" verbiage? For example, "The 108th launch is Starlink-107"? Or "The 108th overall launch and the 107th operational launch"? What is the benefit of this to Wikipedia readers? spacepat_o (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
And if Tintin and Starlink 0 were removed from the main list, and that we made a list that would be above the main list for test satellites, then Starlink-1 would be the first launch of operational satellites and so on. CRS-20 (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Summary

My apologies, as I believe my original points may have been lost in the details. To be more succinct:
There are 2 issues I was hoping to address with the proposed edit. Either one or both need to be fixed:
  1. Naming scheme used on this page leads to confusion. As an example, based on the widely used nomenclature, the Nov 11, 2019 launch should either be called "Starlink v1.0 L1" OR "Starlink-2". The former accounts for the difference between the so called "v0.9" and "v1.0" satellites, the latter does not.
  2. Numbering scheme is different than what SpaceX uses. As an example, SpaceX publicly calls the Nov 11, 2019 launch "the second Starlink launch" whereas this page calls the launch "Starlink 1". This creates unnecessary confusion for the general public. Assuming SpaceX will not change their verbiage, my proposal is to follow their lead.
The goal is to provide more simplicity and clarity to the page (with the long term future in mind). I look forward to any additional comments or objections. spacepat_o (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
The May 24, 2019 satellites are operational, but "test" satellites. CRS-20 (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Musk said the May 2019 satellites were all a bit different. They were testing different designs. I don't find the exact statement now. What you call "Starlink v1.0 L1" here is simply called "Starlink-1" in many places. --mfb (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Mission numbering here appears to be a synthesis of material from a number of published sources. SpaceX refers to them sequentially (i.e. it refers to the 2020-06-04 launch as the "eighth launch of Starlink satellites") so this article should stick that for clarity and drop the mission column.--MadeYourReadThis (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I would agree with removing the Mission column and sticking with SpaceX's numbering scheme. spacepat_o (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The mission column is used in tons of sources. Removing it will lead to confusion if people compare these numbers with our table. --mfb (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Starlink-N is used in lots of sources eg Rocket Launch: July 8, 2020 11:54 AM ET | SpaceX Falcon 9 Starlink-9 (10th mission) says "Starlink-9 (10th mission)" - Could add "Starlink-N" to the Mission column, and add a note that the flight number is how SpaceX number them. Where does 'L'9 come from ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Any sources or discussion on Satellite dimensions and exterior components

Any sources or discussion on Starlink satellite dimensions and exterior components ? And what thickness they fold down to in the payload stack. Nice photos and diagrams at [2] but no dimensions. - Rod57 (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The Fault in Our Stars

Elon Musk mentioned on twitter today (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/966419298049703936) that the name of his Starlink satellite constellation was inspired by The Fault in Our Stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cscott (talk • contribs) 21:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Cameras

The article mentions the proposed cameras for Tintin, but fails to mention 60 starlink sats are already NOAA approved for earth imaging. - luke (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The "Launched" section in the Infobox; is growing rather less useful

As of today, SpaceX has indeed, as it says in the Infobox for the article, "Launched" the following (as of 14 August): 

Launched ::  597 satellites[1]
   Tintin:  2
   v 0.9:  60
   v 1.0: 535

But SpaceX is also rapidly deorbiting Starlink sats. Two down in just the past couple of days, and five more rapidly approaching reentry. Following the reentry of Starlink 22 and 41, 5 more V0.9 Starlinks continue to approach reentry, 14 August 2020, Jonathan McDowell, from the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

And some number of the v1.0 sats are derelict or not fully-operational.

Moreover, SpaceX told the FCC that they are aiming for an ~5 yr satellite life, so the launch and rapid deorbiting of mega-quantities of satellites is something we'll all have to get used to; even in Wikipedia where we explicate spaceflight for the global reader.

So I think that having only the "launched" quantitative info, in the article Infobox at the top, without a clear explanation of the (even approximate) number of active Starlink sats is a problem; and will become increasingly so in future months.

But the active number is not clear. Much info is proprietary (is a sat functional or not? sometimes, only the sat owner knows for sure); and it is devilishly hard to find reliable secondary sources on the active number.

What to do? I don't know for sure. Maybe just move the numbers and the explanation to prose; and get it out of the infobox. But I'm increasingly thinking showing only the launched number is not neutral. What do others think on how we might begin to explicate this better, and improve the article for our readers? N2e (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

We could record "launched", "deorbited" and "over 500 km" (average altitude). We know operational satellites need to be at ~550 km altitude, the number of satellites over 500 km (which is easy to verify) is an upper limit on the active satellites. Dead satellites will drop below that altitude over time. Once the VLEO constellation gets deployed we need to change that as it will have operational satellites in lower orbit. --mfb (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Laser Linked Satellites

During todays launch event the SpaceX spokes person mentioned that there are two satellites that have sat-to-sat laser communication capability. I believe she said they were put up during the last launch and are functioning as expected. 1) The article should probably mention this. 2) Do these satellites represent a version 1.1 or version 2.0 satellite?War (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Deorbited satellites in new page?

they start to be many. do we put them in a new page? --Dwalin (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we should remove the list. For most of the satellites we don't know any distinguishing features, all we have is the launch, two meaningless catalog numbers and a decay date. We can write (as text) that the Tintin satellites were deorbited in August, that (as of today) X v0.9 satellites and Y v1.0 satellites have been deorbited. If these satellites would be unique in some way ("this satellite had modification X") then a list would be more interesting. --mfb (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
some 1.0 has sunshade, some not. --Dwalin (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
We could make statistics by launch to cover that. --mfb (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I created such a list. Maybe we should merge it with the launch-list? Barny22 (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I merged them. I removed the "version" column as it's redundant to the "mission" column. We could also get rid of the inclination column if we split the Tintin launch (and use separate tables for future shells). --mfb (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting source

There's been a small bit of controversy stirred up over some words in the Starlink end user agreement and words about governance wrt to any future Mars. I read a few articles, and this one at least considers several sides of the issue, rather than merely going full-on clickbait. YMMV. Might be article worthy is some small bit. Might not. N2e (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

US rural broadband subsidies

@Fettlemap: The subsidies are mentioned in the history section. They could also be added in the section "Competition and market effects". Adding it as separate section in "Services" would suggest it's a separate service independent of the internet access it provides. --mfb (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

impagination

in lauches table, transporter-1 makes the impagination awful. can we convert transporter-1 in T-1? or Trans-1?--Dwalin (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Transporter-1

The Constellation design and status table needs to be updated for 560km polar orbit slot satellites.Pkirvan (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

SpaceX still doesn't have the approval for the full 550 km constellation plan. I added these 10 exceptions to the table. The section will stay a bit awkward as long as the approved launches and the plans diverge so much. Concerning the laser links, someone claimed they would have been visible in pictures but I don't find a reference discussing them, so nothing for now. --mfb (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Possibly some new competition

If this continues, gets funding, and serious development, then CurvaNet might be a good addition to the Competition and market effects section. (link here)

Looks like they are going for a bit of the public-private partnership route, rather than the private company pure-play economics-based pricing, and trying to get 10 countries to pony up some resources.

We are finalizing a financial support agreement with a top ten country in terms of global GDP. It is a country that is giving quite a bit of financial support, and I think we will be able to announce something this summer.

N2e (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we can add them in summer then. --mfb (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Total Launches So Far graph

Can someone update it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.235.238.71 (talk) 10:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

pejorative?

does "will add to an already jammed orbital environment. " sounds a little un-encyclopedic? Back ache (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • So much yes. Also, "jammed orbital environment" is very subjective. The total of all satellites in orbit is less than the number of cars in the relatively small Montana town where I live, so that doesn't seem "jammed" to me at all.  DGrundler  talk  14:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe something like this:

Astronomers have raised concerns about the constellations’ effect on ground-based astronomy and the potential for increased space debris. Starlink has ignited conversations about the ethics of a single company unilaterally changing the night sky’s appearance.[1]

Suggestions?  DGrundler  talk  14:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I also don't agree with the "single company unilaterally changing the night sky’s appearance" portion as there are many players in the market, and more to come. It seems a little disingenuous.  DGrundler  talk  14:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Starlink Orbital shells - April 2021 Status

Per the PDF from the FCC that approved the changes[2], the SpaceX’s constellation would consist of

  • 1,584 satellites operating at 550 km, with an inclination of 53 degrees, in 72 orbital planes with 22 satellites per plane;
  • 1,584 satellites operating at 540 km, with an inclination of 53.2 degrees, in 72 orbital planes with 22 satellites per plane;
  • 720 satellites operating at 570 km, with an inclination of 70 degrees, in 36 orbital planes with 20 satellites per plane;
  • 348 satellites operating at 560 km, with an inclination of 97.6 degrees, in 6 orbital planes with 58 satellites per plane;
  • 172 satellites also operating at 560 km, with an inclination of 97.6 degrees, in 4 orbital planes with 43 satellites per plane.

Should there be at least a note somewhere mentioning the number of orbital planes and of satellites per plane per level? That would explain why there are two 'shells' located at 560 km. AmigaClone (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

We can add two columns to the table. --mfb (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Will Elon Musk's Starlink satellites harm astronomy? Here's what we know". nationalgeographic.com. Retrieved 12 March 2021.
  2. ^ "FCC-21-48A1" (PDF). FCC. Retrieved 29 April 2021.

Citation for collisions causing momentum transfer

Is there a citation or a study that shows space debris at the orbital altitudes involved in Starlink would cause momentum transfer to orbital altitudes that are problematic?

Namely regarding this statement in the current article: "creating debris that lingers much longer as momentum transfers shift them into higher orbits"

Large claim with no source.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stereometrica (talk • contribs) 18:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed it. If it would be so easy to raise orbits then satellites would do it. --mfb (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Satellite Numbers

Many of the sections of this page contain widely varying numbers of satellites. The accurate number as of May 2 2021 seems to be 1438 in orbit, of that 10 are in Polar orbit. There are 1584 required in the first orbital shell, not 1440? The text above the table of launches keeps mentioning 1440, whereas the lower tables mention 1584. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtuallynathan (talk • contribs) 21:44, May 2, 2021 (UTC)

How about adding a section on Satellite array or somesuch, describing that there, and changes thereto, and trying to localize info on the number of satellites at various stages to that section? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
The problem I've seen in the past is two things.
  • Numbers are added/updated with no source provided. These should always be reverted.
  • Numbers with a source exist in the article, but are not provided with a time context in the prose. For example, "There are nnn satellites in orbit." will be very quickly outdated, and may not even be easily seen by subsequent editors. Whereas, "As of March 2021 there were nnn satellites in orbit." is both accurate, and helps the editor who later updates the numbers to update the time context as well.
Best, of course is to not have the numbers appear too many places in the article so that as it is updated (very dynamic), editors don't have too many places to look to try to fix the article. N2e (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I think we need the numbers in the "constellation design and status" table. A number in the infobox is useful, too. The lead can get a more qualitative description. We can remove the numbers below the list of launches. --mfb (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

There were 3,372 active satellites on January 1, 2021. Of these, SpaceX operates around 40% (interesting curves). The number seems notable, but I couldn't find it in the Starlink or SpaceX articles. Where would the best placement for this (changing) number be? The fraction is allowed as simple math, as it's not wp:Original Research. TGCP (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

v1.0 L28

Has somebody information about Orbit altitude and Inclination for v1.0 L28? With the launch v1.0 L26 the first orbital shell shoult have enough satellites. Barny22 (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Barny22: No sources but a diagram posted on Reddit shows L26 will not provide enough satellites to complete the next intermediate deployment phase (18+ satellites in each plane). — Sbsail talk 01:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for this diagram. 1582 satellites are in this picture, so it also looks like this shell shoult have enougth satellites. We will see next week, which shell SpaceX start to fill next. Barny22 (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

visibility

could please anybody update the sections about visibility and light pollution? In my experience, since the new versions with sunshades the sats are almost invisible to the naked eye, no skytrains anymore. heavens-above states visibility, if any, to be magnitude 3 or below. thus in northern summer nights invisible, and during early or late night hours anyway, because they are to low to catch sunlight during deep night hours. this is from own experience and astonomical news, but I dont have citations at hand and dont know how to put it into wp, thus please someone work on this thanx 80.187.110.138 (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Your "own experience" is considered original research and is not an acceptable source. You need a reliable, published source that states that the satellites are now less visible to add that to the article. Also, just because you aren't seeing it with the naked eye that doesn't mean that they're not still creating light pollution for telescopes. --Yarnalgo talk 23:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Someone who is not about to leave home for the day should check to see whether Heavens Above can indeed be used on this question. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Splitting out launches

On May 9th Erkinalp9035 suggested splitting out the list of launches including Starlink satellites. I would tend to agree, since using the Falcon 9 would mean that there would be over 50 additional flights to finish phase 1. It would take more than 125 flights to fill phase 2 of the Starlink constellation.
I would propose just mentioning significant milestones (first launch of a new version, first and last launch for a shell) in the 'launches' section in this article if the split is made.AmigaClone (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Any Volunteers? AmigaClone (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I have a placed a potential split in my sandbox Starlink Launches I would like some feedback prior to making changes to the main article or adding this list. AmigaClone (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Making the table sortable by launch site or inclination would be interesting, but that doesn't work if the list is split by year. On the other hand, if you don't want to sort the table then it looks nicer as it is. --mfb (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I will admit I had not considered the idea of making the table at least partially sortable. On the other hand new ideas like that one is in part why I wanted the feedback. While I like the idea, I am concerned about the eventual size of the table if its not split. AmigaClone (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
12,000 satellites with F9 would be 200 launches, but I would expect ~20 more with F9 and then following launches with Starship, which reduces the number of additional launches to ~30 even for the whole constellation. A replacement cycle of 5 years would add 6 launches per year from then on. Probably still a bit too long for a single table. --mfb (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Even a more conservative number of launches would make for a fairly long table. That is not counting the additional 30,000 satellites that SpaceX has applied for, even though their launch not yet gotten approval from the FAA. That would add 75 Starship launches (500 Falcon 9) just to put the constellation in place. Note that if only the Falcon 9 was used to launch those additional 30,000 satellites, it would become the second most launched orbital rocket family after the Soviet/Russian R7.
An alternative method of splitting the table I have considered would be by the version number, Table 1 would be Version 0.9 and before, Table 2 - launches of version 1.0, table 3 - launches of version 2.0... AmigaClone (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
It's unclear how well we will be able to track versions in the future, SpaceX is known for confusing versioning/naming schemes. By inclination would be an option, too. But splitting by year is probably the easiest option. --mfb (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Very true. I will wait at least another week to see if there is any more feedback. AmigaClone (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I like the idea of splitting the launch table by year. That might be the easiest way to not have a ginormous table - and also to not be dependent on SpaceX's version numbers if they change. - Dyork (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - the proposal to split out the large and growing list of launches. Leaving a good summary of the total number of launches and satellites launched over the time period seems best for this article. N2e (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Australia is a continent.

. FatBear1 (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This article seems to use it's own invented naming for the missions rather than SpaceX naming (eg. Group 4-1). What is the reason for this? Ergzay (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Inclination in Table - no, it was retrograde

The mission "Tr-2" is labelled as having an inclination of 97.5° - that can not be. Orbital inclinations have always a value between 0 and 90°, 90° being a polar orbit. Aegre reminiscens (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Orbital inclinations between 90 and 180 degrees are retrograde orbits. SSO are slightly retrograde so they have an inclination a bit above 90 degrees. --mfb (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

What can we say about mass of v1.5 satellites or why they are being launched in smaller variable sized batches

v1.5 have been launched in batches of 53,52,51 and 49 (not counting the 48 of the rideshare) - but why ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The NASASpaceFlight.com article https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/01/starlink-4-5/ wrote:
"Additionally, Starlink v1.5 satellites are approximately 10% more massive than the v1.0 Starlink satellites, which is why Starlink Group 4-1 already saw a decreased number of lofted satellites compared to the Starlink v1.0 missions."
Lets make a comparison of launch L28-v1.0 (development hight was approximately 350km, Inclination ~53.0°) with the Group 4 (Inclination ~53.2°) launches:
For Launch 4-1 (development hight was approximately 350km): 60 -> 53 ~ 12% maximum incrase of the mass (the little bit higher Inclination decrease the launch mass a little bit)
For Launch 4-5 (development hight was approximately 280km (~ 210 x 339 km orbit)): "This mission will defy decades of precedent, with SpaceX reaching the 53.22-degree orbit not via the northeast launch corridor up the eastern seaboard of the United States and Canada, but rather via a southeast corridor hugging the coast of the Bahamas as it performs a dogleg maneuver. This dogleg is the reason why SpaceX is launching fewer Starlink satellites on this mission from the East coast compared to other launches from Florida, such as Starlink Group 4-1 which launched 53 Starlink satellites."
For Launch 4-4 (development hight was approximately 280km): 60 -> 52 ~ 13% incrase (this was a launch form Vandenberg) "The only apparent way SpaceX could launch to 53 degrees from Vandenberg is if Falcon 9 performs a dogleg maneuver several minutes after launch, effectively conducting a (slight) left turn mid-flight. While seemingly simple, even a minor few-degree dogleg maneuver can cost an intuitively large amount of delta-V, potentially significantly reducing the amount of payload a rocket can launch to a given orbit. For Starlink missions, maximizing payload to orbit is perhaps the single most important way (beyond reusability) SpaceX is able to reduce launch costs." see https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-next-starlink-launch-different-orbit/
Barny22 (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Not sure how we use/summarise that in the article.
We don't have a source for satellite masses, and it would be nice if we could include satellite dimensions
and maybe even peak power of the solar panels (or just their dimensions) ? - Rod57 (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Replaced by the new version  Done --mfb (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Tonga

@Mfb and Rosswi88: Re [3], it seems from the new article that they're focusing on the outlying islands now, not Tongatapu? If this row stays, I think there should be more context given in the description or elsewhere in the article, otherwise it's misleading (it's 'emergency relief' over a month late). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It started providing service before the main internet cable was restored. We should have more clarity about its use in a few days. --mfb (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Can we change Country availability?

Makes alot more sense if we only include the countries SpaceX currently is servicing otherwise it get's very confusing as the licensing can be tricky for every country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warbayx (talk • contribs) 17:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The list included only the countries SpaceX is servicing until Mozambique and Romania were added. See "Edit wars over Country Availability" section above on how the list was verified (emails from Starlink). Now we can verify with the official map. — Sbsail talk 23:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
But this is just not true, Sweden was accepted but Starlink is not being offered there yet. Warbayx (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Or atleast provide the proper sources of it then. Warbayx (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Again i see so many countries added without proof of any email was sent out. I know these countries are approved, but does it not make more sense to only approve from E-mails sent out by SpaceX Warbayx (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Croatia source is pay walled. Is there any reliable evidence of service being available in Croatia November last year? All i can find is https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/soreqq/starlink_in_croatia_preordered_feb_21_delivery/ Warbayx (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Some possibly useful details in Talk:Starlink/Archive_1#What_can_we_say_about_mass_of_v1.5_satellites_or_why_they_are_being_launched_in_smaller_variable_sized_batches

Can we say how many laser links on the Starlink v1.5 satellites (2 or 4)? - Rod57 (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Change from "satellite constellation" to "internet service"

The way this describes Starlink seems to partially imply that its more of a plan instead of a active service that's currently available, which relies on a satellite constellation. Shane04040404 (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

GPS is a satellite constellation as well, why would that imply being planned? I rephrased the lead slightly so we have the internet service in the first sentence. --mfb (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Images

Hi all. An anonymous editor seems to object to having the impact on astronomy photos in the article, I've reverted them several times, most recently at [4]. If anyone else has thoughts on this, please share them. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Six seems excessive to me. I would keep the first (Cerro Tololo), as it has been used widely, the Hubble one, and maybe Tübingen as amateur picture example. The Albireo one looks similar to the first one, the Carson image is just messy overall, and Starlink satellites as seen by the ISS have nothing to do with the topic. --mfb (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree. War (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I tend to agree with mfb, two or three images should be plenty to illustrate the point. Six is over emphasizing the section. Grey Wanderer (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
OK, I've removed the ISS one (not so related), and Carson (it is messy). I'm less convinced about removing Albireo, since that seems quite clear to show the effect, maybe even clearer than the Cerro Tololo one, I'd be more inclined to remove Tübingen if we have to go down to three. Any further thoughts? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Many images in this section. Wikipedia is not a photo gallery. --2800:E2:1C80:35D:A0F9:9DA1:BEEE:FF47 (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed Albireo as everyone apart from Mike Peel agreed with my proposal of having 2-3. Now it's Cerro Tololo, Tübingen and Hubble. --mfb (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

outdated

this article has grown so much that it is full of outdated information while new is only added below without changing older parts. extremely messy and almost unreadable. plase keep main part updated and clear. move things like "as of 2020" at least into a history section where it does not interfere with the actual information, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.114.189 (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There is currently one "as of" left that's not up to date or in a historic context: The number of satellites with sunshades. This should be almost all of them, to the point where quoting numbers wouldn't be useful (better to give the number of satellites without), but it should have a good reference. --mfb (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit wars over Country Availability

I'm not sure why some editors keep warring over what countries are available, so let's talk it out. It appears that people keep adding Poland, but the reference they use to add poland clearly states the latter half of 2021, so I feel it is premature to put it on the availability list. Thoughts?!? Dgrundler (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I changed the availability status for Chile and Ireland to be "Limited trials" (available to a limited number of picked testers) as opposed to "Public beta" (available to the public via starlink.com). I checked with Starlink subreddit as explained above. No confirmation Starlink is available to the public in Chile and Ireland. Regarding Ireland, I found a beta tester who said they didn't purchase a Starlink kit through the website but received it on loan somehow confirming the limited nature of the trials. — Sbsail talk 11:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Italy: changing to public beta as a typical public email has been sent out and people are reporting pre-order to full order conversions. — Sbsail talk 06:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Starlink either no longer sends country availability emails or doesn't send them because some countries a barely covered. A reddit user "a13xch1" scraped availability info and published a map. The map can be verified by entering the published plus codes in the starlink.com order form. It shows for example Starlink is available to the public in Switzerland but only in two cells (areas 400 sq km each). — Sbsail talk 23:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Starlink has now published the official availability map. — Sbsail talk 23:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Might be interesting to add a "Population" column to the Country Availability chart, so we can see the total population of people covered by Starlink. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Please stop adding back in Nigeria, Mozambique and Phillipines

@N2e, @HaeB, it has nothing to do with secondary versus primary sources. The secondary source isn't a source at all given that it's not a confirmation of service in the country. It's a confirmation of regulatory approval in that country. The title of the section is "Availability by country" and the table column is "debut", neither of those apply to these three countries yet. If you want to add the countries, then we should modify the table with two columns for "regulatory approval" and "debut", however regulatory approval for Mozambique at the very least was several months ago. Here's one source I found from several months ago with a Feburary 23rd date for approval. Ergzay (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

It absolutely has to do with secondary vs. primary sources if citations to the former are being deleted with the erroneous argument "We [who?] always confirmed starlink availability buy [sic] users from that country or starlink map.)", i.e. the mistaken assumption that Wikipedia prefers to rely on word-of-mouth and primary sources. Rather, per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia articles should reflect the coverage in reliable sources. If an editor personally disagrees with these sources about the noteworthiness of regulatory approval in a country, that personal opinion per se does not justify deleting such facts from the article.
That said, the article should of course make clear what is meant by "debut" in that column, and you are right that regulatory approval and general availability of the service to the public are two different things. I have added a separate column per your suggestion. (Another option would be to reuse the existing, largely empty "Notes" column for that.)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
@HaeB You seem to be completely misinterpreting that highlighted quote. It has nothing to do with what "Wikipedia prefers" nor is it at all related to primary/secondary sources and everything to do with what that table and section of the article is talking about. It's completely about "is this service actually available in country or not". The sources are NOT announcements of service being available in those countries. Those sources are announcement of SpaceX having gotten a sheet of paper that says they can enter the country. So you're diverting the discussion away from what I'm actually talking about to something I'm not talking about at all. So let's stay on topic. It's fine to put those facts in the article, but they CANNOT go in that table as it was written. Ergzay (talk) 03:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
@HaeB Also I now quite dislike the changes adding extra column into the table. I feel like this information isn't really relevant, seeing it juxtaposed the other information. I will move that information out of the table. Ergzay (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I've added the information in a separate line in the Availability section, though this information honestly should be outside the Availability section and maybe in some kind of dedicated history section. The monumental information is "when was service first available in the country" as that is something that is much easier to find information on. The information on regulatory approval I would argue that it may be difficult to confirm because depending on the country there may be multiple instances of regulatory approval from different organizations and business units. We should have a dedicated history section with entries like "On XXX date Starlink got approval from the XXX board of XXX country." or similar. We could maybe tabelize that in a separate type of table if wanted, but I don't see it as needed. Ergzay (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Also on Hungary, there are primary sources that show it as having been announced by SpaceX as available in May around the 10th of May. The table intentionally uses month granularity to allow for information uncertainty. Ergzay (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Starlink/Archive_1&oldid=1106933824"