Yes, but that probably doesn’t help in the next few years. (Expecting a few more fireballs)
They may need to seriously up the Falcon9 launch cadence or switch back to gen 1 sats. (Unless the better capabilities of the gen 2 sats mean they need less up there - I thought that the number was more due to low coverage due to altitude though)
They've already got prototype Starship upper stages built that have the cargo door necessary for launching Starlink satellites from, I think "a few years" is likely a very pessimistic timeframe at this point. If they're not launching Starlink satellites with Starship at some point next year I will be very surprised.
The problem is that due to the scale of the rocket/explosions the regulators are being more picky - their test rate is much reduced. If their not allowed to launch again for months after the last failure then it could easily take that long.
Nighed@sffa.community 1 year ago
Yes, but that probably doesn’t help in the next few years. (Expecting a few more fireballs)
They may need to seriously up the Falcon9 launch cadence or switch back to gen 1 sats. (Unless the better capabilities of the gen 2 sats mean they need less up there - I thought that the number was more due to low coverage due to altitude though)
FaceDeer@kbin.social 1 year ago
They've already got prototype Starship upper stages built that have the cargo door necessary for launching Starlink satellites from, I think "a few years" is likely a very pessimistic timeframe at this point. If they're not launching Starlink satellites with Starship at some point next year I will be very surprised.
Nighed@sffa.community 1 year ago
The problem is that due to the scale of the rocket/explosions the regulators are being more picky - their test rate is much reduced. If their not allowed to launch again for months after the last failure then it could easily take that long.