Starlink quietly lost over $250M in burned satellites this summer

Lost 200 but launched 345, almost all of which are the latest upgraded version. The satellites are designed to last 5 years (the lifetime is limited by propellant because of atmospheric drag at their low altitude) and the first batches were launched 4 years ago now. As the constellation matures they will be de-orbiting satellites about as fast as they launch them.<p>Seems to me like the long term viability of Starlink (if it&#x27;s not already profitable) will be assured if Starship meets its goals. They&#x27;ll be able to launch way more satellites at once, for less per launch, and with faster turnaround.

Lost $250M <i>using the advertised launch price of $67M for Falcon 9</i>, which of course is way higher than what it actually costs SpaceX.

So we have reached that stage of Universal Paperclips

That&#x27;s about a 4.4% loss (200 of 4500 satelites which are expected to have a life of 5 years), and the internal cost to Starlink of a new launch is probably far less than the $67 million &#x27;retail&#x27; cost of a SpaceX launch.

I think they&#x27;re prepared to lose satellites, that&#x27;s the nature of large swarms.<p>Some losses might be intentional for safety after damage or low propellant. They really can&#x27;t afford to put any debris on their orbits.

Speaking of Starlink, what piqued my interest is that Huawei Mate 60 incorporated satellite call module without being bulky. It is not yet able to do data transfer but in case they can, isnt that practically a portable starlink equivalent?

Is this because they are making a trade-off between surving some amount of solar flare activity vs increasing satellite weight by hardening them to radation?<p>I imagine it&#x27;s preventable since the ISS and other large orbiters stay functional forever.

Is this intentional? Is it just happening for newly launched satellites?

Going forward what is the expected yearly attrition rate? So how much have they spend a year to keep replacing the natural losses of their satellites?

It&#x27;s unfortunate that this misinformation is being upvoted on this site. The headline is completely incorrect, as is the statistics they&#x27;re using to base the article on.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;Marco_Langbroek&#x2F;status&#x2F;1705562829225410697" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;Marco_Langbroek&#x2F;status&#x2F;17055628292254106...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;planet4589.org&#x2F;space&#x2F;con&#x2F;star&#x2F;stats.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;planet4589.org&#x2F;space&#x2F;con&#x2F;star&#x2F;stats.html</a><p>There has only ever been 350 starlink satellites that have deorbited, and only 8 within the last two months.