[Rebelgecko]

>Basically, the constellation's effect on the night sky is proportional to the number of launches in the last month, not the total number in orbit.

For what it's worth, in order for the constellation to reach steady state the number of launches in the last month will need to be proportional to the total # of orbit. So if the constellation has 42,000 satellites and the satellites last 10 years on average (IMO that's an optimistic lifespan), you need to launch around 350/month just to maintain the size of the constellation.

[mlindner]

By that time they'll also have a launch vehicle capable of launching around 300 satellites in a single launch.

Additionally, 42,000 was a worst case for the number needed and only if things go exceedingly well with the service. I think people quote that number too much when in reality there's likely to be under 5000 (from SpaceX at least).

[alphaoverlord]

I think number of launches was used as a proxy for number of satellites launched in the last month - more satellites/launch shouldn't impact it that much.

[mlindner]

I think it would as the satellites would be closer together with fewer launches so as a percentage of sky the issue would be reduced.

[Tuna-Fish]

> I think people quote that number too much when in reality there's likely to be under 5000 (from SpaceX at least).

Why? I think it's much more likely that they either fail, or (eventually) launch every single satellite that their licenses allow. More satellites increases the proportion of the market they can address, and if they can profitably launch a satellite, they can profitably launch a second.

[greshario]

What about when competing services launch, as they will if this is successful? What are the total numbers going to look like if EU, Russia, China, Japan, and India all launch starlink services?