There is no mention in the original text of any tens of thousands of satellites. Only one thing can be confirmed now: the U.S. Space Force signed a $4.16 billion launch contract with SpaceX. Based on Falcon 9's pricing, it's approximately $70 million per launch (commercial price; prices for NASA and defense contracts are higher than commercial launches, often exceeding $100 million per launch).
According to launch cost calculations, $4.16 billion can fund about 60 launches. At 50 satellites per launch, the total number of satellites would be around 3,000. The first batch mentioned in the text is scheduled for launch around 2028, with deployment planned to be completed in the 2030s (likely around 2035).
Judging from the illustrations in the text, the satellites do not appear to be flat-panel layouts but rather traditional configurations, with unknown weights. Frankly, based on the mass of Starlink v1 satellites at about 250 kg each, these satellites are relatively small and have limited capabilities. At 250 kg per satellite, the payload capacity is still quite limited, which is why Starlink v1 satellites don’t even carry chemical propulsion for attitude control, relying instead on electric propulsion for slow orbital raising.
Considering that if the external design is not flat-panel, the actual satellite mass and the dispenser’s allocation capacity are likely limited (meaning the actual launch might not carry 50 satellites but rather 15–25).
Given the known satellite design, which requires deploying radar antennas, onboard AI, and presumably a not-too-small solar panel capacity (to power high-performance computing boards, which generate heat and require cooling systems, thus needing larger solar panels), plus laser communication equipment (reportedly about 10 kg each, typically requiring four—two for transmitting and two for receiving, with at least two channels for chain data transmission), I think around 1,000–1,500 satellites would likely meet the requirements.
This scale is sufficient for continuous, uninterrupted Earth observation. For reference, China’s Jilin-1 optical/radar observation constellation, as I recall, has a scale of around 300 satellites, which can achieve revisit times of under 10 minutes. With 1,000–1,500 satellites, that’s already 3–5 times the scale, and radar generally has a wider field of view than optical sensors. Therefore, 1,000–1,500 satellites is most likely the current deployment scale for this constellation.
I hope you won’t criticize me, but I believe this baseline is quite reasonable. Simply put, Starlink is designed to meet ground communication service needs. Since a single satellite’s capacity is insufficient to serve certain areas during its pass, high-density deployment is necessary, hence the requirement for tens of thousands of satellites.
For defense satellites, deploying tens of thousands of such satellites would be a blatant waste of money. Maintaining a constellation of tens of thousands of satellites is itself a money pit. Starlink satellites currently have a lifespan of about 5 years (small satellites of this size in low Earth orbit typically last around that long). For 10,000 satellites, that means replacing 2,000 per year (requiring 40 Falcon 9 launches). For 50,000 satellites, that’s replacing 10,000 per year.
These defense satellites have zero economic value; launching them is just burning money for fun. Moreover, a sensing constellation of this scale is essentially only useful against China. What other adversary besides China would the U.S. need such a massive satellite constellation to counter? Completely unnecessary. China is the U.S.’s only real challenger; the rest are just participating for the sake of it.
How likely is a war between the U.S. and China? What’s the point of maintaining such a money-burning system? (If it were up to me, even 1,000 satellites would be too many.)
Besides, this thing is nowhere near comparable to E-3/E-7. E-7 can provide a lot of intelligence support and even direct targeting capabilities for aircraft, and it’s much more convenient. Satellites are far more troublesome.
So, if the U.S. wants its finances to collapse faster, it can fantasize about tens of thousands of satellites. Otherwise, if it truly wants to compete with China in the long term and slowly win back ground, it should follow China’s example: a constellation of a few hundred satellites is sufficient for all-weather, continuous sensing.
