Yes, but ii is better to start them not in the same time. Each node must be vetted, the unvetted node can receive only 5% of the customers’ uploads until got vetted. To be vetted on one satellite, it should pass 100 audits from it. For the one node in the same /24 subnet of public IPs it should take at least a month (or more).
Since all nodes behind the same /24 subnet of public IPs considered as a one node for uploads, the vetting process could take in the same amount of times longer as a number of such nodes.
So, start the next node when a previous one almost full or at least vetted.
But generally yes - since all nodes behind the same /24 subnet of public IPs gets the same ingress as a one node, it acts like an array, distributing data between nodes, so losing one node would mean losing one piece of the common data, not the whole array as in case of big one node with one RAID.
see
almost.
When the customer wants to upload a file, their uplink encrypts the file, splits to segments, does erasure coding, forms pieces and request 110 nodes from unique subnets for each segment from the satellite, then starts uploads in parallel. When the first 80 are finished, remained got canceled (because only 80 pieces are need to be stored for each segment).
When the customer wants to download a file, their uplink requests 39 nodes from 80 for each segment from the satellite and starts downloads in parallel. When the first 29 are completed, all remained got canceled (the uplink need only any 29 pieces from 80 to reconstruct a segment).
Thus fastest nodes to the customer’s location gets most of pieces and most of egress.
So any advantage (not using slow disks subsystem and/or filesystem, supporting QUIC and tcp_fastopen, etc.) gives your nodes potentially more wins above others.