this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
774 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
55744 readers
2747 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fine powder of metals strewn over a few km², there's more coming from outer space via micrometeorites and dust. And that bit CO² in the Stratosphere...
Yeah but you also have to manufacture and send up the satellites into LEO.
Also counterintuitively, you need some fuel to deorbit, which adds payload weight at launch and requires more fuel in the first place.
For example, getting a unit of rocket fuel to the Moon requires about ten times as much at launch.
I don't think they need much fuel in this case unless they want to be absolutely sure that they deorbit in the right place. The satellites are so small that might not even be needed.
Yes, it takes little fuel to destabilize one's orbit and eventually enter the atmosphere to burn up. It's more difficult if you need to make sure that the craft doesn't take others down during the procedure.
The satellites are in LEO so the orbit will decay on its own because of the atmospheric drag.
I don't think they really have to worry about taking down other satellites.
Starlink's only have fuel because of the initial lower orbit, as far as i know. Wasn't that to test them, for radiation and so on?