4 ms·

I've heard that at least with the SpaceX satellites, they have full plans for decommissioning with these satellites re-entering the atmosphere. I do agree that

I've heard that at least with the SpaceX satellites, they have full plans for decommissioning with these satellites re-entering the atmosphere. I do agree that this is a real concern though, and we'd hope there's pretty careful consideration, considering the sheer number of satellites being launched. Still, space is big .. really big, even the space just above our planet. I don't put it past humanity to not fuck up space. After all, look at all the plastics and waste in the oceans. Hopefully all these companies and FCC regulators are thinking far ahead, and require the right designs and safety measures to make sure we don't end up enclosed in a float garbage pile.

regnerba 7y ago
Correct on the decommissioning plans. SpaceX lists out in their FCC filings a number of things including how long it will take them to actively de-orbit satellites, how long for them to de-orbit if they lose contact/control, and also how much of the material will survive re-entry. I have read conflicting things so don't hold me to this, but on article I read said they delayed adding the laser links to the current batch of Starlink satellites because of concerns over how much would survive the de-orbit maneuver.
- coolspot 7y ago
  What I heard they launched them ASAP because otherwise they would lose spectrum license.
mtarnovan 7y ago
This is relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS1ibDImAYU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS1ibDImAYU
- throw0101a 7y ago
  See also anime: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes
nordsieck 7y ago
> I've heard that at least with the SpaceX satellites, they have full plans for decommissioning with these satellites re-entering the atmosphere. It's not just that they have plans to do so, they're low enough that they'll de-orbit fairly quickly on their own without active control (boost from their ion engines). Something pretty strange would have to happen for them not to eventually burn up.
- gexla 7y ago
  Isn't the Kessler effect partly about creating further junk from a cascade of collisions? Even if the "junk" were to re-enter the atmosphere eventually, how long would that take? How long would access to space be cut off before the junk were to clear?
  - djaychela 7y ago
    I'm not an expert (and expect to be corrected on details here), but I think it depends on the orbit altitude - if it's low enough to suffer significant atmospheric drag, then it'll de-orbit fairly quickly. But if they're at high altitude (geostationary and geosynchronous orbits spring to mind - around 22000-26000 miles), then that's much less likely, although there's a much bigger area to cover at that altitude. But given the damage that even a tiny particle can cause at those velocities, I think it's a real concern with such mass launches.
  - Tuna-Fish 7y ago
    The smaller any given piece of debris is, the greater it's surface area:mass ratio is, and therefore the faster it deorbits due to drag. Project Kuiper and Starlink both put the very large, thousands-of-satellites constellations low enough that trash gets cleared quickly enough that even a set of multiple catastrophic collisions is very unlikely to threaten most of the network, and even if they all just blow up, the pieces will fall down shortly and clear the orbit for reuse. For Starlink, drag is actually so high that they are using the solar array as a sail for attitude control.
CodeSheikh 7y ago
With right lobbying strategy and targeting lawmakers during campaigns, I have no reason to believe that Amazon cannot influence enough heads in their favor. Are government entities such as FCC are the absolute gatekeepers that we expect them to be? I am highly skeptical. Look how FAA handled Boeing's 737 Max and we ended up with two crashes. A company of Amazon stature and resources can easily influence and overwhelm FCC into giving them green light. For Amazon this is a two fold win; Blue Origin will finally have a purpose, and further domination of Amazon in farthest corners of the world.

regnerba 7y ago

Correct on the decommissioning plans. SpaceX lists out in their FCC filings a number of things including how long it will take them to actively de-orbit satellites, how long for them to de-orbit if they lose contact/control, and also how much of the material will survive re-entry. I have read conflicting things so don't hold me to this, but on article I read said they delayed adding the laser links to the current batch of Starlink satellites because of concerns over how much would survive the de-orbit maneuver.

coolspot 7y ago
What I heard they launched them ASAP because otherwise they would lose spectrum license.

mtarnovan 7y ago

This is relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS1ibDImAYU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS1ibDImAYU

throw0101a 7y ago
See also anime: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes

nordsieck 7y ago

> I've heard that at least with the SpaceX satellites, they have full plans for decommissioning with these satellites re-entering the atmosphere. It's not just that they have plans to do so, they're low enough that they'll de-orbit fairly quickly on their own without active control (boost from their ion engines). Something pretty strange would have to happen for them not to eventually burn up.

gexla 7y ago
Isn't the Kessler effect partly about creating further junk from a cascade of collisions? Even if the "junk" were to re-enter the atmosphere eventually, how long would that take? How long would access to space be cut off before the junk were to clear?
- djaychela 7y ago
  I'm not an expert (and expect to be corrected on details here), but I think it depends on the orbit altitude - if it's low enough to suffer significant atmospheric drag, then it'll de-orbit fairly quickly. But if they're at high altitude (geostationary and geosynchronous orbits spring to mind - around 22000-26000 miles), then that's much less likely, although there's a much bigger area to cover at that altitude. But given the damage that even a tiny particle can cause at those velocities, I think it's a real concern with such mass launches.
- Tuna-Fish 7y ago
  The smaller any given piece of debris is, the greater it's surface area:mass ratio is, and therefore the faster it deorbits due to drag. Project Kuiper and Starlink both put the very large, thousands-of-satellites constellations low enough that trash gets cleared quickly enough that even a set of multiple catastrophic collisions is very unlikely to threaten most of the network, and even if they all just blow up, the pieces will fall down shortly and clear the orbit for reuse. For Starlink, drag is actually so high that they are using the solar array as a sail for attitude control.

CodeSheikh 7y ago

With right lobbying strategy and targeting lawmakers during campaigns, I have no reason to believe that Amazon cannot influence enough heads in their favor. Are government entities such as FCC are the absolute gatekeepers that we expect them to be? I am highly skeptical. Look how FAA handled Boeing's 737 Max and we ended up with two crashes. A company of Amazon stature and resources can easily influence and overwhelm FCC into giving them green light. For Amazon this is a two fold win; Blue Origin will finally have a purpose, and further domination of Amazon in farthest corners of the world.