4 ms·

Satellites in geosync are very VERY far away; much farther than Starlink's LEOs. So the risk of crashing into the atmosphere is much reduced; the risk of alter

by evanb 5y ago

Satellites in geosync are very VERY far away; much farther than Starlink's LEOs. So the risk of crashing into the atmosphere is much reduced; the risk of altering the appearance of the night sky is similarly reduced by the distance.

kitsunesoba 5y ago
On the other hand, geosynchronous satellites won’t ever clean themselves up and if control is lost on one, it’ll continue to be a problem for thousands of years or until a retrieval craft is sent up. There’s not even really much of an opportunity to safely de-orbit if failure is anticipated because they’re so far out. With Starlink, in the worst case scenario dead satellites will be in orbit for 2-3 years, and if signs of giving out start showing up SpaceX can quickly and safely steer it to burn up, with a cheap (and likely updated) replacement being sent up within a month.
- nradov 5y ago
  If a geostationary satellite is still operational when it reaches end of life then the operators are supposed to use the remaining fuel to move it to a safe graveyard orbit. Of course that doesn't always work.
gpm 5y ago
> the risk of crashing into the atmosphere is much reduced This isn't really a risk, it's a feature. "Crashing" into the atmosphere means you slow down from orbital velocity and re-enter instead of polluting the orbital environment. It's much worse if you stay in orbit, occupying valuable space, and risking collisions that will create debris clouds occupying much more valuable space (and potentially resulting in chain reactions). SpaceX has long since designed it's satellites to fully burn up as they re-enter the atmosphere to remove the risk that they'll hit someone on the ground, but even for satellites where that hasn't happened, it's generally preferred that they re-enter the atmosphere than hang out dead in valuable orbits.
- wumpus 5y ago
  It's a risk, and the FCC requires that you plan on not killing people on the ground if your satellites are going to re-enter.
  - gpm 5y ago
    Crashing into the ground is a risk, crashing into the atmosphere not so much.
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    The Starlink satellites are tiny; they burn up in the upper atmosphere and never reach the ground.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    And the FAA required that you plan on not killing people on the ground when your plane lands. He said it's not a risk in the sence that it's not something you avoid, it's something you use regularly. He did not mean "you can just YOLO it"
  - mlindner 5y ago
    That's the FAA requiring that, not FCC.

by evanb 5y ago

kitsunesoba 5y ago

On the other hand, geosynchronous satellites won’t ever clean themselves up and if control is lost on one, it’ll continue to be a problem for thousands of years or until a retrieval craft is sent up. There’s not even really much of an opportunity to safely de-orbit if failure is anticipated because they’re so far out. With Starlink, in the worst case scenario dead satellites will be in orbit for 2-3 years, and if signs of giving out start showing up SpaceX can quickly and safely steer it to burn up, with a cheap (and likely updated) replacement being sent up within a month.

nradov 5y ago
If a geostationary satellite is still operational when it reaches end of life then the operators are supposed to use the remaining fuel to move it to a safe graveyard orbit. Of course that doesn't always work.

gpm 5y ago

> the risk of crashing into the atmosphere is much reduced This isn't really a risk, it's a feature. "Crashing" into the atmosphere means you slow down from orbital velocity and re-enter instead of polluting the orbital environment. It's much worse if you stay in orbit, occupying valuable space, and risking collisions that will create debris clouds occupying much more valuable space (and potentially resulting in chain reactions). SpaceX has long since designed it's satellites to fully burn up as they re-enter the atmosphere to remove the risk that they'll hit someone on the ground, but even for satellites where that hasn't happened, it's generally preferred that they re-enter the atmosphere than hang out dead in valuable orbits.

wumpus 5y ago
It's a risk, and the FCC requires that you plan on not killing people on the ground if your satellites are going to re-enter.
- gpm 5y ago
  Crashing into the ground is a risk, crashing into the atmosphere not so much.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  The Starlink satellites are tiny; they burn up in the upper atmosphere and never reach the ground.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  And the FAA required that you plan on not killing people on the ground when your plane lands. He said it's not a risk in the sence that it's not something you avoid, it's something you use regularly. He did not mean "you can just YOLO it"
- mlindner 5y ago
  That's the FAA requiring that, not FCC.