3 ms·
> Why would we be fine in a decade? Because physics. Atmospheric drag at those altitudes causes orbits to decay to the point of deorbit in a matter of years.
by rlt 5y ago
> Why would we be fine in a decade?
Because physics. Atmospheric drag at those altitudes causes orbits to decay to the point of deorbit in a matter of years.
> 67,000 collision-adjustments a year
Do you consider drivers making adjustments in steering to avoid collisions with other cars to be a problem? Because there are millions (billions?) of those happening daily, and we don’t think twice about it.
There will be the occasional unmaneuverable satellite, but I expect Starship (which SpaceX has said is essentially necessary for the success of Starlink) will be cheap enough within a decade to be the “tow truck” for broken down satellites.
- mandmandam 5y ago> Because physics. "Can you comprehend the political fallout of such an event". > Do you consider drivers making adjustments in steering to avoid collisions with other cars to be a problem? NASA are concerned, as are MIT. And the Europeans Space Agency. Satellites only have so much fuel. Radar can only track so much. Tiny pieces of debris can cause a chain reaction. So, unless you have a better analogy than fucking cars, consider me unconvinced.
- rlt 5y agoMy point was “number of collision adjustments” makes for a nice scary sounding statistic but alone it’s not a good indicator of risk. The vast majority of those would not have resulted in a collision even without collision avoidance maneuvers. But we do have collision avoidance, and SpaceX knows when a satellite will run out of fuel and can deorbit.