5 ms·

If you have many satellites, you lose many in case of electromagnetic storms. Remember that about 25% of all satellites that currently are orbiting Earth are St

If you have many satellites, you lose many in case of electromagnetic storms. Remember that about 25% of all satellites that currently are orbiting Earth are Starlink satellites, and that they are designed to be easily disposable and in very low orbits.

hulitu 5y ago
So they are designed to be crap ? Why not produce more waste ?
- permalac 5y ago
  They fell and desintegrwte.
- Retric 5y ago
  No, you misunderstand. They need so many satellites that using higher orbits would quickly guarantee Kessler syndrome. Instead they orbit low enough to require significant fuel simply to maintain orbit. These low orbits also allow individual Starlink satellites to be less than 1/10th the mass of normal communication satellites at ~260kg.
  - Retric 5y ago
    In comparison at the opposite side of the spectrum, the largest communication satellites are Telstar 19V launched in 2018 @ 7,076 kg, and TerreStar-1 launched in 2009 @ 6,910 kg.
  - alex_young 5y ago
    > They need so many satellites that using higher orbits would quickly guarantee Kessler syndrome. I know there are good reasons to be in LEO, but wouldn’t higher orbits mean a lower likelihood of collision simply due to the increased distances?
    - mort96 5y ago
      Probably, yeah. But higher orbits means that dead satellites will stay in orbit for much longer, and that the debris from colliding satellites will stay in orbit for much longer. When the satellites are in such a low orbit, dead satellites will quickly deorbit due to atmospheric drag, and same with the debris produced by collisions.
    - pelorat 5y ago
      Sure, but space is big, and satellites are small. I bet all the Starlink satellites in orbit fit comfortably inside the area of an American football field. Satellite visualizations always make space appear more crowded than it really is.
      - Retric 5y ago
        That’s a misleading was of thinking about it. A sofa doesn’t need much space, a sofa traveling 17,000 mph for decades needs a lot of space. Worse a sofa hit with another sofa at 5,000+ mph creates a cloud of debris that then endangers stuff across quite a lot of space.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      Actually no, because junk stays in the space longer altitudes and velocity. Collision risk = density X junk time in orbit X velocity

hulitu 5y ago

So they are designed to be crap ? Why not produce more waste ?

permalac 5y ago
They fell and desintegrwte.
Retric 5y ago
No, you misunderstand. They need so many satellites that using higher orbits would quickly guarantee Kessler syndrome. Instead they orbit low enough to require significant fuel simply to maintain orbit. These low orbits also allow individual Starlink satellites to be less than 1/10th the mass of normal communication satellites at ~260kg.
- Retric 5y ago
  In comparison at the opposite side of the spectrum, the largest communication satellites are Telstar 19V launched in 2018 @ 7,076 kg, and TerreStar-1 launched in 2009 @ 6,910 kg.
- alex_young 5y ago
  > They need so many satellites that using higher orbits would quickly guarantee Kessler syndrome. I know there are good reasons to be in LEO, but wouldn’t higher orbits mean a lower likelihood of collision simply due to the increased distances?
  - mort96 5y ago
    Probably, yeah. But higher orbits means that dead satellites will stay in orbit for much longer, and that the debris from colliding satellites will stay in orbit for much longer. When the satellites are in such a low orbit, dead satellites will quickly deorbit due to atmospheric drag, and same with the debris produced by collisions.
  - pelorat 5y ago
    Sure, but space is big, and satellites are small. I bet all the Starlink satellites in orbit fit comfortably inside the area of an American football field. Satellite visualizations always make space appear more crowded than it really is.
    - Retric 5y ago
      That’s a misleading was of thinking about it. A sofa doesn’t need much space, a sofa traveling 17,000 mph for decades needs a lot of space. Worse a sofa hit with another sofa at 5,000+ mph creates a cloud of debris that then endangers stuff across quite a lot of space.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Actually no, because junk stays in the space longer altitudes and velocity. Collision risk = density X junk time in orbit X velocity