4 ms·
> 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 high
by 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 agoProbably, 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 agoSure, 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 agoThat’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 agoActually no, because junk stays in the space longer altitudes and velocity. Collision risk = density X junk time in orbit X velocity