3 ms·

Clearly this should be funded by the countries and companies that own the debris and sattlites that need to be tracked. Which means Starling would probably pay

Clearly this should be funded by the countries and companies that own the debris and sattlites that need to be tracked. Which means Starling would probably pay for most of it. Then there are various spy satellites countries have that they dont want tracked? Or does the data from NOAA include spy satellites in strange orbits?

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Which means Starling would probably pay for most of it Then they’d switch to a user fee. Perhaps even at a profit, such that it’s deficit reducing. That isn’t what they’re doing because that isn’t what this is about.
cantor_S_drug 1y ago
I mentioned this scenario before but I was downvoted. Can a rogue disgruntled state like Iran actually bring about destruction of satellites, say Starlink ones, to set off space debris chain reaction to pollute, poison the earth orbit for everyone. The thinking goes like if I can't have the advantage then no one else should.
- j-bos 1y ago
  iirc Starlink satellites sit in a low orbit so they'll burn up/down pretty fast.
- squigz 1y ago
  In theory, yes, sure, why not? In practice, I would think that any nation with the capacity of launching such an attack would realize that that would be catastrophic not just for their enemies but for themselves. Not to mention that I'm sure various nations have intelligence about any nations that might consider such an attack and would attempt to thwart it.
Buttons840 1y ago
Assuming you mean "Starlink": Don't all Starlink satellites have a plan to deorbit responsibly; specifically, do nothing, which results in a relatively quick deorbitting? Starlink satellites are in low-Earth-orbit which can't accumulate much space debris, because everything deorbits naturally within a few years.
EasyMark 1y ago
This isn't about budget, it's about reducing the USA's capability as a leader in science and research as commanded from certain parties in the former soviet union.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> Which means Starling would probably pay for most of it Then they’d switch to a user fee. Perhaps even at a profit, such that it’s deficit reducing. That isn’t what they’re doing because that isn’t what this is about.

cantor_S_drug 1y ago

I mentioned this scenario before but I was downvoted. Can a rogue disgruntled state like Iran actually bring about destruction of satellites, say Starlink ones, to set off space debris chain reaction to pollute, poison the earth orbit for everyone. The thinking goes like if I can't have the advantage then no one else should.

j-bos 1y ago
iirc Starlink satellites sit in a low orbit so they'll burn up/down pretty fast.
squigz 1y ago
In theory, yes, sure, why not? In practice, I would think that any nation with the capacity of launching such an attack would realize that that would be catastrophic not just for their enemies but for themselves. Not to mention that I'm sure various nations have intelligence about any nations that might consider such an attack and would attempt to thwart it.

Buttons840 1y ago

Assuming you mean "Starlink": Don't all Starlink satellites have a plan to deorbit responsibly; specifically, do nothing, which results in a relatively quick deorbitting? Starlink satellites are in low-Earth-orbit which can't accumulate much space debris, because everything deorbits naturally within a few years.

EasyMark 1y ago

This isn't about budget, it's about reducing the USA's capability as a leader in science and research as commanded from certain parties in the former soviet union.