3 ms·
That would surely also mean their expected lifespan is shorter too? Faster decay doesn’t just affect dead satellites Idk seems like a strange move and the stat
by Havoc 10mo ago
That would surely also mean their expected lifespan is shorter too? Faster decay doesn’t just affect dead satellites
Idk seems like a strange move and the stated reason seems flimsy
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago> would surely also mean their expected lifespan is shorter too? Are Starlinks being deörbited due to propellant exhaustion? In many respects, Starlink satellites are small servers. They’re probably profitable to replace quicker than decay would force them to be.
- londons_explore 10mo agoBut you don't pay for space or power - so the normal business incentives to retire old hardware don't really apply. We are nowhere close to the sky being 'full'.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago> you don't pay for space or power These birds aren’t totally autonomous. They do take up “space” in a limited sense. And having your fleet be somewhat similar lets one execute maneuvers like this global plane change more efficiently.
- cyberge99 10mo agoDepends on how many satellites there are and how much closer they orbit.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- quailfarmer 10mo agoYes, it’s absolutely a trade off against prop (argon) lifetime, energy spent thrusting, and atomic oxygen degradation of plastic components. The benefits of increased drag for these shells of thousands of vehicles must be worth it.
- Havoc 10mo agoWhy is drag desirable? Aside from faster decay for cleanup. I just don’t understand why spacex would do this from a biz/strategic perspective
- montjoy 10mo agoMy take is that orbits below 500 km are “cleaned out” and during solar minimum there is less drag going on there. So, it’s a good spot to home your satellites for a while because there isn’t as much junk to maneuver around.