• @MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    161 year ago

    Probably not an eco-friendly move

    Fine powder of metals strewn over a few km², there’s more coming from outer space via micrometeorites and dust. And that bit CO² in the Stratosphere…

    • @lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      Yeah but you also have to manufacture and send up the satellites into LEO.

      • ChaoticNeutralCzech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        Also counterintuitively, you need some fuel to deorbit, which adds payload weight at launch and requires more fuel in the first place.

        For example, getting a unit of rocket fuel to the Moon requires about ten times as much at launch.

        • @lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          I don’t think they need much fuel in this case unless they want to be absolutely sure that they deorbit in the right place. The satellites are so small that might not even be needed.

          • ChaoticNeutralCzech
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            Yes, it takes little fuel to destabilize one’s orbit and eventually enter the atmosphere to burn up. It’s more difficult if you need to make sure that the craft doesn’t take others down during the procedure.

            • @lud@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              The satellites are in LEO so the orbit will decay on its own because of the atmospheric drag.

              I don’t think they really have to worry about taking down other satellites.

        • @MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Starlink’s only have fuel because of the initial lower orbit, as far as i know. Wasn’t that to test them, for radiation and so on?