• Hubi@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      1 year ago

      Starlink sattelites operate in a low orbit that decays over time. They all fall back to earth eventually.

      • KSP Atlas@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Specifically i think starlink satellites do not have any boosting thrusters, the reason important LEO satellites like the ISS don’t burn up unless intended is due to those

        • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          starlink satellites do not have any boosting thrusters

          Starlink satellites actually do have Hall-effect ion thrusters, and can raise and lower their their own orbits. Though like any spacecraft, they still have a finite amount of fuel and will eventually deorbit.

    • Uniquitous
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      I heard they’re designed to burn up in the atmosphere. Probably not an eco-friendly move, but it beats taking a satellite to the head.

      • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 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
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 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
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 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@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 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
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 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
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 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?