If satellites dying long before their 5 year life is their business model they are succeeding. www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC7rlQmAgro
Comment on [deleted]
OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Isn’t this their business model?
saveanon12@lemmy.world 11 months ago
PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [bot] 11 months ago
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC7rlQmAgro
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 11 months ago
Exactly. This they know. They’re low orbit. What does low orbit mean? They’re more susceptible to gravity… so obviously they’re gonna fall at some point. I get that it’s not good for them to fall but like you said": isn’t this their business model? They must have planned for this. Nobody could possibly expect low orbit satellites being pulled in by gravity to orbit for 39 years.
Deiskos@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Atmospheric drag, not gravity. ☝️🤓
Although technically correct because gravity is stronger on lower orbit owing to being closer to the Earth.
Fermion@feddit.nl 11 months ago
The strength of gravity at the orbital altitude of the ISS is 88% the strength of gravity at the earth’s surface, if anyone wants the actual number.
zoe@infosec.pub 11 months ago
also solar storms can’t be good for business… i guess it wouldn’t be economically viable to also add orbit maintaining thrusters…might as well just keep launching sat batches to maintain the network shells
Deiskos@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Starlinks do actually have stationkeeping thrusters, thats how they can spread apart after a group of them is deployed together, and that’s how they can have 5 year designed lifetime at an orbit this low.