Comment on [deleted]

OrteilGenou@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

• cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

  source

  • Deiskos@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Atmospheric drag, not gravity. ☝️🤓

    Although technically correct because gravity is stronger on lower orbit owing to being closer to the Earth.

    source

    • Fermion@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

      source
    • zoe@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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

      source

      • Deiskos@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• saveanon12@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  If satellites dying long before their 5 year life is their business model they are succeeding. www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC7rlQmAgro

  source

  • PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [bot] ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

    source