Comment

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

Sort:hotnew top

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
    zoe@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    so i assume, that if they deorbit, then it is because they run out of fuel ?
    
    source