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.
Comment on US issues first ever fine for space junk to Dish Network
breadsmasher@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Starlink is losing a crazy number of satellites. Are they burning up or becoming junk?
Uniquitous@lemmy.one 11 months ago
MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 11 months 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 11 months ago
Yeah but you also have to manufacture and send up the satellites into LEO.
ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de 11 months 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.
Hubi@feddit.de 11 months ago
Starlink sattelites operate in a low orbit that decays over time. They all fall back to earth eventually.
KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz 11 months 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 11 months ago
Starlink satellites actually do have Hall-effect ion thrusters, and can raise and lower their their own orbits.