this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
21 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
31 readers
1 users here now
This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this is just a mathematical reality of LEO satellites like this. They are hitting the thermosphere which causes drag and they need to constantly adjust their altitude to keep in place and not fall to the earth. Currently 5 years is all the fuel they can carry. If they were higher they would last longer but the network latency would be very bad so it's a tradeoff.
whether or not we need this LEO constellation idk but this isn't some big gotcha. Elon (and everybody else) would love to have longer LEO orbits but until there is some new tech this is what we've got.
The article seems to indicate that the loss of 200 satellites is largely attributed to solar flares, not orbit degradation.
And the point of the article is that this is higher than expected.
It is also potentially interesting for people that weren't aware of how often these satellites will deorbit and so the potential costs associated. Even people aware that this happens may not have thought about it much with Starlink or be aware of the scope.
OP is being a little stupid with the editorializing, and the article could be better, but the article is generally good and useful.
The difference between an orbit that lasts 5 years and one that lasts a hundred is approximately 100-200km, the limit is quite sharp and actually quite tricky to get exactly right. That will cost you about a millisecond or two in latency tops. It is more likely that SpaceX is required to adhere to rules made by the FCC/FAA.
550km height is partly to ensure that they WILL deorbit in a reasonable time if failed or EOL. Which is important for such a huge number of (relatively cheap) satellites.