Science

5444 readers

2 users here now

General discussions about "science" itself

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

https://lemmy.ml/c/science

https://beehaw.org/c/science

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Sal@mander.xyz

fossilesque@mander.xyz

Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites are falling to Earth at an alarming rate (www.independent.co.uk)

submitted 4 days ago by pelespirit@sh.itjust.works to c/science@mander.xyz

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

“So several times a year we’re taking these potshots at people on the Earth and fortunately so far missing. So far we’ve been very lucky, but it won’t last.”

Deorbiting Starlink satellites may not pose a risk to people, but Dr McDowell said they may still prove problematic.

Scientists are still trying to understand what impact this rate of deorbits might have on the Earth’s atmosphere.

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] SculptusPoe@lemmy.world 19 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

They are in low orbit and meant to de-orbit at eol. It is better they do that than stay up there really. The article throws out a lot of fear mongering language then at least it follows up with the reasons it isn't a problem mostly. Except they make it sound like these sattelites are hitting the ground , but really just some kind of space debree hits the ground. These are made to burn up and only one piece has ever been proven to hit the ground. That does mean it's possible, but still unlikely to be a problem.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.ca 16 points 4 days ago

I'm going to guess that "alarming rate" is something similar to the rate they were put up there.

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 13 points 4 days ago

With a lifespan of around five years, Starlink satellites are purposefully designed to burn up entirely in the Earth’s atmosphere before reaching the ground. So while the events may appear alarming as they streak across the sky, they are not dangerous.

SpaceX began launching Starlink satellites in 2019.

[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 4 days ago (1 children)

IIRC this was by design. They've got a fairly short lifespan (only a couple years i think?) before they fall.

[–] kayzeekayzee@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Why though? Isn't that super wasteful?

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 days ago

The low orbit means they have more drag from the atmosphere. So to stay in orbit, the satellites need to spend fuel. That fuel runs out after a couple of years.

[–] RheumatoidArthritis@mander.xyz 6 points 4 days ago

It is, of course.

I think it's because of their low orbit and both the lower power required to talk to the satellite from earth, and smaller distances between satellites for meshing. It's just my guess though.

[–] miked@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'm supposed to believe they entirely burn up on re-entry? Based upon Starlink's word? Ok. Sure.

[–] Womble@piefed.world -1 points 4 days ago

No, but given there are aproximately 6000 impacts a year from rocks of various sizes making it all the way to the ground a handful of extra impacts isnt going to make any significant difference. Maybe your chance of being hit by space debris in your lifetime rises from one in a billion to 1.1 in a billion.

[–] individual@toast.ooo 2 points 4 days ago

*predictable

[–] Steve@startrek.website 1 points 4 days ago

What a lame, dishonest title.