• Ilovethebomb
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s never been cheaper or easier to launch, ironically enough thanks in part to Starlink.

    • freddydunningkruger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      How about we check back in on your comment in say, oh, 5 years, when we become forcibly earthbound, victims of Kessler’s Syndrome? Because by then, a starlink satellite will collide with another creating a chain reaction of collisions, birthing an ever-growing cascading field of Elon’ space debris bukkake all over the Earth’s face.

      But hey, Pocket Rocket Boy has got to have an excuse to keep launching so he can continue collecting his government welfare checks. $15.3 billion since 2003 and climbing.

      • evranch@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        You don’t understand Kessler Syndrome. Starlink satellites are in an orbit that requires maintenance or it decays rapidly. These orbits are used on purpose as they are “self-cleaning”.

        Kessler Syndrome doesn’t even mean that we can’t fly through an orbit, only not occupy it for fear of collision. Space is incredibly, ridiculously large, and the chance of a departing rocket being struck by debris is miniscule.

        In any case, a catastrophic multi-sat collision would only result in a meteor shower. These things are designed to re-enter in 5 years even in normal service.

        I live in rural Canada and Starlink is the only reason I’m able to post this. It’s been a tremendous asset to our lives, and as an aerospace enthusiast I’m all on board as well. As an astronomy enthusiast I’m less impressed but forsee a push into more, larger space telescopes.

        • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          In any case, a catastrophic multi-sat collision would only result in a meteor shower

          Previous collisions have resulted in debris that intersected with higher orbits. While those debris themselves will decay, if they collide with something in a higher orbit, a significant portion of the resulting debris will be there for a very long time.

          Look at the apogees resulting from a major collision in 2009 in fig 3 on page 2

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          You shouldnt use starlink because you can’t trust the company. Thats unfortunate you can’t get other service.

        • Ilovethebomb
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’ve never seen an intelligent comment talking about Kessler syndrome, it’s something idiots seem to latch on to and prattle on about in the comments, until someone who has at least watched a YouTube video about it corrects them.

        • LarmyOfLone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Do you know why they don’t use medium earth orbit? Presumably the satellites would need more power, weigh more for more shielding and launch costs would be slightly higher. But they would also cover more area so you’d need fewer. The only real downside should be slightly more latency.