this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
744 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
72784 readers
3691 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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...
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.
Yes, it takes little fuel to destabilize one's orbit and eventually enter the atmosphere to burn up. It's more difficult if you need to make sure that the craft doesn't take others down during the procedure.
Starlink's only have fuel because of the initial lower orbit, as far as i know. Wasn't that to test them, for radiation and so on?