Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites are falling to Earth at an alarming rate
-
“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.
IIRC this was by design. They’ve got a fairly short lifespan (only a couple years i think?) before they fall.
-
“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.
I’m going to guess that “alarming rate” is something similar to the rate they were put up there.
-
“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.
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.
-
IIRC this was by design. They’ve got a fairly short lifespan (only a couple years i think?) before they fall.
Why though? Isn’t that super wasteful?
-
Why though? Isn’t that super wasteful?
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.
-
Why though? Isn’t that super wasteful?
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.
-
“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.
I’m supposed to believe they entirely burn up on re-entry? Based upon Starlink’s word? Ok. Sure.
-
“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.
What a lame, dishonest title.
-
I’m supposed to believe they entirely burn up on re-entry? Based upon Starlink’s word? Ok. Sure.
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.
-
“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.
*predictable
