>They’re maintaining a constant fleet of 42000 satellites, which means putting up new junk to replace the old junk while its still flying junk and not de-orbited junk.
No. First, The whole reason they need to maintain a fleet, rather then just having it sit there for decades, is that they're so low. The vast majority of planned Starlink satellites from that number are from Phase 2, and are V-band VLEO sats with orbits around 340 km, which is really low. At that altitude, natural decay time is measured in weeks at best. To work they'll need both active thrusters providing regular boost and aerodynamic low drag design (and maintaining orientation for that will itself require fuel). Should they actually lose all control through malfunction or a collision, they and resulting debris will deorbit very rapidly (they'll both have no boost and be less aerodynamic).
And second, "through malfunction or collision", because it's not as if SpaceX (and other LEO satellite operators) doesn't have, and indeed are required to have, plans for controlled deorbit at EOL. Most of the satellites can be expected to get deorbited in a controlled way as planned. Making sure everything burns up has been one of the things slowing Starlink development, it took some work to ensure the optical links would properly go for example.
SpaceX is not interested in leaving them up there. I mean, FFS people, who would be hurt more than SpaceX by Kessler Syndrome!?
>I like the idea of having internet on my sailboat as much as the next guy, but it takes some serious cognitive dissonance to convince oneself that 42,000 pieces of nearby junk is better than a handful of pieces of far away junk.
Your dismissiveness towards hundreds of millions of underserved people and challenging use cases and ignorance of orbital dynamics does you no favors here.
> Your dismissiveness towards hundreds of millions of underserved people and challenging use cases and ignorance of orbital dynamics does you no favors here.
Imagine thinking that a product that costs $500 up-front and $99/mo thereafter and uses ~100 W constantly is designed for "hundreds of millions of underserved people".
> Your dismissiveness towards hundreds of millions of underserved people and challenging use cases
This is pompous and elitist nonsense of the highest order. People have other more pressing concerns than fast internet. You know...like water, food and cheap power.
Communications infrastructure is essential for any developing/developed nation. It's easy to take for granted while living in an urban center of a 1st world nation just how game-changing communications is. A truly global, easily accessible network has the potential to lift millions out of poverty through facilitating economic growth of remote, unconnected areas. Dismissing satellite constellation networks as merely "faster internet" misses the bigger picture.
Also it's worth noting that communications networks is but one application for LEO satellite constellation technology.
No. First, The whole reason they need to maintain a fleet, rather then just having it sit there for decades, is that they're so low. The vast majority of planned Starlink satellites from that number are from Phase 2, and are V-band VLEO sats with orbits around 340 km, which is really low. At that altitude, natural decay time is measured in weeks at best. To work they'll need both active thrusters providing regular boost and aerodynamic low drag design (and maintaining orientation for that will itself require fuel). Should they actually lose all control through malfunction or a collision, they and resulting debris will deorbit very rapidly (they'll both have no boost and be less aerodynamic).
And second, "through malfunction or collision", because it's not as if SpaceX (and other LEO satellite operators) doesn't have, and indeed are required to have, plans for controlled deorbit at EOL. Most of the satellites can be expected to get deorbited in a controlled way as planned. Making sure everything burns up has been one of the things slowing Starlink development, it took some work to ensure the optical links would properly go for example.
SpaceX is not interested in leaving them up there. I mean, FFS people, who would be hurt more than SpaceX by Kessler Syndrome!?
>I like the idea of having internet on my sailboat as much as the next guy, but it takes some serious cognitive dissonance to convince oneself that 42,000 pieces of nearby junk is better than a handful of pieces of far away junk.
Your dismissiveness towards hundreds of millions of underserved people and challenging use cases and ignorance of orbital dynamics does you no favors here.