The article raises a vague concern about Kessler syndrome. This is exactly why these satellites are designed to deorbit once their useful lifespan is finished. I don’t see what the point of this article is at all.
Yeah, they actually design them with reentry in mind to maximize the burn-up and ensure no pieces hit the ground. I recall they had a bit of difficulty when they first introduced laser data links to the design because the lenses the satellites used were large pieces of glass that would make it to the ground on reentry, they had to redesign them to fragment more easily.
Part of the plan, sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good plan. They don’t have control of where the debris lands, and Starlink doesn’t take responsibility for cleanup when it lands on others’ property.
Per the article, sometimes they burn up, sometimes they don’t.
The big culprit I was remembering isn’t Starlink, but SpaceX, with the debris being potentially lethal (over 6 feet, too heavy for one person to move.)
I ran into this dramatization for media hits before, with the complaint about rocket launches and their contribution to pollution. People were all about getting out the pitchforks, especially since it was mainly about Elon Musk, but when the actual numbers were mentioned (very small), suddenly, I was the bad guy. No one likes real facts.
Now, should we be launching so many things that are designed to fall back down so soon? Probably not, that’s the mark of a disposable society in high gear. But how we’re doing things, and why, should be the focus, not a headline that makes it sound like things are falling out of the sky to hit people.
As was always the plan for these satellites.
The article raises a vague concern about Kessler syndrome. This is exactly why these satellites are designed to deorbit once their useful lifespan is finished. I don’t see what the point of this article is at all.
They probably burn up also
Yeah, they actually design them with reentry in mind to maximize the burn-up and ensure no pieces hit the ground. I recall they had a bit of difficulty when they first introduced laser data links to the design because the lenses the satellites used were large pieces of glass that would make it to the ground on reentry, they had to redesign them to fragment more easily.
Part of the plan, sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good plan. They don’t have control of where the debris lands, and Starlink doesn’t take responsibility for cleanup when it lands on others’ property.
The debris will be microscopic. It won’t “land” anywhere noticeable.
The fine particulate matter may not be great for the ozone layer, but it’s actually pretty negligible compared to all of the other pollution that we’re not addressing either. That doesn’t justify the pollution, but hopefully it helps contextualize it.
Per the article, sometimes they burn up, sometimes they don’t.
The big culprit I was remembering isn’t Starlink, but SpaceX, with the debris being potentially lethal (over 6 feet, too heavy for one person to move.)
From the same professor: https://wlos.com/news/local/professor-spacexs-lack-of-accountability-for-space-debris-frustrating-nasa-samantha-lawlwer-university-of-regina-saskatchewan-canada
Musk’s companies are notorious for lack of responsibility. At least Cards Against Humanity held they’re get to the fire for a minute.
I ran into this dramatization for media hits before, with the complaint about rocket launches and their contribution to pollution. People were all about getting out the pitchforks, especially since it was mainly about Elon Musk, but when the actual numbers were mentioned (very small), suddenly, I was the bad guy. No one likes real facts.
Now, should we be launching so many things that are designed to fall back down so soon? Probably not, that’s the mark of a disposable society in high gear. But how we’re doing things, and why, should be the focus, not a headline that makes it sound like things are falling out of the sky to hit people.