• piecat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    At some point there will be more satellites than is feasible to manage.

    If they aren’t already, will we start treating them like telephone poles or cell towers?

    • sirspate@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s already a bit of a mess to manage, especially if you include the debris. Back in 2007 China blew up a satellite, and as of a few years ago that represented almost a third of all tracked space debris… (it has its own wikipedia page) If these jokers ever start deliberately blowing up each others’ satellites, we could end up in a situation where space becomes inaccessible.

      • Patches@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        If these jokers ever start deliberately blowing up each others’ satellites, we could end up in a situation where space becomes inaccessible.

        We don’t know who struck first, us or them, but we know that it was us that scorched the sky. At the time, they were dependent on solar power and it was believed that they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun.

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        There’s wildly different orbits. Starlink flies low and has a decaying orbit due to atmospheric drag meaning nothing is going to stay up there for very long. They designed them to just burn up on reentry after ~5 years. Stuff in much higher orbits are more of an issue because they don’t experience the same amount of drag.