• sleep_deprived@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Depends on a lot of factors. Due to uncontrollable factors like small untrackable debris, more satellites is always more dangerous, but that’s still an extremely small problem. If all the Starlink-style companies cooperate properly and adopt high tech solutions for collision avoidance, it’ll probably be fine - space is really, really big. Additionally, the extremely low orbits are a great mitigating factor for potential parts failures; even if a satellite outright dies, losing its telemetry and maneuvering capability, it’ll be gone pretty quick.

    Honestly, more than anything, I’d be concerned about the recent science showing that satellites burning up on reentry could be very significantly more damaging to our atmosphere and the ozone layer than previously thought.

    • Kilgore Trout@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 minutes ago

      I’d be concerned about the recent science showing that satellites burning up on reentry could be very significantly more damaging to our atmosphere and the ozone layer than previously thought.

      Can you link to a source explaining the phenomenon? I am curious.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      In the big picture I expect collisions and debris in LEO are less of a problem because things at that level tend to naturally deorbit without regular use of propulsion to make up for the effects of atmospheric friction (which is tiny, but still there and adding up over time).