this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
718 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

72957 readers
3400 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Starlink is losing a crazy number of satellites. Are they burning up or becoming junk?

[–] Hubi@feddit.de 35 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Starlink sattelites operate in a low orbit that decays over time. They all fall back to earth eventually.

[–] KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 years ago

Specifically i think starlink satellites do not have any boosting thrusters, the reason important LEO satellites like the ISS don't burn up unless intended is due to those

[–] Uniquitous@lemmy.one 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I heard they're designed to burn up in the atmosphere. Probably not an eco-friendly move, but it beats taking a satellite to the head.

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Probably not an eco-friendly move

Fine powder of metals strewn over a few km², there's more coming from outer space via micrometeorites and dust. And that bit CO² in the Stratosphere...