66
Starlink satellites are dodging objects in orbit thousands of times every month (techcrunch.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@beehaw.org
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 3 years ago (16 children)

Great. Another $900 million wasted. We could have laid a lot of fiber with that money.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (11 children)

    Running fiber globaly is very expensive. The satellite solution has its cons, but it's available to a lot of people who otherwise might not have access.

    It is expensive, but in SOME rural areas it's still affordable. Obviously not in poorer ones, but it might get cheaper over time. Or it might not. Who knows.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    Kessler syndrome is one hell of a lot more expensive than fiber.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    These are in LEO. Once they lose propulsion after 3-5 years, they fall and burn up on re-entry. It isn't possible for these satellites to cause Kessler Syndrome.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Could a high-speed impact not send debris flying into a higher orbit?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago

    It could send debris into a more elliptical orbit, but it wouldn't be possible for it to raise the entire orbit above LEO. The point of impact will remain in the orbital path and since the entire orbit is currently in LEO, there will be, by extension, some part of the new orbit still in LEO and therefore subject any debris to atmospheric capture.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    I guess we can choose between people in remote areas having no internet access and Kessler syndrome :/

    The third way costs not 900 million, but hundreds of billions, maybe trillions. Rich countries can afford it, but many can not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    I recall that the decaying orbit means that they constantly have to put more satellites up. All that energy, all that propellant, and all that space garbage. Billions of dollars wasted. Better spent on fiber. Once installed, baring cuts, it will last for nearly 100 years or more. It has benefits for some, but, IMHO, resources are better spent on fiber.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    Universal global fiber is sadly unlikely to happen. I wish it wasn't so, but the fight for me to get fiber in a town has been a decade.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    I spent five years and gave up on it because Republicans.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Different country here, I'm getting it in autumn.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    Fiber is too slow when you want to charge billions for letting High Frequency Trading bots running arbitration across different markets to get a few miliseconds advantage over those running through fiber.

    Having a mesh of satellites running on "laser through vacuum" to go around the globe, can get you those billions. Which, let's be clear, is the real business goal of Starlink.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent