• Dale@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    LEO satellites decay very quickly every one of them will burn up in the atmosphere within 10 years. They need to be replaced constantly. As soon as spacex goes out of business these will all fall out of the sky.

          • Dale@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            1 day ago

            Lmao I wish. Satellites and their components have to be “hardened” to survive extreme temperatures and radiation in space. There’s probably nothing on it you could disable with any laser you could buy. Plus there’s the matter of targeting them.

            • OhVenus_Baby@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              18 hours ago

              How rare are these materials that are sending to space? Literally sending rare metals out of our planet. Even if they fall back down to earth. Is it even possible or viable money wise to recover them?

              • Dale@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                18 hours ago

                Nope, not viable at all. A lot of it is straight up atomized on reentry especially for the smaller devices. Some of it is rare and some is not. The wet dream of these billionaires is they will be the first to figure out space mining and then manufacture. That’s why Elon musk has spacex and the boring company. Then raw resources like precious metals become infinite over night. Hopefully capitalism dies before that happens so we can all enjoy that.

            • fartographer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              1 day ago

              Destroying these satellites with lasers poses a similar problem to what happens when you light zombies on fire: the satellites are held in space by their momentum and the reduced atmosphere vs Earth’s gravity. If you break the satellites into pieces via laser, then now you have uncontrolled and unpredictable space junk to deal with. Some of the pieces might return sooner, but what was once a concern is now a problem. Just like how a zombie at your door is very concerning, a zombie on fire at your door is an immediate problem.

              Now, what could be interesting would be sending up another satellite that sprays black paint on the sun-facing side of other satellites. The energy absorbed and then exhausted could propel it towards Earth sooner. Maybe? I dunno, I’m just a simple country Fartographer, your honor.

              • MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                No, it would run out of black paint. Give it a robot arm with scissors or something to cut the power lines on the Starlinks. (And also push them out of orbit? Maybe exchange energy with some sort of maneuver to stay in orbit longer?)

                • fartographer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  23 hours ago

                  Why would we cut the power before deorbiting them? But if you wanna be more aggressive like that, then how about a magnifying glass to focus sunlight on the satellite like a bully to ants?

                  Maybe exchange energy with some sort of maneuver to stay in orbit longer?

                  “No officer, I did not ‘run into their car…’ I improved their gas mileage by exchanging energy.”

            • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 day ago

              Now with lasers you buy perhaps, what about with the lasers you build?

              In the future where Federal Authority is concentrated on robbing and stealing elsewhere, I cannot imagine a high energy beam could not take these motherfuckers out.

              • 4am@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                1 day ago

                If you have the capability to build a laser that can focus enough energy, from the ground through the atmosphere, with enough precision to lock on to an LEO constellation member long enough to disable it, you’d probably already either be captured, or working for DoD.

                Also: great, you exploded it before reentry. Now we have a hundred thousand smaller, lighter fragments skipping off the atmosphere, disbursing randomly, and spinning around like hypersonic chaff bullets for actual worthwhile spacecraft and satellites to fly through, twinkling in infrared like a billion new streaky sparkles on those telescopes. It takes a lot longer for all that bullshit to rain down, and it pollutes just the same. Tell me, who were you fighting for again and why?

                This is like when the humans blacken the sky in the Matrix to defeat the machines. Yeah it wrecked the earth, but is also didn’t defeat them and they just found something else to exploit.

                • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  I mean I was trying to Broach a theoretical, completely academic, discussion about what could or could not take these satellites out.

                  • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    And you were given a quite thorough explanation of why “but what if really BIG laser?” is a bad idea

            • harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 day ago

              Good ole brute force is the best method, though, as you said, targeting is a huge problem. Basically you need a low Earth orbit shotgun.

    • Manjushri@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 day ago

      Don’t count on it. These things don’t just zip along in their orbits. LEO is crowded. They have to maneuver to avoid collisions… a lot.

      Over the past six months, Starlink satellites have been increasingly performing collision avoidance maneuvers. According to a report filed by SpaceX with the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), SpaceX broadband satellites were forced to avoid more than 25 thousand times from December 1, 2022 to May 31, 2023. And since their launch in 2019, the total number of maneuvers has reached 50 thousand.

      If Starlink or any other mega-constellation company loses control of their satellites for any reason, there could be collisions. A recent study (Note: PDF) suggests that a sufficiently powerful CME could cause a runaway Kessler Syndrome in as little as 2.8 days if the loss of control lasts that long.

      • Dale@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        22 hours ago

        And the orbits of that debris would still decay within a decade in LEO.

      • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Eh, i’m not so sure. I just did a quick doodle.

        My opinion is that when a collision happens, it’s probably very unlikely for each fragment to actually stay on a stable orbit around Earth. Chances are high that it gains a lot of energy and the orbit is significantly distorted. Now, if an orbit is already very close to Earth, that means that any distortion will make it not fit tightly around Earth anymore, instead will make it go elliptic and therefore on trajectory of collision with Earth. The only way a fragment would not do that is if it’s accelerated perfectly sideways, in which case it would continue to circle around Earth for 10 years before deorbiting due to atmospheric friction. So, the cascading is a bit limited.

      • tempest@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        I mean with proper regulation or would be slightly better. If they can maneuver to avoid collisions they can likes deorbit themselves at a quicker pace.

        The main issue is if ever they went under someone would buy it, or try to buy it, at a discount. So they likely wouldn’t go away even if Star link went under.

    • Scotty_Trees@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      sooo then this isn’t a problem if they all burn out eventually? hehe i’m just being pedantic of course

      • Dale@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        There’s reasonable hope at least that this is a problem that will solve itself, and unfortunately we have bigger problems to worry about.

    • Einskjaldi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I expect that we will get in orbit refueling to extend their life once you get a good nuclear and solar panel power tug with an electric thruster that can deliver fuel, they’re in a similar orbit if you just do that.

      • Dale@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 day ago

        Especially with the number of them it’s probably cheaper to just put up new satellites. LEO sats are designed to be temporary.

        • thejml@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          Cheaper and easier to upgrade the constellation to newer and faster tech. If you have backwards compatibility, you just start launching v2 and v1 will eventually just burn up, and hopefully finish just in time for v3 to start launching so you only have to be compatible with n-1 versions.