Starlink exists to give SpaceX nongovernment launches to boost its numbers and make it look good as a stock.
It also happens to provide a service at what is almost certainly a loss, considering each satellite only lasts a few years and thus requires a constant stream of replacements to be launched.
It also happens to fill the sky with a bunch of garbage that will inevitably hit something and lead to a spray of even more garbage.
It also happens to provide a service at what is almost certainly a loss, considering each satellite only lasts a few years and thus requires a constant stream of replacements to be launched.
OK, so you do get they’re in decaying orbits. Good.
It also happens to fill the sky with a bunch of garbage that will inevitably hit something and lead to a spray of even more garbage.
What garbage? You just said they decay. Be consistent. There’s plenty of reason to not like them. Kessler syndrome isn’t one.
What garbage? You just said they decay. Be consistent. There’s plenty of reason to not like them. Kessler syndrome isn’t one.
All that needs to happen is that 2 Starlink satellites collide, and then the debris won’t stay at the same elevation. It will still be on a decaying orbit, but it might hit something on a more stable orbit further up before it comes down. And the debris from the second collision won’t come down to earth anytime soon.
Sure, if a collision happens (unlikely while under control) then another collision happens (also unlikely, space is big) then sure some debris could go into a non-decaying orbit. That’s true for all satellites. Should we just not launch any because it could make things harder for other satellites?
Starlink is very unlikely to cause debris, and any debris it may cause, if any happens at all, is unlikely to cause any future problems because odds are it’d decay even faster. In the unlikely event everything goes wrong, it could cause minor issues, the same as any satellite.
Several things can be true at the same time.
Starlink exists to give SpaceX nongovernment launches to boost its numbers and make it look good as a stock.
It also happens to provide a service at what is almost certainly a loss, considering each satellite only lasts a few years and thus requires a constant stream of replacements to be launched.
It also happens to fill the sky with a bunch of garbage that will inevitably hit something and lead to a spray of even more garbage.
OK, so you do get they’re in decaying orbits. Good.
What garbage? You just said they decay. Be consistent. There’s plenty of reason to not like them. Kessler syndrome isn’t one.
All that needs to happen is that 2 Starlink satellites collide, and then the debris won’t stay at the same elevation. It will still be on a decaying orbit, but it might hit something on a more stable orbit further up before it comes down. And the debris from the second collision won’t come down to earth anytime soon.
Sure, if a collision happens (unlikely while under control) then another collision happens (also unlikely, space is big) then sure some debris could go into a non-decaying orbit. That’s true for all satellites. Should we just not launch any because it could make things harder for other satellites?
Starlink is very unlikely to cause debris, and any debris it may cause, if any happens at all, is unlikely to cause any future problems because odds are it’d decay even faster. In the unlikely event everything goes wrong, it could cause minor issues, the same as any satellite.
Pretty much every service in the tech industry runs at a loss for a long time, that’s nothing special.