51–55 of 55 posts
That sounds very scary to me. If they don't care whether a single satellite is working or not, they are basically asking Kessler syndrom to start within years. Multiple start-ups (etc.) and the article covers not even have a tiny bit about what happens at the end of life of the satellites, what could go wrong ...
[1]. http://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/content/view/embedjw/484820
Kindly can someone tell me how these snall satellites are able to remain in orbit. Don't we need jet propulsion to have them stay in orbit and not fall into earth? I don't much about satellites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously, but how long does that take, and is that long enough that collisions are negligibly probable? It's possible that the problem will take care of itself, but the information provided is not adequate to model the problem and prove that the problem will take care of itself.
It's a Bloomberg article, not an intro to astrodynamics. If you know the orbit you can figure out when it will decay relatively accurately.
What's the best way for someone to get involved in space hardware?
Any of the above to name a few
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is simply ignorant of the plans. Firstly, there are levels of functionality, being able to provide service being the highest one. Out of service satellites are still most likely to be able to execute a controlled re-entry. Secondly, these satellites will be in low Earth orbit. If they become completely inoperable they have an orbital lifetime of only a few years before they re-enter. Only with routine station ke…
> Out of service satellites are still most likely to be able to execute a controlled re-entry How? By a burn? That's a lot of fuel reserve to use up.
How much fuel do you imagine it takes a satellite to re-enter if it will happen automatically in a matter of a few years?
The answer to both is, of course, not much, not much at all.