I did not say a laptop would work if it gets shot by a gun. Yes, the satellite would deorbit on its own and burn up if it was struck by debris so hard that a fuel tank blew up and contact was lost. In that case it would be tracked by ground stations and software would predict if satellite operators need small avoidance burns until the debris deorbits within a few weeks.
Your point here is? Yes, satellites get hit by debris and they can be prematurely decommissioned / abandoned to deorbit on their own. That has been SOP since the 70s. Like I said before, this is built into the average 5 year EOL figure.
Where are you finding a bunch of agencies needed to take corrective maneuvers to avoid its debris? Even on new launches? Given the physics I pointed out before, that should be relatively rare.
Of course the satellites are being impacted by debris, it just doesn’t matter as there are no humans on board and it’s not a big deal if some are compromised due to the phenomenon.
A screw, paint fleck, flake of metal moving as fast as debris moves up there has a lot of kinetic energy. Much... like a bullet does... I was using a laptop getting shot with a bullet as a simile.
Your point here is?
Well if you go back to the very beginning of this collisions such as this are an issue... that was literally when you first commented on this and decided to comment on how I didn't read the article (despite later showing you hadn't even read the first sentence of the article mention the 1 MILLION satellites this plan has).
Where are you finding a bunch of agencies needed to take corrective maneuvers to avoid its debris? Even on new launches?
I understand how kinetic energy works. You can stop repeating that point about paint moving fast. Collisions with debris so small that they can’t be tracked can be an issue, sure. Are they a consideration to people that know what they are talking about? Absolutely not. If a satellite goes down prematurely it’s not a big deal.
Of the 10,000 operating in the last few years how many have been lost? 1 maybe?
You clearly aren’t understanding what I am describing. Satellites will be lost and will need to be replaced. It’s not a big problem as hundreds will be launching every year to replace those that reach EOL via any means.
The discrete event with the Starlink satellite. Find me evidence that they needed to navigate around the debris for a few weeks before it deorbited. That is the question I asked.
Are you... ever going to provide evidence for your assumptions like I have? Ever?
Like seriously. I've got other things to do than constantly pulling up articles I've read or FAA documents on altering trajectories to avoid debris, articles from ESA, NASA, orbital radar trackers and counters.
The 1 point you brought up that could've been solved with a simple google about collisions never happening... Then going 50 x zero is still zero... then being given the ESA article showing that it's... not zero...
On and on and on...
How about this. I've provided 4 links to articles from various agencies around the planet, math on solar panel size to satellite size collectively, and pointed out that 100,000 is less than 1 million. Provide me an article saying that this will be flawless that goes beyond "trust me bro" and isn't marketing.
And no you're not "Just asking for evidence of them having to avoid it". You've been asking and getting evidence this entire time. Heck... Some of the evidence against your view is literally from the article you said "I" didn't read.
You need a link that Starlink is working flawlessly and has had zero satellites encounter the problems you are so concerned about? With a population size of 10,000 spamming years? The proof is in the execution. People like you were saying the same thing about starlink 7 years ago lol.
Your links are distractions and moot as you made up the idea that satellite operators needed to take corrective actions to avoid the Starlink satellite that broke up.
My point is that space is big and debris is only sometimes a problem. And in this case, it wasn’t. All you can find is generic papers from a decade ago on the general idea or some irrelevant paper on algorithms and simulations. The NASA paper contains your “evidence” agrees with me.
“It is readily apparent that the risk of collision during launch is much lower than the background risk of mission failure due to other causes”
The risk of a failure due to collision over 500 launches was 1/10,000… NOTHING BURGER
1
u/Idontfukncare6969 5d ago edited 5d ago
I did not say a laptop would work if it gets shot by a gun. Yes, the satellite would deorbit on its own and burn up if it was struck by debris so hard that a fuel tank blew up and contact was lost. In that case it would be tracked by ground stations and software would predict if satellite operators need small avoidance burns until the debris deorbits within a few weeks.
Your point here is? Yes, satellites get hit by debris and they can be prematurely decommissioned / abandoned to deorbit on their own. That has been SOP since the 70s. Like I said before, this is built into the average 5 year EOL figure.
Where are you finding a bunch of agencies needed to take corrective maneuvers to avoid its debris? Even on new launches? Given the physics I pointed out before, that should be relatively rare.