Alternatives would be great! My only concern is the number of satellites that have to be continually launched while older satellites are burned up after just five years. That’s thousands of satellites per service provider having to be continually replaced. Seems wasteful, but maybe I’m thinking the resource usage is greater than it really is in the grand scheme of things.
I’m not entirely sure of the exact legalities but I have some experience working cube-sats and have some insights on this.
Since Low Earth Orbit is getting kinda crowded you now have to ensure that your satellite deorbits within 5 years of deployment. So that 5 year figure does limit the satellites lifespan. Quite significantly sometimes because you have to ensure that even if the satellite is dead on arrival it deorbits within those five years.
I bet all of these restrictions can be alleviated to some extent if you’re a super rich dickhead but that’s how it is for us.
I know that the Starlink birds deploy at a relatively low altitude, then climb to service height under their own power, so they deorbit quite fast if they’re DOA.
My impression was the five year figure is without the satellite boosting it’s orbit, but I could be wrong.
Well if Europe doesn’t do this, US or China will regardless and they won’t care about leaving junk in the space. So it’s a matter of who will profit off that. And also, the EU is doing a lot for the environment already. Maybe it’s time for other countries like India to stop throwing trash directly into rivers now? We live on the same planet. Even if EU achieves the zero-emission state, it only accounts for 5% of the population in the world, so it won’t change that much on a global scale if other countries continue refusing to cooperate
Alternatives would be great! My only concern is the number of satellites that have to be continually launched while older satellites are burned up after just five years. That’s thousands of satellites per service provider having to be continually replaced. Seems wasteful, but maybe I’m thinking the resource usage is greater than it really is in the grand scheme of things.
That five year figure is the time it takes to deorbit if the satellite goes dead, not the lifespan, from my understanding.
I’m not entirely sure of the exact legalities but I have some experience working cube-sats and have some insights on this. Since Low Earth Orbit is getting kinda crowded you now have to ensure that your satellite deorbits within 5 years of deployment. So that 5 year figure does limit the satellites lifespan. Quite significantly sometimes because you have to ensure that even if the satellite is dead on arrival it deorbits within those five years.
I bet all of these restrictions can be alleviated to some extent if you’re a super rich dickhead but that’s how it is for us.
I know that the Starlink birds deploy at a relatively low altitude, then climb to service height under their own power, so they deorbit quite fast if they’re DOA.
My impression was the five year figure is without the satellite boosting it’s orbit, but I could be wrong.
Do yours have their own engine?
Well if Europe doesn’t do this, US or China will regardless and they won’t care about leaving junk in the space. So it’s a matter of who will profit off that. And also, the EU is doing a lot for the environment already. Maybe it’s time for other countries like India to stop throwing trash directly into rivers now? We live on the same planet. Even if EU achieves the zero-emission state, it only accounts for 5% of the population in the world, so it won’t change that much on a global scale if other countries continue refusing to cooperate