• Nighed@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    23 days ago

    Doesn’t that just mean that lower orbits can be used? Less air resistance?

    • seang96@spgrn.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      23 days ago

      I imagine it’d make the business more expensive low orbit satelites slowly fall into the atmosphere and are supposed to burn up after a couple of years. I imagine with lower orbits that they’d fall sooner and you’d have to launch more to sustain your system which then produces more pollution and perpetuates the problem.

      Edit article says more space junk and slower burning up in the atmosphere as an effect so that’s interesting. If it becomes a space junk graveyard I imagine satellites will more frequently get damaged by them and become junk themselves?

      • Nighed@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        23 days ago

        Things fall into the thicker parts of the atmosphere because drag from the tiny amounts of air up there. if that is shrinking, then you can get lower before you have the same amount of drag? Therefore lower orbits might be more feasible?

        Lower orbit means faster though, so it may not be linear? Would be interesting to see (someone else do) the maths.

      • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        23 days ago

        Eventually, mining the LEO cloud for energy and materials will become lucrative.

        Of course, there are other issues with our atmosphere going away….