this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2026
425 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

83069 readers
3865 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] youCanCallMeDragon@lemmy.world 61 points 6 hours ago (5 children)

LEO satellites decay very quickly every one of them will burn up in the atmosphere within 10 years. They need to be replaced constantly. As soon as spacex goes out of business these will all fall out of the sky.

[–] Manjushri@piefed.social 9 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Don't count on it. These things don't just zip along in their orbits. LEO is crowded. They have to maneuver to avoid collisions... a lot.

Over the past six months, Starlink satellites have been increasingly performing collision avoidance maneuvers. According to a report filed by SpaceX with the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), SpaceX broadband satellites were forced to avoid more than 25 thousand times from December 1, 2022 to May 31, 2023. And since their launch in 2019, the total number of maneuvers has reached 50 thousand.

If Starlink or any other mega-constellation company loses control of their satellites for any reason, there could be collisions. A recent study (Note: PDF) suggests that a sufficiently powerful CME could cause a runaway Kessler Syndrome in as little as 2.8 days if the loss of control lasts that long.

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 hours ago

I mean with proper regulation or would be slightly better. If they can maneuver to avoid collisions they can likes deorbit themselves at a quicker pace.

The main issue is if ever they went under someone would buy it, or try to buy it, at a discount. So they likely wouldn't go away even if Star link went under.

[–] Mihies@programming.dev 18 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Polluting atmosphere doing so.

[–] youCanCallMeDragon@lemmy.world 17 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

That’s fair but unfortunately nothing compared to the pollution from launching them

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Which is also nothing compared to a slew of other pollution sources

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago

Which is also nothing compared to the general entropy of the universe.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 30 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Any way to help them do that?

[–] youCanCallMeDragon@lemmy.world 17 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

No way that’s cheaper or easier than waiting

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 11 points 5 hours ago

At least not legally

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 8 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I'm wondering from a pure academic standpoint here honest. Like What about a laser?

[–] youCanCallMeDragon@lemmy.world 12 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

Lmao I wish. Satellites and their components have to be “hardened” to survive extreme temperatures and radiation in space. There’s probably nothing on it you could disable with any laser you could buy. Plus there’s the matter of targeting them.

[–] fartographer@lemmy.world 9 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Destroying these satellites with lasers poses a similar problem to what happens when you light zombies on fire: the satellites are held in space by their momentum and the reduced atmosphere vs Earth's gravity. If you break the satellites into pieces via laser, then now you have uncontrolled and unpredictable space junk to deal with. Some of the pieces might return sooner, but what was once a concern is now a problem. Just like how a zombie at your door is very concerning, a zombie on fire at your door is an immediate problem.

Now, what could be interesting would be sending up another satellite that sprays black paint on the sun-facing side of other satellites. The energy absorbed and then exhausted could propel it towards Earth sooner. Maybe? I dunno, I'm just a simple country Fartographer, your honor.

[–] MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world 1 points 2 minutes ago* (last edited 1 minute ago)

No, it would run out of black paint. Give it a robot arm with scissors or something to cut the power lines on the Starlinks. (And also push them out of orbit? Maybe exchange energy with some sort of maneuver to stay in orbit longer?)

[–] harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Good ole brute force is the best method, though, as you said, targeting is a huge problem. Basically you need a low Earth orbit shotgun.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Do they have those at Walmart?

[–] harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 hours ago

Probably. I imagine you could probably get one at a gun show in Texas

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)
[–] harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 hours ago

Oh yeah. I keep forgetting about that. I suppose I need to study it a little more to make it stick.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Now with lasers you buy perhaps, what about with the lasers you build?

In the future where Federal Authority is concentrated on robbing and stealing elsewhere, I cannot imagine a high energy beam could not take these motherfuckers out.

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 7 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

If you have the capability to build a laser that can focus enough energy, from the ground through the atmosphere, with enough precision to lock on to an LEO constellation member long enough to disable it, you’d probably already either be captured, or working for DoD.

Also: great, you exploded it before reentry. Now we have a hundred thousand smaller, lighter fragments skipping off the atmosphere, disbursing randomly, and spinning around like hypersonic chaff bullets for actual worthwhile spacecraft and satellites to fly through, twinkling in infrared like a billion new streaky sparkles on those telescopes. It takes a lot longer for all that bullshit to rain down, and it pollutes just the same. Tell me, who were you fighting for again and why?

This is like when the humans blacken the sky in the Matrix to defeat the machines. Yeah it wrecked the earth, but is also didn’t defeat them and they just found something else to exploit.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I mean I was trying to Broach a theoretical, completely academic, discussion about what could or could not take these satellites out.

[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

And you were given a quite thorough explanation of why "but what if really BIG laser?" is a bad idea

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

Yes for the guerilla, but not a reason for why someone not afraid of air power would use one.

[–] Scotty_Trees@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

sooo then this isn't a problem if they all burn out eventually? hehe i'm just being pedantic of course

[–] youCanCallMeDragon@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

There’s reasonable hope at least that this is a problem that will solve itself, and unfortunately we have bigger problems to worry about.

[–] Einskjaldi@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I expect that we will get in orbit refueling to extend their life once you get a good nuclear and solar panel power tug with an electric thruster that can deliver fuel, they're in a similar orbit if you just do that.

[–] youCanCallMeDragon@lemmy.world 10 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Especially with the number of them it’s probably cheaper to just put up new satellites. LEO sats are designed to be temporary.

[–] thejml@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 hours ago

Cheaper and easier to upgrade the constellation to newer and faster tech. If you have backwards compatibility, you just start launching v2 and v1 will eventually just burn up, and hopefully finish just in time for v3 to start launching so you only have to be compatible with n-1 versions.