←back to thread

157 points milgrim | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.707s | source
Show context
nordsieck ◴[] No.41904557[source]
It is particularly bad for a satellite in geostationary orbit to break up or fail. Satellites are packed as tightly as possible into that orbit due to its economic importance (it's very useful for a satellite, particularly communications satellites, to always be over the same part of the Earth), so there is a higher than normal likelihood that this could be seriously disruptive.
replies(7): >>41904586 #>>41904693 #>>41904725 #>>41905123 #>>41905207 #>>41905406 #>>41906037 #
perihelions ◴[] No.41904693[source]
- "Satellites are packed as tightly as possible into that orbit due to its economic importance"

Note that that's in the sense of angular separation, as viewed from the ground. They're physically hundreds of kilometers apart.

edit: (Geostationary orbits are ~42,000 km from the Earth center-of-mass; each degree of angle is an arc of ~700 km).

replies(1): >>41905025 #
naikrovek ◴[] No.41905025[source]
> They're physically hundreds of kilometers apart.

That’s pretty close when your neighbor just exploded and there’s almost exactly zero air resistance to prevent debris from reaching you.

replies(5): >>41905222 #>>41905231 #>>41905234 #>>41905245 #>>41905425 #
1. furyofantares ◴[] No.41905425[source]
That doesn't seem very close in terms of the area traced out by each object in relation to the area of the sphere? (And less if you consider volume since they won't be at exactly the same altitude.)