|
| ▲ | FlyingAvatar 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| They are low earth orbit satellites. Generally, the lower the orbit, the faster they decay. You could also argue that this is a benefit in that they gain updated technology with each replacement. |
| |
| ▲ | kibwen 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > You could also argue that this is a benefit in that they gain updated technology with each replacement. No, having the option to replace technology at your leisure would be a benefit. Being forced to replace your technology because it's destined to become aerosolized aluminum in less than five years is a detriment. | |
| ▲ | qzw 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Planned obsolescence really only works well if someone else is paying. |
|
|
| ▲ | hawaiianbrah 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The operational lifetime of their satellites is about 5 years. |
|
| ▲ | tverbeure 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Because they fall back to the ground… |
| |
| ▲ | sroussey 4 days ago | parent [-] | | No, the burn up in the atmosphere. Burning metals being added to the oxygen you breathe. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | metabagel 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| low earth orbit |
|
| ▲ | gsky 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| because of gravity |
| |
