> would surely also mean their expected lifespan is shorter too?

Are Starlinks being deörbited due to propellant exhaustion?

In many respects, Starlink satellites are small servers. They’re probably profitable to replace quicker than decay would force them to be.

But you don't pay for space or power - so the normal business incentives to retire old hardware don't really apply.

We are nowhere close to the sky being 'full'.

> you don't pay for space or power

These birds aren’t totally autonomous. They do take up “space” in a limited sense. And having your fleet be somewhat similar lets one execute maneuvers like this global plane change more efficiently.

Depends on how many satellites there are and how much closer they orbit.

My take is that orbits below 500 km are “cleaned out” and during solar minimum there is less drag going on there. So, it’s a good spot to home your satellites for a while because there isn’t as much junk to maneuver around.

Yes, it’s absolutely a trade off against prop (argon) lifetime, energy spent thrusting, and atomic oxygen degradation of plastic components. The benefits of increased drag for these shells of thousands of vehicles must be worth it.

Why is drag desirable? Aside from faster decay for cleanup.

I just don’t understand why spacex would do this from a biz/strategic perspective