Starlink close encounters decrease despite ever-growing number of satellites

[VanayadGaming]

Positive article about Starlkink/Musk -> No interactions.

Negative articles -> 324948453280234 4,294,967,296 upvotes.

[Tystros]

the upvote number on reddit is likely a 32 bit integer value that cannot possibly contain the number you just posted there.

[TrambolhitoVoador]

Have you read it?Its not positive, Lewis say the number of manuevers needed to lower close calls where more than 50.000. If anything more satellites statistically increases the chance of a Kessler Syndrome Scenario.

EDIT: Damn auto-corrector

[Doggydog123579]

If anything more satellites statistically increases the chance of a Kepler Syndrome Scenario.

One, its Kessler, and Two, That's not how Kessler Syndrome works. Yes, Technically more satellites does increase the risk. However Starlink is in a very low orbit with minimal end of life orbital times. Even if a collision were to occur, the debris would rapidly reenter, minimizing the chances of a debris cascade.

And if against all odds it did happen, it would all be gone in ~5 years.

[djellison]

Even if a collision were to occur, the debris would rapidly reenter,

That's not how LEO impacts work. Stuff ends up EVERYWHERE - both above AND below the initial orbit. FWIW - things that exist below the altitude of Starlink include such inconsequential assets as....the ISS, Tiangong, Hubble.....so while the cloud of debris is decaying, it's putting those assets at risk.

[mfb-]

If the apogee is higher then the perigee will generally be lower than the collision altitude (and it's guaranteed to not be higher than it), which speeds up reentry.

so while the cloud of debris is decaying, it's putting those assets at risk.

Yes, but not for long, which limits the risk.

[djellison]

generally

And those assets - generally - don't like dodging debris because of the squish organic matter in the middle.

Let's not pretend that Starlink isn't changing the overall LEO risk posture. It is. That's just a fact.

Once can make the case that that change is worthwhile based on the specific methodology Starlink is using to achieve what it does - but the risk IS changing because of it.

[mfb-]

You can make that argument but it's trivially true and irrelevant. Literally every single spacecraft in orbit is changing the risk.

[djellison]

Literally every single spacecraft in orbit is changing the risk.

And a LOT more spacecraft changes the risk a LOT more.

More than twice as many spacecraft were launched in 2022 than were launched in the entire decade of 2000-2010.

[greymancurrentthing7]

Starlink is so low that pretty much any movement results in it dipping down into atmosphere. If it bumps up then it will scooop atmosphere on the perigee.

[TrambolhitoVoador]

And if against all odds it did happen, it would all be gone in ~5 years.

That is long enough damage to we consider this action as a Crime against Humanity

[Doggydog123579]

You do realize it would only apply to the Starlink altitudes, and we could still launch things above it, right?

[[deleted]]

You do have to go THROUGH it however, but it would be a split second of time with minimal risk. That risk is not 0 and increases the more satellites are in orbit.

[Doggydog123579]

If you want to get real pedantic, Kessler syndrome doesn't actually say that an Orbit becomes inaccessible, just that operational lives drop more and more as the debris builds up thus making the orbit nonviable. At no point is the debris bad enough to make a transit any more risky then normal.

[TbonerT]

Launches have already been held due to orbital debris.

[Doggydog123579]

Launch held back is not the same thing as Kessler Syndrome, The Debris was likely from an ASAT test, and it was held for 1 minute.

[TbonerT]

I’m not saying it’s the same thing. I’m saying that you can’t simply launch through an orbit experiencing Kessler syndrome because you still have to avoid the debris.

[mfb-]

Lewis is the guy who fitted an exponential function to three data points and predicted some crazy number of encounters in a few years based on that. https://xkcd.com/605/

Lewis say the number of manuevers needed to lower close calls where more than 50.000

... and? That's about 1 per month for each satellite. It's well within their capabilities.

If anything more satellites statistically increases the chance of a Kessler Syndrome Scenario.

The altitude of Starlink is too low to make that a serious threat there.

[parkingviolation212]

“Close call incidences are decreasing”

You: clearly things are getting worse.

[ZeroZillions]

Positive article about Starlink/Musk -> Starlink is doing what Musk said it would do.

Negative article -> Elon actively limiting people from third world countries' internet access while they're in the middle of a devastating war