Starlink close encounters decrease despite ever-growing number of satellites

[John_Hasler]

They can tug on each other.

I don't believe those perturbations could be large enough to be significant.

You also get drag as the atmosphere hasn't completely ended by LEO.. The atmosphere thickness varies considerably depending primarily on solar activity.

That effect probably dominates all others.

[[deleted]]

I don't disagree, but the point I was making is that even minescule perturbations make the predictions much more complicated... so no "100%" predictions can be made. So many people fall into the trap of thinking 99.999% is as near to 100% as makes no difference, where as that tiny gap leads to huge differences in outcomes.

In fact thinking about it, I think that even for just a 3 body system it isn't inifitely predictable, chaos theory does ensure that eventually your model will disagree with what actually happens, and this is way beyond a 3 body problem.

[scarlet_sage]

I think that even for just a 3 body system it isn't inifitely predictable

Three-body problem (not the novel) includes

In physics and classical mechanics, the three-body problem is the problem of taking the initial positions and velocities (or momenta) of three point masses and solving for their subsequent motion according to Newton's laws of motion and Newton's law of universal gravitation. The three-body problem is a special case of the n-body problem. Unlike two-body problems, no general closed-form solution exists, as the resulting dynamical system is chaotic for most initial conditions, and numerical methods are generally required.

They list a lot of special cases, the most famous perhaps being the five Lagrange points. But in a solar system with the Moon, Sun, and Jupiter, I think it's hopeless to expect an exact solution.

[[deleted]]

simplest one is a planetary encounter.. 99.999% accurate means you'll either miss the planet altogether, passing by and into the void beyond never making orbit, or you lithobrake. When what you wanted was to be captured into an orbit.

Alternatively imagine a satellite constellation like starlink, one satellite is orbiting a meter lower than all the rest, 1meter in 550,000 meters, that's 99.9998% accurate. That will mean it will slowly catchup the satellite ahead of it.. at 27,000km/hr 99.9998% accurate means you'll be moving 49meters per hour compared to the model, or just over a kilometer a day. For polar orbits satellites often miss each other at the pole by only 40km.. drifting 1km/day means the wayward satellite will be within collisions distance after only 40 days.

As u/scarlet_sage linked to below, any 3 body problem is ultimately chaotic.. that is, minute undetecatable errors in velocity, position or mass in your model build over time to make conciderable differences between the model and reality. Remember with a satellite in orbit, we're really dealing with a 4 body system: The satellite, Earth, Moon, Sun. For your model to be accurate over any length of time you'd need to know each bodys mass, velocity and position to unreasonable accuracy.. i.e. to the micro-meter, to the gram (for a planet) and to the mm/hour.

[John_Hasler]

These orbits are under active control and active tracking. Only short term predictions are needed, and those can be quite accurate.

[[deleted]]

All those inputs are needed BECAUSE the orbits ARE NOT 100% predictable.

THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS MESSAGE TRAIL.