90
Removing these 50 objects from orbit would cut danger from space junk in half - Ars Technica (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/space@mander.xyz
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)
[deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Starlink is all in LEO. It doesn't become space junk as there is sufficient drag in LEO that they readily deorbit purely due to air resistance (yes, there is enough air in LEO to make air resistance the factor in why Starlink does not become space junk).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Let's put actual numbers on it:

    • Starlink: 500-570km

    • Kuiper: 630km

    • Guowang: 900-1145 km

    And as far as passive deorbit times, this chart is for a 1u cubesat, and bigger satellites would come down faster, but it illustrates some of the point that Starlink isn't actually the problem here:

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Starlink isn't actually that bad in terms of space junk. They've been actively deorbiting Gen 1 and partially failed ones. The amount that are uncontrolled junk just passively deorbiting is really small.

    • Starlink total sats launched: 9896

    • Total down: 1329 (includes Gen 1 disposal and previous failures)

    • Total failed, decaying: 16

    So they currently have 16 junk Starlinks that should be gone in the next few years.

    Source.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    No starlink is bad. It’s currently deorbiting 1-2 satellites a day, which means half a ton of aluminum and other metals burnt up in the atmosphere. Current ambition mean they will need to start deorbiting 3-5 satellites per day.

    We don’t know yet what ecological impact this will have. But I’m having a hard time accepting such wasteful energy and material consumption.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I understand Kessler Syndrome and am not saying that it isn't possible. I just think Starlink is the wrong constellation to be mad about. There are two points I'm trying to make here about Starlink:

    1. Their orbit is low, so it doesn't matter as much if their birds die because they passively deorbit.
    2. SpaceX has been a good steward of their orbits and don't have much dead junk up there.

    The low orbit point is also made in that Wikipedia page that you linked:

    Starlink satellites are launched at a lower altitude of 550 km ... and failed satellites or debris are thus expected to deorbit within five years even without propulsion, due to atmospheric drag.

    I added the source to my comment above about the deorbit/junk stats.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)