you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 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.

  • 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 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.

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