all 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This kind of strategy, ie targetting a small number of debris that create the most risk, makes this problem more manageable than deorbiting thousands.

This give some hope to avoid the Kessler Symdrom. Altough space agencies would need to deorbit junk faster than they're orbiting it.

  • source
  • [+] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)
  • [–] 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).

  • 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:

  • 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.

  • 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)
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm all for this, but can we get someone to include somebody who will check for american trash? I bet we can drop it even lower!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 2 comments in c/spaceflight@sh.itjust.works view that post
    [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Really I think we should just start with getting SpaceGodzilla down. Hes eaten so many satellites this year alone. The whole meteor defense idea was great on paper, but I swear, nobody at NASA has ever considered the real-world consequences to their actions...

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I would love to see an XPrize type bounty system on these. Putting out something like a $50 million reward could start a great race to clean up orbit. The prize just can't be so low that a cheapo beater satellite collides with the target and makes matters worse.

  • source