Starlink satellites are in low earth orbit and deorbit naturally after a few years because of the small amounts of escaping atmosphere slowing them down. A collision cascade can’t really happen because it’s a fundamentally decaying orbit.
At least, there’s no risk of lasting orbital debris, at the cost of the satellites having a much shorter lifespan.
… Well, fortunately, I don’t manage satellite deployments, but your friends are welcome to tell NASA that their aerospace engineers are actually wrong and need to stop SpaceX before they ground humanity. I’m sure they would love to hear it.
Really playing to your username, eh. I am familiar with Kessler Syndrome. You’ll note that the most important aspect of said event, is the height, at which objects orbit, as that determines how long it takes for it to deorbit. The level of risk declines precipitously the closer to the earth the orbit is, and even if there was a catastrophic cascade at the height Starlink orbits, it would clear after a few years at most.
Impact ejection can cause eccentric orbits, but at that height, those deorbit even faster.
Fortunately, the very clever scientists at NASA have long since determined that there is essentially no risk from Starlink and similar satellite constellations, because they’ve been paying attention to this since before I was born.
Fortunately, the very clever scientists at NASA have long since determined that there is essentially no risk from Starlink and similar satellite constellations,
That is patently not true to the point that it is effectively a lie
Right. I’ll note, that your linked article says nothing about Kessler beyond a quote of his saying that space debris would continue to increase even if all launches stopped. Otherwise, the article mainly comments that the sheer number of Starlink satellites below the ISS could interfere with launch/entry opportunities while drastically increasing the number of space objects being tracked by the DoD and NASA.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Starlink, all I’m pointing out is that Kessler Syndrome is not one of them. I’m assuming you’ve somewhat ironically blocked me, but since we’re exchanging links, here is an article that interviews several scientists including one that worked under Kessler at NASA and now works on NASA’s orbital debris modeling.
Starlink satellites are in low earth orbit and deorbit naturally after a few years because of the small amounts of escaping atmosphere slowing them down. A collision cascade can’t really happen because it’s a fundamentally decaying orbit.
At least, there’s no risk of lasting orbital debris, at the cost of the satellites having a much shorter lifespan.
I have aerospace engineering friends that disagree, but I’m sure your wikipedia university degree is useful somewhere
Ablative cascades have more than enough energy to kick debris fields up orbit as impact velocities can hit 10 kilometers a second
JSYK that kind of energy can punch a paint flake through a quarter inch of titanium
… Well, fortunately, I don’t manage satellite deployments, but your friends are welcome to tell NASA that their aerospace engineers are actually wrong and need to stop SpaceX before they ground humanity. I’m sure they would love to hear it.
The fucking NASA scientist that came up with this scenario is Donald Kessler, it is literally named after him
They have been warning about this since before you were born.
Why are you so fundamentally resistant to truth?
Really playing to your username, eh. I am familiar with Kessler Syndrome. You’ll note that the most important aspect of said event, is the height, at which objects orbit, as that determines how long it takes for it to deorbit. The level of risk declines precipitously the closer to the earth the orbit is, and even if there was a catastrophic cascade at the height Starlink orbits, it would clear after a few years at most.
Impact ejection can cause eccentric orbits, but at that height, those deorbit even faster.
Fortunately, the very clever scientists at NASA have long since determined that there is essentially no risk from Starlink and similar satellite constellations, because they’ve been paying attention to this since before I was born.
That is patently not true to the point that it is effectively a lie
https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/nasa-starlink-warning
This entire discussion you have been intellectually dishonest and using propaganda talking points. You are no longer welcome on my internet.
Right. I’ll note, that your linked article says nothing about Kessler beyond a quote of his saying that space debris would continue to increase even if all launches stopped. Otherwise, the article mainly comments that the sheer number of Starlink satellites below the ISS could interfere with launch/entry opportunities while drastically increasing the number of space objects being tracked by the DoD and NASA.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Starlink, all I’m pointing out is that Kessler Syndrome is not one of them. I’m assuming you’ve somewhat ironically blocked me, but since we’re exchanging links, here is an article that interviews several scientists including one that worked under Kessler at NASA and now works on NASA’s orbital debris modeling.
https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org/features/understanding-the-misunderstood-kessler-syndrome/