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.
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/