‘Worst nightmare’: Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites could blind radio telescopes
‘Worst nightmare’: Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites could blind radio telescopes
You're viewing part of a thread.
There seem to be a significant number of people who disagree with you.
https://www.space.com/starlink-satellite-conjunction-increase-threatens-space-sustainability
https://interestingengineering.com/science/kessler-syndrome-spacex-starlink-orbital-chaos
https://libraetd.lib.virginia.edu/downloads/m326m255z?filename=Walker_Avery
It's not possible with these satellites as they're too low in orbit and can only stay up for 3-5 years before burning up in the atmosphere. It doesn't matter if you can find people to agree with you as I could easily find a dozen links from people claiming the earth is flat.
Just to be clear... you believe because the satellites are low enough that they will only last a few years, that they cannot run into each other and cause a cascading effect of debris? I mean, sure, the cascading effect (Kessler Syndrome) might only last a few years, but it still could happen, couldn't it? Or is there something special about them that means they can't actually accidentally run into each other and break apart, with the pieces hitting other satellites and breaking apart...?
I'm not sure why these satellites being in low orbit protects them from the laws of physics.
You're talking about the Kessler Effect (cascading collisions) not Kessler Syndrome (space is unusable). I never stated that they can't collide with one another just that they're not capable of trapping us on earth for any significant period of time due to their low orbit.
facepalm
Right, I understand you now. You are being pedantic about the definition of Kessler Syndrome, assuming people are using it to refer to a permanent status. Gotcha.
In short, you don't disagree, you just aren't using the same words to mean the same thing as everyone else, leading to confusion and conflict.
Kessler Syndrome, even if it "only" lasts a few years, would be devastating. That is what people are worried about, and that is what could happen, even with low earth orbits. Given big enough pieces of debris, the "any significant period of time" you refer to could certainly be significant enough to cause lasting problems.
I'm not sure why they think they know better than the multiple scientists I have given them references to.
Oh no wait, yes I do. They refuse to look at the links.
Well, where are the dozen links?
Except that my links quote scientists.
For example:
"Right now, the number of maneuvers is growing exponentially," Hugh Lewis, a professor of astronautics at the University of Southampton in the U.K. and a leading expert on the impact of megaconstellations on orbital safety, told Space.com. "It's been doubling every six months, and the problem with exponential trends is that they get to very large numbers very quickly."
Data compiled by Lewis shows that, in the first half of 2021, Starlink satellites conducted 2,219 collision-avoidance maneuvers. The number grew to 3,333 in the following six-month period ending in December 2021 and then doubled to 6,873 between December 2021 and June 2022. In the second half of 2022, SpaceX had to alter the paths of its satellites 13,612 times to avoid potential collisions. In the latest report to the FCC, the company declared 25,299 collision-avoidance maneuvers over the past six months, with every satellite having been made to move an average of 6 times.
"Right now, every six months, the number of maneuvers that are being made doubles," said Lewis. "It has gone up by a factor of 10 in just two years, and if you project that out, you'll have 50,000 within the next six-month period, then 100,000 within the next, then 200,000, and so on."
But a professor of astronautics is basically the same as a flat Earther, am I right?
Also, I literally included an academic paper.
"Right now, every six months, the number of maneuvers that are being made doubles," said Lewis. "It has gone up by a factor of 10 in just two years, and if you project that out, you'll have 50,000 within the next six-month period, then 100,000 within the next, then 200,000, and so on."
The number of maneuvers increased as they increased the number of satellites in orbit, which shouldn't be surprising to anyone. To claim that this is going to follow an exponential curve approaching infinity is ignorant at best and disinformation at the worst because they have a hard limit on how many satellites they need. The guy you're quoting qualified that statement with "right now" right at the beginning of the quote.
In addition to this, an increased number of maneuvers has no bearing on whether these LEO satellites will cause Kessler Syndrome as you claimed in your previous comment. They're in too low of an orbit to do that.
That's quite the heel-turn from "I could easily find a dozen links from people claiming the earth is flat," but congratulations on taking a tiny bit of effort and reading the first paragraph of one of the many links I posted when I quoted it to you.
I'm sure looking at the academic paper I gave you wouldn't even be worth the time of someone with your expert knowledge.
Weird, though, that you say you could "easily find a dozen links from people claiming the earth is flat" and yet have provided no links to support your actual claim.
What heel-turn? I stated it isn't possible for these to cause Kessler Syndrome and haven't departed from that.
I did read your links when you initially replied, and they don't claim that they'll cause Kessler Syndrome. Some of them dance around the topic with scary sounding premises but none actually state it because it's impossible for something orbiting flying that low to be trapped in orbit for long just like an airplane with engines that die can't maintain altitude and continue flying for long. You don't need to be an expert in aeronautics or spaceflight to understand this because it's basic physics.
Yes I focused on that statement that you quoted because that's what you quoted in your reply as proof it's possible even though all it said was that more evasive maneuvers are happening as more of these satellites are put into orbit just like more cars will need to dodge debris in the road during rush hour than during the middle of the night when nobody is on the road.
I didn't post a list of flat earther links because neither one of us is arguing that the earth is flat. This statement was hyperbole to point out the flawed reasoning in thinking that your position is correct simply because you can find someone else stating the same thing (something those links don't actually even do if the topic is Kessler Syndrome). Yeah, they can crash into something and cause debris, but they can't be trapped up there permanently and prevent us from reaching space again because their orbit is so low.
Will the space debris problem take care of itself?
In low Earth orbit (below 600 km or 370 miles), the little atmosphere that is there will, over weeks, months, and years, drag the space debris low enough to reenter. Between 600 km and 1000 km (620 mi) it may take tens to hundreds of years for the debris to reenter.
Starlink orbits at 342 miles so assuming the entire constellation exploded into debris, they'd only be an issue for as little as a few weeks and as much as a couple of years before burning up and clearing themselves out. Kessler Syndrome requires that something be in high earth or geostationary orbit to trap us on the planet permanently.
No one said anything about permanently. That's been your whole issue here? Because that's not how gravity works anyway. The thing you yourself quoted says it could take years for it to reenter. So that's years of too much debris in LEO to launch anything safely.
I have no idea where you got the notion that Kessler syndrome means something like nothing can ever be launched again until the year 5 billion when the sun engulfs the Earth.
No one said anything about permanently
That's exactly what Kessler Syndrome is though.
Because that's not how gravity works anyway
This isn't about gravity it's about orbital altitude. Objects in HEO or Geostationary orbit can stay at those altitudes for hundreds to thousands of years which qualify as "permanently" for all intents and purposes.
The thing you yourself quoted says it could take years for it to reenter. So that's years of too much debris in LEO to launch anything safely.
No, that just means they can stay up there for years, not that it automatically makes it unsafe to launch into orbit. This is like claiming a 50-car pileup in Des Moines makes it unsafe to drive in Los Angeles.
I have no idea where you got the notion that Kessler syndrome means something like nothing can ever be launched again
[From Kessler himself](https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/white-sands/micrometeoroids-and-orbital-debris-mmod/#%3A~%3Atext=The+Kessler+Syndrome%2C(900+to+1%2C000+kilometers).
This cascade of collisions first came to NASAs attention in the 1970’s when derelict Delta rockets left in orbit began to explode creating shrapnel clouds. Kessler demonstrated that once the amount of debris in a particular orbit reaches critical mass, collision cascading begins even if no more objects are launched into the orbit. Once collisional cascading begins, the risk to satellites and spacecraft increases until the orbit is no longer usable.
Let me know when you actually read my links.
I already told you that I did read your links when you first posted them.
I would believe that if you had addressed anything in them other than something I quoted directly to you.
You didn't, so I don't.