8 ms·
SpaceX’s Starlink near-misses with other spacecraft are getting ‘out of control’
- mabbo 5y ago> now we are in a situation where Starlink accounts for half of all encounters." Aren't Starlink satellites now something like half of all active satellites in LEO? It's not surprising that they would be half the encounters. Even then, there's only been one encounter that anyone considered a close miss.
- saddlerustle 5y agoYup. Starlink has launched 1740 satellites, and before starlink there were only about 1500 active satellites in LEO total.
- sandworm101 5y ago>>like half of all active satellites in LEO? It's not surprising that they would be half the encounters. Half of all sats, not objects. These close encounters are not just with other satellites but any other tracked objects in the database, of which there are many more.
- luckylion 5y agoWouldn't that still be expected if they make up half the satellites? Or do these numbers also include near-misses of two non-satellite objects, in which case Starlink would do worse than non-steered space junk?
- SonicScrub 5y agoIn other news, 50% of the population represents half of all people
- Anunayj 5y agoHehe, reminds me of this xkcd/2476 [1] [1] https://xkcd.com/2476/ https://xkcd.com/2476/
- slownews45 5y agoThe near miss turned out to be a total fake I think. https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/SpaceX-OW-Ex-Parte.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Space...
- mlindner 5y agoThere wasn't any close miss. The "close miss" was a press blast operation by a competitor. The two companies were in coordination and because the competitor couldn't trust SpaceX to avoid their satellite spacex disabled their avoidance intentionally so that the competitor could move their satellite. Then said competitor went on a crazy press tirade about "dangerous starlink" even though SpaceX helped them out. If SpaceX had done nothing Starlink would have successfully avoided the competitor's satellite.
- tullianus 5y agoI've heard OneWeb's constellation ops team (the engineers in charge of coordinating maneuvers with other spacecraft for collision avoidance) threatened to walk out over the crazy press tirade. The craziness was from someone at the top, not from the folks on the ground.
- mlindner 5y agoThat's really interesting, where did you read that?
- tablespoon 5y agoWouldn't it be ironic if, despite the high-flying idealistic rhetoric, Elon Musk ends up denying everyone access to space, for a time, due to StarLink triggering Kessler syndrome? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
- devoutsalsa 5y agoKessler Syndrome isn't optimal, but it won't be the overly dramatic Earth prison we hear about in worst case scenario stories. PBS Space Time did a video on this recently... "The (Slow) Crisis Of Space Junk": https://youtu.be/LkeTk-Fi_c8 https://youtu.be/LkeTk-Fi_c8
- kitsunesoba 5y agoIt's also a lot less likely with ultra-LEO constellations like Starlink. Not only do the satellites naturally quickly deorbit after loss of control, they're low and cheap enough that if necessary SpaceX can easily suicide-burn them to avoid catastrophe should it come to that.
- mlindner 5y agoKessler syndrome doesn't result in denying access to space.
- mrfusion 5y agoThese sats are in a self clearing orbit. This is nothing more than a hit piece.
- edoceo 5y agoWow! That's for real, they've done some already it looks like. https://www.slashgear.com/five-spacex-starlink-satellites-are-about-to-burn-up-01582381/ https://www.slashgear.com/five-spacex-starlink-satellites-ar...
- 762236 5y agoSpaceX chose a low orbit so that atmosphere would eventually clean up any problems.
- CydeWeys 5y agoAlso for lower pings. Starlink only wants LPBs.
- Diederich 5y ago> LPBs Can you expand on that if you have a moment? Thanks.
- jayd16 5y agoLow Ping Bastards. A term used when lower ping gives you an advantage in a networked game.
- h2odragon 5y agoLow Ping Bastard The person who runs the quake server can shoot you 5 times before your shot hits the server. Mostly mitigated by what, quake 3 era?
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y agohttps://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lpb https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lpb would be my guess
- kaleidawave 5y agoRecommend the brilliant Johnny Harris video about this issue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY8Rv6PaXVI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY8Rv6PaXVI In short not only is a collision bad but it could create a chain reaction leading to billions of small objects flying around in the orbit forming a impenetrable barrier that bars further space travel and more importantly putting other (actually useful) satellites at risk
- edoceo 5y agoIs this grey cause it's un-possible or cause it's snark-junk? The probability of cascade-crash space-junk barrier is crazy small? Right?
- kitsunesoba 5y agoGenerally speaking, the higher the orbit the higher the chances of unrecoverable Kessler syndrome. For example if something went wrong way out in geosynchronous orbit and caused a chain of collisions, there's basically nothing we could do except clean it up manually — on its own it'd remain a mess for thousands of years. For the lowest orbits, worst case scenario is just waiting 2-5 years for it to clear itself up.
- peeters 5y agoThankfully GSO is also 4300x as spatious, and we don't need as many satellites up there in comparison.
- m4rtink 5y agoWould it be a big problem elsewhere than in Geo ? All the Geo birds are basically in one plane and don't really move in repect to each other. So I'm not sure you could really even trigger Kessler syndrome there & it would likely be quite easy to avoid that debris belt if you did.
- tick_tock_tick 5y ago> The probability of cascade-crash space-junk barrier is crazy small? Right? Yes
- SnowProblem 5y agoI like to imagine a future where space is unregulated, and some alternative LEO satellite Internet company begins to shoot down SpaceX's satellites in order to make room for their own. That in turn inspires SpaceX to deploy their own defensive drones, and technology escalates. I'm not really sure where this would all go but it would make for a great fiction.
- Retric 5y agoStarlink satellites are already using ion thrusters simply to maintain orbit. Some level of active evasion seems like a viable evolution of that rather cyberpunk idea.
- MichaelGroves 5y agoAssuming such a lawless state of affairs, having a large constellation of satellites in LEO already could be used to prevent competition from reaching orbit to challenge you. I am not sure many people have noticed, but in launching thousands of Starlink satellites, SpaceX has demonstrated their ability to implement the SDI/Star Wars proposal Brilliant Pebbles, which called for a thousand or more kinetic interceptors hanging out in LEO, waiting for enemy rocket launches to crash into. At the time, Brilliant Pebbles was an absurd proposal because it called for thousands of satellites, but SpaceX has already demonstrated that ability. They can already launch 60 satellites per launch, and apparently have plans to increase that several times over. (It has occurred to me that Starlink might secretly be a Brilliant Pebbles installation already, waiting to be revealed as such if a major war were to break out. However I believe the thrusters on extant Starlink satellites are too weak for this. And they don't have the sensor suites for it either, at least officially.)
- skissane 5y agoSpaceX's latest FCC filing for Gen2 Starlink states that the new Gen2 satellites have the capacity to “accommodate additional payloads in the future” [0]. It is very plausible that the US government (Space Force, NRO, NOAA, etc) might sign up to provide some of those additional payloads. Although surveillance technology is much more likely than active weapons systems. I think SpaceX will likely resist turning Starlink into a weapon, it could be bad for their corporate image and might cause political difficulty with Starlink's approval in some countries. Surveillance technologies can always be covered up as commercial imaging, environmental/scientific imaging, military communication systems, etc. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/19/spacex-starlink-satellite-internet-new-capabilities-starship-launch.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/19/spacex-starlink-satellite-in...
- Jtsummers 5y agoI find the phrasing interesting. This is in the title and in the article itself in similar form, but: Starlink near-misses with other spacecraft are getting 'out of control' By the phrasing the blame is laid on Starlink, which may be the reality but collecting the numbers alone don't justify that implication, which is most of what this article provides. As someone else pointed out, Starlink's presence in LEO has more than doubled the number of satellites so it kind of makes sense that there'd be a corresponding increase in the number of incidents, and just by the odds that Starlink would be involved in around half of them. The other claim in the article, that when Starlink's ~12k satellites are in orbit they'll be involved in 90% of these incidents also make sense. They'd make up about 90% of satellites in LEO using the present numbers. If half the cars on the road are Fords and half the accidents reported involve Fords that doesn't mean Ford cars or drivers are somehow worse than the rest, it actually means they're average. It'd be more interesting if the number of incidents leaned toward Starlink for something other than just conventional probability calculations, that is they accounted for a larger-than-expected share of incidents. Two stats provided, for Starlink and OneWeb. Starlink has 1700 satellites and 500 incidents/week. OneWeb has 250 satellites and 80 incidents/week. Starlink has 6.8x as many satellites. Again, by the numbers with what's reported here Starlink is no worse than other actors in this space. OneWeb has about a 32% incident rate (incidents/satellites) while Starlink has 29%. By these numbers they're actually slightly better than OneWeb here.
- rocqua 5y agoI imagine starlink has the advantage of being able to coordinate with 50% of satelites sharing their orbit (the starlink satelites) so they should have a lower 'incident per satellite' rate.
- Jtsummers 5y agoPer the article that 500/week is reduced to only the incidents with non-Starlink satellites. Assuming the article is presenting apples-to-apples, then the 80/week for OneWeb should correspond to that 500/week for Starlink. Starlink's total with their own satellites as well was 1600. It's also worth noting that Starlink/SpaceX does coordinate with other satellite operators, it's their responsibility to do so. I was actually working on an edit when I saw your reply and decided to put it here instead. EDIT: Reread a section of the article: > OneWeb, by comparison, currently has 250 satellites and passes another operators’ satellite 80 times per week. So yes, I've made an apples-to-apples comparison here. We don't know OneWeb's total incident count from this article alone and I'm insufficiently motivated to track down that statistic.
- dang 5y agoRelated from yesterday: The world must cooperate to avoid colliding satellites and space debris - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28231581 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28231581 - Aug 2021 (181 comments) A YC startup in the current batch is working on this: Launch HN: Turion Space (YC S21) – Space debris removal and satellite servicing - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28061725 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28061725 - Aug 2021 (111 comments)
- caconym_ 5y ago> "This problem is really getting out of control," Siemak Hesar, CEO and co-founder of commercial autonomous space traffic management system Kayhan Space, told Space. Well, there are certainly no obvious conflicts of interest behind this quote. /s I'm sick of this FUD. SpaceX is, I believe, the largest operator of satellites by count, so it makes perfect sense that they would account for the lion's share of these "close encounters". None of these articles offer a meaningful quantification of risk, or much in the way of constructive discussion; instead they shotgun-blast vague soundbites from "experts" and wave around the Kessler Syndrome boogeyman with about as much technical precision as can be found in the related joke at the beginning of WALL-E. In the context of Starlink, the "SpaceX Bad" narrative basically boils down to saying we should not develop space further because reasons, much in the same way single-family-home NIMBYs poison urban growth now that they've got theirs. There are obviously tough problems that will need to be solved, and I agree that some distributed "traffic control" system will ultimately be necessary, especially when we start filling up higher orbits where Kessler Syndrome is actually a serious concern. But it's disappointing to see the media engage in so much of what basically amounts to concern trolling, polarizing and poisoning the public discourse.
- slownews45 5y agoThanks. Couldn't agree more. One takeaway I'm getting - many of these other providers are perhaps not technically that competent. I mean, if you don't understand where the risks are, what are you doing with space traffic mgmt? Reality is SpaceX I think has one of the largest operating autonomous traffic mgmt systems already. It's very fast acting. In the fake oneweb "near miss" it just turned out that oneweb had to do manual maneuvers, SpaceX had more time because things were automated, so one web asked spaceX to turn off their systems. Compared to other providers, the starlink constellation is actually generating some the LEAST long lasting space junk up there (which is a lot already).
- caconym_ 5y agoI do get the impression that Starlink is extremely competent at managing their constellation. Ultimately I think the biggest risk is going to come from poor coordination between large operators, as we already got a taste of in that ESA/Starlink snafu a few months (?) back. I'd rather see some kind of distributed consensus framework than a single corporate entity managing it all, though.
- ohazi 5y ago> Once Starlink launches its full 12,000-strong satellite network, it will be involved in 90 per cent of all close approaches, it is estimated. Bayes' Rule strikes again!
- bell-cot 5y ago> ...Starlink satellites are responsible for over half of all near-collisions in space, according to... - and yet - > ...there are approximately 228 million pieces of space debris... So - either the mere ~1,700 Starlink satellites are ~100,000X hyper-achievers when it comes to near-collisions...or else the The Independent is yearning to win a "Lies...Damn Lies...Statistics" hype-achiever award.
- refulgentis 5y agoThe whole thrust of the article is the satellites are hyperachievers at this, and there's tons more variables than that, path, velocity, acceleration, relative height ... – I don't have the energy to make a tortured analogy slamming you for lazy thinking, so I'll leave you with a lame one: you're hyperachieving at insulting after hyperachieving at false dichotomies.
- rocqua 5y agoIt could be a discrepancy is orbit. Most space debris is not on circular low earth orbit. In fact, that is not a stable orbit because of atmospheric drag. And circular LEO is where most satelites are. So satelites in that same class of orbits would indeed be 'hyper achievers'.
- bell-cot 5y agoFrom NASA graphics (1 Jan. 2019 data) - https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/photo-gallery/# https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/photo-gallery/# - it looks like a great deal of the debris is in low or low-perigee orbits. (The latter still have plenty of opportunity to hit low-circular-orbit objects.) I might accept Starlink satellites being 10X or even 100X performers, based on arguments about orbits, cross-sectional area, etc. But ~100,000X? No.
- ElijahLynn 5y agoQuestion: Do the satellites fully disintegrate? What is the approximate maximum particle size of any leftovers? e.g. Will remnants ever not fully disintegrate and land on earth (people, buildings etc)?
- LeoPanthera 5y ago100% of the Starlink satellites burn up during re-entry. End-of-life satellites are intentionally deorbited. Failed satellites are in such a low orbit that they will self-deorbit after 5 years due to atmospheric drag without their orbit being boosted.
- jvzr 5y agoThere was concern at one point that the laser component of Starlink woulldn't burn up during atmospheric reentry. I don't think many (if any) satellites currently in orbit have that laser module (which will be used for satellite-to-satellite communication, and IIRC better latency by removing a necessary ground round-trip when the satellite leaves radio "line of sight" with your antenna; I don't have the correct terminology). I don't know either if that's been fixed
- LeoPanthera 5y agoAt the moment, only satellites in a polar orbit have the laser module installed, which I believe is a grand total of 13 right now.
- mlindner 5y agoSatellites in general when de-orbited are targeted to de-orbit over the south indian ocean normally, regardless if any pieces may survive re-entry.
- sneak 5y agoAlternate headline: Starlink satellites have collided with other satellites and space vehicles precisely zero times so far.
- mlindner 5y agoFlagging article for clickbait. Why are people posting this type of nonsense.
- N7FAA52318 5y agoOK, 1,600 close encounters every week. And how many collisions each week? Didn't see mentioning any, so none. So this "close encounters" seem as dangerous as the close encounters anytime I drive on highway, or even less. Pure FUD
- freemint 5y agoClose encounters are a proxy for risk of collisions. Such as correctable bitflips are a proxy for the risk of corrupted data in ECC RAM.
- sschueller 5y agoIf starlink ends up causing a big mess in orbit preventing launching new satellite and space travel I want the mess to be named after Elon.