4 ms·

Yeah, Twice the space junk!

gruez 2y ago
such constellations are in LEO, which means their orbits decay in years, not centuries. The satellites associated with "space junk" are in higher orbits like geostationary.
- varjag 2y ago
  Geostationary satellites are way too far and few in between to meaningfully present a problem. The majority of dangerous (in Kessler syndrome sense) junk is on higher LEO and eccentric orbits.
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    Correct. Most non-Starlink constellations LEO are going up around 800 - 1200 km altitudes. Those orbits have century to millenium level deorbit times and pose significant Kessler risk.
ZFleck 2y ago
I actually struggle to think of something "less-junk" than potentially providing tens of millions with cheap(er) access to the Internet. Who otherwise would be exploited for it. Or plain just wouldn't have it. Seems like one of the best-possible uses for orbit IMO. Plus (and I'm no expert), I believe that since these satellites specifically require a rather low orbit, they're by-design quick to de-orbit in the case of disaster or destruction.
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  Less junk? Weather satellites, climate monitoring satellites. But also I don't think the internet has been a net-positive thing.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Less junk? Weather satellites, climate monitoring satellites These typically operate at higher orbits. From a strictly space junk perspective, that makes them more of a debris risk than even multiple Starlink fleets in LEO.
- staunton 2y ago
  > quick to de-orbit in the case of disaster or destruction. In case of destruction, the satellite breaks up into many individual pieces each having a potentially very different orbit. Many of those parts might then stay up longer than the satellite would have if it remained intact. The parts can also cause a chain reaction which eventually breaks everything in low earth orbit.
  - mkaic 2y ago
    Starlink satellites are placed in extremely low orbits specifically to avoid their becoming dangerous space-junk — their orbits are intended to decay after around 5 years, at which point they burn up in the atmosphere and leave no debris behind in LEO. Future iterations of the satellites may have even shorter lifetimes as launch costs get cheaper.
    - maxglute 2y ago
      Starlink V1 was placed in low orbits because it was cheaper / constrained by F9 payloads (not only reason by imo primary). Starlink V2 is 1000-2000km orbits with expected deployment of 12000 sats.
      - ricardobeat 2y ago
        Starlink V2 already started deployment back in 2023, and they actually requested lower orbits (~350km) in order to reduce latency. Moving to 2000km would be a massive downgrade in performance, I'm not able find any source for that, everything points to the next generation (V3) being deployed via Starship at that lower altitude of 350km.
        maxglute 2y ago
        Apologies, I got 2000km confused with another megaconstellation, later rollouts / V2s+ are suppose to be up to 1200km, which was initially filed / granted with FCC. They did request/allow to move some of of larger v2s to lower orbits, but the full megaconstellation plan won't be constrained to <350km simply because there aren't enough orbit slots (as managed by UN/ITU) for the constellation size star link envisions. Below is recent image of current starlink distribution. Most are 400-500km and above, i.e. much longer decay times. My understanding is they're throwing v2 "minis" which still weight 3x more to lowerish orbits because that's most economical for F9 delivery, but once they have more payload via starship, full size v2+ is going 500km-1200km. 500km more altitude as like ~4 milliseconds of latency, which is not nothing, but still minor vs economic benefits of more coverage with less hardware. IMO current low LEO focus isn't ... starlink being responsible, it's result of cost optimization of coverage:payload for F9. Starship will come with different set of cost optimizations, likely for higher orbits using larger hardware, but less of it. https://imgur.com/a/VuweZZo https://imgur.com/a/VuweZZo
mwigdahl 2y ago
All those satellites are in low enough orbits to have lifespans measured in single-digit years. They will not stay in orbit as "junk".
greenavocado 2y ago
Low earth orbit is the best orbit because space junk accumulation is impossible there
- notahacker 2y ago
  Low earth orbit is a range from "pretty much everything down here will naturally deorbit in a few months" to "it'll take decades to naturally deorbit from up here and it'll have to not hit the majority of satellites ever launched on the way..."
awongh 2y ago
I remember when the plans for starlink originally came out, the two main complaints about it were 1) clogging up the atmosphere with space junk, and 2) the satellites clogging up terrestrial bandwidth. I haven't heard anyone complain about either of these things lately, I'm not sure if it's because they were never legitimate complaints, or it's because once the system was launched it became clear that complaining about it was pointless....
- fl0id 2y ago
  It’s because it’s not being covered anymore. Astronomers only complain more, but nobody cares.
ww520 2y ago
They are in the lower orbits. They will fall off the orbits in couple years and burn up.

such constellations are in LEO, which means their orbits decay in years, not centuries. The satellites associated with "space junk" are in higher orbits like geostationary.

varjag 2y ago
Geostationary satellites are way too far and few in between to meaningfully present a problem. The majority of dangerous (in Kessler syndrome sense) junk is on higher LEO and eccentric orbits.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Correct. Most non-Starlink constellations LEO are going up around 800 - 1200 km altitudes. Those orbits have century to millenium level deorbit times and pose significant Kessler risk.

ZFleck 2y ago

I actually struggle to think of something "less-junk" than potentially providing tens of millions with cheap(er) access to the Internet. Who otherwise would be exploited for it. Or plain just wouldn't have it. Seems like one of the best-possible uses for orbit IMO. Plus (and I'm no expert), I believe that since these satellites specifically require a rather low orbit, they're by-design quick to de-orbit in the case of disaster or destruction.

JKCalhoun 2y ago
Less junk? Weather satellites, climate monitoring satellites. But also I don't think the internet has been a net-positive thing.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Less junk? Weather satellites, climate monitoring satellites These typically operate at higher orbits. From a strictly space junk perspective, that makes them more of a debris risk than even multiple Starlink fleets in LEO.
staunton 2y ago
> quick to de-orbit in the case of disaster or destruction. In case of destruction, the satellite breaks up into many individual pieces each having a potentially very different orbit. Many of those parts might then stay up longer than the satellite would have if it remained intact. The parts can also cause a chain reaction which eventually breaks everything in low earth orbit.
- mkaic 2y ago
  Starlink satellites are placed in extremely low orbits specifically to avoid their becoming dangerous space-junk — their orbits are intended to decay after around 5 years, at which point they burn up in the atmosphere and leave no debris behind in LEO. Future iterations of the satellites may have even shorter lifetimes as launch costs get cheaper.
  - maxglute 2y ago
    Starlink V1 was placed in low orbits because it was cheaper / constrained by F9 payloads (not only reason by imo primary). Starlink V2 is 1000-2000km orbits with expected deployment of 12000 sats.
    - ricardobeat 2y ago
      Starlink V2 already started deployment back in 2023, and they actually requested lower orbits (~350km) in order to reduce latency. Moving to 2000km would be a massive downgrade in performance, I'm not able find any source for that, everything points to the next generation (V3) being deployed via Starship at that lower altitude of 350km.
      - maxglute 2y ago
        Apologies, I got 2000km confused with another megaconstellation, later rollouts / V2s+ are suppose to be up to 1200km, which was initially filed / granted with FCC. They did request/allow to move some of of larger v2s to lower orbits, but the full megaconstellation plan won't be constrained to <350km simply because there aren't enough orbit slots (as managed by UN/ITU) for the constellation size star link envisions. Below is recent image of current starlink distribution. Most are 400-500km and above, i.e. much longer decay times. My understanding is they're throwing v2 "minis" which still weight 3x more to lowerish orbits because that's most economical for F9 delivery, but once they have more payload via starship, full size v2+ is going 500km-1200km. 500km more altitude as like ~4 milliseconds of latency, which is not nothing, but still minor vs economic benefits of more coverage with less hardware. IMO current low LEO focus isn't ... starlink being responsible, it's result of cost optimization of coverage:payload for F9. Starship will come with different set of cost optimizations, likely for higher orbits using larger hardware, but less of it. https://imgur.com/a/VuweZZo https://imgur.com/a/VuweZZo

mwigdahl 2y ago

All those satellites are in low enough orbits to have lifespans measured in single-digit years. They will not stay in orbit as "junk".

greenavocado 2y ago

Low earth orbit is the best orbit because space junk accumulation is impossible there

notahacker 2y ago
Low earth orbit is a range from "pretty much everything down here will naturally deorbit in a few months" to "it'll take decades to naturally deorbit from up here and it'll have to not hit the majority of satellites ever launched on the way..."

awongh 2y ago

I remember when the plans for starlink originally came out, the two main complaints about it were 1) clogging up the atmosphere with space junk, and 2) the satellites clogging up terrestrial bandwidth. I haven't heard anyone complain about either of these things lately, I'm not sure if it's because they were never legitimate complaints, or it's because once the system was launched it became clear that complaining about it was pointless....

fl0id 2y ago
It’s because it’s not being covered anymore. Astronomers only complain more, but nobody cares.

ww520 2y ago

They are in the lower orbits. They will fall off the orbits in couple years and burn up.