It's true they're using much higher LEO orbits—not sure why you were downvoted for this basic and relevant fact. While Starlink goes to 500-600 km altitudes, Qi

It's true they're using much higher LEO orbits—not sure why you were downvoted for this basic and relevant fact. While Starlink goes to 500-600 km altitudes, Qianfan seems to target 800 km[a], and Guowang has been launching to 900 km and 1,145 km [b,c]. (I'm not discussing the few Starlinks in VLEO orbits below 300 km, because I don't know what the concrete plans are with those). Those are orbits with 100+ year dynamic lifetimes (as is regularly discussed, i.e. ref [d]). It's true that they could actively deorbit them; that's the lifespan of passive debris that fails to actively deorbit. (Ref [d] also discusses spent rocket stages in this context, and China's uniquely bad behavior there). I assume the main motive behind this is basic business economics. China doesn't have reusable boosters; the ones that might succeed this month won't reach Falcon 9 levels of mass production, and launch cadence, for several years. They're on an expensive on-ramp. To a first-order simplification 1,100 km orbits need only 1/4th as many satellites for the same coverage as 550 km orbits. [a] https://www.space.com/china-first-launch-internet-satellite-megaconstellation https://www.space.com/china-first-launch-internet-satellite-... [b] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guowang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guowang [c] https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/08/china-may-have-taken-an-early-lead-in-the-race-for-a-military-megaconstellation/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/08/china-may-have-taken-a... [d] https://spacenews.com/chinas-megaconstellation-launches-could-litter-orbit-for-more-than-a-century-analysts-warn/ https://spacenews.com/chinas-megaconstellation-launches-coul...