I did a calculation yesterday that made me want to scream. If you look at the *current* density of satellites in 1km altitude bins in Low Earth Orbit, and assume they are travelling at circular velocities (generally true), then Starlink satellites pas...
-
I did a calculation yesterday that made me want to scream. If you look at the *current* density of satellites in 1km altitude bins in Low Earth Orbit, and assume they are travelling at circular velocities (generally true), then Starlink satellites pass within <1km of each other EVERY 30 SECONDS.
At Starlink altitudes, everything is travelling at 7 km/second, so <1 km close approaches are terrifyingly close. Every 30 seconds. WHY.
-
Prof. Sam Lawlerreplied to Prof. Sam Lawler last edited by
Why do they have to be in such a dense orbit? Why do they need 42,000 of them?! They are launching more into this same super dense orbit and we're supposed to just trust that their "autonomous collision avoidance system" will be good enough to keep going at higher and higher densities?
There's an opportunity for error about every 30 seconds. One small mistake and we're in Kessler Syndrome, no more LEO satellites for decades.
-
Prof. Sam Lawlerreplied to Prof. Sam Lawler last edited by
"Oh don't worry, SpaceX has amazing engineers! They know what they're doing!"
Well yes, they're amazing. But they definitely make giant mistakes. Like... you know... dropping hundreds of pounds of debris from a "fully demisable" spacecraft by my house. Whoopsie.
SpaceX, please don't whoopsie us into Kessler Syndrome.
-
Legit_Spaghetti 🥥replied to Prof. Sam Lawler last edited by
@sundogplanets Well, the threat of an ablation cascade plus the gradual destruction of Earth's ozone layer caused by these pointless megaconstellations gives us two options: either we can push our lawmakers to regulate this crap out of existence, or we're going to issue the saltiest TOLD YOU SO when things inevitably go wrong.
-
We should also note that there is no real need for this whole project.
There are alternatives to provide internet access to remote communities, including (much fewer) satellites in high orbits.
-
Prof. Sam Lawlerreplied to Prof. Sam Lawler last edited by
I got asked to speak to a Very Important group of people about the many terrible environmental consequences of satellite megaconstellations (collisions, atmospheric pollution, ground casualty risks) and I was wavering because it's a really really long trip and it has to be in-person (I guess because Very Important people can't Zoom or something...)
Anyway. This calculation made my decision for me. I'm going to yell at the most important people I can, hopefully it will help. (More details later)
-
Prof. Sam Lawlerreplied to Prof. Sam Lawler last edited by
Oof way too many replies for me to go through here, and while some are hilarious, some of them are really frustrating (yes, I know how orbits work, and I'm pretty darn good at math).
Signing off for a bit to focus on some other ways to teach people about the terrifyingly bad situation in orbit.
-
Prof. Sam Lawlerreplied to Prof. Sam Lawler last edited by
Ok one more post before I mute this thread: I absolutely understand why rural people are using Starlink (see my post from a few days ago trying to find a weather website that works well with my own shitty non-Starlink rural internet). I'm criticizing the SpaceX/Starlink operating practices, because they are dangerous, and are definitely going to cause severe consequences for everyone.
And, reply guys, please don't fucking tell me how orbits work.
Hopefully back to farm posts after this. MUTE