Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. I missed reading Starlink's latest conjunction report when it came out a bit over a month ago.

I missed reading Starlink's latest conjunction report when it came out a bit over a month ago.

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
72 Indlæg 41 Posters 0 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

    I missed reading Starlink's latest conjunction report when it came out a bit over a month ago. I just skimmed through it and I think I need to go lay down for a while. It's terrifying how close we are to major collisions in orbit all the time... (I especially love the note about how space-track.org being offline briefly caused them to miss a potential collision... SO FRAGILE AAUGH)

    Article summarizing the report here: https://ca.pcmag.com/networking/16653/260-starlink-satellites-burn-up-in-earths-atmosphere-as-more-head-for-fiery-ends

    Full report here: https://www.scribd.com/document/1057502572/SpaceX-Gen1-Gen2-Semi-Annual-Report-7-1-26

    towerofthearchmage@chirp.enworld.orgT This user is from outside of this forum
    towerofthearchmage@chirp.enworld.orgT This user is from outside of this forum
    towerofthearchmage@chirp.enworld.org
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #3

    @sundogplanets say it does happen with a couple of these star link satellites? It'll be a cascading event, but how long will it last for? Months? Years? Decades?

    cy@fedicy.us.toC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

      I missed reading Starlink's latest conjunction report when it came out a bit over a month ago. I just skimmed through it and I think I need to go lay down for a while. It's terrifying how close we are to major collisions in orbit all the time... (I especially love the note about how space-track.org being offline briefly caused them to miss a potential collision... SO FRAGILE AAUGH)

      Article summarizing the report here: https://ca.pcmag.com/networking/16653/260-starlink-satellites-burn-up-in-earths-atmosphere-as-more-head-for-fiery-ends

      Full report here: https://www.scribd.com/document/1057502572/SpaceX-Gen1-Gen2-Semi-Annual-Report-7-1-26

      startswithabang@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
      startswithabang@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
      startswithabang@mastodon.social
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #4

      @sundogplanets Would be a "fun" calculation to do to see, based on our understanding of what Aluminum oxide does to the ozone layer, how many deorbiting starlinks it would take to destroy the ozone layer entirely!

      sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

        I missed reading Starlink's latest conjunction report when it came out a bit over a month ago. I just skimmed through it and I think I need to go lay down for a while. It's terrifying how close we are to major collisions in orbit all the time... (I especially love the note about how space-track.org being offline briefly caused them to miss a potential collision... SO FRAGILE AAUGH)

        Article summarizing the report here: https://ca.pcmag.com/networking/16653/260-starlink-satellites-burn-up-in-earths-atmosphere-as-more-head-for-fiery-ends

        Full report here: https://www.scribd.com/document/1057502572/SpaceX-Gen1-Gen2-Semi-Annual-Report-7-1-26

        visikde@mstdn.plusV This user is from outside of this forum
        visikde@mstdn.plusV This user is from outside of this forum
        visikde@mstdn.plus
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #5

        @sundogplanets
        15000 satellites in the array when complete, 5 year lifespan = 24 satellites deorbiting per day.
        Wait until there are 1000000 servers in orbit yielding 500 or so deorbiting per day

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • startswithabang@mastodon.socialS startswithabang@mastodon.social

          @sundogplanets Would be a "fun" calculation to do to see, based on our understanding of what Aluminum oxide does to the ozone layer, how many deorbiting starlinks it would take to destroy the ozone layer entirely!

          sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
          sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
          sundogplanets@mastodon.social
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #6

          @startswithabang Some of the foundational work for that is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.21328

          startswithabang@mastodon.socialS jaztrophysicist@social.sciences.reJ 2 Replies Last reply
          0
          • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

            I missed reading Starlink's latest conjunction report when it came out a bit over a month ago. I just skimmed through it and I think I need to go lay down for a while. It's terrifying how close we are to major collisions in orbit all the time... (I especially love the note about how space-track.org being offline briefly caused them to miss a potential collision... SO FRAGILE AAUGH)

            Article summarizing the report here: https://ca.pcmag.com/networking/16653/260-starlink-satellites-burn-up-in-earths-atmosphere-as-more-head-for-fiery-ends

            Full report here: https://www.scribd.com/document/1057502572/SpaceX-Gen1-Gen2-Semi-Annual-Report-7-1-26

            sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
            sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
            sundogplanets@mastodon.social
            wrote sidst redigeret af
            #7

            Oh gosh I just did the math on the maneuver rate, which I couldn't bring myself to do earlier. More than 207,000 collision avoidance maneuvers in 6 months.

            That means that somewhere in the Starlink megaconstellation, a satellite is performing a collision avoidance maneuver EVERY 1.25 MINUTES (EVERY 75 SECONDS)

            AAAHHHH I'M SURE THAT'S FINE.

            And now I find myself reading about asteroid collisional cascades. For no particular reason...

            sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS davidtheeviloverlord@mastodon.socialD nyquildotorg@gts.nyquil.orgN liebach@mastodon.artL marrekoo@urbanists.socialM 11 Replies Last reply
            1
            0
            • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

              Oh gosh I just did the math on the maneuver rate, which I couldn't bring myself to do earlier. More than 207,000 collision avoidance maneuvers in 6 months.

              That means that somewhere in the Starlink megaconstellation, a satellite is performing a collision avoidance maneuver EVERY 1.25 MINUTES (EVERY 75 SECONDS)

              AAAHHHH I'M SURE THAT'S FINE.

              And now I find myself reading about asteroid collisional cascades. For no particular reason...

              sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
              sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
              sundogplanets@mastodon.social
              wrote sidst redigeret af
              #8

              I mean, to be fair, they have done it perfectly so far. No Starlink collisions.

              But there is a shitload of untracked, lethal debris orbiting around up there. And they are completely dependent on so many systems (like space-track.org, apparently).

              And our future use of orbit is completely dependent on Starlink operating perfectly, every minute of every day, forever.

              sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS davidtheeviloverlord@mastodon.socialD ysegrim@furry.engineerY 3 Replies Last reply
              0
              • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

                Oh gosh I just did the math on the maneuver rate, which I couldn't bring myself to do earlier. More than 207,000 collision avoidance maneuvers in 6 months.

                That means that somewhere in the Starlink megaconstellation, a satellite is performing a collision avoidance maneuver EVERY 1.25 MINUTES (EVERY 75 SECONDS)

                AAAHHHH I'M SURE THAT'S FINE.

                And now I find myself reading about asteroid collisional cascades. For no particular reason...

                davidtheeviloverlord@mastodon.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
                davidtheeviloverlord@mastodon.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
                davidtheeviloverlord@mastodon.social
                wrote sidst redigeret af
                #9

                @sundogplanets

                Correct me if I'm wrong but, collision avoidance manoeuvres cost propellant. A satellite can only carry a small amount of propellant. More manoeuvres cost more propellant. Nobody is refuelling satellites in orbit.

                I'm sure it will be fine.

                falken@qoto.orgF croyle@wandering.shopC 2 Replies Last reply
                0
                • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

                  I mean, to be fair, they have done it perfectly so far. No Starlink collisions.

                  But there is a shitload of untracked, lethal debris orbiting around up there. And they are completely dependent on so many systems (like space-track.org, apparently).

                  And our future use of orbit is completely dependent on Starlink operating perfectly, every minute of every day, forever.

                  sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                  sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                  sundogplanets@mastodon.social
                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                  #10

                  Like their last report, they also have a Shit List of which objects Starlink had to maneuver for the most often, and complained a lot about it. "SpaceX coordinated with other satellite operators hundreds of times over the reporting period"

                  What they fail to say is that this is because anyone who wants to travel to higher orbits is REQUIRED to coordinate with them, because they effectively control Low Earth Orbit.

                  debcha@saturation.socialD hnapel@mastodon.socialH reijomancer@defcon.socialR sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS 4 Replies Last reply
                  0
                  • davidtheeviloverlord@mastodon.socialD davidtheeviloverlord@mastodon.social

                    @sundogplanets

                    Correct me if I'm wrong but, collision avoidance manoeuvres cost propellant. A satellite can only carry a small amount of propellant. More manoeuvres cost more propellant. Nobody is refuelling satellites in orbit.

                    I'm sure it will be fine.

                    falken@qoto.orgF This user is from outside of this forum
                    falken@qoto.orgF This user is from outside of this forum
                    falken@qoto.org
                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                    #11

                    @davidtheeviloverlord @sundogplanets They are in so low orbits they de-orbit themselves if they ran out of fuel, or for some other reason couldn't safe themselves

                    davidtheeviloverlord@mastodon.socialD badtux@mastodon.socialB 2 Replies Last reply
                    0
                    • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

                      I mean, to be fair, they have done it perfectly so far. No Starlink collisions.

                      But there is a shitload of untracked, lethal debris orbiting around up there. And they are completely dependent on so many systems (like space-track.org, apparently).

                      And our future use of orbit is completely dependent on Starlink operating perfectly, every minute of every day, forever.

                      davidtheeviloverlord@mastodon.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
                      davidtheeviloverlord@mastodon.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
                      davidtheeviloverlord@mastodon.social
                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                      #12

                      @sundogplanets

                      *looks at Musk's record of SpaceX rockets operating perfectly, and not undergoing rapid unscheduled disassembly at all*

                      I'm sure it will be fine.

                      No Starlink collisions.

                      That we know about.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

                        Oh gosh I just did the math on the maneuver rate, which I couldn't bring myself to do earlier. More than 207,000 collision avoidance maneuvers in 6 months.

                        That means that somewhere in the Starlink megaconstellation, a satellite is performing a collision avoidance maneuver EVERY 1.25 MINUTES (EVERY 75 SECONDS)

                        AAAHHHH I'M SURE THAT'S FINE.

                        And now I find myself reading about asteroid collisional cascades. For no particular reason...

                        nyquildotorg@gts.nyquil.orgN This user is from outside of this forum
                        nyquildotorg@gts.nyquil.orgN This user is from outside of this forum
                        nyquildotorg@gts.nyquil.org
                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                        #13

                        @sundogplanets ONE POINT TWENTY-FIVE MIN-U-TAYS?!

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

                          Like their last report, they also have a Shit List of which objects Starlink had to maneuver for the most often, and complained a lot about it. "SpaceX coordinated with other satellite operators hundreds of times over the reporting period"

                          What they fail to say is that this is because anyone who wants to travel to higher orbits is REQUIRED to coordinate with them, because they effectively control Low Earth Orbit.

                          debcha@saturation.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
                          debcha@saturation.socialD This user is from outside of this forum
                          debcha@saturation.social
                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                          #14

                          @sundogplanets This is very 'complaining about how bad traffic is without considering that YOU are the traffic' and hence the problem.

                          sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • debcha@saturation.socialD debcha@saturation.social

                            @sundogplanets This is very 'complaining about how bad traffic is without considering that YOU are the traffic' and hence the problem.

                            sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                            sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                            sundogplanets@mastodon.social
                            wrote sidst redigeret af
                            #15

                            @debcha That is pretty much the tone of every single one of these reports. It would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous. "We are annoyed that we are the only operator who is required to do this reporting" (Yes, you own 2/3 of ALL SATELLITES that's why)

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

                              Oh gosh I just did the math on the maneuver rate, which I couldn't bring myself to do earlier. More than 207,000 collision avoidance maneuvers in 6 months.

                              That means that somewhere in the Starlink megaconstellation, a satellite is performing a collision avoidance maneuver EVERY 1.25 MINUTES (EVERY 75 SECONDS)

                              AAAHHHH I'M SURE THAT'S FINE.

                              And now I find myself reading about asteroid collisional cascades. For no particular reason...

                              liebach@mastodon.artL This user is from outside of this forum
                              liebach@mastodon.artL This user is from outside of this forum
                              liebach@mastodon.art
                              wrote sidst redigeret af
                              #16

                              @sundogplanets I can't stand it. Can't we just get it over with and get that Kessler syndrome done. So stressful waiting for a disaster, feels worse than the disaster itself.

                              The upside is that it'll be obvious to everyone that we have Musk to thank for it. He'll be popular, I'm sure. He'll get interviewed, and he'll say something really ridiculously stupid. It'll be great.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

                                Like their last report, they also have a Shit List of which objects Starlink had to maneuver for the most often, and complained a lot about it. "SpaceX coordinated with other satellite operators hundreds of times over the reporting period"

                                What they fail to say is that this is because anyone who wants to travel to higher orbits is REQUIRED to coordinate with them, because they effectively control Low Earth Orbit.

                                hnapel@mastodon.socialH This user is from outside of this forum
                                hnapel@mastodon.socialH This user is from outside of this forum
                                hnapel@mastodon.social
                                wrote sidst redigeret af
                                #17

                                @sundogplanets

                                Which objects are those? Asking for a friend.

                                I read while Envisat 🛰️ 😈 operates in a higher orbit, for polar shell Starlink satellites the upper stage or the satellites themselves may cross Envisat's altitude band during initial deployment.

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

                                  Like their last report, they also have a Shit List of which objects Starlink had to maneuver for the most often, and complained a lot about it. "SpaceX coordinated with other satellite operators hundreds of times over the reporting period"

                                  What they fail to say is that this is because anyone who wants to travel to higher orbits is REQUIRED to coordinate with them, because they effectively control Low Earth Orbit.

                                  reijomancer@defcon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                                  reijomancer@defcon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                                  reijomancer@defcon.social
                                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                                  #18

                                  @sundogplanets You just gave me a harrowing train of thought.

                                  What if we as a populace have become desensitized to MAD via nuclear weapons to the point of creating another MAD over low earth collision cascade?

                                  At this point, the press to put insane amounts of birds up with little oversight feels a bit like the start of another cold war.

                                  "Pay/allly with us or we'll deorbit one of ours into one of yours. We have more."

                                  And it wouldn't be a stretch for these jokers to think of themselves so highly as to consider it in the vein of another Manhattan project.

                                  reijomancer@defcon.socialR 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • reijomancer@defcon.socialR reijomancer@defcon.social

                                    @sundogplanets You just gave me a harrowing train of thought.

                                    What if we as a populace have become desensitized to MAD via nuclear weapons to the point of creating another MAD over low earth collision cascade?

                                    At this point, the press to put insane amounts of birds up with little oversight feels a bit like the start of another cold war.

                                    "Pay/allly with us or we'll deorbit one of ours into one of yours. We have more."

                                    And it wouldn't be a stretch for these jokers to think of themselves so highly as to consider it in the vein of another Manhattan project.

                                    reijomancer@defcon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                                    reijomancer@defcon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                                    reijomancer@defcon.social
                                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                                    #19

                                    @sundogplanets So anything in any long-dwell or geosynch orbit has to pass through the X-Wall and have its token worth extracted.

                                    Totally not a stretch.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

                                      I missed reading Starlink's latest conjunction report when it came out a bit over a month ago. I just skimmed through it and I think I need to go lay down for a while. It's terrifying how close we are to major collisions in orbit all the time... (I especially love the note about how space-track.org being offline briefly caused them to miss a potential collision... SO FRAGILE AAUGH)

                                      Article summarizing the report here: https://ca.pcmag.com/networking/16653/260-starlink-satellites-burn-up-in-earths-atmosphere-as-more-head-for-fiery-ends

                                      Full report here: https://www.scribd.com/document/1057502572/SpaceX-Gen1-Gen2-Semi-Annual-Report-7-1-26

                                      amgine@mamot.frA This user is from outside of this forum
                                      amgine@mamot.frA This user is from outside of this forum
                                      amgine@mamot.fr
                                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                                      #20

                                      @sundogplanets

                                      I have been of the opinion for a while now this is deliberate. The goal is, in fact, to precipitate a Kessler syndrome. It fits with a number of other nihilistic actions M Musk has taken, and his particular attraction to activities in which he gains recompense for doing harms.

                                      sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

                                        Like their last report, they also have a Shit List of which objects Starlink had to maneuver for the most often, and complained a lot about it. "SpaceX coordinated with other satellite operators hundreds of times over the reporting period"

                                        What they fail to say is that this is because anyone who wants to travel to higher orbits is REQUIRED to coordinate with them, because they effectively control Low Earth Orbit.

                                        sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                                        sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                                        sundogplanets@mastodon.social
                                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                                        #21

                                        They also have a list of deorbits, I haven't managed to get the pdf from the FCC (because their website fucking sucks, on purpose I'm sure). And scribd wants me to pay to download it.

                                        Anyway, the PC mag article says 260 Starlinks reentered. At some point I'll count up the gen 1 and gen 2 and get a mass estimate. But that's 1 or 2 a day. And a lot of new weird metal in the stratosphere. Thanks, SpaceX.

                                        sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

                                          I missed reading Starlink's latest conjunction report when it came out a bit over a month ago. I just skimmed through it and I think I need to go lay down for a while. It's terrifying how close we are to major collisions in orbit all the time... (I especially love the note about how space-track.org being offline briefly caused them to miss a potential collision... SO FRAGILE AAUGH)

                                          Article summarizing the report here: https://ca.pcmag.com/networking/16653/260-starlink-satellites-burn-up-in-earths-atmosphere-as-more-head-for-fiery-ends

                                          Full report here: https://www.scribd.com/document/1057502572/SpaceX-Gen1-Gen2-Semi-Annual-Report-7-1-26

                                          goatrodeo@mstdn.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
                                          goatrodeo@mstdn.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
                                          goatrodeo@mstdn.social
                                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                                          #22

                                          @sundogplanets
                                          I’m old enough to remember laying out in the back yard late at night to catch a glimpse of the International Space Station as it made it earthly revolutions roughly every 90 minutes or so. Was just enthralled by the technology. No more, sadly no more. #TooMuchOfAGoodThing

                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Svar
                                          • Svar som emne
                                          Login for at svare
                                          • Ældste til nyeste
                                          • Nyeste til ældste
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Log ind

                                          • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          Graciously hosted by data.coop
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Hjem
                                          • Seneste
                                          • Etiketter
                                          • Populære
                                          • Verden
                                          • Bruger
                                          • Grupper