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.
  • 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
                                    • 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...

                                      marrekoo@urbanists.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                                      marrekoo@urbanists.socialM This user is from outside of this forum
                                      marrekoo@urbanists.social
                                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                                      #23

                                      @sundogplanets

                                      Systems requiring so much active corrections to maintain a safe state are inherently bound to fail over time.

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

                                        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 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
                                        #24

                                        They also list 4 "disposal failures" which are satellites that died before SpaceX purposefully chucked them into the atmosphere. This includes Starlink 34343 which either exploded or got hit by debris a couple months ago. https://keeptrack.space/deep-dive/starlink-34343

                                        4 out of thousands of launched satellites is pretty good. But when you have nearly 11,000 satellites, you have to operate COMPLETELY PERFECTLY every minute of every day, forever.

                                        Please don't fuck up more than you already have, SpaceX.

                                        action_jay@thecanadian.socialA rin3d@mastodon.socialR autolycos@beige.partyA dianea@lgbtqia.spaceD 4 Replies Last reply
                                        0
                                        • amgine@mamot.frA amgine@mamot.fr

                                          @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 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
                                          #25

                                          @Amgine If they wanted Kessler Syndrome they could have very easily done it already.

                                          amgine@mamot.frA 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