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

    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
                          • 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

                            davecb@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
                            davecb@hachyderm.ioD This user is from outside of this forum
                            davecb@hachyderm.io
                            wrote sidst redigeret af
                            #26

                            @sundogplanets Are we better off if a (smaller?) cascade happens early, and starlink needs to deorbit as many of its satellites as it can?

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

                              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 This user is from outside of this forum
                              action_jay@thecanadian.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
                              action_jay@thecanadian.social
                              wrote sidst redigeret af
                              #27

                              @sundogplanets I feel like there's gonna be a day where they just abandon it all for whatever asinine reason and it rains space junk all over, all at once, with no accountability

                              spacemagick@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

                                Q This user is from outside of this forum
                                Q This user is from outside of this forum
                                quizzicus@mastodon.online
                                wrote sidst redigeret af
                                #28

                                @sundogplanets So a modern Ted Kaczynski could simply DDoS space-track.org?

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

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

                                  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
                                  #29

                                  @sundogplanets Bah, science in its infancy is one of the most promising, and frustrating (for its lack of definitive answers), types all at once!

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

                                    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.

                                    rin3d@mastodon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                                    rin3d@mastodon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
                                    rin3d@mastodon.social
                                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                                    #30

                                    @sundogplanets I dont see any reason to freak out about it. They are low orbit sats with natural fallback of 5 years, spacex could go bust and all the sats left and it'd all be gone in a few years.
                                    They all are designed to full burn up before risk to ground and no evidence of them failing to fully burn after hundreds of burns.

                                    The real shit you should worry about is high orbit sats that are 20 years old and actually able to cause Kessler syndrome.

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

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

                                      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
                                      #31

                                      @sundogplanets

                                      But not with plausible deniability.

                                      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...

                                        bytebro@mastodonapp.ukB This user is from outside of this forum
                                        bytebro@mastodonapp.ukB This user is from outside of this forum
                                        bytebro@mastodonapp.uk
                                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                                        #32

                                        @sundogplanets
                                        I'm actually looking forward to the Kessler Cascade thing. Yeah, it might make GPS a bit hard for a while, but it might shut some of the nonces up,

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

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

                                          jaztrophysicist@social.sciences.reJ This user is from outside of this forum
                                          jaztrophysicist@social.sciences.reJ This user is from outside of this forum
                                          jaztrophysicist@social.sciences.re
                                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                                          #33

                                          @sundogplanets @startswithabang oh yes as if the one single thing the climate still needed in this era was a good trashing of the ozone layer by catalytic metals.

                                          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