The article raises a vague concern about Kessler syndrome. This is exactly why these satellites are designed to deorbit once their useful lifespan is finished. I don’t see what the point of this article is at all.
Yeah, they actually design them with reentry in mind to maximize the burn-up and ensure no pieces hit the ground. I recall they had a bit of difficulty when they first introduced laser data links to the design because the lenses the satellites used were large pieces of glass that would make it to the ground on reentry, they had to redesign them to fragment more easily.
Then read the article. They found debris from starlink satellites on the ground, which is horrifying if you consider they want to increase the number of satellites by a factor of 100x and make them much bigger to build datacenters in space.
That plan would lead to one re-entry every three minutes, depositing insane amounts of plastics and metals in the atmosphere even if they would burn up completely.
Is anyone really planning on building data centers in space? I assume everyone who knows how physics works is aware that cooling will be nearly impossible with today’s tech.
How big do you think these are going to be? A lot of people seem to have this concept of these massive things in space and that’s not what it’s going to be.
Starlink v3 already need to radiate 20kw of heat away, these are going to be 100kw.
They aren’t huge, they are many.
Well, the heat generating datacenter part isn’t anyway… the solar panels and radiators will be quite large once unfolded.
Edit: Clarity above, but also here’s an image which they say is to scale.
See how small the actually data center portion is? Those solar panels are super thin and will fold up super tiny, and so will the radiator. Even if the radiator size is wrong, the main point is these things are small, and not what you should think of when you think data center. I think someone else likened the size to a server rack or two.
Part of the plan, sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good plan. They don’t have control of where the debris lands, and Starlink doesn’t take responsibility for cleanup when it lands on others’ property.
Per the article, sometimes they burn up, sometimes they don’t.
The big culprit I was remembering isn’t Starlink, but SpaceX, with the debris being potentially lethal (over 6 feet, too heavy for one person to move.)
SpaceX has made changes in the past so the dishes break up better. That could have been one of the earlier dishes, but maybe it was also one of the ones that failed to properly insert into orbit which changed the re-entry characteristics?
The big things like you mentioned wouldn’t be starlink. That’d be from something larger like a 2nd stage that came back down and didnt fully burn up. Thats a risk with everyone, mega constellation or not.
Luckily, starship will be fully reusable which will prevent that, but the trade off is, if starship is successful, a failure during re entry is going to risk having a vehicle designed not to burn up, land somewhere it shouldn’t.
Similar risks to the shuttle if it blew up, but these will be flying much more frequently
I ran into this dramatization for media hits before, with the complaint about rocket launches and their contribution to pollution. People were all about getting out the pitchforks, especially since it was mainly about Elon Musk, but when the actual numbers were mentioned (very small), suddenly, I was the bad guy. No one likes real facts.
Now, should we be launching so many things that are designed to fall back down so soon? Probably not, that’s the mark of a disposable society in high gear. But how we’re doing things, and why, should be the focus, not a headline that makes it sound like things are falling out of the sky to hit people.
As was always the plan for these satellites.
The article raises a vague concern about Kessler syndrome. This is exactly why these satellites are designed to deorbit once their useful lifespan is finished. I don’t see what the point of this article is at all.
Fear mongering for ad money is the point
They probably burn up also
Yeah, they actually design them with reentry in mind to maximize the burn-up and ensure no pieces hit the ground. I recall they had a bit of difficulty when they first introduced laser data links to the design because the lenses the satellites used were large pieces of glass that would make it to the ground on reentry, they had to redesign them to fragment more easily.
Then read the article. They found debris from starlink satellites on the ground, which is horrifying if you consider they want to increase the number of satellites by a factor of 100x and make them much bigger to build datacenters in space.
That plan would lead to one re-entry every three minutes, depositing insane amounts of plastics and metals in the atmosphere even if they would burn up completely.
Is anyone really planning on building data centers in space? I assume everyone who knows how physics works is aware that cooling will be nearly impossible with today’s tech.
How big do you think these are going to be? A lot of people seem to have this concept of these massive things in space and that’s not what it’s going to be.
Starlink v3 already need to radiate 20kw of heat away, these are going to be 100kw.
They aren’t huge, they are many.
Well, the heat generating datacenter part isn’t anyway… the solar panels and radiators will be quite large once unfolded.
Edit: Clarity above, but also here’s an image which they say is to scale.
See how small the actually data center portion is? Those solar panels are super thin and will fold up super tiny, and so will the radiator. Even if the radiator size is wrong, the main point is these things are small, and not what you should think of when you think data center. I think someone else likened the size to a server rack or two.
What if they make them a full pickup size
Well damn, those solar panels would probably be at least a dozen Eiffel towers tall then.
It’s not as impossible as you think. Scott Manley did an analysis of the heat budget recently and it’s quite reasonable.
Part of the plan, sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good plan. They don’t have control of where the debris lands, and Starlink doesn’t take responsibility for cleanup when it lands on others’ property.
The debris will be microscopic. It won’t “land” anywhere noticeable.
The fine particulate matter may not be great for the ozone layer, but it’s actually pretty negligible compared to all of the other pollution that we’re not addressing either. That doesn’t justify the pollution, but hopefully it helps contextualize it.
Per the article, sometimes they burn up, sometimes they don’t.
The big culprit I was remembering isn’t Starlink, but SpaceX, with the debris being potentially lethal (over 6 feet, too heavy for one person to move.)
From the same professor: https://wlos.com/news/local/professor-spacexs-lack-of-accountability-for-space-debris-frustrating-nasa-samantha-lawlwer-university-of-regina-saskatchewan-canada
Musk’s companies are notorious for lack of responsibility. At least Cards Against Humanity held they’re get to the fire for a minute.
SpaceX has made changes in the past so the dishes break up better. That could have been one of the earlier dishes, but maybe it was also one of the ones that failed to properly insert into orbit which changed the re-entry characteristics?
The big things like you mentioned wouldn’t be starlink. That’d be from something larger like a 2nd stage that came back down and didnt fully burn up. Thats a risk with everyone, mega constellation or not.
Luckily, starship will be fully reusable which will prevent that, but the trade off is, if starship is successful, a failure during re entry is going to risk having a vehicle designed not to burn up, land somewhere it shouldn’t.
Similar risks to the shuttle if it blew up, but these will be flying much more frequently
I ran into this dramatization for media hits before, with the complaint about rocket launches and their contribution to pollution. People were all about getting out the pitchforks, especially since it was mainly about Elon Musk, but when the actual numbers were mentioned (very small), suddenly, I was the bad guy. No one likes real facts.
Now, should we be launching so many things that are designed to fall back down so soon? Probably not, that’s the mark of a disposable society in high gear. But how we’re doing things, and why, should be the focus, not a headline that makes it sound like things are falling out of the sky to hit people.