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.
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.