Animation 10k Starlink Satellites

https://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=18&month=03&year=2026

by MeteorMarc • 4 months ago

48 52 4 months ago

spaceweather.com

aledevv• 4 months ago

10,000 Starlink satellites orbiting the Earth?? I didn't know there were so many, really so many.

Their presence has already radically transformed the orbital environment.

There are so many that in 2025 alone they performed around 300,000 collision avoidance maneuvers.

In short: on the one hand, they're convenient for us because of their fantastic internet connection, but on the other, they're generating truly unprecedented artificial traffic in space.

All this worries me a little.

mikkupikku6• 4 months ago

You shouldn't be worried about it, these satellites are in Low Earth Orbits that readily decay if the satellites don't regularly reboost themselves using their electric thrusters. And performing collision avoidance maneuvers is just part of how they're designed to work. Note that its 300,000 avoidances, not collisions. These are more like ballerinas than careening billiard balls.

user324893184• 4 months ago

True, but at scale of 10k, chances of collision due to malfunction are not 0.

homebrewer• 4 months ago

It's an LLM spambot, it is incapable of worrying. I'm much more worried about another instance of nobody noticing what they're replying to.

user324893184• 4 months ago

Imagine a threat actor blowing up one or two of them. Or malfunction leading to collision with a launcher. Or any satellite malfunction and failure to de-orbit in time.

Remember MAD, mutual assured distraction? Well we created another one for access to space

Pay08• 4 months ago

No, we wouldn't.

wongarsu2• 4 months ago

Or any satellite malfunction and failure to de-orbit in time

Last year they had one "dead as a doornail" Starlink satellite in space. [1] It's v1.5, so deployed sometime between 2021 and 2023. It should be naturally deorbited from atmospheric drag by now.

There was also the other Starlink satellite with a tank rupture last December [2]

A low number of dead satellites isn't an issue as the other satellites can steer around it. Their orbit also quickly decays to a level where it's below the orbital plane of the other satellites. The real danger is if a large enough number malfunction that they start colliding with each other at high speeds

1: https://starlink.com/public-files/Starlink_Approach_to_Satel...

2: https://www.space.com/space-exploration/satellites/a-spacex-...

seydor• 4 months ago

while most of LEO satellites are already probably used for military purposes, they are not subject to MAD deterrence, but probably one of the first easy targets should war erupt

gosub1003• 4 months ago

Space is big. Really, really big.

21asdffdsa122• 4 months ago

The russians threatened that if they were not given access to starlink? And china has musk by the balls via tesla.. at this level states treat cooperations like servants for everyone including threatening to beat them mercilessly.

snarfy• 4 months ago

2 days from a Kessler syndrome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b66ZZ05wKC0

simondotau4• 4 months ago

Kessler syndrome doesn’t apply at that low altitude.

user324893184• 4 months ago

What I found so fascinating about starling is how easy it was for a single country, even a single company in this case, to pollute near-earth space.

I understand the mechanics of LEO, and the de-orbit mechanics put in place. But the world-wide impact, unknown side-effects on the upper layers of atmosphere on the re-entry of literally thousands of satellites within fairly short period of time?

mikkupikku6• 4 months ago

On a bad year, there might be a few hundred tons of Starlink satellites reentering the atmosphere. In the same year, there will be something like 5000 tons of meteors reentrying, and if you include space dust that radars don't see, you're looking at a few times more than that.

This appeal to scary ignorance to poop on a technology is a cynical reflex. Instead of just saying that a bare number with no context scares you, you should dig deeper and try to actually back up or invalidate your fears.

jacquesm4• 4 months ago

You're low by a factor of three.

You probably could make the same point in a better way as well.

Retric2• 4 months ago

They are 0.8 ton each and last ~5 years. 10,000 / 5 * 0.8 = 1,600 tons per year at 10k satellites, and their goal of 40k satellites would put it well above the amount of asteroid debris impacting each year. Further asteroids contain very different materials and don’t all impact at the very low angles you see from de-orbiting in satellites. Thus, I don’t think you can presume this is meaningless without actually modeling it.

Space dust on the other hand behaves very differently on reentry because of the high surface area to volume ratio.

kemotep• 4 months ago

A quick search shows that it’s more like 50 tons of meteorites entering the atmosphere per day. Or over 18,000 tons per year.

If Starlink’s are about 2 tons each (the v3’s are going to be much larger) and they each have a roughly 5 year life span and the 10,000 currently are equally spread over that lifespan (so around 2,000 a year need to be replaced) that’s equivalent to around 10 tons per day of Starlink material breaking up in the atmosphere.

With the 1 million SpaceX datacenters Musk talks about and an original projected satellite Starlink swarm size of 40,000, that number balloons to something like 500 tons per day.

So while today it is only a fraction of the total amount of material breaking up in the atmosphere, the idea that multiple companies could have Starlink size satellite swarms with lifespans measured in a few years we start to easily dwarf what meteorites do.

severino• 4 months ago

True. And what will happen when another company wants their 10k satellites on orbit too? And companies from another countries, as well.

wongarsu2• 4 months ago

It wasn't easy at all. Nobody except SpaceX could have done it at the time. This is the result of SpaceX being able to launch much cheaper than anyone before them, and being able to use these high-cadence launches to both implement and test incremental improvements in their rockets and streamline their reuse of preflown boosters.

SpaceX was the only conceivable launch provider for this, and if it had been an external customer that cares too much about the risk of these launches the incremental improvements that made this cost-effective wouldn't have been possible. Realistically this was only viable for SpaceX doing it as part of R&D for their own rockets. And even then this puts severe financial strain on them because their original business plan was built around having Starship available years ago for even cheaper deployment of bigger satellites

Of course now that it has been done and technology has advanced by ~7 years it is much easier for new mega constellations. But at the time SpaceX started doing it the idea was rightfully called insane

gosub1003• 4 months ago

And phased-array antennae. The network would be next to useless if each receiver needed to track the satellite physically.

Thlom• 4 months ago

I think OP was talking about the political side, not the technical side. How one company with the blessing of a regulatory body in one country could put thousands of satellites in LEO with minimal international coordination/deliberation.

xoa2• 4 months ago

The answer to a lot of the pollution problems is probably, and perhaps counter intuitively, "even more mass even cheaper, combined with regulations that are enabled by that". The key identified current concern is very specific to aluminum reentry, not just generic "whatever mass". Around 15000 tons of space dust hits the Earth each year no problem, but the chemical composition is quite different from what present typical satellites produce on reentry.

But in turn the composition of present satellites and the nature of their use/lifespan/safety systems has itself been driven heavily by economics. We don't make satellites out of steel or other safer materials not because they don't work, but because of the cost the extra weight imposes. We haven't put satellites in VLEO not because being lower is bad for communications or imaging (it's the opposite, lower is better) because it'd need more satellites, more fuel per sat, and higher cadence, all increasing cost beyond the historic ROI. But Starship or other future fully reusable methalox designs will give us vastly more mass budget and cadence for the same cost. Some of that could result in more trouble with existing designs made for a low cadence/high $/kg environment, because some externalities that were previously acceptable due to lack of scale stop being so at scale. But the same increased budget also means increased budget to ameliorate that. We can trade some of the gains for materials that burn up harmlessly in the atmosphere, designs for lowering apparent magnitude to the ground, for better self-destruct and end of life systems, more fail-safety, more redundancy in general, etc etc. And if that requires more regularly replacement that too is made easier but order of magnitude or more lower cost.

Some of this may happen naturally just due to self-interest, but other parts like pollution may require thoughtful regulation. But such regulation will be a much easier lift when it's affordable, so it's worth it to try to maintain an appropriately thoughtful mindset on the benefits vs tradeoffs and how to keep the former while reducing the latter.

kardianos• 4 months ago

By pollute, you mean "make awesome and useful", right?

You do value human utility, right?

suyash• 4 months ago

How are you getting all the real time data of the position of these satellites?

Animation 10k Starlink Satellites

Related Stories