upvote

points

by Natfan14 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby mercutio213 hours ago|
[-]
LEO is not the place to worry about Kessler syndrome.

Mostly, Kessler syndrome isn’t something to worry about at all; there are just a lot of orbital planes available. But in LEO, the mechanics don’t even apply.

reply
upvoteby gradschool9 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Not to be alarmist, but suppose a galactic federation judges that humans in their current state of development will pose a danger to other civilizations when they imminently attain warp capability, so as a safety precaution they need to be confined to their planet for at least a millennium. An agent of the federation posing as human manipulates the population into allowing 100,000 satellites to be deployed. With that done, federation scientists solve the many-body problem for the exact necessary speed and trajectory of a small meteor to shatter one of the satellites such that some of its fragments precisely target its neighboring satellites, and so on, while the rest get kicked up into higher orbits. Life goes on but any enterprise that depends on penetrating the debris field becomes infeasible.
reply
upvoteby newtonianrules12 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Why is that?
reply
upvoteby Pomfers11 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Depends on how you define LEO. I think the commenter was probably thinking of Very Low Earth Orbit, VLEO.

First graph is a list of deorbit times: https://www.nasa.gov/smallsat-institute/sst-soa/deorbit-syst...

As expected, higher altitudes, higher mass, and lower surface areas correlate to longer deorbit times. It looks like altitude has an extreme effect on deorbit times, as you can see the 100 KG satellite (solar min) deorbits in a little under 2 years at 400 KM, but over 15 years at 500 KM. So 1.25x the altitude results in 7.5x the deorbit time.

Stuff at 800-1000 KM can take centuries to deorbit, and that's within both NASA's (under 2000 KM) and the ESA's (under 1000 KM) definitions of LEO. There is a definition for VLEO of under 450 KM, which would have fairly short deorbit times, and therefore a relatively mild Kessler Syndrome.

reply
upvoteby ben_w11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Indeed. It's something investors should worry about for the data centres and if SpaceX will bankrupt itself instead of giving them a return on their investments, but it's not something where general space enthusiasts should worry about Starlink: the timescale for orbital decay is long enough to kill a company, but short compared to a lifetime.
reply
upvoteby marand2310 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Because LEO is a degrading orbits, meaning that the satelites fall out of orbit after a few years on their own.
reply