The nasa is pretty scared of it, so is SpaceX.
But so far it's not anything like in Hollywood movies, it's just a graph slowly going up. There are about 12000 satellites orbiting earth. That looks like a lot on a map, but 12000 objects spread over an area larger than the surface of the earth isn't all that much
Like all exponential processes it will become a major issue if we don't address it, but this is one that starts pretty slow and is well monitored
People keep saying this, but the only way to assure there is no collision is to have non-intersecting orbits, but that is not going to work: not enough space.
It's a tell that SpaceX is now lowering the orbits, even though their satellites mostly move in flocks that maintain a formation relative to each other: because the other ways are exhausted.
Of course if they do cause a (low orbit) Kessler syndrom, then they don't have a business any more, and SpaceX will have achieved the opposite of its stated goals.
The major reason to lower these orbits is likely the risk of a terrorist state turning these constellations into a weapon, by willingly causing the Kessler syndrome. SpaceX isn't going to tell you that, just as it doesn't tell you it's the USA's most important military asset.
Hard to see how the repositioning appreciably alters this risk, since there are still thousands of satellites in the original plane to get hit by shrapnel from intentionally caused collisions, and the satellites in the lower orbit aren't invulnerable to it either
Suspect there's a rather more practical calculation that the extra thruster firings needed to main position in a lower orbit with more atmospheric drag are offset by the smaller number of conjunction avoidance manoeuvres they need to undertake in less congested space (the cost of lowering the orbit is simply deducted from their original delta-v budget for end of life deorbiting). In simple terms they get lower accidental collision risk without operations in the lower orbit shortening satellite lifetime.
Yes, but the lower the orbit, the faster atmospheric drag (which isn't zero, just low) cleans up a cascade.
Plenty of operational reasons to want a large fraction of your constellation in a slightly lower orbit, none of them involve "terrorist states"
Space no longer is a friendly place, it is the battle field of the future. SpaceX is a major military power in ascent, Musk is richer than many nations already, and he'll be in the supervillain category soon, and alone in actual physical power. He sits between the nations as a different entity in nature. It's happening in front of your eyes but you don't see it. That's why you are repeating yourself, as if we didn't see what you see. You speak about a technical motive we all see, as if only you see it. We all see that, it's trivial given the subject, and I mentioned it. Maybe we're not as stupid as you think we are, "teacher".
Because physics of orbital dynamics is less dramatic than shown in film, lowering orbits of satelites is an effective way to mitigate this.
Source?
https://conference.sdo.esoc.esa.int/proceedings/sdc9/paper/3...
The article mentions a few months at 480 km. I'm a little skeptical about this figure though, because the last tracked piece from an NRO satellite that was shot down at ~250 km by SM-3 missile in operation burnt frost, lasted 20 months in space before reentry. SpaceX is probably using a statistical cutoff percentage of fragments to calculate the time. But all the pieces are dangerous uncontrolled hypervelocity projectiles. Spain lost a military communications satellite a few days ago from a collision with a tiny undetermined space debris.
A golf ball hitting a bowling ball or basketball, both traveling at 30 units of speed can produce quite a fast golf ball. Not all of the debris will safely burn up.
If a pressure tank splits in half, both halves will fly away but that's a very inefficient way of using the energy in the gas, so the added velocity will be a small fraction of the speed of sound in the gas, which is 1/6 of orbital speed for hydrogen, less for any other gas.
You can't really get much of a chemical explosion because the fuel and oxidizer both disperse very quickly in space.
To circularize at a higher orbit you would need secondary collisions on the other side of the earth.
1. The normal or anti-normal delta-v imparted by the explosion/fragmentation (i.e, the velocity imparted perpendicular the plane of initial orbit) will cause the orbital plane of the fragment to change. The new orbit will intersect the old orbit at the impact point. Meanwhile, the eccentricity (the stretch of the orbit), semi-major axis (the size of the orbit) and displacement of periapsis from the impact point (the orientation of the orbit) remains the same as the initial orbit.
2. The prograde and retrograde delta-v (velocity imparted tangential to the orbit) will cause the diametrically opposite side of the orbit to rise or fall respectively. Here too, the new orbit intersects the old orbit at the point of impact. But since the impact point isn't guaranteed to be the periapsis or apoapsis, the above mentioned diametrically-opposing point also cannot be guaranteed to be an apsis.
3. The radial and anti-radial delta-v (this is in the third perpendicular axis) will cause the orbit of the fragment to either dip or rise radially at the point of impact. Again the impact point remains the same for the new orbit. So the new orbit will intersect the old orbit either from the top or the bottom. The new orbit will look like the old orbit with one side lowered and the other side raised about the impact point.
So none of three components of delta-v shifts the orbit from the impact point. You can extrapolate this to all the fragments and you'll see that they will all pass through the impact point. The highest chance of recontact exists there. However the perturbation forces do disperse the crossing point (the original impact point) to a larger volume over time.
Edit: Reading the discussion again, I get what you were trying to say. And I agree. The lowest possible altitude of the fragments in orbit (i.e the periapsis) is the same that of the impact point. So if the impact point is low enough to cause drag, the orbit will decay for sure. There is nothing that demonstrates this better than a Gabbard plot [1][2] - the best tool for understanding satellite fragmentation.
[1] Gabbard Plot Discussion (NASA Orbital Debris Program Office): https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20150009502/downloads/20...
[2] Satellite Breakup Analysis (Australian Space Academy): https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/collision.htm
My comment is based on the hunch concerning physical calculations and interactions from an engineering physics degree and way to many hours in kerbal space program a decade ago.
>But since the impact point isn't guaranteed to be the periapsis or apoapsis, the above mentioned diametrically-opposing point also cannot be guaranteed to be an apsis.
You're correct on the generalized case of the math here, no argument at all, but this also feels like it's getting a bit away from the specialized sub-case under discussion here: that of an existing functional LEO satellite getting hit by debris. Those aren't in wildly eccentric orbits but rather station-kept pretty circular ones (probably not perfectly of course but +/- a fraction of a percent isn't significant here). So by definition the high and low points are the same and which means we can say that the new low point of generated debris in eccentric orbits will be at worst no lower then the current orbit of the satellite (short of a second collision higher up, the probability of which is dramatically lower). All possible impact points on the path of a circular orbit are ~the same. And in turn if the satellite is at a point low enough to have significant atmospheric drag the debris will as well which is the goal.
[1] Gabbard Plot Discussion (NASA Orbital Debris Program Office): https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20150009502/downloads/20...
[2] Satellite Breakup Analysis (Australian Space Academy): https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/collision.htm
But the LEO ones like Starlink will see their orbit decay in about five years (if I'm reading things correctly) even if they run out of fuel / can no longer be controlled, according to e.g. https://space.stackexchange.com/a/59560. But it's exponential, at 600 km it takes 10 years, at 700 25 years, at 800 100 years, etc. Between 500-600 km seems to be ideal for things to naturally decay in case of issues.
But also, it won't be a hard and fast "we are confined to the earth now"; the simplest model is a "the risk of being hit by debris is now x%", more advanced is "there are debris clouds in these altitudes / inclinations so best to avoid those at these times of day".
Let us say that you had 10 thousand people running around on Earth, including all the oceans and Antarctica, and that collision of any two would release a hail of small deadly darts into the troposphere lasting, for, at 2 years or so. Which is approximately how long debris will last on LEO, though the actual values vary.
You still wouldn't expect all those 10 thousand people to obliterate themselves like that, as the Earth's surface is pretty darn big.
The volume of the LEO-relevant space is much bigger than the volume of the entire troposphere on Earth, because a) it is further away from the Earth's center than the troposphere, b) it is much deeper.
Now, 10 million objects, that would be a different story. So would be some specific peculiar orbit which is overcrowded. But tens of thousands of objects spread all over the entire planet isn't that much. That would be like 2-5 people in total roaming the entire Czechia, how often would they come into contact? Not very often.
No;, there is not, particularly in LEO.
The same happens with orbiting routers, e.g. Starlink satellites.
You would be forced by (currently around) 2000 tons worth of bullet-mass shrapnel to wait for that shrapnel to de-orbit. Depending on the orbit, this takes months to millenia, because it's determined by atmospheric drag.
The lower the orbit, the better. Starlink's orbits got lowered, this is better vs. that particular issue.