Two weeks ago, a Starlink satellite exploded. SpaceX believes it wasn't caused by a collision which means the explosion was probably caused by a malfunction in the satellite itself. Now 4,400 Starlink satellites are moving to a lower orbit for "safety". Is this an emergency change to account for a design flaw that they just discovered?
Because planning missions took years to plan. Holidaygoers book hotels months and sometimes a year or more in advance. Business travelers don’t. That doesn’t make the latter unusual, just a different use case.
> Is this an emergency change to account for a design flaw that they just discovered?
Zero evidence or precedent for this.
My honest guest is this is about latency more than safety.
> why have no public comment period?
Does the FAA require public-comment periods for plane changes?
Idk seems like a strange move and the stated reason seems flimsy
Are Starlinks being deörbited due to propellant exhaustion?
In many respects, Starlink satellites are small servers. They’re probably profitable to replace quicker than decay would force them to be.
We are nowhere close to the sky being 'full'.
These birds aren’t totally autonomous. They do take up “space” in a limited sense. And having your fleet be somewhat similar lets one execute maneuvers like this global plane change more efficiently.
I just don’t understand why spacex would do this from a biz/strategic perspective
anything we can do to lower that risk is a good move, and dropping 70km of elevation for the largest satellite constellation is definitely going to make a dent in the risk profile
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.09643
i hope to see progress with air breathing ion engine satellites in the coming years to further lower the minimum altitudes that these constellations can operate at
To be clear, we’d be at risk of losing those specific orbits for a few years. Nothing would block all orbits much less access to space. And nothing above those orbits would be any more statistically likely to suffer an impact afterwards.
Space is huge. Try this trick: the number of satellites in orbit is about the same as the number of planes in the air at any time. (~12,000 [1][2].)
The volume of space from the ground to 50,000 feet is about 200x smaller than the volume from the Karman line to the top of LEO alone (~2,000 km).
Put another way, we approach the density of planes in the sky in LEO when there are milliions of satellites in that space alone. Picture what happens if every plane in the sky fell to the ground. Now understand that the same thing happening in LEO, while it occurs at higher energy, also occurs in less-occupied space and will eventually (mostly) burn up in the atmosphere.
Put another way, you could poof every Starlink simultaneously and while it would be tremendously annoying, most satellites orbiting lower would be able to get out of the way, those that couldn't wouldn't cause much more damage, the whole mess would be avoidable for most and entirely gone within a few years.
There are serious problems with space pollution. Catastrophic Kessler cascades that block humans from space, or knock out all of our satellites, aren't one of them.
[1] https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/number-of...
[2] https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/number-of...
Volume is the natural way to assume space scales, but it's incorrect. Two planes can fly parallel, side by side. Two satellites cannot orbit side by side.
In the limit, if Earth had a solid ring of infinitesimal width, it would take zero volume but all orbits.
> We emphasize that the CRASH Clock does not measure the onset of KCPS, nor should it be interpreted as indicating a runaway condition.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/intelligence-agencies-sus...
https://www.theverge.com/news/847891/a-starlink-satellite-se...
Why stop ? 200 km looks like the right orbit.
jagaerglad•1mo ago
lefra•1mo ago
m4rtink•1mo ago
manmal•1mo ago
JumpCrisscross•1mo ago
Unintentional tautology. A satellite is by definition operational as long as it can station keep.
That said, yes, they should be able to station keep with ions alone. But also, ion propulsion still requires propellant. Until we figure out orbital magnetic suspension, it’s all reaction engines.
jws•1mo ago
This is distinct from the FCC application they have made for another Starlink shell in VLEO (~330km) for another 15000 satellites to better serve cellular phones.
verzali•1mo ago
Maybe it is also linked to the falling altitude of the ISS? 480km is about the upper bound of its altitude but they seem unlikely to actually raise it that high before it is deorbited.
DoctorOetker•1mo ago
i.e. if the propellant consumption for collision avoidant steering at 550 km in practice turns out to be higher than the consumption to negate the drag incurred for using atmosphere for steering, it could be a logical choice.
verzali•1mo ago