Starlink Failures and the Kessler Syndrome. Why the FCC is worried about Space Debris with SpaceX
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 июл 2024
- SpaceX is launching the largest constellation of satellites in history. Every time one of those satellites fails, there is a concern that a failed satellite could hit something else in space causing a field of debris. If there is enough debris it can lead to an effect called the Kessler Syndrome - a runaway cascadde of collissions that could fill Low Earch Orbit with debris for years!
References:
European Space Agency, Time to Act: Credit: ESA - CC BY-SA IGO 3.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/...
FCC File: SATMOD2020041700037 fcc.report/IBFS/SAT-MOD-20200...
Contents:
0:00 Intro to the Kessler Syndrome
0:34 SpaceX Authorizations and Modification with the FCC
1:32 SpaceX's BIGGEST change to Starlink
2:43 Starlink Failures
3:23 The Kessler Syndrome!
4:03 Starlink Failure Analysis
6:16 Starlink Maneuvering without Propulsion
7:16 Why is everyone objecting to Starlink?
7:58 SmallSat videos?
8:17 ESA Time to Act
8:38 Closing
#SpaceX #Starlink #KesslerSyndrome 
Наука
A couple of months ago I made a time-lapse video of the starlink satellites spinning around the Earth in the sunrise, I've Called it "Starlink Satellites in the pre-dawn sky - (Pre-Kessler Syndrome)"
I think they're going to wreck LEO 😞
I definitely want in on the project if you ever send a satellite lol 😆
It’s 550 km not 5500.
As a Viasat customer, I can say with certainty that Viasat’s objections have nothing to do with Kessler syndrome. 😁
My parent's use them too. Still waiting for their starlink dish. 🤣
great video format and very informative! thanks and well done
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it, and thanks for watching!
Great presentation! Thank you.
Great level of detail and well presented, thanks
Thanks @Martin, glad you enjoyed it!
@@MikeOnSpace ...and you're starting to develop a "personality". Hahahaha 😂👍... (just kidding) Love your work.
Yes.
A series of Small-Sat videos would be great!
My question is what are all those other satellite companys doing to remove their space junk satellites from space. Lower orbits is alot better way of getting junk down from space and quicker.
How do all the various launch providers shoot through the ever larger “shield” that Starlink is creating?
Space is pretty big - as long as we're able to track all the current satellites it's fairly easy to determine when something would be in the way of your flight path and time accordingly. If the amount of really tiny pieces keeps growing it could be more of a problem as those are harder to track. There is great progress though with companies like LeoLabs working on tracking smaller and smaller objects.
Thank for the updates. We are in for a interesting few yrs.
I agree! Exciting times!
all satellites with minimal maneuver propulsion should have at least a "re-entry mechanism" that causes them to use Earth's atmosphere to drag it down for a burn-up
perhaps an "atmospheric drag anchor" that's aimed in such a way so as to "dip into the atmosphere" enough to quicken de-orbital descent
The risk of Kessler syndrome with satellites in such a low orbit is very low. The real issue is that the geosynchronous satellite ISPs will loose all of their residential customers and land line ISPs will have to treat their customers fairly or risk loosing them. Of course they will be doing everything they can to prevent competition. They want to keep their monopoly and will keep filing lawsuits and complaints in an attempt to do so.
Lose not loose.
Have you tried to contact Starlink support?
Elon must move too Russia then nobody can stop him
@@ericschoeman6613 ...or Mars.
Starlink does not have any capacity to risk the landline ISPs.
What I want to know is how to contact StarLink about my position in the Que. I made my down payment several month's ago.
Same. I’ve been waiting since April. There is absolutely no way of contacting Starlink that I’m aware of. Very frustrating.
I've been waiting since February
They said "mid-to-late 2021" when we signed up, so be patient. It's not quite late 2021 yet, and it will be worth the wait.
You don’t. That was intentional so they can focus on getting the system working instead of answering phone calls all day.
I have been in the que since the first hours it was available, and I still have to wait for more polar launches to even worry about it. if you didn't get in early you will have to wait for them to get things fine tuned enough to cover higher densities of customers too. They have plenty to do, let them work.
considering the Iridium / Soviet sat collision over a decade ago still has over a 1000 pieces of junk more than 4 inches in orbit... maybe the lack of due diligence with this submarine will spark an interest in some further due diligence here.
This channel deserves to go big. Keep it up
Wow, I appreciate it! I'm working on it - spread the word ;) Thanks for watching!
Very informative with technical details well presented.
Thanks so much for the feedback!
If there's no collisions!
Let’s send a satellite up :) love these details. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for the update. If AT&T and the remainder of the telecom world would have built out their fiber networks there would be no need for Starlink. Lots of crying over spilt milk!
You have an idea the cost and profitability of digging fiber in sparsely inhabited rural areas?? I work in the industry and trust me it is VERY expensive.
@@FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh I am not saying it is not expensive. Neither was electrifying the country. I am saying that no one wants or wanted to make the capital investment. I am not sure why some rural counties were able to get federal grants to run fiber throughout their counties and offer. Gigabit service and others not. My rural electric coop is too busy reselling Hughes net and direct tv to care as it is a low cost of capital business to them.
What I was trying to point out is Starlink is beating these guys at there game and they should not use low orbital space trash as an excuse.
If you listen closely to the recent news about cable companies worrying about telcos upgrading their networks from copper dsl to fiber, what is really being said is that both telcos and cable companies are worried about Starlink ability to offer very inexpensive, reasonably priced stable consumer grade internet services and drive them out of business.
I am fortunate to have experienced all different types of internet services and fiber is hands down the best!
@@joegomez5807 Rural internet has been politicized as much of the things in this country. Every state has a local lobbying firm from the large companies like Comcast and Charter that lobby at the state level to place roadblock on municipal internet companies but they don’t invest in fiber either. Now with Starlink they see a threat. In Rural áreas. So they started investing. Now in cities fiber is common and will become. And Starlink will have a very hard time trying to eat market share. I pay $70 for a 1 Gig just outside Fort Lauderdale. And it is Fiber to the Home so it’s 1Gig up and down. By the time Starlink matches speed my Fiber will be at 2 Gigs or more and Starlink can’t get down to $100 a month with zero installation fees. Plus they have the antenna and the router that will not go out for free.
@@joegomez5807 BTW I am surprised your Coop is not deploying fiber. Of the over 1000 coops in the country almost 60% of them have their own fiber projects. Really surprising as those folks can’t be stopped by politicians!! They own more than 50% of the national grid and hold enormous political power so if someone is going to make fiber a reality in rural America it’s the Electric Coops.
My coop is full of s**t. I called them on this and they said 80% of their customers live within 5 miles of Columbia, MO and they are afraid of the competition. I mean really. The rural electric coop VS the Mediacom or CenturyLink! I thought the word coop has something to do with cooperative. I can only assume the coop was making too much money reselling Hugesnet and directTV. The could act like they are going to install it so the cable and telco companies would up their game. They can all rot as far as I am concerned
He meant to say 550km
Oh, did I miss-speak? I'll give it a listen and put a correction in the description. Thanks for watching!
J'ai déjà demandé si vous alliez faire des vidéos en français merci
Je peux commencer à faire des sous-titres, dont je peux inclure une version française. Aimez ce commentaire si vous voulez du français aussi !
My response: Doesn't this eat into and accelerate earth over shoot day? Can we afford to be burning up metal?
Fantastic, now ur living up to ur promise, this is an aspect I never thought of, but I have always had a concern about the existing crap from the past 50 to 60 years which should be cleaned up. I have no doubt Ellon will do the right thing and not add to the issue, I am sure he will make sure everything he has put up there will be removed one way or another. It can as simple as building a salvage drone to go up there and grab the junk and push it into the atmosphere to burn up, or an army of drones under the management of starlink ofcoarse as anyone else cant be trusted. Well done this subject shud be revisited again in future.
BTW the other carriers are only complaining to the FCC cos Starlink is a real threat cos Ellon Musk is keeping his promise to provide a real service and all the others are f**king criminals who want to keep their monopoly, even in Australia the NBN is utter GARBAGE compared to Starlink, the NBN is run by CRIMINALS who want to provide a sub par service and basically keep upping the price for a service that was originally promised from day1 by the gov of the day that concept-ed everyone was to get fibre to the house and when they lost the next election the liberal gov came in and put a wrecking ball to the original plan and all the lies that fibre wud be obsolete was peddled not to mention that copper will continue to be part of the network when they knew full well the copper cables in the ground were failing at an exponential rate due to ingress of moisture let alone sub par installation methods that damaged the cable as it was layed. And in saying that neglecting regional areas for the city dwellers that had usable internet, now ask urself why?, my theory is they want everyone living in the cities so they can execute agenda 21/30 more easily. Anyway our NBN has been sabotaged by the CRIMINALS in the GOV and now Elon is our only hope and get us out of third world poverty, Elon could not understand why power supply was so expensive either here and by the look on his face I could see that maybe he realized that the GOV was and still is treating Australians as if they should be in slave camps.... IT IS THAT BAD HERE.
Based on projections, I'll probably never be able to afford it.
I will be get starlink thank I did know that was an option
You should learn more, when a Starlink Satellite fails they deorbit and burnup in reentry...
"Shit Storm" ... technical term for ... Shit Storm. 🙄
Well first of all. The satellites are not nearly large enough or numerous enough to pose that problem. And they're much too close to to the planet to have that problem for long. Even if a Kessler event occurs. Also the closer they are to the planet the better. For better latency. So for safety reasons. They should be as close as possible. But for latency reasons. The closer they are the better.!
100%! It seems ridiculous that companies are objecting to lower orbits on the grounds of orbital debris. Lower orbits are the BEST mitigation! Thanks for watching!
I mean the space junk we already have in space is already poising that issue, and these satellites [which weigh in at over 200kg] are very much large enough to cause issues if they break apart due to running into stuff [and yes there are plenty of them to cause issues].
As well even if there super close to the earth [there is a limit to it] you still get debris and other parts from destroyed satellites pushed up into higher orbits when they get generated.
So yes they still can cause a ton of issues, more so for other satellites in these lower orbits.
@@kkirschkk Of course that's possible. But based off of their square area. They are a much smaller Target to hit.
And due to their low altitude. There is more gravitational force pulling those pieces down towards the planet then up into a higher orbit. Not to mention because it's a lower orbit. There are very few objects already there to collide with them. Which means if something did collide with them. It's coming down from a higher orbit. Which means it's striking the satellite from above. Making the debris more likely to shoot down. Regardless of the altitude.
So anyone who is concerned about a Kessler event. Should only agree with this proposal for a lower orbit. And by disagreeing. They are actively promoting a higher probability of a Kessler event occurring.
So having them in as low of an orbit as possible. Is 100% the safest course of action. Despite the improvement in Network performance.
@@I86282 oh I agree lower orbits are better, but its not like the risk is nothing, there is still a very real risk.
Also your comment on size is a bit silly, as most satellites are fairly small in an area [as only the apparent square area matters for an incoming object]. Sure it reduces the risk but having many thousands of satellites brings that risk right back up.
Lastly on angle, its highly dependent on what angle the incoming object is coming in from. If its a very shallow angle [which would be likely] it could actually knock an object into a very elliptical orbit which risks hitting things higher up.
Overall the risk is still high, and in reality there should be less overall satellites [both due to the risk, the fact its messing up space observation and simply the fact its crowding orbits for other stuff] in StarLink than there is being planned.
@@kkirschkk Firstly. For the continued advancement of the human society. This must happen. And whether it was by StarLink or anyone else. It will occur.! So it is vital that it be done as safely as possible. To safeguard planetary orbits at any altitude. As they are vital to the Future of humanity.
And of course the odds of an event occurring is always going to go up the more stuff we put up there. So what is the solution for that problem.? Of which there are 2.!
#1. Don't put anything up there that is not needed.
#2. And place them in orbits with the greatest Safety.! Which are orbits with the greatest decay rate. Which means the lowest orbit possible.! So that in the event that anything does occurs. It has the highest "likelihood of deorbiting itself".!
And it is for that reason. (Up until now.) That the vast majority of all satellites have been placed in higher orbits. Where it is much more efficient to maintain altitude. But unfortunately that also means debris can also much more easily maintained altitude.
Which is why it is So important that all additional satellites be placed in as low of an orbit as possible.! Because.
#1. Where there is the least amount of stuff already present. Debris or otherwise.
#2. If there is a collision. The odds are higher that It's debris coming from a higher altitude. "With a steeper angle". Giving it greater odds of the resulting debris moving down towards the planet.
#3. In the event a collision occurs from an object at a shallow angle. (Which is the most unlikely due to both its altitude and objects already placed their intentionally being the most uncommon) that then creates a more elliptical orbit for the resulting debris. Those debris will also then experience greater gravitational resistance and higher aerodynamic drag during there Apogee's. And we'll also deorbit their selves sooner.
Also. Due to it's shallow angle. It would mean that the object is traveling at a similar velocity to the satellite. Which makes it much more unlikely to impart enough energy to the resulting debris with an elliptical orbit. To make it up to the high orbits where the vast majority of satellites are.
And yes the apparent square area definitely matters. When you're talking about hitting a bullet with a bullet. And while it is silly to assume that it is not possible. No one's suggesting that here. In fact that is the entire argument. That individuals and organizations are arguing against moving the satellites to a lower orbit. Claiming they're just making the problem worse. Which it is not. It's increasing the margin of safety.! While improving Network functionality.
And if you can agree with that. Fine. We're on the same page. But it seems to me you're just looking for reasons to disagree. Rather than logically deducing what is the best course of action.
And the astronomy argument is also just as ridiculous. Because it would only be obscuring objects on the other side of the observable universe. Which are composed of many pictures taken over a long period of time. And that lights would only be obscuring for fractions of a moment. Also all the best images come from space satellites anyway which are at much higher orbits.
And I get the feeling you wouldn't have the same disagreements if it was some other satellite company putting satellites up there.
You're acting like you're arguing against this.
ruclips.net/video/RmG5tUCrrsA/видео.html
And that is simply not the reality.!
I am more concerned in the amount of holes in the Ozone those 44000 launches to get all the satellites in place and the ongoing launches to maintain them.
Even from the very start they launched 60 satellites per launch... so that would only be 700 launches. On top of that, with Starship they estimate a capacity of 400 satellites per launch. If they launched half of the satellites with their current system and the other half with starship - it would only end up taking about 400 launches total.
So 400-700 launches. Pretty far off from your concerns.
The real problem is the debris in higher orbits such as two major failures by SES and Intelsat with both creating debris fields. It's ironic that these two companies are very vocal critics of Starlink. In comparison, any failed Starlink satellite will decay and reenter fairly rapidly.
YES! I completely agree. I think one of the biggest advantages of the lower orbits is to mitigate the risk of debris. It seems silly that companies objected to the change claiming risk of collisions. Thanks for watching!
The FCC may regulate US Sats. But who if anyone does the same for the other countries? Please don't say the UN.
NORAD is joint USA/CANADA
Awesome video, thanks for all the information that we obviously would have never heard of from mainstream media 👍
Glad you enjoyed it! These are the types of things that *I'm* interested in :) Thanks for watching!
Lol.... the media talks everytime about the kessler syndrome, are you living under the rocks?! Wtf!!
@@alanmay7929 actually du maaa I was referring to the information that mainstream media refuses to report, not just the obvious 🙄. Obviously living in a concrete jungle has left you with a narrow field of awareness 🙄.
Really. Low orbits are good. What is the point of this video.
Yo. I used to be concerned about this, but someone who knows about orbital mechanics took me to task about my Kessler Syndrome worries with regards to Starlink. Starlink is low enough, that long term obstruction isn't a real concern. However, the low constellations could well be affected by orbital debris coming lower from Kessler Syndrome happening at higher orbits. The constellation could even have some runaway, but it would only be a matter of a few years before complete recovery. (Excepting for long term debris falling from Kessler happening at higher orbits.)
I think the space junk is way over blown. Think how big the ocean is and how unlikely things are to collide. Then think about how much bigger those orbits are then the ocean
Kessler's theory is a lot more sensible than "space is big."
@@Sylvan_dB come on it should not even be called a theory its just common sense and slightly educated person could guess that once a few hit they will make more junk that will hit more. But he might be wrong his understanding of the size of space is hard to comprehend
@@Sylvan_dB not everyone agrees. Here is a quote "Indeed, results presented by the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) at the Sixth European Conference on Space Debris show an expected increase in the debris population of only 30% after 200 years with continued launch activity."
Yea the danger sounds overstated. I think the problem is the speed that the debris it traveling at, this will make a collision more likely. However more importantly the debris speed will clear most of it very fast. I wonder if best construction for satellites is so they hold together if hit, so to limit lots of bullet like debris.
I agree that the risk and impact is VERY low for 550km, but in regards to how big the ocean is, ships don't travel at almost 17,000 Miles per hour. If they did we might be more worried ;) Thanks for the discussion and thanks for watching!
02:20 .... pretty much every competitor who is scared $hi7less that SpaceX is going to kill their business.
Lol Jeff bezos
It's a shame - I was really rooting to Kuiper to be successful as well. I think there's some really interesting stuff that could be made with Kuiper + AWS. But Jeff Bezos suing everyone has really turned me off.
@@MikeOnSpace yeah his full time job now.
There is some competition there but honestly speaking fiber will always be much faster than Space internet. Residential offering around the world is already hitting 10Gigs and growing. I have had 1Gig for the last 4 years at home. Hardly Starlink will reach those speeds and by that time I will be able to access 2Gigs. And at a lower price. So not saying there isn’t competition. There is but Starlink is not going to eat any of the large telcos business !!!
@@FernandoRodriguez-pj5uh The vast majority of the companies he was noting aren't focusing on metro/suburban areas ,or anywhere landline internet service is viable. Conversely, the market for rural, remote land areas and all the other markets such as ships, planes, etc are absolutely the markets these companies are targeting. You're mixing apples and oranges.
abit cold in yer apartment innit?
Winter is coming.
I don’t understand the issue with space debris. If I threw 100,000 life boats in random places in the ocean, the probability I would bump into a boat if I were sailing across the pacific would seem rather low. It would seem it should be much lower in space because of the increased surface area needed to be covered.
It is the level of damage that can be done although the risk is slow. The problem is that your boats aren’t flying around earth at 17.000 mph. And there are thousands of small objects like screws and paint scraps etc that can be deadly. Besides your boats in the ocean will not colíder and produce debris in all directions.
"rather low" odds are simply not good enough. in 2009 two satellites crashed into each other. a chrash like that generates a ton of debris moving at incredible speed. increasing the amount of satellites without any kind of oversight whatsoever will make incidentens more frequent possible causing a chain reaction
Once an object accelerates in space it will not stop accelarating.it only takes one starlink satellite to fail and rest goes with it.
My understanding was that the starlink satellites are in low earth orbit and if they fail, they would just be pulled to earth by gravity and burn-up on reentry. So no space debris.
"Wind" would slow them down, so gravity can pull them in, in 1 or 2 years.
The shape and weight of their sats also helps for orbital decay, because they are light, with very large surface area.
This only works because they are so low, like 550km. This effect is 10 times slower on 1000km.
(fun fact: if you orbit the Moon, _gravity_ can actually pull you in, or push you out by itself, eventually, because the Moon has a "lumpy" gravitational field, and is also perturbed by the Earth's field)
Mike.. you know that Starlink says are vleo or at least leo. If they fail, they are de-orbited. No addition to Kessler. Even from a breakup. Most of their mass will fall into atmosphere.
I COMPLETELY agree with you! I feel I didn't make my point strong enough but I really wanted to highlight what Kessler Syndrome is and why even with their failures, Starlink is VERY low risk. Thanks for watching!
Maybe SpaceX manipulated their satellites on purpose to test the deorbiting stuff irl
I kinda wondered the same thing originally, but it seems like they would have mentioned it in the report to the FCC. I am very curious what they'll do once they fill out the remaining shells in the original constellation. Will they de-orbit the current satellites to replace them with ones with laser links, or will they just wait for them to age-out on their own?
more
I'm working on it ;) Thanks for watching!
This guy is captain obvious.
Hey @captaincrunch72, You should keep in mind that Mike is making videos for everyone, including those who already know everything. Like you!
@@kellymohan3284 thanks mom, I'll go clean my room now and take out the trash cans. luv ya ....ffs
I have 10,000 times more faith in Starlink engineers than I do Wuhan scientists. Thanks Mike!
You are a xenophobic guy who believes in fakes news. Grow up man from a guy in Africa
Good luck with that.
@@darkpenguin1978 China regularly drops first stages with highly toxic fuels near villages.
This is reality - waste in the Space, because everything after period of active usage dies and fly there... Garbage. I watch the movie "Gravity"... scary film. Everything starts nice and than... P.S. It is of course piece of Art - how it`s made - filming etc. I see it on the TV screen 1m diagonal. I just can imagine how it is to watch that in Cinema by 3D effects.... 🚀🛰🛸👽💀
Hearing your description makes me want to go watch it again! I rewatched Contact and Interstellar and both are great! I'll add Gravity to my list to see again :)
@@MikeOnSpace If it is possible - on Big Screen! :)
Jeff Besos Bezos paying you big bucks OP?
Ha! Normally I get accused of being too much of a SpaceX Fanboy - Check out my other videos to see my overall love of everything Starlink and SpaceX. :)
@@MikeOnSpace Most of what I said was tongue and cheek based on you reporting the trash press lies about SpaceX Starlink Space Jam junk in orbit and beyond. ATT will do anything including (reported in past) tech sabotage to prevent Starlink Enterprise Unified Solutions Including cell/wireless devices running on Starlink (with gateways to legacy internet, voice and video services until not needed). Same for tyrants Apple. Plus the vagabond Besos. So to, are the viper demoncrats “👈🏻 I did that” “Let’s go Brandon” .gov Union + globalist boot lickers. They would Musk to implode. I subscribed to your channel BTW. Thanks for the comment response!
Clickbait title and lies. Have reported your video
I appreciate the feedback. Maybe I missed the mark, but I'm not sure what part of the video you'd describe as lies?
The intent of the video was to explain what the Kessler Syndrome is, and to explain that even with the failures they've had, and the size of the planned constellation, the risk is extremely low. And further mitigated by the very low altitude - which seemed contrary to other companies objecting to the lowered orbits.
Thanks for the feedback and thanks for watching!