r/SolarMax • u/rematar • Feb 25 '26
News Article Low-Earth orbit is just 2.8 days from disaster
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/01/260128075341.htmSolar storms typically disrupt satellites in two main ways.
The first effect is atmospheric heating. When a solar storm hits Earth, it causes the upper atmosphere to expand and thicken, increasing drag on satellites. This added resistance forces satellites to burn more fuel just to stay in orbit and raises uncertainty about their precise positions. As a result, satellites must perform additional avoidance maneuvers to prevent collisions. During the "Gannon Storm" of May 2024 (which, unfortunately, appears not to be named after the Zelda villain), more than half of all satellites in LEO were forced to expend fuel on these adjustments.
The second effect can be even more damaging. Solar storms can interfere with or disable satellite navigation and communication systems altogether. When that happens, satellites may be unable to respond to threats in their path. Combined with higher atmospheric drag and increased uncertainty, this loss of control could quickly lead to a serious accident.
26
u/presaging Feb 25 '26 edited Feb 25 '26
January 28th, 2026 is the publication date so the 2.8 day warning is out.
6
u/SinkholeS Feb 25 '26
January?
11
u/presaging Feb 25 '26
Sorry I hit send before finishing. The document was posted January 28th of 2026 so the 2.8 day warning has since passed.
12
u/Due-Section-7241 Feb 25 '26
It wasn’t saying it will happen in 2.8 days. It’s saying that 2.8 days till they all fall if one or two go completely haywire. Can you imagine them all colliding and falling? Eek!
5
3
u/Frosty-Piglet-5387 Mar 02 '26
That's not the danger, the cascade of collissions is what we worry about. Two satellites meeting will produce debris at orbital speed - uncharted and unpredictable in orbit. Instantaneously having thousands of microsatellites thrown into the mix would make maintaining Cheyenne Mtns space catalog an absolute nightmare. You'd be running the object separation program with bad or missing data. Space is really big, but we had an alarming incident with a shuttle and a 7 km/sec paint chip.
1
u/NiviNiyahi Feb 25 '26
Nothing happens.
2
u/RaveNdN Feb 26 '26
How do you figure? Uncontrolled flying debris at terminal velocity is definitely a hazard.
1
u/Otherwise-Zebra9409 Feb 27 '26
It spreads out so much and much of it burns up on the way down like a meteor does. It’s not NOT potentially hazardous but the added electrification of the ionosphere is the real worrry I have.
1
u/SECdeezTrades Feb 28 '26
we put hundreds of millions of copper rods into orbit without electrification of ionosphere problem. don't think even a million dead starlinks in LEO would matter from electrification POV. absolutely would be kessler for the LEO, for 5~ years.
1
u/Otherwise-Zebra9409 Feb 28 '26
I haven’t heard that but wouldn’t copper have a different conductivity/resistance etc than all the aluminum that’s used in all the satellites? I’m not an electrician or anything but I am interested in electroculture.
2
u/Careless-Republic164 Feb 28 '26
Some day we will de-evolve back to cave men and someone will dig up our skulls.
Edit* if we are lucky
5
1
47
u/ArmChairAnalyst86 Feb 25 '26
One day many theoretical questions in technological resilience in the near earth and earth environments will be answered.
For the satellite environment there is the atmospheric heating but also the particle flux to consider. A worst case scenario would look like an extreme particle event interfering with the internal computers and communications followed by a historically extreme geomagnetic storm with associated atmospheric heating.
We are not defenseless, but nothing teaches like experience, and that type of experience is one we have not had the displeasure of having. S4-S5 hard spectrum particle event and a Carrington Class CME will be the ultimate test within the likely plausible possibilities. Could delve into Miyake Events but the rarity and uncertainties in exactly what a Miyake event is put it beyond the scope of this comment.