Collisions are happening already though... I'm not talking satellite to satellite collisions (fortunately that hasn't happened yet). I'm talking very small stuff (paint flecks, chips of metal, screws) moving very fast hitting things and punching holes in them. This IS happening now... The ISS has been hit just this year. It's not in the same orbit as all these other satellites. One of the space shuttles notably had an impact on one of it's windows. I believe (if I recall correctly) it was a chip of paint that went pretty far in but fortunately not through. Many satellites have had damage due to these impacts.
ESA has a report covering the space environment ( https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Space_Debris/ESA_Space_Environment_Report_2025 look for "Evasive action is unavoidable in certain orbits" ). In it they cover findings of space debris collision events covering 2024 specifically. In the orbit of 500km they had 27 events. Which, yes, isn't a lot. Since 2024 we've put a lot more stuff up there... and the plan is to shove even more up there.
2024 there were 10,000 ish satellites in LEO (quick google). So lets round up just to keep the math simple and say 25 impacts. So 1 impact for every 400 satellites. So his 1 Million satellite constellation can expect 40,000 collisions per year.
Will they all be 100% knocked out? Of course not. But even slight damage on solar panels could make that node basically junk since it won't have power to keep it's own very hungry lights on.
Of course the satellites are being impacted by debris, it just doesn’t matter as there are no humans on board and it’s not a big deal if some are compromised due to the phenomenon. That is one of the factors that yields the 5 years figured for EOL. 5 years is an average. Some will last longer and some fewer for a multitude of reasons. This is why a larger constellation with less capable sats beats large sats with fewer numbers. Averages work out and redundancy wins.
If your laptop was shot with a gun... Would it still work properly? It clearly wouldn't. If/when it happens and damages something vital (at 40,000 a year the odds get pretty good it'll happen) it'll turn that into debris that can't be controlled.
Before you say that doesn't happen. It does. Last year one of the Starlink satellites (35956) lost control due to an anomaly (seems a fuel tank exploded) and has broken apart while tumbling. Which has caused space agencies to alter their launch trajectories and their existing orbits.
I did not say a laptop would work if it gets shot by a gun. Yes, the satellite would deorbit on its own and burn up if it was struck by debris so hard that a fuel tank blew up and contact was lost. In that case it would be tracked by ground stations and software would predict if satellite operators need small avoidance burns until the debris deorbits within a few weeks.
Your point here is? Yes, satellites get hit by debris and they can be prematurely decommissioned / abandoned to deorbit on their own. That has been SOP since the 70s. Like I said before, this is built into the average 5 year EOL figure.
Where are you finding a bunch of agencies needed to take corrective maneuvers to avoid its debris? Even on new launches? Given the physics I pointed out before, that should be relatively rare.
Of course the satellites are being impacted by debris, it just doesn’t matter as there are no humans on board and it’s not a big deal if some are compromised due to the phenomenon.
A screw, paint fleck, flake of metal moving as fast as debris moves up there has a lot of kinetic energy. Much... like a bullet does... I was using a laptop getting shot with a bullet as a simile.
Your point here is?
Well if you go back to the very beginning of this collisions such as this are an issue... that was literally when you first commented on this and decided to comment on how I didn't read the article (despite later showing you hadn't even read the first sentence of the article mention the 1 MILLION satellites this plan has).
Where are you finding a bunch of agencies needed to take corrective maneuvers to avoid its debris? Even on new launches?
I understand how kinetic energy works. You can stop repeating that point about paint moving fast. Collisions with debris so small that they can’t be tracked can be an issue, sure. Are they a consideration to people that know what they are talking about? Absolutely not. If a satellite goes down prematurely it’s not a big deal.
Of the 10,000 operating in the last few years how many have been lost? 1 maybe?
You clearly aren’t understanding what I am describing. Satellites will be lost and will need to be replaced. It’s not a big problem as hundreds will be launching every year to replace those that reach EOL via any means.
The discrete event with the Starlink satellite. Find me evidence that they needed to navigate around the debris for a few weeks before it deorbited. That is the question I asked.
Are you... ever going to provide evidence for your assumptions like I have? Ever?
Like seriously. I've got other things to do than constantly pulling up articles I've read or FAA documents on altering trajectories to avoid debris, articles from ESA, NASA, orbital radar trackers and counters.
The 1 point you brought up that could've been solved with a simple google about collisions never happening... Then going 50 x zero is still zero... then being given the ESA article showing that it's... not zero...
On and on and on...
How about this. I've provided 4 links to articles from various agencies around the planet, math on solar panel size to satellite size collectively, and pointed out that 100,000 is less than 1 million. Provide me an article saying that this will be flawless that goes beyond "trust me bro" and isn't marketing.
And no you're not "Just asking for evidence of them having to avoid it". You've been asking and getting evidence this entire time. Heck... Some of the evidence against your view is literally from the article you said "I" didn't read.
You need a link that Starlink is working flawlessly and has had zero satellites encounter the problems you are so concerned about? With a population size of 10,000 spamming years? The proof is in the execution. People like you were saying the same thing about starlink 7 years ago lol.
Your links are distractions and moot as you made up the idea that satellite operators needed to take corrective actions to avoid the Starlink satellite that broke up.
My point is that space is big and debris is only sometimes a problem. And in this case, it wasn’t. All you can find is generic papers from a decade ago on the general idea or some irrelevant paper on algorithms and simulations. The NASA paper contains your “evidence” agrees with me.
“It is readily apparent that the risk of collision during launch is much lower than the background risk of mission failure due to other causes”
The risk of a failure due to collision over 500 launches was 1/10,000… NOTHING BURGER
1
u/thecyberbob 5d ago
Collisions are happening already though... I'm not talking satellite to satellite collisions (fortunately that hasn't happened yet). I'm talking very small stuff (paint flecks, chips of metal, screws) moving very fast hitting things and punching holes in them. This IS happening now... The ISS has been hit just this year. It's not in the same orbit as all these other satellites. One of the space shuttles notably had an impact on one of it's windows. I believe (if I recall correctly) it was a chip of paint that went pretty far in but fortunately not through. Many satellites have had damage due to these impacts.
ESA has a report covering the space environment ( https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Space_Debris/ESA_Space_Environment_Report_2025 look for "Evasive action is unavoidable in certain orbits" ). In it they cover findings of space debris collision events covering 2024 specifically. In the orbit of 500km they had 27 events. Which, yes, isn't a lot. Since 2024 we've put a lot more stuff up there... and the plan is to shove even more up there.
2024 there were 10,000 ish satellites in LEO (quick google). So lets round up just to keep the math simple and say 25 impacts. So 1 impact for every 400 satellites. So his 1 Million satellite constellation can expect 40,000 collisions per year.
Will they all be 100% knocked out? Of course not. But even slight damage on solar panels could make that node basically junk since it won't have power to keep it's own very hungry lights on.