this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2025
82 points (98.8% liked)

Space

1838 readers
11 users here now

A community to discuss space & astronomy through a STEM lens

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive. This means no harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  2. Engage in constructive discussions by discussing in good faith.
  3. Foster a continuous learning environment.

Also keep in mind, mander.xyz's rules on politics

Please keep politics to a minimum. When science is the focus, intersection with politics may be tolerated as long as the discussion is constructive and science remains the focus. As a general rule, political content posted directly to the instance’s local communities is discouraged and may be removed. You can of course engage in political discussions in non-local communities.

Related Communities

🔭 Science

🚀 Engineering

🌌 Art and Photography

Other Cool Links

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
ZafiraHUN@mander.xyz
otter@lemmy.ca
Bitswap@lemmy.world
otter@mander.xyz
82
Removing these 50 objects from orbit would cut danger from space junk in half - Ars Technica (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 week ago by otters_raft@lemmy.ca to c/space@mander.xyz
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ultimate_worrier@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

See my edit. Kessler syndrome is quite well known.

Please explain why you think it’s irrelevant here using peer reviewed research rather than sources that seek to obfuscate the truth about it for financial gain.

[–] burble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago

I understand Kessler Syndrome and am not saying that it isn't possible. I just think Starlink is the wrong constellation to be mad about. There are two points I'm trying to make here about Starlink:

  1. Their orbit is low, so it doesn't matter as much if their birds die because they passively deorbit.
  2. SpaceX has been a good steward of their orbits and don't have much dead junk up there.

The low orbit point is also made in that Wikipedia page that you linked:

Starlink satellites are launched at a lower altitude of 550 km ... and failed satellites or debris are thus expected to deorbit within five years even without propulsion, due to atmospheric drag.

I added the source to my comment above about the deorbit/junk stats.