> now we are in a situation where Starlink accounts for half of all encounters."<p>Aren't Starlink satellites now something like half of all active satellites in LEO? It's not surprising that they would be half the encounters.<p>Even then, there's only been one encounter that anyone considered a close miss.
I find the phrasing interesting. This is in the title and in the article itself in similar form, but:<p><pre><code> Starlink near-misses with other spacecraft are getting 'out of control'
</code></pre>
By the phrasing the blame is laid on Starlink, which may be the reality but collecting the numbers alone don't justify that implication, which is most of what this article provides.<p>As someone else pointed out, Starlink's presence in LEO has more than doubled the number of satellites so it kind of makes sense that there'd be a corresponding increase in the number of incidents, and just by the odds that Starlink would be involved in around half of them. The other claim in the article, that when Starlink's ~12k satellites are in orbit they'll be involved in 90% of these incidents also make sense. They'd make up about 90% of satellites in LEO using the present numbers.<p>If half the cars on the road are Fords and half the accidents reported involve Fords that doesn't mean Ford cars or drivers are somehow worse than the rest, it actually means they're average. It'd be more interesting if the number of incidents leaned toward Starlink for something other than just conventional probability calculations, that is they accounted for a larger-than-expected share of incidents.<p>Two stats provided, for Starlink and OneWeb. Starlink has 1700 satellites and 500 incidents/week. OneWeb has 250 satellites and 80 incidents/week. Starlink has 6.8x as many satellites. Again, by the numbers with what's reported here Starlink is no worse than other actors in this space. OneWeb has about a 32% incident rate (incidents/satellites) while Starlink has 29%. By these numbers they're actually slightly <i>better</i> than OneWeb here.
I like to imagine a future where space is unregulated, and some alternative LEO satellite Internet company begins to shoot down SpaceX's satellites in order to make room for their own. That in turn inspires SpaceX to deploy their own defensive drones, and technology escalates. I'm not really sure where this would all go but it would make for a great fiction.
> ...Starlink satellites are responsible for over half of all near-collisions in space, according to...<p>- and yet -<p>> ...there are approximately 228 million pieces of space debris...<p>So - either the mere ~1,700 Starlink satellites are <i>~100,000X</i> hyper-achievers when it comes to near-collisions...or else the The Independent is yearning to win a "Lies...Damn Lies...Statistics" hype-achiever award.
> Once Starlink launches its full 12,000-strong satellite network, it will be involved in 90 per cent of all close approaches, it is estimated.<p>Bayes' Rule strikes again!
Related from yesterday:<p><i>The world must cooperate to avoid colliding satellites and space debris</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28231581" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28231581</a> - Aug 2021 (181 comments)<p>A YC startup in the current batch is working on this:<p><i>Launch HN: Turion Space (YC S21) – Space debris removal and satellite servicing</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28061725" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28061725</a> - Aug 2021 (111 comments)
Question: Do the satellites fully disintegrate? What is the approximate maximum particle size of any leftovers? e.g. Will remnants ever not fully disintegrate and land on earth (people, buildings etc)?
OK, 1,600 close encounters every week.<p>And how many collisions each week? Didn't see mentioning any, so none.<p>So this "close encounters" seem as dangerous as the close encounters anytime I drive on highway, or even less.<p>Pure FUD
> "This problem is really getting out of control," Siemak Hesar, CEO and co-founder of commercial autonomous space traffic management system Kayhan Space, told Space.<p>Well, there are certainly no obvious conflicts of interest behind this quote.<p>/s<p>I'm sick of this FUD. SpaceX is, I believe, the largest operator of satellites by count, so it makes perfect sense that they would account for the lion's share of these "close encounters". None of these articles offer a meaningful quantification of risk, or much in the way of constructive discussion; instead they shotgun-blast vague soundbites from "experts" and wave around the Kessler Syndrome boogeyman with about as much technical precision as can be found in the related joke at the beginning of <i>WALL-E.</i><p>In the context of Starlink, the "SpaceX Bad" narrative basically boils down to saying we should not develop space further because reasons, much in the same way single-family-home NIMBYs poison urban growth now that they've got theirs. There are obviously tough problems that will need to be solved, and I agree that some distributed "traffic control" system will ultimately be necessary, especially when we start filling up higher orbits where Kessler Syndrome is <i>actually</i> a serious concern. But it's disappointing to see the media engage in so much of what basically amounts to concern trolling, polarizing and poisoning the public discourse.
Wouldn't it be ironic if, despite the high-flying idealistic rhetoric, Elon Musk ends up denying everyone access to space, for a time, due to StarLink triggering Kessler syndrome?<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome</a>
Recommend the brilliant Johnny Harris video about this issue <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY8Rv6PaXVI" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY8Rv6PaXVI</a><p>In short not only is a collision bad but it could create a chain reaction leading to billions of small objects flying around in the orbit forming a impenetrable barrier that bars further space travel and more importantly putting other (actually useful) satellites at risk