Skip to main content


Wooo it's up! New paper alert! I will write a summary thread about this paper tomorrow morning when I'm not quite as mentally exhausted!

"An Orbital House of Cards: Frequent Megaconstellation Close Conjunctions" by Thiele, Heiland, Boley, & Lawler arxiv.org/abs/2512.09643

Not recommended for reading right before bed. It's real bad up there in Low Earth Orbit, folks.

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

(Especially since our back-up system gets defeated by big fishing trawlers with sharp anchors and an agenda.)

for reference:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_…

cited from arXiv:2512.09643

"Our calculations show the CRASH Clock is currently 2.8 days, which suggests there is now little time to recover from a wide-spread disruptive event, such as a solar storm. This is in stark contrast to the pre-megaconstellation era: in 2018, the CRASH Clock was 121 days."

This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

The image that came into my mind on reading your toot was the start of a game of pool, where the triangle of balls is split and the balls then ricochet in all directions, some disappearing into the pockets.

It must be noted that the collisions that occur on a pool table tend to happen in two dimensions as opposed to the three dimensional collisions that can occur in space.

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

This paper started with a plot showing the density of satellites in orbit vs. altitude that Aaron Boley (professor at UBC) made. I knew this was probably bad, but what does 10^(-7) objects per cubic km really even mean when everything is flying around at 7km per second? It doesn't sound very scary.

I re-made the plot in a hand-wavy way assuming circular orbits, and looking at it in terms of 1km close-approaches instead, and it was a lot scarier. So scary, it was time to write a paper!

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Two incredibly talented students led the project. We figured out a much less hand-wavy analytical way to calculate close approach rates using real data from public catalogues. And then we also ran n-body simulations to double check. They agree very well! And are really scary!!

In the densest part of LEO (Starlink), there are closer than 1km approaches every 15 minutes. 1km sounds like a lot, but remember everything in LEO is moving at 7km PER SECOND

reshared this

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Starlink themselves report an average of 1 collision avoidance maneuver every 2 minutes between Dec 2024-May 2025. So that's another (terrifying) double check on this calculation. scribd.com/document/883045105/…
This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)

reshared this

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

We also did this calculation for the catalogue of satellites, trackable debris, and rocket bodies from 2018, before megaconstellations, showing just how much less safe megaconstellations like Starlink have made orbit.

The densest part of orbit in 2018 had a closer than 1km approach a little more frequently than once a day. Now it's more frequently than once every 15 minutes.

Mastodon Migration reshared this.

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

How do you summarize how unsafe orbit is? This is where I get to tell you about my new favourite forced astronomy acronym, which I spent quite a while thinking about.

We needed a metric. I originally wanted to do something like "Kessler Countdown" or "Kessler Clock" but this isn't a countdown to Kessler Syndrome, it's just showing how bad things are in orbit, and how quickly they could get worse. So, our name for this metric is...

Collision Realization And Significant Harm: the CRASH Clock!

reshared this

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Just because this made a neuron fire: Do you know Planetes? It is about people in orbit "picking up the trash" There are mangas and also a great anime series.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

The CRASH Clock uses the current density in altitude bins (averaged over eccentric orbits) of satellites, rocket bodies, and tracked debris, assuming typical cross sections for each type and orbital speeds. This calculation tells us how long to a collision if all orbital maneuvers were to suddenly stop.

The CRASH Clock is currently* at 2.8 days.

In 2018 it was 121 days.

*This is actually for June 2025 because that's when we ran it. Will update soon!

reshared this

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

We set up a CRASH Clock website here: outerspaceinstitute.ca/crashcl…

Note that this is a probabilistic calculation. A catastrophic collision could happen sooner than 2.8 days of no maneuvers. In our (extremely computationally expensive) collision simulation, just by random chance we actually got the first collision just 3 hours in.

We are currently well inside the Caution Zone. The probability of collisions happening if no avoidance maneuvers occur is >10% in any 24 hour period.

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

This really highlights how incredibly dependent we are on Starlink's continued perfect collision avoidance maneuvers. So far they've done it, but they keep adding more satellites and making it harder.

Other megaconstellations are now launching as well, and they all need to communicate PERFECTLY in order to not crash. Will China talk to Starlink? Will the US gov't secret satellites talk to OneWeb? This is all incredibly important so that we don't destroy LEO.

reshared this

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

"In the short term, a major collision is more akin to the Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster than a Hollywood-style immediate end of operations in orbit. Indeed, satellite operations could continue after a major collision, but would have different operating parameters, including a higher risk of collision damage."

This is why I did a poll here about name recognition for Exxon Valdez a few months ago! (You young'uns go read about it because many of you don't know)

This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)

AI6YR Ben reshared this.

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

torre canyon for europeans and older readers!

Biggest issue on a collision is IF it cascades by altering expected paths. Shudders.

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

One of the scariest parts of this project was learning more about Starlink's orbital operations. I had always assumed they had some kind of clever configuration of the satellites in the orbital shell that minimized conjunctions, and we would see the number of conjunctions grow over time in our simulations. But no! It's just random! There's no magic here, it's just avoiding collisions by moving a Starlink satellite every 2 minutes. This is bad.
This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)

reshared this

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

I'll end with the last paragraph of the paper:

"In addition to the dangerously high collision risks calculated here, we are already experiencing disruption of astronomy, pollution in the upper atmosphere from increasingly frequent satellite ablation, and increased ground casualty risks. By these safety and pollution metrics, it is clear we have already placed substantial stress on LEO, and changes to our approach are required immediately."

reshared this

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Fantastic work. I need to set aside some time to read the full paper.

One tiny, tiny note from one professional communicator to another: The closing paragraph does a good job of summarizing the risk, but could emphasize what humankind stands to lose a bit more plainly and directly. If I'm a very wealthy US lawmaker who doesn't care about science or the environment, why should I care? (HINT: Catastrophic and irreparable economic damage on top of everything else.)

Well done!

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Great work and a great thread!

Thank you so much for taking the time to summarize your work and type it in here.

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

is there any way to potentially clean up space junk? I guess it would be like finding a needle in a space sized haystack travelling 8km/s
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Great analysis as always, Sam.

A hypothetical: Would it be possible—forget how and why for a moment—to use the collision avoidance thrusters on one (or more) of these mega cluster satellites to move it/them down where there’s enough atmospheric drag to cause it/them to fully deorbit?

in reply to Evo Terra – #RhRR

@evoterra yes, that's what they do at the end of the satellites' 5 year operational lifetimes. Then the deposit all that metal and plastic into the atmosphere. Or the ground if it doesn't burn up completely!
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Now I’m dreaming of one big switch to bring them all down at the same time.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

A Carrington-type event would have unpredictable consequences. The de-orbit manoeuvre must be ordered, and a non-functional satellite could not receive or execute it. It would just drift until it hit something. So I think a Kessler cascade would be much more likely. Stuff would fall from the sky, for sure, but only after LEO had been ruined for a long time to come.
in reply to Evo Terra – #RhRR

@evoterra This is what they do on purpose at the end of their horrifyingly short 5 year operating lifetimes. They burn them up and dump tons of metal and plastic and melted solar panels into the upper atmosphere. Or sometimes onto the ground too.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Out of curiosity, how hard would it be for a bad actor to *intentionally* induce Kessler Syndrome? (That is, are we crowded enough that it could happen with a single collision or chaff bomb?)

[EDIT] I guess this would have to be conditioned on the *time frame* in which the bad actor wanted to disable a large number of satellites, given how long the cascade could take.

This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

2 interviews lined up to talk about the CRASH Clock so far!

And I usually say yes to just about every interview request I get, but I got 1 interview request on a non-urgent, non-time-sensitive astronomy topic late on a Friday afternoon asking to talk today or tomorrow. I think I will have to blow that one off and focus on other things.

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Does the CRASH Clock only apply to Starlink satellites, to all known operational satellites, or to all LEO significant sized objects?
in reply to econads

@econads Ever since I watched Leave the World Behind, I've been thinking I should get a road atlas. I've been living in this area for 5 years,but it doesn't take long for me to get outside of my navigational comfort zone.
in reply to Jimmy

@jhavok I learned to drive just before Google maps took off, so I can remember navigating with a paper atlas, then printed directions from google maps then much later with a phone with GPS. The phone is much much better. If you didn't have anyone navigating you'd be looking for somewhat to pull over on the regular to work out if you were still in the right place, and if you hadn't seen a street name for a while...
in reply to econads

@econads I grew up in an area that was easy to navigate where we had a teenage habit of random driving, so the only reason you needed a street guide was to locate the general area of your target. But then I got kind of footloose and learned to navigate by highway numbers and the sun, and eventually rode from Seattle to NYC using a Rand McNally road atlas and dead reckoning.

Now I live in a place where the streets were laid out by a drunk goat with a paintbrush on his tail.

in reply to Brian Smith

@BrianSmith950 27 more Starlinks will be launched from Vandenberg this weekend. The launches are pretty frequent now.
We hear the sonic booms.
in reply to Brian Smith

@BrianSmith950 not leaving it up to the oligarchs, what are some ways to remove this junk from low orbit? Or this the same/similar problem as cleaning the garbage from our oceans?
This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

What are the consequences of the failure of this collision avoidance system?. Does that mean in the future all space missions may have to punch through some shrapnel field on their way out?
in reply to Display Name

Yes.

Each such episode further increases the probability of future collision events.

It does not mean that instantaneously low earth orbit will become unnavigable, but we are on that path.

Edit: For more information see this article on Kessler Syndrome: spectrum.ieee.org/kessler-synd…

This entry was edited (1 week ago)

reshared this

in reply to Mastodon Migration

@mastodonmigration @alper It feels very science fiction-y still but the possibility of low orbit salvage & security is increasingly viable. Not long until we start seeing satellites that are specifical;ly designed to de-orbit others for reclamation or controlled burn.
in reply to Display Name

@alper
I’m curious about this too. It feels to me like it’s actually a prison that is being built for humans to never leave this planet.
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Jo - pièce de résistance

@JoBlakely yeah. Or only the few, as always. Not that it will ever make sense to leave in a realistic future. And where to?
Anyway, it sounds like one more externalized billionaire cost that we'll either live with it or pay to clean up.
in reply to Display Name

@alper @JoBlakely Every time there's a collision or an explosion, it makes more debris, which increases the odds of active satellites getting smashed (which makes more debris and causes more smashing/breaking). At some point, the risk of collisions will be so high that it won't be reasonable to put new satellites up. I guess. It depends on how quickly the collisions proceed...
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

It's been interesting putting up a high-impact (hopefully no pun there) paper and getting lots of feedback! One (highly respected!) scientist graciously showed us a small error in our calculation, which we have fixed. It's like crowd-sourced peer-review. Interesting.

So, with that fix, the CRASH Clock is now at 5 days instead of 3 days. (If you think that extra time means there's no problem, you missed the point here!)

New from Scientific American: archive.ph/6BwqQ

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

I've seen some truly bad headlines related to this paper. Clearly LLM-written and not checked well. The funniest (saddest) ones seem to imply that 3 days from now, there will definitely be a crash in orbit.

I'm glad conversations are happening as a result of this paper. I hope the right conversations happen with the right people, and maybe some regulations will happen? Probably not fast enough. But I'm still holding out hope (and writing lots of letters to the FCC).

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

#canada should start a new space program that will deploy clean up satellites that sweep the junk from collisions and then #deorbit the material into the offending party’s launch location. #starlink we’re looking at you.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Oh hey look, a Starlink satellite "experienced an anomaly" and ejected a bunch of debris. Explosion? Debris hit? Either way, not good..

pcmag.com/news/starlink-satell…

editing to add snark (because that's how I deal with bad news I guess): Don't worry everyone, SpaceX says it'll reenter in a few weeks and totally won't crash into anything! Please ignore the spray of debris that's at basically the exact same altitude as the ISS!

This entry was edited (1 week ago)

reshared this

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Wouldn't be ironic if SpaceX ended killing itself by throwing so much garbage in orbit that no space operation were possible anymore?
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

They're only some screws and bits of metal scraps! How bad could it be? /s
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

The article says that the anomaly was at 418 km altitude, which is low enough that fragments should fall into the atmosphere quickly.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Our NISAR satellite flies at 747 km. I hope Starlink and its fragments stay far away from that altitude.
in reply to Dr. Eric J. Fielding, PhD

@EricFielding
Someone lost a satellite
Kessler syndrome will be a delight
To color the holidays skies with sparkling trails
Of humanity's hubris as spaceflight fails

Never mind the satellite fragments flying around
Just listen for the sonic boom sound
What a festive atmosphere
As satellites fall here and there

Sparkly sparkly streaks in the sky
Tell me tell me tell me why
A billionaire gets to own outer space
Why do we have to keep looking at his face

Anyway if it's not this time maybe soon
When the only working satellite left will be the moon
And the skies will be lit up every night
With re-entering broken satellites

#poem #kesslersyndrome #space (human poem)

reshared this

in reply to AI6YR Ben

@ai6yr @EricFielding Hahahah I wasn't interpreting your poem as advocacy for Kessler! But it hits a little different when you re-read it that way hahahahaha

Thank you.

in reply to AI6YR Ben

@ai6yr This almost fits the music of "Weird Al" Yankovic's Christmas at Ground Zero.
in reply to AI6YR Ben

@ai6yr @EricFielding Uh-oh. I just put another one of your poems to music.

Had to cut the "satellite" before "fragments," but it otherwise pretty much survived unscathed, lol.

in reply to AI6YR Ben

@ai6yr @EricFielding There may be a few minor rearrangements to suit the meter. It has a bit of a Neil Young feel.

In the queue. I guess I should start recording soon. I have acoustic guitar-ready callouses now.

in reply to AI6YR Ben

@ai6yr

Have you heard the Strangler's "The Last Men on the Moon" ?

"Degrading satellites abound
Spiralling their way to the ground
There'll be a reckoning
And we all know it's due"

(Oops. Ok, edited to make Public)

in reply to AI6YR Ben

@ai6yr @EricFielding
Space debris
Space debris
Falling on our head
Wish us luck
Remember to duck
Or we might end up dead

(To the tune of Jingle bells)

reshared this

in reply to AI6YR Ben

@ai6yr @EricFielding
But say a prayer
Pray for the satellites
At Christmastime
It's hard when you're having fun
There's a world above your rooftop
And it's a world of dread and fear
Where the only water flowing
Is @sundogplanet's tears
And the Christmas stars that shine there
Are blotting out the Moon
Well tonight thank God it's them
Instead of you

And there won't be snow in LEO this Christmas
The greatest gift they'll get this year is life
Where nothing ever grows, no rain or rivers flow
Do they know it's Christmas time at all?

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Yes, it could cause problems for any other satellite at that altitude, including other Starlink satellites.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

To clarify, I don't think this is at all catastrophic. Just bad. Making orbit less safe with every explosion. Making that CRASH Clock a little shorter, giving operators a little less time to respond, requiring more tracking, more maneuvers, and increasing operating risks in orbit.
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to MikeH

@MikeH It stops maneuvering. Eventually it falls into the atmosphere and burns up/crashes into the ground. How long it takes depends on altitude and how big the satellite is.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

out of curiosity, do we know what the smallest bits of space junk we can track are?

It's the little bits that come off in an event like this that worry me.

in reply to Emily_S

@emily_s Yeah. 10cm is about the smallest pieces that can be radar-tracked from the ground, maybe a little smaller at this relatively low altitude. But there are smaller pieces that are untrackable and could still hit other satellites with damaging force.

Which is perhaps what happened to this Starlink satellite. Runaway collisions suck....

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Don't get me excited Elon or any other billionaire might die an ironic death trying to escape this planet.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

FYI - in case you have not written about this - theverge.com/news/844502/starl…

"A collision in space was narrowly avoided last week when a newly deployed Chinese satellite came within a few hundred meters of one of the roughly 9,000 Starlink satellites currently operating in low Earth orbit. SpaceX is laying the blame on the satellite operator for not sharing location data."

This is yet another unknown in the equations for the CRASH Clock.

Mastodon Migration reshared this.

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

The movie Gravity does a memorable dramatic illustration

youtu.be/VDeZyRtPJvI

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

How much do you want to bet that these satellites are powered by Tesla lithium-ion batteries, and one exploded?
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Thanks for the writeup, I always enjoy reading about your work on these things! Very interesting - and concerning - stuff.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

we got 5 whole days! By the standards of my university papers, starting the night before should be no problem! 😂
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

It seems one 'solution' is creating a lower level orbit: theconversation.com/the-next-f…

Business as usual, polluting a different place 🙄

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Wait... Not the little cube sats, right? Those don't have any control mechanisms do they?
in reply to Matt Hall

@401matthall No, cubesats usually can't maneuver. Other satellites have to maneuver around them. But cubesats are not the problem here, there are WAY more Starlink satellites than cubesats.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

That's my misunderstanding then... I thought the majority of Starlink satellites _were_ cubesats.

Thanks for the clarification! ❤

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

So they're just sling'n Honda Odysseys into low-earth orbit.

Shiiiit.

This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to Matt Hall

@401matthall And then burning them up in the atmosphere! Adding all that metal and plastic to the stratosphere! It's currently 1-2 a day, will ramp up to 23 per day if they actually get to 42,000 like they said.

Oh and sometimes they don't burn up completely. Whoopsies. cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewa…

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

@401matthall space.com says there's 8800 starlink satellites currently in orbit, with wikipedia plotting about 2500 launched in 2024.

Wikipedia says there's been 2300 CubeSats ever (launched between 1999-2023), and about 300 have been launched a year since 2021.

This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to AstraLuma

@astraluma @401matthall Jonathan McDowell (the BEST source of info in orbit) says there are 9,093 Starlinks as of today in orbit: planet4589.org/space/con/conli…
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

So.... it's just luck that a major collision hasn't happened yet? Every time they do a random maneuver, it's a new gamble, Right? They're just hoping the odds don't catch up with them?
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

To what extent are the avoidance operations (and situational awareness monitoring) automated? Do you have any information on that?
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

That's weird. When I was working at EUMETSAT they used debris tracking and moved LEO satellites based on the collision risk. I'd assumed that was the norm.
in reply to David Penfold

@davep Isn't that the same thing I said? They move the satellites when a collision is likely. There's no clever arrangement of orbits to make collisions less likely, which is what I naively assumed they were doing.
in reply to David Penfold

I guess the difference between now and then (15 years ago) is the number of LEO satellites has increased possibly fivefold. And if they were worried back then, God only knows how they feel now.
in reply to David Penfold

@davep why is your estimate = fivefold? Were there constellation(s) of LEO sats 15y ago? Asking because it seems a new thing to form constellations of hundreds or thousands. I’m not in the field, but can only think of a couple hundred LEO things. Iridium was about twice as high and had just 90 units. So… spy sats or some other undocumented / uncommented sats?
This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

I vaguely remember hearing the figure of 2,000 in 2011, so we're looking at a 7 to 8-fold increase or thereabouts.

Although that graph would indicate it was closer to 1,000.

This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

@davep I came here because someone quoted your "it's just avoiding collisions by moving a Starlink satellite every 2 min" toot. I understood it so that they move satellites randomly based on only time. So that's not it? They're moving based on collision risk, and the risk is too high every 2 min?
So there's a lot of collision risk calculation going on all the time?Is that why you stress the importance of keeping maneuvers up - because they'd stop if calculation stopped working?
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

@davep The mathematics of a system guaranteed of collision-free orbits in LEO would be very difficult, especially due to atmospheric drag and other physical effects. I don’t think anyone really knows how to compute the max density of satellites. Unless you intend to build a shell and that certainly won’t be popular.

When the automobile first became popular, the accident rate was quite high when a certain density of auto traffic in cities was reached. That’s when traffic laws and road standards were invented. I don’t think we can wait for accidents in LEO due to the danger of a runaway collusion scenario.

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Yeah.

See. I feel like some people think throwing things where they want them is the whole business model. There is no thought out plan.

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

I assume that as the use of propellant to avoid collisions increases, the viable life of each satellite decreases? I wonder how that impacts the business case for putting constellations in LEO
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

When a collision takes place, debris will distribute randomly and that debris will cause new collisions etc. etc.

Have those patterns of secondary disruption been modelled?

in reply to LionelB

@lionelb No. That's a whole different paper. This calculation only takes into account current objects in orbit, because as you said, the calculation changes dramatically after a collision.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

A supplementary. If communications are interrupted by solar flares, the course corrections might not take place?
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

That seems like the sort of thing that would sound terribly clever to someone from an engineering background, and is absolutely mortifying to those of us who have had to deal with the stability of natural systems.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

I imagine a starlink engineer mentioning, "configuration of the satellites in the orbital shell that minimized conjunctions," Musk laughing at him childishly and saying, Move Fast and Break Things.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

It, sadly, doesn't surprise me. He does spaghetti science. No modelling and risk assessment, it's all, "throw it out there and see what sicks. Whoops, oh, well, let's just try this (untried thing)."
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

That seems worse than advertised.

Maneuvers in space rely on fuel (like in most places). But in space... it's not so easy to refuel.

If these satellites are constantly maneuvering... how long until they can't? Does that time make a collision practically guaranteed?

in reply to Epic Null

@Epic_Null They generally burn them up in the atmosphere before they completely run out of fuel. Not a good solution, but cuts down on collision probability in orbit
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Unlike Exxon, they won’t be able to reflag the satellites as Starlink Mediterranean and pretend it’s business as usual.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Exxon Valdez was the biggest ecocide crisis when I was growing up. I still remember all the tragic images of the wildlife & waters affected 😔
in reply to Ms. Que Banh

@PhoenixSerenity Me too! It was wild to me to realize that the 2 students I was working with were only vaguely aware of it! Gotta keep talking about these human-caused crises, our memories are so short.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

We have to educate the youths because they're the future. They need to know many human caused eco-crisises aren't that long ago - several have happened in my brief 50 years thus far.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

@PhoenixSerenity

Chernobyl over here. 14 year old me standing at my window, not being allowed to go outside, because it was raining – likely with radioactive fallout...

I still remember that view.

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Also interested in the times orders to launch nuclear weapons were issued within the Soviet military command but not executed (Arkhipov and Petrov) along with the time we accidentally bombed North Carolina but one of the four safety switches held.

On the other hand, Chernobyl got a TV series. So that's good for a while. I understand the containment at the site was breached the other day.

This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

@PhoenixSerenity I think I was in my 20's when that happened? Maybe still teens...

I'm actually only vaguely aware of it too. Kinda remember the ducks and stuff. Dawn. But it barely registers and the memory has faded considerably. So much has happened.

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

It's an apt metaphor because the guy wasn't on ketamine but he was hammered.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

After the Amoco Cadiz ran aground on rocks off the coast of Brittany, France, dumping 220,000 tons of crude oil they made an important decision. They stopped including the name of the oil company in the name of the ship. Elon probably wishes he could do that.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

I have (sort of) known of and understood the risks of Kessler Syndrome for some time, but wonder how long it would take for the orbits of the fragments in LEO to decay enough to make it a safe place to operate once again - or is the answer "several human lifetimes, if ever"? Will we forever quarantine ourselves behind a blanket of debris, unable to view the universe clearly or to transit LEO safely?
in reply to Just Tom... 🐁

@tompearce49 I don't think it would prevent space travel or the use of space, only the resource called LEO would be lost for a time that will depend on the height of the orbit.

During that time, it would not be possible to safely place satellites there, but I think it could be relatively safely traversed quickly. Large fragments could be tracked, tiny fragments protected against by micrometeorite shielding.

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

How difficult it would be for some other country without access to Starlink (or similar) to deliberately trigger Kessler Syndrome if they find themselves in war with USA?
in reply to nen

@nen This looks like a good article about that...nationalinterest.org/blog/tech…
@nen
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

What's the expected lifetime of propellant onboard, especially with increased maneuvers required to avoid ever-more-probable collisions? ie, What are the chances that a satellite loses the ability to avoid its neighbors before burning up in the atmosphere?

I also assume that a corollary of this chart is the likelihood of a snowballing chain reaction where one collision creates multiple pieces of uncontrollable (and untrackable?) debris that increase the likelihood of further collisions?

in reply to zenkat

@zenkat Starlink satellites only have lifetimes of 5 years. I have no idea how much propellant they start with or how much they use. They wouldn't tell me if I asked, anyway.

Yeah, and modelling the collisions is a very different kind of paper. This is just likelihoods.

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

I think this is a great page to have.

If I could make one totally unsolicited opinion; If there were a way to feature this number more Doomsday clock style for the clicks and publicity of it, since I entirely think it is info that needs to be spread far and wide and get attention.

Thank you for doing the research and keeping us informed.

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

One interesting number to estimate is how long before a crash in the less extreme case of worse orbital determinations (because a database is down or someone is dazzling telescopes), which then could lead to fewer maneuvers being ordered or maybe even to dangerous maneuvers being ordered.
in reply to tobychev

@tobychev That's pretty much what the CRASH Clock is. If orbits are poorly known, collision avoidance maneuvers either won't happen or won't happen at the right place, so this is the random measure of how long until a collision.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

I imagine we could always just use slightly higher orbits, but that would mean increased launch costs?
in reply to Qybat

@Qybat Higher altitude orbits mean higher latency for internet. That is the primary reason Starlink is in lower altitudes. Higher altitudes (~1000km) are also worse for debris, because debris stays there longer (centuries) than at lower altitude orbits (~500km), where it "naturally" falls into the atmosphere on the months/years timescale
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Now I'm imagining launching a giant deployable sheet into retrograde orbit, to collide with and de-orbit everything it hits, before its own ratio of cross-section to mass brings it down.

I will file this idea as 'cool, but probably not practical.'

in reply to Qybat

@Qybat I mean, that's pretty much what Reflect Orbital is going to do. They just don't think of that as their primary mission (also it's not going to stop anything, just get shredded)
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Shouldn't need to stop anything. Just slow it down enough. I played Kerbal, so I can pretend I know orbital mechanics.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

I'm curious if and how this will be mentioned in the SpaceX IPO prospectus...
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

dear goddess we're a datacenter failover from disaster if they were doing that in realtime.

Wonder how far in advance they get scheduled. 😬

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Cold open to techno thriller: 3:00 am. Terrorists take out power and backups at two very boring-looking data centers, then attack Starlink navigation HQ.
in reply to Atz

@atzanteol relative to ground. It's on average more like 10km/s relative to each other (the math is in the paper)
@Atz
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Oh, that's interesting... I would have expected most of the satellites would be traveling in a "similarish" direction so the average relative velocity would be lower than ground speed.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Holy sh**! If we scale this 7 km/s down by a factor of 1000, we are at 7 m/s or 25.2 km/h which is about as fast as a Pedelec is driven at top speed. Now imagine a bicycle passes you from the side where you two are only 1 m apart for a moment. No collision, but that's damn close. Then imagine a car that close too. You probably have to treadle with diapers. Ok, not that different from bicycle pants, but still…
in reply to Andy

@andy Oooo good comparison! I might use that when explaining this! Thanks
@Andy
Unknown parent

mastodon - Link to source
John Lusk
@thomasfuchs
Is that mv^2/2? All that energy comes from rocket fuel, right? 1/1,000th seems like a lot.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

cool paper, your description here had me thinking about a dimensionless measure for collisions.

density is in 1/length^3 and speed is length/time, typical cross section of a satellite is length^2 and a useful time scale is the design life of a payload

there are 4 measures and 2 dimensions, so we should get 2 dimensionless groups

cross section * speed *density*lifetime should give a dimensionless measure of lifetime collision danger

Unknown parent

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

I'm assuming the velocity comes only from the energy used to boost the thing into orbit at the velocity needed to stay there. There's no gravitational slingshotting or anything that adds extra energy, right? So it's 100% from chemical rocket fuel burn, right? What am I missing?

(Actually, I guess climbing the gravitational well by itself requires even more energy, so there's even more energy in the burn than orbital velocity, right?)

@thomasfuchs

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Right. So... all propellant, right? No other energy source. That's a lot of chemical energy.

(I did major in physics, several decades ago, but I might have missed something big.)

@thomasfuchs

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

Solar storms. You do not need a total switch off of all spacecraft to get blind. You may not be capable of impact avoidance manouvre if you are simply lacking accutare ephemeris. A strong solar storm may be below the threshold to fry up all spacecraft, but may induce atmospheric drag changes strong enough to ruin ephemeris for many days.
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

RE: mastodon.social/@NewSpaceEcono…

@sundogplanets
Coverage of the CRASH Clock at
fosstodon.org/@NewSpaceEconomy…


The CRASH Clock: Earth’s Orbit on the Brink of Catastrophe

newspaceeconomy.ca/2025/12/18/…


This entry was edited (1 week ago)

Prof. Sam Lawler reshared this.

in reply to AkaSci 🛰️

@AkaSci Headline is a bit... overenthusiastic. But really that's the reasonable response here
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

@AkaSci

👍
My first reaction to the image was an AI Bubble Crash. Perhaps computer folks can use AI to design an AI Bubble Crash. The AI would then spread messages to the other AI telling them to repent/reboot, the end is near. 😱

in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler

More headlines -
'Crash Clock' reveals how soon satellite collisions would occur after a severe solar storm — and it's pretty scary - space.com/space-exploration/sa…

Crash clock says satellites in orbit are three days from disaster - newscientist.com/article/25087…

New ‘CRASH Clock’ Warns of 2.8-Day Window Before Likely Orbital Collision - gizmodo.com/new-crash-clock-wa…

'Crash Clock' warns Earth orbit is nearing disaster as megaconstellations push space traffic to brink - accuweather.com/en/space-news/…

This entry was edited (1 week ago)

Mastodon Migration reshared this.