Wooo it's up!
Uncategorized
16
Posts
1
Posters
0
Views
-
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. https://www.scribd.com/document/883045105/SpaceX-Gen1-Gen2-Semi-Annual-Report-7-1-25?v=0.698
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.
-
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.
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!
-
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!
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!
-
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!
We set up a CRASH Clock website here: https://outerspaceinstitute.ca/crashclock/
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.
-
We set up a CRASH Clock website here: https://outerspaceinstitute.ca/crashclock/
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.
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.
-
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.
"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)
-
"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)
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.
-
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.
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."
-
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."
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.
-
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.
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: https://archive.ph/6BwqQ
-
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: https://archive.ph/6BwqQ
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).
-
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).
Oh hey look, a Starlink satellite "experienced an anomaly" and ejected a bunch of debris. Explosion? Debris hit? Either way, not good..
https://www.pcmag.com/news/starlink-satellite-malfunctions-ejects-debris-fragments
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!
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@max forse questa è visione meno esagerata https://www.fanpage.it/spettacolo/eventi/il-meglio-del-peggio-di-andrea-pucci-perche-sanremo-non-fa-per-lui/
-
Thanks to everyone who replied. I am a Yes, But... I haven't been working very hard on them.
-
@ben awwwww!
-
-
@maj Dawn's and my answer would be all of Alice's followers. I don't like the intersection answer, because it gets smaller and smaller over time. I think Alice's intent is to have her friends and family have a conversation, like it works on Instagram and Facebook.
-
@tenzochris @evan Damn, beat me to it.
-
Descending into the airport. I cannot wait to hug my best buddy. I’ve missed him so much.
-
The Devil Wears Prada 2: Perfectly coiffed hellfire
