Common Sense Skeptic: DEBUNKING STARLINK - Part 3

Part 3 - Hazards of Operation

Introduction

This is the third part of my series highlighting the myriad problems in Common Sense Skeptic’s “DEBUNKING STARLINK” video. If you haven’t yet read Part 1 and Part 2, head on over and check them out.

In this post, I’ll be going over the hazards of operation Starlink has to deal with, and comparing those to Common Sense Skeptic’s claims.

• Part 1 - Starlink vs the Competition

• Part 2 - The Economics

• Part 3 - Hazards of Operation

• Part 4 - Conclusion and Score

---

The Claims

18:00 - CSS spends a fair amount of time talking about Kessler Syndrome, a theoretical scenario where collisions in orbit cause new debris which causes more collisions, causing a cascading effect. Low Earth Orbits naturally degrade due to atmospheric drag, so Kessler Syndrome is concerned with the rate at which new debris is created vs the rate at which existing debris deorbits and is removed from the equation.

For more information on Kessler Syndrome, I highly recommend this video by PBS Space Time, particularly the section around 11:18 “Some sci-fi writers like to present the Kessler Syndrome as an impossible maelstrom, a giant space blender, effectively imprisoning us on earth. The danger is for objects spending any lengthy period of time in those zones. For a rocket passing straight through on its way to higher orbits… the risk will probably be tolerably low.”

One bit of background information that will be important is how orbital decay changes with altitude. Tory Bruno, aerospace engineer and CEO of United Launch Alliance, has provided this info-graphic as a general guideline. Objects at 550 km deorbit on the timescale of years, objects around 250 km deorbit on the timescale of weeks, and below that on a timescale of hours.

This assumes total loss of control of the satellite. Starlink satellites have onboard thrusters and are planned to be deorbited at the end of their lifecycle. CSS ignores this fact and claims, at 17:45, that when the constellation is replaced, 100% of the original satellites will be left in orbit.

Now, back to CSS’ video.

---

20:03 - Rather than taking a scientific approach, CSS takes the sensational approach, showing this article from The Sun which talks about ruining space travel “forever”. CSS then says “…and the argument Musk makes about his satellites being in a significantly lower orbit than others are no argument at all.” This is demonstrably false. If a OneWeb satellite at 1,200 km loses maneuverability, it will be a collision risk for centuries, and especially dangerous to all the orbits below it. If a Starlink satellite at 550 km loses maneuverability, it will be a collision risk for a few years. If one of their satellites at 345 km loses maneuverability, it will burn up in a matter of months.

CSS correctly points out that the debris from a collision isn’t limited to the altitude where it occurs, but fails to mention that the entire orbit won’t be raised. It is possible for debris to be flung into a more elliptical orbit, but the perigee, the lowest point of its orbit, is still going to be around the original altitude, where it will be affected by higher atmospheric drag and deorbit in a relatively short timescale.

CSS then brings up the incorrect failure rate of Starlink satellites again, and incorrectly claims that dead Starlink satellites have not yet “fallen from the sky”. Looking back at Jonathan’s data that was covered in the previous post, only 24 satellites have reached operational orbit, failed, and have yet to reenter. And, going by CSS’ claim of “and most of them are less than a year old.” there is only 1 such satellite.

Interestingly, CSS at this point does link Tory Bruno’s info-graphic and correctly points out that failed Starlink satellites would be a hazard for several years before deorbiting, but this is in direct opposition to the article they showed earlier claiming space travel could be ruined “forever”.

---

21:14 - This is a perfect example of CSS’ lack of professionalism. “Kessler Syndrome is a hotly debated topic. You have astronomers on one side, warning of the dangers of cramming our orbits with tens of thousands of additional satellites, and then on the other side you have clueless people arguing with the astronomers, accusing them of being alarmists.”

Another point that needs to be made is that CSS acts as if all Starlink satellites will be at the same orbit. In reality, the Gen 1 and Gen 2 constellations look like this, in terms of how many satellites will be in which orbital decay timescale:

• Gen 1

  • 4,408 satellites under the ‘Years’ category.

  • 7,518 satellites under the ‘Months’ category.

• Gen 2

  • 4,468 satellites under the ‘Years’ category.

  • 25,532 satellites under the ‘Months’ category.

Also, every satellite is under the ‘Weeks’ category if it is determined to have failed after launch. Only functional satellites after launch are raised out of that low orbit.

---

24:07 - “And at the end of it, we could be left with a field of debris surrounding the planet, that prevents any launches to any orbital elevation.” Again, CSS turns to sensationalism.

“Since the declared intentions of Musk are to launch humankind to the moon and to mars, where he intends to ascend to the emperor’s throne, he should absolutely be completely protective of those orbits, by keeping them as clear as possible.”

More lack of professionalism from CSS. Musk often puts jokes and memes on his Twitter profile, but CSS takes that to claim that Musk actually intends to make himself emperor of a planet, and it doesn’t stop there.

“Especially in light of the thin-skinned Starships that he’s planning to use to fulfill his Christopher Columbus fantasies.”

These are not the words of a rational skeptic focusing on “simple mathematics, examples, and logic.” nor “teaching how important critical thinking skills are.”

---

Conclusion

Common Sense Skeptic’s approach to discussing Kessler Syndrome heavily leans toward sensationalism rather than rationalism.

• Part 1 - Starlink vs the Competition

• Part 2 - The Economics

• Part 3 - Hazards of Operation

• Part 4 - Conclusion and Score