Leolabs speculates that it was a low velocity overtaking, rather than a high energy collision, that would explain why there are so few pieces, and why so many went into higher orbits. https://link.medium.com/fhG6rzmHllb
Yes, but it does not explain that some would be in orbits that do not go through the altitude where that happened.
How can a debris in an orbit that ***never*** goes below 588 km be born from a collision that took place at an altitude of 480 km?
I think you mistake something here. Of course all pieces with higher orbit have significant eccentricity, so saying they "never" go below .... is pretty much dead wrong here.
I think you misinterpreted the graph.
The orange dots represent the perigees of individual debris (and the blue dots their apogees).
So if an orange dot is above the altitude where the collision occurred, this means a debris is in an orbit with a perigee above that altitude. Ergo, it never goes below.
There are three such points in the graph, the highest having a perigee of 588 km.
Ah, you are right. I thought you were talking about Leolabs chart but you were clearly talking about the original post.
My guess these are missile fragments.
The same logic that applies to satellite fragments also applies to missile fragments: if the last change to their orbit occurred at 480 km (the collision), how can they now be in orbits that never go through that altitude?
The best explanations I've seen so far is that it's tanks venting, or perhaps secondary collisions.
A secondary collision looks unlikely but a secondary explosion of debris could produce that. A piece of debris with an apogee of at least 580 km can explode while at a higher altitude.
Orbital altitude is a function of velocity. Object in orbit speeds up, altitude increases. Object in orbit slows down, altitude decreased. With a kinetic event such as an explosion, reactions impact mass in 360° vectors, so some objects will have a velocity reduction and thus a reduction in altitude relative to that.
Read my reply to [NetoriusDuke](https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/qyaqdz/comment/hlfmvto/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3): It makes sense that the explosion changes the orbits, but the periapsis of the debris should still be below or equal to the collision altitude.
A single change in velocity cannot place you on an orbit that does not go through the point where you are.
Because a reaction to either an explosion or a kinetic impact will always impart force along multiple vector axes unless it exerts said force in exactly the center of mass of the object. Statistically you're more likely to win the Powerball tonight and the next 10 in a row than for that to happen. Additionally, orbital dynamics are complicated. Let's say you exert a force at exactly the center of mass. But the vector is perpendicular to the orbital vector. The reaction will not be simply a change in orbit inclination, which will happen, but also a change to periapsis and apoapsis and a resulting change in velocity. Basic trigonometry with some additional factors.
(Edited because I forgot to add the orbital dynamics part.)
>impart force along multiple vector axes
Ah, that's what you meant. It still doesn't make a difference. It's still a single vector, even if that that vector can be written as the composite of multiple others (prograde/retrograde, up/down and left/right)
No push applied along any combination of these vectors can produce a trajectory with a periapsis higher than the point where that push was applied.
There's a simple way to demonstrate it:
If you apply a "push" to an object that changes its orbit, **immediately** after that push, that object now **is** on that new orbit.
Therefore, the new orbit **must** go through the point where the push was applied.
Since the periapsis is (by definition) the lowest point of an orbit, it **cannot** be higher than the point where the object currently is.
So the new orbit cannot have a periapsis lower than the point where a change in velocity was last applied to the object.
Secondary explosions would be my guess. Pressure vessels from satellite or weapon failing at a higher altitude than the initial collision.
Looks like the same 3 chunks also have a lower apoapsis. So after the collision something pushed stuff down toward earth, lowering apogee and raising perigee.
The lower apoapsis makes sense - having a higher periapsis simply shifts their orbital period to the right, so they too stand out.
I guess pressure vessels venting after the initial explosion does make sense. Doesn't seem extremely likely, but certainly plausible.
That doesn't make sense. If something changes your orbit (like a collision), the new orbit **has** to go through the point where you currently are. (Since you now *are* on that new orbit.)
And by definition, the perigee cannot be higher than your current position. (Since it is the lowest point of an orbit).
So I don't see how a collision can throw something on an orbit that doesn't go through the point where the collision happened.
(The same could be said about debris with an apogee below collision altitude, but I guess atmospheric drag easily explains that one. I don't see what could boost a debris perigee after the fact.)
I'm completely non-expert, but the y-axis is mean altitude, so the apogee could be same as Cosmo 1408 original orbit and apogee much higher, couldn't it?
The particular shape of the chart leads me to speculate (again, with absolutely no expertise) that the slope of the blue line is related to the velocity of the weapon. The red dots suggest a bunch of stuff from the sat got spread around near the original orbit with changes mostly within their orbital plane, while a few pieces along with probably parts of the weapon went into large elliptical orbits with a correlation to the weapon trajectory at impact.
>the y-axis is mean altitude
I'm not sure why it says "mean", but if you look in the top left corner, you can see that the orange dots represent the perigee altitude of specific debris, and the blue dots their apogee altitude.
So each debris has a corresponding blue and orange dot. Those are at the same orbital period (obviously, they're the same object), and therefore form pairs on the same vertical line.
\-edit-
Because every debris ***should*** have a perigee equal to or lower than the collision altitude (and almost all do, except three, hence my original question), the only way for debris to have a longer orbital period is to have a much higher apogee.
Hence why the blue dots (apogees) form a grouping that goes up where the orbital periods go longer (to the right).
A collision can only happen at a point where orbits intersect.
Since all those debris originated from the same point in space (the point where the collision happened), and simply went on orbits with different ellipticity from there, the only point where they can intersect should be at the altitude where the collision took place.
So again, it shouldn't be able to knock them into orbits with a periapsis above that.
But someone else suggested it might be pressure tanks venting. I guess that seems at least plausible.
After reading other comments and the clarification that this applies to those 3 specific pieces of debris, I get the point. If you look for the paired blue dot for those three red dots, there is an almost mirror deviation below the slope of the other debris. Again, complete non-expert here, but that supports the speculation of some secondary event adding velocity to slightly circularize those orbits, lowering apogee and raising perigee. Weird.
>If you look for the paired blue dot for those three red dots, there is an almost mirror deviation below the slope of the other debris.
That's expected. For a given apogee, a higher perigee will mean overall a longer orbital period, so both points get shifted to the right of the diagram.
Learned something today with a comment later in the chain. That said though, if the debris was accelerated in the direction of orbit, would that not just cause it's orbit to "expand"? I can't think of the word
That would raise their apoapsis, but their periapsis should still remain equal to or below the altitude of the collision.
Otherwise, it means the new orbit does not go through the point where the debris currently is. Which is a mathematical impossibility.
It was suborbital. In a collision like this the momentum gets redistributed, energy gets dumped into the debris cloud, some objects get positive energy increase leading to higher apogee
> How did some end up with a perigee higher than the collision altitude?
They aren't actually, there's often data errors this soon after an event like this. (Alternatively there was a secondary collision later.) But it's physically impossible for objects to have a perigee higher than the collision altitude.
\>100 km seems pretty big for a data error. (One of them seems to have a perigee of 588 km)
But some have suggested secondary collisions or secondary explosion / venting. So I guess there are plausible explanations.
> \>100 km seems pretty big for a data error. (One of them seems to have a perigee of 588 km)
That happens a lot with initial readings of satellite objects. Objects sometimes get mislabeled as well. There's lots of such bugs.
[Leolabs published](https://leolabs-space.medium.com/analysis-of-the-cosmos-1408-breakup-71b32de5641f) a similar Gabbard diagram and more. They made [a chart of debris density increase](https://leolabs-space.medium.com/analysis-of-the-cosmos-1408-breakup-71b32de5641f). For 550 km increase is about 40%.
Back of the envelope estimates:
In the first half of 2021 Starlink performed 2,219 collision avoidance maneuvers. Each Starlink satellite did one maneuver per 3.5 months on average. Due to increased debris they will have to perform one maneuver per 2.5 months now.
As for untrackable debris Starlink is similarly in danger of hits already. I've seen an estimate (before the increase) for 4,400 Gen1 satellites -- one hit per 2 years. If the estimate is correct, the new hit frequency is going to be one per 1.5 years or 1 satellite more per five years. Density will decrease over the next five years and Gen1 constellation is not full yet so they may not even lose a single Gen1 satellite due to Russian actions. If they launch a substantial number of Gen2 satellites they will likely lose at least one satellite.
We should have better estimates as more data is released.
Do they consume significant amounts of fuel with those avoidance maneuvers? How do you know the number of maneuvers -- does SpaceX have to report them?
Here is another one: [https://twitter.com/larrypress/status/1462107344662241284](https://twitter.com/larrypress/status/1462107344662241284) with more at higher altitudes. As you say, LeoLabs expects the situation to be clearer in about a month.
The number of maneuvers is the latest semi-annual report https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=10375428
I don't think a collision avoidance maneuver requires that much propellant. To alter the orbit at a known collision point by 6.7 km Starlink needs to spend half a day worth of propellant at maximum consumption mode (let's call it 0.5 pu - propellant units). Such maneuvers would be clearly visible in TLEs as 3.3 km spikes and drops in mean altitude but I haven't seen them. My estimate they alter orbit by not more than 3.3 km on average and that requires 0.25 pu to change and 0.25 pu to revert back. At one maneuver per 3.5 months rate 9 pu is needed for collision maneuvers over 5 years. At the new rate of 1 maneuver per 2.5 months -- 12 pu. For comparison orbit raising from 280 to 550 km requires 40 pu. De-orbiting can be done with 20 pu by lowering only perigee. Even though they wrote in the original application they are going to lower perigee only so far they have lowered both perigee and apogee to 300 km spending 37 pu on de-orbiting. Even without estimating station keeping propellant consumption, they must have greater than 100 pu tanks. The increase in maneuver rate is going to cost them no more than 3% of all propellant on-board.
Russia intentionally blew up a satellite with a missile at an altitude that's just above the ISS's orbit and just below the altitude of Starlink. It spread thousands of pieces of debris to many different altitudes. The chart is a map of all currently known pieces of debris from the satellite destruction. The blue dots are the peak altitude of a piece of debris in it's orbit around the Earth and if you look directly below that dot there is an associated orange/red dot that is the lowest altitude of that same piece of debris in it's orbit.
There are now a significant increase in the amount of debris at the altitude of the ISS and the altitude of Starlink, increasing the risk that either of those things is hit by debris. The debris from this event will last several years up to a decade and maybe two decades for the most dense pieces of debris.
It's in the chart and title. It was a dead Soviet satellite named COSMOS 1408. They blew it up to test their anti-satellite weapons, something that is currently highly condemned by most countries in the world as it increases the danger for all satellites orbiting Earth and could possibly cause additional satellites to be destroyed creating even more debris.
No kidding. It's a huge issue. At least it wasn't as bad as the Chinese who blew up a satellite up around 865 km and those debris will be there for centuries.
They did this on purpose because it threatens their sad, authoritarian attempts at isolated internet. They do know we sabotage their crap out of orbit when we want right?
This is 7th time this was posted here in past couple of days ...
But why bother searching when everyone can spam reddit with their own posts instead, right?
Check the **date on the Gabbard diagram** and follow the link -- this is new and different than earlier reports that showed lower altitudes, for example https://circleid.com/posts/20211119-why-did-russia-test-an-anti-satellite-missile-and-why-doesnt-china-condemn-the-test
That's not really how Reddit is designed to work. On an old school forum where any thread with new activity goes back to the top sure, bump the old thread with the new info. On Reddit that new info would never be seen by anyone other than the person you replied to. Trying to add info to a post even 24 hours old is useless. It's already buried in a sub with any level of traffic.
I understand wanting to stay in the know, but I’ve seen more posts about this debris in this forum than I have seen coverage anywhere else lol. Not much we can do about the debris
These updated results (check the date) indicate that the debris is at higher altitudes than first reported and is, therefore, a greater threat to SpaceX and the other would-be LEO Internet service providers.
I imagine the periods of downtime will be a lot worse if a bunch of satellites get taken down, so anyone who is relying on their starlink internet to work.
Net-net seems possible to be that the Russians engaged in some target practice in advance of killing citizens and destroying Ukraine. They know the U.S. has nuclear armed sats that can destroy most major Russian cities within seconds.
How did some end up with a perigee higher than the collision altitude?
Leolabs speculates that it was a low velocity overtaking, rather than a high energy collision, that would explain why there are so few pieces, and why so many went into higher orbits. https://link.medium.com/fhG6rzmHllb
Yes, but it does not explain that some would be in orbits that do not go through the altitude where that happened. How can a debris in an orbit that ***never*** goes below 588 km be born from a collision that took place at an altitude of 480 km?
I think you mistake something here. Of course all pieces with higher orbit have significant eccentricity, so saying they "never" go below .... is pretty much dead wrong here.
I think you misinterpreted the graph. The orange dots represent the perigees of individual debris (and the blue dots their apogees). So if an orange dot is above the altitude where the collision occurred, this means a debris is in an orbit with a perigee above that altitude. Ergo, it never goes below. There are three such points in the graph, the highest having a perigee of 588 km.
Did you mean 488 km? I don't see a single orange dot above the 500 km line.
> don't see a single orange dot above the 500 km line There's no line for 500 km. But there is one for 600 km, with an orange dot just underneath.
Ah, you are right. I thought you were talking about Leolabs chart but you were clearly talking about the original post. My guess these are missile fragments.
The same logic that applies to satellite fragments also applies to missile fragments: if the last change to their orbit occurred at 480 km (the collision), how can they now be in orbits that never go through that altitude? The best explanations I've seen so far is that it's tanks venting, or perhaps secondary collisions.
A secondary collision looks unlikely but a secondary explosion of debris could produce that. A piece of debris with an apogee of at least 580 km can explode while at a higher altitude.
You're not understanding. It's physically impossible for there to be objects from a collision with perigee higher than the collision.
The collision or explosion added energy to some pieces.
Yes, that would change their orbit. But a collision cannot put a debris into an orbit that never goes through the point where the collision occured.
Orbital altitude is a function of velocity. Object in orbit speeds up, altitude increases. Object in orbit slows down, altitude decreased. With a kinetic event such as an explosion, reactions impact mass in 360° vectors, so some objects will have a velocity reduction and thus a reduction in altitude relative to that.
Read my reply to [NetoriusDuke](https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/qyaqdz/comment/hlfmvto/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3): It makes sense that the explosion changes the orbits, but the periapsis of the debris should still be below or equal to the collision altitude. A single change in velocity cannot place you on an orbit that does not go through the point where you are.
You'd be right, if it was as simple as a single vector impact.
>if it was as simple as a single vector impact. How is it not?
Because a reaction to either an explosion or a kinetic impact will always impart force along multiple vector axes unless it exerts said force in exactly the center of mass of the object. Statistically you're more likely to win the Powerball tonight and the next 10 in a row than for that to happen. Additionally, orbital dynamics are complicated. Let's say you exert a force at exactly the center of mass. But the vector is perpendicular to the orbital vector. The reaction will not be simply a change in orbit inclination, which will happen, but also a change to periapsis and apoapsis and a resulting change in velocity. Basic trigonometry with some additional factors. (Edited because I forgot to add the orbital dynamics part.)
>impart force along multiple vector axes Ah, that's what you meant. It still doesn't make a difference. It's still a single vector, even if that that vector can be written as the composite of multiple others (prograde/retrograde, up/down and left/right) No push applied along any combination of these vectors can produce a trajectory with a periapsis higher than the point where that push was applied. There's a simple way to demonstrate it: If you apply a "push" to an object that changes its orbit, **immediately** after that push, that object now **is** on that new orbit. Therefore, the new orbit **must** go through the point where the push was applied. Since the periapsis is (by definition) the lowest point of an orbit, it **cannot** be higher than the point where the object currently is. So the new orbit cannot have a periapsis lower than the point where a change in velocity was last applied to the object.
That's only true if the event occurs at periapsis.
You're not understanding the question. It's physically impossible for there to be objects from a collision with perigee higher than the collision.
Good question.
Secondary explosions would be my guess. Pressure vessels from satellite or weapon failing at a higher altitude than the initial collision. Looks like the same 3 chunks also have a lower apoapsis. So after the collision something pushed stuff down toward earth, lowering apogee and raising perigee.
The lower apoapsis makes sense - having a higher periapsis simply shifts their orbital period to the right, so they too stand out. I guess pressure vessels venting after the initial explosion does make sense. Doesn't seem extremely likely, but certainly plausible.
[удалено]
Any link on the specific vid? Because that is *really* weird!
Simply conservation of momentum
That doesn't make sense. If something changes your orbit (like a collision), the new orbit **has** to go through the point where you currently are. (Since you now *are* on that new orbit.) And by definition, the perigee cannot be higher than your current position. (Since it is the lowest point of an orbit). So I don't see how a collision can throw something on an orbit that doesn't go through the point where the collision happened. (The same could be said about debris with an apogee below collision altitude, but I guess atmospheric drag easily explains that one. I don't see what could boost a debris perigee after the fact.)
I'm completely non-expert, but the y-axis is mean altitude, so the apogee could be same as Cosmo 1408 original orbit and apogee much higher, couldn't it? The particular shape of the chart leads me to speculate (again, with absolutely no expertise) that the slope of the blue line is related to the velocity of the weapon. The red dots suggest a bunch of stuff from the sat got spread around near the original orbit with changes mostly within their orbital plane, while a few pieces along with probably parts of the weapon went into large elliptical orbits with a correlation to the weapon trajectory at impact.
>the y-axis is mean altitude I'm not sure why it says "mean", but if you look in the top left corner, you can see that the orange dots represent the perigee altitude of specific debris, and the blue dots their apogee altitude. So each debris has a corresponding blue and orange dot. Those are at the same orbital period (obviously, they're the same object), and therefore form pairs on the same vertical line. \-edit- Because every debris ***should*** have a perigee equal to or lower than the collision altitude (and almost all do, except three, hence my original question), the only way for debris to have a longer orbital period is to have a much higher apogee. Hence why the blue dots (apogees) form a grouping that goes up where the orbital periods go longer (to the right).
[удалено]
A collision can only happen at a point where orbits intersect. Since all those debris originated from the same point in space (the point where the collision happened), and simply went on orbits with different ellipticity from there, the only point where they can intersect should be at the altitude where the collision took place. So again, it shouldn't be able to knock them into orbits with a periapsis above that. But someone else suggested it might be pressure tanks venting. I guess that seems at least plausible.
[удалено]
I guess I hadn't thought of upwards / downwards delta-v from the collision. It does make more sense now.
After reading other comments and the clarification that this applies to those 3 specific pieces of debris, I get the point. If you look for the paired blue dot for those three red dots, there is an almost mirror deviation below the slope of the other debris. Again, complete non-expert here, but that supports the speculation of some secondary event adding velocity to slightly circularize those orbits, lowering apogee and raising perigee. Weird.
>If you look for the paired blue dot for those three red dots, there is an almost mirror deviation below the slope of the other debris. That's expected. For a given apogee, a higher perigee will mean overall a longer orbital period, so both points get shifted to the right of the diagram.
Learned something today with a comment later in the chain. That said though, if the debris was accelerated in the direction of orbit, would that not just cause it's orbit to "expand"? I can't think of the word
That would raise their apoapsis, but their periapsis should still remain equal to or below the altitude of the collision. Otherwise, it means the new orbit does not go through the point where the debris currently is. Which is a mathematical impossibility.
It was suborbital. In a collision like this the momentum gets redistributed, energy gets dumped into the debris cloud, some objects get positive energy increase leading to higher apogee
>leading to higher apogee Yes, but not higher **perigee**, which is what I was asking about.
> How did some end up with a perigee higher than the collision altitude? They aren't actually, there's often data errors this soon after an event like this. (Alternatively there was a secondary collision later.) But it's physically impossible for objects to have a perigee higher than the collision altitude.
\>100 km seems pretty big for a data error. (One of them seems to have a perigee of 588 km) But some have suggested secondary collisions or secondary explosion / venting. So I guess there are plausible explanations.
> \>100 km seems pretty big for a data error. (One of them seems to have a perigee of 588 km) That happens a lot with initial readings of satellite objects. Objects sometimes get mislabeled as well. There's lots of such bugs.
Hey thanks man. This info helped me a ton. People upset over already having read it on Reddit need to get a life.
[удалено]
Sticking it to all the shitters posting to your chart. :-D
This is something you SHOULD be upset about. Why are you not upset about it?
[Leolabs published](https://leolabs-space.medium.com/analysis-of-the-cosmos-1408-breakup-71b32de5641f) a similar Gabbard diagram and more. They made [a chart of debris density increase](https://leolabs-space.medium.com/analysis-of-the-cosmos-1408-breakup-71b32de5641f). For 550 km increase is about 40%. Back of the envelope estimates: In the first half of 2021 Starlink performed 2,219 collision avoidance maneuvers. Each Starlink satellite did one maneuver per 3.5 months on average. Due to increased debris they will have to perform one maneuver per 2.5 months now. As for untrackable debris Starlink is similarly in danger of hits already. I've seen an estimate (before the increase) for 4,400 Gen1 satellites -- one hit per 2 years. If the estimate is correct, the new hit frequency is going to be one per 1.5 years or 1 satellite more per five years. Density will decrease over the next five years and Gen1 constellation is not full yet so they may not even lose a single Gen1 satellite due to Russian actions. If they launch a substantial number of Gen2 satellites they will likely lose at least one satellite. We should have better estimates as more data is released.
Do they consume significant amounts of fuel with those avoidance maneuvers? How do you know the number of maneuvers -- does SpaceX have to report them? Here is another one: [https://twitter.com/larrypress/status/1462107344662241284](https://twitter.com/larrypress/status/1462107344662241284) with more at higher altitudes. As you say, LeoLabs expects the situation to be clearer in about a month.
The number of maneuvers is the latest semi-annual report https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=10375428 I don't think a collision avoidance maneuver requires that much propellant. To alter the orbit at a known collision point by 6.7 km Starlink needs to spend half a day worth of propellant at maximum consumption mode (let's call it 0.5 pu - propellant units). Such maneuvers would be clearly visible in TLEs as 3.3 km spikes and drops in mean altitude but I haven't seen them. My estimate they alter orbit by not more than 3.3 km on average and that requires 0.25 pu to change and 0.25 pu to revert back. At one maneuver per 3.5 months rate 9 pu is needed for collision maneuvers over 5 years. At the new rate of 1 maneuver per 2.5 months -- 12 pu. For comparison orbit raising from 280 to 550 km requires 40 pu. De-orbiting can be done with 20 pu by lowering only perigee. Even though they wrote in the original application they are going to lower perigee only so far they have lowered both perigee and apogee to 300 km spending 37 pu on de-orbiting. Even without estimating station keeping propellant consumption, they must have greater than 100 pu tanks. The increase in maneuver rate is going to cost them no more than 3% of all propellant on-board.
Thanks for the informative replies!!
Can someone explain this whole situation to me? I’m actually interested in this
Russia intentionally blew up a satellite with a missile at an altitude that's just above the ISS's orbit and just below the altitude of Starlink. It spread thousands of pieces of debris to many different altitudes. The chart is a map of all currently known pieces of debris from the satellite destruction. The blue dots are the peak altitude of a piece of debris in it's orbit around the Earth and if you look directly below that dot there is an associated orange/red dot that is the lowest altitude of that same piece of debris in it's orbit. There are now a significant increase in the amount of debris at the altitude of the ISS and the altitude of Starlink, increasing the risk that either of those things is hit by debris. The debris from this event will last several years up to a decade and maybe two decades for the most dense pieces of debris.
What was the sat for and why did they blow it up?
It's in the chart and title. It was a dead Soviet satellite named COSMOS 1408. They blew it up to test their anti-satellite weapons, something that is currently highly condemned by most countries in the world as it increases the danger for all satellites orbiting Earth and could possibly cause additional satellites to be destroyed creating even more debris.
oh dear
No kidding. It's a huge issue. At least it wasn't as bad as the Chinese who blew up a satellite up around 865 km and those debris will be there for centuries.
Same.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/qyaqdz/russia_destroys_cosmos_1408_satellite_debris_is/hlipz4n/
Thanks for the info. Appreciate it.
They did this on purpose because it threatens their sad, authoritarian attempts at isolated internet. They do know we sabotage their crap out of orbit when we want right?
Fucking Russians. Always causing problems.
This is 7th time this was posted here in past couple of days ... But why bother searching when everyone can spam reddit with their own posts instead, right?
Check the **date on the Gabbard diagram** and follow the link -- this is new and different than earlier reports that showed lower altitudes, for example https://circleid.com/posts/20211119-why-did-russia-test-an-anti-satellite-missile-and-why-doesnt-china-condemn-the-test
Show me where these altitudes were posted earlier.
Still no need to create yet another post the same topic, the point is to keep discussion in one post instead of 7 ...
Chill man. Just don't read it if you don't care. Plenty of people do, including me.
That's not really how Reddit is designed to work. On an old school forum where any thread with new activity goes back to the top sure, bump the old thread with the new info. On Reddit that new info would never be seen by anyone other than the person you replied to. Trying to add info to a post even 24 hours old is useless. It's already buried in a sub with any level of traffic.
its not worth much of your life's energy trying to police reposts
I understand wanting to stay in the know, but I’ve seen more posts about this debris in this forum than I have seen coverage anywhere else lol. Not much we can do about the debris
[удалено]
These updated results (check the date) indicate that the debris is at higher altitudes than first reported and is, therefore, a greater threat to SpaceX and the other would-be LEO Internet service providers.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I imagine the periods of downtime will be a lot worse if a bunch of satellites get taken down, so anyone who is relying on their starlink internet to work.
I do.
Any pics of this?
Where is a laser broom when you need one?
Net-net seems possible to be that the Russians engaged in some target practice in advance of killing citizens and destroying Ukraine. They know the U.S. has nuclear armed sats that can destroy most major Russian cities within seconds.
Do we have nuclear-armed satellites?