John Penney

[John Penney @JohnPenney8084]

And my point is that since they have 80% of the satellites in orbit, that is as much their problem as the other contractors. You can't just say, I am going to take up all the space you just stay out of my way. I do understand the point though, but they should be helping work that problem.

[John Penney @JohnPenney8084]

So that's the solution? Keep filling space up with no restraints, ignore the probability of random failures that cause collisions just by saying space is large, and then hope AI fixes it when it gets out of control. What data did you base your plenty of room for 20 years assumption on.

[John Penney @JohnPenney8084]

@da__Vault @joshsideris @Starlink So at a million satellites, let’s say the risk of having a dead disabled satellite that can’t get out of anyone’s way is 0.1%. How many dead satellites does that leave in orbit that I have to avoid? Who owns that risk, the avoider or the one that created the debris?

[John Penney @JohnPenney8084]

“Independent orbital tracking data compiled by astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell shows that out of more than 10,800 Starlink satellites launched to date, only about 20 to 30 completely dead, unresponsive satellites are left stranded at any given time” what happens to that number if they have 100000 in orbit? Percentages are small but don’t they hold the higher level of orbital debris risk than the other constellations? Even if everyone has data.

[John Penney @JohnPenney8084]

@AustinMeyers_ @Starlink I always think before I type. Who holds more of the orbital debris risk? The contractor with 42000 satellites in orbit or one with 20?

[John Penney @JohnPenney8084]

After laughing at your hilarious joke, i would like to pose this question. Let’s say the risk of a satellite contractor having a failed satellite that dies and cannot be deorbited is 1%. Contractor A has 100 satellites in orbit. Now let’s say I am SpaceX. I am good and smart and I have whittled that risk down to 0.3%. I have 100000 satellites in orbit. Who will produce more dead non-deorbited satellites generating an orbital debris risk even if everyone has data on all of them? (You can also take this same thought experiment to any other failure with things like data got garblesd in transmission, a code error fired the wrong thruster etc. While the percentages are small, the contractor with orders of magnitude higher satellite numbers, even if the percentage is lowered by a smart contractor can still result in more individual failures than if I had fewer satellites. Therefore the contractor with the higher satellite numbers bears a larger burden of risk to LEO operations than the smaller companies. Correct?

[John Penney @JohnPenney8084]

OK. Here are data I have found. Apparently there was an independent astronomer that has determined that there are about 30 completely inoperative Starlink satellites at any given time. These are ones that failed before they could be deorbited and have to decay on their own over a year or two. So at any given time there is a 0.3% dead satellite rate. Go to 100000 satellites, that percentage equates to 300 completely inoperative Starlink satellites that cannot maneuver and are just effective orbit debris. I am a contractor with 20 satellites in orbit. At the above risk level, my risk of having one dead satellite that I can’t control is almost zero. The larger the satellite constellation, there are more opportunities for generating orbital debris (dead satellite). Given that same logic, the risk of an unknown error in the orbital evasion logic the laser commgoing down or something like that, which is probably a small percentage would still result in more potential orbital evasion failures for 100000 satellites than for 20. Therefore, assuming that they have better technology that reduces that risk by half they still would own a larger portion of the orbital impact risk than all the other satellite owners combined. I am sure they take that seriously, but you can’t just say that 100000:satellites are just as safe as 5000:satellites.

[John Penney @JohnPenney8084]

@taylorsx23 @Gnome007 @Starlink 🤣😂🤣

[John Penney @JohnPenney8084]

1) Cars travel at maybe 80 mph max, except maybe the mentally chalenged ones that you identify can get up to 100 mph. Satellites in a 250 nmi orbit travel at 17000 mph. 1 second at 100 mph 150 ft. 1 second at 17000 mph 25000 ft. Also you can’t just turn you steering wheel to get out of the way in space. You have to calculate how you turn and how you accelerate.
2) Yep, I know space is big. So why did the above incident occur if it is so big as you. Why does ISS have to do collision avoidance maneuvers every day. Why are satellite launch windows routinely limited to collision avoidance issues? But I do know space is big.

[John Penney @JohnPenney8084]

@crm11422 @Starlink Rephrase, Yes it sounded like blame but that was not my intent. I was trying to say rapidly adding satellites in LEO makes these issues more frequent, so it does contribute to the risk, it does not remove risk from anyone else.

[John Penney @JohnPenney8084]

Best response to my questions yet. Thanks. I would also hope that SpaceX is initiating conversations with the government, other contractors, the defense department,etc driving changes into the system to mitigate these types of issues. When they are the major player they need to be leading across the industry.

[John Penney @JohnPenney8084]

Did I blame SpaceX? What I am implying is when SpaceX owns 80% of the satellites in orbit they hold a larger share of the risk. The post would be better if instead of SoaceX saying we cannot mitigate the risk when another operator…. It would have been better to say SoaceX takes this risk seriously based on our projected constellation numbers. This is what we are doing to drive changes into them system to mitigate these risks.

[John Penney @JohnPenney8084]

I am saying SoaceX needs to accept their contribution to the cumulative risk and what that thing is that I am getting does to outweigh that risk. My cell service and 1Gb internet is doing just fine for me. Grow it if you want, but tell me more than hundreds of thousands of satellites is OK, we’ve got you covered.

[John Penney @JohnPenney8084]

Falcon heavy roadster mass with hardware, 13000 lbs. Orion going to the moon 58000 lbs. the Falcon heavy reference is something most heavy launch vehicles could achieve (Titan IV, Delta IV heavy, etc). I’m pretty sure starship can’t get to escape velocity with a 300 ton payload on a single launch.

[John Penney @JohnPenney8084]

Ok so you are saying that when we are faced with orders of magnitude increases in numbers of satellites in LEO,the risk is the same as it is now, because they communicate. Using your analogy, so when there were 2000 aircraft in the air in the early days and it was projected that there were going to be hundreds of thousands of aircraft in the air, you would have just said, we should be good, the pilots communicate, it should be no different with 500000 planes in the air? I am just saying everyone should acknowledge their contribution to the cumulative risk.

[John Penney @JohnPenney8084]

No need for research, I know how satellites are managed and I know how they share data on positioning. I have worked in the industry and I am not blind to it. I also know that there is a work force and infrastructure that has only dealt with orders of magnitude less numbers of satellites than we are projecting now. So I am hoping that those with those cool tools, understand the issues of cumulative risk.

[John Penney @JohnPenney8084]

It’s not giving up, it’s just asking a question. What am I giving up on? Besides saying Elon wants to put 100000 satellites in orbit that must be a good thing those of you with questions are giving up we can have a conversation on the impacts of cumulative risk with these massive constellations and the rate at which they should grow.

[John Penney @JohnPenney8084]

I never would have tried to make that comparison. In the early days of air travel (when there were only tens of thousands aircraft in the sky. There were many instances that killed passengers which were later corrected with new technology. We will very soon enter a world where there could be 100000 satellites in orbit which has never happened before (Just like when there were only 40000 aircraft in the air. I don’t believe that is the best rapid solution as there is no way of defining the current unknown risk. I am not even sure we couldn’t achieve the same goals with smaller constellations. I think we need to ask those questions. SpaceX is driven entirely by their profit goals, Imdont blame them. I have always said space is big too. But an “oops” in LEO when things are moving at 20000 mph could cause a few problems.

[John Penney @JohnPenney8084]

@LowPolyTwits @Starlink The statement is “this is the biggest risk in LEO and I would think that a SpaceX should acknowledge that they will soon own 80% of the satellites in LEO so the relative risk will be mostly theirs.

[John Penney @JohnPenney8084]

Maybe you mean can escape earths orbit with a single launch, but can’t do much else past that? And you include low mass, so not a fully crew capable (solar arrays, eclss, suits, landing legs, food, water, etc) correct? So getting past LEO in a single launch gets you what? Just a comparison to SLS which just carried a crew to the moon and back with all those other things on board.? Again, Apples and Oranges. I am trying to make the point that everyone needs to remember that there can be multiple solutions for things like this and we don’t all have to coalesce to Starship is the greatest thing for everything.