An Orbital House of Cards: Frequent Megaconstellation Close Conjunctions
Key topics
A recent paper on arXiv has sparked debate over its assessment of megaconstellation collision risks, with critics arguing that the authors made simplifying assumptions and ignored mitigating factors. Commenters pointed out that the paper's collision cross-section estimate of 300m^2 is questionable, with some arguing it's too high given the orientation of Starlink satellites' solar panels. While some defended the paper's assumptions, others saw it as a "hit-piece" with "long-tail pessimistic assumptions." The discussion highlights the complexities of assessing collision risks in increasingly crowded orbits.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
27m
Peak period
26
0-3h
Avg / period
7.8
Based on 47 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Dec 11, 2025 at 10:01 AM EST
27 days ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Dec 11, 2025 at 10:28 AM EST
27m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
26 comments in 0-3h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Dec 13, 2025 at 10:17 AM EST
24 days ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
However most of collisions of concern are going to be starlink-on-debris, which is back down at the 120 m^2 level. Starlink already self screens for collisions and uplinks the conjunction data messages over the optical intersatellite link backbone or over their global ground station network.
If they aren’t able to talk to their satellites regularly from somewhere, you’re right we have MUCH bigger things to worry about on the ground.
[1] https://spaceflightnow.com/2023/02/26/spacex-unveils-first-b...
It’s a conservative definition in the field. It’s generally defined as the hard body radius: take the smallest sphere centered at the center of mass that would entirely enclose the object, then use the maximum cross section of that sphere to define the potential “area” of the colliding object.
Maybe put more simply, it’s the worst case area size / orientation you could be looking at. So yes. Solar arrays have a narrow cross section from the side but looking at them head-on (which is the angle used for Pc calculations) they’ll be very large.
Generally people really don't want collisions due to cascading effects, so they take the worst-case probability of collision found with bounding assumptions. Additionally, while often all these vehicles have active attitude (orientation) control, sometimes they go into safe mode and are spinning (often spin stabilized to point at the sun), so it will clear the entire potential radius while rotating.
Also how do you define the probabilistic average area for a space object that you don't know how it's control system works or what it's been commanded to do / point at. Yes we can make some pretty good assumptions for things like Starlink, but even those do take safemodes occasionally.
So It's an engineering judgement call on how to model it. It's hard to get a probabilistic average for attitude that you can confidently test and say is "right", it's a lot easier and conservative to take the worst-case upper-bound. That's at least not-wrong.
The papers assumptions lead to the conclusion that with no manouevres, we'd see a catastrophic crash between two or more satellites in LEO within 2.8 days. To be on the safe side, Starlink did over 14400 (and based on historical doubling rate, will probably be doing 1000 per day by now)...
Also, the formalism is the standard way astrophysicists understand collisions in gases or galaxies, and it works surprisingly well, especially when there are large numbers of "particles". There may be a few assumptions about the velocity distribution, but usually those are mild and only affect the results by less than an order of magnitude.
And the colliding gasses models have the huge assumption of random/thermal motion. These satellites are in carefully designed orbits; they aren't going to magically thermalize if left unmonitored for three days.
https://www.scribd.com/document/883045105/SpaceX-Gen1-Gen2-S...
It also notes that the collision odds on which SpaceX triggers such maneuvers is 333 times more conservative than the industry standard. Were that not the case (and they were just using the standard criterion) one might naively assume that they would only be doing a maneuver every ten hours or so. But collision probabilities are not linear, they follow a power law distribution so in actuality they would only be doing such maneuvers every few days.
It is disingenuous to the point of dishonesty to use SpaceX's abundance of caution (or possibly braggadocios operational flex) as evidence that the risk is greater than it actually is.
Solar flares cause atmospheric upwelling, so drag dramatically increases during a major solar flare. And the scenario envisioned in the paper is basically a Carrington-level event, so this effect would be extreme.
> We verify our analytic model against direct N-body conjunction simulations. Written in Python, the simulation code SatEvol propagates orbits using Keplerian orbital elements, and includes nodal and apsidal precession due to Earth’s J2 gravitational moment. [...] The N-body simulation code used in this paper is open source and can be found at https://github.com/norabolig/conjunctionSim.
IMO now that LEO communication satellites are feasible we should ban launching satellites into higher orbits. Debris up there is much worse because it's essentially permanent. There is no plausible way to clean it even with technology much more advanced than ours.
More: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/10/25/space-debris-p...
It would not discriminate though. Everything in that orbit would be taken down - debris and any functional satellites.
Satellites in higher orbits do a lot that can't be done in LEO and typically have much lower collision risk (though GEO is fairly crowded). There are plenty of plausible candidate technologies for cleaning up debris, just few practical demonstrations (and even tracking smaller pieces is work in progress)
This isn't really true anymore. Yes there's a lot of legacy technology still in use and even still being launched, but there's nothing in MEO or GEO that can't be done in LEO with today's technology. Doing it in LEO requires more satellites and better radios, but you get better performance.
The risk of collisions may be lower but the consequences last thousands or millions of times longer...
was watching a video about ICBM detection/taking them out in boost phase, and needing a lot for coverage if you had these LEO satellites ready to go but need a lot of delta v (fuel), star link... plenty of em but nah it's for internet/basic navigation/not much fuel
This is the context I was thinking about https://youtu.be/XDXKRQCkvms?si=1P8eLrZcPiP_ZSHw&t=353
the one above and this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdPTpRfhdWM
which you know credibility who knows
Complete loss of control of the entire Starlink constellation (or any megaconstellation) for days at a time would be an intense event. Any environmental cause (a solar event) would be catastrophic ground-side as well. Starlink satellites will decay and re-enter pretty quickly if they lose attitude control, so it's a bit of a race between collisions and drag. Starlink solar arrays are quite large drag surfaces and the orbital decay probably makes collisions less likely. I would not be surprised if satellites are designed to deorbit without ground contact for some period of time. I'm sure SpaceX has done some interesting math on this and it would be interesting to see.
Collision avoidance warnings are public (with an account): https://www.space-track.org/ But importantly they are intended to be actionable, conservative warnings a few days to a week out. They overstate the probability based on assumptions like this paper (estimates at cross-sectional area, uncertainty in orbital knowledge from ground radar, ignorance of attitude control or for future maneuvers). Operators like SpaceX will take these and use their own high-fidelity knowledge (from onboard GPS) to get a less conservative, more realistic probability assessment. These probabilities invariably decrease over time as the uncertainty gets lower. Starlink satellites are constantly under thrust to stay in a low orbit with a big draggy solar array, so a "collision avoidance manuever" to them is really just a slight change to the thrust profile.
Interesting stuff in the paper, but I'm annoyed at the title. I hate when people fear-bait about Kessler syndrome against some of the more responsible actors.