SpaceX Lowering Orbits of 4,400 Starlink Satellites for Safety's Sake (space.com)
(Saturday January 03, 2026 @05:45PM (EditorDavid)
from the around-the-world dept.)
- Reference: 0180506187
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/26/01/03/075205/spacex-lowering-orbits-of-4400-starlink-satellites-for-safetys-sake
- Source link: https://www.space.com/space-exploration/satellites/spacex-lowering-orbits-of-4-400-starlink-satellites-for-safetys-sake
"Starlink is beginning a significant reconfiguration of its satellite constellation focused on increasing space safety," [1]announced Michael Nicolls , Starlink's vice president of engineering:
> "We are lowering all Starlink satellites orbiting at ~550 km to ~480 km (~4400 satellites) over the course of 2026. The shell lowering is being tightly coordinated with other operators, regulators, and USSPACECOM. Lowering the satellites results in condensing Starlink orbits, and will increase space safety in several ways... Starlink satellites have extremely high reliability, with only 2 dead satellites in its fleet of over 9000 operational satellites. Nevertheless, if a satellite does fail on orbit, we want it to deorbit as quickly as possible. These actions will further improve the safety of the constellation, particularly with difficult to control risks such as uncoordinated maneuvers and launches by other satellite operators.
But orbits are being lowered for another reason (besides quick de-orbiting), [2]notes Space.com . Within the next four years the period of least solar activity is expected, a period which coincides with decreased atmospheric density, Nicolls added, "which means the ballistic decay time at any given altitude increases."
> [Bringing the satellites lower] will mean a >80% reduction in ballistic decay time in solar minimum, or 4+ years reduced to a few months," Nicolls wrote in his X post. "Correspondingly, the number of debris objects and planned satellite constellations is significantly lower below 500 km, reducing the aggregate likelihood of collision...." The downward migration in 2026 involves roughly half of SpaceX's Starlink megaconstellation, which currently consists of nearly 9,400 operational spacecraft (though that number is [3]always growing ).
[1] https://x.com/michaelnicollsx/status/2006790372681220530?s=20
[2] https://www.space.com/space-exploration/satellites/spacex-lowering-orbits-of-4-400-starlink-satellites-for-safetys-sake
[3] https://www.space.com/space-exploration/private-spaceflight/spacex-shatters-its-rocket-launch-record-yet-again-167-orbital-flights-in-2025
> "We are lowering all Starlink satellites orbiting at ~550 km to ~480 km (~4400 satellites) over the course of 2026. The shell lowering is being tightly coordinated with other operators, regulators, and USSPACECOM. Lowering the satellites results in condensing Starlink orbits, and will increase space safety in several ways... Starlink satellites have extremely high reliability, with only 2 dead satellites in its fleet of over 9000 operational satellites. Nevertheless, if a satellite does fail on orbit, we want it to deorbit as quickly as possible. These actions will further improve the safety of the constellation, particularly with difficult to control risks such as uncoordinated maneuvers and launches by other satellite operators.
But orbits are being lowered for another reason (besides quick de-orbiting), [2]notes Space.com . Within the next four years the period of least solar activity is expected, a period which coincides with decreased atmospheric density, Nicolls added, "which means the ballistic decay time at any given altitude increases."
> [Bringing the satellites lower] will mean a >80% reduction in ballistic decay time in solar minimum, or 4+ years reduced to a few months," Nicolls wrote in his X post. "Correspondingly, the number of debris objects and planned satellite constellations is significantly lower below 500 km, reducing the aggregate likelihood of collision...." The downward migration in 2026 involves roughly half of SpaceX's Starlink megaconstellation, which currently consists of nearly 9,400 operational spacecraft (though that number is [3]always growing ).
[1] https://x.com/michaelnicollsx/status/2006790372681220530?s=20
[2] https://www.space.com/space-exploration/satellites/spacex-lowering-orbits-of-4-400-starlink-satellites-for-safetys-sake
[3] https://www.space.com/space-exploration/private-spaceflight/spacex-shatters-its-rocket-launch-record-yet-again-167-orbital-flights-in-2025
Maybe they’re anticipating (Score:2)
by hdyoung ( 5182939 )
a sudden drastic increase rapid-unscheduled-disassembly events in the next 5 years coughWARcough.
Other consequences (Score:2)
by Zocalo ( 252965 )
So, ~4,400 satellites that are now going to be a little over 10% closer to Earth. That means they are also going to be ~10% closer to each other and moving across the sky faster as well, and therefore the light trails they leave across the sky in long exposures will be even more densely packed.
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of ground-based telescope using astronomers suddenly cried out in frustration and were suddenly silenced.
An economic necessity (Score:4, Informative)
With the potential for the Kessler syndrome to kick in any time now, it's an economic necessity for Starlink to do whatever it can to reduce the risk.
As Anton Petrov points out in [1]this video [youtube.com], a Kessler syndrome catastrophe could be just around the corner and the only way to reduce the risk is to reduce the levels of congestion in certain parts of LEO.
In the event of such an event, Starlink would become worthless and SpaceX's stock price would fall through the floor so I guess someone's crunched the numbers and figured that they now have little option but to do everything they can to reduce the possibility.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b66ZZ05wKC0
Re: (Score:1)
"SpaceX's stock price would fall through the floor"
Spacex makes some of its profits from Starlink, but Falcon makes it money too, and Starship will be an other world beating launcher - a Kessler event will mean a lot of flights to clean up and replace what is lost.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean their stock price would go through the roof. They're the only ones able to launch replacement satellites affordably.
Re: An economic necessity (Score:2)
I don't think we are anywhere near Kessler Syndrome.
Yes, best to ensure we avoid it. But we are still many many thousands of satellites away from it being even close.
Re: (Score:1)
Starlink alone has another 3,000 satellites projected for a constellation of 12,000 and that's one company. And there are plans for them to expand that to 34,400. Add to that the phenomenal amount of debris already on orbit and Kessler syndrome is a very real thing that people should think about now.
Re: (Score:2)
It only takes one or two satellite mishaps to start the ball rolling. Kessler Syndrome is not a sudden event affecting everything at once. It is a slow rolling series of events.