Is that accurate though? Assume a satellite is in a decaying orbit (thus too low to contribute to Kessler syndrome on its own) and another satellite is in a different orbit eccentricity-wise but they both collide. Are we certain that none of the pieces from the collision would acquire enough speed to become boloids that contribute to Kessler syndrome?
Time to go down the rabbit hole that is orbital mechanics for me again. Byeeee lol
Edit: looks like the lowest orbit for starlink’s first shell is at 550km which is very much above VLEO and would definitely be a factor in Kessler Syndrome.
Most starlink satellites are set to deorbit themselves upon failure to avoid this. However the de orbiting could still fail and then it should take about a year or so to deorbit itself?
So it looks like there is a low possibility of it initiating Kessler syndrome. But it’s not negligible.
A lot of what the other comments have said is right, but also add that to on top of all the layoffs theyve had and they keep telling their devs to double their efforts. Its been in so many meetings that at this point a single engineer should be able to do the work of the whole company…
the shareholders keep demanding doubling pace from their engineers but they just wont listen smh
They should just fire all the engineers already theyre clearly slacking off /s