I just had to dig this up for something I'm writing, so here's the UN's space debris database (which has mostly turned from "space debris on the ground" to "garbage SpaceX dropped on other countries"): https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/treatyimplementation/arra-art-v/unlfd.html
Discussion
Loading...
I'll note that the Starlink reentry debris that SpaceX dropped on Canada in August 2024 (separate from the Crew Dragon Trunk debris dropped on Canada in Feb 2024), still doesn't appear on this database. And I think that's because the farmer contacted SpaceX directly, SpaceX had him Fedex the debris to them. As far as I can tell, the Canadian gov't didn't find out until *I told them*, months after it left Canada, so I guess that means it doesn't get to go on this chart?
Really wild stuff...
Is there a global debris database?
This seams to be no topic in Germany at all.
I'll try:
Es scheint so zu sein, dass #SpaceX pro Monat! ein bis zwei seiner Sateliten abstürzen lässt. #Satellitenschrott hat sogar #Kanada getroffen. Dies ist eine tödliche #Gefahr.
#Kanada scheint das nicht einmal bemerkt zu haben da der getroffene Farmer den #Müll direkt zu SpaxeX gesendet hat.
Nice and convenient for spacex.
That document where SpaceX admits to dropping potentially lethal debris on Canada is still publicly available on their website, which is also kind of wild: https://starlink.com/public-files/Starlink_Approach_to_Satellite_Demisability.pdf
They seem to think it's just a whoopsie and no big deal. But...it's actually a violation of Canadian airspace! And also, terrifying!
SpaceX is scary.
@sundogplanets In the case they would delete it, it is archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20250906143632/https://starlink.com/public-files/Starlink_Approach_to_Satellite_Demisability.pdf
and here: https://archive.ph/XZvrh
#WaybackMachine #InternetArchive #Starlink #SpaceX #spaceDebris
@NatureMC Oh I definitely downloaded it immediately, assuming they'd take it down when they got in trouble. But it turns out that there's not anyone to hold them accountable. There really won't be any changes until someone (or maybe many people) die from getting hit by space debris, and even then I have my doubts...
Oh! I forgot to add one last important bit to this rant. In the same document (linked above), SpaceX says basically "oh yeah, no big deal that we dropped a Starlink on Canada. But just in case, we're going to start reentering Starlink satellites over the Pacific."
I have seen ZERO evidence that they are actually doing this, and nobody is asking them to prove it. An awful lot of Starlinks have been observed reentering over land (like this one in Sept: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/saskatoon-space-debris-satelitte-reentry-1.7643516)
@sundogplanets
The probability of space debris surviving re-entry and landing on a ship in the Pacific might be similar to space debris landing directly on a little farmhouse in Saskatchewan. Just saying it doesn't make me feel any better.
@sundogplanets Goddamned Space Junk. And lots and lots of it.
I'm very curious what fraction of reported fireballs on the excellent American Meteor Society website are now actually reentries. They often put notes on specific events when they are known to be a reentry, but I don't think there's a quick way to sort that...
https://fireball.amsmeteors.org/members/imo_view/browse_events
@sundogplanets Probably someone is already doing this, but it seems like it would be really useful to apply machine vision to the reentries seen by fixed or all-sky cameras to get an estimate of velocity. The LEO reentry velocities are extremely tightly bound compared to the asteroids, and it'd be really neat to find the occasional bit of interstellar dust.
@sundogplanets Scott Manley had a great video on telling the difference (as an observer), not that you would need it, but I found it useful!
Have we to wait that some space debris will hit Air Force One before somebody will make something?
@sundogplanets if debris falls in my yard from a Nazi shitgibbon, they aren't getting it back. That shit is disappearing at minimum.